Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

PedroXimenez

(627 posts)

3. what do you say to that John Roberts?

Reply to BumRushDaShow (Original post)

Tue Oct 8, 2024, 08:59 AM

Oct 8

we'll see...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

7 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

raging moderate whathehell WA-03 Democrat ArkansasDemocrat1 Drum migeorge Dock_Yard

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Jack Smith Finds Chink in Donald Trump's Armor--His 'Private' Attorney [View all] BumRushDaShow Oct 8 OP

That makes sense to me. JohnnyRingo Oct 8 #1

IMO even if he used the WH attorney, asking the VP to not certify... brush Oct 8 #6

wasn'[t his defense in e jean carrol carried by barr's doj? rampartd Oct 8 #7

deleted post thesquanderer Oct 8 #21

Jack Smith is correct UpInArms Oct 8 #2

what do you say to that John Roberts? PedroXimenez Oct 8 #3

Roberts already ignored the law by giving TSF immunity gab13by13 Oct 8 #5

Roberts only gave Tump immunity for official actions. That's Smith's point: a president doesn't use a private lawyer for Martin68 Oct 8 #15

Is that in law or cilla4progress Oct 8 #16

Frankly, I don't know if it the law, but it is a powerful argument that Trump was trying to hide his action because Martin68 Oct 8 #18

Congress could pass a law that negates that Supreme Court ruling? Captain Zero Oct 9 #36

Both plus it's common sense and Trump's attorney should have known better. cstanleytech Oct 9 #40

We are arguing points of law but the question is MadameButterfly Oct 8 #27

It's what a stable genius would do. surfered Oct 8 #4

One man's legal absolute is another's line in the sand. jaxexpat Oct 8 #8

The John Roberts Constitution Kid Berwyn Oct 8 #9

Waiting patiently for ... BlueWavePsych Oct 8 #10

Me too...but.... COL Mustard Oct 8 #31

Jack Smith is "right" on the law! Tarzanrock Oct 8 #11

Kinda like being a little bit pregnant.. BattleRow Oct 8 #13

Roberts Decision Has Problems DallasNE Oct 8 #19

In a normal time with a more "normal" SC moniss Oct 8 #12

Excellent tactic. One doesn't use a "private" lawyer for official presidential functions. That is the function of the Martin68 Oct 8 #14

No way am I going to second guess JustAnotherGen Oct 8 #17

Good to see a lawyer confirming the importance of this muriel_volestrangler Oct 8 #20

This makes me smile Hekate Oct 8 #22

C'mon Jack -- stick it to that fat felonous fuck Blue Owl Oct 8 #23

If it was an official act Owens Oct 8 #24

Oh, silly! COL Mustard Oct 8 #32

The Reich Wing killed orthoclad Oct 9 #37

At this point, I'm so sick of trump that I only want two things: calimary Oct 8 #25

I agree w/ you. But, I doubt anything will ever happen to this disgusting POS. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised SWBTATTReg Oct 8 #28

Yep. Boy do I ever get that. calimary Oct 8 #29

Even if he wrote a letter on White House letterhead and had it embossed with the presidential seal AdamGG Oct 8 #26

This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Oct 8 #30

Cautious optimism Bristlecone Oct 8 #33

Jack Smith is certainly impressive. It's nice to be on offense. SupportSanity Oct 8 #34

Can someone explain this to me? Orrex Oct 8 #35

One of the things that John Roberts did BumRushDaShow Oct 9 #38

Oh, wow. Thanks! Orrex Oct 9 #39