Jack Smith: Laughingstock

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

no, it goes to appeals court Jan 10.  they can decide to take it soon after or better yet, they can punt.  that's my bet.  dumbass.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna130769

Edited December 22, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[BillsFanNC]

 ⬆️ 

 

Quack, MD : Laughingstock 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Just now, BillsFanNC said:

 ⬆️ 

 

Quack, MD : Laughingstock 

 

God you're witty.  oops, only half correct.  dimwit.  Not the one that didn't understand the meaning of this story.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Another story NC won't understand

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-brag-supreme-court-race/?cx_testId=6&cx_testVariant=cx_1&cx_artPos=2&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

[njbuff]

Jack Smith was on the receiving end from that ***** Dem staffer.

[Doc]

Jack looks like he's close to breaking.  I don't know if he actually is, he just looks like it.  He needs more laughter in his life.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Doc

[All_Pro_Bills]

Smith needed the expedited request granted in order to try the case during the primary season and acquire a conviction in the DC Kangaroo Court before the general election in November.  That would facilitate additional legal actions that would interfere with the campaign and election.  But the SCOTUS denial of his request likely pushes the timeline back to after the election.  And that's too late for a verdict to impact the outcome.  One obvious message is the Supreme Court justices don't want to get involved in determining the outcome of the election.  Where that leaves things now is several motions for dismissal denied by the judge will need to work their way through the appeals process before a trial can begin.  A Supreme Court ruling on the case would have nullified these appeals.  

Edited December 23, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[BillStime]

16 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 ⬆️ 

 

Quack, MD : Laughingstock 

 

No - that would you be you - our resident psyop and race baiter.

 

You're an idiot if you think this has anything to do w the merits of the case.

 

But I get it Karen - you have to celebrate your wins no matter how inconsequential. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

10 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Smith needed the expedited request granted in order to try the case during the primary season and acquire a conviction in the DC Kangaroo Court before the general election in November.  That would facilitate additional legal actions that would interfere with the campaign and election.  But the SCOTUS denial of his request likely pushes the timeline back to after the election.  And that's too late for a verdict to impact the outcome.  One obvious message is the Supreme Court justices don't want to get involved in determining the outcome of the election.  Where that leaves things now is several motions for dismissal denied by the judge will need to work their way through the appeals process before a trial can begin.  A Supreme Court ruling on the case would have nullified these appeals.  

A lot of people seem to be drawing unfounded conclusions here.

Trump tweeted (truth-socialed?) something about how the Supreme Court thankfully decided to follow "our great constitution"

There is nothing implicating the constitution here. The constitution established the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to set up lower (trial and initially appeals) courts. Congress did that. So the normal rules of court (NOT of the constitution) say you appeal first to the first-level appeals court, then if your appeal is denied you can ask the Supreme Court to hear it. Rules, not "our great constitution."

And like any rules, there's exceptions. Usually you have to wait for the trial court to hear the entire case before you can appeal. So it's verdict (guilty/not guilty), then sentencing, then appeal. But the rules allow you to ask a higher court to hear an appeal of a particular issue before the final judgment. That's called an "interlocutory appeal" (fancy word for "an appeal in the middle of a trial court proceeding"). It's unusual  to grant these requests.

Here, I think the Supreme Court should have agreed to hear the issue of immunity. As I said, it is a pure issue of law: is the President immune from prosecution from any and everything illegal he may have done while he was President? There's no issues of fact that need to be decided by the trial court first. By denying to hear the case now, it makes things even messier. If the Supreme Court had said yes, he's immune, the case is dismissed. Over. Done. If they say no, he's not immune, Trump's defense team can concentrate their resources on other issues of fact and law.

What happens now? A lot of people seem to think that the trial judge will kick the case forward indefinitely. I don't think so. I think the first level appeals court probably also says it's premature to hear the appeal. And so we're back to square one. Maybe with some delay, but trial by late spring/early summer. Or maybe (worst case scenario) after the convention. Or even worse: in the lame duck period if Trump wins. That's something everyone should want to avoid. 

The constitution says nothing about whether the Supreme Court should have stepped in now. It's a pure judgment call. I think it was a mistake for them not to.

[John from Riverside]

On 12/22/2023 at 2:09 PM, BillsFanNC said:

 

Did you ever get tired of being wrong?

22 hours ago, Doc said:

Jack looks like he's close to breaking.  I don't know if he actually is, he just looks like it.  He needs more laughter in his life.

Jack Smith looks the same as he has from the beginning he looks like a dark age inquisitor

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

A lot of people seem to be drawing unfounded conclusions here.

Trump tweeted (truth-socialed?) something about how the Supreme Court thankfully decided to follow "our great constitution"

There is nothing implicating the constitution here. The constitution established the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to set up lower (trial and initially appeals) courts. Congress did that. So the normal rules of court (NOT of the constitution) say you appeal first to the first-level appeals court, then if your appeal is denied you can ask the Supreme Court to hear it. Rules, not "our great constitution."

And like any rules, there's exceptions. Usually you have to wait for the trial court to hear the entire case before you can appeal. So it's verdict (guilty/not guilty), then sentencing, then appeal. But the rules allow you to ask a higher court to hear an appeal of a particular issue before the final judgment. That's called an "interlocutory appeal" (fancy word for "an appeal in the middle of a trial court proceeding"). It's unusual  to grant these requests.

Here, I think the Supreme Court should have agreed to hear the issue of immunity. As I said, it is a pure issue of law: is the President immune from prosecution from any and everything illegal he may have done while he was President? There's no issues of fact that need to be decided by the trial court first. By denying to hear the case now, it makes things even messier. If the Supreme Court had said yes, he's immune, the case is dismissed. Over. Done. If they say no, he's not immune, Trump's defense team can concentrate their resources on other issues of fact and law.

What happens now? A lot of people seem to think that the trial judge will kick the case forward indefinitely. I don't think so. I think the first level appeals court probably also says it's premature to hear the appeal. And so we're back to square one. Maybe with some delay, but trial by late spring/early summer. Or maybe (worst case scenario) after the convention. Or even worse: in the lame duck period if Trump wins. That's something everyone should want to avoid. 

The constitution says nothing about whether the Supreme Court should have stepped in now. It's a pure judgment call. I think it was a mistake for them not to.

From the outside looking in, It certainly appears to be a rebuke of the SC.  You’ve laid out the facts as you see them quite reasonably.  Perhaps that was Smith’s thinking, too.  But in the end, his request was rejected, almost as if to say “Slow down, Jack, let’s follow the normal process to avoid the appearance of a partisan witch hunt deigned to 🤬 with the election”. 
 

Put another way, there is a lot riding in this.  The stage is being set for what future political skirmishes might look like, and when the SC swings and misses on a grand scale, it looks like a rush to judgement and kind of sloppy. 
 

On your second point, why should “everyone” want to avoid the matter being decided after a Trump win, of course, assuming he wins?  I’d assume most Trump supporters would want an adverse decision to come when there was theoretically a chance for him to push back. 

[John from Riverside]

14 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

From the outside looking in, It certainly appears to be a rebuke of the SC.  You’ve laid out the facts as you see them quite reasonably.  Perhaps that was Smith’s thinking, too.  But in the end, his request was rejected, almost as if to say “Slow down, Jack, let’s follow the normal process to avoid the appearance of a partisan witch hunt deigned to 🤬 with the election”. 
 

Put another way, there is a lot riding in this.  The stage is being set for what future political skirmishes might look like, and when the SC swings and misses on a grand scale, it looks like a rush to judgement and kind of sloppy. 
 

On your second point, why should “everyone” want to avoid the matter being decided after a Trump win, of course, assuming he wins?  I’d assume most Trump supporters would want an adverse decision to come when there was theoretically a chance for him to push back. 

The only rebuke that I actually see from the Supreme Court is that they don’t want to make a quick decision
 

I actually don’t fault for that

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

The only rebuke that I actually see from the Supreme Court is that they don’t want to make a quick decision
 

I actually don’t fault for that

Hmm, rebuke might not be the right word. 
 

Smith doesn’t push the plan unless he’s certain he is right to do so, and certain to win.  By sending him back to school, a message is sent as well. 
 

Ah, cr@p, I’m sticking with rebuke. 

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Hmm, rebuke might not be the right word. 
 

Smith doesn’t push the plan unless he’s certain he is right to do so, and certain to win.  By sending him back to school, a message is sent as well. 
 

Ah, cr@p, I’m sticking with rebuke. 

What message do you think is being sent?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

What message do you think is being sent?

That the SC appeal to expedite the resolution by stepping outside the normal process followed was a very bad idea. 
 

Smith is pursuing a criminal case against a former president, with a high percentage of the population thinking its a partisan attack AND that Biden has acted unethically….do you think Smith doesn’t understand the gravity of his request? The message sent in rejecting it?  
 

He’s not in this to lose. 

Edited December 24, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[EasternOHBillsFan]

On 12/22/2023 at 5:09 PM, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

TRUMP is the laughingstock... of the WORLD no less. FOUR different court venues for four different cases from varying degrees of criminality.

[John from Riverside]

1 hour ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

TRUMP is the laughingstock... of the WORLD no less. FOUR different court venues for four different cases from varying degrees of criminality.

The only people that don’t see this are people that are OK having a president that’s a felon

[Doc]

2 hours ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

TRUMP is the laughingstock... of the WORLD no less. FOUR different court venues for four different cases from varying degrees of criminality.

 

Meanwhile with Biden, they're shaking their heads at how incompetent and feeble he looks...to the WORLD no less.

[The Frankish Reich]

So here's what's really happening:

- Trial Court Judge Chutkan ruled "no immunity from criminal acts committed while serving as President"

- TRUMP's team (TRUMP's team) filed an interlocutory appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, asking them to rule on that issue before he goes to trial.

- Jack Smith filed a petition straight to the Supreme Court, saying "let's settle this once and for all before the highest court in the land before going to trial." The Supreme Court said: Sorry. Not this time.

- The DC Circuit has accepted the interlocutory appeal and set a briefing schedule. A pretty fast one. They'll decide the issue quickly. Point of interest: it's a panel of 3 judges. One appointed by Bush 41, two by Biden. Pretty much nobody thinks that any panel, regardless of who appointed them, would rule that he has general immunity forevermore. The best you could get is "immune from acts that primarily/significantly/something like that stem from his official Presidential duties." So it'll go back to Judge Chutkan to hold the trial.

- What happens then? Well, the tables are turned! It'll be TRUMP asking the Supreme Court to intervene by (you guessed it) filing an emergency petition for an exceptional interlocutory appeal ("a writ of certiorari during the pendency of a proceeding.")

 

Any defendant prefers delay if he's not in custody. Always and everywhere. And that's doubly true for a guy who could escape answering charges for 5 years if he's elected again.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So here's what's really happening:

- Trial Court Judge Chutkan ruled "no immunity from criminal acts committed while serving as President"

- TRUMP's team (TRUMP's team) filed an interlocutory appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, asking them to rule on that issue before he goes to trial.

- Jack Smith filed a petition straight to the Supreme Court, saying "let's settle this once and for all before the highest court in the land before going to trial." The Supreme Court said: Sorry. Not this time.

- The DC Circuit has accepted the interlocutory appeal and set a briefing schedule. A pretty fast one. They'll decide the issue quickly. Point of interest: it's a panel of 3 judges. One appointed by Bush 41, two by Biden. Pretty much nobody thinks that any panel, regardless of who appointed them, would rule that he has general immunity forevermore. The best you could get is "immune from acts that primarily/significantly/something like that stem from his official Presidential duties." So it'll go back to Judge Chutkan to hold the trial.

- What happens then? Well, the tables are turned! It'll be TRUMP asking the Supreme Court to intervene by (you guessed it) filing an emergency petition for an exceptional interlocutory appeal ("a writ of certiorari during the pendency of a proceeding.")

 

Any defendant prefers delay if he's not in custody. Always and everywhere. And that's doubly true for a guy who could escape answering charges for 5 years if he's elected again.

Interesting.  Why do you think the Supreme Court said “not this time”?  clearly Smith thought he had an angle, and you’ve commented as such.  
 

Why did the SC think it was an unreasonable move? 

[The Frankish Reich]

17 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Interesting.  Why do you think the Supreme Court said “not this time”?  clearly Smith thought he had an angle, and you’ve commented as such.  
 

Why did the SC think it was an unreasonable move? 

First, Merry Christmas!

To answer your question, let's think about what happens now:

- The Appeals Court (likely) denies Trump's immunity claim, he appeals that to the Supreme Court.

- The Supreme Court has to decide all over again whether to jump in now (rather than earlier) and is seen as a political body seeking to rescue Trump

- Or they decline to hear the case now (applying the usual "wait for the judgment on all issues," particularly since Trump could be acquitted at trial) and we may get a guilty verdict that is subject to being overturned AFTER the election.

 

All of those are worse scenarios than deciding it right away. There's no strict rule on when the Supreme Court takes jurisdiction. Right now, it's about trying to resolve issues fairly and as early as possible. 

 

That's my take.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

First, Merry Christmas!

To answer your question, let's think about what happens now:

- The Appeals Court (likely) denies Trump's immunity claim, he appeals that to the Supreme Court.

- The Supreme Court has to decide all over again whether to jump in now (rather than earlier) and is seen as a political body seeking to rescue Trump

- Or they decline to hear the case now (applying the usual "wait for the judgment on all issues," particularly since Trump could be acquitted at trial) and we may get a guilty verdict that is subject to being overturned AFTER the election.

 

All of those are worse scenarios than deciding it right away. There's no strict rule on when the Supreme Court takes jurisdiction. Right now, it's about trying to resolve issues fairly and as early as possible. 

 

That's my take.

Thanks Frankish, I appreciate the reply.  I hope you and your family have an awesome and Merry Christmas as well!  

Edited December 25, 2023 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Joe Ferguson forever]

22 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

So here's what's really happening:

- Trial Court Judge Chutkan ruled "no immunity from criminal acts committed while serving as President"

- TRUMP's team (TRUMP's team) filed an interlocutory appeal to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, asking them to rule on that issue before he goes to trial.

- Jack Smith filed a petition straight to the Supreme Court, saying "let's settle this once and for all before the highest court in the land before going to trial." The Supreme Court said: Sorry. Not this time.

- The DC Circuit has accepted the interlocutory appeal and set a briefing schedule. A pretty fast one. They'll decide the issue quickly. Point of interest: it's a panel of 3 judges. One appointed by Bush 41, two by Biden. Pretty much nobody thinks that any panel, regardless of who appointed them, would rule that he has general immunity forevermore. The best you could get is "immune from acts that primarily/significantly/something like that stem from his official Presidential duties." So it'll go back to Judge Chutkan to hold the trial.

- What happens then? Well, the tables are turned! It'll be TRUMP asking the Supreme Court to intervene by (you guessed it) filing an emergency petition for an exceptional interlocutory appeal ("a writ of certiorari during the pendency of a proceeding.")

 

Any defendant prefers delay if he's not in custody. Always and everywhere. And that's doubly true for a guy who could escape answering charges for 5 years if he's elected again.

in essence, he's scum

Edited December 25, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[BillsFanNC]

Now why should the jury hear any inconvenient j6 evidence in a case about j6?

 

 

Laughingstock

 

 

 

[Westside]

On 12/22/2023 at 5:44 PM, Joe Ferguson forever said:

God you're witty.  oops, only half correct.  dimwit.  Not the one that didn't understand the meaning of this story.

Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Just now, Westside said:

Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

prove me wrong, loser.  cite a reference.  btw, not all crime is violent, Thank God....

Edited December 27, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[BillStime]

39 minutes ago, Westside said:

Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Reality is tough for you.

[Tommy Callahan]

47 minutes ago, Westside said:

Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Its hard to decide if they are truly that ignorant (dont leave the house) and actually believe it.

 

or are purely trolls just trying to get a reply.

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Just now, Tommy Callahan said:

Its hard to decide if they are truly that ignorant (dont leave the house) and actually believe it.

 

or are purely trolls just trying to get a reply.

 

 

 

you readily reply but almost never give answers.  not difficult to "troll" U...

Edited December 27, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[Tommy Callahan]

Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said:

you readily reply but almost never give answers.  not difficult to "troll" U...

Gotta get that reply in.  

 

And your saying you are a troll that makes racist comments for replies?  

 

It's good to know your not an actual racist.  Just a drunk troll. 

 

Lol

[John from Riverside]

On 12/24/2023 at 2:01 PM, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Interesting.  Why do you think the Supreme Court said “not this time”?  clearly Smith thought he had an angle, and you’ve commented as such.  
 

Why did the SC think it was an unreasonable move? 

I took the Supreme Court decision as more not at this time, rather than not this time
 

They wanted more time to rule it pretty fair the Supreme Court asked me

 

But thinking in someway that this is going to delay or derail jacks is laughable

 

I’m telling you right now some of you guys are setting yourself up for disappointment if you actually like Trump because federal prosecutors very seldom lose and he has a lot of at bats

4 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Gotta get that reply in.  

 

And your saying you are a troll that makes racist comments for replies?  

 

It's good to know your not an actual racist.  Just a drunk troll. 

 

Lol

Come from someone who has literally worn out the eye roll emoticon and changed your screen name to do it

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

29 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

I took the Supreme Court decision as more not at this time, rather than not this time
 

They wanted more time to rule it pretty fair the Supreme Court asked me

 

But thinking in someway that this is going to delay or derail jacks is laughable

 

I’m telling you right now some of you guys are setting yourself up for disappointment if you actually like Trump because federal prosecutors very seldom lose and he has a lot of at bats

You don't have to tell me anything, John, it will play out however it plays out.  I'm not anti-Smith, I'm just a citizen watching this incredible thing play out.  I agree with you on federal prosecutors, but that goes back to my original point about selective leaks, the rush to judgement and a setback on something like this.   

 

Virtually every card that can be played in held by the government with no real downside to whether or not Smith wins or loses.  As a result, when he "loses"on an issue like that, I think it's reasonable for people to question his motives.   

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[John from Riverside]

On 12/27/2023 at 10:10 AM, Westside said:

Says the guy who think red states are more violent than blue! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

They are per capita

[Unforgiven]

On 12/23/2023 at 9:08 PM, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

TRUMP is the laughingstock... of the WORLD no less. FOUR different court venues for four different cases from varying degrees of criminality.

No, America is the laughing stock because of dumb$%$# liberalism.

[Tommy Callahan]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

Jack Smith, in Startling Move, Denounces Judge in Documents Case as ‘Wrong’

 

It turns out President Trump isn’t the only one who can unleash a tirade against a judge.

 

Could Smith’s next move be a motion for Cannon to recuse herself?

 

 

https://www.nysun.com/article/jack-smith-in-startling-move-denounces-judge-in-documents-case-as-wrong-and-a-perpetrator-of-manifest-injustice?

 

 

[Doc]

56 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Jack Smith, in Startling Move, Denounces Judge in Documents Case as ‘Wrong’

 

It turns out President Trump isn’t the only one who can unleash a tirade against a judge.

 

Could Smith’s next move be a motion for Cannon to recuse herself?

 

 

https://www.nysun.com/article/jack-smith-in-startling-move-denounces-judge-in-documents-case-as-wrong-and-a-perpetrator-of-manifest-injustice?

 

Jackie boy sees his case dying before his eyes...