Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
When he wins, and we have all these verdicts rolling in.......lovely situation.ggait wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:51 pm J6 trial not happening before election.
Docs case trial not happening before election.
Scotus will overturn Colorado decision on due process and federalism grounds.
So legal processes are not stopping trump. Only voters can stop trump. Which is the right way to do it.
And get the nomination from the R's by a country mile.njbill wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:16 pm Pretty much agree with ggait.
The J6 case possibly could be tried before the election, but that would require a very quick decision from the DC Circuit, and then a very quick decision from the Supreme Court, the latter being not being particularly likely. Also might require Trump not being the nominee of the Republican party. If he loses the nomination and runs as a third-party candidate (as I think he would), I think the judge would be less inclined to postpone the trial until after the election, that is, if the Supreme Court has already ruled on immunity.
Judge Canon is completely in the bag for Trump. Absolutely disgraceful. Her thinly disguised incremental steps designed to delay the case are fooling nobody. Not only will this trial take place after the election, but she will do everything in her power to make sure Trump is acquitted. And make no mistake, a trial court judge has immense power in that regard. Ever watch Your Honor?
I agree the Supreme Court will overturn the Colorado decision, but I’m not sure on what grounds. Could be some crabbed reading of the word “officer.” Could be some interpretation of the 14th amendment that “insurrection” requires a criminal conviction, ignoring all history to the contrary. I think due process would be a real stretch. Trump got due process. He didn’t like the results, but tough darts.
The Georgia case is a bit of a wildcard. Trump certainly will argue immunity there, but assuming the state court rejects that argument, they just possibly could proceed to trial before the election. No reason that defense couldn’t be raised on appeal, following conviction.
Oh, BTW, I think Trump will run in 2028. There’s a cheery thought for the holidays.
I don’t read much into the fact that there was no dissent to the order denying Jack Smith’s petition. I also don’t see any sign from what the Supreme Court has done to give me any confidence they will act quickly once the DC Circuit has ruled. How quickly will the DC Circuit rule? Not sure, but my guess is a month would be quick. Could be longer. Then the Supreme Court would have to take the case (they will) AND agree to hear it this term (uncertain). If they do, we’d get a decision by the end of June (my guess is not much before that). At that point the trial court proceedings (currently on hold) would resume, that is, unless the Supreme Court finds that Trump has absolute immunity.
If Trump is the nominee, it’s hard to see the case getting set for trial in late September or early October, and that would be only if there aren’t further delays.So you agree, all lawyers suck….but only ones that work on behalf of people you don’t like. Hear you loud and clear.jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:01 pm... seen Parlatore a half dozen times. He is not totally truthful and is evasive. I watched the first 5 minutes and my feelings about him have not changed. His answer to the first question was evasive / spun. He left the Trump legal team under suspicious circumstances. He has claimed he left because of people around Trump. In particular Boris Epshteyn. He claims Epshteyn was interfering with his relationship with Trump. Not being honest with Trump (lying to him), not being honest with himself (Parlatore). The likely truth is Trump and Epshteyn were trying to get Parlatore involved in the cover up.youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:01 pm Listened to this two part podcast today. Worth a listen for those that want to hear some inside intel from one of Trumps lawyers, Tim Parlatore. Tim discusses all the jan 6 event stuff, litigation, 91 indictments, classified docs, stormy Daniels etc. Tim does a really good job breaking everything down in to smaller pieces; very intriguing how he processes each of the charges.
He had some interesting stories about all the January 6 stuff that some may not have heard.
https://youtu.be/16Qvj8k7wdA?si=B97HG-HNIfyl9hBz
If Parlatore's concern was really Epshteyn being obstructive, an easy problem to solve. Goto the client and give the client a choice, "him or me". Perhaps Parlatore did, and Trump chose Epshteyn. Which says Trump was ok being lied to by Epshteyn. If Parlatore was honest with himself he would have known they were trying to suck him into the coverup, as Trump has with other lawyers. I doubt he gave Trump a choice. He quit, not wanting to end up indicted like other of Trump liars, er I mean lawyers.
Parlatore now goes around talking up Trump's great case against the government's case. I can't help but be suspicious as to why that would be.
... like I said, I have heard him before. I have heard his "Trump can end up in prison" take.jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 7:07 pmyouthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:56 pmSo you agree, all lawyers suck….but only ones that work on behalf of people you don’t like. Hear you loud and clear.jhu72 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 6:01 pm... seen Parlatore a half dozen times. He is not totally truthful and is evasive. I watched the first 5 minutes and my feelings about him have not changed. His answer to the first question was evasive / spun. He left the Trump legal team under suspicious circumstances. He has claimed he left because of people around Trump. In particular Boris Epshteyn. He claims Epshteyn was interfering with his relationship with Trump. Not being honest with Trump (lying to him), not being honest with himself (Parlatore). The likely truth is Trump and Epshteyn were trying to get Parlatore involved in the cover up.youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:01 pm Listened to this two part podcast today. Worth a listen for those that want to hear some inside intel from one of Trumps lawyers, Tim Parlatore. Tim discusses all the jan 6 event stuff, litigation, 91 indictments, classified docs, stormy Daniels etc. Tim does a really good job breaking everything down in to smaller pieces; very intriguing how he processes each of the charges.
He had some interesting stories about all the January 6 stuff that some may not have heard.
https://youtu.be/16Qvj8k7wdA?si=B97HG-HNIfyl9hBz
If Parlatore's concern was really Epshteyn being obstructive, an easy problem to solve. Goto the client and give the client a choice, "him or me". Perhaps Parlatore did, and Trump chose Epshteyn. Which says Trump was ok being lied to by Epshteyn. If Parlatore was honest with himself he would have known they were trying to suck him into the coverup, as Trump has with other lawyers. I doubt he gave Trump a choice. He quit, not wanting to end up indicted like other of Trump liars, er I mean lawyers.
Parlatore now goes around talking up Trump's great case against the government's case. I can't help but be suspicious as to why that would be.
You’d be surprised that he actually makes a clear argument on how Trump can end up in prison, same for Rudy.
..Special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, leaving him powerless to obtain a quick U.S. Supreme Court decision on immunity claims by former President Donald Trump, according to an amicus brief signed by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and two law professors.
“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” the Dec. 20 amicus brief argues. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos.”
The law professors who co-wrote the brief with Meese are Steven G. Calabresi of the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and Gary S. Lawson of the Boston University School of Law.
Calabresi summarized the arguments in a post for the Volokh Conspiracy.
The brief argues that Attorney General Merrick Garland “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority” when he appointed Smith in November 2022. Because Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, “every action that he has taken since his appointment is now null and void,” Calabresi argued at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Smith—who was not nominated to be special counsel by President Joe Biden or confirmed by the U.S. Senate—has nationwide jurisdiction, making him more powerful that any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys, Calabresi said. Federal law allows the attorney general to appoint attorneys to assist U.S. attorneys but not to replace them, he wrote.
The argument is that the appointments clause requires all federal offices “not otherwise provided for” in the Constitution to be established by law. Yet there is no statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice. Nor is there a statute allowing the attorney general to appoint an inferior officer special counsel with the powers given to Smith. And inferior officers, in any event, must be controlled by a superior officer, but Garland doesn’t have that power over Smith under DOJ regulations.
The appointments clause makes clear that the “default mode” of appointment for all officers is presidential nomination, Senate confirmation and presidential appointment, the brief says.
There is a proper way to appoint a special counsel like Smith, Calabresi said at the Volokh Conspiracy. Garland should “ask one of the very best Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys now in office to prosecute the cases arising out of the events of Jan. 6, 2021, or the misuse of classified documents case, to be special counsel” with nationwide authority.
The attorney general could then appoint Smith to be the special counsel’s special assistant, and the Trump cases could then be “restarted from scratch” Calabresi wrote.
“We do not want future U.S. attorney generals, such as the ones Donald Trump might appoint, if he is reelected in 2024, to be able to pick any tough thug lawyer off the street and empower him in the way Attorney General Merrick Garland has empowered private citizen Jack Smith,” Calabresi wrote. “Think of what that would have led to during the McCarthy era.”
This is fresh raw meat thrown into trumps cage. I'm waiting for trumps reply. Merrick Garland had best be stocking up on antacids. It may be Republicans throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks. I know for certain it is one more potential problem that the Joe Biden CREEP might have to deal with. I'm guessing most real old school Democrats spout expletives when CREEP is ever mention in any context.dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Dec 26, 2023 5:48 pm Was Jack Smith's appointment unconstitutional? He has no more authority than Taylor Swift, amicus brief argues
This author appears to be addressing the issue of Smith's standing to request cert regarding expediting the immunity claim being made by the former president...although the amicus brief throws in the language “every action that he has taken since his appointment is now null and void,”...
..Special counsel Jack Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, leaving him powerless to obtain a quick U.S. Supreme Court decision on immunity claims by former President Donald Trump, according to an amicus brief signed by former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese and two law professors.
“Not clothed in the authority of the federal government, Smith is a modern example of the naked emperor,” the Dec. 20 amicus brief argues. “Improperly appointed, he has no more authority to represent the United States in this court than Bryce Harper, Taylor Swift or Jeff Bezos.”
The law professors who co-wrote the brief with Meese are Steven G. Calabresi of the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and Gary S. Lawson of the Boston University School of Law.
Calabresi summarized the arguments in a post for the Volokh Conspiracy.
The brief argues that Attorney General Merrick Garland “exceeded his statutory and constitutional authority” when he appointed Smith in November 2022. Because Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional, “every action that he has taken since his appointment is now null and void,” Calabresi argued at the Volokh Conspiracy.
Smith—who was not nominated to be special counsel by President Joe Biden or confirmed by the U.S. Senate—has nationwide jurisdiction, making him more powerful that any of the 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys, Calabresi said. Federal law allows the attorney general to appoint attorneys to assist U.S. attorneys but not to replace them, he wrote.
The argument is that the appointments clause requires all federal offices “not otherwise provided for” in the Constitution to be established by law. Yet there is no statute establishing the Office of Special Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice. Nor is there a statute allowing the attorney general to appoint an inferior officer special counsel with the powers given to Smith. And inferior officers, in any event, must be controlled by a superior officer, but Garland doesn’t have that power over Smith under DOJ regulations.
The appointments clause makes clear that the “default mode” of appointment for all officers is presidential nomination, Senate confirmation and presidential appointment, the brief says.
There is a proper way to appoint a special counsel like Smith, Calabresi said at the Volokh Conspiracy. Garland should “ask one of the very best Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys now in office to prosecute the cases arising out of the events of Jan. 6, 2021, or the misuse of classified documents case, to be special counsel” with nationwide authority.
The attorney general could then appoint Smith to be the special counsel’s special assistant, and the Trump cases could then be “restarted from scratch” Calabresi wrote.
“We do not want future U.S. attorney generals, such as the ones Donald Trump might appoint, if he is reelected in 2024, to be able to pick any tough thug lawyer off the street and empower him in the way Attorney General Merrick Garland has empowered private citizen Jack Smith,” Calabresi wrote. “Think of what that would have led to during the McCarthy era.”
Link?youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 7:35 pm Have you listened to the podcast I referenced last Friday evening? It was an exTrump attorney who does a solid job laying out the timeline from Election Day to 6jan. Also speaks about the classified docs.
And no, I’m not advocating pure innocence.
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:45 pmLink?youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 7:35 pm Have you listened to the podcast I referenced last Friday evening? It was an exTrump attorney who does a solid job laying out the timeline from Election Day to 6jan. Also speaks about the classified docs.
And no, I’m not advocating pure innocence.
youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:01 pm Listened to this two part podcast today. Worth a listen for those that want to hear some inside intel from one of Trumps lawyers, Tim Parlatore. Tim discusses all the jan 6 event stuff, litigation, 91 indictments, classified docs, stormy Daniels etc. Tim does a really good job breaking everything down in to smaller pieces; very intriguing how he processes each of the charges.
He had some interesting stories about all the January 6 stuff that some may not have heard.
https://youtu.be/16Qvj8k7wdA?si=B97HG-HNIfyl9hBz
Thanks! I'll give it a go.youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 10:51 pma fan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:45 pmLink?youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 7:35 pm Have you listened to the podcast I referenced last Friday evening? It was an exTrump attorney who does a solid job laying out the timeline from Election Day to 6jan. Also speaks about the classified docs.
And no, I’m not advocating pure innocence.youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:01 pm Listened to this two part podcast today. Worth a listen for those that want to hear some inside intel from one of Trumps lawyers, Tim Parlatore. Tim discusses all the jan 6 event stuff, litigation, 91 indictments, classified docs, stormy Daniels etc. Tim does a really good job breaking everything down in to smaller pieces; very intriguing how he processes each of the charges.
He had some interesting stories about all the January 6 stuff that some may not have heard.
https://youtu.be/16Qvj8k7wdA?si=B97HG-HNIfyl9hBz
Parlatore is a defense lawyer. I'll be delighted to grant you that.a fan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 11:13 pmThanks! I'll give it a go.youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 10:51 pma fan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 8:45 pmLink?youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Dec 28, 2023 7:35 pm Have you listened to the podcast I referenced last Friday evening? It was an exTrump attorney who does a solid job laying out the timeline from Election Day to 6jan. Also speaks about the classified docs.
And no, I’m not advocating pure innocence.youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:01 pm Listened to this two part podcast today. Worth a listen for those that want to hear some inside intel from one of Trumps lawyers, Tim Parlatore. Tim discusses all the jan 6 event stuff, litigation, 91 indictments, classified docs, stormy Daniels etc. Tim does a really good job breaking everything down in to smaller pieces; very intriguing how he processes each of the charges.
He had some interesting stories about all the January 6 stuff that some may not have heard.
https://youtu.be/16Qvj8k7wdA?si=B97HG-HNIfyl9hBz
