Constitutional Law, Criminal law

Smith is No Longer in a Hurry: Special Counsel Moves To Slow Down District Court Judge

For over a year, Special Counsel Jack Smith has made one element the overriding priority in his prosecution of former president Donald Trump: speed. Smith repeatedly moved to curtail Trump’s appellate rights and demand expedited appeals to try to secure a conviction before the election. In that effort, he found an equally motivated judge in U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who virtually turned her court into a rocket docket to try Trump. Now, in a neck-breaking change of direction, Smith is trying to slow down Chutkan who appears again ready to pull out the stops in this case.

After the mandate in the case was returned to her, Judge Chutkan immediately resumed her high-speed scheduling to look at the pre-trial issues after the Court reversed her earlier rulings on the basis of presidential immunity.

The past problem with a court making speed the priority is that it does not allow much time to create a record. The remand will now require Judge Chutkan to do so on the question of what charges and evidence may be barred under the ruling in Trump v. United States.

As it has in the past, the Court adopted a three-tiered approach to presidential powers based on the source of a presidential action. Chief Justice John Roberts cited Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, in which the court ruled against President Harry Truman’s takeover of steel mills.

In his famous concurrence to Youngstown, Justice Robert Jackson broke down the balance of executive and legislative authority between three types of actions. In the first, a president acts with express or implied authority from Congress. In the second, he acts where Congress is silent (“the zone of twilight” area). In the third, the president acts in defiance of Congress.

In this decision, the Court adopted a similar sliding scale. It held that presidents enjoy absolute immunity for actions that fall within their “exclusive sphere of constitutional authority” while they enjoy presumptive immunity for other official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial or private actions.

Only hours after receiving the mandate, Judge Chutkin scheduled an Aug. 16 conference to lay out the schedule and issues going forward. The former version of Jack Smith would have been delighted. He did not even see the need for the right for an en banc appeal in previously pushing for a pre-election trial.

Now, however, Smith is telling Judge Chutkin to slow down already.

Smith told the court that “The Government continues to assess the new precedent set forth last month in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. Although those consultations are well underway, the Government has not finalized its position on the most appropriate schedule for the parties to brief issues related to the decision.”

He has asked for a three-week delay to further consider what he wants to do. It is not clear if the press and pundits will now charge Smith with “slow walking” the case.

The question is whether Smith is considering a drastic move in light of the calendar and the ruling. There is, of course, always the possibility that he either throws in the towel or opts for a post-election trial. That would certainly go against the grain of Smith, who has always pushed both the law and the calendar to the breaking point. However, as some of us have been arguing for months, he may no longer view a trial as a plausible objective.

There is also the possibility that Smith will do something that some of us have discussed over the last year: pare down his case. Smith has always been undone by his appetite. As shown in his 8-0 reversal in his conviction of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Smith has rarely shown moderation as a prosecutor.

His overloaded criminal complaints created this disaster for his team. In Florida, Smith unwisely loaded up the prosecution with controversial charges on the retention of classified material. It not only triggered difficult challenges but slowed the case to a crawl as the parties dealt with classification laws. Had he proceeded solely on obstruction charges, he might have secured his trial before the election (and before the recent ruling on immunity). Even if the reduced case was heard by the Court on immunity, an obstruction case would have been far stronger for Smith.

The same is true with the D.C. case. Smith loaded up the case to raise the January 6th speech and other issues. Most were unnecessary, but Smith used his press conference to denounce the January 6th riot.

A three-week delay will give Smith ample time (in addition to the weeks following the Supreme Court decision) to deliberate. However, it will take roughly a month off the calendar for just internal debate with the election only three months away.

So, even with a judge who appears chomping at the bit to resume the fast track to trial, Smith now wants more time. Even before this request, it was hard to see how a trial could be held before the election. Now it seems a virtual certainty that any trial will have to await the results of the election. As I wrote in 2023, the odds were against a federal trial before the election, which would convert the voters into the largest jury in history.

 

380 thoughts on “Smith is No Longer in a Hurry: Special Counsel Moves To Slow Down District Court Judge”

  1. With the unconstitutional acts of the SCOTUS around “presidential immunity” Smith is probably, yes, reassessing.

    More likely, given clear SCOTUS intent to lean on the scales in this case, Smith is most likely choosing to strengthen his case now that timeliness has been taken off the table.

    Look for superseding indictments in the next three weeks before Labor Day. He’s going to grind on trump’s co-conspirators.

    2. That’s how the American system of justice works, and it’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system should be respected. We should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that.

      Anonymous, the spastic idiot is a reckless, dangerous, irresponsible booger eating troll who needs to STFU before he gets shut up.
      —–Joe Biden, May 2024

      1. These are the same people who laud Tampon Tim for his “war” record but who deride J. D. Vance because he was a journalist and not an infantryman in a combat zone.

        That’s the signature strength of the Democrat Party–hypocrisy.

    3. “With the unconstitutional acts of the SCOTUS”…. REALLY??!!

      So YOU think that you know the US Constitution BETTER THAN the men and women who sit on the highest court of the land??!!

      Just exactly, O’learned one, did the highest court in the land do that was “unconstitutional”? At least according to you.

      I’ll go grab some popcorn and a drink and then prepare to listen to your reply. Because THIS aught to be good.

      Oh, btw, where did you get your law degree(s) and where have you practiced law and/or taught Constitutional law? I mean, if you’re so much more educated than those on the SCOTUS, then you MUST be a professor of law, at least, at SOME University SOMEWHERE in the country, right?

      Ok, I’ve got my popcorn and drink and now I’m all ready. Please begin

    4. Only when a court rules in a way the left doesn’t agree with, SCOTUS in this case, do the leftists say things like “…intent to lean on the scales of justice….” When a rogue court like Marchan in NY rules in insanely biased ways does being critical of a court become a threat to democracy, or some other lame BS.

      1. By not using what the Constitution actually says in their decision. Might be news to you, but the SCOTUS is not the Constitution just by wearing robes, taking bribes, and taking away civil rights.

        1. “By not using what the Constitution actually says in their decision”

          as determined by YOU, a spastic, booger eating troll…

    6. I’ll respond to some of the spirited objections that come my way on this blog, but I can no longer respond seriously to the turd magat because it’s become clear he’s not just a stalking and disingenuous liar but is also not mentally well. Seriously…

      I’ll probably forward the link for the suicide hot line to him when trump loses again, other than that he doesn’t deserve a response.

      1. Outed every time you try to appear normal, eh turd maggot?

        Bwahahahahahahaha you cant help sounding drunk dumb ass, that cooking sherry wont allow it.

      2. I’ll probably forward the link for the suicide hot line to him when trump loses again, other than that he doesn’t deserve a response.

        Clearly you’re very familiar with the link to that suicide hot line and can provide references for how well it has succeeded in saving you after 2016 and your gal Hillary failed you and the rest of the Soviet Democrats by losing to Trump.

        You have any confidence that suicide hot line can save you yet again when the “turd magats” defeat your whore Blow Job Harris and the rest of you Anonymous cowardly Soviet Democrat Marxist Useful Idiots?

          1. How will you do that, in your fever dream, turd maggot? You just said you wouldn’t respond again.

            Bwahahahahaha have another sip of that cooking sherry, drunktard

    7. Marbury v. Madison, says otherwise. The Supreme Court decided in 1803, that they, and they alone are the chief interpreter of the Constitution. Not you, not Congress, not the President, nor the Vice-President, nor the word salad generator, who a few weeks ago helped to over throw the Democratic voters’ selection for who they wanted to run for president. In every other place in the world it is called a coup.

        1. No Congress cannot. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. That’s not my opinion, that’s the opinion in Marbury, a case the Supreme Court has cited since 1803, as their authority to do so. Congress doesn’t rule anything. Congress is a legislative body, not a court. They DON’T decide what is constitutional and what is not. I knew about Marbury v. Madison before I started college and law school, but I guess they don’t teach it anymore.

          Provide authority for your statement that says otherwise. I’ll wait, but I won’t hold my breath because there isn’t any. Your argument is “I don’t like how the Supreme Court ruled, so what they did was wrong.” Cite a case or a part of the Constitution that supports what you said.

          1. Maj229 — From President Andrew Jackson: “The Supreme Court made that ruling. Now let them enforce it.”
            That was one another matter but certainly makes it clear that the Supreme Court depends upon the other branches agreeing with its rulings.

        2. See City of Boerne. Congress cannot overrule any court decision, not even about a statute’s meaning, let alone the constitution’s. In the case of a statute, if Congress doesn’t like the way the court interpreted it, it can always pass a new statute that says what it wants it to, but it can’t overrule the decision about what the old statute meant. In the case of the constitution, all Congress can do is propose an amendment.

      2. *LORETTA

        Coup or a planned scheme to install Harris. Surprised it took so long. Joe just had to get beyond the limit for prosecution.

        Adaptation . Uniforms and donkeys are good.

    8. He’s going to grind on trump’s co-conspirators.

      Just by happy coincidence, Kamala Harris will be there to swallow every drop after Smith grinds on them. Kamala is very good at oral skills

      💦

  2. It’s so very simple. Smith is slow walking the case now because he’s afraid that he will lose the case before the election. Some would correctly interpret it as obvious election interference. If you can’t recognize deviant behavior then go ahead and vote for Harris. She will be more than happy to remove your child’s reproductive organs without your consent. Indoctrination of children as proven by history is one of the highest priorities for all despotic regimes. Welcome to the USSR you don’t know how lucky you are.

    1. Oh my god the sky is falling! Transgenderism represents .6% of the population. Look it up… USAFacts, PolitiFact, Williams Institute, Reuters. A bigger threat to the country are moron right wing nutcases who think this is the biggest issue of the day.

      1. Oh my god, ABORTION is the number one issue for libturd childless lesbians who will never be pregnant and skanky, lard ass liberal women who have no hope of ever getting laid.

      2. Transgenderism represents .6% of the population. Look it up… USAFacts, PolitiFact, Williams Institute, Reuters. A bigger threat to the country are moron right wing nutcases who think this is the biggest issue of the day.

        Another Greta Thunburg “How Dare You!” moment! How dare moron right wing nutcase parents resist single digit IQ intellectual genius Anonymous Soviet Democrat men cosplaying as being women insisting that those parents submit to their children having gender blending groomer transgenders that only represent .6% of the population being pushed in their faces.

        Only .6% of the population – but the Soviet Democrat theology demands gender blending men have a right to hang their junk out in front of little girls in female change rooms. Or win an Olympic gold medal by cosplaying as female so they can beat up an actual woman in the boxing ring.

        Mentally ill single digit IQ Anonymous communist Soviet Democrat nutcases think they represent normal Americans with their views.

        1. *LORETTA

          Whomever is pulling the strings doesn’t care at all about trans or lgbt. Those pulling the strings want only to divide people and create unrest. Right now “they” have taken it to little children and wonder where from there?

          Ho hum…

    2. No, he’s not slow walking the case. It’s nothing of the sort. After the Trump vs. U.S. ruling Smith has to reconsider how to go forward with the charges and what he needs to change to keep charges relevant with the ruling. Requesting just three weeks is not slow walking the process.

      One thing to consider is that Smith can now use the insurrection charge because it is not an official act or he can charge Trump with inciting a riot which is also not an official act. Smith’s approach is necessary, it’s not an attempt to slow walk the case.

      1. “One thing to consider is that Smith can now use the insurrection charge because it is not an official act or he can charge Trump with inciting a riot which is also not an official act. Smith’s approach is necessary, it’s not an attempt to slow walk the case.”

        I have a thousand dollars that says he won’t. Want some, Svelaz?

  3. Go for the obvious explanation:
    Jumping Jack Smith has now faced repeated failures legally and politically to include rebuke of his methods by the SCOTUS. His career is potentially coming to a close (after a string of disappointing performances) and will only be rescued by a Harris win. If you were Jumping Jack, would you tie you wagon to the old DEI horse that earned you yet another setback at the SCOTUS? I mean c’mon, whats the odds she will repeat her performance and earn Jumping Jack yet another black eye before the election? Heck, it is one thing to have a legacy as a legal gunslinger and tough hatchet man. It is another to have minds and history remember Jumping Jack as having initially led the judge only to be drug under by that same judge he lost control over and her incompetence re-surfaced.

    1. *LORETTA

      Maybe Smith just thinks it’ll be more fun to harass a sitting president. President Trump can delay that idea for 4 years.

      Maybe Smith just needs time to think about the new but not new opinion.

      Maybe he’ll toss it now that Joe isn’t there to push it.

  4. Jack Smith is supposed to be an unbiased arbiter of the law. He’s all over X shilling for the Harris campaign. The Democrats are telling us that he’s an upstanding prosecutor who would never put his thumb on the scale. If you read what he has to say on X it will quickly become apparent that he’s a man who will stack a deck in the game because his future depends on it. Lucre: money, especially when regarded as sordid or distasteful or gained in a dishonorable way.
    “officials getting their hands grubby with filthy lucre.”
    He makes good company for Harris and Walz.

  5. Thank God we have this Supreme Court and not one run by progressives (not liberals, they believe in free speech and the rule of law). Imagine what this country would continue to turn into if a president has no immunity at all. Just another banana republic.

  6. Smith and the Left Wing Radical DC Court, will end up losing. Smith is not properly appointed as a Special Council, which is now being appealed in the 11th Court, he will lose and the DOJ will lose, then they will go to Supreme Court and lose or Supreme Court can simply say we decline? This all effects the DC Court and the DC Appeals Court, for the DC court is full of Left Wing Dem judges and everything will be back into the Supreme Court for 2025 – Meanwhile if Trump wins Smith and the DC Court will lose for the case will be dropped and Jack Smith will be looking for another Job.

  7. Jonathan: You have misinterpreted everything about Jack Smith’s criminal prosecutions of DJT. Here’s why:

    First, every criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. Jack Smith is simply carrying out DOJ policy and the requirements of the Constitution. The whole purpose is to ensure a criminal defendant is entitled to know whether they are innocent or guilty promptly–especially in this case where DJT is a candidate for President. Judge Chutkan did the same until her case was put on hold due to DJT’s appeals. It was DJT who did not want a speedy trial because he knows he is guilty.

    Second, Jack Smith is not “slow walking” this case. He has to make critical decisions. He could issue a superseding indictment to include the over dozen of co-conspirators. But that would mean a lengthy process and only result in a trial sometime in 2025 or 2026. Or Smith could decide to par down his 4 counts against DJT so they would survive any “immunity” challenges. Careful consideration of his options is not “slow walking”. Whatever happens Smith knows that ANY trial is not going to happen before the election.

    Third, in the Mar-a-Lago docs case it was Judge Eileen Cannon who “slow walked” and “sleep walked” her case. Had she proceeded like any other judge that case could have been tried before the election. But Cannon decided to delay and postpone important decisions as a favor to the guy who appointed her–perhaps hoping that if DJT were reelected she could be appointed to a higher judicial position. As the ultimate favor she dismissed the entire case based on her complete misunderstanding of the SC statute. Smith has promptly appealed that erroneous ruling to the 11th Circuit that will likely slap her down again and might even remove her from the case. But assigning the case to another judge means further delays and why the case will not be tried before the election–through no fault of Jack Smith.

    And Smith didn’t “unwisely loaded up the prosecution with controversial charges” in the FL case. The charges of unlawfully taking classified docs and obstruction of the investigation are straight forward and well documented. DJT’s lawyers know that case is a dead loser for their client–as do most legal scholars.

    Whatever happens in the two cases the fact they will not be tried before the election cannot be blamed on Jack Smith. The irony is that Smith does not have to prove DJT is a “convicted felon” before the election. That was decided by a jury in the Manhattan hush money case–on all 34 counts. That verdict will hang around DJT’s neck until November when voters will decide whether they want a “convicted felon” as their next President. If DJT loses again, Jack Smith will proceed with his cases–slowly and methodically to ensure justice is served!

    1. F”irst, every criminal defendant is entitled to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment.”
      Correct the DEFENDANT is there is no government riught to a speedy trial. If a defendant opts to require the govenrment to dot every i and cross every t – government has no legitimate objections.

      I would further note in the real world that it is common place for criminal defenadants to delay trial as long as possible. Particularly defendants who are not incarceratged pre trial. Relatively simple criminal cases often take years to come to trial.

      “Jack Smith is simply carrying out DOJ policy”
      There is no DOJ policy of rush to judgement.

      “and the requirements of the Constitution. ”
      There is no constitutional requirement for a speedy trial, there is a constitutional right of a criminal defendant, those are NOT the same thing.

      “The whole purpose is to ensure a criminal defendant is entitled to know whether they are innocent or guilty promptly–especially in this case where DJT is a candidate for President.”
      False, you fundimentally misunderstand rights.
      There are no government rights only powers.
      Individuals have rights – and only the individual can decide how and whether they wish to assert those.

      The right to free speech does NOT allow gfovernment to compell speech.

      A defendants right to a speedy trial does not allow the government to rush.

      Arguments about rights and the public good are inherently false. Rights do not exist to for some benefit to the public as a whole – they exist to entitle an individual even if that right runs contrary to some public good.

      “Judge Chutkan did the same until her case was put on hold due to DJT’s appeals. It was DJT who did not want a speedy trial because he knows he is guilty.”

      It does not matter why Trump does not want a speedy trial – it is his right to have one if he wants or not.
      He does not have the right to delay forever. But he does have the right to require COMPLETE due process.

      There is actually no constitutional justification for a prosecutor to Rush – while that does not mean they can not try to move with dispatch as they wish.
      They can not deny the defendant due process in doing so.

      Would Trump be convicted by a DC jury – almost certainly – just as he was convicted of a non-crime by a Manhattan jury.

      But as Turley correctly notes – Trump wants and is getting the largest jury there is – the american voters.
      And he is allowed to attempt that.
      And DOJ can not try to thwart that.

    2. “Second, Jack Smith is not “slow walking” this case. He has to make critical decisions.”
      Correct – and unlike what he was doing before NOW and only NOW is he proceeding with deliberation. Sopmething he should have been doing all along.

      ” He could issue a superseding indictment to include the over dozen of co-conspirators.”
      Not before the election – he would need a new grand jury.

      The immunity decision is a massive problem – for Smith and Willis and Bragg.

      The failure of Left wing nut prosecutors to think about what parts of their cases might be subject to immunity or executive priviledge and their own idiotic decision to “go boldly where no man has gone before” leaves them facing the problem that they really have to start over from scratch.

      It is almost certainly NOT true that Smth could just drop some of the charges and limit the scope of the trial.
      AS he was told from the start – he crossed lines in his indictment process – the rules SCOTUS laid out are not just for a trial, they also apply to the grand jury. Merchan has the same problem right now in NY. He blindly went forward disregarding Trump’s legal rights. The supreme court has just said – there was a right way to do this, and Merchan is stuck with the fact that he ignored Trump’s assertions of his rights.

      There is some claims – based on Merchan’s scheduling orders that NOW MErchan is about to recuse himself.

      Regardlkess this is all going to h311 for democrats.

      All you had to do was flollow the law and constitution – but then there would have been nothing to prosecute.

      ” But that would mean a lengthy process and only result in a trial sometime in 2025 or 2026.”
      And when Trump wins Smnith gets fired and this is done.
      ” Or Smith could decide to par down his 4 counts against DJT so they would survive any “immunity” challenges.”
      But he can’t – and that is why this is taking so long – Smith presented evidence to the GJ that was improper – the indictments are null and void (as are Bragg and Willis indictments) He MUST start from scratch. This is taking a while because he is trying to figure out how to get arround the problems he has made. There is no way arround them.

      ” Careful consideration of his options is not “slow walking”.”
      Correct iut is what Smith should have done from the start. The big problems you are facing moving forward – even in the Bragg case are BECAUSE you dud NOT carefully consider the actual law and constitution BEFORE.

      ” Whatever happens Smith knows that ANY trial is not going to happen before the election.”
      The FACT is there never should have been indictments in the first place.

      Aside from the fact that SDmith can not proceeed, Trump is likely to challenge Smith’s appointment again in DC, Chutkan wioll not take that seriously, Trump will appeal, the DC appeals court will not take it seriously. Trump will appeal, the Supreme court is likely to side with Trump.

      1. Dead on: “The immunity decision is a massive problem – for Smith and Willis and Bragg.”

    3. It has been determined that Smith’s appointment was invalid. He is working outside the law. Qualified immunity does not protect officials for unlawful acts. As such, Smith should be personally liable to defendants for the costs of his unlawful acts.

    4. The day Dennis McInlyre is a lawyer, is the day I’m a goddam astronaut—Lt Dan

    5. My time is short and I can’t make my case, point by point, so I’ll just say this. You are correct when you say that “the defendant is entitled to a speedy trial”. But the key words/phrase here (I believe) are “DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED”.

      The “DEFENDANT” is “ENTITLED” to a speedy trial.…NOT the government/prosecution. In many instances the defendant(s) might NOT want a “speedy trial” and for any number of good, valid, reasons. Thus Trump is “entitled”, as well, to CHOOSE to NOT have a “speedy trial”. While there is his constitutional “right” to a fair and speedy trial, there is a significant difference between there being a “right” and a “requirement”. Meaning that (at least as far as I’m aware) there is NO “requirement” that he (or anyone) be given a “speedy” trial. It’s a RIGHT that the DEFENDANT is given as to decide whether THEY, and not the government, wants to avail themselves of.

      I’d like to go deeper into this and on additional points from your post but, unfortunately, I’ve got to go.

      Take care.

      2. *SENATOR KEELEY

        Ya, ya ya, the founders were familiar with innocent people rotting in the King’s jails while waiting.

    6. Jonathan: You have misinterpreted everything about Jack Smith’s criminal prosecutions of DJT. Here’s why:

      Jonathan, your very dear friend (and mine) Dennis McIntyre has decided that he does not want to remember how Jack Smith’s previous engagement in the 2012 reelection campaign as a Democrat prosecutor was to similarly take out Governor Bob McDonnell as the likely GOP nominee to run against Obama/Biden in 2012.

      And Jonathan, Dennis ESPECIALLY wants you to ignore that SCOTUS (happily after the election where Obama/Biden defeated the weak Mitt Romney instead) threw out his prosecution and conviction of McDonnell in a unanimous decision. And equally importantly, in their decision specifically referred to and called Jack Smith’s actions in that prosecution “a threat to our democracy”.

      Weren’t we told that the Soviet Democrats and our dear friend Dennis McIntyre were all about defeating “threats to our democracy”????

      But now Jack Smith is back for a second round as the Democrat Prosecutor of dangerous opponents – Denis wants you and the rest of us to believe Jack Smith is what an impartial, unbiased prosecutor with no ties to the current DoJ looks like.

      Jonathan, I think your dear friend Dennis McIntyre is lying his ass off to you as he uses your comments section as though it were his own political blog.

      Personally, I think Dennis McIntyre is a communist Cheap Fake American.

  9. I saw a clip of Kamala Harris giving a speech in Wisconsin and it was played side by side with her speech in Michigan. It is a carbon copy, same expression, same hand movements and it ends in the President Trump’s spontaneous, “Fight, fight, fight.”

    She is being coached, avoiding interviews and press conferences as her campaign is engineered by the same people, who in 2020 carted out their necessary white guy, made a Faustian bargain and told “Ol’ Joe from Scranton” what to do and what to say. The corporate media is in on it. They gaslight anyone who dares to question them; classic psych-ops propaganda techniques. These are the same forces behind Jack Smith. Why would Soros and his billionaire ilk be pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into this operation? What do they want in exchange?

    What a crock of bull excrement!

      1. No, but I went to the grocery store yesterday and two bags of thoughtfully chosen items were 127 dollars. I am waiting half a year for a medical exam and my home and auto insurance went up significantly. This is the reality of living in a reckless “progressive” world.

        I closed my office during COVID as was mandated and now work alone as I do not wish to enter again into the increasing complexity of employment regulations and liabilities.

        So, no, I am prepared to exist in a radical left world of reckless spending and global chaos. I started with nothing and can get along.

        I feel badly for the debt-laden graduates and job seekers who will enter into professions that can be outsourced and replaced by AI- the younger generation who have been priced out of buying a home and even a car. However, if they are the same ones who thought Joe Biden has been present of mind, perhaps they will learn a lesson.

        She is an incompetent politician whom the propaganda team with dress up and give her a little polish and a lot of spin.

        1. Facts. Well put.
          Exchanging Harris for Biden is like pooping your pants and changing your shirt.
          At some point most intelligent folks will just have to to let snowflake/socialist nation walk around in their poopy pants…

        3. I believed Michelle Obama when she said –>
          Plant a garden.

          Converting the garage into a chicken coop.

      2. If she wins, say goodbye to America as we know it. And yeah, those Radical
        America haters piss me off, and they should piss YOU off too.

    2. I agree with a lot of what you said and keep wondering who is the real president since everyone knows Biden has lost his marbles.

      But your comment about making the same speech reminds me of a talk I heard from one of the Dalai Lama’s translators. He said when the Dalai Lama went to Berlin, the newspapers quoted him saying, “We all want happiness and don’t want suffering.” Then when His Holiness the Dalai Lama went to Rome, the papers wrote he said the same thing. Next the 14th Dalai Lama said it again in Warsaw. Dalai Lamas have been making the same speech for a thousand years.

      1. The Dalai Lama speaks (largely) to true-believer followers who are not capable of critically scrutinizing his words, or who have suspended their ability to make that kind of examination. Those followers are also not responsible for reaffirming his status every four years. To the extent that your comparison is valid I find it highly troubling.

    4. E.M.: Harris is likely being coached by Anita Dunn, who left Biden’s staff after the coup and joined the Harris team. She was responsible for the basement campaign in 2020 and integral in the cognitive cover-up.

    5. She is being coached, avoiding interviews and press conferences as her campaign is engineered by the same people…

      E.M., of course she is. The days of conventional electoral campaigning ended when Clinton lost in 2016. Republicans haven’t figured it out yet. This isn’t our grandparents Democratic party. Only one of these two opposing forces is fighting to lead with their vision for a better constitutional republic. The other has a vision that is completely alien to that cause. It’s like an alternate universe of the British (Republicans) going to war with the Colonists (Democrats). Republicans are locked into traditional tactics and the Democrats are fighting with guerilla warfare. Sun Tzu said: To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy. Democrats can’t win with traditional warfare and they don’t need to.

      1. “Become your enemy” for too long, or do it too thoroughly, and it can be difficult to revert. If Republicans adopt all of the despicable tactics of the Democrats in order to defeat tham, isn’t it very possible that in doing so they will lose the very principles that you think distinguish them in a positive manner? What benefit would it be to the people of this country that the name that their oppressors call themselves has changed?

        1. If Republicans adopt all of the despicable tactics of the Democrats in order to defeat tham, isn’t it very possible that in doing so they will lose the very principles that you think distinguish them in a positive manner?

          That is always the risk. But Sun Tzu was talking about tactics in war, not in life.

  10. That doesn’t mean Smith has changed his spots.
    He’s still a snake.
    And BTW, America cannot heal until there’s justice.
    Firings is not that.

      1. As do innocent people who are wrongly charged with crimes they did not commit.

      2. And some people are turned INTO “criminals” BY prosecutors who are “snakes”. Just ask any of the number of people across the country (or even WORLD) who were/have been stamped as “criminals” after being found “guilty” of crimes for which it was later discovered that they were innocent of but only AFTER being framed, or otherwise railroaded, by unscrupulous prosecutors/police and/or judges.

      3. All criminals consider prosecutors to be snakes.

        Is Jack Smith a criminal for making up law in 2012 to prosecute and take out Obama/Biden’s most feared GOP nominee to run against them in that election – especially after SCOTUS threw out his prosecution and conviction of Governor McDonnell in a rare unanimous decision, and specifically termed him “a threat to our democracy”? Or is making up laws and then using your office to prosecute and take out dangerous political opponents legal in America as it was in the Soviet Union when Stalin’ Lavarentiy Beria was doing his political prosecutions?

        Or are prosecutors who make up and change laws in order to find a crime to take out their employers’ political enemies merely being “a snake”?

        Any cowardly Anonymous Soviet Democrats able to clarify the distinction?

    2. A leopard can’t change his spots, as the idiom states. But a snake? A new democrat Genus?

  11. SCOTUS has delayed and sabotaged the case. It makes sense for Smith to be careful and navigate the mine field that the court laid.

    1. That’s how the American system of justice works, and it’s reckless, it’s dangerous, it’s irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don’t like verdict. Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is a cornerstone of America. Our justice system should be respected. We should never allow anyone to tear it down. It’s as simple as that.

      Sammy Metamucil the spastic idiot is a reckless, dangerous, irresponsible booger eating troll who needs to STFU before he gets shut up.
      —–Joe Biden, May 2024

    2. ACtually it is the left – including Smith that has botched the case.
      The controversy over Smith’s appointment was aviadable – just apoint a US Attorney as SC – while that can still be challenged – and in fact the DOJ/SC should still use – there is no SC law, there is no offfice of the SC, it still might be regarded as a deminimus error as US attorney’s are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress and can prosecute crimes.

      In addition to that error as we have seen with Smith and Willis, and Bragg and … all of this has been very creative efforts to extend criminal law far beyond where it can legitimately go.

      Rep. Raskin is busy lobbying to have congress refuse to certify Trump if he is elected. That annoys some on the right. I think it is stupid on Raskins part – his own actions undermine his reasoning, but the fact is that Raskin can constitutionally do so.

      Put more simply Raskin is openly admitting that Congress is not obligated to accept the certified vote of the states.

      The moment Raskin makes the argument that Congress need not certify the election of Trump he completely undermines not merely the claims against Trump, but also most J6 defendants. It is not insurection or sedition for ptoestors to petition congress not to certify the election – just as it is not iunsurection of Raskin to do the same.

      There was no insurection. All the elector nonsense goes out the window. Anything associated with trying to get congress not to certify is gone.

      There was no attack on democracy, there was just actual democracy that got a bit rough and did not lean the way many hoped.

      As to the MAL case – that never should have been brought – as JW v NARA notes – presidents can take whatever documents they wish on exit – including classified docs. The PRA is only constitutional because that is the case. Clinton had classified tapes in his sock drawer, the courts precluded NARA from even seeking their return – they were Clinton’s – end of story.

      As to Turley’s claim that Smith should have limited himself to obstruction – first he is not paying attention there is lots of evidence there was no obstruction – NARA, and DOJ tried to manufacture obstruction from thin air. even the DC office of the FBI did not beleive there was obstructiuon.

      But equally importantly without the other bogus charges the obstruction charge dies – atleast with the jury of the people.

      Trying to prosecute Trump for obstruction without also charging him with an underlying crime – MIGHT be legally plausible, but it is political disaster.

      It is like investigating a bank robbery that never happened and charging the bank robber in this fictitious bank robbery with obstruction because he did not help you prove ture something that was objectively false.

      DOJ has gotten away with charging obstuction without charging a crime – but not in a super high profile case were everyone was watching. Doing so seems inherently corrupt (because it is).

      1. “Put more simply Raskin is openly admitting that Congress is not obligated to accept the certified vote of the states.”

        Don’t blame Raskin, it was SCOTUS who ruled that only Congress can enforce 14A3.

        1. By legislation. Not by refusing to count electoral votes.

          Eastman is correct that the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional. I think he’s incorrect that that leaves the decision in the vice president’s hands.

  12. Currently, it would seem Smith lacks the authority to even be attached to the case. Shouldn’t the justice department have to appeal Smith’s authority with internal lawyers with no connection to Smith, who was deemed illegally appointed?.

    1. Handwriting on wall: Trump will lose the election (again). Trump will be tried for attempting to steal the 2020 election as well as stealing US military secrets. Trump will be sentenced to prison. President Harris will pardon him. Georgia and Arizona will try Trump for his fake elector scheme. Georgia and Arizona will not pardon him. Trump will spend the rest of snake oil lying life in prison.

      1. Handwriting found on the parallel wall: Readers will bypass your comments, dismissing them as idiotic, ill-grounded, and mostly false blathering attempting to sound knowledgeable.

        1. Of course you think my comment is idiotic. You think it’s okay for Trump to try to rig voting in order to win.

          1. Yeah! The next thing you know, Trump is going to have State “Secretaries of State” change voting laws, bypassing the U.S. Constitutional requirement that only State Legislatures can control the method of voting.

            Why is is that the Left hates the Constitution when it fails to deliver their proffered outcome?

      2. Georgia is trying Fani next, dum dum. You must have missed the change in the docket there.

        We’re all well aware of your fever dreams, ya spastic booger eating troll. No need to stupidly repeat them every day.

        Don’t forget, Trump was supposed to be in a GA prison by now. Have another sip of that cooking sherry, drunktard.

        Bwahahaahaha outed again.

          1. Everyone on this blog is unemployed. If they were capable of flourishing in the real world, they wouldn’t be here.

            Welcome to Loserville.

              1. You show your ignorance by a statement like that. Many of us may be retired, stay at home mothers or we work from home. You must be a paid troll regurgitating talking points about which you have no clue.

          2. Hmmmm, unemployed.

            You sound like a sackless, friendless, pedophile, employed at the Pleasure Chest glory hole.

        2. As of August 2024, the legal case against Donald Trump in Georgia is ongoing, focusing on allegations of attempts to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump has been charged with multiple counts, including a “fake electors” scheme and pressuring Georgia officials to alter the vote count. The case is part of a broader investigation into election interference and involves several co-defendants. Trump continues to deny the charges and has actively campaigned in Georgia, criticizing state officials involved in the investigation​.

          1. Please provide evidence of this. In GA the case is stalled as the appelate courts decide whether Willis must be removed from the case. There are separate investigations of Willis that are also proceeding – on issues related to this case as well as others.

            While it is unlikely that Willis will be criminally prosecuted – it is possible – there are lots of credible criminal allegations,
            it is near certain she will be removed from the case and probably from office.

            And no one else in GA wants to tought the case with a 10ft pole.

            THERE IS NO CASE

          2. “As of August 2024, the legal case against Donald Trump in Georgia is ongoing”

            Did you read that in Vox, or from Rachel Maddow?

            When you are involved in the Cobb County, Georgia legal scene and Fulton County politics, you come back and talk to me spastic.

      4. How has all that wishfull thinking panned out so far ?

        Rep. Raskin is busy thoroughly undermining the elections related claims against Trump.

        Raskins claim that Congress need not certify Trump is correct.

        It is no different from Trumps claim that congress need not crertify Biden

        There are nop “fake electors” these were alternate electors in the event that Congress refused to certfy the election in those specific states.
        That is howe the process works – see the election of 1876.

      5. Willis is going to be removed – it is just going to take time. She has very severe problems even asside from the Trump case.

        Nothing is going to happen in AZ – except the possible impeachment of Hobbes for public corruption.

      6. Harris would be wrong to pardon Trump for his crimes. That would undermine the entire concept of “no one is above the law”.

        1. Harris would be a figment of your fever dream, if she were President.

          Get a grip on yourself, sammy metamucil.

          Don’t forget, YOU said Biden was going to win in a landslide. How’d that work out?

  14. Not being an Attorney, I cannot really comment on the finer points of the law. I can understand tactics. I agree the Mr Smith is overzealous and sometimes oversteps his bounds and the law but I don’t think he is stupid. He had been slapped down on the immunity ruling in DC and dismissal of the case in Florida because of the questionable legality of his appointment.
    Simple prudence would suggest that, if this is truly about the law and not an election, that you would stand back and re-evaluate your case far more diligently and make sure, that in your legal haste, you did not leave other legal loose ends dangling. Especially if those loose ends can lead to another reversal.
    If your offensive has been soundly stopped, you should try to hold what ground you have and then focus on the areas that seemed more vulnerable during your offensive. Either refocus your case there or even look for another avenue totally to attack and see if the defense in this new area is strong or weak and might be a better objective for your reformed and rejuvenated attack. If you break through then you might still roll up your opponent to the point where they have to abandon their stronger defenses.
    It’s called starve failure and feed success. Sometimes you shape your game to how the referees are calling it.
    Personally I would hope he might speed up and make more errors and/or let Justice Chutkin roll right on and make the errors herself, especially in her haste to get Mr Trump.
    That was, I believe a real problem of the Liberal Supreme Court in the 1950’s and onward. In their justifiable desire to right many social and civil rights wrongs they tended to be too sloppy with the law in their legal haste. It has given the present Conservative court a lot of legal ground to plow new rows as well as repeatedly try to remind people that the legislature is supposed to make the law. Instead of just passing an interminable continuing resolution.

    1. <>

      That is absolutely wrong. You failed to understand the SCOTUS ruling. Clarence Thomas suggested that special counsels (not just Smith) were unconstitutional, which is an absurd and incompetent viewpoint. No other justice signed on with his opinion.

      1. A point validated and clarified by Turley on several occasions. There is no current clear authorization in force for special counsel.

          2. Then you can cite the Special counsel act ?
            Then you can show where Smith was appointed by the president and confirmed by Congress ?

              1. LMAO Sammy Metamucil is a douche who doesnt realize that the IC law was still in place in 1988.

                Clean your diaper, sammy. you stink like shit

      2. Read this
        “WHY ROBERT MUELLER’S APPOINTMENT AS
        SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS UNLAWFUL
        Steven G. Calabresi* & Gary Lawson2**”
        Notre Dame Law Review, 2019

        1. Sounds like you only read the title. It wasn’t hard to find analysis showing the shortcomings of Calabresi and Lawson who are not arguing objectively. Here’s a quick snippet I found within 30 seconds of a search on FindLaw:

          Attorneys General have been hiring “special” counsels to handle particular matters going back to President Garfield’s day,[1] and no one in any of the three branches has ever seriously questioned the AG’s statutory authority to do so. To the contrary, both the Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit have held (or, at a minimum, noted without expressing any doubts) that the Attorney General had such power, in well-known cases involving the appointment of Leon Jaworski as Special Prosecutor in the Watergate investigation and Lawrence Walsh in the Iran-Contra affair. See U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 694 (Congress “has . . . vested in [the AG] the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him in the discharge of his duties. Acting pursuant to those statutes, the Attorney General has delegated the authority to represent the United States in these particular matters to a Special Prosecutor with unique authority and tenure.”); In re Sealed Case, 829 F.2d at 55 (“We have no difficulty concluding that the Attorney General possessed the statutory authority to create the Office of Independent Counsel: Iran/Contra and to convey to it the ‘investigative and prosecutorial functions and powers’ described in [AG regulations]”).

          Miller’s and Concord’s argument is, in effect, that all of these historical appointments were unauthorized, or ultra vires. In support of this deeply counterintuitive argument, they rely almost exclusively on the fact that the particular statute most often invoked by Attorneys General to make such appointments—a law first enacted in 1870 and presently codified as 28 U.S.C. § 515(b)—does not say, in so many terms, that the AG has the authority to hire, retain or appoint special counsels. That statute does say, however, that “[e]ach attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath required by law,” and the adjoining subsection of the current law provides that “any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct,” id. § 515(a). In other words, section 515 expressly contemplates that the AG has the authority to appoint special counsels such as Mueller. Moreover, Congress has appropriated funds over the years to pay the salaries of such attorneys. And in 1966, Congress passed another statute, 28 U.S.C. § 533, which expressly provides, and thus confirms, that the Attorney General “may appoint officials—(1) to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States; . . . [and] (4) to conduct such other investigations regarding official matters under the control of the Department of Justice,” which includes the sort of counterintelligence investigation that Mueller is undertaking.

          1. ATS, I do not want to directly addfress your historical claims – because the FACTS of those appointments are all quite different – and the LAW was also different at the time.

            The independent counsel act was passed in 1978 and allowed to expire in 1998. So no case that you find in that time period is relevant.

            There were arguments that the IC act was unconstitutional for much the same reasons that the SC regulations were unconstitutional. – but at the very least there was actual statutory authority for the IC – there is not for the SC.

            Jaworski was appointed by Nixon – though he may later have regretted that.

            I would further note that though I think all these “special prosecutors” were unconstitutional – the appointments clause is perfectly clear and SCOTUS in all other instances has required – appointment by the president and confirmation by the senate.

            That can be met by a latteral transfer of a US Attorney – which was true of MOST of these appointments – though Not Mueller or Smith.

            The separate issue is the legitimacy of the office of special counsel.

            Cannon established a record addressing the budgeting, and oversight of the Office of Special Counsel.
            Only Congress can establish an Office of the United states and all officers of the united states must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the sentate.

            Thjat is NOT true of “inferior offices”, and “inferior officers”.

            The differences hyave to do with the degree of independence and rthe degree of official power executed.

            I would further note that the existance of something in the past does not mean it was constitutional.

            While there is little doubt that the AG can hire attorneys that do not reqwuire appointment or confirmation. That does not mean they can hire them to do anything they want, or that they can grant them the degree of independence that an Officer of the United State has.

            You cite the Jaworkski case – Nixon Challenged the power of DOJ to subpeona the president. That is entirely different from the legitimacy of Jaorski as Special Prosecutor – further thougfh Jaworski was not confirmed by the senate – he was appointed by the president.

            One of the problems wioth the historical argument is that the courts have often allowed incremental slow stretching of the constitution – until it finally became obvious we were beyond stretching and had nullified part of the constitution. Personally SCOTUS should take a hard line – and say NO far more oiften than they do.

            Regardless the argument you are meaking is that SCOUTS allowed DOJ a little latitude in the distant past, and then a little more, and then a littele more, and that prohibits them from saying WHOA – now you have gone way too far.

            My guess is that if this were a challenge to a US attroney being made SC – as we are seeing in the Hunter case – SCOTUS would have let it slide.

            But now we have an Office of the united state – and clearly not an inferior one being created and someone who was not even in government appointed to head it. And an office that is bloated and clkearly far more significant than US attorney;s who must be confirmed and appointed andwhose offices are created by congress.

            Smith is not an inferior office – or an advisor to the AG.

            I would separately note that while not completely dispositive, there is no conflict requiring an SC in Trump’s case. We would all like DOJ to tread carefully investigating a former president. but there is no actual conflict of interest.

            Coinversly Hunter Biden is the presidents son, and Trumnp was actually president.
            It is easier for SCOTUS to turn a blind eye to minor infringements of the constitution when there is a circumstance the constitution has not foreseen.

            I think that is still error, But SCOTUS wasunlikely to say OOPS the SC regulations are garbage congress must pass a law when DOJ was investigating the current president.

            While politics is NOT a conflict of interest sufficient to turn a blind eye to the constitution.

            DOJ often proceeds with cases based on the political priorities of presidents.

      3. There was nothing absurd about Thomas’s concurrence, the briefs of Meese and Mukasey, or the opinion of Judge Cannon. To the contrary, they are well reasoned.

        Among other motions, Trump will also seek to have the case dismissed here on the basis that Smith lacks authority as in Florida. Chutkan’s decision on that and the immunity issues will all be appealed. Whether Smith takes an additional three weeks or not, this case will not be decided until 2025, if it is ever heard at all.

        1. They are well reasoned, perhaps, in the minds of people who support Donald Trump’s attempt to steal the 2020 election.

          1. Thjey are well reasoned because the text of the constitution is clear, I personally beelive that Weiss’s appointment as SC is also unconstitutional But that Hunter winning on that would have little impact because Weiss is a US attorney appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. And even the CA judge hearing the HB case noted that the information against Hunter Biden was started by Weiss as US attorney not SC.

            In the Hunter Biden case – the judge can order that Wiess may not proceed as SC but can as USA.

          2. Rep. Raskming is working overtime top provee that the willful blindness is on the part of the left.
            Raskin seeks to have congress overturn the 2024 election if Trump wins.

            Eitehr Raskin is conspiring to defraud the united states – or there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about trying to overturn an election.

            1. SCOTUS ruled that only Congress can enforce 14A3. Thus they can reject a Trump win on 14A3 grounds.

              1. No, they cannot. They can pass a statute, idiot.

                Oh wait, they already did. 18USC2383

                Ooops.

                1. With SCOTUS making it up as the go along, it is unknown what SCOTUS would allow.

        2. Tell us, Daniel, without parsing the legalities of the Special Counsel situation, is it OK with you that Trump: 1. stole classified documents; what did he want them for? Of what legitimate use could they be since he was a private citizen and private citizens aren’t allowed to possess classified documents: 2. refused multiple polite requests to return them; 3. stored them in unsecure locations where anyone could have viewed and copied them; 4. returned some and lied about retaining others; 5. moved them around to prevent his attorney from returning them after his attorney had agreed to return them; 6. lied about “declassifying” them; 7. forced the NARA to get a search warrant to return the documents and then fund-raised over the warrant and lied about Biden issuing an order to assassinate him, based on boilerplate language in every federal search warrant, even though Trump wasn’t at home at the time? Do you find any of this conduct acceptable?

          Don’t you see that regardless of the outcome of the appeals in this matter, DJT is still a thief and liar, and the things he stole are our most-sensitive secrets that are classified because they are important to our national security and that of our allies, including our sources and methods? He took the documents and refused to return them because of his mental illness–narcissism–no one tells DJT what to do or what he can and cannot have. The only reason he vacated the White House is because it would have been more embarrassing for him to be drug out in handcuffs than leaving under his own power, after Biden said that “we know how to deal with trespassers”. Don’t you see how dangerous it would be for someone like him to ever get power again? He refuses to respect the rule of law, even when it comes to national security–what’s more important than that? . Do you think for one moment he would hesitate to sell the documents if he needed money, or to just show off?

          1. Hey Gigi….does the 12th amendment prohibit the pres and VP from being from the same state?

            The day Gigi is a lawyer is the day I’m a goddam astronaut—Lt Dan

      4. “That is absolutely wrong. You failed to understand the SCOTUS ruling.”
        There is no SCOTUS ruling on the appointment of SC’s

        “Clarence Thomas suggested that special counsels (not just Smith) were unconstitutional”
        Correct, but that was in dicta in a concurring opinion. It was dicta that had little to do with the question before them.

        That part of Thomas’s oppinion was legally meaningless – but it was a signal that he would look favorably on a challenge.

        “which is an absurd and incompetent viewpoint. ”
        No it is very litterally the constitution.

        I would further note it is consistent with MYRIADS of other Supreme court cases.

        First DOJ can not on its own create the office of special counsel. There is no congressional legislation, so there is no Special Counsel PERIOD.

        Hunter is trying to say “me too” but the judge is not buying it because even if Weiss’s SC appointment is not constitutional – he is a perfrectly legitimate US Attorny appointed by congress and confirmed by the senate. Smith is not.

        Hunterr’s asrguments are that Weiss’s business cards have the wrong title.
        Trump’s are that Smith is a private citizen excercising federal power.

        Both Trump and Hunter should win – There is no SC act. But the Trump casse would have to be started over by a US Attorney from scratch.

        The Hunter case would be determined to be harmless eroe as it develves topquestions of budget no legal authority.

        “No other justice signed on with his opinion.” They did not have to – Thomas answered a questiont hat was not before the court. not signing Thomas opppinion tells us nothing.

      5. Anonymous 9:27AM. I did not say that the SC slapped him down in Florida. I said the case was dismissed. The District Judge in Florida did that. I did not think that had to be explained. “Dismissal of the case in Florida”. I assumed the people on this blog understood that the SC made the immunity ruling and the district judge in Florida made the appointment ruling but I guess my assumption did not apply to you.
        Most of the people on this blog are usually up on current events, but not all.

    2. One would think that these people would read the damn owner’s manual – the Constitution. It spells out Appointments and isn’t even remotely murky.

  15. I think he will wait for the election.

    If Trump wins, he will modify the charge to include insurrection, thereby providing the necessary reasoning to prevent Trump from taking office. Congressional Representatives have already stated on the record they will not allow him to take office.

    Only the charge is needed. No need for a trial or conviction. The simple charge will be enough to invoke 14th Amendment.

    1. @Greg

      I’ve had similar thoughts. There is no way this action is arbitrary; I fear we are about to lose our country for good at the hands of blind tyranny. I hope we are wrong. At this point down votes might be the only thing that can save us from complete oblivion, heaven help us. It’s absolute madness.

      1. <>

        The only people who think this way are right wing extremists. You have lost no freedoms. If you show up for class and do your work, there is an excellent job awaiting you. If you can’t show up for class, there’s a dishwasher job awaiting you. As a traditional conservative I have tired of the right wing extremist argument that everything is going to hell. Maybe it’s going to hell for losers who are too incompetent to secure a $100,000+ white collar job. If you can’t, you have NO excuse. We provided everything you need to succeed. Stop blaming the system for your failures.

        1. Ha, ha, ha! 😂😂 Troll. Or so insular one might as well be on a different planet. Nice try, though. Was reading how well some of these troll farms pay – it actually very ironically disproves your argument – you can make a lot of scratch schilling, with willingness being the only prerequisite.

          If you really are just sequestered – man, those days are gone for good. Have been for some time.

            1. @Anonymous

              No, not since I was a teenager, but a lot of people that majored in gender studies and minored in social justice do; it is similar for a lot of younger folks that had what you’d think were decent majors, such is the institutional rot and inefficacy of modern primary education in even preparing them for higher studies. It is also a fact that the focus teeters more and more heavily to the activist angle and less and less to actual preparation for critical thought or a profession. That’s the grift: the people getting the sweet positions were already connected, it’s privilege at work all over again, and for them, the degree was a formality as they are not any more skilled in most cases, it’s why I have referred to them as ‘education receipts’. It’s basically a transaction these days with little substance. The modern college freshman is too often academically at the level of an eighth grader 25 years ago, and that is just a hard truth. You can pay for all the degrees you like; it’s irrelevant if one can’t read, write, spell, do math, or think. These days you can throw in low, basic, manual dexterity as well.

        2. STFU ya douchebag. We tire of you coming in here daily, spewing your libturd shit and claiming to be a conservative.

          It’s so transparent, it’s pathetic.

          This proves you are no conservative:

          “Maybe it’s going to hell for losers who are too incompetent to secure a $100,000+ white collar job.”

          Conservatives don’t think that the two choices are doctor and dishwasher. You’re an ignorant fvck is what you are.

          I worked for 16 years out of high school, making less than $100k. It wasn’t do to incompetance, or because I was a loser, you shit stain. I chose to serve my country, and parlayed that into much more.

          As evidenced by the fact I now have 3 degrees, a retirement from the Navy, and own a business that nets me half a million a year and provides good paying blue collar jobs to several employees.

          There is no “maybe” to it. This economy does SUCK for someone making less than $100k. But the only losers are spastic idiots like yourself.

          Have another sip of that cooking sherry, ya booger eating troll.

          1. You’re just a loser right wing extremist who wants the gub’ment to make it all better for you. Your wet dream of Trump enacting a tariff-based economy will never happen.

            1. Trump is not seeking a Tarrif based economy. The economy works by free exchanger,.

              I presume you are talking about how we fund govenrment. Trump is not seeking pure tarrif based funding – Though the US operated that way for longer then it did not.

          2. Your welfare check ought to be arriving today! You can stock up on on marshmallows and vodka. Happy days in your trailer park.

          3. “As evidenced by the fact I now have 3 degrees, a retirement from the Navy, and own a business that nets me half a million a year and provides good paying blue collar jobs to several employees.”

            You’re such a liar.

            1. Which part is hard for you to imagine, mr “conservative” loser?

              And you’re a little kunt who speaks big with anonymity.

          4. Hey, just remember what Samuel Clemens once said/wrote, “Never argue with an idiot. They’ll just bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience”

            Let this (alleged “conservative”) wear his idiot crown proudly.

        3. Contemptible prosecutors and contemptible judges produce contempt for the law. Anyone can see that we are living under a two-tier system of justice.

    2. Congress can only prevent him if they have enough votes…and right now…they don’t

      1. If Trump wins the election, and the Demons succeed in preventing him from assuming office on such a pretext, I think that is a highly likely outcome. I have a strong suspicion that, under those circumstances (unless immediately reversed by SCOTUS, which might not intervene) Texas and Florida, possibly joined with some other red states, would proclaim that Trump is the President that they recognize (or, at minimum, refuse to acknowledge whoever is alleged to exercise Federal executive authority). Any of those actions would without any doubt foment a political crisis not seen in our lifetimes, at least. It could easily all be downhill from there.

        1. If the insanity you reference, millions of morons believing Trump’s lies that he actually won the election when he actually didn’t (just like 2020), and they take to the streets, our prisons and morgues are waiting for them.

    4. Don’t think so.

      If he wanted to charge Trump w insurrection, he would have done so already. But he can’t. None of the J6ers were charged w Insurrection, so you can’t use it against Trump.

      That said… if he were to do that… in theory one could charge Biden/Harris along w DC police/politicians for insurrection over the Hamas supporters rioting and taking down US Flags from public buildings and raising Palestinian flags. That was an overt act of rebellion/insurrection. Since they didn’t do this… charging Trump isn’t going to fly.

      The issue though is that if Chukan were to hold a hearing tomorrow, she’d have to dismiss the case. This would remove the FUD that Harris will use to attack Trump. That he is on trial for J6 and what not. The other issue… if Chukan ?sp? were to move forward on Trump, Trump would use it as fuel to show lawfare in action. Delaying it solves both problems. It limits Trump’s arguments while opening the door to FUD against Trump.

      Remember the judge in FL found that Smith wasn’t qualified to be a special prosecutor. If Chukan ?sp? were to move forward with the trial, Trump’s legal team would raise that ruling and force Chukan to make a similar ruling. If she rules against Trump, he could then appeal, and fast track it to SCOTUS.

      Smith is up the creek and lost his paddle, his boat and his shorts.
      -G

      1. The basis also ignores that his speech was protected by The First Amendment even without the SC ruling on immunity. And also, ignore the context of the speech, which would produce no indication of insurrection, and the timing of the speech, which undercuts the claim even further.

      2. @Gumby

        I’m not prepared to be so definitive. There is no end to modern leftist chicanery, and never will be – they are a regime knowing there is power in the hive – one worker bee is as good as another in representing the hive’s interests if the queen (king!) is safely tucked away. I think the No Kings nonsense (oh, the irony 🙄) was an attempt to deflect Trump winning from prison and pardoning himself, personally. This is not the time to let our guards down, Smith (and Harris!) is one of those worker bees. He doesn’t so much as even *think*, let alone act, alone.

        1. If it weren’t so pathetic it would be funny… right wing extremist Trumptards who actually think they are conservatives. Go look up George Wallace and his movement. He hated liberal Democrats and conservatives. That’s what you are.

          1. Gerge Wallace was a democrat. YOU are George Wallace. Libturd.

            Have another sip of the cooking sherry, booger eating troll.

    1. LOL, what is it? Are Democrats fascists or communists? I guess it’s all about which epithet sounds worse in the situation. Of all the right wing extremist movements in history, Trump right wing extremists are the dumbest. The absolute dumbest. Mussolini’s right wing extremists were pretty dumb, too. But they are PhDs compared to Trump right wing extremists.

  17. This Obama Globalist controlled court lawfare has a reason for everything they do. Obama and Soros are the head of the snake in this lawfare against Trump.

    1. Obama and Soros… blacks and Jews are a Trumpster’s biggest nightmares.

  18. Why on Earth the house hasn’t removed his funding yet, is beyond belief! It’s a forgone conclusion, that his appointment was NOT authorized or confirmed by Congress, so, should be disbanded forthwith!

    1. That would require that the congressional Repugnicans take some actual action, rather than merely flapping their oral appendages.

    2. The House can’t remove any funding on its own. It requires the senate and the president to agree.

  19. Professor Turley,

    You continue to repeat an inaccurate summary of the holding in Trump v. United States. It did not hold that non-core official acts warrant presumptive immunity. It declined to hold whether presumptive or absolute authority is appropriate

    Please stop misleading your readers.

      1. Here you go… This is crucial to understanding the Opinion. It allows a lower Court (or future SCOTUS case) to hold (without overruling this case) that non-core official acts deserve absolute immunity.

        page 6 of Trump v. United States: “At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.”

        page 14 – “Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.”

        page 14-15 – “But as we explain below, the current stage of the proceedings in this case does not require us to decide whether this immunity is presumptive or absolute. See Part III–B, infra. Because we need not decide that question today, we do not decide it.”

        page 42 – The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

        1. It did not hold that non-core official acts warrant presumptive immunity.

          Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.

          Spastic idiot

          1. AT LEAST presumptive immunity.

            That means that it could be presumptive OR absolute (which would be greater immunity than presumptive – that is the meaning of at least). How else could you possibly read that?

      2. Whig98 – You didn’t respond to the below reference. Satisfied? Have you actually read the opinion?

    2. And yet again Turley needs to slow down to avoid his usual illiteracy: “chomping at the bit”????? it’s “champing.”

      2. How literate is it to not capitalize the word “it’s”, when starting a new sentence?

        1. Sentences should not begin with the vague, unwieldy “it’s.” They should be subject predicate object.

      3. How literate is it to not use a comma after the word “again”, in the above sentence?

      4. “And yet again . . .”

        And yet again, you are wrong. To “chomp at the bit” has been an acceptable idiomatic expression for about a century. Why? Because people are far more familiar with people chomping food, than with horses champing a bit.

        “To spell it champing at the bit when most people would say chomping at the bit is to slavishly follow outdated dictionary preferences.” (William Safire)

    3. Wrong. Read the opinion. starting at p. 14, second full paragraph. idiot.

  20. “His overloaded criminal complaints created this disaster for his team.” “The same is true with the D.C. case.” (JT)

    There’s a saying on Wall Street: Pigs get fat. Hogs get slaughtered.

Comments are closed.