The Trump Card...

[RLENT]

He’s not too concerned about the Georgia case anyway. The case won’t be taking place anytime soon and he will just pardon himself if need be.

How someone would tell another that they have absolutely no clue of the difference between state and federal law ... without actually saying it ...

 

[RLENT]

A nothingburger:
View attachment 23426

No ... the nothingburger was the claim that Trump could pardon himself if convicted in a state court of a state crime ...

 

[RLENT]

Wait, what? Canvassers were threatened and pressured to sign when they had concerns about the vote tabulations and wanted an audit instead of just rubber stamping the results? And the “ something of value” that Trump offered to hold off and examine it further was wait for it…. a lawyer? lol. Oh, the humanity.

ELECTION INTERFERENCE !!!

 

[RLENT]

US Supreme Court Denies Jack Smith's Request for Quick Hearing on the Trump Immunity Question

"Both sides will still have the option of appealing an eventual ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals up to the high court, but the court’s move is a major victory for Trump, whose strategy of delay in the criminal case included mounting a protracted fight over the immunity question, which must be settled before his case goes to trial.

"An expedited review of the issue is already underway at the DC Circuit, which has scheduled oral arguments for January 9. The election subversion trial is currently set to begin in March." (Source)

Not a particularly big deal:

1. US Court of Appeals in DC is already handling the case on a expedited basis ... and they have shown that they can act swiftly and move things along.

2. I'd much rather Chief Justice Roberts write an opinion based off an opinion Judge Florence Pan wrote than something Trumps lawyers wrote ...

 

[muttly]

Once again, you mischaracterize the issue. In this case Trump offered to provide something of value (an attorney) to a public official in an attempt to influence the actions of that official. Another word for this is bribery.

Trump did not offer a lawyer because he thought the canvasser needed a lawyer. He made the offer contingent on the canvasser doing an illegal act. And he did it on tape! Evidence in his own voice. Smoking gun. Nail in coffin.

“Once again”? Wrong.
The canvassers were pressured to sign while they had concerns about the tabulation errors. They were being responsible and not just rubber stamping something that wasn’t right. Trump in essence was telling them to be steadfast in their concerns instead of bowing to pressure and threats. And told them they would have support from lawyers. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[muttly]

No ... the nothingburger was the claim that Trump could pardon himself if convicted in a state court of a state crime ...

He can and will, if need be.

 

[muttly]

Merry Christmas y’all:

 

[Ragman]

There are a lot of questions about the origin and release of this tape. From what I can gather from various reports:

1. The tape exists.
2. It was recorded by people on the receiving end.
3. It may or may not have been recorded by one of the canvassers. The call took place when two of the canvassers and others were in a car in a parking lot. Someone else present may have made the recording.
4. The person who alerted the Detroit News to the tape and apparently shared it with them was someone the Detroit News characterized as an "intermediary." It was someone who did not make the tape but somehow got their hands on it and brought it to the newspaper, on condition of anonymity.
5. Of the two canvassers who were in the car and took the call, one is now deceased. When asked about it, the one who is still alive did not deny the existence of the tape or the reported contents.
6. We do not know if prosecutors previously had or knew about this tape.

If prosecutors do not have the tape, it will be easy for them to get. All they have to do is demand it or information about its whereabouts from the canvasser. If the canvasser is not forthcoming, a subpoena or search warrant would be easy for prosecutors to obtain.

7. The Trump team does not deny the authenticity of the tape.

 

[muttly]

SPECIAL COUNCEL'S PRIVATE CITIZEN SMITH: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND ILLEGALLY APPOINTED brief said:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/edwin-meese-jack-smith-donald-trump/2023/12/21/id/1146842/

 

[muttly]

Brilliant move by former AG Edwin Meese.

 

[RLENT]

He can and will, if need be.

That isn't how it works.

Except maybe in MAGA Twatwaffle mrrddmia's world ...

 

[RLENT]

SPECIAL COUNCEL'S PRIVATE CITIZEN SMITH: UNCONSTITUTIONAL
AND ILLEGALLY APPOINTED brief said:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/edwin-meese-jack-smith-donald-trump/2023/12/21/id/1146842/

View attachment 23434View attachment 23435

And yet SCOTUS didn't take it up ... or address it in any way.

Wonder why that is ?



Maybe check AG Garland's appointment of SC Smith ... might be a clue there ...

APPOINTMENT OF JOHN L. SMITH AS SPECIAL COUNSEL

Or if that isn't sufficiently enlightening, then maybe try reading:

28 U.S. Code § 510 - Delegation of authority

 

[RLENT]

Brilliant move by former AG Edwin Meese.

Meese could give Coverup General Barr a good run ... for being the most corrupt AG in the history of the US ...

 

[muttly]

Appointing a private citizen. Got it. Might want to bone up on the statutory authority:

x.com

x.com

 

[muttly]

 

[Pilgrim]

There are a lot of questions about the origin and release of this tape. From what I can gather from various reports:

1. The tape exists.
2. It was recorded by people on the receiving end.
3. It may or may not have been recorded by one of the canvassers. The call took place when two of the canvassers and others were in a car in a parking lot. Someone else present may have made the recording.
4. The person who alerted the Detroit News to the tape and apparently shared it with them was someone the Detroit News characterized as an "intermediary." It was someone who did not make the tape but somehow got their hands on it and brought it to the newspaper, on condition of anonymity.
5. Of the two canvassers who were in the car and took the call, one is now deceased. When asked about it, the one who is still alive did not deny the existence of the tape or the reported contents.
6. We do not know if prosecutors previously had or knew about this tape.

If prosecutors do not have the tape, it will be easy for them to get. All they have to do is demand it or information about its whereabouts from the canvasser. If the canvasser is not forthcoming, a subpoena or search warrant would be easy for prosecutors to obtain.

So as of this moment on Dec 22d just before midnight:

1. We can't conform the authenticity or chain of custody of the recording. (Surely it's not on tape)
2. We don't know who the source is or who actually recorded it.
3. Neither an unedited copy nor a transcript of the recording has been made public.

The Detroit News needs to be more forthcoming with details instead of offering their summary with a couple of partial quotes.

 

[RLENT]

Appointing a private citizen. Got it.

Yeah ... pretty much follows the idea of the original statutory language ... contained in the original statute authorizing Independent Counsels (prior to 1999 when the Ethics in Government Act expired):

(2) Qualifications of independent counsel.—The division of the court shall appoint as independent counsel an individual who has appropriate experience and who will conduct the investigation and any prosecution in a prompt, responsible, and cost-effective manner. The division of the court shall seek to appoint as independent counsel an individual who will serve to the extent necessary to complete the investigation and any prosecution without undue delay. The division of the court may not appoint as an independent counsel any person who holds any office of profit or trust under the United States.

Old, under the Ethics in Government Act (quoted above and at link immediately below:

28 USC CHAPTER 40—INDEPENDENT COUNSEL

Current, under the Code of Federal Regulations:

§ 600.3 Qualifications of the Special Counsel.

(a) An individual named as Special Counsel shall be a lawyer with a reputation for integrity and impartial decision making, and with appropriate experience to ensure both that the investigation will be conducted ably, expeditiously and thoroughly, and that investigative and prosecutorial decisions will be supported by an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies. The Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.

The idea of appointing people from outside the government to serve in various capacities when there might be a conflict of interest has been around for a long time ... but it might be an unfamiliar concept for young pups ...

Might want to bone up on the statutory authority:

Tell it to that disgraced former AG Meese ... who appears to be suffering a similar cognitive decline as Rudy Colludy ...



Seriously though, might want to do some of that boning up yourself ... you know: actually read the statutes involved that the various AG(s) have been relying to appoint Special Counsels since oh I dunno ... 1999 ?

... rather than just chasing after whatever kook in MAGA Land seems to be offering eternal salvation for The Don.

x.com

x.com

From some other additional MAGAt Legal Beagle Twatwaffle ... other than mrddmia ?



THAT'S HERESY !!!



FWIW, this lunacy was originally promulgated by that Federalist Kook Professor Steven Calabresi ... way back when Robert Mueller (private citizen at the time) was appointed as Special Counsel ... while Jeff Sessions was at the helm of DOJ during the Orange Menace's Administration:

Why Robert Mueller’s Appointment As Special Counsel Was Unlawful

And it's headed to exactly the same place now as it was then:

... nowheresville ...

 

[ATeam]

Not a particularly big deal:

1. US Court of Appeals in DC is already handling the case on a expedited basis ... and they have shown that they can act swiftly and move things along.

2. I'd much rather Chief Justice Roberts write an opinion based off an opinion Judge Florence Pan wrote than something Trumps lawyers wrote ...

We have to give credit where credit is due. Trump seeks delays in all of his trials and he clearly got one here. This SCOTUS decision to not expedite the immunity question is something Trump argued for and won. Trump got the delay he wanted.

Remarkably, and as a side note, this is a rare win for Trump at SCOTUS. As far as I know, of the non-policy questions SCOTUS has answered involving Trump, this is the only time SCOTUS made a decision in Trump's favor. It was not much of a decision, a single sentence that said Smith's request is denied, but it was the decision Trump wanted.

How long will the delay be? Will it be long (many months) or short (a few weeks)? To answer that question, all eyes turn the the DC appeals court which has already expedited the case. Chutkan previously ruled that Trump is not immune from prosecution. Trump appealed and the appeals court moved with lightening speed by court standards to hear this appeal.

Oral arguments are already scheduled for Jan. 9. If it wanted to, the appeals court could rule within days after Jan. 9, and that is reasonable to expect. Why is that reasonable? Because we already know the appeals court is in a hurry. They have already imposed an expedited schedule on the parties.

On the immunity question itself, Trump's arguments are weak, weak, weak. He lost his argument in Chutkan's court and he will lose it on appeal. The question is not so much, how will the appeals court rule? It is widely expected they will uphold Chutkan's ruling.

The question is -- and this is a big question -- will they uphold Chutkan's ruling AND lift the stay that currently keeps Chutkan from proceeding with the trial in her courtroom? If lift the stay, that allows Chutkan to immediately proceed with the trial in her courtroom, currently scheduled to begin March 4. The trial would proceed even as Trump appeals to SCOTUS and waits for those justices to decide how they want to respond.

In that event, Trump would likely do what Jack Smith did; ask SCOTUS take up and fast-track the immunity question. (Ha!)

It is not guaranteed SCOTUS would hear Trump's appeal. It is possible they will deny Trump's appeal request, thereby letting the lower court rulings stand ... that is, no man is above the law and in this case in particular, Trump is not immune from criminal prosecution.

Naturally, pro-Trump people are rooting for more delays and a big win from SCOTUS. Others are hoping for speed and a big loss for Trump at trial. The eyes of both sides will soon fixate on the appeals court ruling speed and the decision to lift the stay or leave it in place.

There is one other thing to consider but it is minor. If (likely when) Trump loses before the 3-judge panel at the appeals court, he can request an en banc hearing, in which all judges on the appeals court convene to hear the case. Given the weakness of the case Trump is bringing and the need for speed, it is unlikely the request for en banc would be granted, But even if it was, that too would be quickly dispatched.

In summary, Trump won his desired delay. Now the question of greatest importance to Chutkan's trial schedule is, will the appeals court lift the stay? If the stay is not lifted, and SCOTUS drags its feet, it is possible that the trial will not happen until after the November election.

 

[ATeam]

So as of this moment on Dec 22d just before midnight:

1. We can't conform the authenticity or chain of custody of the recording. (Surely it's not on tape)

Correct.

2. We don't know who the source is or who actually recorded it.

Correct.

3. Neither an unedited copy nor a transcript of the recording has been made public.

Correct. Nor has the recording itself been made public.

The Detroit News needs to be more forthcoming with details instead of offering their summary with a couple of partial quotes.

It took some doing to run down the Detroit News' own report on this and they provided more details than the other news sources reported when they reported on the Detroit News story. But I agree, as things stand now, there are more questions than answers about this recording.

That does not mean the tape does not exist. And it does not mean Jack Smith cannot use it as Trump-damning evidence at trial. For all we know, Smith already has the recording in hand and can satisfy the authenticity and chain of custody questions that would then arise.

There is much we don't know about Smith's investigations. For a long time, the Mar-a-Lago debate focused on a single store room and Trump's office where the documents were said to be kept. Months later, we learned of the ballroom and bathroom. For a long time, it was assumed that a grand jury in Washington was active on the Mar-a-Lago case. Months later, we learned a Florida grand jury was also active.

We're only now learning of this call made by Trump to Michigan canvassers. For all we know, this is old news to Jack Smith. Or not. Since we know so little about the recording, it is also possible this is new news to Smith.

I do believe the recording exists. The canvasser did not say otherwise when asked. Trump has not denied the phone call. Nor has GOP national chair Ronna McDaniel, who is also said to have been on the call.

This much seems clear. That phone call was made and a recording of it exists.

 

[Pilgrim]

That phone call was made and a recording of it exists.

That's been clear from the start since neither Trump nor the RNC has denied it. But my point is this: since the Detroit News made this story public, they owe it to the American people to provide a copy or better yet, an unedited transcript of the entire conversation. This allows the public to see everything that was said and the context of the exchanges.

Bottom line: the Detroit News (or any other newspaper) can't be trusted to give an accurate, unbiased summary of the phone call.