815 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Fre'd Bennett, MAHA's avatar

Never been so happy to be wrong.

Expand full comment
David Roberts's avatar

As I recall in Mo v Biden, the court simply ruled that Mo didn’t have specific standing to sue and sent it back down. But I have been wrong before.

Expand full comment
SuezCanal's avatar

Alex Berenson has standing. And he is getting closer and closer to the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment
Fre'd Bennett, MAHA's avatar

No, you're correct David, that they rejected it on standing which is the all-purpose excuse and the Supremes equivalent of "the check is in the mail."

Expand full comment
Michele's avatar

Me and some aware friends were saying this re dangers of the bioweapons that we never trusted as a legitimate vaxx -if there was ever such thing!-. "For the first time in my life I hope I am wrong!"

Expand full comment
Lisa Ca's avatar

❤️❤️❤️

Expand full comment
Anita from Tucson - Now In MI's avatar

Thank you for the link! The entire ruling is linked in the article. Down goes the case to Judge Chutkan again. BOUNCE! Let's see how far that bouncing up and down lasts. Pretty good odds, it wouldn't be over before November, or even next January.

AND now, Trump has, through his challenges, courage, choices and actions, forced another ''precedential'' ruling which can be used (once it's fleshed out in the courts as to what is core, official and unofficial immunity) to address and adjudicate the actions of any other current or future FPOTUS ("Former President of the United States," as they like to call Trump).

Expand full comment
Hoffmeister's avatar

Youre comment made me realize that PDJT has done for this country in the last three years what he may not have been able to do with a consecutive 2nd term

Expand full comment
Anita from Tucson - Now In MI's avatar

AND ultimately, it's what GOD has done through PDJT and these circumstances, in my view.

Expand full comment
Silent scorn's avatar

Some believe he planned it that way, or his higher power did!

Expand full comment
FH's avatar

And and and: is bribery an official or an unofficial act? How about being the leader of a RICO situation? Here's looking at you Robert Peters.

Expand full comment
TB's avatar

The ruling pretty clearly stated that bribery is "unofficial" and can be prosecuted. (With some dissent over what the limits are on evidence that can be used in the prosecution as to official acts done in exchange for the bribe.)

Expand full comment
Reasonable Horses's avatar

Yes, official vs unofficial is the sticky wicket. How Chutkan parses the two will indeed force a ruling for the ages. This is far from over.

Expand full comment
Barbls's avatar

The lower courts will still have the say so on what constitutes "official acts" - but that leaves the door open to examine what the current pr*ck and his minions have been doing while in office once they've been shown the door.

Expand full comment
Anita from Tucson - Now In MI's avatar

And if they parse badly, it will be appealed, each aspect at a time, in all likelihood. It could take a while...

Expand full comment
Jen's avatar

Thank God!!!

Expand full comment
TB's avatar

Thomas' concurring opinion is also interesting; he spends a while talking about how the Special Counsel appears to not be a valid office created by Congress, and therefore the entire prosecution may be null and void. Seems like there's a good chance this will be one of the next objections to be appealed if the lower courts continue to allow the prosecution.

Expand full comment
Lisa Ca's avatar

Thank you for sharing. I couldnt wait all day to hear from Jeff. Thanks again.

Expand full comment
Peter GL's avatar

though I will want to read his opinion on this

Expand full comment