Please, please, please - Someone convince him to hire Chris Rock.
Add I understand it, they can’t.
I tried looking up the Munsingwear doctrine/case that was cited in that article. Someone who understands the legalese could parse it better, but as I understand it, Munsingwear is used in a civil suit where subsequent events have made the outcome moot, and the court blocks the right of the parties to seek further redress.
In the original Munsingwear case, the party that was blocked was the government, and by virtue of not protesting the vacating of the case, the court ruled they lost the right to pursue the case again.
The doctrine is now used as an alternate process to terminate moot cases that prevents further action. The standard method of vacating the cases overturns the verdict and remands the case for further review.
It looks like this is now a new tool the Republicans are abusing. I don’t follow the rationale precisely, but the lawyer for Trump appears to have argued that his re-election has made the case against him moot, and requested a Munsingwear judgement to prevent refiling, and the SC has agreed.
Lapdog Court abusing the law to protect Trump. Hurray!
Ugh, if true. Well, there will be similar but new cases aplenty to file after Jan. 20.
I’m watching my normal day-time garbage TV and they break in with A Special Report. I’m wishing, “Oh Come On! Oh Come On!”
No such luck. Instead, Jack Smith drops the case against The Turd.
No justice in this country anymore.
Ridiculous. We know he’s a traitor that tried to overthrow the government.
Just for the record, most reporting has it as he is dropping the case because Trump’s being inaugurated, and as such, he is following the law / directives of the DOJ, regardless of the merit’s of the case. Per CNN reporting:
“The (Justice) Department’s position is that the Constitution requires that this case be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith wrote in a six-page filing with the US District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC, regarding the election subversion case. “This outcome is not based on the merits or strength of the case against the defendant.”
IE, as before, one side is abiding by the rule of law (distinct from justice, FULLY granted!), and the other is benefiting from it.
Dark times for all.
I had heard from a radio news report that Smith is being very careful to put on the record that the cases are not being dropped on the merits, that they were very much warranted and that Trump should absolutely be prosecuted, but he’s officially going to get away with it on a technicality due to being elected POTUS.
There is no vindication or exoneration on the record. He beat the rap by getting stupid people to elect him. That’s all this is.
As long as things don’t escalate to apocalyptic levels, and if we somehow succeed in restoring some sanity at some point (as in, the pendulum swings back rather than breaking off the clock entirely), history books are going to look back on Trump very unkindly.
what are the limitations on the charges? is there a chance in 4 years?
I think so. In another thread (and I cannot remember which one), @Aspenglow noted that that Smith asked that the charges without prejudice, which means that the charges can be brought back in the future.
I would rather question the chance of a conviction after such a long gap.
Even if charges are brought again, how do you run that prosecution?
And that’s assuming Trump is still alive or is considered competent to stand trial.
I really doubt that he’s going to last the entire four years. For all that he likes to project the image of a strongman, he’s not well, physically or mentally. If he passes away, that’s one thing; but I can see Vance using the 25th Amendment at some point during his term, after a few too many “cofvefes” and other malapropisms.
If Smith didn’t dismiss the case now without prejudice, some Trump DOJ appointee would dismiss it with prejudice after Jan. 20, so this is the least bad option, under the circumstances. Still sticks in my craw, though.
I would really quesdtion the law in this case. How can anyone be above the law.
Discussions in the oval office are one thing, actual actions are another all together
That’s easy to answer. The current Supreme Court has decided Trump is. That’s all you need to know.
Yeah, and I think the only way to counter that is for Congress to pass legislation to make it clear that you can’t just break the law however you want to as long as you are elected to the correct office.
You’d need a sizable majority of people who actually give a shit about the country for such a thing to happen, and I’m not sure how soon we’d have that, if we ever do.
Serving as the president takes a toll on most of the people who do it, because they care about how their actions affect people. That isn’t a concern for Trump. To him, the presidency is a source of adulation, sycophants, and prestige. The next four years will nourish Trump; he’ll probably finish his term healthier than he is now.
Yep. The only handicap he’ll get in the next four years will be connected to golf.
At which he cheats anyway.
(bolding mine)
I think this is going to be the case no matter what.
I just mean, as long as history books still exist and all…