backintexas2013 said:

---

Told you. It's nothing but hope.

---

exactly

Good Morning !

"She kicked out Republican observers the night before at around 10:30pm telling them all ballots had been counted. Claire was done with the LEGAL ballots at 10:30pm on Nov. 3rd. She needed the time from then until 3:06am to stuff the tabulators with fake ballots… https://t.co/dDp4SaHgcP pic.twitter.com/Iwp1y3dnnV

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) October 3, 2024

Trump was guilty of wrong think for suspecting fraud in 2020, and even more felony wrong thinking for sharing his thoughts with other people and attorneys.

American elections are nothing but dirty trick contests. https://t.co/ICQ1E4YntN

— Scott Adams (@ScottAdamsSays) October 3, 2024

Im Gipper said:

---

I agree with that entire analysis on Sixth Amendment as it pertain to a trial.

What I don't know the answer on, and likely no one here does, is how it applies in the context of a yet to be filed motion to dismiss and a claim of presidential immunity.

Usually, on a motion to dismiss alleging insufficiency of an indictment, all allegations of the indictment are taken as true. Does that hold with a presidential immunity claim?

No idea on that one, but its not one Team Trump really even briefed in their opposition to this procedure playing out. They just mention the Sixth Amendment in one sentence with no analysis.

---

It's because there's no there, there.

There is no Sixth Amendment issue. That's just part of the "throw everything up there and see if anything sticks" plan and the mid-informed are running with it to see if anyone will chase them. None of the evidence included in the brief is presented as evidence of any crime Trump is being charged with, but as evidence to support the claim that immunity does not apply.

As the brief does not accuse Trump of committing any specific crimes, the evidence provided is not being used as criminal evidence. The brief does make arguments why his actions are not covered by the SCOUTS immunity ruling. That is, they were not core official acts (nowhere in Article II is the Executive Branch assigned a roll to monitor a state's elections), to which complete immunity is granted, and if they were to be considered other official acts (as enabled by Congressional law or Judicial decision), then the immunity is only presumptive, which can be rebutted.

Thus, the brief. The prosecution was tasked with informing the court why the immunity created by the SCOTUS does not apply to the superseding indictment. Those are the claims made in the brief, not that Trump is guilty. Of course, the defense has opportunity to rebut those claims in a response, due October 17, I believe. In that rebuttal, the defense will likely try to prohibit the use of the evidence given in the brief, try to discredit it, or cry "Witch Hunt!" However, if the lawyers try to call "Witch Hunt!" again, given the wording in the Judge's dismissal of the defense's motion to dismiss the brief, I would expect to see a call for sanctions against council.

jt2hunt said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Told you. It's nothing but hope.

---

exactly

---

Just to say, when I said

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

I meant just that. That is my belief. It is not a fact, it is not even supported by a preponderance of evidence, but merely that I am confident that it is bad law and to prevent horribly bad results from following, it will be overturned.

Outside of the MAGA world, beliefs are not facts and facts are not just things you want to be true. Facts are things that are true regardless of your beliefs.

Oh **** now you want to use actual facts! Laughing my ass off!

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I agree with that entire analysis on Sixth Amendment as it pertain to a trial.

What I don't know the answer on, and likely no one here does, is how it applies in the context of a yet to be filed motion to dismiss and a claim of presidential immunity.

Usually, on a motion to dismiss alleging insufficiency of an indictment, all allegations of the indictment are taken as true. Does that hold with a presidential immunity claim?

No idea on that one, but its not one Team Trump really even briefed in their opposition to this procedure playing out. They just mention the Sixth Amendment in one sentence with no analysis.

---

It's because there's no there, there.

There is no Sixth Amendment issue. That's just part of the "throw everything up there and see if anything sticks" plan and the mid-informed are running with it to see if anyone will chase them. None of the evidence included in the brief is presented as evidence of any crime Trump is being charged with, but as evidence to support the claim that immunity does not apply.

As the brief does not accuse Trump of committing any specific crimes, the evidence provided is not being used as criminal evidence. The brief does make arguments why his actions are not covered by the SCOUTS immunity ruling. That is, they were not core official acts (nowhere in Article II is the Executive Branch assigned a roll to monitor a state's elections), to which complete immunity is granted, and if they were to be considered other official acts (as enabled by Congressional law or Judicial decision), then the immunity is only presumptive, which can be rebutted.

Thus, the brief. The prosecution was tasked with informing the court why the immunity created by the SCOTUS does not apply to the superseding indictment. Those are the claims made in the brief, not that Trump is guilty. Of course, the defense has opportunity to rebut those claims in a response, due October 17, I believe. In that rebuttal, the defense will likely try to prohibit the use of the evidence given in the brief, try to discredit it, or cry "Witch Hunt!" However, if the lawyers try to call "Witch Hunt!" again, given the wording in the Judge's dismissal of the defense's motion to dismiss the brief, I would expect to see a call for sanctions against council.

---

So in your opinion, then why is the media reporting this like these are FACTS and TRUTHS and that he's guilty of everything mentioned in the brief?

Quote:

---

That is, they were not core official acts (nowhere in Article II is the Executive Branch assigned a roll to monitor a state's elections), to which complete immunity is granted, and if they were to be considered other official acts (as enabled by Congressional law or Judicial decision), then the immunity is only presumptive, which can be rebutted.

---

There are a crap ton of federal statutes on the books regarding voting rights and procedures. If the DOJ doesn't enforce them who does? DOJ is in the Executive Branch, in case you were unaware.

You said you feel confident. You give no reason. You might as well of said I hope. That's all it is.

backintexas2013 said:

---

You said you feel confident. You give no reason. You might as well of said I hope. That's all it is.

---

Yep. Feeling confident is by definition just a feeling.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That is, they were not core official acts (nowhere in Article II is the Executive Branch assigned a roll to monitor a state's elections), to which complete immunity is granted, and if they were to be considered other official acts (as enabled by Congressional law or Judicial decision), then the immunity is only presumptive, which can be rebutted.

---

There are a crap ton of federal statutes on the books regarding voting rights and procedures. If the DOJ doesn't enforce them who does? DOJ is in the Executive Branch, in case you were unaware.

---

May as well be DOI...Department of Injustice.

Im Gipper said:

---

I agree with that entire analysis on Sixth Amendment as it pertain to a trial.

What I don't know the answer on, and likely no one here does, is how it applies in the context of a yet to be filed motion to dismiss and a claim of presidential immunity.

Usually, on a motion to dismiss alleging insufficiency of an indictment, all allegations of the indictment are taken as true. Does that hold with a presidential immunity claim?

No idea on that one, but its not one Team Trump really even briefed in their opposition to this procedure playing out. They just mention the Sixth Amendment in one sentence with no analysis.

---

Public litigation over the sufficiency of indictments and the admissibility of evidence are part and parcel with criminal cases and these 6th Amendment confrontation clause arguments before trial are largely legal gobbledy goo.


Trump's team said in their Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity (filed last October) that you take the allegations in the indictment as true. That's right, I don't know why it would be any different than normal, and until they say something different, then that's obviously what will happen. This is also the standard confirmed in the Blassingame opinion on immunity in the civil context.

The question, I think you're getting at, is what is the analysis to determine what evidence stays in the indictment and then subsequently will be assumed as true? I think that essentially looks like consideration of a motion in limine/motion to supress.

Watermelon Man said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Told you. It's nothing but hope.

---

exactly

---

Just to say, when I said

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

I meant just that. That is my belief. It is not a fact, it is not even supported by a preponderance of evidence, but merely that I am confident that it is bad law and to prevent horribly bad results from following, it will be overturned.

Outside of the MAGA world, beliefs are not facts and facts are not just things you want to be true. Facts are things that are true regardless of your beliefs.

---

Let's be honest, these trials never see the light of day if he wasn't running for President.

Quote:

---

Trump's team said in their Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity (filed last October) that you take the allegations in the indictment as true.

---

If Trump acknowledges that the facts in the indictment must be accepted as true, I'd love to hear someone explain why the inability to cross-examine these grand jury witnesses is relevant for the purposes of a motion to dismiss.

Has anyone seen such an explanation?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That is, they were not core official acts (nowhere in Article II is the Executive Branch assigned a roll to monitor a state's elections), to which complete immunity is granted, and if they were to be considered other official acts (as enabled by Congressional law or Judicial decision), then the immunity is only presumptive, which can be rebutted.

---

There are a crap ton of federal statutes on the books regarding voting rights and procedures. If the DOJ doesn't enforce them who does? DOJ is in the Executive Branch, in case you were unaware.

---

So, you're agreeing with me?

The "federal statutes on the books," as you call them, are either Congressional laws (Article I) or Judicial interpretations of the Constitution and Congressional laws (Article III). So, not core official acts.

So, now it's down to other official acts.

If you want to argue that by threatening Pence, Raffensperger, and Russell Bowers, Trump was just trying to make sure they weren't keeping African-Americans from voting, go ahead. Interesting, however, that he didn't call any Democrats and question them about the election results. Also interesting that Trump apparently had absolutely no interest in making sure the US Senate and Congressional elections were fair, only the Presidential race. That kind of proves he wasn't just trying to make sure voting rights and procedures were being followed.

But, OK. Dismiss all of that with a wave of the hand. Can you identify any of the "crap ton of federal statutes on the books" that Trump was trying to enforce and in what way was he going about it?

(I doubt it)

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

Guess again!

It is clear what I meant, you just ignored it.

Let's try again! What are the circumstances in which this opinion on presidential immunity will be changed. A new Trump case? This Trump case? A Biden case? Someone in future?

You made a prediction, explain it.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

Sanity already has returned to the Supreme Court when constitutional conservatives began outnumbering left wing hacks that hate the constitution.

Im Gipper said:

---

Guess again!

It is clear what I meant, you just ignored it.

Let's try again! What are the circumstances in which this opinion on presidential immunity will be changed. A new Trump case? This Trump case? A Biden case? Someone in future?

You made a prediction, explain it.

---

Explain what?

It is clear what my prediction was and when I thought it would happen. I made no prediction on what the circumstances would be, that's all you.

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

---

What's your opinion on the timing of why this was released yesterday?

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That is, they were not core official acts (nowhere in Article II is the Executive Branch assigned a roll to monitor a state's elections), to which complete immunity is granted, and if they were to be considered other official acts (as enabled by Congressional law or Judicial decision), then the immunity is only presumptive, which can be rebutted.

---

There are a crap ton of federal statutes on the books regarding voting rights and procedures. If the DOJ doesn't enforce them who does? DOJ is in the Executive Branch, in case you were unaware.

---

So, you're agreeing with me?

The "federal statutes on the books," as you call them, are either Congressional laws (Article I) or Judicial interpretations of the Constitution and Congressional laws (Article III). So, not core official acts.

So, now it's down to other official acts.

If you want to argue that by threatening Pence, Raffensperger, and Russell Bowers, Trump was just trying to make sure they weren't keeping African-Americans from voting, go ahead. Interesting, however, that he didn't call any Democrats and question them about the election results. Also interesting that Trump apparently had absolutely no interest in making sure the US Senate and Congressional elections were fair, only the Presidential race. That kind of proves he wasn't just trying to make sure voting rights and procedures were being followed.

But, OK. Dismiss all of that with a wave of the hand. Can you identify any of the "crap ton of federal statutes on the books" that Trump was trying to enforce and in what way was he going about it?

(I doubt it)

---

Enforcing Congressionally passed laws is one of the core powers (i.e. official acts) of the executive branch.

Article II. Section 3. "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

hth

Upholding and enforcing laws is part of the President's Article II power.

However, Justice Barrett spends several pages in her concurrence in the immunity opinion explaining why she doesn't think that power is unlimited in scope nor what was going on here. For example, she says "The President has no authority over state legislatures or their leadership, so it is hard to see how prosecuting him for crimes committed when dealing with the Arizona House Speaker would unconstitutionally intrude on executive power" and "a President has no legal authority and thus no official capacity to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct."

Additionally, the argument is Trump was doing all of this as an "office seeker", essentially as a private person, and not as the President trying to fulfill his Constitutional duties. That's why the Special Counsel's filing is constantly listing off all the private/campaign/don't work for the government people who were involved.

Obviously, the two sides disagree on what the conduct should be characterized as and they're litigating that now. But the Special Counsel is essentially following Justice Barrett's concurrence and the Blassingame case (from the D.C. Circuit dealing with immunity in the civil context).

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

---

What's your opinion on the timing of why this was released yesterday?

---

By "this" I have to guess (because you are vague about it) that you mean the unsealing of Smith's brief. The timing has everything to do with how long it took to rule on the motions, and nothing else.

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

---

What's your opinion on the timing of why this was released yesterday?

---

By "this" I have to guess (because you are vague about it) that you mean the unsealing of Smith's brief. The timing has everything to do with how long it took to rule on the motions, and nothing else.

---

If you think you're convincing anyone other than yourself with your fanciful interpretations, you're sorely mistaken.

You are lost in a liberal fantasyland, and it's a sad sight to see.

Trump can respond after the election

JUST IN: Judge Chutkan has agreed to let Trump file his response to Smith's big immunity filing after the election. Trump had asked for late November, but Chutkan split the difference and gave him until Nov. 7.

Could be the day the race is called, if it's close. pic.twitter.com/7xrHmXyh2a

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 3, 2024

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

---

What's your opinion on the timing of why this was released yesterday?

---

By "this" I have to guess (because you are vague about it) that you mean the unsealing of Smith's brief. The timing has everything to do with how long it took to rule on the motions, and nothing else.

---

BS

Im Gipper said:

---

Trump can respond after the election

JUST IN: Judge Chutkan has agreed to let Trump file his response to Smith's big immunity filing after the election. Trump had asked for late November, but Chutkan split the difference and gave him until Nov. 7.

Could be the day the race is called, if it's close. pic.twitter.com/7xrHmXyh2a

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) October 3, 2024

---

More planned election interference by Democrats in this judge

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

---

What's your opinion on the timing of why this was released yesterday?

---

By "this" I have to guess (because you are vague about it) that you mean the unsealing of Smith's brief. The timing has everything to do with how long it took to rule on the motions, and nothing else.

---

How do you know this for a fact?

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

---

What's your opinion on the timing of why this was released yesterday?

---

By "this" I have to guess (because you are vague about it) that you mean the unsealing of Smith's brief. The timing has everything to do with how long it took to rule on the motions, and nothing else.

---

How do you know this for a fact?

---

Why do I feel as if I have fallen through the looking glass...

I get asked what my opinion is, then questioned by the same poster as to why I know that as a fact!

Here's a clue, it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Like, what you asked for.

It seems a lot of trouble stems from people's inability to be able to tell opinion from fact.

Ag with kids said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

That is, they were not core official acts (nowhere in Article II is the Executive Branch assigned a roll to monitor a state's elections), to which complete immunity is granted, and if they were to be considered other official acts (as enabled by Congressional law or Judicial decision), then the immunity is only presumptive, which can be rebutted.

---

There are a crap ton of federal statutes on the books regarding voting rights and procedures. If the DOJ doesn't enforce them who does? DOJ is in the Executive Branch, in case you were unaware.

---

So, you're agreeing with me?

The "federal statutes on the books," as you call them, are either Congressional laws (Article I) or Judicial interpretations of the Constitution and Congressional laws (Article III). So, not core official acts.

So, now it's down to other official acts.

If you want to argue that by threatening Pence, Raffensperger, and Russell Bowers, Trump was just trying to make sure they weren't keeping African-Americans from voting, go ahead. Interesting, however, that he didn't call any Democrats and question them about the election results. Also interesting that Trump apparently had absolutely no interest in making sure the US Senate and Congressional elections were fair, only the Presidential race. That kind of proves he wasn't just trying to make sure voting rights and procedures were being followed.

But, OK. Dismiss all of that with a wave of the hand. Can you identify any of the "crap ton of federal statutes on the books" that Trump was trying to enforce and in what way was he going about it?

(I doubt it)

---

Enforcing Congressionally passed laws is one of the core powers (i.e. official acts) of the executive branch.

Article II. Section 3. "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..."

hth

---

dhm

(doesn't help much)

I'm going to go a bit out on a limb here and suggest that you really didn't have any intention of being helpful. But, thanks for playing.

And, just to show you there's no hard feelings, you're automatically enrolled in the Bonus Round!

Here's the question (but be careful):

Specifically, which laws was Trump attempting to make sure were being faithfully executed?
(the careful part is that "election laws" does not satisfy the "Specifically" clause).

I ask because I am truly curious. This excuse has been bandied around for well over 3 years now, but not a single specific law has been identified. It shouldn't be difficult, I hear there are a crap ton of them.

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

---

What's your opinion on the timing of why this was released yesterday?

---

By "this" I have to guess (because you are vague about it) that you mean the unsealing of Smith's brief. The timing has everything to do with how long it took to rule on the motions, and nothing else.

---

How do you know this for a fact?

---

Why do I feel as if I have fallen through the looking glass...

I get asked what my opinion is, then questioned by the same poster as to why I know that as a fact!

Here's a clue, it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Like, what you asked for.

It seems a lot of trouble stems from people's inability to be able to tell opinion from fact.

---

Agree. So why do you think that so many members of the media is taking this prosecutor's brief as fact? Isn't it just his opinion, and without the ability for the defense to respond?

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Trump's team said in their Motion to Dismiss Based on Presidential Immunity (filed last October) that you take the allegations in the indictment as true.

---

If Trump acknowledges that the facts in the indictment must be accepted as true, I'd love to hear someone explain why the inability to cross-examine these grand jury witnesses is relevant for the purposes of a motion to dismiss.

Has anyone seen such an explanation?

---

I think it's much more of a social media argument than anything else at this point

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

---

What's your opinion on the timing of why this was released yesterday?

---

By "this" I have to guess (because you are vague about it) that you mean the unsealing of Smith's brief. The timing has everything to do with how long it took to rule on the motions, and nothing else.

---

How do you know this for a fact?

---

Why do I feel as if I have fallen through the looking glass...

I get asked what my opinion is, then questioned by the same poster as to why I know that as a fact!

Here's a clue, it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Like, what you asked for.

It seems a lot of trouble stems from people's inability to be able to tell opinion from fact.

---

Agree. So why do you think that so many members of the media is taking this prosecutor's brief as fact? Isn't it just his opinion, and without the ability for the defense to respond?

---

Can you post any links to media reports that taking what the brief as fact? It's not really just his opinion, but allegations. Indictments, if you will.

I don't see them reporting anything but that Smith wrote what they are reporting in the brief as fact. That is, the fact is that it is included in the brief, not that it is undeniably true.

What makes this different than the stolen election lies is Smith supplies evidence of what he is alleging. Trump's lies, not so much. Realizing that a Federal Prosecutor is unlikely to manufacture evidence to put before a Grand Jury, where there is a written record of what people said carries a lot of weight.

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I feel confident that the immunity ruling will get overturned

---

Under what circumstances?

---

I truly believe that sanity will return to the Supreme Court. It may take a while, but I have faith that it will happen. The idea of Presidential Immunity for Criminal Acts is so Anti-American that either it will be rejected by The People, or The People will no longer define America.

---

"Nonresponsive"

---

I'm going to guess that by this response, you mean that there are no circumstances where sanity will return to the Supreme Court.

A boy can hope, can't he?

---

What's your opinion on the timing of all of this be released?

---

Two weeks.

---

What's your opinion on the timing of why this was released yesterday?

---

By "this" I have to guess (because you are vague about it) that you mean the unsealing of Smith's brief. The timing has everything to do with how long it took to rule on the motions, and nothing else.

---

How do you know this for a fact?

---

Why do I feel as if I have fallen through the looking glass...

I get asked what my opinion is, then questioned by the same poster as to why I know that as a fact!

Here's a clue, it's not a fact, it's an opinion. Like, what you asked for.

It seems a lot of trouble stems from people's inability to be able to tell opinion from fact.

---

Agree. So why do you think that so many members of the media is taking this prosecutor's brief as fact? Isn't it just his opinion, and without the ability for the defense to respond?

---

Can you post any links to media reports that taking what the brief as fact? It's not really just his opinion, but allegations. Indictments, if you will.

I don't see them reporting anything but that Smith wrote what they are reporting in the brief as fact. That is, the fact is that it is included in the brief, not that it is undeniably true.

What makes this different than the stolen election lies is Smith supplies evidence of what he is alleging. Trump's lies, not so much. Realizing that a Federal Prosecutor is unlikely to manufacture evidence to put before a Grand Jury, where there is a written record of what people said carries a lot of weight.

---

Wow.. You really haven't seen one media outlet OMIT that that it's just his opinion when reporting this?

100% political posts on TexAgs, and no Ag tag. I'm actually very glad that you don't have an Ag tag. Embarrassing.

Have a great rest of your day.