TRUMP CONVICTED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
this is the nail in the coffin:

"For the purpose of this criminal case, fmr President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution."

that's on page 3

court docket:
The stay being lifted is the most important part, they could have lifted it while he appealed to the SCOTUS, he had no right to appeal until after the trial anyway and they were briefed on that. It would allow all the pretrial stuff to be done and not hit the pause button, this is long past ridiculous. Imagine if every bank robber, mugger and murder had the same rights as Trump, it would be 5 year battle to give the guy a fucking parking ticket.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Let the death threats to those judges begin there will be mayhem in the streets, what do I hear, crickets! Where are the magats hitting the streets and filling DC with angry protests, there should be thousands there by the end of the day! :lol: Trump is not above the law, it is outrageous and surly the protests will tear apart the nation, those BLM protest will be nothing in comparison... :lol:
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
The stay being lifted is the most important part, they could have lifted it while he appealed to the SCOTUS, he had no right to appeal until after the trial anyway and they were briefed on that. It would allow all the pretrial stuff to be done and not hit the pause button, this is long past ridiculous. Imagine if every bank robber, mugger and murder had the same rights as Trump, it would be 5 year battle to give the guy a fucking parking ticket.
we'll see, orange thumpy has about 6 days to appeal to SCOTUS on this if he wants, and that's if they'll take up the case in the first place. This was an unanimous decision by the appleate court which makes it pretty tuff overall. After these days, the J6 judge can go on with her court.....March 4th looks promising at least for now.

Jr is going bonkers right now cause of it, and i'm pretty sure capt cap-o-lock will have something to spit out as well (that should be funny af)
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
we'll see, orange thumpy has about 6 days to appeal to SCOTUS on this if he wants, and that's if they'll take up the case in the first place. This was an unanimous decision by the appleate court which makes it pretty tuff overall. After these days, the J6 judge can go on with her court.....March 4th looks promising at least for now.

Jr is going bonkers right now cause of it, and i'm pretty sure capt cap-o-lock will have something to spit out as well (that should be funny af)
You mean he can't shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it! The outage will make those BLM protests that flooded America's streets look like nothing! Be afraid, be very afraid... :lol:
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
we'll see, orange thumpy has about 6 days to appeal to SCOTUS on this if he wants, and that's if they'll take up the case in the first place. This was an unanimous decision by the appleate court which makes it pretty tuff overall. After these days, the J6 judge can go on with her court.....March 4th looks promising at least for now.

Jr is going bonkers right now cause of it, and i'm pretty sure capt cap-o-lock will have something to spit out as well (that should be funny af)
I mean if they really believe in something and a cause, then they should flood America's streets in protest. The BLM people did...
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
The stay being lifted is the most important part, they could have lifted it while he appealed to the SCOTUS, he had no right to appeal until after the trial anyway and they were briefed on that. It would allow all the pretrial stuff to be done and not hit the pause button, this is long past ridiculous. Imagine if every bank robber, mugger and murder had the same rights as Trump, it would be 5 year battle to give the guy a fucking parking ticket.
lol, they told him he could appeal to the SCOTUS and get a stay from them. This could get the trial back on track for at least a verdict before the national conventions. I hope you are joking about violence in the streets over this. Personally, I don't think there will be violent protests over it. Lone wolves maybe but I don't think they could carry off another Jan 6 type of protest again.
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
lol, they told him he could appeal to the SCOTUS and get a stay from them. This could get the trial back on track for at least a verdict before the national conventions. I hope you are joking about violence in the streets over this. Personally, I don't think there will be violent protests over it. Lone wolves maybe but I don't think they could carry off another Jan 6 type of protest again.
let see if SCOTUS takes it up, that decision is pretty rock solid.....especially when all 3 judges agree...he's got 6 days
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
lol, they told him he could appeal to the SCOTUS and get a stay from them. This could get the trial back on track for at least a verdict before the national conventions. I hope you are joking about violence in the streets over this. Personally, I don't think there will be violent protests over it. Lone wolves maybe but I don't think they could carry off another Jan 6 type of protest again.
I'm joking about the violence, there won't be a peep over this, other than the death threats to the judges. Same for his disqualification, if they should do it. They are probably watching the non-reaction to this...
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
we'll see, orange thumpy has about 6 days to appeal to SCOTUS on this if he wants, and that's if they'll take up the case in the first place. This was an unanimous decision by the appleate court which makes it pretty tuff overall. After these days, the J6 judge can go on with her court.....March 4th looks promising at least for now.

Jr is going bonkers right now cause of it, and i'm pretty sure capt cap-o-lock will have something to spit out as well (that should be funny af)
Maybe the SCOTUS will do a double header, you're not immune and you're disqualified too, now fuck off... :lol:
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
Maybe the SCOTUS will do a double header, you're not immune and you're disqualified too, now fuck off... :lol:
maybe, Thursday is SCOTUS for the 14th, so that should be interesting. NY Fraud judge is also up, fixing to take his money away and the worthless kids. Now if we can get Cannon to get off her ass and do her thing.....and Georgia RICO case as well......
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Here is the best expert opinion on the ruling so far.


'Huge win for Jack Smith': See ex-prosecutor's reaction to Trump ruling
CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig breaks down an appeals court ruling that former President Donald Trump does not have blanket presidential immunity. The ruling is a major blow to Trump's defense in the federal election subversion case brought by special counsel Jack Smith.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
The maga whining starts...

Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Immunity Is Necessary, 'Matter of Degree'
The judiciary is potentially making a constitutional mistake in rejecting all presidential immunity, but the Supreme Court could weigh in to protect that tenet of our democracy, according to law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax.

"The court is dead wrong when it says that, essentially, nobody is above a criminal prosecution: Senators are; our senators and congressmen can't be prosecuted for things they said and did on the Senate or House floor," Dershowitz told Tuesday's "National Report" after a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled former President Donald Trump's immunity ended when he left office.

"Even judges have some degree of immunity, so it shouldn't be surprising that presidents have some immunity. The question, as it is with senators and judges, is how much immunity — so it's a matter of degree."

The weaponization of law against Trump and political bias in the judiciary has become far too accepted nowadays, according to Dershowitz.

"We live in an age where nothing anymore is a matter of degree — everything is just pick sides," he said. "And this court picked sides and decided it was going to be part of the 'get Trump' mentality and write a very, very powerful opinion, one-sided opinion, laying out essentially the case against any immunity.

"And we'll see if the Supreme Court does the same thing."

Trump's immediate vow to appeal will potentially go to the Supreme Court, but that court will have a decision to make whether to weigh in before the trial brought by special counsel Jack Smith or allow the Washington, D.C., jury to set U.S. precedent by hearing the case Trump's legal team should be expected to make. Trump has long argued his 2020 presidential election challenge was a function of official presidential duties and therefore protected by constitutional presidential immunity.

"I suspect the Supreme Court will either deny review — which is very possible — or if they take the case, it will be very divided opinion," Dershowitz said. "It won't be unanimous, I don't think."

Ultimately, this fight playing out in the short term is about President Joe Biden's Justice Department pressing the case against his chief political rival Trump before the election — versus Trump fighting for stays on the case to delay the trial until after the election.

"Beat the clock — remember that television show? — that's what these judicial orders are all about: Whether or not you can get a trial before the election, or whether the trial will come after the election," Dershowitz said. "That's the name of the game."

The hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court made Tuesday's unanimous ruling obvious, according to Dershowitz, but both the Trump lawyers and the U.S. prosecutors "went too far" in their arguments for and against the basic tenets of constitutional presidential immunity.

"It's no surprise at all, everybody knew it would come down unanimously as soon as we heard the oral argument," Dershowitz said. "Both sides of the argument went too far.

"The Trump side went too far by suggesting that even if a president ordered the SEALs to kill his opponent that would be immunized. And the other side went too far by saying essentially, nothing is immunized."

The constitutional reality is somewhere in between, according to Dershowitz.

"I suspect the Supreme Court, if they take the case, will split the difference and say there are certain actions that are subject to immunity and others that are not," he continued. "The issue in this case now has really become timing, because the Court of Appeals has given a limited time to try to get a stay from the Supreme Court."

A stay would require five of the nine votes on the Supreme Court, while a mere review would require just four votes, Dershowitz said.

"So if the court gets four people to review the case, probably there will be a stay granted, but it's not certain," he concluded.

"It's facing pressure, but it, of course, can resist the pressure by simply denying review.

"Look, this is unprecedented on both sides. No president has ever been indicted after he left office, and no president has ever claimed immunity."

Napolitano to Newsmax: SCOTUS Won't Hear Immunity Appeal
Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano told Newsmax on Friday that he doesn't think the U.S. Supreme Court will hear former President Donald Trump's appeal on immunity.

Likewise, Napolitano believes the federal appeals court, in a decision likely to come Friday or Monday, will also shoot down Trump's immunity claims.

"I think the federal appeals court will affirm the trial judge," Napolitano said on "Wake Up America."

Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling on Dec. 1 that he can be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

Working against Trump is that immunity is given for official acts as president, not for efforts "that he does to further his reelection," Napolitano said. "That's pretty much the law of the land before this case was even filed against him."

Napolitano said that whenever the decision comes, the trial will resume and will not pause again to wait for a Supreme Court decision. Napolitano is certain that Trump will appeal to SCOTUS, but he doesn't think the high court will hear it.

"I think they will let the trial go forward and see what the outcome is," Napolitano said. "If at the trial, the jury decides that what his behavior was on January 6th was in furtherance of his office as president of the United States, he can still get immunity from that jury.

"So his lawyers would still be free to make that argument before the jury."
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
The maga whining starts...

Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Immunity Is Necessary, 'Matter of Degree'
The judiciary is potentially making a constitutional mistake in rejecting all presidential immunity, but the Supreme Court could weigh in to protect that tenet of our democracy, according to law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax.

"The court is dead wrong when it says that, essentially, nobody is above a criminal prosecution: Senators are; our senators and congressmen can't be prosecuted for things they said and did on the Senate or House floor," Dershowitz told Tuesday's "National Report" after a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled former President Donald Trump's immunity ended when he left office.

"Even judges have some degree of immunity, so it shouldn't be surprising that presidents have some immunity. The question, as it is with senators and judges, is how much immunity — so it's a matter of degree."

The weaponization of law against Trump and political bias in the judiciary has become far too accepted nowadays, according to Dershowitz.

"We live in an age where nothing anymore is a matter of degree — everything is just pick sides," he said. "And this court picked sides and decided it was going to be part of the 'get Trump' mentality and write a very, very powerful opinion, one-sided opinion, laying out essentially the case against any immunity.

"And we'll see if the Supreme Court does the same thing."

Trump's immediate vow to appeal will potentially go to the Supreme Court, but that court will have a decision to make whether to weigh in before the trial brought by special counsel Jack Smith or allow the Washington, D.C., jury to set U.S. precedent by hearing the case Trump's legal team should be expected to make. Trump has long argued his 2020 presidential election challenge was a function of official presidential duties and therefore protected by constitutional presidential immunity.

"I suspect the Supreme Court will either deny review — which is very possible — or if they take the case, it will be very divided opinion," Dershowitz said. "It won't be unanimous, I don't think."

Ultimately, this fight playing out in the short term is about President Joe Biden's Justice Department pressing the case against his chief political rival Trump before the election — versus Trump fighting for stays on the case to delay the trial until after the election.

"Beat the clock — remember that television show? — that's what these judicial orders are all about: Whether or not you can get a trial before the election, or whether the trial will come after the election," Dershowitz said. "That's the name of the game."

The hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court made Tuesday's unanimous ruling obvious, according to Dershowitz, but both the Trump lawyers and the U.S. prosecutors "went too far" in their arguments for and against the basic tenets of constitutional presidential immunity.

"It's no surprise at all, everybody knew it would come down unanimously as soon as we heard the oral argument," Dershowitz said. "Both sides of the argument went too far.

"The Trump side went too far by suggesting that even if a president ordered the SEALs to kill his opponent that would be immunized. And the other side went too far by saying essentially, nothing is immunized."

The constitutional reality is somewhere in between, according to Dershowitz.

"I suspect the Supreme Court, if they take the case, will split the difference and say there are certain actions that are subject to immunity and others that are not," he continued. "The issue in this case now has really become timing, because the Court of Appeals has given a limited time to try to get a stay from the Supreme Court."

A stay would require five of the nine votes on the Supreme Court, while a mere review would require just four votes, Dershowitz said.

"So if the court gets four people to review the case, probably there will be a stay granted, but it's not certain," he concluded.

"It's facing pressure, but it, of course, can resist the pressure by simply denying review.

"Look, this is unprecedented on both sides. No president has ever been indicted after he left office, and no president has ever claimed immunity."

Napolitano to Newsmax: SCOTUS Won't Hear Immunity Appeal
Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano told Newsmax on Friday that he doesn't think the U.S. Supreme Court will hear former President Donald Trump's appeal on immunity.

Likewise, Napolitano believes the federal appeals court, in a decision likely to come Friday or Monday, will also shoot down Trump's immunity claims.

"I think the federal appeals court will affirm the trial judge," Napolitano said on "Wake Up America."

Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling on Dec. 1 that he can be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

Working against Trump is that immunity is given for official acts as president, not for efforts "that he does to further his reelection," Napolitano said. "That's pretty much the law of the land before this case was even filed against him."

Napolitano said that whenever the decision comes, the trial will resume and will not pause again to wait for a Supreme Court decision. Napolitano is certain that Trump will appeal to SCOTUS, but he doesn't think the high court will hear it.

"I think they will let the trial go forward and see what the outcome is," Napolitano said. "If at the trial, the jury decides that what his behavior was on January 6th was in furtherance of his office as president of the United States, he can still get immunity from that jury.

"So his lawyers would still be free to make that argument before the jury."
Just here to say what Dershowitz has been up to regarding Trump and his election denial:

Alan Dershowitz ordered to pay limited sanctions in Arizona election case


However, U.S. District Judge John Tuchi in Phoenix held, opens new tab that Dershowitz is only responsible for 10% of a $122,200 sanction he leveled against the rest of Lake and former Arizona state representative Mark Finchem's legal team, which consisted of Andrew Parker of Parker Daniels Kibort and Kurt B. Olsen of the Olsen Law Firm.


Ordered to pay sanctions fine of $12,200 for wasting the court's time with frivolous and obviously unjustified filings on behalf of the former President.

What Napolitano said: "If at the trial, the jury decides that what his behavior was on January 6th was in furtherance of his office as president of the United States, he can still get immunity from that jury."

In other words, frivolous clams may still be made in order to delay incarceration. Which, at this point in time is all Trump and his team are after.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
The maga whining starts...

Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Immunity Is Necessary, 'Matter of Degree'
The judiciary is potentially making a constitutional mistake in rejecting all presidential immunity, but the Supreme Court could weigh in to protect that tenet of our democracy, according to law expert Alan Dershowitz on Newsmax.

"The court is dead wrong when it says that, essentially, nobody is above a criminal prosecution: Senators are; our senators and congressmen can't be prosecuted for things they said and did on the Senate or House floor," Dershowitz told Tuesday's "National Report" after a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel ruled former President Donald Trump's immunity ended when he left office.

"Even judges have some degree of immunity, so it shouldn't be surprising that presidents have some immunity. The question, as it is with senators and judges, is how much immunity — so it's a matter of degree."

The weaponization of law against Trump and political bias in the judiciary has become far too accepted nowadays, according to Dershowitz.

"We live in an age where nothing anymore is a matter of degree — everything is just pick sides," he said. "And this court picked sides and decided it was going to be part of the 'get Trump' mentality and write a very, very powerful opinion, one-sided opinion, laying out essentially the case against any immunity.

"And we'll see if the Supreme Court does the same thing."

Trump's immediate vow to appeal will potentially go to the Supreme Court, but that court will have a decision to make whether to weigh in before the trial brought by special counsel Jack Smith or allow the Washington, D.C., jury to set U.S. precedent by hearing the case Trump's legal team should be expected to make. Trump has long argued his 2020 presidential election challenge was a function of official presidential duties and therefore protected by constitutional presidential immunity.

"I suspect the Supreme Court will either deny review — which is very possible — or if they take the case, it will be very divided opinion," Dershowitz said. "It won't be unanimous, I don't think."

Ultimately, this fight playing out in the short term is about President Joe Biden's Justice Department pressing the case against his chief political rival Trump before the election — versus Trump fighting for stays on the case to delay the trial until after the election.

"Beat the clock — remember that television show? — that's what these judicial orders are all about: Whether or not you can get a trial before the election, or whether the trial will come after the election," Dershowitz said. "That's the name of the game."

The hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court made Tuesday's unanimous ruling obvious, according to Dershowitz, but both the Trump lawyers and the U.S. prosecutors "went too far" in their arguments for and against the basic tenets of constitutional presidential immunity.

"It's no surprise at all, everybody knew it would come down unanimously as soon as we heard the oral argument," Dershowitz said. "Both sides of the argument went too far.

"The Trump side went too far by suggesting that even if a president ordered the SEALs to kill his opponent that would be immunized. And the other side went too far by saying essentially, nothing is immunized."

The constitutional reality is somewhere in between, according to Dershowitz.

"I suspect the Supreme Court, if they take the case, will split the difference and say there are certain actions that are subject to immunity and others that are not," he continued. "The issue in this case now has really become timing, because the Court of Appeals has given a limited time to try to get a stay from the Supreme Court."

A stay would require five of the nine votes on the Supreme Court, while a mere review would require just four votes, Dershowitz said.

"So if the court gets four people to review the case, probably there will be a stay granted, but it's not certain," he concluded.

"It's facing pressure, but it, of course, can resist the pressure by simply denying review.

"Look, this is unprecedented on both sides. No president has ever been indicted after he left office, and no president has ever claimed immunity."

Napolitano to Newsmax: SCOTUS Won't Hear Immunity Appeal
Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano told Newsmax on Friday that he doesn't think the U.S. Supreme Court will hear former President Donald Trump's appeal on immunity.

Likewise, Napolitano believes the federal appeals court, in a decision likely to come Friday or Monday, will also shoot down Trump's immunity claims.

"I think the federal appeals court will affirm the trial judge," Napolitano said on "Wake Up America."

Trump appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's ruling on Dec. 1 that he can be prosecuted for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

Working against Trump is that immunity is given for official acts as president, not for efforts "that he does to further his reelection," Napolitano said. "That's pretty much the law of the land before this case was even filed against him."

Napolitano said that whenever the decision comes, the trial will resume and will not pause again to wait for a Supreme Court decision. Napolitano is certain that Trump will appeal to SCOTUS, but he doesn't think the high court will hear it.

"I think they will let the trial go forward and see what the outcome is," Napolitano said. "If at the trial, the jury decides that what his behavior was on January 6th was in furtherance of his office as president of the United States, he can still get immunity from that jury.

"So his lawyers would still be free to make that argument before the jury."
Dershowitz has gone full Orwell newspeak on us and has embraced the magaverse.


However, perhaps the McCarthyist* boot belongs on the other foot.


*Jaundice Joseph, not Kremlin Kev
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
If the SCOTUS refuses to take the case, then Trump should be on trial by June at the latest, or so the legal pundits say. He might end up convicted around the same time he gets nominated by a bunch of fucking idiots at the convention. Of course, disqualification seems a very real possibility too and if they refuse to take the immunity case it might indicate which way, they are gonna go. Then there is delayed NY judgement, as the judge looks into new perjury and fraud allegations, that might greatly increase the money they take from Trump. It is all adding up to make him look like a looser, even to some of his fans, he could get away with things they could not and now he has been caught and his finances will be exposed and his money taken.

Does anybody expect the streets of America to fill with angry people tomorrow or this weekend over this? Maybe the SCOTUS is watching the non-reaction over immunity too and they can take a pass on that. Just one call for them to make then, disqualification and I can't think of a single reason why they should bend themselves into pretzels to save his ass from the plain language of the US constitution. The opinions of legal scholars across the spectrum and the intentions of the framers, as briefed to them by historians.

We will see, first if they agree to hear his immunity case and if the stay is dropped, then comes disqualification and IMO it does not look good for Trump. To be disqualified and under Chutkan's control might not be the best for Joe either, Trump would have no place in politics if disqualified and might not even be allowed to speak publicly on any political matter, attack the GOP nominee or take any other action to affect government policy. The judge might not permit him to be the GOP nominee, if he is convicted before the convention and tell them to find someone else because Donald will be busy for life.

If disqualified his legal statues changes and he would be under tight control of judge Chutkan and once convicted, he will be under even tighter control while out on appeal. She is a judge, and he is a defendant in her custody until trial and after he is convicted, she can jail him until he can get out on appeal. If he acts out, she might jail him before that, especially if he is disqualified.
 
Top