Quote:

---

Trump won't win on total and absolute immunity but they will find limited immunity.

---

Agree. the absolute immunity argument was always unpersuasive, as was the impeachment/judgment quasi double jeopardy argument.

OTOH, The Court will still be very mindful of separation of powers issues and it will be narrowly tailored. They may even try to go the route with Bush v. Gore and limit the opinions effect as precedent. But in terms of formulating a test when immunity will apply to official acts, further definitions of what constitutes an official act will take a lot of drafts being circulated around among the justices.

One other note and that is the Fischer case before the Court. That's a 1512(c) statute that is also the statute used for three of four of the Jan 6th charges. If Fischer tosses the use of 1512(c) as applied. Then most of the DC case against Trump is gone already. At that point, there's just an obstruction charge and a weak one at that.

The Fischer case will have limited affect on Trump's prosecution even if Fischer gets what he wants.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Fischer case will have limited affect on Trump's prosecution even if Fischer gets what he wants.

---

How so? No equal protection because he's Trump?

Democrats were hoping that Trump would have a serious challenger or two in the primaries, he then could easily be disposed of without a lot of fanfare.

The obvious fact that Trump will be the nominee for the Republican party changes the dynamics and IMO, the SC will rule in favor of Trump.

barbacoa taco said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

it's meant to drive home the point of how stupid Trump's argument is

---

try to engage in productive discussion here. We get that you hate Trump.

---

Attempting to overturn election results is illegal.

---

Then Al Gore should be rotting in prison. Stop this.

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Fischer case will have limited affect on Trump's prosecution even if Fischer gets what he wants.

---

How so? No equal protection because he's Trump?

---

Fischer's argument is his actions on January 6 don't significantly relate to interfering with or affecting documentary evidence so the statute doesn't apply to him.

Trump's whole indictment centers around sending in documentary evidence (alternative electoral votes) to bring doubt upon other documentary evidence (electoral votes.)

The result of Fischer would possibly affect Special Counsel's approach and the jury instructions in the Trump case. But I think they're already largely approaching from a documentary slant anyways.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

it's meant to drive home the point of how stupid Trump's argument is

---

try to engage in productive discussion here. We get that you hate Trump.

---

Attempting to overturn election results is illegal.

---

Then Al Gore should be rotting in prison. Stop this.

---

This is not remotely similar to Gore and the 2000 election. Not the same ballpark, league, or even sport.

Gore had a good faith basis to contest the Florida results in 2000. No one has said Trump had no right to legally challenge the results. It's what came after that. And if you'll recall, once Bush v. Gore was decided, Gore graciously conceded.

Quote:

---

And if you'll recall, once Bush v. Gore was decided, Gore graciously conceded.

---

He didn't have a choice. Had he contested the Florida EV votes, the 12th applies and it becomes a contigent election and he still loses.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump won't win on total and absolute immunity but they will find limited immunity.

---

Agree. the absolute immunity argument was always unpersuasive, as was the impeachment/judgment quasi double jeopardy argument.

OTOH, The Court will still be very mindful of separation of powers issues and it will be narrowly tailored. They may even try to go the route with Bush v. Gore and limit the opinions effect as precedent. But in terms of formulating a test when immunity will apply to official acts, further definitions of what constitutes an official act will take a lot of drafts being circulated around among the justices.

One other note and that is the Fischer case before the Court. That's a 1512(c) statute that is also the statute used for three of four of the Jan 6th charges. If Fischer tosses the use of 1512(c) as applied. Then most of the DC case against Trump is gone already. At that point, there's just an obstruction charge and a weak one at that.

---

I believe SCOTUS will say that Congress has the power to remove immunity via the impeachment process. This would be the most consistent with the originalist approach and look to the rationale for why the impeachment process was included in the constitution, which was to prevent POTUS from acting as a king and beholden to no one.

IBT certain other folks chime in the impeachment is political process only, as that is an idea / opinion / concept purveyed by modern pundits during the last couple 30 years or so.

I don't think its proper for SCOTUS to determine if immunity applies though I would be able to get comfortable with it, though it begs for a future total politization of that branch. For instance, Congress could pack the court in an attempt to influence the immunity review should SCOTUS think it under their powers to determine.

Easiest decision would be for SCOTUS to defer to the impeachment process and "clarify" that the impeachment process "removes" any claims to immunity regarding crimes / actions that a POTUS is impeached (including conviction).

After considering this for the past few years, any other path leads to a quagmire of what presidential duties / official actions are, when immunity applies, etc. The path I describe addresses the POTUS killing their opponent during the primary season via drone strike and also prevents the horse****ery we have seen the last 3 years from the Dems.

Just my opinion. The Founding Fathers just simply did not provide for abuse of the powers or impeachment and weaponization of the justice system for political purposes the way both parties have done, but in particular the Dems in regards to Trump.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

And if you'll recall, once Bush v. Gore was decided, Gore graciously conceded.

---

He didn't have a choice. Had he contested the Florida EV votes, the 12th applies and it becomes a contigent election and he still loses.

---

I think the more relevant one was 1960 in Illinois where Nixon was likely cheated out of what would have won him the election. Despite losing by a little over 8000 votes, Nixon refused a recount because he thought it would tear the country apart. I would love to know if they had any lawyers lined up before the election like both parties do throughout the country now. My money would be on no they didn't have any lawyers ready to contest the election.

Kansas Kid said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

And if you'll recall, once Bush v. Gore was decided, Gore graciously conceded.

---

He didn't have a choice. Had he contested the Florida EV votes, the 12th applies and it becomes a contigent election and he still loses.

---

I think the more relevant one was 1960 in Illinois where Nixon was likely cheated out of what would have won him the election. Despite losing by a little over 8000 votes, Nixon refused a recount because he thought it would tear the country apart. I would love to know if they had any lawyers lined up before the election like both parties do throughout the country now. My money would be on no they didn't have any lawyers ready to contest the election.

---

Very very doubtful they were organized in that manner. Even if they had been they weren't getting past the various Dem Machines in Illinois, New York, etc. to get recounts. EV was 303 Kennedy to 219 for Nixon.

aggiehawg said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

And if you'll recall, once Bush v. Gore was decided, Gore graciously conceded.

---

He didn't have a choice. Had he contested the Florida EV votes, the 12th applies and it becomes a contigent election and he still loses.

---

I think the more relevant one was 1960 in Illinois where Nixon was likely cheated out of what would have won him the election. Despite losing by a little over 8000 votes, Nixon refused a recount because he thought it would tear the country apart. I would love to know if they had any lawyers lined up before the election like both parties do throughout the country now. My money would be on no they didn't have any lawyers ready to contest the election.

---

Very very doubtful they were organized in that manner. Even if they had been they weren't getting past the various Dem Machines in Illinois, New York, etc. to get recounts. EV was 303 Kennedy to 219 for Nixon.

---

Ever since the Gutenberg Press the Dems have had a machine to win elections. Print, count, certify and declare victory... not always in that order.

barbacoa taco said:

---

it's meant to drive home the point of how stupid Trump's argument is

---

Almost as stupid as the case itself.

Rapier108 said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

it's meant to drive home the point of how stupid Trump's argument is

---

No, they're actually serious about it.

Quit excusing that kind of talk, Larry.

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

it's meant to drive home the point of how stupid Trump's argument is

---

try to engage in productive discussion here. We get that you hate Trump.

---

Attempting to overturn election results is illegal. Obstructing constitutional procedures for certifying election results is illegal. There's no good faith argument that doing either of these things is protected under presidential immunity.

Trump has zero constitutional ground to stand on, given that he tried to rip up the constitution just so he could stay in power. Any arguments from resident posters saying that he does is just a dressed up way of saying Trump should be a king.

---

Damn...when's Obama going to jail for his interference after Trump was elected???

barbacoa taco said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

it's meant to drive home the point of how stupid Trump's argument is

---

try to engage in productive discussion here. We get that you hate Trump.

---

Attempting to overturn election results is illegal. Obstructing constitutional procedures for certifying election results is illegal. There's no good faith argument that doing either of these things is protected under presidential immunity.

Trump has zero constitutional ground to stand on, given that he tried to rip up the constitution just so he could stay in power. Any arguments from resident posters saying that he does is just a dressed up way of saying Trump should be a king.

---

All Trump really did was question the results openly. Democrats want to make it effectively illegal to question official narratives.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump won't win on total and absolute immunity but they will find limited immunity.

---

Agree. the absolute immunity argument was always unpersuasive, as was the impeachment/judgment quasi double jeopardy argument.

OTOH, The Court will still be very mindful of separation of powers issues and it will be narrowly tailored. They may even try to go the route with Bush v. Gore and limit the opinions effect as precedent. But in terms of formulating a test when immunity will apply to official acts, further definitions of what constitutes an official act will take a lot of drafts being circulated around among the justices.

One other note and that is the Fischer case before the Court. That's a 1512(c) statute that is also the statute used for three of four of the Jan 6th charges. If Fischer tosses the use of 1512(c) as applied. Then most of the DC case against Trump is gone already. At that point, there's just an obstruction charge and a weak one at that.

---

It looks like the DOJ has been running willy nilly with 1512(c) for quite some time...

Quote:

---

All Trump really did was question the results openly. Democrats want to make it effectively illegal to question official narratives.

---

I f anyone bpthered their entitled to comment without knowing crap would have bothered to watch the posted link from Tom Parlatore, Trup's lawyer during that time frame, they would know that Trump's info was problems wiht over a hundred thousand votes that were not not legiit. Can't ask Raffy to find that within a narrow time frame.

So narrow the ask. Only really stupid people cannot understand that.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

it's meant to drive home the point of how stupid Trump's argument is

---

try to engage in productive discussion here. We get that you hate Trump.

---

Attempting to overturn election results is illegal.

---

Then Al Gore should be rotting in prison. Stop this.

---

This is not remotely similar to Gore and the 2000 election. Not the same ballpark, league, or even sport.

Gore had a good faith basis to contest the Florida results in 2000. No one has said Trump had no right to legally challenge the results. It's what came after that. And if you'll recall, once Bush v. Gore was decided, Gore graciously conceded.

---

Yeah. It was done in such good faith that Gore initially attempted to restrict the recount to counties in Florida with Democrat majorities.

The election was challenged in 2001 by Democrats. Did you forget Maxine Waters, attempting to overturn the results of the election while ignoring the fact she needed a Senator to sign on to her objection? I certainly didn't.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/01/04/in-past-20-years-democrats-objected-3-times-to-electoral-college-certifications/

Quote:

---

"The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a member of the Senate," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said during the 2001 joint session of Congress.

---

So we have Democrats able to question the results of elections when they lose. But Republicans being prosecuted when they exercise the same right.

I guess this is what we should expect from someone who has an extremely selective memory when it comes to Hamas.

Democrats want to change the context of Republican's actions to fit their narratives and prosecute them for questioning shady election practices by calling it election interference. It's incredibly dishonest and the liberals on here know it, they just don't care.

We're going to cheat and if you call foul we'll imprison you. What a great party they've got. Real American spirit!

barbacoa taco said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

it's meant to drive home the point of how stupid Trump's argument is

---

try to engage in productive discussion here. We get that you hate Trump.

---

Attempting to overturn election results is illegal. Obstructing constitutional procedures for certifying election results is illegal. There's no good faith argument that doing either of these things is protected under presidential immunity.

Trump has zero constitutional ground to stand on, given that he tried to rip up the constitution just so he could stay in power. Any arguments from resident posters saying that he does is just a dressed up way of saying Trump should be a king.

---

also, please don't copy/paste from Reddit or whatever and pretend it's your own material.

You're a Poli sci class of 2025 undergrad, right?

The left further confirms their insanity

The Court's decision to hear oral argument in the immunity cases has unleashed the same voices of rage, even suggesting that the justices are now part of an insurrection. https://t.co/KLl3U06ExA

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) February 29, 2024

Law professor breaks into tears at having to put together a conlaw syllabus because communists aren't winning every case at SCOTUS:

Evergreen:https://t.co/jfCrgaVL9i

— Bill Marshal (@aethelamerican) February 27, 2024

In terms of timing, I believe there were three months remaining until trial, whenever the stay initially went into effect. Trump will get at least that much time following a Supreme Court mandate before he has to go to trial.**

Does anyone here really think the Department of Justice is going to follow their traditional guidelines about cases near elections?

So if they want to have this started by mid September, they need a Supreme Court ruling by mid-June. That's even pushing it. I said earlier and still think that only way this is tried before November is if it's out of appellate courts in May.


**this assumes Trump flat out loses at the Supreme Court. There's a possibility, albeit a small one in my opinion, they send this back down to trial court with guideline for determining immunity and appeals start all over again

Correct.... Lawfare is the use of parseltongue. Smith isn't protesting President Trump holding classified documents; Smith is claiming Trump was not responsive to demands he turn over documents containing "classification markings", including no longer classified documents. https://t.co/rKxFpw3SUB

— TheLastRefuge (@TheLastRefuge2) February 29, 2024

Apologies but I may just be the only one that missed Jack Smith actually playing this as they had hoped to use Mueller, an obstruction charge about an investigation, not really J6 or classified documents etc. at all. What a pathetic farce Weissman-Smith et al. are. Just as pathetic as all the lies about General Flynn.

BMX Bandit said:

---

In terms of timing, I believe there were three months remaining until trial, whenever the stay initially went into effect. Trump will get at least that much time following a Supreme Court mandate before he has to go to trial.**

Does anyone here really think the Department of Justice is going to follow their traditional guidelines about cases near elections?

So if they want to have this started by mid September, they need a Supreme Court ruling by mid-June. That's even pushing it. I said earlier and still think that only way this is tried before November is if it's out of appellate courts in May.


**this assumes Trump flat out loses at the Supreme Court. There's a possibility, albeit a small one in my opinion, they send this back down to trial court with guideline for determining immunity and appeals start all over again

---

No because Garland said there is a carveout in that policy where it doesn't apply to Special Counsels, so the writing is on the wall. I don't think they can get the trial pushed through before the election but what they are hoping for is the distraction of the trials to keep the focus off the actual election. No COVID to fall back on but you can bet they have a plan B for the actual vote.

nortex97 said:

---

Apologies but I may just be the only one that missed Jack Smith actually playing this as they had hoped to use Mueller, an obstruction charge about an investigation, not really J6 or classified documents etc. at all. What a pathetic farce Weissman-Smith et al. are. Just as pathetic as all the lies about General Flynn.

---

It's why all their leaks to the press have included the phrase "classified markings." It's why the pictures they leaked out showed empty folders that said "Classified" on the outside. This is a stunt meant to influence the election.

All of this is essentially RICO coordinated by Biden's handlers. There's nothing serious about it except the potential consequences. It's truly Stalinist.

Rapier108 said:

---

All of the leftist ****s on Twitter saying if Trump wins the immunity case, Biden should immediately have Trump and other Republicans killed because he would be legally allowed to do so.

---

I noticed they don't seem to understand "official acts". In this case, ensuring a fair federal election was conducted seems like something the president might do, even if it also benefits said president by keeping them in office. Whatever the fraud-free outcome should have been.

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

All of the leftist ****s on Twitter saying if Trump wins the immunity case, Biden should immediately have Trump and other Republicans killed because he would be legally allowed to do so.

---

LOL. What a crock of s***. Complete failure to understand the law and the legal reasoning behind immunity.

---

I had a Marxist on X try to tell me there was a national security component to Obama running guns to Mexican drug cartels and droning a 16 year old American citizen. The latter, maybe. The former? No way in Hades.

There was no national security component to him running guns into Mexico in order to further a narrative that was intended to undermine Americans' Second Amendment rights.

Quote:

---

In this case, ensuring a fair federal election was conducted seems like something the president might do

---

taking the allegations in the indictment as true (which is done in this posture of the case), Trump was not trying to "ensure a fair federal election was conducted.' The allegations are that he knew he lost and created the fake elector plot to throw out legitimate electors.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

In this case, ensuring a fair federal election was conducted seems like something the president might do

---

taking the allegations in the indictment as true (which is done in this posture of the case), Trump was not trying to "ensure a fair federal election was conducted.' The allegations are that he knew he lost and created the fake elector plot to throw out legitimate electors.

---

Which is a claim anyone could make about those who lose an election and then seek to challenge the results. In fact, they often DO know they've lost, as Al Gore did.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

All Trump really did was question the results openly. Democrats want to make it effectively illegal to question official narratives.

---

I f anyone bpthered their entitled to comment without knowing crap would have bothered to watch the posted link from Tom Parlatore, Trup's lawyer during that time frame, they would know that Trump's info was problems wiht over a hundred thousand votes that were not not legiit. Can't ask Raffy to find that within a narrow time frame.

So narrow the ask. Only really stupid people cannot understand that.

---

Especially if Raffy doesn't WANT to find them.

Claverack said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

it's meant to drive home the point of how stupid Trump's argument is

---

try to engage in productive discussion here. We get that you hate Trump.

---

Attempting to overturn election results is illegal.

---

Then Al Gore should be rotting in prison. Stop this.

---

This is not remotely similar to Gore and the 2000 election. Not the same ballpark, league, or even sport.

Gore had a good faith basis to contest the Florida results in 2000. No one has said Trump had no right to legally challenge the results. It's what came after that. And if you'll recall, once Bush v. Gore was decided, Gore graciously conceded.

---

Yeah. It was done in such good faith that Gore initially attempted to restrict the recount to counties in Florida with Democrat majorities.

The election was challenged in 2001 by Democrats. Did you forget Maxine Waters, attempting to overturn the results of the election while ignoring the fact she needed a Senator to sign on to her objection? I certainly didn't.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2021/01/04/in-past-20-years-democrats-objected-3-times-to-electoral-college-certifications/

Quote:

---

"The objection is in writing, and I do not care that it is not signed by a member of the Senate," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said during the 2001 joint session of Congress.

---

So we have Democrats able to question the results of elections when they lose. But Republicans being prosecuted when they exercise the same right.

I guess this is what we should expect from someone who has an extremely selective memory when it comes to Hamas.

---

Clinton got Stein to challenge the 2016 election results, too, but they didn't have a Senator sign-on then, either. There was also an alternative slate of electors from Hawaii in the 60s, I think. Trump didn't do anything new or appalling, the pearl-clutching left has themselves all worked up over not all that much, as usual.