Trump on Trial

[GoCubsGo]

Jan 6 vibes?

[GoCubsGo]

[Vrede too]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GLwjwfvXkAA ... me=900x900

Article
Not sure if this revelation is good news or bad.


Article
Opps. Eric makes a strong play for dumbest issue, again.

Speaking of dumb:

Jesse Explains Crime

"He walked into the bank, pulled out a gun, and demanded all the money. Where's the crime??"

Article and more tweets

[Vrede too]

Jan 6 vibes?

More details:

Why aren't the MAGA faithful protesting Trump's trial/pity party?

[GoCubsGo]

Why aren't the MAGA faithful protesting Trump's trial/pity party?

The answer is very simple.

They can't drive their boats or pickmup trucks with all their flags in circles around the courthouse.

They'd actually have to walk.

All the trump supporters who were willing to walk in the past are facing charges from the last time they walked.

[Vrede too]

Why aren't the MAGA faithful protesting Trump's trial/pity party?

The answer is very simple.

They can't drive their boats or pickmup trucks with all their flags in circles around the courthouse.

They'd actually have to walk.

All the trump supporters who were willing to walk in the past are facing charges from the last time they walked.

The subway terrifies them and they can't afford car fare.

[GoCubsGo]

Why aren't the MAGA faithful protesting Trump's trial/pity party?

The answer is very simple.

They can't drive their boats or pickmup trucks with all their flags in circles around the courthouse.

They'd actually have to walk.

All the trump supporters who were willing to walk in the past are facing charges from the last time they walked.

The subway terrifies them and they can't afford car fare.

Distinct possibilities also. Maybe they'll show up tomorrow.

[Vrede too]

I’d like to report a murder

Lolz. When even Mitt Romney is roasting you…

This means Lindsey Graham, Byron Donalds, Tim Scott, Jim Jordan, Marg and more sycophantic assholes—will now run to any camera to exclaim there’s nothing wrong with paying a porn star to not have sex with them. They’ll add that it’s completely normal payment.

Article and more tweets

[Vrede too]

Team Trump Is Ready to Lose the Supreme Court Immunity Case. They’re Celebrating

Donald Trump’s inner circle doesn’t expect the Supreme Court to go along with his extreme arguments about executive power in the immunity case before the justices. But what the high court does now is almost beside the point: Trump already won.

Three people with direct knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone that many of the former president’s lawyers and political advisers have already accepted that the justices will likely rule against him, and reject his claims to expansive presidential immunity in perpetuity. Bringing the case before the court — after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., shut down their arguments on executive power — was a delaying tactic designed to push Trump’s criminal election subversion trial past Election Day this fall. The strategy paid off so much more than MAGAworld anticipated.

“We already pulled off the heist,” says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn’t matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now.

Trump’s lawyers and other confidants had widely expected — and had told the former president as much — that the court maneuver would delay the election subversion trial, but perhaps only to around the summer. For months, Trump attorneys were actively preparing themselves and their client to face a trial, over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the violent Jan. 6 assault at the U.S. Capitol, right around the time of the Republican Party’s nominating convention, the sources add.

If the federal trial were to proceed during this election year, much of Team Trump had predicted it would be significantly more damaging politically to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee than, for instance, his ongoing criminal hush-money trial in Manhattan.

“We planned for that exhausting schedule and split screen,” says a person involved with the planning.

But the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority, which Trump built as president, came through for him in a way that many Trump advisers didn’t believe was probable. When news broke in late February that the court would take up Trump’s claims of vast immunity, Trumpland was so elated that a lawyer close to Trump told Rolling Stone they were “literally popping champagne.”...

Crap.

[GoCubsGo]

Crap.

Could and probably will be worse. They could lift the stay tomorrow.....but they won't.

They pushed this case to the last day of the session when they could have heard it months ago.

Bet they don't issue a ruling until late June going into July, effectively putting the trial off until after the election.

Fucking scumbags.

[Vrede too]

Could and probably will be worse. They could lift the stay tomorrow.....but they won't.

They pushed this case to the last day of the session when they could have heard it months ago.

Bet they don't issue a ruling until late June going into July, effectively putting the trial off until after the election.

Fucking scumbags.

The article claims that the trial has already been put off until after the election, hence the celebration This not only raises the possibility of the prosecution being quashed by POTUS Trump, but perhaps more importantly ends a more damaging campaign issue than the hush money trial

Fucking scumbags.

[Vrede too]

100% chance of indemnification.

Federal judge rejects Donald Trump's bid for new E. Jean Carroll defamation trial, upholds $83M judgment

[Vrede too]

Supreme Court Conservatives Likely To Give Trump What He Wants In Immunity Case: Further Delay
The justices seemed to focus more on hypothetical future cases rather than the case immediately before them.

In shocking arguments Thursday before the U.S. Supreme Court, at least five conservative justices suggested that they would create a new rule providing some form of immunity from criminal prosecution for former presidents and require lower courts to hold additional hearings to judge whether the indictment of former President Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election met that new standard.

So much for the slam dunk case where only the delay was expected to be a negative.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor Calls Out Catch-22 In Trump's Immunity Argument
"If he's not covered by the criminal law, he can't be impeached for violating it at all," the Supreme Court justice said during Thursday's arguments.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor identified a key contradiction underlying former President Donald Trump’s defense at Thursday’s Supreme Court hearing on whether he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election....

“If we say a president can’t be included in a criminal law unless explicitly named, then that would bar the Senate from convicting him for high crimes or misdemeanors because that means that he’s not subject to the law at all,” Sotomayor said.

“If he’s not covered by the criminal law, he can’t be impeached for violating it at all,” she added....

Jamie Raskin Suggests Fitting New Home For 'Partisan' Supreme Court In Blistering Take
The House Democrat named the "most astonishing" thing he heard from one justice after the court heard arguments on Donald Trump's immunity claim.

... “Well, they’re politicians who are not even subject to popular election unlike me. They should move the Supreme Court over to the RNC headquarters because they’re acting like a bunch of partisan operatives,” Raskin said....

“I mean, for all of American history, we’ve said presidents are subject to criminal prosecution if they commit crimes,” noted Raskin, who pointed to Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton agreeing to give up his law license for five years to avoid criminal prosecution.

He continued, “Now they say, ‘Well, if you’re really mean to Donald Trump and you hold him accountable the way every other American citizen is accountable, then he’ll really overthrow the government, he’ll really bring out the big guns and we can’t afford that.’ And that’s a kind of masochistic capitulationism to Donald Trump’s authoritarianism.”

[GoCubsGo]

“David Frost: Are you really saying the president can do something illegal?



Richard Nixon: I'm saying that when the President does it, it's *not* illegal!



David Frost: ...I'm sorry?”

Wonder why Nixon accepted a pardon?

[O Really]

This whole issue is bullshit, creating an "answer" to which there is no valid question. A reasonable level of immunity from criminal charges applies to a lot of people as long as they are actually doing their jobs. And there are lots of means to determine if what is done really is part of their job. Even in the military, a guy is obligated to obey a "lawful" order, clearly implying that there could be unlawful orders. Most commonly seen with cops, for better or worse, but they get a lot of protection when they're doing their job - not so much when they're not. A cop driving drunk isn't going to be immune just because he's a cop - even in his patrol car. Nixon would definitely have been prosecuted if he hadn't been pardoned.

[GoCubsGo]

This whole issue is bullshit, creating an "answer" to which there is no valid question. A reasonable level of immunity from criminal charges applies to a lot of people as long as they are actually doing their jobs. And there are lots of means to determine if what is done really is part of their job. Even in the military, a guy is obligated to obey a "lawful" order, clearly implying that there could be unlawful orders. Most commonly seen with cops, for better or worse, but they get a lot of protection when they're doing their job - not so much when they're not. A cop driving drunk isn't going to be immune just because he's a cop - even in his patrol car. Nixon would definitely have been prosecuted if he hadn't been pardoned.

This isn't a conversation at any other time in history.

[Vrede too]

“David Frost: Are you really saying the president can do something illegal?



Richard Nixon: I'm saying that when the President does it, it's *not* illegal!



David Frost: ...I'm sorry?”

Wonder why Nixon accepted a pardon?

Untested theory, as we're now learning. He may have played it for safety and least hassle.

[Vrede too]

This whole issue is bullshit, creating an "answer" to which there is no valid question. A reasonable level of immunity from criminal charges applies to a lot of people as long as they are actually doing their jobs. And there are lots of means to determine if what is done really is part of their job. Even in the military, a guy is obligated to obey a "lawful" order, clearly implying that there could be unlawful orders. Most commonly seen with cops, for better or worse, but they get a lot of protection when they're doing their job - not so much when they're not. A cop driving drunk isn't going to be immune just because he's a cop - even in his patrol car. Nixon would definitely have been prosecuted if he hadn't been pardoned.

"A reasonable level of immunity from criminal charges applies" when specified in law. We're in the weeds on presidential immunity. Hence, the RW activist SCOTUS is thinking about writing new law.

[Vrede too]

This isn't a conversation at any other time in history.

Trump GUILTY!


Of contempt, $9K fine and must remove posts. It's a start, jail threatened.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/live/trump-t ... 00992.html

[GoCubsGo]

This isn't a conversation at any other time in history.

Trump GUILTY!


Of contempt, $9K fine and must remove posts. It's a start, jail threatened.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/live/trump-t ... 00992.html

It's a snoozer.