J6 order against Trump Vacated

You do realize how bad this is for Trump, especially with the election coming up in 94 days?

This is exactly what I've been reading could happen, and what the left-wing pundits were saying would be the best outcome from this case.

If I need to explain why... allow me to:

The appeals court now sent this back down to Judge Chutkan. She now gets to decide what are official acts and what are not, and call a trial on that. A sort of a mini trial. But in that mini trial, they can go over all the evidence and everything that came up during discovery.

So basically, even though the actual trial won't happen until after the election, if ever, the mini trial with all the same evidence will now happen before the election.

Just wait until Rachel Maddow, or a million others, jump on this and make it the focus of their next show. The only thing that could have happened to make that possible happened, and it happened with 3 months left on the clock.

a reply to: Mahogani

Provided Jack Smiths appointment is legitimate....


Just hate bursting your fragile bubble....

originally posted by: Mahogani
You do realize how bad this is for Trump, especially with the election coming up in 94 days?

This is exactly what I've been reading could happen, and what the left-wing pundits were saying would be the best outcome from this case.

If I need to explain why... allow me to:

The appeals court now sent this back down to Judge Chutkan. She now gets to decide what are official acts and what are not, and call a trial on that. A sort of a mini trial. But in that mini trial, they can go over all the evidence and everything that came up during discovery.

So basically, even though the actual trial won't happen until after the election, if ever, the mini trial with all the same evidence will now happen before the election.

Just wait until Rachel Maddow, or a million others, jump on this and make it the focus of their next show. The only thing that could have happened to make that possible happened, and it happened with 3 months left on the clock.

Who F'ing cares?

Just another attempt at election interference just like their assassination attempt was.

Also it's an attempt to prop up their failed DEI pick for president that nobody voted for, the worst VP in the history of the country.

originally posted by: RazorV66
Who F'ing cares?

Trump.

He will now be on trial before the election, because the appeals court ordered Judge Chutkan to resolve this, and answer these questions.

She will now do as ordered and call a trial to get to the bottom of this. And just like during the last Trump felony trial, there will be scores of reporters outside, reporting daily on what was said in the courtroom.

And what will be said in the courtroom is all the evidence that he didn't want anyone to hear in a trial before the election.

originally posted by: Mahogani

originally posted by: RazorV66
Who F'ing cares?

Trump.

He will now be on trial before the election, because the appeals court ordered Judge Chutkan to resolve this, and answer these questions.

She will now do as ordered and call a trial to get to the bottom of this. And just like during the last Trump felony trial, there will be scores of reporters outside, reporting daily on what was said in the courtroom.

And what will be said in the courtroom is all the evidence that he didn't want anyone to hear in a trial before the election.

What color is the sky in the world you live in?

Do you honestly think that is what is going to happen in this particular political climate?

Just...

Wow.

To quote what the prosecution has to do AS DEFINED by the Supreme Court and the Judge has to sign off on...

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."

So essentially the lower court has to prove that the President can't tell the Vice President what to do in the Executive Branch of our Government.

Duh.

a reply to: Mahogani

She now gets to decide what are official acts and what are not, and call a trial on that.

Not really.
In her partisan mind, maybe.
SCOTUS said if Trump was president at the time he did “x” then he has immunity.
The presidents powers are dealing with election shenanigans because he is the law.
The fed prosecutors won’t be able to use any of the “evidence” they’ve collected.
Trump is immune in this case.
There’s no case left, just the lawfare.
She can still play partisan but it’s going to get ugly next time it goes back up over her head.
It’ll be interesting to see what she does.
Hell, maybe the Feds fold first.

If she was legit and non partisan, she would have played it straight from the start and held evidentiary hearings conceding Trump has immunity, then let the prosecution figure out their next move.
She screwed up and everyone knows it.
SCOTUS rebuked her.
Not the best career move.

a reply to: Mahogani

Liberal pundits only dig holes deeper for Democrats, by hyping how the evil establishment is out to get Donald Trump. Doesn't take a good memory to look back over the last 12 months to see and understand this fact.

a reply to: Vermilion

Yeah, not entirely sure having your campaign staff wrangle numerous slates of false electors(not faithless) who are charged for violating laws in their own states to do it are part of the Presidential duties.

Again, he coordinated this with the campaign staff. Social media from those charged, like in Michigan for example and emails, again show it was his campaign staff. It was also coordinated not with WH counsel (they would not get involved) but outside lawyers. Also the fact he knew he had lost the election.

Guess we will see in the upcoming evidentiary hearings, the district received the case yesterday morning from Scotus and by afternoon already sent it Chutkin.

I guess if the judge does find he has immunity, this November will be very interesting. The sitting President will legally be able to do the same thing. Openly, without recourse. Basically from now on, the President will decide who wins.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

Yeah, not entirely sure having your campaign staff wrangle numerous slates of false electors(not faithless) who are charged for violating laws in their own states to do it are part of the Presidential duties.

Again, he coordinated this with the campaign staff. Social media from those charged, like in Michigan for example and emails, again show it was his campaign staff. It was also coordinated not with WH counsel (they would not get involved) but outside lawyers. Also the fact he knew he had lost the election.

Guess we will see in the upcoming evidentiary hearings, the district received the case yesterday morning from Scotus and by afternoon already sent it Chutkin.

I guess if the judge does find he has immunity, this November will be very interesting. The sitting President will legally be able to do the same thing. Openly, without recourse. Basically from now on, the President will decide who wins.

Hells yea! It's obvious how well it worked for Trump, he has been an amazing president since his win in 2020. DERP!

a reply to: network dude

It didn't work because of Pence. He knew it was illegal. But hey, with Scotus input if it's found to be legal, nothing stops the VP from accepting them this time around.

Can't have it both ways, that it should have been legal for this guy, but not for the next.

Don't yell at me, I think it's beyond the scope of Presidential duties for any President in office to use your campaign staff to get people to break election laws in their own states, from all the information I've read in the last 4 years about it, but I have no say in the matter. I would hate for it to be the new norm.

a reply to: frogs453

Can't happen again because the law has been changed.

The VP role is now relegated to ceremonial.


Almost like it wasn't against the law before the new....law.

And we have motion on the case.
Judge Chutkan has set an Aug. 16 hearing to consider the schedule for Trump’s criminal case. She has denied his motion to dismiss on legal grounds but says he can refile once immunity issues are resolved.

originally posted by: frogs453
And we have motion on the case.
Judge Chutkan has set an Aug. 16 hearing to consider the schedule for Trump’s criminal case. She has denied his motion to dismiss on legal grounds but says he can refile once immunity issues are resolved.

so they will get this all done before the election?

a reply to: network dude

I'm sure if it's not dismissed Trump's team will call into question Jacks legitimacy like in Florida.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp
I just think that the court cases have run their course. They got their biggest wish, to be able to call him a felon, even though it's not technically true. But if he wins, this all goes away. And if he loses, will they really spend all that time and money to go after him for frivolous charges, knowing he won't ever run again?

I think Jack Smith is slated to go back to the Hague.

a reply to: network dude

I have a dream that everyone who was tasked and worked under the authority of the executive branch to participate in this lawfare receives the exact same treatment and scrutiny as Trump.

a reply to: frogs453

Trump is immune.
Everything he did, everybody he talked to, everything that was said is covered by his immunity.
It’s all inadmissible.
Courts cannot determine the presidents intent.
Only the president can tell you what his intent was, and he doesn’t even have to.
It’s baked into the office.

I guess if the judge does find he has immunity, this November will be very interesting. The sitting President will legally be able to do the same thing. Openly, without recourse. Basically from now on, the President will decide who wins.

The judge can’t find his immunity.
SCOTUS did that for them since chutkan was too partisan to admit it.
She got rebuked for good reason and she’s lucky that’s all she got.

Biden is the president right now and he has broken more precedent than any other president ever.
He might find himself indicted next February.

a reply to: Vermilion

The SCOTUS kicked it back for her to decide.

a reply to: network dude

Of course I have no idea how long it go. I simply posted information relevant to the thread. Chutkin got the case yesterday and scheduled the first date.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Vermilion

The SCOTUS kicked it back for her to decide.

For her to apply the constitutional immunity which the president has always had within the framework laid out for her by scotus.
She doesn’t need to interpret or decide jack #.
She just needs to do her job, and that is not interpreting the law anymore.
SCOTUS had to do it for her because she’s shown she is incapable.
They will do it again if she wants to FAFO.