The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Maybe, but probably not. Hearing now or in April means a June decision. So I'm not sure the delay makes a difference. However they probably should not have agreed to hear the case.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Maybe, but probably not. Hearing now or in April means a June decision. So I'm not sure the delay makes a difference. However they probably should not have agreed to hear the case.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
True. I was thinking that (not specifically seal team, but just killing anyone) after I heard they were taking the case. Has to be quite the conundrum for the six amigos. Probably why it took so long for them to say they would hear it. Whatever they decide is going to be disastrous I'm sure.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Maybe, but probably not. Hearing now or in April means a June decision. So I'm not sure the delay makes a difference. However they probably should not have agreed to hear the case.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
By June, POOTWH has locked the nomination and the potential trial is delayed until after the election or POOTWH is convicted, let’s say. Then POOTWH wins the general and the issue of whether a “democratically” elected POTUS-elect can be denied the office arises.
In my way of thinking, SCOTUS should have allowed for a trial ASAP and upon conviction, POOTWH could appeal, and if successful, assume office. If failed, can’t assume office as a convicted felon. Seems cleaner, allows for the ‘Murican people to hear the evidence and a jury to decide his fate. The way it should be.
Regardless, it’ll be a circus and our democracy will be lucky to survive.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Maybe, but probably not. Hearing now or in April means a June decision. So I'm not sure the delay makes a difference. However they probably should not have agreed to hear the case.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
By June, POOTWH has locked the nomination and the potential trial is delayed until after the election or POOTWH is convicted, let’s say. Then POOTWH wins the general and the issue of whether a “democratically” elected POTUS-elect can be denied the office arises.
In my way of thinking, SCOTUS should have allowed for a trial ASAP and upon conviction, POOTWH could appeal, and if successful, assume office. If failed, can’t assume office as a convicted felon. Seems cleaner, allows for the ‘Murican people to hear the evidence and a jury to decide his fate. The way it should be.
Regardless, it’ll be a circus and our democracy will be lucky to survive.
There was no chance he was being convicted before clinching the nomination.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Maybe, but probably not. Hearing now or in April means a June decision. So I'm not sure the delay makes a difference. However they probably should not have agreed to hear the case.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
By June, POOTWH has locked the nomination and the potential trial is delayed until after the election or POOTWH is convicted, let’s say. Then POOTWH wins the general and the issue of whether a “democratically” elected POTUS-elect can be denied the office arises.
In my way of thinking, SCOTUS should have allowed for a trial ASAP and upon conviction, POOTWH could appeal, and if successful, assume office. If failed, can’t assume office as a convicted felon. Seems cleaner, allows for the ‘Murican people to hear the evidence and a jury to decide his fate. The way it should be.
Regardless, it’ll be a circus and our democracy will be lucky to survive.
There was no chance he was being convicted before clinching the nomination.
But a trial beginning in June makes it much more likely that a conviction won’t happen until after the election, in which case the argument of denying a “duly elected president” office becomes a drawn out argument for SCOTUS beyond January 20, 2025, and likely results in SCOTUS deferring until POOTWH serves his term in full. Denying justice and not allowing the voters to make an informed decision on the candidate’s fitness for the office by not hearing the evidence and receiving a jury verdict is the scam.
The fix is in. A substantial percentage of Repubs wouldn’t vote for him upon conviction. If POOTWH’s found innocent, then he can crow his way to victory in a landslide. Holding off on this process is the sham.
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Maybe, but probably not. Hearing now or in April means a June decision. So I'm not sure the delay makes a difference. However they probably should not have agreed to hear the case.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
By June, POOTWH has locked the nomination and the potential trial is delayed until after the election or POOTWH is convicted, let’s say. Then POOTWH wins the general and the issue of whether a “democratically” elected POTUS-elect can be denied the office arises.
In my way of thinking, SCOTUS should have allowed for a trial ASAP and upon conviction, POOTWH could appeal, and if successful, assume office. If failed, can’t assume office as a convicted felon. Seems cleaner, allows for the ‘Murican people to hear the evidence and a jury to decide his fate. The way it should be.
Regardless, it’ll be a circus and our democracy will be lucky to survive.
There was no chance he was being convicted before clinching the nomination.
But a trial beginning in June makes it much more likely that a conviction won’t happen until after the election, in which case the argument of denying a “duly elected president” office becomes a drawn out argument for SCOTUS beyond January 20, 2025, and likely results in SCOTUS deferring until POOTWH serves his term in full. Denying justice and not allowing the voters to make an informed decision on the candidate’s fitness for the office by not hearing the evidence and receiving a jury verdict is the scam.
The fix is in. A substantial percentage of Repubs wouldn’t vote for him upon conviction. If POOTWH’s found innocent, then he can crow his way to victory in a landslide. Holding off on this process is the sham.
God, I hope not. We are so screwed if that happens. I'm still holding out hope that Biden will win. So much hinges on a strong Dem turn out and enough Republicans to come to their senses- and some have. We need more of that.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Maybe, but probably not. Hearing now or in April means a June decision. So I'm not sure the delay makes a difference. However they probably should not have agreed to hear the case.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
By June, POOTWH has locked the nomination and the potential trial is delayed until after the election or POOTWH is convicted, let’s say. Then POOTWH wins the general and the issue of whether a “democratically” elected POTUS-elect can be denied the office arises.
In my way of thinking, SCOTUS should have allowed for a trial ASAP and upon conviction, POOTWH could appeal, and if successful, assume office. If failed, can’t assume office as a convicted felon. Seems cleaner, allows for the ‘Murican people to hear the evidence and a jury to decide his fate. The way it should be.
Regardless, it’ll be a circus and our democracy will be lucky to survive.
There was no chance he was being convicted before clinching the nomination.
But a trial beginning in June makes it much more likely that a conviction won’t happen until after the election, in which case the argument of denying a “duly elected president” office becomes a drawn out argument for SCOTUS beyond January 20, 2025, and likely results in SCOTUS deferring until POOTWH serves his term in full. Denying justice and not allowing the voters to make an informed decision on the candidate’s fitness for the office by not hearing the evidence and receiving a jury verdict is the scam.
The fix is in. A substantial percentage of Repubs wouldn’t vote for him upon conviction. If POOTWH’s found innocent, then he can crow his way to victory in a landslide. Holding off on this process is the sham.
God, I hope not. We are so screwed if that happens. I'm still holding out hope that Biden will win. So much hinges on a strong Dem turn out and enough Republicans to come to their senses- and some have. We need more of that.
Everyone here who is saying that POOTWH can’t or won’t win seems to assume that what is going on is “normal” and that the playing field hasn’t somehow shifted or changed since 2016 or 2020 and the events leading up to and through those elections. I admit, it’s difficult to remember all the shit, and I mean ALL the shit that has transpired from and on behalf of POOTWH. And therein lies the rub, the average American voter either doesn’t remember, doesn’t care or isn’t informed and smart enough to connect ALL the dots, remember dots? Mmmmmmm, dots.
Everyone needs to take a step back and look at the big picture. It’s not the poll of yesterday or today or tomorrow. It’s waaaaaay beyond that. It’s all of the SHIT, some big, some small, that is happening and who and what is at play and driving this. February 28, 2024 may very well be the day democracy died.
I’d be happy to lay it all out and vote in a Biden vs. POOTWH 2024 Vote Now thread but “POOTWH” in a thread title won’t pass muster and I shan’t type that fuck’s name.
And they were singing, “bye bye miss American pie, drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry and good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye singing this’ll be the day that I die, the day, democracy died.”
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Maybe, but probably not. Hearing now or in April means a June decision. So I'm not sure the delay makes a difference. However they probably should not have agreed to hear the case.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
By June, POOTWH has locked the nomination and the potential trial is delayed until after the election or POOTWH is convicted, let’s say. Then POOTWH wins the general and the issue of whether a “democratically” elected POTUS-elect can be denied the office arises.
In my way of thinking, SCOTUS should have allowed for a trial ASAP and upon conviction, POOTWH could appeal, and if successful, assume office. If failed, can’t assume office as a convicted felon. Seems cleaner, allows for the ‘Murican people to hear the evidence and a jury to decide his fate. The way it should be.
Regardless, it’ll be a circus and our democracy will be lucky to survive.
There was no chance he was being convicted before clinching the nomination.
But a trial beginning in June makes it much more likely that a conviction won’t happen until after the election, in which case the argument of denying a “duly elected president” office becomes a drawn out argument for SCOTUS beyond January 20, 2025, and likely results in SCOTUS deferring until POOTWH serves his term in full. Denying justice and not allowing the voters to make an informed decision on the candidate’s fitness for the office by not hearing the evidence and receiving a jury verdict is the scam.
The fix is in. A substantial percentage of Repubs wouldn’t vote for him upon conviction. If POOTWH’s found innocent, then he can crow his way to victory in a landslide. Holding off on this process is the sham.
God, I hope not. We are so screwed if that happens. I'm still holding out hope that Biden will win. So much hinges on a strong Dem turn out and enough Republicans to come to their senses- and some have. We need more of that.
Everyone here who is saying that POOTWH can’t or won’t win seems to assume that what is going on is “normal” and that the playing field hasn’t somehow shifted or changed since 2016 or 2020 and the events leading up to and through those elections. I admit, it’s difficult to remember all the shit, and I mean ALL the shit that has transpired from and on behalf of POOTWH. And therein lies the rub, the average American voter either doesn’t remember, doesn’t care or isn’t informed and smart enough to connect ALL the dots, remember dots? Mmmmmmm, dots.
Everyone needs to take a step back and look at the big picture. It’s not the poll of yesterday or today or tomorrow. It’s waaaaaay beyond that. It’s all of the SHIT, some big, some small, that is happening and who and what is at play and driving this. February 28, 2024 may very well be the day democracy died.
I’d be happy to lay it all out and vote in a Biden vs. POOTWH 2024 Vote Now thread but “POOTWH” in a thread title won’t pass muster and I shan’t type that fuck’s name.
And they were singing, “bye bye miss American pie, drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry and good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye singing this’ll be the day that I die, the day, democracy died.”
Keep those passports up to date, valid and handy.
I have to agree... I will remain hopeful, but I won't say "it can't happen". Like you said, look at all the shit that has happened. It makes the head spin.
And, yeah, if I were younger, I would have a plan B that involved a current passport and a long-term or even permanent move. At this point in my life though, I just don't see that happening. Besides, who would take any of us in?
"You want to move here? Where you from"
"The U.S."
"Get lost, bub!"
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
The justices’ order maintains a hold on preparations for a trial focused on Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss. The court will hear arguments in late April, with a decision likely no later than the end of June.
But even with a timetable that is much faster than usual, the court action calls into question whether a trial for Trump, assuming the justices deny his immunity bid, can be scheduled and concluded prior to the November election.
Trump's lawyers have sought to put off a trial until after the voting.
By taking up the legally untested question now, the justices have created a scenario of uncertainty that special counsel Jack Smith had sought to avoid when he first asked the high court in December to immediately intervene. In his latest court filing, Smith had suggested arguments a full month earlier than the late April timeframe.
Spokespeople for Trump and Smith did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The court said in an unsigned statement that it will consider “whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
Lower courts have so far rejected Trump’s novel claim that former presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their official job duties. A panel of appellate judges in Washington ruled earlier in February that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who would preside over the election interference trial, was right to say that the case could proceed and that Trump can be prosecuted for actions undertaken while in the White House and in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, when a mob of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.
The issue reached the high court because the appeals court refused to grant the delay that Trump has sought.
The case is separate from the high court’s consideration of Trump’s appeal to remain on the presidential ballot despite attempts to kick him off because of his efforts following his election loss in 2020. During arguments on Feb. 8, the court seemed likely to side with Trump. A decision could come any time.
The high court also will hear an appeal in April from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in the Capitol riot. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.
The election interference case in Washington is one of four prosecutions Trump faces as he seeks to reclaim the White House. Of those, the only one with a trial date that seems poised to hold is his state case in New York, where he’s charged with falsifying business records in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor. That case is set for trial in March 25, and a judge this month signaled his determination to press ahead.
A separate case charging him with illegally hoarding classified records is set for trial on May 20, but a pivotal hearing Friday seems likely to result in a delay. No date has been set in a separate state case in Atlanta charging him with scheming to subvert that state’s 2020 election.
The fix is in and has been for quite some time.
Maybe, but probably not. Hearing now or in April means a June decision. So I'm not sure the delay makes a difference. However they probably should not have agreed to hear the case.
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
By June, POOTWH has locked the nomination and the potential trial is delayed until after the election or POOTWH is convicted, let’s say. Then POOTWH wins the general and the issue of whether a “democratically” elected POTUS-elect can be denied the office arises.
In my way of thinking, SCOTUS should have allowed for a trial ASAP and upon conviction, POOTWH could appeal, and if successful, assume office. If failed, can’t assume office as a convicted felon. Seems cleaner, allows for the ‘Murican people to hear the evidence and a jury to decide his fate. The way it should be.
Regardless, it’ll be a circus and our democracy will be lucky to survive.
There was no chance he was being convicted before clinching the nomination.
But a trial beginning in June makes it much more likely that a conviction won’t happen until after the election, in which case the argument of denying a “duly elected president” office becomes a drawn out argument for SCOTUS beyond January 20, 2025, and likely results in SCOTUS deferring until POOTWH serves his term in full. Denying justice and not allowing the voters to make an informed decision on the candidate’s fitness for the office by not hearing the evidence and receiving a jury verdict is the scam.
The fix is in. A substantial percentage of Repubs wouldn’t vote for him upon conviction. If POOTWH’s found innocent, then he can crow his way to victory in a landslide. Holding off on this process is the sham.
God, I hope not. We are so screwed if that happens. I'm still holding out hope that Biden will win. So much hinges on a strong Dem turn out and enough Republicans to come to their senses- and some have. We need more of that.
Everyone here who is saying that POOTWH can’t or won’t win seems to assume that what is going on is “normal” and that the playing field hasn’t somehow shifted or changed since 2016 or 2020 and the events leading up to and through those elections. I admit, it’s difficult to remember all the shit, and I mean ALL the shit that has transpired from and on behalf of POOTWH. And therein lies the rub, the average American voter either doesn’t remember, doesn’t care or isn’t informed and smart enough to connect ALL the dots, remember dots? Mmmmmmm, dots.
Everyone needs to take a step back and look at the big picture. It’s not the poll of yesterday or today or tomorrow. It’s waaaaaay beyond that. It’s all of the SHIT, some big, some small, that is happening and who and what is at play and driving this. February 28, 2024 may very well be the day democracy died.
I’d be happy to lay it all out and vote in a Biden vs. POOTWH 2024 Vote Now thread but “POOTWH” in a thread title won’t pass muster and I shan’t type that fuck’s name.
And they were singing, “bye bye miss American pie, drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry and good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye singing this’ll be the day that I die, the day, democracy died.”
Keep those passports up to date, valid and handy.
Mine are good to go and my adult kids too 🥴 what a shit show this nation finds itself in! And like you say most Americans aren’t even thinking about the scenarios that can happen come this November! I’m disgusted with this country and I’ll never fly those f’n stars&stripes again
We can say how much of an idiot the idiot is but he knew damn well that by appointing the three corrupt judges they would have to pay him back! Their lifetime appointments are worth millions to each of them see Thomas!
We can say how much of an idiot the idiot is but he knew damn well that by appointing the three corrupt judges they would have to pay him back! Their lifetime appointments are worth millions to each of them see Thomas!
Justice delayed is justice denied. This court is corrupt and broken between the lies told during confirmation hearings, Moscow Mitchy Baby’s shenanigans and Thomas’s and Alito’s corruption, never mind the 64-0 record of corporate ‘Murica’s run and political donations to those organizations bringing forth cases (remember the gay couple and the wedding photos or cake that never happened? The “case” that had standing? Yea, right).
The former president’s strategy of trying to delay the four criminal trials against him is well-documented. And in fighting special counsel Jack Smith’s case, the Supreme Court has become an ally of sorts, despite the expedited schedule.
The court said Trump’s appeal would be heard the week of April 22. A decision could come by the end of June when the final rulings for the current session are expected.
Overall, the timetable is fast compared to the regular calendar for high court briefing, oral arguments, and eventual resolution, which typically plays out over many months or close to a year. (Other cases accepted this month for review will not be heard until next fall, with decisions likely in 2025.)
But for the political calendar, and Trump’s effort to avoid federal trial before the presidential election, the new schedule injects a new level of uncertainty. Trump may not be tried for his conduct related to the 2020 election before the 2024 election occurs.
Wednesday’s announcement took a surprising amount of time to even deliver. Filings in the case had been pending for about two weeks, and the delay perhaps suggested differences among the justices on how to handle the controversy at this threshold stage. Some might have wanted to simply leave in place the DC Circuit decision, which hewed to past high court rulings.
The justices did not publicly reveal how they voted.
‘Crimes strike at the heart of our democracy’
Trump was indicted last year on charges relating to hisrefusal to accept the 2020 election results and includes conspiracy and obstruction charges tied to protests that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
Smith, earlier this month, cited the nature of the alleged crimes as he urged the justices to let the DC Circuit decision against presidential immunity stand and allow the case to go to trial.
“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy,” the special counsel wrote in court papers.“A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law. … (He) cannot show, as he must to merit a stay, a fair prospect of success in this Court.”
In December, Smith, aware of how long resolution at the Supreme Court could take, urged the justices to immediately take up the case, without intermediate court action. At that point, Trump’s trial before US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who had rejected his claim of absolute immunity, was scheduled for March 4.
The justices denied Smith’s request in a one-sentence order, with no explanation, on December 22. The case went through the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals, where the special counsel won, leading to Trump’s current appeal.
As they urged the justices to intervene, Trump’s lawyers invoked some of Smith’s words from his December filing, when the special counsel wanted the justices to swiftly get involved: “As the Special Counsel emphatically stated in December, ‘(i)t is of imperative public importance that (President Trump’s) claims of immunity be resolved by this Court,’ and ‘only this Court can definitively resolve them.’”
The DC Circuit opinion in Trump v. United States, which took about a month from oral arguments to produce, painstakingly covered relevant precedent as it concluded, “For the purpose of this criminal case, former 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.”
Based on existing precedent, Trump indeed may lack “a fair prospect of success” on his broad claim that would shield him from any criminal prosecution. But Wednesday’s action demonstrates that a majority of the justices were open to at least hearing him out.
Impact on the court’s busy schedule
For the court, the Trump litigation this session will be defining. Itsslate for the annual 2023-2024 session already held several important disputes, including one over federal regulation of the abortion pill Mifepristone, to be heard in March. The justices are considering several other regulatory controversies that will test federal power over public safety, environmental protection and consumer affairs.
Such cases have been overshadowed in some respects by the Trump-related litigation. Earlier in February, the Supreme Court held a special oral argument session on whether states could keep Trump off presidential ballots under a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding future office.
The justices appeared ready to reverse a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that would prevent Trump from running for office because of his attempts to overturn the valid 2020 election results.
That Supreme Court ruling was expected to come soon. But the drafting of opinions in that first one may now become entangled and possibly delayed by the resolution of this second one.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I trust court watchers more than cnn or other for profit news businesses.
look for the independent analysis/analysts
Which is fine but is there anything in the CNN post reporting that’s not accurate or true?
do you read reporting you dont trust? I dont. whats the point of that?
I’m asking if what they’re reporting in the article I linked to is untrustworthy, misleading or inaccurate. Check your independent sources and report back, would you please? It’s lazy to assume that because it’s “corporate” or “lamestream” or “fake news” to assume that it is on the face of it. Now, if you want to point to certain statements, make a claim and back it up, I’m all eyes. That’s all.
You don’t trust CNN, got it. Doesn’t mean their reporting is not accurate.
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
It's actually probably a surprise that we made it this long. SCOTUS members get lifelong appointments to very prestigious (and comparatively unscruitinized) seats. When to vacate a seat is very political/strategic.* Seems ripe for some quid pro quo. And I'm sure there are some bad players from history I'm not aware of. But this is the most party/person-serving group we've had. And it's kinda surprising it hasn't happened before.
The Constitution was a pretty impressive document, but it's got big flaws. Lifetime appointments seems like one of them to me. And now we're going to be a theocracy.
*Speaking of which, not much is made of it, but I'll never believe Kennedy's sudden retirement was not under some kind of threat.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
It's actually probably a surprise that we made it this long. SCOTUS members get lifelong appointments to very prestigious (and comparatively unscruitinized) seats. When to vacate a seat is very political/strategic.* Seems ripe for some quid pro quo. And I'm sure there are some bad players from history I'm not aware of. But this is the most party/person-serving group we've had. And it's kinda surprising it hasn't happened before.
The Constitution was a pretty impressive document, but it's got big flaws. Lifetime appointments seems like one of them to me. And now we're going to be a theocracy.
*Speaking of which, not much is made of it, but I'll never believe Kennedy's sudden retirement was not under some kind of threat.
It hasn't happened to this point because for over 200 years we had men of integrity giving out the appointments and receiving the appointments. Once the Repubs and scum bag McConnell decided power was more important than integrity and the country we have gone down this path. Throw in a immoral President and we end up with what we now have. The only way things will change is if the Dems win big in both the House and Senate and have the balls to change to court. I think they might win big but not have the balls to stack the court and change the rules of the court.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,769
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
It's actually probably a surprise that we made it this long. SCOTUS members get lifelong appointments to very prestigious (and comparatively unscruitinized) seats. When to vacate a seat is very political/strategic.* Seems ripe for some quid pro quo. And I'm sure there are some bad players from history I'm not aware of. But this is the most party/person-serving group we've had. And it's kinda surprising it hasn't happened before.
The Constitution was a pretty impressive document, but it's got big flaws. Lifetime appointments seems like one of them to me. And now we're going to be a theocracy.
*Speaking of which, not much is made of it, but I'll never believe Kennedy's sudden retirement was not under some kind of threat.
"It's actually probably a surprise that we made it this long."
Yeah, I've felt like we have been in this long-extended free fall for about 50 years now. Somehow we keep from going down altogether. I don't like our odds these days, but I can't give up hope completely.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,769
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
It's actually probably a surprise that we made it this long. SCOTUS members get lifelong appointments to very prestigious (and comparatively unscruitinized) seats. When to vacate a seat is very political/strategic.* Seems ripe for some quid pro quo. And I'm sure there are some bad players from history I'm not aware of. But this is the most party/person-serving group we've had. And it's kinda surprising it hasn't happened before.
The Constitution was a pretty impressive document, but it's got big flaws. Lifetime appointments seems like one of them to me. And now we're going to be a theocracy.
*Speaking of which, not much is made of it, but I'll never believe Kennedy's sudden retirement was not under some kind of threat.
It hasn't happened to this point because for over 200 years we had men of integrity giving out the appointments and receiving the appointments. Once the Repubs and scum bag McConnell decided power was more important than integrity and the country we have gone down this path. Throw in a immoral President and we end up with what we now have. The only way things will change is if the Dems win big in both the House and Senate and have the balls to change to court. I think they might win big but not have the balls to stack the court and change the rules of the court.
That points out a major beef I have with the Dems- they have not been nearly dynamic enough, and they mostly lack the cajones needed to overpower the bull-in-a-China-shop MAGA republicans. It's time for democratic lawmakers to stop fucking around and get tough.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
It's actually probably a surprise that we made it this long. SCOTUS members get lifelong appointments to very prestigious (and comparatively unscruitinized) seats. When to vacate a seat is very political/strategic.* Seems ripe for some quid pro quo. And I'm sure there are some bad players from history I'm not aware of. But this is the most party/person-serving group we've had. And it's kinda surprising it hasn't happened before.
The Constitution was a pretty impressive document, but it's got big flaws. Lifetime appointments seems like one of them to me. And now we're going to be a theocracy.
*Speaking of which, not much is made of it, but I'll never believe Kennedy's sudden retirement was not under some kind of threat.
It hasn't happened to this point because for over 200 years we had men of integrity giving out the appointments and receiving the appointments. Once the Repubs and scum bag McConnell decided power was more important than integrity and the country we have gone down this path. Throw in a immoral President and we end up with what we now have. The only way things will change is if the Dems win big in both the House and Senate and have the balls to change to court. I think they might win big but not have the balls to stack the court and change the rules of the court.
That points out a major beef I have with the Dems- they have not been nearly dynamic enough, and they mostly lack the cajones needed to overpower the bull-in-a-China-shop MAGA republicans. It's time for democratic lawmakers to stop fucking around and get tough.
They have never really seemed to understand that gravity of the situation.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
It's actually probably a surprise that we made it this long. SCOTUS members get lifelong appointments to very prestigious (and comparatively unscruitinized) seats. When to vacate a seat is very political/strategic.* Seems ripe for some quid pro quo. And I'm sure there are some bad players from history I'm not aware of. But this is the most party/person-serving group we've had. And it's kinda surprising it hasn't happened before.
The Constitution was a pretty impressive document, but it's got big flaws. Lifetime appointments seems like one of them to me. And now we're going to be a theocracy.
*Speaking of which, not much is made of it, but I'll never believe Kennedy's sudden retirement was not under some kind of threat.
It hasn't happened to this point because for over 200 years we had men of integrity giving out the appointments and receiving the appointments. Once the Repubs and scum bag McConnell decided power was more important than integrity and the country we have gone down this path. Throw in a immoral President and we end up with what we now have. The only way things will change is if the Dems win big in both the House and Senate and have the balls to change to court. I think they might win big but not have the balls to stack the court and change the rules of the court.
That points out a major beef I have with the Dems- they have not been nearly dynamic enough, and they mostly lack the cajones needed to overpower the bull-in-a-China-shop MAGA republicans. It's time for democratic lawmakers to stop fucking around and get tough.
They have never really seemed to understand that gravity of the situation.
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
It's actually probably a surprise that we made it this long. SCOTUS members get lifelong appointments to very prestigious (and comparatively unscruitinized) seats. When to vacate a seat is very political/strategic.* Seems ripe for some quid pro quo. And I'm sure there are some bad players from history I'm not aware of. But this is the most party/person-serving group we've had. And it's kinda surprising it hasn't happened before.
The Constitution was a pretty impressive document, but it's got big flaws. Lifetime appointments seems like one of them to me. And now we're going to be a theocracy.
*Speaking of which, not much is made of it, but I'll never believe Kennedy's sudden retirement was not under some kind of threat.
It hasn't happened to this point because for over 200 years we had men of integrity giving out the appointments and receiving the appointments. Once the Repubs and scum bag McConnell decided power was more important than integrity and the country we have gone down this path. Throw in a immoral President and we end up with what we now have. The only way things will change is if the Dems win big in both the House and Senate and have the balls to change to court. I think they might win big but not have the balls to stack the court and change the rules of the court.
That points out a major beef I have with the Dems- they have not been nearly dynamic enough, and they mostly lack the cajones needed to overpower the bull-in-a-China-shop MAGA republicans. It's time for democratic lawmakers to stop fucking around and get tough.
They have never really seemed to understand that gravity of the situation.
Who are "they?" Elected dems, dem voters, who?
Elected Dems is what I meant...but there's plenty of that to go around.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,932
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Yeah, when I read about this latest move I just shook my head. How in the hell did we get here? How is it that the majority of Americans are at least not in favor of- if not down right horrified by- all this anti-democracy control, and yet it keeps happening again and again? Some days I'm at my wits end.
It's actually probably a surprise that we made it this long. SCOTUS members get lifelong appointments to very prestigious (and comparatively unscruitinized) seats. When to vacate a seat is very political/strategic.* Seems ripe for some quid pro quo. And I'm sure there are some bad players from history I'm not aware of. But this is the most party/person-serving group we've had. And it's kinda surprising it hasn't happened before.
The Constitution was a pretty impressive document, but it's got big flaws. Lifetime appointments seems like one of them to me. And now we're going to be a theocracy.
*Speaking of which, not much is made of it, but I'll never believe Kennedy's sudden retirement was not under some kind of threat.
It hasn't happened to this point because for over 200 years we had men of integrity giving out the appointments and receiving the appointments. Once the Repubs and scum bag McConnell decided power was more important than integrity and the country we have gone down this path. Throw in a immoral President and we end up with what we now have. The only way things will change is if the Dems win big in both the House and Senate and have the balls to change to court. I think they might win big but not have the balls to stack the court and change the rules of the court.
That points out a major beef I have with the Dems- they have not been nearly dynamic enough, and they mostly lack the cajones needed to overpower the bull-in-a-China-shop MAGA republicans. It's time for democratic lawmakers to stop fucking around and get tough.
They have never really seemed to understand that gravity of the situation.
Who are "they?" Elected dems, dem voters, who?
Elected Dems is what I meant...but there's plenty of that to go around.
I'm not sure that Nancy Pelosi's dem controlled house holding two impeachment hearings and offering it up to the senate to convict is the same as "they have never really seemed to understand the gravity of the situation."
Comments
Does anyone know which Justice covers the Georgia (11th Circuit)?
The good news is that if presidents do have immunity unless impeached and convicted, Biden can easily send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. There won't be 60 votes to convict in the senate.
In my way of thinking, SCOTUS should have allowed for a trial ASAP and upon conviction, POOTWH could appeal, and if successful, assume office. If failed, can’t assume office as a convicted felon. Seems cleaner, allows for the ‘Murican people to hear the evidence and a jury to decide his fate. The way it should be.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The fix is in. A substantial percentage of Repubs wouldn’t vote for him upon conviction. If POOTWH’s found innocent, then he can crow his way to victory in a landslide. Holding off on this process is the sham.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Everyone needs to take a step back and look at the big picture. It’s not the poll of yesterday or today or tomorrow. It’s waaaaaay beyond that. It’s all of the SHIT, some big, some small, that is happening and who and what is at play and driving this. February 28, 2024 may very well be the day democracy died.
I’d be happy to lay it all out and vote in a Biden vs. POOTWH 2024 Vote Now thread but “POOTWH” in a thread title won’t pass muster and I shan’t type that fuck’s name.
And they were singing, “bye bye miss American pie, drove my Chevy to the levee but the levee was dry and good old boys were drinking whiskey and rye singing this’ll be the day that I die, the day, democracy died.”
Keep those passports up to date, valid and handy.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I'm surprised that SCOTUS took this but I wonder if the idea is to put the whole fucking idea to rest once and for all.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The court said Trump’s appeal would be heard the week of April 22. A decision could come by the end of June when the final rulings for the current session are expected.
Overall, the timetable is fast compared to the regular calendar for high court briefing, oral arguments, and eventual resolution, which typically plays out over many months or close to a year. (Other cases accepted this month for review will not be heard until next fall, with decisions likely in 2025.)
But for the political calendar, and Trump’s effort to avoid federal trial before the presidential election, the new schedule injects a new level of uncertainty. Trump may not be tried for his conduct related to the 2020 election before the 2024 election occurs.
Wednesday’s announcement took a surprising amount of time to even deliver. Filings in the case had been pending for about two weeks, and the delay perhaps suggested differences among the justices on how to handle the controversy at this threshold stage. Some might have wanted to simply leave in place the DC Circuit decision, which hewed to past high court rulings.
The justices did not publicly reveal how they voted.
‘Crimes strike at the heart of our democracy’
Trump was indicted last year on charges relating to his refusal to accept the 2020 election results and includes conspiracy and obstruction charges tied to protests that culminated in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
Smith, earlier this month, cited the nature of the alleged crimes as he urged the justices to let the DC Circuit decision against presidential immunity stand and allow the case to go to trial.
“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy,” the special counsel wrote in court papers. “A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law. … (He) cannot show, as he must to merit a stay, a fair prospect of success in this Court.”
In December, Smith, aware of how long resolution at the Supreme Court could take, urged the justices to immediately take up the case, without intermediate court action. At that point, Trump’s trial before US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who had rejected his claim of absolute immunity, was scheduled for March 4.
The justices denied Smith’s request in a one-sentence order, with no explanation, on December 22. The case went through the DC US Circuit Court of Appeals, where the special counsel won, leading to Trump’s current appeal.
As they urged the justices to intervene, Trump’s lawyers invoked some of Smith’s words from his December filing, when the special counsel wanted the justices to swiftly get involved: “As the Special Counsel emphatically stated in December, ‘(i)t is of imperative public importance that (President Trump’s) claims of immunity be resolved by this Court,’ and ‘only this Court can definitively resolve them.’”
The DC Circuit opinion in Trump v. United States, which took about a month from oral arguments to produce, painstakingly covered relevant precedent as it concluded, “For the purpose of this criminal case, former 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.”
Based on existing precedent, Trump indeed may lack “a fair prospect of success” on his broad claim that would shield him from any criminal prosecution. But Wednesday’s action demonstrates that a majority of the justices were open to at least hearing him out.
Impact on the court’s busy schedule
For the court, the Trump litigation this session will be defining. Its slate for the annual 2023-2024 session already held several important disputes, including one over federal regulation of the abortion pill Mifepristone, to be heard in March. The justices are considering several other regulatory controversies that will test federal power over public safety, environmental protection and consumer affairs.
Such cases have been overshadowed in some respects by the Trump-related litigation. Earlier in February, the Supreme Court held a special oral argument session on whether states could keep Trump off presidential ballots under a constitutional provision barring insurrectionists from holding future office.
The justices appeared ready to reverse a Colorado Supreme Court ruling that would prevent Trump from running for office because of his attempts to overturn the valid 2020 election results.
That Supreme Court ruling was expected to come soon. But the drafting of opinions in that first one may now become entangled and possibly delayed by the resolution of this second one.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/28/politics/supreme-court-immunity-trump-biskupic-analysis/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
do you read reporting you dont trust? I dont. whats the point of that?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
You don’t trust CNN, got it. Doesn’t mean their reporting is not accurate.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The Constitution was a pretty impressive document, but it's got big flaws. Lifetime appointments seems like one of them to me. And now we're going to be a theocracy.
*Speaking of which, not much is made of it, but I'll never believe Kennedy's sudden retirement was not under some kind of threat.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
That points out a major beef I have with the Dems- they have not been nearly dynamic enough, and they mostly lack the cajones needed to overpower the bull-in-a-China-shop MAGA republicans. It's time for democratic lawmakers to stop fucking around and get tough.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©