Jump to content

US Politics Thread


Sharpshooter

Recommended Posts

BTW: I'm guessing the "Chicken Shit" comment by Michael Cohen is referring to trump's decision to back out of testifying in his NY Fraud trial.

 

The issue here is, he would have had to face a cross examination and there is now tape of him inflating the size and value of his Penthouse, even though he claimed that his accountants were to blame for the misrepresentation.

 

It was a perjury charge waiting to happen....

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Special counsel Jack Smith asks Supreme Court to rule quickly on whether Trump can be prosecuted

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to take up and rule quickly on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election results.

 

A federal judge ruled the case could go forward, but Trump, 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner, signaled he would ask the federal appeals court in Washington to reverse that outcome.

 

Smith is attempting to bypass the appeals court. The request filed Monday for the Supreme Court to take up the matter directly reflects Smith’s desire to keep the trial, currently set for March 4, on track and to prevent any delays that could push back the case until after next year’s presidential election.

 

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.

 

The earliest the court would consider the appeal would be Jan. 5, 2024, the date of the justices' next scheduled private conference.

 

Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors in securing a quick resolution that can push the case forward, they wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”

 

At issue is a Dec. 1 ruling from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan that rejected arguments by Trump’s lawyers that he was immune from federal prosecution. In her order, Chutkan, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, wrote that the office of the president “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.”

 

“Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."

 

If the justices get involved, they would have an opportunity to rule for the first time ever on whether ex-presidents enjoy immunity from prosecution. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Though there’s no such bar against prosecution for a former commander in chief, lawyers for Trump say that he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

 

Smith’s team stressed that if the court did not expedite the matter, there would not be an opportunity to consider and resolve the question in the current term.

 

“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request. This is an extraordinary case,” prosecutors wrote. “The Court should grant certiorari and set a briefing schedule that would permit this case to be argued and resolved as promptly as possible.”

 

Prosecutors are also asking the court to take up Trump’s claim, also already rejected by Chutkan, that he cannot be prosecuted in court for conduct for which he was was already impeached — and acquitted — before Congress.

 

Trump faces charges accusing him of working to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden before the violent riot by his supporters at the U.S. Capitol. He has denied any wrongdoing.

 

A Supreme Court case usually lasts several months, from the time the justices agree to hear it until a final decision. Smith is asking the court to move with unusual, but not unprecedented, speed.

 

Nearly 50 years ago, the justices acted within two months of being asked to force President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings in the Watergate scandal. The tapes were then used later in 1974 in the corruption prosecutions of Nixon's former aides.

 

It took the high court just a few days to effectively decide the 2000 presidential election for Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Clowns and trials, apparently Rudy G turned up at his Defamation trial 20 minutes late....

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/judge-visibly-annoyed-after-rudy-giuliani-shows-up-20-minutes-late-to-defamation-trial/ar-AA1llFvB?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d063a5ec5c004e8394d7ee6aa517b53e&ei=18

 

I have to imagine the amount up the settlement just went up....

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RupertKBD said:

Speaking of Clowns and trials, apparently Rudy G turned up at his Defamation trial 20 minutes late....

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/judge-visibly-annoyed-after-rudy-giuliani-shows-up-20-minutes-late-to-defamation-trial/ar-AA1llFvB?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=d063a5ec5c004e8394d7ee6aa517b53e&ei=18

 

I have to imagine the amount up the settlement just went up....

The doesn't show up when he was supposed to.  Then shows up late.  Not a good look their Mr. Mayor.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

Steve Doocy Derails Fox & Friends Impeachment Segment: Republicans Have ‘Not Shown’ Joe Biden ‘Did Anything Illegally’

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/steve-doocy-derails-fox-friends-impeachment-segment-republicans-have-not-shown-where-joe-biden-did-anything-illegally/

 

Hilarious....4 clowns desperately trying to tie Joe Biden to something "unethical".....Meanwhile, the guy they support is facing 91 criminal charges over 4 indictments....:classic_rolleyes:

 

How on earth does anyone with a functioning brain put CNN, or MSNBC on the same level as these disinformation pedlars?

  • Cheers 3
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sabrefan1 said:

I know you all were waiting with bated breath for this brand new network...  😆

 

 

 

 

 

 

No thanks..

 

And this response has been edited and revised 9743964 times since first reading in order to make it more palatable for CFFC.

😂😂😂

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Fortune 500 company in their right mind would continue to advertise on Twitter/X with this embrace of Alex Jones and Carlson peddling their libellous, hateful trash.

 

Prediction - eventually Musk will sell Twitter for pennies on the dollar. It will go down as one of the biggest corporate losses of all time. He might even sell it back to Jack Dorsey.

Edited by nuckin_futz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Arrogant Worms said:

LOL at free thinkers watching Tucker.

 

It's the complete opposite.

 

People on both the left and right only want an echo chamber that says what they want to believe is true.  He will lose money and won't get viewers if he doesn't at least become a smaller in size Fox News clone.  His audience is the same Fox-News loving Republicans he talked to with his old show.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, nuckin_futz said:

No Fortune 500 company in their right mind would continue to advertise on Twitter/X with this embrace of Alex Jones and Carlson peddling their libellous, hateful trash.

 

Prediction - eventually Musk will sell Twitter for pennies on the dollar. It will go down as one of the biggest corporate losses of all time. He might even sell it back to Jack Dorsey.

 

I think he'll let it shrivel and die before he sells it for cheap.

 

The only way he sells it rather than letting it go into the dirt is if his minor investors threaten lawsuits if he doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...