Mr. Smith

[H2O Man]

"We have one set of laws in this country and they apply to everyone." -- Jack Smith

I remember when Mr. Smith was appointed to his current position. A number of the DU community members asked "who?" and "why?" The few of us who were already familiar with him attempted to assure others that this was a great choice, exactly the person our country needed in that position.

Smith's filing with the U.S. Supreme Court per the defendent is evidence of that. I do understand why some community members do not trust the majority of the justices. We remember them selecting the loser of the 2000 election to serve as president. We are all aware of the christian zealots on the court, who overturned Roe. No matter how corrupt and disgusting you may think some of them to be, be aware that I think they are far worse than you do.

Malaise and I would often discuss the federal courts during the defendent's presidency. Especially in late 2020, when the defendent was attempting to get various courts to go along with the Big Lie. Our favorite phrase was "the institutions will hold." And they did.

As noted on The Last Word, the defendent's legal team wants to stretch pre-trial events out as long as possible. They definitely hope the case isn't heard until after next November. Yet their filings speak of the pain and suffering the case is causing the defendent, which suggests they want it to end. How can they oppose Mr. Smith's request that the USSC hear this part of the case immediately?

This is historic. There is zero chance the high court will rule in favor of the defendent. The claim, for example, that because he was impeached, it is double jeopardy does not reach the intellectual level of a seventh grade debate. The defendent's plan to delay, delay, delay did not anticipate Jack Smith.

This move by Mr. Smith should be noted in future history books as being among the most important factors in convicting the defendent, and preventing him from "winning" the 2024 presidential election. An example of the institutions holding. Yet there is another institution that will play an essential role here, and that is comprised of the voting public. We have a job to do, that includes but is not limited to voting. We need to put forth our best efforts to win elections for Democratic Party candidates at all levels.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Yes, yes, yes! Thank you, my dear H20 Man.

Well and clearly spoken.

You relieve my mind and soul.

[H2O Man]

11. Thank you.

I hadn't been going to post anything, but with the DC court going "on hold" until the USSC makes its move, I thought it important. The judge's decision to suspend the process might upset those who aren't really familiar with the federal courts. It was absolutely the right move. And it will not cause a major delay.

[malaise]

19. THIS

Rec

[Easterncedar]

2. Thanks for this encouragement

I have been getting worried. I’m bookmarking for rereading when I need to be talked down.

Then there’s the mifepristone case…

[H2O Man]

13. And thank you!

Because all of life imitates the great sport of boxing, I keep in mind a simple way to judge each round: look at both fighters, and ask yourself, "Who would I rather be?"

I am confident that all rational people would prefer to be on Mr. Smith's team right now, rather than the defendent's.

[jaxexpat]

25. The winner is the one standing when the bell rings.

[paleotn]

3. Mr. Smith is a bad ass.

If he succeeds in bringing the orange bastard down, he deserves a spot in the national pantheon. Right there with Washington and Lincoln. An American Cincinnatus.

[H2O Man]

14. I agree.

I understand why good people can have mixed feelings about how the DoJ was approaching the possibility that former president defendent might need to face legal consequences, right up until Jack Smith was appointed. But Smith was selected because he is best suited -- both by experience and temperment -- to do what needs to be done to protect our country at this time.

[hurple]

4. With this SCOTUS

There is not a 100% chance of them against the defendant.

If they can find a way to make their decision apply ony to one person, or only one circumstance, they will jump at it. The defendant's argument gives them that chance. They may very well jump at it and say since he was impeached for the offense, he cannot be tried for it.

Remember who we're talking about here, bribe takers and corrupt asshats to the core. Not one of tje repubs are honorable or care about anything but getting what they, or their handlers, want... and they want trump-era v2.0: the End of American Democracy. And they have already shown they will do pretty much anything to make sure that happens.

[H2O Man]

10. 100%

The current USSC is attempting to bring back a conservative christian influence on Constitutional law. This is, of course, distinct from the defendent's cult -- including in the Congress (mainly in the House) -- attempting to destroy the foundations of the federal institutions. One need only look at the defendent's record in the federal courts when attempting to overthrow the 2020 election.

If one looks back to 520 US 681 -- heard and decided in 1997 -- one finds the only case with a president claiming immunity, though in a civil case. A district court had ruled in favor of President Clinton's attempt to get the Jones case suspended while he was in office. Clinton then attempted to get the case dismissed by claiming immunity. This, of course, backfired, as the Eighth Circuit overturned the delay, and reversed the trial deferment. The court noted that the deferment would equal a "functional equivalent" of presidential immunity, a concept that does not exist in American law.

More common, but still somewhat rare, are the examples of Supreme Court justices who were both impeached and convicted, who also faced criminal charges. There are also two examples of impeached justices who sought -- with zero success -- to have courts overturn convictions. This is because, as every 7th grade student learns in social studies, these things involve two of the three distinct branches of government.

[malthaussen]

24. Why would they do this?

It is not in their interests, nor in the interests of the money men who influence them. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is opposed to their interests, and certainly the people on the Court can do arithmetic.

-- Mal

[hurple]

28. Well...

The Congress critters just voted en masse to open a false impeachment inquiry into Biden for the sole reason of "Trump 2024." Do you actually expect the even more corrupt and vile repiglicans on the SC to do any less?

I will be shocked if they rule anything other than that he cannot be tried for January 6.

[malthaussen]

33. The Congress critters are politicians.

They make their living by throwing shit at a wall and hoping some of it sticks. They devote all their time to the next election and what they think will be expedient to win it.

The justices on the USSC are tenured and safe. They have no need to try desperate Hail Marys to appease their base, because they have no base. Therefore, they are free to act in their own interests, which do not necessarily align with those of mere politicians. This should be apparent: the USSC has disappointed many a RW appeal (for gerrymandering, for example, and several different appeals for special status for DJT). Just because they're scum, doesn't make them the same flavor of scum as Congress, and doesn't mean they are in sympathy with everything Congress wants to do. Most importantly, they certainly don't want to give power to someone who might then use it against them.

-- Mal

[SleeplessinSoCal]

5. When I hear about justice delayed...

.. is justice denied, I fear I think about Merrick Garland taking so long.

[PufPuf23]

6. Glad Mr. Smith is on the hunt and with a plan.

Last edited Thu Dec 14, 2023, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

About all a senior citizen of limited means can do is watch and hope for the best.

Time has always been the enemy.

Don't trust this USSC at all.

USA needs to find a path where everything is not for sale. Status quo tends to be those willing to grift have success, even if batshit crazy and full of hate.

[Blue Owl]

7. K&R

[spanone]

8. K&R

Last edited Thu Dec 14, 2023, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

👍🏼


Thanks for this H2O Man.

Hoping you & yours a Good Holiday Season!

[Ohio Joe]

9. K & R

[lastlib]

12. I am damn glad this Mr. Smith went to Washington......

He certainly has proven to be the right man for this job. He has the necessary skill set, and he is not afraid to stand up to The Defendant.

[cilla4progress]

15. I love the legal strategy of it all..

Wish I'd thought of it! 😉

[Hekate]

16. From your lips to God's ears, H2O Man

I may find myself drawn into the Adam Schiff Senatorial campaign almost accidentally. Back in the summer I gave a donation to participate in a neighborhood fundraiser (high rollers could check off a $3,000+ donation — I was in the considerably lower echelons) Then in August hubby and I caught Covid and I couldn't go.

Monday night I went to a non-political meeting and the woman who drove me home is clearly involved, and said that I was still owed an event, and one would be taking place the next town over in the New Year. Cool!

I’ve been a virtual hermit for so long I’m all out of practice — but we shall see.

Thank you for your wise words of hope.

[Martin Eden]

17. I don't trust the current USSC to honor precedent, but...

I think they realize the would-be dictator is a threat to their power.

He has zero regard for the US Constitution or the rule of law, except how he can abuse and harness the latter to serve his own sociopathic proclivities.

The Supreme Court does not directly control the means to enforce their rulings. They rely on the institutions which the Defendant intends to usurp by replacing career public servants with loyalists who serve not the rule of law, but the rule of one man. The institutional guardrails held during his previous reign, and he fully intends to remove them.

The judiciary would no longer be a co-equal branch of government. The 6-3 "conservative" supermajority has demonstrated its corruption and dishonesty in pursuing their own agenda which coincides with much of the political and financial support for the Defendant, but I highly doubt they will neuter their own power by bestowing immunity upon the creature who would destroy the institutions upon which they depend.

Our system is supposed to be upheld by the principles of public service and sworn oaths. Ironically, unprincipled self interest just may save it.

[malaise]

18. A fabulous OP

Rec. 🎄

[NoMoreRepugs]

20. TY H2 - read your OP and actually enjoying my coffee vs the usual fuming.

[MiHale]

21. KnR...nt

[KPN]

22. Well, that was a reassuring way to start my day. Thanks for the reminder that there are reasons

for optimism despite the seemingly endless nightmare H2OMan!

[malthaussen]

23. I have no fear of the USSC in this case.

It is simply not within their interests or their agenda to give Mr Trump what he wants. The Court and the GOP have separate interests, which often align, but are occasionally at cross-purposes, and in no case of that nature will the Court give the RW maniacs what they're hoping for. They certainly will never rule in a fashion which might come back and limit their own authority or privilege later on.

The RW desires a dictatorial government with themselves in the driver's seat. The USSC does not, they desire something that makes them the lynchpin of the law. Essential to such a position is that the law continues to be of some importance. A Party or person ruling by fiat would not accomplish this.

The people on the USSC owe nobody anything, except the billionaires who keep giving them gifts. They are appointed for life and cannot be touched by any mere politician, however powerful, however much of a nasty, mean-spirited so-and-so he may be. When it comes to leverage to get the Court to do their bidding, the MAGA crowd got nothin'. With neither aligned interests, nor any leverage, the MAGAs haven't got a chance. The only question is whether one or two justices might dissent out of sheer bloody-mindedness or instructions from someone who does have leverage.

-- Mal

[Bundbuster]

26. I certainly hope that you are right

and take solace in knowing that you usually are.

[twodogsbarking]

27. Thanks for this; so much.

[usonian]

29. Let's keep Biden and Harris in the White House and win the senate and house (and all down the line!)

The longer TFG delays, the more evidence WINNER Jack Smith piles up.

[LakeArenal]

30. From now on I am always calling him "the defendant ".

Love the lower case d.

[Wild blueberry]

31. Thank you for your well-informed, calm discussion

Wish I could recommend this a million times.
There's a lot outside of my control, but what you said, "We need to put forth our best efforts to win elections for Democratic Party candidates at all levels." THAT I can--and will--do.
Thank you!

[Saoirse9]

32. He's being very agressive

running circles around the defendant's lawyers.

I am loving it.

[ShazzieB]

34. At the risk of being accused of excessive pedantry, there's something I feel compelled to point out.

The word is "defendant" (with an a in the last syllable), not defendent (with 3 e's).

I rarely comment on spelling errors. As long as I can understand what someone is trying to say, I'm good, at least 90% of the time. In this case, though, we have a word that is no doubt going to be coming up a ton, as defendant Trump moves through his various trials, so I thought it was worth mentioning the correct spelling.

I really don't mean to be a petulant, pedantic, pain in the posterior, and apologize if this comment comes off that way.

[ShazzieB]

35. Thanks for this.

There is zero chance the high court will rule in favor of the defendent.

I've been saying the same thing but have run into people who just seem to assume that the 6 conservajustices will of course find in 45's favor, for no real reason except that's the kind of guys and gal they are... or something.

That just didn't make sense to me. I've pointed out that there are very good reasons for them to rule against Trump and they have absolutely nothing to gain by finding in his favor, but I couldn't tell if I convinced anyone or not. It was very confirming for me to read this post and be able to think to myself, "Hah! I'm not the only one who thinks they're going to tell him to go fly a kite! Take that, cynics!"

So anyway, good post, and I agree with all of it!