I wonder whether certain people in potential danger from Trumpists would object to any commutation. Trump will never act in good faith and would cause trouble on release.In theory.
I wouldn’t hold my breath on that being put into practice, much as I’d love to see it…him in jail, not him winning!
If he is given a custodial sentence for any crime, it is almost impossible to not see the sitting President commute the sentence, possibly with caveats.
Jailing ex-Presidents is a bad look, even with crooks this big.
Smith can apply to a higher court to get her removed on various grounds including bias. I’m baffled why he has not done this hitherto.I'm no expert but there is some sort of appeals process. She is a very junior judge so its not a long shot.
Enough rope I think?Smith can apply to a higher court to get her removed on various grounds including bias. I’m baffled why he has not done this hitherto.
In the first E Jean Carol case, he ran away to Scotland and never appeared in his own defence.Bluster is often mistaken for fighting. He always runs away from any real fight, hence why most of his legal cases have ended up with him making a payout, or otherwise being out of pocket.
Smith can apply to a higher court to get her removed on various grounds including bias. I’m baffled why he has not done this hitherto.
Yup.It's because he can only do it once, and it's a bit of a nuclear option. If he goes too soon and doesn't have enough evidence of systemic bias and gets knocked back then she isn't getting removed. He needs to wait until she's made enough factual and indisputable errors of law (not just generous interpretations but black and white errors), that the higher court has no other recourse but to remove her.
So far she has made two big errors which got reversed. A third would probably do the trick in proving bias. The problem is that Smith has to appeal for her to reverse her own decisions first before going up the chain. This is why she has suddenly done a 180 after massive delay when ruling the Defence could have access to sensitive documents. That would have definitely been reversed on appeal for national security reasons and then that would have been her third strike.
Basically, she can keep delaying and making errors, as long as she reverses them before it goes to appeal.
Oh, they’ll be millions who object to it, but Biden won’t be running for anything, ever again…even dinner, so he won’t care.I wonder whether certain people in potential danger from Trumpists would object to any commutation. Trump will never act in good faith and would cause trouble on release.
For what it’s worth, on News Agents USA a few weeks back they said they’d been told by senior people in the democrat party that a Whitmer/Warnock ticket was the fallback plan if Biden were to pull out for any reason.Secondly, I’m not suggesting a challenger for Biden, but a required replacement. We are a long way from November 5 and there’s a lot that can happen.
It's because he can only do it once, and it's a bit of a nuclear option. If he goes too soon and doesn't have enough evidence of systemic bias and gets knocked back then she isn't getting removed. He needs to wait until she's made enough factual and indisputable errors of law (not just generous interpretations but black and white errors), that the higher court has no other recourse but to remove her.
So far she has made two big errors which got reversed. A third would probably do the trick in proving bias. The problem is that Smith has to appeal for her to reverse her own decisions first before going up the chain. This is why she has suddenly done a 180 after massive delay when ruling the Defence could have access to sensitive documents. That would have definitely been reversed on appeal for national security reasons and then that would have been her third strike.
Basically, she can keep delaying and making errors, as long as she reverses them before it goes to appeal.