The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

What’s the rush? If Trump gets in office, there will still be a DOJ and they can still go ahead with the charges.

The rush is to complete the trial so the American people can take the evidence that will be revealed at trial, and the jury's call, into account as we decide how to vote in November, 2024.

The rush for Trump is to get the Court to answer quickly the questions about Trump's immunity and double jeopardy. If those are answered in Trump's favor, the DC election interference trial instantly goes away and the harm Trump claims (in court filings) is being visited on him by his prosecutors also goes away. If you genuinely believe and state in court papers that you are being harmed, making that harm go away is kind of a rush thing, don't you think?

 

[ATeam]

An Encouraging Signal From the US Supreme Court

I'm no expert on the US Supreme Court or the law, and I do not pretend to be. I did learn something interesting by watching the cable shows this evening.

A writ of certiorari is a petition for a higher court to review the decision of a lower court. Per the US Supreme Court rules, at least five of the nine justices must vote yes for such a petition to be granted. We can conclude from today's action that a majority, and perhaps as many as all nine Supreme Court justices, voted to grant this petition.

For those of us who are hopeful that the US Supreme Court will find that double jeopardy does not apply, Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution, and that answering these questions should not delay the March 4 trial, this is an encouraging signal.

In just five hours after receiving the petition from Jack Smith, the justices voted to grant it. BOOM!!!

 

[muttly]

The rush is to complete the trial so the American people can take the evidence that will be revealed at trial, and the jury's call, into account as we decide how to vote in November, 2024.

The rush for Trump is to get the Court to answer quickly the questions about Trump's immunity and double jeopardy. If those are answered in Trump's favor, the DC election interference trial instantly goes away and the harm Trump claims (in court filings) is being visited on him by his prosecutors also goes away. If you genuinely believe and state in court papers that you are being harmed, making that harm go away is kind of a rush thing, don't you think?

There was already an impeachment trial. And he was acquitted. Dems had their show trial too. Nothing more than an election interference witch hunt now.

 

[ATeam]

There was already an impeachment trial. And he was acquitted. Dems had their show trial too. Nothing more than an election interference witch hunt now.

There is a little more to it than that ... like four felony criminal indictments containing 91 counts. Actual criminal trials are ahead because actual crimes were committed. And given yesterday's developments, no less an authority than the conservative US Supreme Court seems to agree. No man, including Trump, is above the law. Trump is a criminal defendant and he will have his day in court.

 

[muttly]

 

[ATeam]

Correction

I was incorrect about the number of US Supreme Court Justices required for a writ of certiorari petition to be granted. It is four, not five.

There are nine justices on the Supreme Court. Note that if only four justices vote to grant certiorari, the remaining five could vote to deny the petition. Obviously, they did not do so, so it stands to reason that: (1) either five or more justices voted in favor of the petition, or (2) four justices voted in favor and one or more of the others abstained.

Because the petition was granted, it is crystal clear that a majority of the justices did not rise in opposition. The majority of the justices either voted for the petition, or allowed it to succeed.

Muttly's post (a reposted tweet from someone who is misinformed) is also incorrect. It is not a staffer or the Chief's office that makes this decision. The justices themselves make this decision.

In this case, the Justices moved at lightening speed, completing their vote just five hours after Jack Smith submitted his petition.

Writ of Certiorari

"Someone who wants to appeal to the Court must file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Justices will receive briefs and potentially amicus briefs on whether the writ should be granted. They then will decide at a conference whether to grant the writ. ... This decision does not require a majority. Only four of the nine Justices must agree to grant a writ of certiorari. This tells the lower court to prepare the record for review by the Supreme Court, and the case is placed on the Supreme Court docket." (Source)

Additional sources describing the writ of certiorari process:

The certiorari process: Seeking Supreme Court review - SCOTUSblog

This election explainer was written by Amy Howe. It is part of SCOTUSblog’s 2020 Election Litigation Tracker, a joint project with Election Law at Ohio State. When the losing side in a case decided by a federal court of appeals (or a state’s highest court) wants the Supreme Court to weigh in, it

www.scotusblog.com

Supreme Court Procedures

Background Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the United States. Currently, there are nine Justices on the Court. Before taking office, each Justice must be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Justices hold office during good behavior...

www.uscourts.gov

 

[ATeam]

Trump's Statement RE Supreme Court Granting Smith's Petition

"Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look at whether the former president can be criminally charged. ...

"The statement said: 'As President Trump has said over and over again, this prosecution is completely politically motivated… There is absolutely no reason to rush this Witch Hunt to trial, except to injure President Trump and his 150 million, at least, supporters.'" (Source)

Mr. Trump, I would think that if you are innocent, there is every reason to rush this to trial. The reason is you can be exonerated and the politically motivated prosecution of this case would stop. Why prolong the "witch hunt" if you don't have to?

 

[ATeam]

What if the Supreme Court Says Trump is Immune?

With the US Supreme Court now likely to soon take up the Trump immunity question, I expect they will rule Trump does not have presidential immunity and will not, for that reason, be protected from prosecution for the crimes he committed while in office.

But what if I'm wrong? What if the Court rules that Trump does have presidential immunity and the result of that ruling kills the trial now scheduled for March 4, 2024?

If the Court so rules, it will thereby free Joe Biden to commit whatever election crimes he wishes, because he is the president and is thereby immune from prosecution. Such a Court ruling would free Biden to exercise his powers as president to subvert the Constitution and make himself president for life.

 

[ATeam]

The Defense Rests

The Trump legal team rested its case today in the Trump's NY civil fraud trial. The prosecution will have a couple of rebuttal witnesses. Then things will go quiet for a bit while both sides prepare their final briefs. Then Judge Engoron will make his rulings. He has already found Trump liable for fraud. And the judge has already ruled that, as a consequence of the fraud, Trump's NY businesses should be placed in the hands of a court-appointed receiver to be dissolved (the corporate death penalty).

The trial of recent weeks was to determine liability on additional counts the NY AG listed in her lawsuit.

Engoron's finding and "corporate death penalty" order has been appealed and stayed. We do not know how long the appellate court will take to make its ruling, or what that ruling will be. When Engoron rules on the remaining counts, Trump will likely appeal those too.

 

[ATeam]

A New Wrinkle as SCOTUS Takes up Fischer v. the United States

This is a potentially significant development.

"The justices said Wednesday they will decide whether Joseph Fischer can be charged under a 2002 law that grew out of the Enron Corp. collapse for obstructing an official proceeding. Prosecutors have also invoked that law against Trump, as well as in 300 other Capitol riot cases.

"Supreme Court involvement could give Trump new grounds for arguing for a delay that could push back his March 4 federal court trial in Washington until after the 2024 presidential election."

Or, it may prove to be insignificant regarding Trump and the other 300 other cases. It all depends on what SCOTUS decides and when they decide.

The Supreme Court justices are clearly in a hurry to answer the presidential immunity and double jeopardy questions Jack Smith just asked them to consider. At present, the Fischer case is expected to be heard by SCOTUS sometime next year, with a ruling to come by the end of June.

Supreme Court to Hear Jan. 6 Appeal, Complicating Trump Case (3)

The US Supreme Court added a new complication to the prosecution of Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election, as the justices agreed to hear an appeal from a Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendant facing a related charge.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[muttly]

It was a misuse of the statute. It should be reviewed by the SCOTUS.

 

[ATeam]

It was a misuse of the statute. It should be reviewed by the SCOTUS.

Review it they will. If the Supreme Court upholds the lower-court ruling, would you still maintain that the statute was misused, or would you accept the ruling and say the statute was properly applied?

 

[ATeam]

A New Wrinkle as SCOTUS Takes up Fischer v. the United States

More about this is below. As Sativa says, "This could potentially lead to a significant victory for the defendants." It also could lead potentially to a significant defeat.

 

[muttly]

Review it they will. If the Supreme Court upholds the rulings of the two lower courts, would you still maintain that the statute was misused, or would you accept the ruling of all three courts and say the statute was properly applied?

Yes, I would still maintain the statute was misused. Would you or any of the leftist legal beagles on MSNBC accept and agree if the SCOTUS doesn’t uphold? I very much doubt the latter would.

 

[ATeam]

Yes, I would still maintain the statute was misused. Would you or any of the leftist legal beagles on MSNBC accept and agree if the SCOTUS doesn’t uphold? I very much doubt the latter would.

If by "accept" you mean recognize it as the law of the land, the left accepts the rulings of the courts.

That does not mean they agree with the rulings, but the accept them as the law of the land. An example is Row v. Wade. When the current Supreme Court justices overturned Roe v. Wade, the left disagreed but they also complied and they recognized the Supreme Court's role in our system of government. They did not ignore the ruling. They did not continue to provide abortions in states where the law said they could not. They abided by the ruling. But because they do not like the ruling, they are now exercising their constitutional rights as citizens to get active in elections to change the abortion laws.

If SCOTUS overturns the appeals court regarding Fischer, the left would not like it, but they would accept it as a ruling constitutionally issued by a proper court.

 

[muttly]

If by "accept" you mean recognize it as the law of the land, the left accepts the rulings of the courts.


If SCOTUS overturns the appeals court regarding Fischer, the left would not like it, but they would accept it as a ruling constitutionally issued by a proper court.

We shall see.

 

[ATeam]

Another Trump Immunity Claim Bites the Dust

"Donald Trump cannot assert presidential immunity from a defamation lawsuit by writer E Jean Carroll, who accused him of rape, a US appeals court has ruled,..." (Source)

 

[muttly]

More about this is below. As Sativa says, "This could potentially lead to a significant victory for the defendants." It also could lead potentially to a significant defeat.

View attachment 23396

View attachment 23397

 

[ATeam]

View attachment 23398

Key word: "potentially." It could just as potentially lead to a significant defeat.

I can see why this excites MAGA. Court victories for Trump and his followers are rare. That's because Trump brings garbage cases to court, and because MAGA people are often on the wrong side of the law. This item allows MAGA people have hope, hope placed in "potentially." That's fine. Take what you can get and get while the getting is good. "Potentially" will give way to an actual ruling soon enough.

Trump's history before this Supreme Court is terrible. I've been keeping track, and I do not know of a single time since Trump became president that any non-policy case he brought to these justices was decided in his favor. When Trump has a track record of losing 100% of the time at the Supreme Court, I would not entertain great hopes because Trump is there again. In this Fischer case, it's not Trump bringing the action, but he is there indirectly because the application question applies to his case too.

 

[muttly]

Key word: "potentially." It could just as potentially lead to a significant defeat.

I can see why this excites MAGA. Court victories for Trump and his followers are rare. That's because Trump brings garbage cases to court, and because MAGA people are often on the wrong side of the law. This item allows MAGA people have hope, hope placed in "potentially." That's fine. Take what you can get and get while the getting is good. "Potentially" will give way to an actual ruling soon enough.

Trump's history before this Supreme Court is terrible. I've been keeping track, and I do not know of a single time since Trump became president that any non-policy case he brought to these justices was decided in his favor. When Trump has a track record of losing 100% of the time at the Supreme Court, I would not entertain great hopes because Trump is there again. In this Fischer case, it's not Trump bringing the action, but he is there indirectly because the application question applies to his case too.

“MAGA people are often on the wrong side of the law”. Umm, actually they rarely commit crimes.