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

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 383
  • Views: 11K
  • Politics 
Wondering what our legal eagles think about this as a potential strategy...

www.rawstory.com

Jack Smith has a shot to put Trump in an 'untenable spot' in final filing: ex-prosecutor

During an appearance on "The Katie Phang Show" on MSNBC, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade suggested that departing special counsel Jack Smith has an opportunity to hand the incoming Donald Trump administration a mess long after he is gone. Speaking with host Phang, McQuade proposed two...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
heelinhell said:
Wondering what our legal eagles think about this as a potential strategy...

www.rawstory.com

Jack Smith has a shot to put Trump in an 'untenable spot' in final filing: ex-prosecutor

During an appearance on "The Katie Phang Show" on MSNBC, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade suggested that departing special counsel Jack Smith has an opportunity to hand the incoming Donald Trump administration a mess long after he is gone. Speaking with host Phang, McQuade proposed two...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine a scenario in which Trump doesn’t give himself a blanket pardon on Day 1. I’d support Smith releasing detailed reports, but there’s no way the cases could stay alive. Like, 0%.
 
lawtig02 said:
I can’t imagine a scenario in which Trump doesn’t give himself a blanket pardon on Day 1. I’d support Smith releasing detailed reports, but there’s no way the cases could stay alive. Like, 0%.
Click to expand...
Good Lord, how much hate do these TDS attorneys have for Trump. I mean to suggest Smith dismiss his case without prejudice so you can later argue that the statute of limitations is tolled during Trump’s presidency so that the case can be revived in 2025! Yeah, that’s the ticket just like the NYC fraud case.

They simply can’t give up on their dream to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit. You lost lawfare. Get over it and move on to something else.
 
Ramrouser said:
Good Lord, how much hate do these TDS attorneys have for Trump. I mean to suggest Smith dismiss his case without prejudice so you can later argue that the statute of limitations is tolled during Trump’s presidency so that the case can be revived in 2025! Yeah, that’s the ticket just like the NYC fraud case.

They simply can’t give up on their dream to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit. You lost lawfare. Get over it and move on to something else.
Click to expand...
I’m extremely confident Trump would be convicted if these cases had gone to trial, and that’s true pretty much regardless of where the trials occurred. So it’s not that the prosecutions lacked merit, and it’s certainly not that Trump is not a criminal. It’s that our system gives you a get out of jail free card if you convince enough rubes to elect you president.
 
Ramrouser said:
Good Lord, how much hate do these TDS attorneys have for Trump. I mean to suggest Smith dismiss his case without prejudice so you can later argue that the statute of limitations is tolled during Trump’s presidency so that the case can be revived in 2025! Yeah, that’s the ticket just like the NYC fraud case.

They simply can’t give up on their dream to see Trump in an orange jumpsuit. You lost lawfare. Get over it and move on to something else.
Click to expand...
The alternative is to allow Trump to 1) get away with an insurrection; and 2) get away with hoarding national security documents he had no right to have and was not storing with any care whatsoever; and 3) ignore a lawful subpoena and attempt to deceive the court by moving boxes.

Is that your idea of the rule of law? It's amazing to me that people like you who complain about crime in America also complain about efforts to convict criminals of their crimes.

Trump is on tape imploring a Secretary Of State to commit election fraud. That is a crime. That has to be seriously punished. You guys scream all the time, "they cheat" but literally all of the significant cheating has been done by you:

Trump
NC 9th
Michigan GOP had its top 5 gubernatorial candidates ruled out because of election fraud.

And against that there is . . . crickets. Well, there was that one Latina in Texas who cast a vote when she wasn't eligible. And she voted for -- I know this is going to shock you, but it wasn't a liberal or a Dem.
 
superrific said:
The alternative is to allow Trump to 1) get away with an insurrection; and 2) get away with hoarding national security documents he had no right to have and was not storing with any care whatsoever; and 3) ignore a lawful subpoena and attempt to deceive the court by moving boxes.

Is that your idea of the rule of law? It's amazing to me that people like you who complain about crime in America also complain about efforts to convict criminals of their crimes.

Trump is on tape imploring a Secretary Of State to commit election fraud. That is a crime. That has to be seriously punished. You guys scream all the time, "they cheat" but literally all of the significant cheating has been done by you:

Trump
NC 9th
Michigan GOP had its top 5 gubernatorial candidates ruled out because of election fraud.

And against that there is . . . crickets. Well, there was that one Latina in Texas who cast a vote when she wasn't eligible. And she voted for -- I know this is going to shock you, but it wasn't a liberal or a Dem.
Click to expand...
For the millionth time, Trump was not charged with inciting an insurrection. He could have been but he wasn’t……..interesting.

It’s like the “very fine people on both sides” lie: It just keeps being repeated by the left.

If you’re interested in election integrity: Why don’t you support measures like those in Florida and Georgia? Photo ID; paper verification; strengthened signature verification; firm deadlines for voting and reasonable limitations on mail in balloting.
 
Last edited:
Ramrouser said:
For the millionth time, Trump was not charged with inciting an insurrection. He could have been but he wasn’t……..interesting.

It’s like the “very fine people on both sides” lie: It just keeps being repeated by the left.

If you’re interested in election integrity: Why don’t you support measures like those in Florida and Georgia? Photo I’d; paper verification; strengthened signature verification; firm deadlines for voting and reasonable limitations on mail in balloting.
Click to expand...
How about I support those measures and you support the concept that a president to does all he can to prevent the constitutional transfer of power process from taking place should never again be considered an even remotely viable candidate for president. Deal?
 
lawtig02 said:
How about I support those measures and you support the concept that a president to does all he can to prevent the constitutional transfer of power process from taking place should never again be considered an even remotely viable candidate for president. Deal?
Click to expand...
Deal. If those measures are implemented nationwide there will never again be a reason to seriously contest a Presidential election.
 
lawtig02 said:
Those measures would have had no impact whatsoever on the 2020 election. So why did Trump’s response to that election not completely disqualify him from this one?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
I don’t even care enough to point out how wrong that first paragraph is. What I want to know is how, if you truly believe what you wrote in the second paragraph, you could possibly support Trump for president this year? What he did after December 15 wasn’t “election challenges.” It was an all out assault on the constitution, Congress, and the states.
 
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...
Point us to the fraudulent votes.

I’m sure “2,000 Mules” has shown you where they are.
 
lawtig02 said:
I don’t even care enough to point out how wrong that first paragraph is. What I want to know is how, if you truly believe what you wrote in the second paragraph, you could possibly support Trump for president this year? What he did after December 15 wasn’t “election challenges.” It was an all out assault on the constitution, Congress, and the states.
Click to expand...
dukeman92 said:
There were no reasons to contest the 2020 election.
Click to expand...
While I’m generally not supportive of Trump’s actions after Dec 15, I simply don’t see J6 as an “insurrection” or an “assault on our democracy.” Neither do most Americans as evidenced by the recent election where Americans would not have voted to give him a second term if they believed that.

On balance, I like Trump’s policies when compared to the Dems.
 
Ramrouser said:
While I’m generally not supportive of Trump’s actions after Dec 15, I simply don’t see J6 as an “insurrection” or an “assault on our democracy.” Neither do most Americans as evidenced by the recent election where Americans would not have voted to give him a second term if they believed that.

On balance, I like Trump’s policies when compared to the Dems.
Click to expand...
The majority of Americans do, in fact, think January 6 was an assault on democracy.

ny1.com

Poll: Majority believes Jan. 6 was attack on democracy

But views about the protesters are softening
ny1.com ny1.com

The problem is a lot of those people either don’t care, or it’s what they actually want. I can’t imagine being that flippant about the constitution, but I guess that’s just where Pubs are these days.
 
Ramrouser said:
While I’m generally not supportive of Trump’s actions after Dec 15, I simply don’t see J6 as an “insurrection” or an “assault on our democracy.” Neither do most Americans as evidenced by the recent election where Americans would not have voted to give him a second term if they believed that.

On balance, I like Trump’s policies when compared to the Dems.
Click to expand...
I don't care how you see J6. It was an insurrection and an assault on democracy. Fact. If you can give me any definition of insurrection that excludes the targeted use of force to displace a lawfully elected government, or any account of J6 that excludes that, I'd love to see it. But you won't because you can't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top