LaxPower Back-Up Stick

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 10:52 am Given the unprecedented levels of skullduggery being perpetrated on the country by the 4-time indicted, twice impeached, disgraced former president in courts across the land, it is obvious that the DoJ MUST take equally unprecedented steps to assure a just outcome in the matter of January 6th...

The One Story About Trump That Jack Smith Needs to Tell at the Supreme Court

Given the lengthy delays in former President Donald J. Trump’s criminal trial for federal election subversion, it’s time for the Department of Justice to face facts: Special counsel Jack Smith will likely have only one chance before the November election to tell the public the story of Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s role in it. That opportunity will occur not in front of a jury of ordinary citizens, but before the nine justices of the Supreme Court on April 25, when they consider whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for his efforts to remain in the office American voters had decided he must surrender.

Smith is in possession of the fullest story of the events culminating in Jan. 6: a rich and vivid catalog of witness testimony, documents, texts, and emails that even the House committee that investigated the insurrection has never seen or heard. He is ready to display that material before a federal jury in a public trial. But through a series of procedural filings, Trump has managed to move the locus of the case from a trial judge’s courtroom in the District of Columbia to the Supreme Court of the United States.

The court now stands as the sole arbiter of the calendar in the case of United States v. Trump. That’s not because a majority of the justices are likely to rule that Trump is immune from prosecution—that outcome is too far-fetched for even the most cynical observers. It’s because the court, with its gradual process of briefing, argument, deliberation and ruling, even on an expedited basis, completely controls whether a trial and verdict can happen before the inauguration of whoever stands on the Capitol steps in January 2025.

Smith, of course, has a duty to prevail in the Supreme Court on his plainly correct legal argument that Trump is not immune. But as a special prosecutor in one of the most consequential criminal matters in American history, Smith also has a duty to inform the public—especially if the immunity appeal becomes his sole chance to do so in a court of law before voters cast their ballots in November.

..

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2024 12:00 pm You think i'm the only one? The COUNTRY is teetering on the ledge, Cranky. People don't want to live in a country run by that guy. The ones that THINK they do, are buying a pack of lies about what he and his cultists would DO with power if they manage to get it. Those that DO understand what he wants and still support him are going to be getting both barrels right up to November 5th.

The reason people across the land (and beyond) are sounding the alarm as loudly as they is is NOT what you and other low-information ideologues want it so badly to be: TDS or "angry, hateful libs all up in a lather for no good reason about Trump".

Time to plant some beans...

..

CU88a wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 9:06 am This is not from The Onion:

"House Speaker Mike Johnson will go to Mar-a-Lago for “remarks on election integrity” with Donald Trump."

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:18 am The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:32 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:18 am The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 5:00 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:32 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:18 am The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

I don't think an event like Jan 6 will happen again. I'm guessing the people in charge of security at the US Capitol have developed a more robust security plan that might even include the use of lethal force. So do you know if there is a government game plan for addressing many months of nightly violent protest like the ones that happened in Portland?? I'm only asking for a friend.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 5:00 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:32 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:18 am The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

I don't think an event like Jan 6 will happen again. I'm guessing the people in charge of security at the US Capitol have developed a more robust security plan that might even include the use of lethal force. So do you know if there is a government game plan for addressing many months of nightly violent protest like the ones that happened in Portland?? I'm only asking for a friend.

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:32 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:18 am The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Sun Apr 14, 2024 9:25 am

a fan wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:32 am

youthathletics wrote: ↑Sat Apr 13, 2024 11:18 am The Supreme Court May Throw Out Hundreds Of Jan. 6 Convictions

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-cour ... 07011.html

....so green light future Jan6's. Smart.

It wouldn't green light more January 6s so much as require Congress to act to fill the gap that would then be created if the statute was construed to require some relationship to document or evidence tampering. Worth noting that the appeal that YA mentions above does not challenge the sufficiency of the felony assault and disorderly conduct charges against these defendants, only the obstruction of an official proceeding under Section 1512(c)(2) of your nation's criminal code. Here is a good article about the legal issues:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/jan- ... on-charge/

Here is an excerpt from the DC Circuit opinion, reversing the trial judge who found that the statute did not reach the defendant's conduct:

"The government asserts that the words "corruptly . . . obstructs, influences, and impedes any official proceeding" in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) have a broad meaning that encompasses all forms of obstructive conduct, including appellees' allegedly violent efforts to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Thus, the government contends, the district court erred when it adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of § 1512(c)(2) that limits the statute's application to obstructive conduct "with respect to a document, record, or other object."

For their part, appellees halfheartedly defend the trial court's interpretation, but more vigorously advance a different argument: that § 1512(c)(2) prohibits obstructive acts related not just to "a record, document, or other object," but also to all acts of general "evidence impairment." Appellees argue that under either the district court's document-focused reading of the statute or their own evidence-impairment theory, appellees' conduct on January 6, 2021, is beyond the reach of § 1512(c)(2). Faced with these three competing interpretations of the statute, we conclude that the government has the best of this argument."

Here's a good article about the case and its potential consequences:

https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/ ... ed-states/

njbill wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:03 am Argument not going well for The Donald, but then we are still on the questioning of his lawyer. We shall see if things change when Jack Smith’s lawyer gets up.

njbill wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 11:03 am Argument not going well for The Donald, but then we are still on the questioning of his lawyer. We shall see if things change when Jack Smith’s lawyer gets up.

njbill wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2024 2:08 pm There didn't seem to be any votes to adopt Trump's absolute immunity position, in toto. But then Ginny may yet work on Thomas and Alito.

There also doesn't seem to be a majority to affirm the D.C. Circuit's decision as is.

But a majority of Justices seem to be of the view that the central allegations in the indictment do not involve "official acts."

Some of the conservative justices seem to be skeptical of Smith's argument that Trump does not have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. Interestingly (to me), Trump's lawyer conceded that some of the allegations in the indictment involve "private," i.e., not "official" conduct. But he says the core allegations about overturning the election involve official acts for which he is immune from prosecution.

Seems as though the Court is going to write a decision that doesn't just resolve the Trump case, but which lays down some general guidelines for future similar cases (which hopefully we never have). The Court may come up with a test for what is an "official act." They also may try to draw a line defining which "official acts" are immune from criminal prosecution and which aren't.

I think the case very likely will be remanded for further proceedings to determine if the conduct that is the subject of the indictment involves "official acts" and, to the extent so, whether that conduct is subject to criminal prosecution.

I think the District Court could probably resolve those issues quickly, and with enough time for a trial to start before the election. BUT if the D.C. Circuit and/or the S.Ct. allows that decision to be appealed on an interlocutory basis, as is the case with the current appeal, there would be no chance the case goes to trial before the election. That is what I think is going to happen.

Who authors the decision? Roberts would seem to be the likely one. But maybe Sotomayor? Just what Trump would love to hear: "Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court."

This post will self destruct in one day so it can't be quoted back at me in June when the Court issues its decision.