“Johnson urges Supreme Court to step in on Trump verdict”

If I had to bet? I'd say the whole 'underlying offense doesn't need to be charged to convict' part is what they'll argue, from a 5th amendment perspective. Doesn't mean they can win, and it doesn't mean SCOTUS is taking cert, but its a 'colorable claim'.

 

Isn't Hunter on trial right now? Not sure what your point is. Haven't heard anyone crying everyday political witchhunt or saying his case needs to go straight to SCOTUS or that the judge needs to recuse themselves even though they were appointed by Trump himself in regards to Hunter.

 

“Colorable”, but beyond ridiculous.

 

Many colorable claims are beyond ridiculous. Is a former president immune from prosecution, for example, is beyond ****ing ridiculous.

 

Actually, it was just Felon gang unsupported garbage. Inflammatory , spiteful , and meaningless.

 

I could not agree more. But the current SC, I fear, IS going to make that claim.

Can you imagine a president that has literally no legal bounds, and what they can/will do with that power. I mean the idea of it is beyond ludicrous, but we are on the brink of its possible reality.

“Conservatives” played the long game, and now own the SC. A SC may I add, that is literally being bribed in front of our faces, and that bribery is being defended m=by MAGA (not real republicans, but MAGA). I’m in my 50’s, and I seriously fear for my kids and grandkids that the one bright light that was America, is fading in the darkness of MAGA

 

Eloquently stated and spoton!!

IF the felon gets into power and has absolute immunity......... watch out. Basic abuse of power will be the least of his actions. It would be history making in the worst possible way. It begs the question: Why do the MAGA types hate democracy so much?? Why do they want to redefine it in the felon's terms??

 

So you haven't been paying any attention at all then? And you're only reacting that way out of bias? https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/591/19-635/#tab-opinion-4271578
Thomas wrote a dissent because he came to the same result by a different theory. He went ahead and did some legal research and found a ruling by Chief Justice Marshall on a case involving Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, where he specified that none of that immunity bullshit applies to a president.


This issue has already been settled law for a while. But news talking heads and pundits won't tell you that, because it doesn't sell.

 

I don't see it as a firm "no" but unlikely. There is a case to be made for an emergency ruling based on the federal law that was introduced into a state proceeding, the obviously due process and constitutional issue by the state against a citizen, and the upcoming election and the influence, planned I would assert by Trump's political opposition, it could have on the HUGELY important act of government.

Hopefully the NY court of appeals will take not just the violations to the US constitution and election law but to their own and issue and immediately dismally.

 

They don't have original jurisdiction over a state law case from the trial level.
None of their appellate jurisdiction applies until a state supreme court touches it.
But its important isn't a legal defense or exception or grant of power.

Have you ever read a decision of the NY court of appeals? Done any research as to who sits on the NY court of appeals? Want to share with the class?

 

They have original and exclusive over a federal election violation just as does the FEC to bring such a charge and prosecuted it, also the Supremacy clause. These are due process and constitutional issues along with the federal statutory violations but the prosecutor and judge.

As I said unlikely but certainly a case to be made and especially in the NY court drags it's heels on the matter and does not grant and emergency appeal.

 

So, Trump being a threat to the National Security of the United States. Biden has immunity to order the removal said threat from the playing field.

 

That is your opinion. But here in the US, we like to base things on facts. And you have no facts. Just accusations.

 

Cohens guilty plea says otherwise. Why didn’t trump pardon him for that unjust conviction?

 

He gave top secret capabilites to an Austrailan business man. And showed some reporters other top secret documents.
Who else did he show Top Secret documents to?

And what kind of deal did Trump make with Putin to get WSJ reporter Evan Gershkovich released?

 

Then why hasn't Jack Smith charged Trump with such? They've interviewed Pratt a couple of times already. Would fit neatly into the current case Smith has going on as evidence.

Supposedly. In point of fact its not actually known publicly. Its assumed due to an audio recording. Other sources say that it was just a stack of newspapers that Trump "rustled". What I find funny is that there's no video evidence. Trump was being interviewed by a reporter. Why no video? We ALL know that Trump LOVES video's of himself. Yet a reporter does an interview of Trump without one? In this day and age? Yeah...sorry...not buying it.

Don't know what media you've been watching, but Evan is still held prisoner in Russia. All Trump has said is that he could get him released if he was President. It was a jab at Biden.

 

Every convicted criminal says the same thing about their trial.

 

Is that a constitutional right? Do show us.

 

Do you support the death penalty?

 

But can be revisited by the current SC. Right ?

Thanks for the post

 

No. Do you?

 

Why not?

 

I answered the question. Your turn. Do you support the death penalty?

 

Do you oppose the death penalty because of the chances of a wrongful conviction?

 

Do you support the death penalty?

I answered your question. What are you afraid of?