Here we go!
First up, Jack Smith took a shot across Judge Loose Cannon’s bow:
Quotes from The Daily Beast by Jose Pagliery:
“Back when she was a federal prosecutor in South Florida, Cannon worked on a case involving a 2015 sting operation that caught two men who planned to rob a fake stash house of half a million dollars of cocaine, showing up with two AK-47s in their pickup truck. One of them appealed his conviction by claiming he was subject to an unfair ‘selective prosecution’ on the grounds that the vast majority of stash house stings nab Blacks and Hispanics.”
“‘Now that Trump is making a similarly spectacular claim, Smith’s prosecutors have reminded Judge Cannon that her hard-won victory is the very reason she should rule against the former president. Defendants can’t just demand a government document dump by pointing to some flimsy notion of “selective prosecution,’ the DOJ argued.”
As expected, House GOP is taking Hur’s report and trying to spin something out of it. In my opinion, Hur’s appointment as Special Counsel is one of AG Garland’s greatest missteps. And Rep. Comer needs something new and shiny to display for his idiot voter base.
I’m going to quote directly from Steve Vladeck’s Twitter feed (he’s a SCOTUS commentator for CNN) for his info on what happens next for The Idiot’s SCOTUS appeal which happened late yesterday. Or right now as I’m typing.
“As predicted, former President Trump is asking #SCOTUS to keep the January 6 prosecution on hold pending a future appeal of last week’s 3-0 D.C. Circuit ruling rejecting his claim of immunity.
What happens next: Chief Justice Roberts will order Jack Smith to respond (best guess: with a deadline of 5 p.m. Wednesday). Trump replies within 24ish hours. Then we wait for SCOTUS, which could rule … whenever (but most likely sometime between this Friday and next Friday).”
Question from Brad Heath of Reuters:
“What are the odds the court stays the case pending en banc review in DC, which is the extra thing Trump wants here?”
Answer from Steve:
“0% They’ll either stay it pending certiorari (which would *include* en banc review, as I explained this morning), or they won’t stay it at all. Splitting the difference makes no sense at all.
To elaborate, *if* the Court grants a stay pending cert, that would *include* the time Trump would need to seek rehearing from the full D.C. Circuit, because the cert clock would run only from the denial of rehearing en banc. And if it’s not granting a full stay, why a mini one?”
So that’s my three things, in somewhat different form. We can persist along with the horrors without being horrors ourselves, so let’s treat each other with grace and kindness. That includes how we treat ourselves. No threatening Mayor McSquirrel or anyone else.