In article <vbd6e2$hb5$2@reader1.panix.com>, bks@panix.com says...
>
> |
> | The federal judge overseeing former President Donald
> | Trump's case over the aftermath of the 2020 election laid
> | out the schedule for next steps in the prosecution
> | following the Supreme Court's ruling that Trump enjoys
> | immunity for "official acts" he took while in the White
> | House.
> |
> | U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued an order mostly
> | siding with a timeline proposed by special counsel Jack
> | Smith, hours after the two sides met in her courtroom
> | earlier Thursday. Trump is charged with four counts related
> | to his alleged efforts to overturn the election results,
> | including conspiracy to defraud the U.S.
> | ...
> <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-2020-election-case-schedule-tanya-chutkan/>
>
> --bks

You know if you would spit out Trumps dick you might make some sense.

|
| Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s name will appear on Michigan's Nov.
| 5 presidential ballot, over his objections, the Michigan
| Supreme Court ruled Monday.
|
| The majority ruling reverses a Friday opinion from the
| Michigan Court of Appeals, which said there was no valid
| reason not to remove Kennedy's name from the ballot, as
| Kennedy requested when he suspended his campaign and
| endorsed former Republican President Donald Trump.
| ...
<https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/09/09/robert-f-kennedy-jr-rkf-name-appear-michigan-presidential-ballot-supreme-court/75105129007/>

--bks

|
| A federal judge on Thursday approved the public release of
| redacted source documents that helped inform special
| counsel Jack Smith's explosive 165-page legal brief arguing
| that Donald Trump can still face prosecution for trying to
| subvert the results of the 2020 election, but gave the
| former president seven days to take steps to block the
| disclosure.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/10/trump-jan6-jack-smith-appendix-public-release/>

--bks

https://images.foxtv.com/static.fox9.com/www.fox9.com/content/uploads/2019/08/764/432/77a62727-AzzieWatson_1531927513413_5807655_ver1.0_640_360.jpg?ve=1&tl=1
Azzie Watson, 25, of Independence, was charged Tuesday with child abuse and endangerment. Photo courtesy: Wyandotte County Detention Center.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) -- A Kansas City-area woman has been charged with letting men rape her 2-year-old daughter.

Azzie Watson, 25, of Independence, was charged Tuesday with child abuse and endangerment. Bond is set at $75,000. No attorney is listed for her in online court records.

WDAF- reports that court documents say Watson's boyfriend recorded Watson talking about repeatedly taking her daughter to a house where her daughter was raped about five times. She says on the recording that she watched. Police were given the recording last month while responding to a rape report at a hospital.

Court documents say Watson told detectives that what she said in the recording was a lie because she was scared of her boyfriend.

Watson also said she didn't know how her daughter contracted a sexually transmitted disease.

https://www.fox9.com/news/mother-charged-with-letting-men-rape-toddler-daughter

> | A federal judge on Thursday approved the public release of
> | redacted source documents that helped inform special
> | counsel Jack Smith's explosive 165-page legal brief arguing
> | that Donald Trump can still face prosecution for trying to
> | subvert the results of the 2020 election, but gave the
> | former president seven days to take steps to block the
> | disclosure.

|
| Judge rejects Trump request to toss Bragg charges in New
| York on basis of presidential immunity
| ...
<https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-rejects-trump-request-toss-bragg-charges-new-york-basis-presidential-immunity>

--bks

bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in
news:vjqkoe$7aj$1@reader2.panix.com:

>> | A federal judge on Thursday approved the public release of
>> | redacted source documents that helped inform special
>> | counsel Jack Smith's explosive 165-page legal brief arguing
>> | that Donald Trump can still face prosecution for trying to
>> | subvert the results of the 2020 election, but gave the
>> | former president seven days to take steps to block the
>> | disclosure.
>
> |
> | Judge rejects Trump request to toss Bragg charges in New
> | York on basis of presidential immunity
> | ...
> <https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-rejects-trump-request-toss-brag
> g-charges-new-york-basis-presidential-immunity>
>
> --bks
>

Conservatives: "President have immunity!"

Also conservatives: "We need to prosecute Biden!"

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 01:39:26 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

>> | A federal judge on Thursday approved the public release of
>> | redacted source documents that helped inform special
>> | counsel Jack Smith's explosive 165-page legal brief arguing
>> | that Donald Trump can still face prosecution for trying to
>> | subvert the results of the 2020 election, but gave the
>> | former president seven days to take steps to block the
>> | disclosure.
>
> |
> | Judge rejects Trump request to toss Bragg charges in New
> | York on basis of presidential immunity
> | ...
><https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-rejects-trump-request-toss-bragg-charges-new-york-basis-presidential-immunity>
>
> --bks

Bradley cheers on the lawfair used against Trump while ignoring all
the other cases that fell apart.

Typical.

On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 07:22:46 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 01:39:26 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
>Sherman) wrote:
>
>>> | A federal judge on Thursday approved the public release of
>>> | redacted source documents that helped inform special
>>> | counsel Jack Smith's explosive 165-page legal brief arguing
>>> | that Donald Trump can still face prosecution for trying to
>>> | subvert the results of the 2020 election, but gave the
>>> | former president seven days to take steps to block the
>>> | disclosure.
>>
>> |
>> | Judge rejects Trump request to toss Bragg charges in New
>> | York on basis of presidential immunity
>> | ...
>><https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-rejects-trump-request-toss-bragg-charges-new-york-basis-presidential-immunity>
>>
>> --bks
>
>Bradley cheers on the lawfair used against Trump while ignoring all
>the other cases that fell apart.
>
>Typical.

And Bradley has run away.

|
| New York's highest court DENIED Trump's bid to stop his
| sentencing tomorrow (Friday).
|
| Now, we wait for SCOTUS.
|
| [Facsimile of decision at URL]
|
<https://bsky.app/profile/klasfeldreports.bsky.social/post/3lfcx4avgrb2q>

--bks

> | New York's highest court DENIED Trump's bid to stop his
> | sentencing tomorrow (Friday).

|
| Appeals court allows release of Smith's report on Trump's
| election-reversal efforts
|
| The ruling can be appealed. President-elect Donald Trump
| says releasing the special counsel report would interfere
| with his White House transition
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/01/09/trump-jack-smith-special-counsel-report/>

--bks

On 1/10/2025 1:00 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> In article <7udgP.713097$oR74.711688@fx16.iad>, katt@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On 1/10/2025 4:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:30:19 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>
>>>> |
>>>> | New York's highest court DENIED Trump's bid to stop his
>>>> | sentencing tomorrow (Friday).
>>>> |
>>>> | Now, we wait for SCOTUS.
>>>> |
>>>> | [Facsimile of decision at URL]
>>>> |
>>>> <https://bsky.app/profile/klasfeldreports.bsky.social/post/3lfcx4avgrb2q>
>>>>
>>>> --bks
>>>
>>> The NY Court should have granted his bid and
>>
>> They didn't, and you're an ignoramus about the law.
>>
>>> this shouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court.
>>
>> No, it sure should not have, but enough corrupt conservative justices voted to
>> grant cert, so it did. Thankfully, the court ruled correctly, *despite* the
>> corruption of those four crooks.
>>
>>> Of course this will all be null and void when the case gets tossed on appeal
>>
>> Not going to happen
>
> Watch and see.
The conviction will not be "tossed" on appeal.

Baxter wrote:
> On 1/10/2025 1:00 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>> In article <7udgP.713097$oR74.711688@fx16.iad>, katt@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On 1/10/2025 4:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:30:19 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
>>>> Sherman) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> |
>>>>> | New York's highest court DENIED Trump's bid to stop his
>>>>> | sentencing tomorrow (Friday).
>>>>> |
>>>>> | Now, we wait for SCOTUS.
>>>>> |
>>>>> | [Facsimile of decision at URL]
>>>>> |
>>>>> <https://bsky.app/profile/klasfeldreports.bsky.social/post/3lfcx4avgrb2q>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>      --bks
>>>>
>>>> The NY Court should have granted his bid and
>>>
>>> They didn't, and you're an ignoramus about the law.
>>>
>>>> this shouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court.
>>>
>>> No, it sure should not have, but enough corrupt conservative justices
>>> voted to
>>> grant cert, so it did. Thankfully, the court ruled correctly,
>>> *despite* the
>>> corruption of those four crooks.
>>>
>>>> Of course this will all be null and void when the case gets tossed
>>>> on appeal
>>>
>>> Not going to happen
>>
>> Watch and see.
> The conviction will not be "tossed" on appeal.
>
>
Do you enjoy having your salad tossed?

In article <hVAgP.719250$0O61.207187@fx15.iad>, katt@gmail.com says...
>
> On 1/10/2025 1:00 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> > In article <7udgP.713097$oR74.711688@fx16.iad>, katt@gmail.com says...
> >>
> >> On 1/10/2025 4:46 AM, NoBody wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 15:30:19 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
> >>> Sherman) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> |
> >>>> | New York's highest court DENIED Trump's bid to stop his
> >>>> | sentencing tomorrow (Friday).
> >>>> |
> >>>> | Now, we wait for SCOTUS.
> >>>> |
> >>>> | [Facsimile of decision at URL]
> >>>> |
> >>>> <https://bsky.app/profile/klasfeldreports.bsky.social/post/3lfcx4avgrb2q>
> >>>>
> >>>> --bks
> >>>
> >>> The NY Court should have granted his bid and
> >>
> >> They didn't, and you're an ignoramus about the law.
> >>
> >>> this shouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court.
> >>
> >> No, it sure should not have, but enough corrupt conservative justices voted to
> >> grant cert, so it did. Thankfully, the court ruled correctly, *despite* the
> >> corruption of those four crooks.
> >>
> >>> Of course this will all be null and void when the case gets tossed on appeal
> >>
> >> Not going to happen
> >
> > Watch and see.
> The conviction will not be "tossed" on appeal.

Yup. He's gonna be in charge.