Close Menu
    Politics

    Jack Smiths großer neuer Brief vom 6. Januar ist eine wichtige Anklage gegen den Obersten Gerichtshof


    Jack Smiths großer neuer Brief vom 6. Januar ist eine wichtige Anklage gegen den Obersten Gerichtshof

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/trump-election-interference-trial-jack-smith-brief-supreme-court-failure.html

    View 20 Comments

    20 Comments

    1. Turbulent_Raccoon865 on

      >*The anger is at the Supreme Court for depriving the American people of the chance for a full public airing of Donald Trump’s attempt to use fraud and trickery to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential victory before voters consider whether to put Trump back in office beginning January 2025*

      Yeah, I feel you Jack.

    2. hefixesthecable_ on

      The red team needs to suffer the consequence of the loyalty, which they still hold for such a foul scheme and coverup.

    3. VanceKelley on

      Also an indictment of the Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas accepting millions of dollars in ~~bribes~~gifts from billionaires, not disclosing that income, and not facing any consequences for that obvious corruption.

    8. mvw2 on

      The Supreme Court asked the district court to determine what was in scope and not in scope of official acts. There’s nothing wrong with that. Despite everyone’s hate fest on Thomas, he did state a number of Trump’s crimes and stated prior cases comparing what could be likely part of an official act and what very likely wasn’t an official act. Even Thomas covered the spectrum and indicated both ends, including stating one that was in his words very likely not an official act that was one of the more damning crimes in the list. People hate on Thomas to suggest a president has actual protections for official duty (and he does). But people kind of ignore it’s only within the scope of official acts (which is again correct). They only real annoyances is Thomas forced the itemization and determination of EVERYTHING Trump did which was a lot of work, wasted time, and forced everyone to grind through the process. Is this good or bad? That’s opinion. I think it’s necessary. Trump’s bad behavior made it necessary to do this process. It’s an abnormal situation forcing an abnormal task. Thomas was correct that a president needs to be protected from prosecution for official duties. This has always been the case. It’s necessary for the function. Wanting Trump to pay for his crimes doesn’t change this. We’re just now in this limbo space where we need to determine what were within official duties and what were not. Once that’s done, the rest is clear cut, and Trump will be prosecuted and might be in prison for the rest of his life. Yes, the judicial hoops are annoying, but they are necessary.

    9. smokingace182 on

      And yet this won’t matter to a lot of Americans, this man should not be able to run for president let alone be in a close race for it.

    10. RDO_Desmond on

      6 are controlled by Leonard Leo who is a slightly different version of Fred Phelps.

    11. Sweetieandlittleman on

      Just can’t stop thinking about Ginni Thomas and her offer to lease buses to bring people to the riot.

    12. YetiSmallFoot on

      Remember when the US justice system wasn’t a total disgrace?

    13. PBO123567 on

      Fuck the Fauxtus. This country has lost all faith in that “institution.”

    14. armadilloongrits on

      When given the chance SCOTUS sided with insurrectionists all. Three. Times 

    15. KarateEnjoyer303 on

      Yeah, these trump judges really betrayed their country. They should all be removed from the bench.

    17. Then_Journalist_317 on

      One could almost say the SCROTUS majority are co-conspirators aiding Trump’s continuing coup attempt.

    19. TiffanyGaming on

      This is really long so here’s the tldr:

      > The author is angry at the Supreme Court for potentially preventing a public airing of this evidence before the 2024 election.
      >
      > Smith’s brief outlines Trump’s actions to overturn the election results, including:
      >
      > * Declaring victory prematurely
      > * Ignoring advisors who told him there was no significant fraud
      > * Pressuring officials to “find” votes
      > * Encouraging the appointment of fake electors
      > * Inciting the January 6 Capitol riot
      >
      > The article criticizes several parties for their roles:
      >
      > * Mitch McConnell for not supporting Trump’s conviction in the Senate
      > * Attorney General Merrick Garland for delayed action
      > * The Supreme Court for granting broad immunity to presidents
      >
      > There’s concern that if Trump wins in 2024, this prosecution will end, potentially increasing risks of future election subversion.
      >
      > The author argues that the failure to bring this case to trial makes future election-related criminal activity more likely.

    Leave A Reply