Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | SCOTUS declines to lift gag order

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 383
  • Views: 11K
  • Politics 
Looking at the timeline from Garland taking office 3/11/21 and initiating an investigation and prosecution, using the time frame of Smith's investigation and indictment, the DOJ would have brought an indictment in December 2021.

Given the time frame from Smith's indictment to the Scotus ruling on immunity, the SCOTUS decision would have been in the summer of 2022.

The DC judge could have sorted out the charges with regard to the parameters of Trump's immunity and a trial could have begun before the end of 2022.

Assuming the trial were to last 6-8 weeks, there could have been a verdict before the 2024 primaries began.
 
heelinhell said:
Looking at the timeline from Garland taking office 3/11/21 and initiating an investigation and prosecution, using the time frame of Smith's investigation and indictment, the DOJ would have brought an indictment in December 2021.

Given the time frame from Smith's indictment to the Scotus ruling on immunity, the SCOTUS decision would have been in the summer of 2022.

The DC judge could have sorted out the charges with regard to the parameters of Trump's immunity and a trial could have begun before the end of 2022.

Assuming the trial were to last 6-8 weeks, there could have been a verdict before the 2024 primaries began.
Click to expand...
I went back and forth with super on IC with him defending Garland for 2 years at least. Kept telling him he might of been a good judge but it sure as hell didn't make him a good AG. Finally got tired of it. Think super finally conceded a bit by year 4.
 
heelinhell said:
Mueller found evidence of Russian collusion but not evidence to establish criminal conspiracy sufficient to win a guilty verdict in court

Mueller found many instances of obstruction of justice and expected that Congress would impeach and try Trump... and of course that did not happen.
Click to expand...
The focus of the investigation into conspiracy was related to the Russian social media and other "electoral interference" activities. Mueller didn't find any evidence that Trump or the Trump campaign conspired with Russia and any such activities.

As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established thatRussia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J.Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents. The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
 
Last edited:
grimes70 said:
I went back and forth with super on IC with him defending Garland for 2 years at least. Kept telling him he might of been a good judge but it sure as hell didn't make him a good AG. Finally got tired of it. Think super finally conceded a bit by year 4.
Click to expand...
I conceded well before that. I concede that Garland's actions look timid in hindsight. Well, they looked timid in real time, and the follow-up hammer I was expecting didn't really arrive. I don't remember exactly when, but I think it was in 2022 when I said, "we'll know more in six months." And in six months, all that happened was Jack Smith's appointment. And then Smith took a bit of time to ramp up, and I conceded it all should have been done earlier.

But Garland is not why Trump walks a free man.
 
heelinhell said:
Looking at the timeline from Garland taking office 3/11/21 and initiating an investigation and prosecution, using the time frame of Smith's investigation and indictment, the DOJ would have brought an indictment in December 2021.

Given the time frame from Smith's indictment to the Scotus ruling on immunity, the SCOTUS decision would have been in the summer of 2022.

The DC judge could have sorted out the charges with regard to the parameters of Trump's immunity and a trial could have begun before the end of 2022.

Assuming the trial were to last 6-8 weeks, there could have been a verdict before the 2024 primaries began.
Click to expand...
1. SCOTUS could delay that decision as long as it wanted. Remember, Jack Smith showed up to the Supreme Court in late December and we got a decision on the very last day of the term. That was after the DC Circuit issued an expedited ruling. If Jack Smith had showed up six months earlier, the time frame would have been the same.

If Jack Smith had shown up at SCOTUS a year earlier, SCOTUS could have stayed the lower court's proceeding and then set the case for argument in the next term.

The point is that the Court can almost infinitely manipulate its own schedule. Given that it ran out the clock as long as necessary, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have delayed it by that much.

Oh, and keep in mind, SCOTUS could come back after remand and say, "Chutkan was wrong; these acts are all official [and/or the evidence about them inadmissible] and the indictment must be dismissed." You're assuming a favorable disposition for the remaining appeals, but that is very much not a given. In fact, I'd say it's unlikely.

2. You're also ignoring the follow-up. The DC judge could have sorted out the charges . . . and then Trump would have appealed that. That would go to DC Circuit, and there wouldn't be a quick turnaround because the legal issues are highly unsettled (unlike the original immunity claim). If the appeals court found fault (remember: there are Trumpy judges who could be drawn from the panel, and in addition, Chutkan could make mistakes that any judge would correct), it would send the case back to Chutkan, then back to the DC Circuit, etc. Even if Chutkan would be upheld on appeal, SCOTUS would review. Again, that wouldn't be quick. You'd have to add at least a year -- at least -- to your timeline.

And then there's the Jack Smith appointment issue, which wouldn't be addressed until ***after*** the immunity stuff is sorted out.

3. To put it differently, if Kamala had won, the case would likely not to go to trial in 2025. Given where the case was left, there's probably at least two years more of bullshit from the immunity decision to sort through. We'd be looking at a trial in mid 2026 at the earliest. Other lawyers can offer their own estimates, but I doubt it will vary much from what I have.

If the Supreme Court wanted Trump on the ballot, it could make that happen regardless of anything Garland does.
 
superrific said:
1. SCOTUS could delay that decision as long as it wanted. Remember, Jack Smith showed up to the Supreme Court in late December and we got a decision on the very last day of the term. That was after the DC Circuit issued an expedited ruling. If Jack Smith had showed up six months earlier, the time frame would have been the same.

If Jack Smith had shown up at SCOTUS a year earlier, SCOTUS could have stayed the lower court's proceeding and then set the case for argument in the next term.

The point is that the Court can almost infinitely manipulate its own schedule. Given that it ran out the clock as long as necessary, there's no reason to think they wouldn't have delayed it by that much.

Oh, and keep in mind, SCOTUS could come back after remand and say, "Chutkan was wrong; these acts are all official [and/or the evidence about them inadmissible] and the indictment must be dismissed." You're assuming a favorable disposition for the remaining appeals, but that is very much not a given. In fact, I'd say it's unlikely.

2. You're also ignoring the follow-up. The DC judge could have sorted out the charges . . . and then Trump would have appealed that. That would go to DC Circuit, and there wouldn't be a quick turnaround because the legal issues are highly unsettled (unlike the original immunity claim). If the appeals court found fault (remember: there are Trumpy judges who could be drawn from the panel, and in addition, Chutkan could make mistakes that any judge would correct), it would send the case back to Chutkan, then back to the DC Circuit, etc. Even if Chutkan would be upheld on appeal, SCOTUS would review. Again, that wouldn't be quick. You'd have to add at least a year -- at least -- to your timeline.

And then there's the Jack Smith appointment issue, which wouldn't be addressed until ***after*** the immunity stuff is sorted out.

3. To put it differently, if Kamala had won, the case would likely not to go to trial in 2025. Given where the case was left, there's probably at least two years more of bullshit from the immunity decision to sort through. We'd be looking at a trial in mid 2026 at the earliest. Other lawyers can offer their own estimates, but I doubt it will vary much from what I have.

If the Supreme Court wanted Trump on the ballot, it could make that happen regardless of anything Garland does.
Click to expand...
Well, at least the DOJ was able to successfully prosecute and convict Hunter Biden so Garland has that feather in his cap...
 
Last edited:
heelinhell said:
Well, at least the DOJ was able to successfully prosecute and convict Hunter Biden so Garland has that feather in his cap...
Click to expand...
What do you want from him? The Supreme Court is corrupt and full of radical, partisan extremists. That's why we're in the predicament we're in.

I know that you agree with me that the Supreme Court is responsible for so much of our political dysfunction. This has been going a long time but has been supercharged recently. I kept banging my head whenever I saw interviews with voters complaining that Biden promised debt relief for school loans and didn't deliver. Sigh.

We are going to have to find a way to change the court or restore the balance of powers, because otherwise the Supreme Court will destroy everything itself with or without help from Trump.
 
Ramrouser said:
Briefly:

There were LOTS of voting irregularities in the 2020 election with all the COVID loosened voting procedures.

I did not support further election challenges by Trump and his allies after December 15th - the date of certification.
Click to expand...
Who led the charge to loosen the voting procedures? Can't remember her name for the life of me.
 
A Georgia court just found that Fani Willis violated Georgia's Open Records Act. She's ordered to produce, within 5 days, all communications she had with Jack Smith and the J6 Committee to plot the RICO case against Trump.

Very interesting.
 
lawtig02 said:
Ramrouser's law partner was one of the chief architects of Trump's scheme to overturn the election results in Georgia, including by inducing fake electors to submit a fraudulent ballot showing Trump won. He doesn't give a shit about the House findings.
Click to expand...
That explains a lot
 
Ramrouser said:
Don't think his criminal attorney would allow it. It's not whining to complain about the Biden Administration orchestrating a Stalinist type legal persecution against their "enemies." You see it differently, believing all of the state and federal civil and criminal charges are legit, fine. We'll see what the NY and Ga appellate courts say.

I don't think retribution will be a major issue with this Administration - there's too many other things to focus on. But.... Garland/Smith and their band of Jacobins need to be investigated, fired, shamed and perhaps prosecuted.
Click to expand...
anither
Ramrouser said:
Are you referring to the Hollywood produced Show Trial that no one remembers? Seriously, ya'll need to move on. We're about to embark on the most exciting, impactful 2 year period in US history, with the restructuring of the bureaucracy and military, so hop aboard. After all, 71% of Americans support DOGE.
Click to expand...
Lol dude name this after his meme coin and surely won't cut spending on his own contracts.

Naives!
 
The Georgia Court of Appeals has reversed the trial court holding the lower court "erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis" and her entire office from the case. Fani will likely appeal (cert) to the Ga Supreme Court which will likely be denied.

The case is almost over. Merry Christmas.
 
Reading the 31 page opinion.

"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings."
 
Ramrouser said:
Reading the 31 page opinion.

"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings."
Click to expand...
IN other words, the details here would not be enough to support a DQ in any case EXCEPT in this one specific case for some reason ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top