Thank you for the helpful cut-to-the-chase on Smith's move and thank you for the calendar dates to watch for, and for doing the same in Hunter's case, and for everything else. Invaluable.
I'm saying that there. is. no. way. this SCOTUS would affirm tRump's appeals, especially in light of US v Nixon, which surely is controlling here, and also that this Court already ruled against tRump's "immunity" claim in the subpoena-his-taxes case.
My sense was that they were done with tRump, they would let the appellate courts have the final word, and only because of the totally surprising Smith filing is the Court even considering taking the appeal now. And if it does, it would be a shocking development if no decision emerges until term's end...can't happen, not a case of this historical magnitude.
With end of term in June/July, trial set in March, and Smith asking SCOTUS to intervene in December, there's a LOT of wiggle room to rule before end of term and still muck up the trial date. There's even wiggle room to rule before March and still not quickly enough to hold the trial date. I hope you're right about what SCOTUS will do. I'm not making any predictions. Just laying out the range of possiblities.
IIRC (nearly always questionable 🤨), SCOTGOP has failed to be loyal to Trump every time he brought or tried to bring one of his problems before them. Given what finding for him re immunity would mean -- that a POTUS can break the law, even block the transfer of power -- I doubt that they’ll start showing loyalty now. The GOP apparatchiks have no need for him now that there’s six of them. And Roberts is sensitive about giving the game away; that SCOTUS is less a court, more a junta.
Re Donnie’s cell phone: I’m sure Smith at least knows what’s on it. Actually, we know some: calls with McCarthy and Jordan, maybe Ginny Thomas IIRC (see above caveat).
But what’s really important: am I wrong to presume that Santos’ plea deal will not affect his Cameo business?
Can someone help me understand what it means to give "Trump a deadline to respond of Dec. 20" to Smith's SCOTUS request? How would the case proceed depending on that response??
Smith is asking SCOTUS to do x. SCOTUS is appropriately giving Trump a chance to respond to Smith's request. It fairly gives Trump a chance to say why SCOTUS shouldn't do x and lay out the legal and historical reasons why Smith's request is wrong, premature, misguided, etc. It's all in keeping with the adversarial system where the court decides based on argument from both sides. Once Trump responds, expect a decision fairly quickly thereafter. Hope that helps.
The actions of Weiss completely upend the so called "rule of law" and the failure of Milquetoast Merriick to fire him on the first day of his worthless tenure further cements the unequal nature of our system of justice. It's been FIVE YEARS fer chrissakes. There is so obviously one rule for the likes of tangeranus and another rule for everyone else, and nothing that happens anytime soon or ever really with SCROTUS will change that. Convicting tangeranus will be a start but that's all it would be. It'll take decades of "rules of law" to establish a real rule of law. We all know it.
Thank you for the helpful cut-to-the-chase on Smith's move and thank you for the calendar dates to watch for, and for doing the same in Hunter's case, and for everything else. Invaluable.
Lots going on! Thanks for the
Hunter Biden links and just
an absolute bravo to Jack Smith and his team!
Wow. Thank you for laying out the Supreme Court options so simply and concisely. As always, you are much appreciated!
I'm saying that there. is. no. way. this SCOTUS would affirm tRump's appeals, especially in light of US v Nixon, which surely is controlling here, and also that this Court already ruled against tRump's "immunity" claim in the subpoena-his-taxes case.
My sense was that they were done with tRump, they would let the appellate courts have the final word, and only because of the totally surprising Smith filing is the Court even considering taking the appeal now. And if it does, it would be a shocking development if no decision emerges until term's end...can't happen, not a case of this historical magnitude.
With end of term in June/July, trial set in March, and Smith asking SCOTUS to intervene in December, there's a LOT of wiggle room to rule before end of term and still muck up the trial date. There's even wiggle room to rule before March and still not quickly enough to hold the trial date. I hope you're right about what SCOTUS will do. I'm not making any predictions. Just laying out the range of possiblities.
Now we get to find out if the Supreme Court is full of traitors or patriots.
IIRC (nearly always questionable 🤨), SCOTGOP has failed to be loyal to Trump every time he brought or tried to bring one of his problems before them. Given what finding for him re immunity would mean -- that a POTUS can break the law, even block the transfer of power -- I doubt that they’ll start showing loyalty now. The GOP apparatchiks have no need for him now that there’s six of them. And Roberts is sensitive about giving the game away; that SCOTUS is less a court, more a junta.
Re Donnie’s cell phone: I’m sure Smith at least knows what’s on it. Actually, we know some: calls with McCarthy and Jordan, maybe Ginny Thomas IIRC (see above caveat).
But what’s really important: am I wrong to presume that Santos’ plea deal will not affect his Cameo business?
Can someone help me understand what it means to give "Trump a deadline to respond of Dec. 20" to Smith's SCOTUS request? How would the case proceed depending on that response??
Smith is asking SCOTUS to do x. SCOTUS is appropriately giving Trump a chance to respond to Smith's request. It fairly gives Trump a chance to say why SCOTUS shouldn't do x and lay out the legal and historical reasons why Smith's request is wrong, premature, misguided, etc. It's all in keeping with the adversarial system where the court decides based on argument from both sides. Once Trump responds, expect a decision fairly quickly thereafter. Hope that helps.
It does, thanks!
The actions of Weiss completely upend the so called "rule of law" and the failure of Milquetoast Merriick to fire him on the first day of his worthless tenure further cements the unequal nature of our system of justice. It's been FIVE YEARS fer chrissakes. There is so obviously one rule for the likes of tangeranus and another rule for everyone else, and nothing that happens anytime soon or ever really with SCROTUS will change that. Convicting tangeranus will be a start but that's all it would be. It'll take decades of "rules of law" to establish a real rule of law. We all know it.