DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024 #2

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Inthedetails said:
Here's the actual document the Trump team filed as argument against Jack Smith's request that the Supreme Court take up the issue quickly:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org
Click to expand...
Does anyone have a link to Jack Smith's request to the Supreme Court? I'd like to compare his arguments against the defendant's. tia

jmo
 
In addition to taking Jack Smith's request, the Supreme Court agreed to "review an appellate ruling that revived a charge against three defendants accused of obstruction of an official proceeding. The charge refers to the disruption of Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump."

Trump is also accused with that same charge, so the ruling would affect his case too.

Trump has cases before the Supreme Court like never seen before. No one has ever accomplished such a thing as that. Seems to call for a "sir" story.

www.wowt.com

Supreme Court will hear a case that could undo Capitol riot charge against hundreds, including Trump

The court’s decision to weigh in on the obstruction charge could threaten the start of Trump’s trial, currently scheduled for March 4.
www.wowt.com www.wowt.com
 
Inthedetails said:
Here's the actual document the Trump team filed as argument against Jack Smith's request that the Supreme Court take up the issue quickly:

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org www.documentcloud.org
Click to expand...
Just reading the first line tells me this response ain't gonna fly!!! -- The response states that DOJ is attempting to try, convict and sentence Trump prior to the election, and in doing so is interfering in the 2024 election. but what argument can they legitimately make? none------
 
Michigan prosecutors met with Chesebro last week ... CNN has the tapes of the interview (some linked in the article).


The “photo-op … gone south,” as Chesebro called the December 16, 2020, meeting, reveals a previously unknown instance of Trump hearing directly that he lost – which could factor into his federal election subversion trial. But it also highlights how others in Trump’s orbit leaned into his delusions and aided his quixotic effort to cling onto power.

In Trump’s federal case, prosecutors highlighted the pattern of Trump allies repeatedly telling him that he lost the election.

The new revelations from Chesebro’s sit-down with Michigan investigators add to the list.

 
Docket update:

Doc # Date Filed Description\183
183 Dec 11, 2023 NOTICE of Summary of Anticipated Expert Testimony by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP (Gaston, Molly) (Entered: 12/11/2023) Main Document Notice (Other)

184 Dec 12, 2023 NOTICE of Filing by USA as to DONALD J. TRUMP (Windom, Thomas) (Entered: 12/12/2023) Main Document Notice (Other)

185 Dec 12, 2023 REPLY in Support by DONALD J. TRUMP re 178 MOTION for Order Regarding Automatic Stay of Proceedings Pending Appeal re 177 Notice of Appeal - Interlocutory (Blanche, Todd) (Entered: 12/12/2023) Main Document Reply in Support

186 Dec 13, 2023 OPINION and ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: Granting in part and denying in part Defendant's 178 Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Appeal. See Opinion and Order for details. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 12/13/2023. (zjd) Main Document .Order AND Memorandum Opinion AND ~Util - Terminate Motions

link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/united-states-v-trump/?page=2
 
Donald Trump urges the Supreme Court to reject Jack Smith's motion for expedited consideration of the immunity appeal. His lawyers say Smith has no standing and his petition should be denied.

The basis for that argument is that Smith won the district court's ruling and, per Trump, has no basis to appeal the favorable result. They're asking SCOTUS to let the appeals court process play out first, which would surely slow things down by weeks.


https://supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/293865/20231220140543301_23-624%20-%20U.S.%20v.%20Trump%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Petition%20for%20Certiorari%20Before%20Judgment%20-%20Filed.pdf
 
Cool Cats said:
Because Trump appointed 3 of them?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't make any difference. Judges of the Supreme Court should be so professional that they deal with the law only, and are not influenced by political loyalties. I hate that we are in the place where the legal system has been used as a political weapon and now we doubt this most basic structure of US law.
However, it is a vulnerable system in the US, where judges are appointed by political leaders rather than by rising through the ranks of their own college like they do in democratic countries. Political leaders are not qualified to select the best people to put into these positions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 70 more.
Total: 1,745 (members: 71, guests: 1,674)

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
1,674
Total visitors
1,745
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
605,255
Messages
18,184,781
Members
233,285
Latest member
Slowcrow
Back
Top