It's not my fault that these people are too ashamed to appear on TV with their opinions, their peers are watching and judging too.
Most are on Trump's defense team, and they are hardly experts!
Behold this drop-forged twaddle.It's not my fault that these people are too ashamed to appear on TV with their opinions, their peers are watching and judging too.
Split decision I figure, he is not disqualified yet based on a narrow point of law that gives them an out. They will most likely refuse to take the immunity case, that is airtight with the lower court's ruling, which lifted their burden. Trump goes to trial around May or June from my reading of the tea leaves.Behold this drop-forged twaddle.
Jack Smith wants 'down and dirty' Trump convictions to influence 2024 election: Alan Dershowitz | Fox News
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz claims the Department of Justice is misusing the criminal justice system to influence the election on “Sunday Morning Futures."www.foxnews.com
Maybe give your fans some red meat and upgrade to entrails.
Just looking where we are so far and what the pundits said about the immunity case and that they might not take it. It looks like he will get a pass on disqualification.
As Fogdog has observed, the parameters of a future disqualification case are a big question. I doubt the court is not keenly aware of this. That could go any of half a dozen ways, and I’m not picking a favorite.
we don't know about that. Keep in mind Colorado only kick him off the primary ballot but not the general election orange dumb dumb is still apart of that.........
I'm just saying how things appear to me so far taking what experts are saying into account. It appears that they will give him a pass over a narrow point of the law on disqualification and should refuse to hear his immunity case, an easy out for them. It will only be an issue they have to address if he should win the general election, or some other mechanism is found to enforce the provisions of the 14th and it comes before them again. If he goes to court in May or June, he will be convicted before the election and that will decrease his chances of winning the general election.
My impression is they settled on a strategy before the hearing even began, the behavior and focus of the liberal justices indicated that and yes it also has to do with future elections and is a question best avoided if they can. If he is not immune and goes to trial this summer he will be convicted and probably lose the general election, problem solved. If he wins, hang on!
It's pretty unanimous,w/the 3 lib. judges in tow,they HAVE to look united,and know the uproar they would create otherwise,he has to be throotled at the ballot box,which he won't accept anyway,What a improbable nightmare that such a blatantly,obviously incompetent "heads I win","tails you lose" 7th grade bully mentality criminal buffoon could ever hold such sway in the US,gotta be on the odds of the "Big Boom" universe theory.
My take on it, was they side stepped the issue and if they don't take his immunity case, they won't have to deal with it. If they don't take the immunity case, then Trump goes back to Chutkan for trial in May or June. He will be criminally convicted of J6 crimes before the election and maybe before the GOP convention. Once convicted, his chances of winning would be greatly diminished, and he might be broke by then too.
The trial regarding Trump's crimes he committed when he tried to overthrow the 2020 election isn't over. The jury hasn't decided. They haven't even begun. The Supreme Court hasn't handed down its decision on Trump's disqualification. Yet here we are in a dither. I'm reminded of the haste people wanted a year or so ago when people made posts that demonstrated the patience of a child. We don't get to do this over. One misstep and Trump gets off and is free to commit his next crimes.
It's just a theory on their line of thinking and their reasons are valid ones, we will soon see if they refuse to take up the immunity case and there is a tight deadline on that.
Listening to Ari Melber go over what happened yesterday, I'm minded to listen to his description of the conundrum faced by SCOTUS over this. The vid begins at a time when he talks about the lack of process and clarity over legal standards for what to do and how to fairly decide when a person is disqualified.
Bing. I’m no Constitutional scholar. I know little about the law. And I didn’t sleep behind the dumpster of a Holiday Inn Express.
This sounds about right. They’re not here to make any laws, but to choose some or none of the legislated or ordered options.