I've been in plenty of courtrooms and read transcripts .......when compared to the sheet of paper .....I prefer the spoken word .....It was not a good look for the DOJ during that hearing ...
SCOTUS
- Thread starter Rella ~ I am a woman
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I've been in plenty of courtrooms and read transcripts .......when compared to the sheet of paper .....I prefer the spoken word .....It was not a good look for the DOJ during that hearing ...
I prefer the spoken word as well. But what does DOJ's lawyer falling on his face have to do with questions by the Justices indicating they are likely to vote in favor of absolute immunity?
The Justices realized there are actions by the President that are the responsibility of the President. Until he is out of the office, he has the right and duty to Constitutionally question things. This false trial is looking back into the position while President and frankly is Unconstitutional . There is no line drawn to distinguish between the two. SCOTUS will use the opportunity to point that out. If the DOJ Attorney can't state his position properly, he looks and looked foolish. That face to face either impresses' or insults the court. He insulted the court.
The issue before the Supreme Court is whether actions taken by a President "during his tenure in office" (see both Trump's Brief and the DOJ's Brief) are absolutely immune from prosecution. Something that occurred during oral argument leads you to think that SCOTUS will give a Yes answer? Tell me what it is.
The implication by the left is that anything said during or after the term in office is not immune ....Interesting as a deceitful lawyer, you added the word "absolute" suddenly.......Trump's challenge is he has immunity, especially while in office ...
I'm not impressed at all.
Come on .....if you cannot present your position well ....you'll fail .....
I didn't add it. It is the phrase Trump's team uses 20 times in his Brief (I posted a link to the Brief above). Try reading it. You'll learn what every lawyer knows -- that the phrase "absolute immunity" (as distinguished from "qualified immunity") means subject to no exceptions. That is precisely what is at stake in this SCOTUS appeal.
Your argument lacked the word. .......You added it to sound more argumentative .....
SCOTUS will grant some, if not all immunity .....
SCOTUS will grant some, if not all immunity .....
I agree. Which means the Docs trial will happen...but do you have an opinion if Jack Smith will fast track the trial to get it in before election?
My prediction is that SCOTUS will not grant "all" immunity -- what Trump's team calls and the Justices at argument called (and I call) "absolute immunity." But I won't bother to give you my reasons, lest I be accused of being "argumentative."
I concur ......I don't expect absolute .......however, you always ask for the extreme and have a planned acceptance point ....Wonder how Jack Smith is going to land? Looks like the DOJ is making up their own rules at this point ....
I knew Garland would be a Karen, when he didn't get the lifelong nod by McConnell .....
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
They're amending their trial schedule.
www.newsweek.com
Supreme Court abruptly changes schedule
The development comes as the Supreme Court faces a backlog of more than two dozen cases awaiting decisions.
www.newsweek.com
Well, I knew about the added Wed. .. and they usually do on Thur. ... but now they added Fri?They're amending their trial schedule.
Supreme Court abruptly changes schedule
The development comes as the Supreme Court faces a backlog of more than two dozen cases awaiting decisions.
I just wonder if they do the Trump case or put it off until they return?
If they put it off... ( I know unlikely).. would that not almost certainly put the docs case on hold til after the
election?
I had read that if Jack Smith has 11 weeks he can do it before the election. As of now... he would.
DT has lost some people over "sex"... Both sex cases whether you say accounting wrongs that is what they were about. But would people ignore a conviction if they thought he committed treason by holding documents that
he legally could have but the "government" says no?
Are his attorneys smart enough to point out that Biden was given a pass for the same thing.....?
And we cannot forget J6... or "Fani's" GA case.
Well, Scotus came out with 2 rulings today. Tomorrow at 10 AM they will be back.
It was announced they have 10 or 11 left so that is 5/6 tomorrow and 5/6 Fri. and if they dont get it doe this week they will go into July.
SMH ...
It was announced they have 10 or 11 left so that is 5/6 tomorrow and 5/6 Fri. and if they dont get it doe this week they will go into July.
SMH ...
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
Trump's haters are implacable. Whether in the lay community or the political circle.
I don't believe the accuser in the sex case that ruled against him. Too many claims that make no sense. However, we know juries can be loaded so to insure a conviction. The monies paid to steal the 2020 election were only the beginning.
As to whether SCOTUS will hear Trump's case before the election, I think it depends on how much JR is paid this time to serve Trump's handlers or those others who bought him the first time in the 2020 Steal.
We'll see.
Last edited:
She couldn't identify a specific date. Could not describe the changing room.
Wouldn't make it in most real court rooms ......
The DOJ put everyone in a bind.
Biden has "Stolen Top Secret and Classified documents" from when he was a Senator, with no authority to possess the documents. Even while Vice President he has no authority. There is no limitation for the President to have documents in his possession .....Executive Authority ......Biden had no authority. He was a criminal ......
Should the Republicans win it all .......there should be a "House Cleaning"
Biden has "Stolen Top Secret and Classified documents" from when he was a Senator, with no authority to possess the documents. Even while Vice President he has no authority. There is no limitation for the President to have documents in his possession .....Executive Authority ......Biden had no authority. He was a criminal ......
Should the Republicans win it all .......there should be a "House Cleaning"
BlessedPeace
Well-Known Member
She's a liar. She got paid to perjure herself because the court won't prosecuted that because they're paid too.
Now she thinks she'll make millions in the ruling. Pathetic. Is accuser in 2016 used lyrics from a classic rock song as her description of the rape. She got exposed by a Deep Purple band fan.
I wonder where dressing room liar got her scenario from?
Similar threads
