|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 22, 2023 21:07:19 GMT
Regrettably, the Supreme Court declined to fast track the issue of Trump's immunity. www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-immunity.htmlThe Supreme Court declined on Friday to decide for now whether former President Donald J. Trump is immune from prosecution on charges of plotting to overturn the 2020 election. The case will move forward in an appeals court and most likely return to the Supreme Court in the coming months.
The decision to defer consideration of a central issue in the case was a major practical victory for Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have consistently sought to delay criminal cases against him around the country. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 22, 2023 21:33:55 GMT
A convincing argument that Thomas should recuse himself from Jan 6 cases. Regrettably, he won't. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/12/22/clarence-thomas-ginni-thomas-recusal-jan-6/Ginni Thomas’s avid and multipronged fight to prevent Biden from taking office fits the recusal standard to a T — Clarence Thomas’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” She was too involved, too entwined with the bid to overturn the election results — and some of the leading players in that bid — to have her husband sit on cases involving the aftermath of those very efforts.
“Individual Justices, rather than the Court, decide recusal issues,” the court observed in releasing its new ethics code. Which means Thomas will be the judge of himself. But in this tumultuous term, it is the entire court whose reputation will suffer if he chooses not to step aside. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 23, 2023 0:29:29 GMT
The why they may have decided the way they did,.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bridget in MD on Dec 23, 2023 2:45:35 GMT
I am so disgusted by the supreme ct
|
|
twinsmomfla99
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,119 
|
Post by twinsmomfla99 on Dec 23, 2023 11:58:02 GMT
So what would happen if Colorado just ignores the federal ruling that SCOTUS just declined to hear? How can they force CO to add his name?
I’m NOT saying that’s what CO should do. I’m just pointing out one of the flaws in the Constitution—it relies on the states to act in good faith. While I’m confident that CO will act in accordance with our country’s long history of following the rules when it comes to disputes, sadly I would have no such confidence in similar behavior by officials in TX or FL if a ruling like this was going against them.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 23, 2023 18:11:55 GMT
This is an excellent point. Almost any other politician up until recently would have dropped out of the race. Not Trump. www.nytimes.com/2023/12/23/us/politics/trump-legal-challenges.htmlAny Other Politician Would Have Bowed Out. Trump? Not a Chance.
This week’s debate over his very eligibility for office served as a stark reminder that anyone else facing such a wide array of legal problems would have left the political stage long ago.
Mr. Trump’s commitment to the fight is rooted in a “preoccupation with not being seen as a loser,” said Mark Sanford, the former Republican governor of South Carolina, who considered stepping down as governor in 2009 when an extramarital affair erupted in scandalous national headlines.
He ultimately remained in office, recalling in an interview this week that he had wanted to take responsibility for his actions and had hoped his regret and humility would serve as an example to his four sons and lead to a reconciliation with his constituents.
Mr. Sanford said he doubted Mr. Trump had ever considered not running again.
“For him to think about what’s best for the republic would mean having a frontal lobotomy,” Mr. Sanford said. “From the number of people he’s sued over the years to the number of subcontractors he’s ripped off to all of his bankruptcies, he has just bullied his way through life. He plays to an audience of one, and it’s not God — it’s Donald Trump.”
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 23, 2023 20:25:18 GMT
Talking about TFG and all the law suits he filed through the NY courts, he has big ones to call the NY judges and courts corrupt!!
They have catered to him for years at other people's expense! His turn now for the truth!!
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 23, 2023 23:07:02 GMT
CNN
Just showed a video of TFG..
He was complaining about all the 'people' filing law suits..
Who is the master of law suits? Sues everyone he comes in contact with..
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Dec 24, 2023 3:43:33 GMT
Love this post
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Dec 24, 2023 3:50:20 GMT
And easily readable!
And to the point..
Really to the points, points, points, points,.......
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 2, 2024 23:00:20 GMT
16 true conservatives filed an amicus brief against immunity for Trump www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/02/conservatives-brief-immunity/Sixteen Republicans — former prosecutors, elected or appointed officials and lawyers — who signed onto the brief, including Ty Cobb (Trump’s former lawyer), Bill Kristol (former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle), lawyer George T. Conway III, former Massachusetts governor William F. Weld and former congressman Tom Campbell — made their arguments against immunity from a distinctly conservative perspective. (These would be the sort of arguments that might have appealed to honest conservative justices of the past, such as Sandra Day O’Connor, Byron R. White and even Antonin Scalia.
First and foremost, the amicus brief demonstrates fidelity to the clear meaning of the Constitution. When its writers argue that the Constitution’s text omits any reference to presidential immunity and that the Framers could have put one in had they intended to shield the office from prosecution (as they did for members of Congress in the speech or debate clause), the writers are deploying honest originalism. Because the text lacks an immunity provision, the courts have no power to invent such a protection. They likewise find no basis in the Constitution for Trump’s argument that prosecution must be preceded by impeachment and conviction. In deploying an originalist analysis, the amicus brief returns to a principle that the current right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has kicked to the curb: judicial restraint.
In spelling out these arguments in this fashion, the amicus brief not only dismantles Trump’s preposterous claims to immunity but also rebukes the entire GOP that has followed Trump into a thicket of lawlessness, authoritarianism, violence and chaos. Its authors thereby vividly illustrate how far Republicans have come in abandoning liberty, limited government, judicial restraint and fair play.
Only if Trump loses and the MAGA movement’s lurch to authoritarianism is defeated can the GOP reemerge as a legitimate pro-democracy, center-right party based on the principles outlined in the amicus brief. If that ever occurs, the amicus brief authors might be just the people to advise and lead their former allies to return to the values they once held dear.
) |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 2, 2024 23:54:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 3, 2024 0:00:13 GMT
The gop way...
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 3, 2024 22:28:35 GMT
Trump's latest filing www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/03/trump-lawyers-doozy-filing-voter-fraud/At this point, it should be no surprise that Trump would press forward with promoting false voter-fraud claims. He has been doing it for more than three years, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
But it’s one thing to say these things in public; it’s quite another to include them in a legal filing. Trump’s attorneys have been careful not to actually vouch for his wildest claims, because doing so involves trying to substantiate them, and legal scrutiny has been unkind — to put it mildly.
Trump’s lawyers do not say that the claims in the report are true, instead using the document in an effort to substantiate the idea that there remain “vigorous disputes” and “questions” about the results. The aim is to apparently cite the smoke without actually claiming there’s fire.But what it demonstrates is how much this entire effort was about manufacturing smoke. And in that way, the Trump lawyers in effect just proved the prosecutors’ point. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 4, 2024 13:56:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 4, 2024 15:59:50 GMT
TFG has filed a complaint to have SC Smith sanctioned for continuing to file motions while the DC case is stayed by Judge Chutkan.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 4, 2024 22:16:11 GMT
TFG has filed a complaint to have SC Smith sanctioned for continuing to file motions while the DC case is stayed by Judge Chutkan. Ridiculous |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 4, 2024 22:40:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 4, 2024 22:43:05 GMT
Trump has been really unhinged today. 9 rants against E Jean Carroll. Or he's trying to distract from the news that he received $7.8 million from foreign entities.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 5, 2024 15:11:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 5, 2024 15:19:05 GMT
What she had to say the other day... Donald Trump's attorney wants the public to know her good looks are more important than her intelligence, because she can "fake being smart." “I don’t think I’d be on T.V. or sitting here if I didn’t look the way I look,” Alina Habba said Thursday. “It doesn’t hurt to be good looking.” Habba was asked to discuss her physical appearance on the PBD Podcast by co-host Bryan Callen, who questioned why an “alpha male” like Trump would pick her for his $250 million fraud case defense. “He picks a smart, feminine, capable woman,” Callen said. “Right,” Habba agreed. How much of you being an attractive, smart, do you think played into that?” Callen asked. Habba then launched into a long answer during which she declared she is not a feminist and would rather be pretty than smart (“I can fake being smart.")“When you’re good looking, that’s great,” Habba said. “People think that President Trump hired me because I’m good looking. That is absolutely not the case.” www.rawstory.com/alina-habba-trump-2666873681/ |
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Jan 5, 2024 19:11:46 GMT
I can get behind this…
”New York attorney general calls for $370 million fine against former President Trump and a lifetime ban from the state’s real estate industry.”
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 5, 2024 22:09:23 GMT
SCOTUS has agreed to take up TFG appeal of Colorado 14th Amendment case!! Oral arguments Feb 8th.
Briefs due
* TFG Jan 18th
* Colorado ?? Maybe 21st
* TFG Feb 5th?
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 6, 2024 23:05:28 GMT
Now she's done it, hopefully.... Donald Trump's attorney, Alina Habba, has likely offended the highest court in the nation with her recent comments, a former federal prosecutor said on Saturday. Habba, who recently said she would rather be "pretty" than "smart," found herself in hot water after she stated that the Supreme Court was likely to rule for her boss in part because they felt indebted to the former president. Specifically, Habba brought up Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them," she said at the time of the interview. "You know, people like Kavanaugh, who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place. He'll step up." *** "That was a really appalling statement for any lawyer to make, and particularly a lawyer involved in a contest like this," Vance said. "All federal judges are appointed by a president from one party or another. And we expect all of them to leave that political origin story at the door when they take the bench." www.rawstory.com/trump-alina-habba-2666886822/Since she says she is pretty, does that mean we can make comments about her looks?? I really want to!! |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 7, 2024 4:27:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 7, 2024 4:31:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Jan 8, 2024 22:59:17 GMT
TFG has just lost his appeal in the E Jean Carroll case. It will proceed next week, although he can still appeal to SCOTUS.
Donald Trump's immunity claim has been denied, court records show.
The New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Trump's request Monday to reconsider his immunity claim in the civil lawsuit brought by former journalist E. Jean Carroll, court records show.
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 9, 2024 21:36:01 GMT
Some positive or encouraging takeaways from today's hearing on presidential immunity www.nytimes.com/2024/01/09/us/politics/trump-immunity-hearing-takeaways.html1. All three judges signaled skepticism with Trump’s position.
The judges on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appeared unlikely to dismiss the charges against Mr. Trump on grounds of presidential immunity, as he has asked them to do. The two Democratic appointees on the court, Judge J. Michelle Childs and Judge Florence Y. Pan, peppered John Sauer, a lawyer for Mr. Trump, with difficult questions.
2. A lawyer for Trump took a sweeping position on a hypothetical assassination.
Judge Pan asked Mr. Sauer to address a series of hypotheticals intended to test the limits of his position that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution over their officials acts, unless they have first been impeached and convicted by the Senate over the same matter.
Among them, she asked, what if a president ordered SEAL Team 6, the Navy commando unit, to assassinate a president’s political rival? Mr. Sauer said such a president would surely be impeached and convicted, but he insisted that courts would not have jurisdiction to oversee a murder trial unless that first happened.
3. A prosecutor argued that absolute immunity would be ‘frightening.’
Picking up on the hypothetical of a president who uses SEAL Team 6 to kill a rival and then escapes criminal liability by simply resigning before he could be impeached or by avoiding a conviction in the Senate, James I. Pearce, a lawyer for the special counsel Jack Smith, denounced Mr. Sauer’s argument. Such a rationale, he added, put forth an understanding of presidential immunity that was not just wrong but also a vision for “an extraordinarily frightening future.”
4. Trump tried to engage in political theater.
In an unusual move, Mr. Trump showed up in person at the appeals court hearing, even though he was not obliged to be there. But if he was hoping to turn the appearance to his political advantage, the effort fell a little flat.
He was ushered into the federal courthouse through a heavily guarded back entrance and did not address the dozens of reporters covering the proceedings. And during the hearing itself, he was silent, doing little more than exchanging notes with his lawyers and staring at the judges who will decide his fate. |
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 9, 2024 21:57:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Jan 9, 2024 22:10:25 GMT
|
|
