Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Convicted felon Donald Trump on Trial (Found guilty on 34 felony counts. 54 criminal count still in the air). Supreme Court rules in Trump's favor sends immunity case back to the lower court. Aileen Cannon (R-Florida) dismisses classified docs case

Cooked Crack

By Cooked Crack
in The Tailgate

 Share

Will Trump be convicted in any of his cases?  

31 members have voted

  1. 1. Will Trump be convicted in any of his cases?

    • Yes. He's going 4 for 4. (including Georgia)
      6
    • He's going to lose 3
      5
    • Two for sure
      8
    • He's only going to get convicted in one
      1
    • No. He's going to skate
      11

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted

Here's a hot take on the SCOTUS ruling.  Let's assume that he's not President in January 2025. (If he is, I still question the ability to dismiss Jack Smith.  However, DoJ could just re-write their regulations to dump him.  That would be a scandal that any normal politician would face and be impeached for.)  

 

This ruling actually doesn't help Trump much. SCOTUS is talking about core Constitutional power of the President.  Trump is trying to suppress evidence related to a government ethics filing...an ethics filing that I believe is legally required due to an act of Congress.  I can't see how that is an exercise of Presidential power.  

 

So, I think the ruling as it relates to the New York case is gonna be fruitless for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fergasun

Fergasun

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Question for @PleaseBlitz:

Since the SCOTUS ruling came down after Trumps's 34 convictions, does it technically apply?  Does he really have an appeal here?

I am not PB, but I don't think so.  I just re-read a bit of the SCOTUS decision.  The evidence they want exclude is private communications internally related to the functioning of the Presdident.  His public tweets are a public record, same with his OGE disclosure.

 

There is a footnote about the bribery case. 

 

These Justices are thinking more in terms of the "a President can be charged with murder for a drone strike on an Americsn citizen" than what Trump did.  It doesn't mean his lawyers won't try to make the argument.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

I wasn't really in favor of expanding the Supreme Court in 2020 when it was suggested as a campaign issue for Biden to run on, and I know it can be argued that "non-political justices" is nonsense on some level to begin with, but if Biden (or whoever the Dem nominee is) pulls off a victory in 2024 I am not really seeing much choice because the make up of the court now just seems to be a rubber stamp for what the Heritage foundation wants.  It's like they are literally just accepting cases off a bullet point list of previous rulings they want overturned and so far I am not sure if the SCOTUS has denied a single one, in fact Thomas seems to outright just spout off about other cases he wants to be brought to the court to overturn which seems a little odd that he is so up front & mask off about it.  I guess this all hinges on keeping the majority in the Senate as well which who knows what that is looking like right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Fergasun said:

These Justices are thinking more in terms of the "a President can be charged with murder for a drone strike on an Americsn citizen" than what Trump did.  It doesn't mean his lawyers won't try to make the argument.

That’s the way I read it too. 
 

People are losing their minds over these rulings. The chevron stuff is also hilarious to watch. 
 

of course - haven’t seen how trumps lawyers argue it, maybe it will be a constitutional crisis. I’ll wait and see vs grossly misreading the rulings and then using that to predict the future 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LadySkinsFan

LadySkinsFan

Posted
Posted

I think Biden should dismiss the supreme court right now. And vacate the decisions that are in essence fascist. He could go further and dismiss the Congress. And the elections. 

 

He should then resign and make Kamala president for the next four years. All of the fascists in federal, state, and local elected office should be imprisoned. Finish prosecuting all of the Jan6 insurrectionists including DJT and his conspirators. Clean up the government and restore elections in 4 years once the traitors are removed. 

 

Big dream.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Good luck with that.  He has no immunity for crimes committed when he was no longer president.  If she rules that the Special Counsel itself is unconstitutional, expect a quick appeal with a motion to have Cannon removed from the case.  

 

She's already made it clear (having not set a trial date) that this case won't go before the election, so let her get herself removed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PokerPacker

PokerPacker

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, China said:

Good luck with that.  He has no immunity for crimes committed when he was no longer president.  If she rules that the Special Counsel itself is unconstitutional, expect a quick appeal with a motion to have Cannon removed from the case.  

 

She's already made it clear (having not set a trial date) that this case won't go before the election, so let her get herself removed.

Clarence Thomas will step in and rule Special Counsel unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

Clarence Thomas will step in and rule Special Counsel unconstitutional.

 

That won't prevent the DOJ from taking over the prosecution.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Simmsy

Simmsy

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

 

Good, I mean it. Let the public see how quickly he's going to pounce on the SCOTUS immunity ruling after it being issued. Add that to Project 2025 finally getting some main stream attention, the narrative might change a bit.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Judge denies Trump aide's motion to dismiss classified documents indictment

 

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's classified documents case denied a motion to dismiss the charges against the former president's co-defendant and longtime aide, Walt Nauta.

 

Nauta's lawyers attempted to have the charges against him thrown out by arguing that he was "selectively" and "vindictively" prosecuted by investigators – a claim that Judge Aileen Cannon considered during a hearing in May.

 

In an order issued saturday, Cannon denied the motion to dismiss the case, determining that Nauta failed to prove the prosecution was "motivated by a discriminatory purpose" or that others who engaged in similar conduct were not prosecuted.

 

Judge Cannon is still considering a similar argument brought by Trump's attorneys, and her order today noted that her dismissal of Nauta's motion had no bearing on Trump's argument.

 

"This Order shall not be construed as commenting on the merits of Defendant Trump's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment Based on Selective and Vindictive Prosecution or on any other motion pending before the Court," Cannon wrote.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Judge Aileen Cannon grants Trump's request to pause some deadlines in classified documents case amid immunity questions

 

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Saturday granted former President Donald Trump’s request for further briefing on the issue of presidential immunity in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case and delayed certain deadlines.

 

Cannon’s order marks the latest fallout from the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision on Monday, which ruled that Trump has immunity from prosecution for some conduct as president in the federal election interference case.

 

In the order, Cannon afforded special counsel Jack Smith the right, but not the obligation, to file a submission on the use of classified information at trial. At the same time, she paused two upcoming deadlines for Trump and his co-defendants.

 

Smith’s brief is now due on July 18, and a reply from Trump’s team is due on July 21.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Pause deadlines?  She hasn't even set a trial date.  There are no deadlines.  Whatever.   Jack Smith needs to say enough is enough and submit a motion to recuse.

  • Thumb up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cooked Crack

Cooked Crack

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Quote

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans are about evenly split on whether former President Donald Trump should face prison time for his recent felony conviction on hush money charges, according to a new poll from the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. 

 

Among U.S. adults, 48% say the former president and presumptive Republican nominee should serve time behind bars, and 50% say he should not. About 8 in 10 Democrats think Trump should face prison time, while independents are divided. About half, 49%, of independents say he should, and 46% say he should not

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...