Thanks. So I was in the corect section, wasn't raised as part of the appeal before them.
Trump Jan 6 sealed indictment delivered
96,261 Views |
1238 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by aggiehawg
Here is the engineering that the Appeals Court panel has tried to set in motion with its 6 day period for Trump to apply for a Stay and stop the trial in DC.
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) February 7, 2024
As soon as he does, SCO Smith is going to ask SCOTUS to treat the Application for Stay as if it is a Cert Petition, and…
This thread has made it years without being deleted for bull**** like your trolling.
You're new here. Stop it.
You're new here. Stop it.
Full tweet:
Quote:
Here is the engineering that the Appeals Court panel has tried to set in motion with its 6 day period for Trump to apply for a Stay and stop the trial in DC.
As soon as he does, SCO Smith is going to ask SCOTUS to treat the Application for Stay as if it is a Cert Petition, and agree to either take up the case or not take up the case.
That will accelerate the timeline for getting the case back to the District Court for purposes of trial.
It will also put pressure on SCOTUS to hear the case either before the end of the current session in June -- potentially even to set it on a much accelerated time frame over the next 4-6 weeks.
It is really a gamble by Smith and the Court panel that there are now 5 votes on SCOTUS who want to see a Trump trial prior to the Nov. election, and those 5 votes will act to make that happen, i.e., they already plan to deny the immunity claim, so the faster that can happen, the better.
If there are not 5 votes on SCOTUS now, then SCO Smith and the Appeals Court are trying to smoke that out too.
I'm just not convinced there are 5 Justices who want to be drawn into the calendar machinations that the lower court participants want them to engage in. The more defensible position if they want to remain above the fray is simply treat the case as they would any other -- handle it all with normal scheduling.
'Future insurrectionists'
So the justice system is to make the determination as to who is considered a 'future insurrectionist' and bar them from running for political office?
Again, does this sound like a good idea or a workable rule for the continuation of a government based on the Constitution?
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Weissman's faux facade/reputation as a smart/clever litigator has really been completely destroyed by his ludicrous ravings both online and on TV the past couple years.
Apologize for not recalling off of the top of my head if you followed the Mueller thread closely but Team Mueller lawyers were very unimpressive to me. Their indictments were not written well. Their court appearances were often laughable.nortex97 said:
Weissman's faux facade/reputation as a smart/clever litigator has really been completely destroyed by his ludicrous ravings both online and on TV the past couple years.
Forget the name of the firm but the lawyers Internet Research Agency hired in their criminal case brought by Team Mueller but that lawyer ran rings around Mueller's team and made idiots out of them in open court. Quite entertaining to me to watch.
But listening to that entire clip, I am struck as I often am by prosecutors thinking they somehow have a constitutional right to a fair trial, fair to the state. That is weapon's grade stupidity, right there.
ETA: Jack Smith has not been very impressive to date thus far, either.
Haha, yes I think I participated there for essentially the duration. The Weissman/Smith types are weakened by wanting to always surround themselves with people who are less aggressive/smart/totally agreeable with them. Having political connections is fine, but these guys are just dopes.
But there a lawyer I hate but have to admire for his legal prowess, Marc Elias. Truly hate his agenda but the guy is a walking encyclopedia of election law and is effective if not always persuasive to me personally.nortex97 said:
Haha, yes I think I participated there for essentially the duration. The Weissman/Smith types are weakened by wanting to always surround themselves with people who are less aggressive/smart/totally agreeable with them. Having political connections is fine, but these guys are just dopes.
Calling ballsand strikes, have to give him kudos for being more than competent. Elias as a Special Counsel would be a nightmare scenario to me. He would illegally acquire evidence, convince judges he "parallel constructed" that evidence to avoid exclusion and land hard with threats, though veiled, against witnesses even more that Weismann and Grack did to tangential witnesses against Trump. The whole Michael Flynn debacle was a demonstration of extreme overreach, entrapment, duress, threats to family members, Brady and Giglio violations, etc. It was so bad I am actually surprised they managed to give Miranda warnings it was that egregious.
No argument with that. His career/who he works with and knowledge of trial court processes/nuts and bolts are simply not comparable to them.
I ran across this in the Mueller thread the other day, was it Reed Smith firm or something close to this. Seems like the real Mueller killer was the lead attorney Eric Dubelier. Seems like it was a defining moment when the Mueller team made assertions about an entity that didn't even exist at the time they were making accusations about election interference or troll farms or something of the sort. It was an entertaining read if that's the case you're referring to. Even the judge appeared to be dumbfounded by the prosecutions complete failure and unpreparedness.aggiehawg said:Apologize for not recalling off of the top of my head if you followed the Mueller thread closely but Team Mueller lawyers were very unimpressive to me. Their indictments were not written well. Their court appearances were often laughable.nortex97 said:
Weissman's faux facade/reputation as a smart/clever litigator has really been completely destroyed by his ludicrous ravings both online and on TV the past couple years.
Forget the name of the firm but the lawyers Internet Research Agency hired in their criminal case brought by Team Mueller but that lawyer ran rings around Mueller's team and made idiots out of them in open court. Quite entertaining to me to watch.
But listening to that entire clip, I am struck as I often am by prosecutors thinking they somehow have a constitutional right to a fair trial, fair to the state. That is weapon's grade stupidity, right there.
ETA: Jack Smith has not been very impressive to date thus far, either.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience" - Mark Twain
aggiehawg said:
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Nah.
"Delayed justice is justice denied" applies to all litigants. One of its popular historical uses was in reference to civil plaintiffs who couldn't get their case heard due to a lack of judges.
Recall another pithy saying….."Justice is blind." Justice is owed to everyone. Justice isn't only a concept for criminal defendants. The family of a murder victim deserves justice, for example.
Don't mix up the formal 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial with "justice." Those are entirely different concepts.
aggiehawg said:
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Wrong.
Justice delayed really is justice denied here. Not just for Trump but for the American people. This man is running for the highest office. He is not entitled to it and he doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a candidate. We have a right to know if he's guilty of these crimes and these trials should be seen all the way through.
Especially since Trump simply plans to pardon himself if he is elected. Something no other defendant can ever do.
You had 4 years, ain't that some convenient timing ?
How tarded do you have to be to convince yourself that not convicting the most popular political opposition to the regime before the next election, so that half of America isn't able to vote for him, is "denying justice to the American people"?
Making sure half of America can't vote for who they want to is "protecting our democracy", right?
To get there, these sick people have also convinced themselves that an unarmed mob with zero shots fired and zero people killed was an "insurrection". Then they convenced themselves that the politician they're programmed to hate planned and incited the "insurrection" by telling people to peacefully be heard and then telling them to go home after they took zero shots and killed zero people in the "deadly" insurrection.
Making sure half of America can't vote for who they want to is "protecting our democracy", right?
To get there, these sick people have also convinced themselves that an unarmed mob with zero shots fired and zero people killed was an "insurrection". Then they convenced themselves that the politician they're programmed to hate planned and incited the "insurrection" by telling people to peacefully be heard and then telling them to go home after they took zero shots and killed zero people in the "deadly" insurrection.
Hey look, we agree on something! No need to hurry cases through the system, no special treatment.barbacoa taco said:aggiehawg said:
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Wrong.
Justice delayed really is justice denied here. Not just for Trump but for the American people. This man is running for the highest office. He is not entitled to it and he doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a candidate. We have a right to know if he's guilty of these crimes and these trials should be seen all the way through.
Especially since Trump simply plans to pardon himself if he is elected. Something no other defendant can ever do.
Dems all about making it easier to vote by having only one option.
Actually a surprisingly good piece on the Colorado case (oral arguments at SCOTUS today). Scotusblog has a pretty good background as usual on the case.
Section 3 Disqualification and the Cases of John Floyd and Emerson Etheridge - my peerless colleague @baseballcrank continues to produce most essential reading on this subject … https://t.co/Zi82m8CV88
— Andy McCarthy (@AndrewCMcCarthy) February 8, 2024
Quote:
A more interesting case with more parallels to Trump is that of Emerson Etheridge. I have yet to see any serious effort to engage the question of whether the debates over Section 3 addressed Etheridge's conduct. Etheridge, a loyal Tennessee Unionist who opposed secession, was nonetheless a supporter of the Democrats who wanted to thwart the emancipation of slaves and other Republican policies for reconstructing the Southern states. In December 1863, Etheridge (a former member of the House) was serving as clerk of the House of Representatives when the House reconvened after the 1862 midterms.
House Republicans did badly in those midterms, with Speaker Galusha Grow losing his seat, but they still had a 15-seat edge on Democrats and could combine with "unionist" members to retain a majority. Still, their margin was not that large. Etheridge hatched a plan to throw the House to the Democrats by rejecting the credentials of a bunch of Republicans. He prepared in advance by warning Democrats to have all their papers in order so he would have a fig leaf of legality to cover excluding Republicans who weren't similarly prepared. Unfortunately for Etheridge, Republicans got wind of the plot in advance, stopped Etheridge, kept control of the House, and promptly fired him. At the time, Lincoln tamped down talk of punishing him further, quipping that "Emerson ain't worth more than a squirrel load of powder anyway."
After the war, Etheridge's acid criticisms of the governor of Tennessee got him arrested on charges of "attempting to incite the people of Tennessee to reinaugurate revolution and bloodshed, endeavoring to hold up to infamy the chief magistrate of the nation, and even insulting the revered memory of" Lincoln. He was acquitted by a military commission. After failed bids for Congress and the governorship, Etheridge was ultimately elected to the Tennessee senate in 1869, and (so far as I know) seated there without further controversy.
Was Etheridge's plot as clerk of the House tantamount to "engaging in insurrection?" He engaged in no violence and did not seek to oust the House from sovereign power. He was, however, trying to do something very much like what Trump aimed at: preventing the seating of winners of elections in order to throw power over one of the branches of government from one party to the other. His case, rather than Floyd's, presents the better historical test of how far Section 3 reaches.
WHOOP!'91 said:Hey look, we agree on something! No need to hurry cases through the system, no special treatment.barbacoa taco said:aggiehawg said:
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Wrong.
Justice delayed really is justice denied here. Not just for Trump but for the American people. This man is running for the highest office. He is not entitled to it and he doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a candidate. We have a right to know if he's guilty of these crimes and these trials should be seen all the way through.
Especially since Trump simply plans to pardon himself if he is elected. Something no other defendant can ever do.
So allow him to delay it through the election. Essentially admitting his guilt but saying he should delay so no trial ever happens.
That's where we are with Trump supporters now
Speed it up and convict our regime's most popular political opposition before the election so we can protect our "democracy" (TM). We already know he's guilty of something if they accused him of something despite any logic or evidence to the contrary. We already know we have corrupted judges and biased juries who are programmed by the same pravda that I am, so just hurry up and do it already! Even though we already have, by far, the most popular politician to ever grace the USA with his presence, who already destroyed this guy in the last election, which was clearly the most secure election ever, and who happens to be killing it with his awesome national security, foreign affairs, energy, and Bidenomics spending policies so we have nothing to worry about. But we absolutely cannot let this loser run for office again. No one should be able to vote for him or else we don't have a democracy (TM) anymore!!
That's where we are with the TDS-infected now.
That's where we are with the TDS-infected now.
I admitted no guilt and observing normal process is NOT "allowing him to delay" anything. I guess you misspoke when you said Trump doesn't deserve special treatment. Rather you want the special treatment YOU want to try to get him off the ballot. That's called hypocrisy.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:Hey look, we agree on something! No need to hurry cases through the system, no special treatment.barbacoa taco said:aggiehawg said:
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Wrong.
Justice delayed really is justice denied here. Not just for Trump but for the American people. This man is running for the highest office. He is not entitled to it and he doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a candidate. We have a right to know if he's guilty of these crimes and these trials should be seen all the way through.
Especially since Trump simply plans to pardon himself if he is elected. Something no other defendant can ever do.
So allow him to delay it through the election. Essentially admitting his guilt but saying he should delay so no trial ever happens.
That's where we are with Trump supporters now
WHOOP!'91 said:I admitted no guilt and observing normal process is NOT "allowing him to delay" anything. I guess you misspoke when you said Trump doesn't deserve special treatment. Rather you want the special treatment YOU want to try to get him off the ballot. That's called hypocrisy.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:Hey look, we agree on something! No need to hurry cases through the system, no special treatment.barbacoa taco said:aggiehawg said:
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Wrong.
Justice delayed really is justice denied here. Not just for Trump but for the American people. This man is running for the highest office. He is not entitled to it and he doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a candidate. We have a right to know if he's guilty of these crimes and these trials should be seen all the way through.
Especially since Trump simply plans to pardon himself if he is elected. Something no other defendant can ever do.
So allow him to delay it through the election. Essentially admitting his guilt but saying he should delay so no trial ever happens.
That's where we are with Trump supporters now
No it's not. A criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial and that's exactly what the prosecution and court were set to do. Then Trump tried to delay for his own benefit. And now the court of appeals has rejected his attempt.
There's no reason why his case should not promptly proceed to trial
A defendant *CAN* enjoy a right to a speedy trial. It is not mandated that a defendant have a speedy trial.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:I admitted no guilt and observing normal process is NOT "allowing him to delay" anything. I guess you misspoke when you said Trump doesn't deserve special treatment. Rather you want the special treatment YOU want to try to get him off the ballot. That's called hypocrisy.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:Hey look, we agree on something! No need to hurry cases through the system, no special treatment.barbacoa taco said:aggiehawg said:
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Wrong.
Justice delayed really is justice denied here. Not just for Trump but for the American people. This man is running for the highest office. He is not entitled to it and he doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a candidate. We have a right to know if he's guilty of these crimes and these trials should be seen all the way through.
Especially since Trump simply plans to pardon himself if he is elected. Something no other defendant can ever do.
So allow him to delay it through the election. Essentially admitting his guilt but saying he should delay so no trial ever happens.
That's where we are with Trump supporters now
No it's not. A criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial and that's exactly what the prosecution and court were set to do. Then Trump tried to delay for his own benefit. And now the court of appeals has rejected his attempt.
There's no reason why his case should not promptly proceed to trial
Did Trump ask for a speedy trial?
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
48,894
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Trump specifically asked for much more time to prepare for trial because the government dumped millions upon millions of documents on him. Just laying eyes on the files would take years. But the democrat judge, prosecutors, and raving lunatic pundits like our colleague barbacoa taco insist that they're entitled to a hasty conviction above all else, justice or the appearance of justice be damned.will25u said:A defendant *CAN* enjoy a right to a speedy trial. It is not mandated that a defendant have a speedy trial.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:I admitted no guilt and observing normal process is NOT "allowing him to delay" anything. I guess you misspoke when you said Trump doesn't deserve special treatment. Rather you want the special treatment YOU want to try to get him off the ballot. That's called hypocrisy.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:Hey look, we agree on something! No need to hurry cases through the system, no special treatment.barbacoa taco said:aggiehawg said:
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Wrong.
Justice delayed really is justice denied here. Not just for Trump but for the American people. This man is running for the highest office. He is not entitled to it and he doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a candidate. We have a right to know if he's guilty of these crimes and these trials should be seen all the way through.
Especially since Trump simply plans to pardon himself if he is elected. Something no other defendant can ever do.
So allow him to delay it through the election. Essentially admitting his guilt but saying he should delay so no trial ever happens.
That's where we are with Trump supporters now
No it's not. A criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial and that's exactly what the prosecution and court were set to do. Then Trump tried to delay for his own benefit. And now the court of appeals has rejected his attempt.
There's no reason why his case should not promptly proceed to trial
Did Trump ask for a speedy trial?
the ONLY reason Trump is delaying is because he wants to be elected president and then call off the DOJ prosecution. it has NOTHING to do with having time to prepare for trial.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:Trump specifically asked for much more time to prepare for trial because the government dumped millions upon millions of documents on him. Just laying eyes on the files would take years. But the democrat judge, prosecutors, and raving lunatic pundits like our colleague barbacoa taco insist that they're entitled to a hasty conviction above all else, justice or the appearance of justice be damned.will25u said:A defendant *CAN* enjoy a right to a speedy trial. It is not mandated that a defendant have a speedy trial.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:I admitted no guilt and observing normal process is NOT "allowing him to delay" anything. I guess you misspoke when you said Trump doesn't deserve special treatment. Rather you want the special treatment YOU want to try to get him off the ballot. That's called hypocrisy.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:Hey look, we agree on something! No need to hurry cases through the system, no special treatment.barbacoa taco said:aggiehawg said:
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Wrong.
Justice delayed really is justice denied here. Not just for Trump but for the American people. This man is running for the highest office. He is not entitled to it and he doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a candidate. We have a right to know if he's guilty of these crimes and these trials should be seen all the way through.
Especially since Trump simply plans to pardon himself if he is elected. Something no other defendant can ever do.
So allow him to delay it through the election. Essentially admitting his guilt but saying he should delay so no trial ever happens.
That's where we are with Trump supporters now
No it's not. A criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial and that's exactly what the prosecution and court were set to do. Then Trump tried to delay for his own benefit. And now the court of appeals has rejected his attempt.
There's no reason why his case should not promptly proceed to trial
Did Trump ask for a speedy trial?
I agree, he is trying to put it past the election.barbacoa taco said:the ONLY reason Trump is delaying is because he wants to be elected president and then call off the DOJ prosecution. it has NOTHING to do with having time to prepare for trial.ThunderCougarFalconBird said:Trump specifically asked for much more time to prepare for trial because the government dumped millions upon millions of documents on him. Just laying eyes on the files would take years. But the democrat judge, prosecutors, and raving lunatic pundits like our colleague barbacoa taco insist that they're entitled to a hasty conviction above all else, justice or the appearance of justice be damned.will25u said:A defendant *CAN* enjoy a right to a speedy trial. It is not mandated that a defendant have a speedy trial.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:I admitted no guilt and observing normal process is NOT "allowing him to delay" anything. I guess you misspoke when you said Trump doesn't deserve special treatment. Rather you want the special treatment YOU want to try to get him off the ballot. That's called hypocrisy.barbacoa taco said:WHOOP!'91 said:Hey look, we agree on something! No need to hurry cases through the system, no special treatment.barbacoa taco said:aggiehawg said:
This MSNBC panel with Jen Psaki is...uhmm...interesting due to being so over the top pathetic. Neal Katyal, Weissmann with Jen. Neal says he is "freaking out" because they may not be able to try and convict Trump of insurrection before the election. (And yes, I know Trump has not been charged with that but our former Solicitor General does not.)
Neal, also uses phrases such as "justice delayed is justice denied." Uhmm, what? That's for the benefit of defendants not the state. Speedy trial, anyone? For two supposedly good lawyers, katyal and Weissmann are idiots.
Video at LINK
Wrong.
Justice delayed really is justice denied here. Not just for Trump but for the American people. This man is running for the highest office. He is not entitled to it and he doesn't deserve special treatment just because he's a candidate. We have a right to know if he's guilty of these crimes and these trials should be seen all the way through.
Especially since Trump simply plans to pardon himself if he is elected. Something no other defendant can ever do.
So allow him to delay it through the election. Essentially admitting his guilt but saying he should delay so no trial ever happens.
That's where we are with Trump supporters now
No it's not. A criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial and that's exactly what the prosecution and court were set to do. Then Trump tried to delay for his own benefit. And now the court of appeals has rejected his attempt.
There's no reason why his case should not promptly proceed to trial
Did Trump ask for a speedy trial?
But if he is going about it in normal court fashion available to him, what is the issue?
A defendant has to ask for a speedy trial. It is one of the four factors under the sixth amendment for a speedy trial violation on the courts part.
Quote:
(an appellate court weighs the following four factors to determine if there is a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the accused's demand for a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the accused).
Also, a lot of what is happening is NOT normal. No one has prosecuted a former president in the way these Democrat activist DA's are going after Trump.
I'm so glad we have such great mind reading experts here to inform us with stated facts about the ONLY reason someone else does or doesn't want something that is not normal process.
Bull***** They waited three years to bring charges. That isn't speedy. That is choosing the timing to interfere in an election.barbacoa taco said:
No it's not. A criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial and that's exactly what the prosecution and court were set to do.
Sounds like something a fascist dictator and his "justice department" would do.
First, the defendant has no strict obligation to request a speedy trial. It is only a consideration in determining if trial was speedy The same Supreme Court case (Wingo) that pronounced the four factors you are quoting said "We regard none of the four factors identified above as either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial." and that a defendant doesn't waive their right to a speedy trial simply because they didn't demand it. "We reject, therefore, the rule that a defendant who fails to demand a speedy trial forever waives his right."will25u said:
A defendant has to ask for a speedy trial. It is one of the four factors under the sixth amendment for a speedy trial violation on the courts part.Quote:
(an appellate court weighs the following four factors to determine if there is a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the accused's demand for a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the accused).
Second, there is a legally recognized public interest in speedy trials. Again, the same Supreme Court case says "the demand requirement is inconsistent with the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases...the trial of a criminal case should not be unreasonably delayed merely because the defendant does not think that it is in his best interest to seek prompt disposition of the charge."
Third, there is no right to a slow trial, or a medium trial, or to pick the speed of the trial. The defendant has no right to a slow trial because they want one. See point 2, above. There is nothing antithetical to the defendant's rights for the prosecution to ask for a "speedy" trial and it is entirely within a court's prerogative to speed a trial along. The only Constitutional restriction on how fast trial can move is due process, ensuring the defendant has enough time to prepare.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/514/#tab-opinion-1949811
IANAL, so I know nothing. But I defer back to my question about...TXAggie2011 said:First, the defendant has no strict obligation to request a speedy trial. It is only a consideration in determining if trial was speedy The same Supreme Court case (Wingo) that pronounced the four factors you are quoting said "We regard none of the four factors identified above as either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial." and that a defendant doesn't waive their right to a speedy trial simply because they didn't demand it. "We reject, therefore, the rule that a defendant who fails to demand a speedy trial forever waives his right."will25u said:
A defendant has to ask for a speedy trial. It is one of the four factors under the sixth amendment for a speedy trial violation on the courts part.Quote:
(an appellate court weighs the following four factors to determine if there is a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the accused's demand for a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the accused).
Second, there is a legally recognized public interest in speedy trials. Again, the same Supreme Court case says "the demand requirement is inconsistent with the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases...the trial of a criminal case should not be unreasonably delayed merely because the defendant does not think that it is in his best interest to seek prompt disposition of the charge."
Third, there is no right to a slow trial, or a medium trial, or to pick the speed of the trial. The defendant has no right to a slow trial because they want one. See point 2, above. There is nothing antithetical to the defendant's rights for the prosecution to ask for a "speedy" trial and it is entirely within a court's prerogative to speed a trial along. The only Constitutional restriction on how fast trial can move is due process, ensuring the defendant has enough time to prepare.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/514/#tab-opinion-1949811
If Trump is exhausting his legal moves in a normal fashion, what is wrong with it?
Nothing.Quote:
If Trump is exhausting his legal moves in a normal fashion, what is wrong with it?
Nothing is wrong with Trump saying "don't expedite review." But there is nothing wrong with the courts expediting review anyways. Trump has no big-R Right to say "move slower" or "move 'normally'".will25u said:IANAL, so I know nothing. But I defer back to my question about...TXAggie2011 said:First, the defendant has no strict obligation to request a speedy trial. It is only a consideration in determining if trial was speedy The same Supreme Court case (Wingo) that pronounced the four factors you are quoting said "We regard none of the four factors identified above as either a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial." and that a defendant doesn't waive their right to a speedy trial simply because they didn't demand it. "We reject, therefore, the rule that a defendant who fails to demand a speedy trial forever waives his right."will25u said:
A defendant has to ask for a speedy trial. It is one of the four factors under the sixth amendment for a speedy trial violation on the courts part.Quote:
(an appellate court weighs the following four factors to determine if there is a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the accused's demand for a speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice to the accused).
Second, there is a legally recognized public interest in speedy trials. Again, the same Supreme Court case says "the demand requirement is inconsistent with the public interest in prompt disposition of criminal cases...the trial of a criminal case should not be unreasonably delayed merely because the defendant does not think that it is in his best interest to seek prompt disposition of the charge."
Third, there is no right to a slow trial, or a medium trial, or to pick the speed of the trial. The defendant has no right to a slow trial because they want one. See point 2, above. There is nothing antithetical to the defendant's rights for the prosecution to ask for a "speedy" trial and it is entirely within a court's prerogative to speed a trial along. The only Constitutional restriction on how fast trial can move is due process, ensuring the defendant has enough time to prepare.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/514/#tab-opinion-1949811
If Trump is exhausting his legal moves in a normal fashion, what is wrong with it?
Whether this gets expedited by SCOTUS will come down to weighing any public interest in resolution with the Court's internal inclination to follow normal procedure.
from will25U
Here's how SCOTUS avoids the immunity question:
For those that don't know, shipwrecked is a criminal defense lawyer that has a bunch of cases in Federal Court and represents several January 6 defendants.
I do not think SCOTUS will do this, but its certainly a possibility.
I'm Gipper
Here's how SCOTUS avoids the immunity question:
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) February 12, 2024
1. Take up the case, set it specially for after Fischer.
2. Order the parties to also brief Smith's use of Sec. 371 Count re "Conspiracy to Defraud the US", and the Sec. 241 Count re "Conspiracy against Rights."
3. Fischer…
Here's how SCOTUS avoids the immunity question:
Quote:
1. Take up the case, set it specially for after Fischer.
2. Order the parties to also brief Smith's use of Sec. 371 Count re "Conspiracy to Defraud the US", and the Sec. 241 Count re "Conspiracy against Rights."
3. Fischer throws out the 1512 counts.
4. SCOTUS throws up the 371 count since no monetary benefit is alleged -- basis for all "fraud" charges in federal law -- and the 241 count since "counting" votes isn't contemplated by the statutory langauge which relates to interference with the casting of votes.
All four counts are lost because the SCO hasn't properly alleged violations of federal law based on the statutory language and fatual allegations.
No need to reach the question of POTUS immunity.
For those that don't know, shipwrecked is a criminal defense lawyer that has a bunch of cases in Federal Court and represents several January 6 defendants.
I do not think SCOTUS will do this, but its certainly a possibility.
I'm Gipper
Tend to agree they won't avoid the issue of immunity, nor can they.Quote:
I do not think SCOTUS will do this, but its certainly a possibility.
Featured Stories
See All
2026 North Forney cornerback Ryan Gilbert commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
5:12
1d ago
2.4k
In-Home Visit: A&M's 2026 momentum keeps rolling as Gilbert commits
by TexAgs Recruiting
Around the SEC: Recruiting News & Trends
by Jason Howell
Auburn leaning on new additions to help manage 'mood shifts'
by Olin Buchanan
45:25
1d ago
6.9k