Special Counsel January 6 conspiracy case against Trump in DC (Update: Trial set for March 4, 2024) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Trump and Eastman appear to be preparing to be indicted. It’s probably better to have a new, separate thread for this case.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Oh well...

Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.

www.cnn.com

 

[SaintForLife]

Oh well...

Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.

www.cnn.com

That's a shame. It might put a wrench in the Democrats plan to try to get Trump convicted before the election.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Oh well...

Supreme Court rejects Jack Smith’s request for justices to quickly hear Trump immunity dispute | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to fast-track arguments on whether Donald Trump has any immunity from federal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.

www.cnn.com

I think there's a really good chance the Justices refuse to take this case at all. It's such an absurd legal theory.

 

[MT15]

George Conway (who has direct experience with this exact situation) has thoughts.

 

[DaveXA]

I think there's a really good chance the Justices refuse to take this case at all. It's such an absurd legal theory.

Agreed.

 

[SaintForLife]

Basically you just admitted that you are going from this guy‘s opinion. How can he clue us in on the “plan” if he isn’t part of the team working on the case? This sounds unhinged.

It's funny how you think saying it's his opinion discredits what he said. You do the same when I post an article that you don't like.

He said the plan out loud and he's absolutely correct. You won't even comment on what he said. You just keep saying it's his opinion.

Most of the tweets we post here are opinions right?

 

[MT15]

It's funny how you think saying it's his opinion discredits what he said. You do the same when I post an article that you don't like.

He said the plan out loud and he's absolutely correct. You won't even comment on what he said. You just keep saying it's his opinion.

Most of the tweets we post here are opinions right?

You were the one saying that what he said proved there was a plan. It doesn’t prove anything. I did comment on what he said at one point. I pointed out that Smith has been very clear in his court filings about the reason for his proposed timeline. This guy is just peddling conspiracy theories about some sort of secret plan with zero proof. It’s a junk opinion, less than worthless.

 

[MT15]

I think there's a really good chance the Justices refuse to take this case at all. It's such an absurd legal theory.

You aren’t the only one who thinks that:

 

[MT15]

I can see this MI phone call leading to further criminal charges.

 

[MT15]

Good question…

 

[fooferdoggie]

That's a shame. It might put a wrench in the Democrats plan to try to get Trump convicted before the election.

Yep let that Law law breaking traitor to the constitution go so idiots can vote for him again. He would have been history if he did not take the spine of all the republicans and made them his puppets.

 

[MT15]

 

[SaintForLife]

You were the one saying that what he said proved there was a plan. It doesn’t prove anything. I did comment on what he said at one point. I pointed out that Smith has been very clear in his court filings about the reason for his proposed timeline. This guy is just peddling conspiracy theories about some sort of secret plan with zero proof. It’s a junk opinion, less than worthless.

I didn't say it proved there was a plan. I said that he said the plan out loud.

Biden and the rest of the Democrats are frightened that Trump will win again so they are doing everything they can to make sure he doesn't win which includes trying to put him in jail.

Why do you call everything you disagree with a conspiracy theory? It's plain as day what the Biden DOJ is doing.

 

[MT15]

I didn't say it proved there was a plan. I said that he said the plan out loud.

Biden and the rest of the Democrats are frightened that Trump will win again so they are doing everything they can to make sure he doesn't win which includes trying to put him in jail.

Why do you call everything you disagree with a conspiracy theory? It's plain as day what the Biden DOJ is doing.

So you are going to state “he said the plan out loud” and then try to say you didn’t say it proved there was a plan? This is pure double talk. Nonsensical.

Then you say I call everything a conspiracy theory? This from the biggest pusher of conspiracy theories on here? This is gaslighting.

Hilarious.

 

[MT15]

 

[DaveXA]

Need more Republicans finding their backbone and opposing Trump's antics. Not because politics, but rather because it's the right thing to do.

This really would crack that whole he's being attacked because politics nonsense.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is absolutely crazy.

 

[coldseat]

This is absolutely crazy.

Not crazy at all. Conspiracy theories and baseless attacks aren't allowed as factual testimony in federal cases. Judges limit what a defendant and defense team can present as a defense all the time in order to have a orderly court hearing based on providable facts.