Tuesday, August 27, 2024

Data Muling

Interesting; but not as interesting as this: Yeah, I know: But Trump the Crybaby is more interesting to me:

Interestingly, this comes at the exact same time as Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has admitted to concealing massive amounts of information, such as Hunter Biden's Laptop from Hell, which is a direct acknowledgment that the 2020 Presidential Election was MANIPULATED and RIGGED by the DOJ

The DOJ in 2020 was...Trump's DOJ.  Under the direction of Bill Barr.  Trump remains a stable genius.

As Jack Smith knows, the whole case should be thrown out and dismissed on Presidential Immunity grounds, as already ruled unequivocally by the U.S. Supreme Court. Smith rewrote the exact same case in an effort to circumvent the Supreme Court Decision.

As Trump's lawyers know, Jack Smith is allowed to do that.  As I've said, the Supremes didn't really give the POTUS immunity.  They just ruled that certain evidence could not be presented against a POTUS in criminal court, dumping almost anything that might be considered immune and therefore inadmissible.  Smith has conformed his indictment to meet those requirements, and obviated the need for a "mini-trial" (which would give Trump a road map to Smith's case, with no possibility of a criminal equivalent of a summary judgement to compensate Smith for that).  He gets to do that, too.  Though I'm sure Tom Fitton has told Trump otherwise.

If you want to read the redline version (the markup of the original showing what's changed in the current document):

You know, President's are only as good as their advisors.
One interesting point I hadn't seen is that this new indictment tangles up the DC case and the Georgia case in interesting ways: The Supremes really didn't do Trump the favor he thinks they did (although, I reiterate for the peanut gallery, they screwed things pretty badly. What they simply couldn't do (get the votes for?) was declare POTUS a monarch.)

I see this case getting back to the Supremes, though I'm not sure it can do so before trial (interlocutory criminal federal practice is hardly my specialty.  Generally, interlocutory appeals are not available, and I think questions of admissable evidence have to be heard after the verdict, not before.  Again, the Supremes didn't do Trump the solid he thinks they did.).  Which means it won't get back up the chain until, oh, 2026 or later.  By which time Trump will be breaking up the furniture in MAL for kindling, and paying his attorneys may be a dim dream from the past.
From your lips to God's ear. 

UPDATE: I take it back. Trump wasn't talking to Fitton, he was talking to his other legal expert, Stephen Miller:
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)