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)

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

Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

TL:DR for anyone that doesnt want to read: Fish are not "tangible objects".

 

So fish are figments of my imagination? So I'm dreaming when I get the pecan crusted trout from Coastal Flats?

 

 

 

Edit: For those curious, here's a pretty good, understandable, brief summary of the Supreme Court issue:

Is a fish a 'tangible object'? Not in this case, SCOTUS rules in parsing post-Enron law (abajournal.com)

 

 

Edited by Dan T.
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Die Hard

Die Hard

Posted
Posted
On 12/13/2023 at 12:02 AM, China said:

 

If the Supreme Court rules that he has absolute presidential immunity, I hope that Biden would seize the opportunity and just have Trump summarily executed, because as president Biden would have immunity from prosecution for doing so.


Or heck, just put a bounty on his head and offer a presidential pardon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

Trump and special counsel spar over workflow during appeal

 

The legal team representing former President Donald Trump is taking issue with special counsel Jack Smith’s office providing him evidence for his federal criminal trial for election interference in the latest spat over a potential delay of the March 4 trial date.

 

On Monday, prosecutors turned over an exhibit list and batch of evidence to the defense team. Prosecutor Tom Windom told the court the move will “help ensure that trial proceeds promptly if and when the mandate [putting the case back in the trial court] returns,” according to one filing.

 

But Trump’s legal team shot back late Monday in court and in a letter to Smith’s office, saying that the activity in the case “pose a significant and prohibited burden on President Trump.”

His lawyers said they will not review the material and threatened to seek an order from the court should the pre-trial efforts continue as the appeal over whether Trump is immune from prosecution is being litigated.

 

The back-and-forth is the latest eruption of the special counsel pushing forward to the trial, and Trump’s team taking any opportunities it can to delay.

 

The March trial date for Trump is still in place, but whether it will hold depends upon how quickly the Supreme Court, ultimately, determines questions of the immunity from criminal charges around the presidency, and if that applies to Trump’s actions after the 2020 election. In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is considering a bid from the special counsel’s office to address the legal questions quickly, and the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is also hearing arguments in early January. While those appeals courts are at work, the case is on hold at the trial-court level.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmirOfShmo

EmirOfShmo

Posted
Posted

 

Judge orders Rep. Scott Perry to disclose 1,600 messages to federal prosecutors

 

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Rep. Scott Perry must disclose to federal prosecutors more than 1,600 emails, text messages and other communications related to the investigation into Donald Trump and his allies’ bid to subvert the 2020 election.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that the vast majority of the messages Perry exchanged — some with other members of Congress, some with members of the Trump administration and some with allies outside of government — could not be shielded from prosecutors by Perry’s constitutional protections as a member of Congress.

Rather, Boasberg concluded, the 1,659 exchanges had little to do with Perry’s job as a legislator and therefore were not subject to the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause, which prohibits prosecutors and courts from prying into the official business of Congress.

The records in question could help fill crucial gaps in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation. An inadvertently disclosed court document obtained last month by POLITICO revealed key aspects of the messages Perry had sought to shield from Smith’s team, including exchanges with Trump’s alleged co-conspirators in the effort to disrupt the transfer of power. The messages showed Perry as a crucial go-between for Trump and his allies on key aspects of their effort in the final frantic weeks of Trump’s presidency.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-orders-rep-scott-perry-034605605.html

  • Thumb up 2
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EmirOfShmo

EmirOfShmo

Posted
Posted

Good read on the SCOTUS decision...

 

SCOTUS Denies Jack Smith's Petition for Cert

 

The Supreme Court has DENIED Jack Smith's petition for a writ of certiorari before the Circuit Court rules on the matter. So what does this mean? In a nutshell, Jack Smith asked SCOTUS for permission to have the Supremes hear the trump immunity case before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the matter. SCOTUS has told the parties they will NOT hear the case before the Appeals Court rules on immunity.

As I've discussed on multiple podcasts and across social media, my dream scenario would be for SCOTUS to deny cert, the Appeals court to deny trump's motion for immunity, then for SCOTUS to deny cert again when appealed after that ruling. That would mean the Appeals court ruling would be the final ruling, and it would take the least amount of time.

So why did SCOTUS ask for expedited briefing on whether to hear the case before the Appeals court decision? They asked Trump to respond December 20th, seemingly so they could rule on whether to take the case before the holiday break (but that's speculation, of course).

The Appeals Court has set an expediting briefing schedule: Trump's brief is due tomorrow (12/23), DoJ's is due December 30th, and Trump's reply is due January 2nd. The court has set arguments for January 9th - lightning fast. They could render their decision anytime after the hearing on the 9th. Probably within a week, I'd wager.

 

https://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote/2ZudkYEMPXNebDmCATuVlFCh1MV

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Califan007 The Constipated

Califan007 The Constipated

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Yes, he has a right to be a criminal, he also has the right to be treated as a criminal along with indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment under our laws. 


I get what you’re saying and wholeheartedly agree.

 

But technically lol…if you can be punished for your actions by the state or federal guvmint, that action is not really considered a right. I had to be that guy, I know 😂

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Yes, he has a right to be a criminal, he also has the right to be treated as a criminal along with indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment under our laws. 

 

He has the right to remain silent. He has the right to an attorney. 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
China

China

Posted
Posted

D.C. Appeals Court Welcomes Brief of Former Top GOPers Opposing Trump's Defense

 

This United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia has granted a motion for leave to file an amicus brief by former Republican officials in Donald Trump's Presidential immunity appeal. A amicus brief is filed by a "friend of the court," or in other words a third party who may have interest in the proceedings. Here, the former Republican officials previously served in Republican administrations and filed a brief arguing that Judge Chutkan's decision, denying Trump's motion to dismiss on immunity grounds, was correctly issued. 

 

screenshot-2023-12-26-at-25645-pm.webp

 

The amicus brief argues that rejecting Trump's absolute immunity claim is critical to protecting the sanctity of the United States Constitution. The officials assert that Trump's immunity claim is attenuated at best given the fact that his indictment concerns actions taken outside of the scope of his presidential duties, and that if immunity is granted, future presidents will feel emboldened to use their position as president to attack the validity of elections they are not successful in. The brief was signed by several former top Republican officials including Justice Department officials, former members of the House of Representatives, and former members of the United States Senate.

 

Click on the link for more, including a link to the full brief

  • Like 1
  • Thumb up 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 2
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...