If I find that article, I'll post it as a thread here. But I wanted to get back to you on your question.

Thanks, A*****e Hans.

I see HTML Hans is back. What an irritation.

That said, I'm genuinely curious about your up 3% can't get 270 assertion. You usually source such. Maybe I missed it in the wall of HTML. Help me out.

"Unless the drones are an imminent threat, by law they cannot by shot down near military bases."
That makes (a)bsolutely no sense. (emphasis mine)

It does with a minimum understanding of defensive "use of force" law.

I didn't see that in the article.

You won't see that information. Texas voter registration is open, no party affiliation is requested or required.

Never heard of 'em. Little bit I learned in the last minute, don't care.

Whistle. Flag.

I'd suggest they get a multimillion dollar deposit up front. Dotard has to pay for the use of that jet, ...

What makes you think he has to pay? The Buffoon is entitled to protection on the government dime. What I read suggests Biden pretty much said give him whatever he needs, same as a sitting president, but not F 15's.

Well played.

#9 You leave out the salient part, "[b]ut Chutkan also agreed to stay her ruling for seven days after an earlier motion from Trump's legal team asked for additional time "so that President Trump can evaluate litigation options relating to the decision."

So, the Buffoon's dice roll is now or later. His last roll ended with Smith's 165 page evidentiary brief about 30 days before the election, as required by the SC. So, now the Bufoon thinks it's a good idea to ask previously adverse courts for relief? An exercise that will ultimately cause the release of actual evidence closer to election.

D**n dude's a genius. A genius I tell yeah. /s

Ooh, so a potential firearm is effectively the same thing as a fully formed firearm? Interesting argument...

If they had dropped a few MAGAts outside when they were beating cops, it would have wrapped things up quickly.

I'm not so sure. There were back ups with weapons for the dozen or so seditious conspiracy convicted insurrectionists. The backups just needed the appropriate signal.

---"The most stupendous and atrocious fraud"

words ripped from the filing of Jack Smith ?

A text search reveals those words do not appear in the Motion.

"Federal prosecutors may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps,

criminal charges, or statements for the purpose of effecting any election."

The trial judge ordered the filing in compliance with the SC ruling. Courts are not bound by informal DOJ rules nor are DOJ prosecutors when otherwise ordered by a judge.

#50 | Posted by chuffy

Or read the NRO link ...

Basically, paywalled.

The thread linked lawyer turned wh... uh, pundit leaves out some context.

A full hearing, aka jury trial, was scheduled well before the election. The Buffoon's appeal to the SC and their dilatory deliberation screwed that up.

So, what'd the SC do? They ordered, "REVERSED AND REMANDED," that the trial court conduct the very contextually fact intensive proceeding playing out now. The SC told the trial court to do it.

Smith does not control the timing nor subject matter nor length nor sealing of anything Court related.

As far as sealing, the presumption is court filed documents are public. The judge cautiously ordered them filed sealed then released the motion redacted, consistent with standard practice, but none of the actual evidence cited.

I'm seeing neither election interference nor bending rules. I'm seeing a trial court doing what the boss said consistent with typical criminal due process principles.

Unfortunately ...

This was known, and likely why the judge let it expire.

Missouri judge blocks Biden student loan forgiveness that was cleared to proceed[sic]
www.cnbc.com

Unfortunately, seems you failed to comprehend your source:

The Biden administration's sweeping student loan forgiveness plan was temporarily blocked again Thursday by a Missouri judge, just one day after a federal judge in Georgia said he would let a restraining order against the relief expire. (emphasis added)

As his supporters breached the Capitol, Trump monitored Twitter and Fox News ...

... monitored Twitter and Fox News ...

... issued messages targeting Pence.

... targeting Pence.

Text search reveals none of those phrases in the Motion.

Be as obtuse as you wish.

Well that's curious....

#55

What about 'em. My meager understanding is it's some kind of citizen imitated municipal court thing.

Bottom line, unless and until, the prosecutor moves to revoke the who, what, when where, how's of whatever don't matter.

But I never saw any probation terms issued.

The Buffoon has not yet been sentenced. I think sentencing was set for September but a request to postpone, 'til after the election and not opposed by the NY prosecutor, was granted.

Pretty sure they mean bail instead.

Thanks.

I assume the bail is for this case, J6, and the "more" felonies are those described in the superseding indictment. Those charges are merely a reiteration of the original indictment where bail was granted. Thus no bail violation.

Precedent has already been established for this.

What precedent?

Trump being indicted for 4 more felonies is a violation of his probation [sic]

What probation?

Section I provides a detailed statement of the case that the Government intends to prove at trial. Begins at about the middle of page 3.

Section II sets forth the legal principles governing claims of presidential immunity. It explains that, for each category of conduct that the Supreme Court has not yet addressed, this Court should first determine whether it was official or unofficial by analyzing the relevant "content, form, and context," id. at 2340, to determine whether the defendant was acting in his official capacity or instead "in his capacity as a candidate for re-election." Begins at about the middle of page 85.

Section III then applies those legal principles to the defendant's conduct and establishes that nothing the Government intends to present to the jury is protected by presidential immunity. Begins a little down page 88.

Finally, Section IV explains the relief sought by the Government and specifies the findings the Court should make in a single order"namely, that the defendant's conduct set forth in Section I is not immunized, and that as a result, the defendant must stand trial on the superseding indictment and the Government is not prohibited at trial from using evidence of the conduct described in Section I. About the middle of page 164.