How can the most polarizing political figure of all time get an impartial jury willing to listen to the evidence in any of these cases?

No juror will ever be seated that doesn't have a locked in opinion about Trump and the case itself.

The judicial branch and the legislative branch failed to do their constitutional duty when required. Now 8-months out from the presidential election we got the executive branch in conjunction with the judiciary to put the leader of the opposition political party in jail prior to the presidential election under the banner of 'saving democracy.'

Again, we spent a 20-years war force feeding democracy to people that don't want it, then turn around and do the exact same stunt.

Americans are the most mentally malleable and gullible rubes of all time.

Indulging?

Indulging?

That there is the richiest of rich.

Long post in first tweet.

I think @shipwreckedcrew is right that it *should* involve an evidentiary hearing, because otherwise crafty prosecutors could get around immunity with artful drafting

The point of immunity is that the holder shouldn’t even have to worry about being prosecuted https://t.co/6nisShceTg

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) February 29, 2024

Starting to see a little panic in the peanut gallery.

Seems like they thought it was a done deal.

HUGE decision out of DC Circuit this morning saying the proceedings before Congress on Jan. 6 did not involve the "administration of justice" as that phrase is used in the Sentencing Guidelines.

This will be moot if the SCOTUS throws out the 1512 count altogether in the Fischer.

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 1, 2024

aggiehawg said:

---

HUGE decision out of DC Circuit this morning saying the proceedings before Congress on Jan. 6 did not involve the "administration of justice" as that phrase is used in the Sentencing Guidelines.

This will be moot if the SCOTUS throws out the 1512 count altogether in the Fischer.

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) March 1, 2024

---

what does this mean in english

A sentence enhancement that added many years to J6 prisoners convicted will be tossed now, so they will have maybe half the prison sentence given initially to serve, but if SCOTUS could also still overturn the convictions entirely.

nortex97 said:

---

A sentence enhancement that added many years to J6 prisoners convicted will be tossed now, so they will have maybe half the prison sentence given initially to serve, but if SCOTUS could also still overturn the convictions entirely.

---

thank you

Sentencing was calculated incorrectly that resulted in sentences that were too long under the applicable guidelines. Bad on the judges who should have known better..

Logos Stick said:

---

hawg-

this seems not to be fair, can you comment:

NEW: Jack Smith is asking a court *not* to screen prospective jurors for their political party OR for if they voted in 2020.
Smith does, however, want to screen jurors for if they think the DOJ is being unfair to Trump. via @KaelanDC https://t.co/7ERsOgvEEh

— Sarah Bedford (@sarahcbedford) February 29, 2024

---

Why doesn't he just come out and say jurors should be asked who they voted for. He is a complete and utter scum bag.

Should this be included as a watermark on all documents filed in Trump litigation?

You know ... sort of a visual reminder that all this is being done under exigent circumstances to save democracy.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

---

This ***** is a threat to our democracy.

As a gentle reminder for those who may not have followed along, Jack Smith was unqualified to be appointed to the office he now holds/claims, but the primary reason "Garland" chose him was that his wife was a producer of "Becoming" the film fellating version of big Mike Obama's life story. Big Obama donor.

Quote:

---

"You just can't make this stuff up," tweeted Republican Representative Andrew Clyde. "Katy Chevigny, wife of Jack Smiththe special counsel appointed by DOJ to go after President Trump, donated to Joe Biden's campaign and produced Michelle Obama's documentary."

"America cannot stand with a corrupt, two-tiered justice system," he wrote.

Charlie Kirk, founder and president of conservative group Turning Point USA, tweeted: "Of course the wife of Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed by Merrick Garland to investigate President Trump, was one of the producers of the Michelle Obama documentary. But don't worry guys, the DOJ has not been weaponized against conservatives. Everything is fine!"

---

As with Barry Sotero's claim to have been a 'constitutional law professor' Michelle never actually worked in a courtroom, and her ability to spot/choose/hire competent attorneys is not even up to DJT's standard/bar.

But sure, justice is blind.

From Florida case but relevant to the trial setting here also;

BIG news out of Ft. Pierce:

The DOJ advises Judge Cannon that the "60-day rule" does NOT apply in Trump's case as he has already been indicted & the case is already being litigated.

So, no reason to delay taking him to trial, even with elections in November.

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) March 1, 2024

TexAggie2011 said this essentially above.

DOJ rules don't apply to DOJ when they don't wan't them to.

Dems went nuts when Comey reopened the Hillary case because of Huma's laptop in October 2016. And that was just an investigation, not an indictment or trial.

Should people involved in the Trump cases cancel their summer vacations now?

'Conflict delayed is conflict multiplied'

Better to get out in front of it.

DOJ brass should take a page from the Gordon Gekko playbook here. 'Money never sleeps' and neither does saving democracy.

Break the bad news now. Cancel early. Send the wife and kids on a Disney cruise because daddy gonna be workin'

Jack might give the pre-approved jurors a reach around on this as well. Nothing gonna be more frustrating and time consuming than a bunch of prospective jurors approaching the bench with airline and cruise tickets in hand.

Quote:

---

BIG news out of Ft. Pierce:

The DOJ advises Judge Cannon that the "60-day rule" does NOT apply in Trump's case as he has already been indicted & the case is already being litigated.

So, no reason to delay taking him to trial, even with elections in November.

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) March 1, 2024

---

That is utter bull***** In case anyone was still wondering if this had become a banana republic.

The DOJ scheduled all these cases specifically to impact Trump's ability to campaign.

That will generate another appeal. The tree is wilting badly.

Smells a little like state sponsored collusion and election interference, no?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Smells a little like state sponsored collusion and election interference, no?

---

No doubt. That's why Fanny and Co. met in the WH. You can bet all of these prosecutors have met with the DOJ or White House directly.

aggiehawg said:

---

DOJ rules don't apply to DOJ when they don't wan't them to.

---

I've never seen the text of this rule. Heard it's"unwitten"

Those are the easiest to "work around" when needed.

MagnumLoad said:

---

That will generate another appeal. .

---

What will?

Does anyone have a count of all the fundamental constitutional issues and issues of first impression spread across all Trump cases?

Completely lost count at around seven or so.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Does anyone have a count of all the fundamental constitutional issues and issues of first impression spread across all Trump cases?

Completely lost count at around seven or so.

---

Depends on how granular you wish to go. Immunity? Official Acts? Is POTUS an "officer"? Presidential Records Act issues? Improper use of 18 U.S.C. 1512(2), Is Smith's appointment as SC valid? etc.

Is there no recourse for abuse of power?

The DOJ has clearly become a surrogate for the democrat party, no matter the legal obfuscation they use. Venezuela north, or worse.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Is there no recourse for abuse of power?

---

(D)epends

MagnumLoad said:

---

Is there no recourse for abuse of power?

---

Problem is 7-million more people voted FOR abuse of power, controlled demolition of the global economy, more regional wars, unchecked immigration and federal agencies run by crossdressers and furries.

Seems like recourse in 2024 is a tough row to hoe.

Indeed

Just a reminder: Trump's J6 trial was supposed to begin this morning in the Washington courtroom of Obama appointee Tanya Chutkan.https://t.co/MlvUi1tCSI

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 4, 2024

David Clements was a law professor in New Mexico.After the 2020election he started looking into election fraud. He lost his job, fended off fice separate challenges to have his law license revoked.These days he's working with Jan 6er families.

He made a movie 2 hours) which is now free. Let My People Go. A little preachy for my tastes but it is still interesting.

Movie is at the bottom of the LINK

Thanks. Will watch later this week.

You know threats and lawfaring to bankrupt those who disagree with the regime and those who might dare to represent those the regime disagrees with, when it's (d)ifferent, is always to protect our democracy (tm), right?

IT'S OFFICIAL: #SCOTUS will hear President Trump's immunity case April 25th 10am ET

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) March 6, 2024

Smith brief on merits filed. Noting new really. Though he does say if Court rules there are some instances where immunity applies, district court can make evidentiary findings that can be appealed after trial and final judgment.

I agree on district court making those findings, but gut says interlocutory (immediate before trial) wouid be in order as immunity means immune from conviction but also pains of prosecution

He also address Fischer issue.

👀 Smith argues that even if the Supreme Court sharply narrows the obstruction statute in Fischer, Trump's two obstruction counts are still valid because it would apply to the "creation" of false documents (a.k.a. elector certificates. https://t.co/qzEa5LK4UK pic.twitter.com/RHbAjK9u6e

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) April 8, 2024

Saucehttps://t.co/86UA2HK2Nt

— Praying Medic (@prayingmedic) June 5, 2024

The social media company claimed that some of the information obtained in the search warrant could have been protected under executive privilege. For other users, if they are not notified when the government wants to review their data, they would would not be able to invoke doctor-patient confidentiality or journalist-source confidentiality that they otherwise would have been entitled to.

...

In Trump's case, Smith was looking for Trump's Twitter records, searches, and communications that took place between October of 2020, and January of 2021, while he was still in the Oval Office.

"As a result, 'for the first time in American history,' a court 'ordered disclosure of presidential communications without notice to the President and without any adjudication of executive privilege,'" X said in its filing to the Supreme Court.

The plea to the Supreme Court comes after the X Corporation tried to get the ruling overturned in a D.C. Appeals Court, but the original ruling from Howell was upheld. The four conservative justices on the Appeals Court dissented.

Oof pic.twitter.com/YgQcARI6a7

— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) July 1, 2024