Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

SCOTUS had been set to hear the Trump immunity case on April 23rd but Jack Smith did request it be expedited, so, for good measure, they delayed it until April 25th.

Given how the question before the court has been worded, which is how the Trump lawyers have framed it, there's a good chance it may be decided in Trump's favor:

"Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

"The court has formulated an overly broad question to be answered in the appeal, rather than the straightforward one: whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the crimes alleged in the indictment obtained by special counsel Jack Smith."

"Smith did not frame the issue as involving official acts in his Supreme Court filings, but rather asked the court to decide “whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office.”

"Trump’s lawyers have sought to define his conduct as official acts undertaken while president. The Supreme Court’s order now also incorporates that qualifier."

"Given that, the Supreme Court could answer what Tribe described as a “sweeping” and “abstract” question with a more convoluted answer: There can be immunity in some circumstances for official acts, but not for others. This sort of answer would allow the court to sidestep its responsibility to decide the practical issue of whether Trump must stand trial in this specific instance. As Tribe warned, the court could instead “decide this broad legal question and send the case back to the D.C. Circuit.”

"In that scenario, the court would return the appeal to a lower court to apply its ruling to the facts of the indictment against Trump. That delay would be the final, fatal blow to the government’s effort in D.C. to hold Trump accountable in a jury trial before November’s election."


https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-wrong-question-trump-immunity-case-rcna141509

Gee, I wonder how the court is going to rule...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Public health advocates are watching in growing alarm as former President Trump increasingly embraces the anti-vaccine movement."  

“I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate,” Trump said in a recent campaign rally in Richmond, Va.


"Every state and the District of Columbia requires children to get vaccinated against certain diseases before they start school, including measles, mumps, polio, tetanus, whooping cough and chickenpox. A plan to withhold federal funding would have widespread impact."


"Experts say the politicization of vaccines has led to an increase in hesitancy and is sparking more outbreaks of preventable diseases like measles."  

"There have been measles outbreaks in 15 states this year, most recently in Florida, where state Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo did not recommend parents vaccinate their children or keep unvaccinated students home from school as a precaution."  
"Instead, he sent a letter to parents advising them to make their own decisions about school attendance."

"Ladapo told people not to get the most recent shot and has drawn sharp rebukes from the medical community — as well as federal health agencies — for claims that the shots alter human DNA, can potentially cause cancer, and are generally unsafe."  
"Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said he worries that Trump is signaling he will empower more people like Ladapo if he wins reelection."

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4517350-trump-vaccine-rhetoric-public-health/

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

" How many times does Trump have to show these people who he is before they get it?"

Well,  this guy didn't get it so he's going to jail on Tuesday March 19th:


https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4523581-peter-navarro-ordered-to-prison/

The obnoxious prick of a person should have gotten more.
At least he'll do the time before Trump can pardon him if and when he's re-elected...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

BTW, Jim, if you didn't like that legal opinion, you'll probably "love" this one too!

"In fact, it may be that only a minority of the justices favored hearing the case, with a majority voting to let stand the lower court’s denial of immunity. Justice Clarence Thomas, despite a glaring conflict of interest, might even have cast the deciding vote."

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4522668-which-supreme-court-justices-threw-trump-the-immunity-lifeline/

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

But if the "accused" somehow ends up winning the election, what then? Shouldn't we believe what Trump has already told us he is going to do if elected?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Due Process?!
Trump has filed more frivolous appeals than you can shake a stick at, including another today in the New York case that had already been previously rejected, and you scream due process? And Jack Smith had a case overturned? And that doesn't happen from time to time? Does that means he shouldn't have the case heard, particularly when there's a strong public interest to know? 
Well, don't worry, the way the question has been framed by some con on SCOTUS in the immunity case, it essentially drives the outcome on the decision. So, how's that for "due process?...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Due Process?!
Trump has filed more frivolous appeals than you can shake a stick at, including another today in the New York case that had already been previously rejected, and you scream due process? And Jack Smith had a case overturned? And that doesn't happen from time to time? Does that means he shouldn't have the case heard, particularly when there's a strong public interest to know? 
Well, don't worry, the way the question has been framed by some con on SCOTUS in the immunity case, it essentially drives the outcome on the decision. So, how's that for "due process?...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"The Supreme Court does not hear frivolous appeals, so by definition you are wrong. "

I was referring to the hush money case today in New York wherein Trump's lawyers appealed for a delay when the period for any such motions ended last month.
So, even though the judge is questioning why Trump's lawyers failed to do so, he's still considering this appeal and has asked the prosecutor's office for a response by Wednesday. I'd say that Trump had the opportunity to have his due process, failed to request it by not filing the appeal when he should and now may even be granted it anyway but we will have to wait and see. 
How's that for "due process"? It seems he's getting more than his fair share of it and seemingly more than the average Joe would get...

Originally Posted by David Cotterell

I am going to my friend's observatory near Pontotoc Texas.  Arriving 6th and leaving about the 12th.  So, in addition to the eclipse, there will be 6 nights of dark-sky observing fun.  Our good friend Alan, from Australia, will be joining us for some of that period. 

One thing that is worrisome would be IF it is cloudy where we are but clear somewhere else in the state that we would simply not be able to drive anywhere due to the sheer number of folks trying to do the exact same thing.  Estimates say that upwards of 1 000 000 non-residents will flood into the Texas portion of the path.  Add to that the 5 million in DFW, a couple million more in Austin and SanAntonio and another few million Texans within 6hours of the path....  It might be that many will be stranded where they are and have to miss the event...

So what are y'all doing for the eclipse?

Dave

Originally Posted by Darian Rachal

I'm heading over to my son's in Temple Texas, bringing my 4" refractor. The grandchildren will be out of school on eclipse day. I was down in LaPaz in '91 and out in west Texas a few years later for a nice annular, so I'm hoping for a good day.🙂