This is an incredibly weak, baseless, convoluted indictment, it is bizarrely centered around what is clearly protected speech, zero criminal statutes, because there are none that were applicable that are actually written into law. It is based on an obscure law from the civil war. Lets be even more clear, this indictment is frankly not worth the paper it is printed on. This is a political persecution, through and through. There is a reason Donald Trumps poll numbers keep going up every single time he goes through yet another attack like this. By liberal activist attorneys general. American people are seeing through all of this, and joe biden socalled department of justice, is now officially completely out of control, joe biden ag Merrick Garland, who signed off on this charade, remember, the department of justice as part of the executive branch. Theyve now gone full Banana Republic. Hes not even making any attempt to reason even the appearance of fairness. Garland and other democrats in
This is an incredibly weak, baseless, convoluted indictment, it is bizarrely centered around what is clearly protected speech, zero criminal statutes, because there are none that were applicable that are actually written into law. It is based on an obscure law from the civil war. Lets be even more clear, this indictment is frankly not worth the paper it is printed on. This is a political persecution, through and through. There is a reason Donald Trumps poll numbers keep going up every single time he goes through yet another attack like this. By liberal activist attorneys general. American people are seeing through all of this, and joe biden socalled department of justice, is now officially completely out of control, joe biden ag Merrick Garland, who signed off on this charade, remember, the department of justice as part of the executive branch. Theyve now gone full Banana Republic. Hes not even making any attempt to reason even the appearance of fairness. Garland and other democrats in
reporting to special counsel jack smith will square off in front of a three-judge pam of the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. at issue whether trump has immunity for conduct he undertook as president or cannot otherwise face prosecution because it would represent double jeopardy. that s the legal issue. but what s most important here is the timing. trial court judge has determined she can t move forward until this issue is resolved. she entered an order on december 13 saying trump s appeal automatically stays any further proceedings that would otherwise move the case toward trial. but that stay could be lifted after the outcome of tuesday s argument. for sure, the losing side is going to appeal to the supreme court after perhaps first asking for the first court of the appellate court to hear the matter on bond. the losing party has 90 days to ask for supreme court review. as i detailed before, smith is eager to get trump tried before the election. trump, on the other ha
best. how long is this going to take and when does the judge get to put it back on a trial track? i agree with you, first of all. donald trump will lose his immunity argument. but let s play out the timing here. the argument in the court of appeals is set for tuesday. the court of appeals said they are going to rule quickly. let s assume they rule by february 1st. if that happens, he then has 45 days, ordinarily it s a 15 days, but because the united states is a party, he then has 45 days to ask for what we call on bonk review, meaning the entire court of appeals. that brings us into mid-march or so. let s say it takes them a couple weeks whether they do it or don t. now we re into april. and donald trump as the losing party has 90 days to ask the supreme court to take the case.
characteristics. there s no clear line for applying rebellion. there s no clear statement that it applies to the president. there s no popular long standing understanding confirming its application. there s no clear procedure for determining the facts if congress decides he engage d in insurrection, but florida decides he did not. is the court to then engage in fact finding of its own. and what you have most articulated is a desire that this be a 9-0 decision. even if they take the position that you don t think is correct, you don t want to see a split. explain that. i m deeply concerned about the consequences of this decision for the supreme court. many people say forget the supreme court. i get ta. but as a law professor, it s important to me that the supreme court sustain its authority as a critical element of our government and acting in wits that are not political. i would disagree with the