J6 order against Trump Vacated

Their assassination attempt failed, so it's back to court.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Who is claiming that Smith wants to remove the case?

I mean if you have this news then fine, link to his statement. If not, then she will schedule the evidentiary hearings.

I mean seriously? What if an asteroid hits earth tomorrow. The case will be delayed. However I have no evidence of that happening, can't provide any source.

So take your ad absurdum.

Remove asteroid.

Replace with today's court ruling....

Imagine the devastating effect and you have what this ruling did to Smiths case.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

This ruling sent it back to Chutkin. Who will now schedule evidentiary hearings, in which we will likely hear evidence from the prosecution about what, and why, he did what he did and why it's a crime. The defense will present its defense of likely he was President and can do what he wants.

Not sure why this is difficult or like this is changing everything. She'll rule and then it will either not go forward or will after that.

I haven't heard anyone devastated yet. But Trump has not yet weighed in on Truth Social. I'm sure attacks on the judge are forthcoming.

a reply to: frogs453

......if the prosecution wishes to continue bringing the case.

Even the judge could dismiss it...

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Ok, you're positive that's happening with absolutely not one drop of evidence.

Ummm. Sure. You have decided. It will be so apparently.

a reply to: frogs453

The evidence is the SCOTUS ruling and today's ruling......



Did you forget what thread you were in or how courts work?

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

You understand that due process is still prevalent correct

Not in their world. Guilty till proven innocent and even then he's still guilty.

a reply to: DAVID64

We haven't even touched the issue of Jack Smiths appointment either ..

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

The way I'm reading this is that the SCOTUS is sending the case back down the line to find out if Trumps actions were an official or unofficial act. And then they will look at it again.

The opinion read that the lower court will have to determine "whether a prosecution involving Trump's attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch."

Is that correct?

a reply to: strongfp

Right. Presented to the court under a new paradigm with established rules.

That is assuming the prosecution still believes their case is viable.
Also assuming the judge doesnt toss it

And there's still that issue of Jack Smiths legitimacy.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: frogs453

The evidence is the SCOTUS ruling and today's ruling......



Did you forget what thread you were in or how courts work?

The evidence is the Scotus ruling? That the district court has to determine whether the acts were official or a crime?

Scotus made no ruling that what he's charged with was official acts or not.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from? Or where you seem to believe the judge or prosecution are even considering dropping the case before the evidentiary hearings so the judge can make the decision based on the Scotus ruling.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

In my opinion, it's not looking too good for Donald than. The Jack Smith case was pretty open and shut, Trump could have had the documents for whatever 'offical' reason.
In this case, not so much official business using fake elector votes and pressuring the VP to go along with a wierd plot that no one else but him and Eastman thought would work.

Let's see tho...

a reply to: frogs453

I do enjoy your condescending attitude. It goes a long very well with your ignorance.

See Frogs. This case had to go all the way up to the Supreme Court. Where it was decided that a president cannot be charged for presidential acts. For those looking on, I know this is and was redundant.

What is new is that it has to be looked at from the position of "presumptively immune."


Under that guidance, it's totally possible but not likely as I stated a couple pages ago.

And now I've repeated twice......

a reply to: strongfp

Yep, hang tight.

Keep the faith ..

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

If Michael Cohen wrote checks to Stormy Daniels after Trump was in office, that conviction is (or will be) overturned and made null, also.

www.washingtonpost.com... wa po running with it now

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan now must decide which if any of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election while president may be prosecutable. A trial will not be possible before the November election matchup against likely Democratic nominee Vice President Harris however, since whatever the judge decides is expected to wind up back before the Supreme Court next year.

and

“There’s no point in haste now, because there’s no way to do the trial now before the election,” former federal prosecutor and George Washington University law professor Randall Eliason said. If Trump wins in November and returns to the White House in January, his Justice Department would be expected to drop the case, and he could not be prosecuted while in office anyway. “If he loses, there will be plenty of time to do a trial next year and get all the issues right,” Eliason said.

so as far as settled before the election seems that is a hard no and if/when he does win it would end the matter entirely , which i THINK would then nuke the ny case as i think they predicated that one on him commiting the act hes acused of here as one of the reasons they could charge him with 34 felonies in the first place

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

However, unless you know differently with any proof, we will still be getting evidentiary hearings scheduled soon which is what I keep saying that you keep telling me are not likely to happen. And because of the Scotus delay that will be right in the thick of the campaigning.

I've not disputed anything Scotus ruled.

a reply to: frogs453

For the third time.

I don't think it's likely that the case is dismissed or tossed.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: frogs453

They can pull out anytime.

They can always “abort” the case.

a reply to: Kaiju666

Reserved for babies and Biden.... apparently.