-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Total Eclipse of the Fart
Author: BobR
Date: 04/10/2024 13:16:16
While the eyes of the United States' citizens and media were on the solar eclipse Monday, an important story was unfolding at the SCOTUS. TFG has 3 cases before the SCOTUS, all attempts to negate or delay his criminal prosecutions. One of those is the infamous "If the president does it, then it's not illegal" claim that he's using in an attempt to grant himself a kind of pardon.
On Monday, special prosecutor Jack Smith filed a brief with the SCOTUS regarding the Jan 06 case. It was an attempt to not only address the main question, but to anticipate potential arguments from the justices sympathetic to TFG:
It's still 7 months to election day. Here's hoping the courts will allow at least one conviction to occur between now and then.
On Monday, special prosecutor Jack Smith filed a brief with the SCOTUS regarding the Jan 06 case. It was an attempt to not only address the main question, but to anticipate potential arguments from the justices sympathetic to TFG:
Smith's filing was "strong and straightforward," University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky told Salon, noting that the "bottom line" of the prosecutor's argument is that "in order to immunize Trump's malfeasance, Trump needs to convince the court to adopt an immunity of breathtaking scope."
"Smith really did not leave any stone unturned, and he took on every one of Trump's arguments and, I think, also preempted various positions that the conservative wing of the court might be inclined to consider," added Temidayo Aganga-Williams, a partner at Selendy-Gay PLLC and former senior investigative counsel for the House Jan. 6 committee.
[...]
... based on the 1974 U.S. v. Nixon decision, in which the court rejected then-President Richard Nixon's claims of executive privilege, "it's pretty clear that official acts are covered by executive immunity, and private ones are not," he explained, asserting that "campaigning" and "trying to remain in power" do not amount to official acts.
It's still 7 months to election day. Here's hoping the courts will allow at least one conviction to occur between now and then.
