Techno-Fog On Jack Smith

[Rightguide]

Techno Fog: Special Counsel Smith’s Desperate Plea to the Supreme Court – A Hail Mary to Preserve a Pre-Election Trial Date​

By Cristina Laila Dec. 12, 2023 11:20 am

Via Techno Fog Substack:

It’s safe to say that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s District of Columbia case against Donald Trump, which alleges “four felony indictments of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election”, will not go to trial on March 4, 2024.

The setting of Trump’s DC trial for the spring of 2024 – conveniently scheduled one day before the Super Tuesday primaries – was undoubtedly the result of a shared interest between the Special Counsel and the presiding judge, Tanya Chutkan: to convict Donald Trump before the 2024 election. Moreover, given the 11+ million pages of documents involved in this case, the hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of video and audio, and the hundreds of witnesses, the accelerated trial date was a violation of Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, which includes the opportunity to prepare for trial.

The Special Counsel’s DC case against Trump comprises novel legal theories that have never been tried in American courts, most notably whether Presidential challenges to an election can be criminalized under the United States code. The attorneys for Trump have filed lengthy and well thought-out motions, reasoning that the Constitution and the doctrine of presidential immunity required dismissal of this criminal case. Judge Chutkan denied each one in her desire for a quick trial.

The effect of Trump’s notice of appeal was important – it deprived Judge Chutkan of jurisdiction over the case. As Trump’s attorneys argued in one of their latest filings:

“The filing of President Trump’s notice of appeal has deprived this Court of jurisdiction over this case in its entirety pending resolution of the appeal. Therefore, a stay of all further proceedings is mandatory and automatic.”

More from the incomparable Techno-Fog here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/techno-fog-special-counsel-smiths-desperate-plea-supreme/

The whole object of Smith's filing is to keep Trump from campaigning and to interfere with the election.

 

[jomar]

Is trump still able to hire attorneys who can write lengthy and well thought-out motions? I guess so if he’s finally paying them huge retainers up front. Maybe Jared and Ivanka are fronting daddy some Saudi money.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Maybe Jared and Ivanka are fronting daddy some Saudi money.

I'm pretty sure it's the MAGA supporters donations to his campaign that are paying for his lawyers. Lots of grifting going on it seems.

 

[ll74]

45 took it straight to the supreme court multilple times

 

[Fuzzy1975]

ypundit.com/2023/12/techno-fog-special-counsel-smiths-desperate-plea-supreme/​

The whole object of Smith's filing is to keep Trump from campaigning and to interfere with the election.

lol,sure,an idiot like you would believe that.

Smith made the perfect move against Trump's "Delay then pay" legal defence he is known for. Now the issue will be settled. Does a President have legal immunity from criminal activities while in office.

Either way it's a win, Trump's trial goes ahead in March, as planned, or if Smith loses, then no one can go after Biden...that really sucks doesn't it...

 

[Philthy_Phil]

10 whiny ass threads on page one.

The OP is a pathetic old man.

 

[schism666]

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Techno Fog: Special Counsel Smith’s Desperate Plea to the Supreme Court – A Hail Mary to Preserve a Pre-Election Trial Date​

By Cristina Laila Dec. 12, 2023 11:20 am

Via Techno Fog Substack:

It’s safe to say that Special Counsel Jack Smith’s District of Columbia case against Donald Trump, which alleges “four felony indictments of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election”, will not go to trial on March 4, 2024.

The setting of Trump’s DC trial for the spring of 2024 – conveniently scheduled one day before the Super Tuesday primaries – was undoubtedly the result of a shared interest between the Special Counsel and the presiding judge, Tanya Chutkan: to convict Donald Trump before the 2024 election. Moreover, given the 11+ million pages of documents involved in this case, the hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of video and audio, and the hundreds of witnesses, the accelerated trial date was a violation of Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel, which includes the opportunity to prepare for trial.

The Special Counsel’s DC case against Trump comprises novel legal theories that have never been tried in American courts, most notably whether Presidential challenges to an election can be criminalized under the United States code. The attorneys for Trump have filed lengthy and well thought-out motions, reasoning that the Constitution and the doctrine of presidential immunity required dismissal of this criminal case. Judge Chutkan denied each one in her desire for a quick trial.

The effect of Trump’s notice of appeal was important – it deprived Judge Chutkan of jurisdiction over the case. As Trump’s attorneys argued in one of their latest filings:

“The filing of President Trump’s notice of appeal has deprived this Court of jurisdiction over this case in its entirety pending resolution of the appeal. Therefore, a stay of all further proceedings is mandatory and automatic.”

More from the incomparable Techno-Fog here: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/techno-fog-special-counsel-smiths-desperate-plea-supreme/

The whole object of Smith's filing is to keep Trump from campaigning and to interfere with the election.

Yes, the March 4th trial date is looking even more unlikely following Judge Chutkan’s action this afternoon. If Smith is hoping to put Trump on trial before the primaries, his prospects are not looking good.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4358747-judge-pause-trump-jan-6/

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yes, the March 4th trial date is looking even more unlikely following Judge Chutkan’s action this afternoon. If Smith is hoping to put Trump on trial before the primaries, his prospects are not looking good.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4358747-judge-pause-trump-jan-6/

lol If SCOTUS agrees to hear Smith, and rules in his favour, this appeal is mute and the trial moves on. Trump has until Dec 20th to file his response. I'm betting on Smiths move. If he wins at SCOTUS, Trump is fucked and it doesn't matter when the actual trial begins.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

JUST IN: Supreme Court sidesteps decision on former President Trump’s presidential immunity claim in the federal election interference case.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...mp-presidential-immunity-claim-fed-rcna130769

 

[Rightguide]

Is trump still able to hire attorneys who can write lengthy and well thought-out motions? I guess so if he’s finally paying them huge retainers up front. Maybe Jared and Ivanka are fronting daddy some Saudi money.

Your hate is showing.

 

[DeluxAuto]

Your hate is showing.

You say this on a thread you created to express your hatred for Jack Smith, Jack.

 

[Rightguide]

You say this on a thread you created to express your hatred for Jack Smith, Jack.

Merry Christmas, I hope Santa brings you the other half of your brain.

 

[ll74]

Merry Christmas, I hope Santa brings you the other half of your brain.

So you didn't create this thread put of hatred for Jack Smith. Got it

 

[DeluxAuto]

Merry Christmas, I hope Santa brings you the other half of your brain.

I don't believe in fairy tales like Santa or Trump's innocence, Jack.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

No justices dissented.

 

[jomar]

Your hate is showing.

Observation + sarcasm = hate. Got it.

 

[Bray123]

Step 1. Have a trial date.
Step 2. The defense is desperate for their fraudster rapist client available to apply for new jobs and wants endless delays so it never comes to trial.
Step 3. The prosecution says, nah. We're quite happy with this date.
Step 4. MAGATs whine that the prosecution is desperate.

 

[LLCox]

Has the SC ever not let an Appellate Court have it's say before taking a case.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Has the SC ever not let an Appellate Court have it's say before taking a case.

It did for Nixon.

 

[HisArpy]

Has the SC ever not let an Appellate Court have it's say before taking a case.

A few times.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No justices dissented.

You can claim that, but only since the court never gave a reason, an no Justice gave a public dissent. That makes me wonder if they will hear the appeal of the Appellate decision.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

You can claim that, but only since the court never gave a reason, an no Justice gave a public dissent. That makes me wonder if they will hear the appeal of the Appellate decision.

SCOTUS sent a clear message. At least 6 justices are not interested in bowing to political pressure and assisting Jack Smith’s political calendar. It only takes four votes for the Court to accept a case. The single sentence response to Smith’s petition means none of the six conservative Justices voted to do so even if the three liberals did. Smith failed to offer a good legal reason for breaking normal appellate procedure and jumping the queue over the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[Rightguide]

Is trump still able to hire attorneys who can write lengthy and well thought-out motions? I guess so if he’s finally paying them huge retainers up front. Maybe Jared and Ivanka are fronting daddy some Saudi money.

The man is a billionaire, dufus.

 

[Bray123]

The man is a billionaire, dufus.

Well, that depends if he's asking for a loan or paying his taxes.