Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[softlynow 1812]

4 hours ago, Nivek said:

We really need a legal definition for NEWS, and reboot the fairness doctrine

No we need a Democratic Party which is savvy to the state of public discourse. Dems need deferential hacks like Schumer to step aside and let the AOCs and Newsoms take the lead. And those leaders need to direct their money men to utilize the never-Trumpers and fight to fucking win, rather than running plays from Tom Herman's Playbook for Winning is Hard with a 2 Point Lead. Flood social media and create soundbites that the networks can't resist running. Stop waiting for events to create favorable news cycles, and create them for themselves. In short, stop being everything we know Democrats to be since Reagan put them on the defensive.

Also, the Fairness Doctrine would not apply to NewsMax, Fox News, OANN, etc., because they are not licensed by the government to use a certain frequency. Red Lion v. FCC cemented the FD's constitutionality* because of that distinction. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo clearly ruled that the FD or any analogue could not be applied against the disinformation apparatus of the modern GQP.

 

* Besides, you know the Roberts court would just overturn Red Lion, given the chance.

[atomheartbevo 89628]

14 minutes ago, softlynow said:

we need a Democratic Party which is savvy to the state of public discourse. Dems need deferential hacks like Schumer to step aside and let the AOCs and Newsoms take the lead. And those leaders need to direct their money men to utilize the never-Trumpers and fight to fucking win, rather than running plays from Tom Herman's Playbook for Winning is Hard with a 2 Point Lead. Flood social media and create soundbites that the networks can't resist running. Stop waiting for events to create favorable news cycles, and create them for themselves. In short, stop being everything we know Democrats to be since Reagan put them on the defensive.

Get Katie Porter or Jared Moskowitz in charge of messaging.  They have a knack for boiling big complex stuff down to something simple fairly quickly.

[Francisco 2.0 32389]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/us/politics/aileen-cannon-trump-classified-documents.html

 

Quote

Shortly after Judge Aileen M. Cannon drew the assignment in June 2023 to oversee former President Donald J. Trump’s classified documents case, two more experienced colleagues on the federal bench in Florida urged her to pass it up and hand it off to another jurist, according to two people briefed on the conversations.

The judges who approached Judge Cannon — including the chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, Cecilia M. Altonaga — each asked her to consider whether it would be better if she were to decline the high-profile case, allowing it to go to another judge, the two people said.

 

Quote

But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties. Her assignment raised eyebrows because she has scant trial experience and had previously shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump by intervening in a way that helped him in the criminal investigation that led to his indictment, only to be reversed in a sharply critical rebuke by a conservative appeals court panel.

The extraordinary and previously undisclosed effort by Judge Cannon’s colleagues to persuade her to step aside adds another dimension to the increasing criticism of how she has gone on to handle the case.

 

Quote

She has broken, according to lawyers who operate there, with a general practice of federal judges in the Southern District of Florida of delegating some pretrial motions to a magistrate — in this instance, Judge Bruce E. Reinhart. While he is subordinate to her, Judge Reinhart is an older and much more experienced jurist. In 2022, he was the one who signed off on an F.B.I. warrant to search Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s club and residence in Florida, for highly sensitive government files that Mr. Trump kept after leaving office.

 

Spoiler

Since then, Judge Cannon has exhibited hostility to prosecutors, handled pretrial motions slowly and indefinitely postponed the trial, declining to set a date for it to begin even though both the prosecution and the defense had told her they could be ready to start this summer.

But Mr. Trump’s lawyers have also urged her to delay any trial until after the election, and her handling of the case has virtually ensured that they will succeed in that strategy. Should Mr. Trump retake the White House, he could order the Justice Department to drop the case.

As Judge Cannon’s handling of the case has come under intensifying scrutiny, her critics have suggested that she could be in over her head, in the tank for Mr. Trump — or both.

Against that backdrop, word of the early efforts by her colleagues on the bench to persuade her to step aside — and the significance of her decision not to do so — has spread among other federal judges and the people who know them.

Neither Judge Cannon nor Judge Altonaga directly responded to requests for comment, including by emails sent via the clerk of the district court, Angela E. Noble. Ms. Noble later wrote in an email: “Our judges do not comment on pending cases.”

It is routine for novice judges to look to more experienced jurists for informal advice or mentoring as they learn to perform their new roles. And as the district’s chief, Judge Altonaga has a formal role in administering the federal judiciary in South Florida.

But ultimately, Judge Cannon is not subject to the authority of her district court elders. Like any Senate-confirmed, presidentially appointed judge, she has a life tenure and independent standing and is free to choose to ignore any such advice.

The two people who discussed the efforts to persuade her to hand off the case spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. Each had been told about it by different federal judges in the Southern District of Florida, including Judge Altonaga.

Neither of the people identified the second federal judge in Florida who had reached out to Judge Cannon. One of the people confirmed the effort to persuade Judge Cannon to step aside but did not describe the details of the conversations the two judges had with her. The other person offered more details.

This person said each outreach took place by telephone. The first judge to call Judge Cannon, this person said, suggested to her that it would be better for the case to be handled by a jurist based closer to the district’s busiest courthouse in Miami, where the grand jury that indicted Mr. Trump had sat.

At the time, the Miami courthouse also had a secure facility approved to hold the sort of highly classified information that would be discussed in pretrial motions and used as evidence in the case. Judge Cannon is the sole judge in the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, a two-hour drive north of Miami. The courthouse in Fort Pierce did not have a secure facility when she was assigned the case.

Because Judge Cannon kept the case, taxpayers have since had to pay to build a secure room — known as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or S.C.I.F. — there.

After that initial argument failed to sway Judge Cannon to step aside, the person said, Judge Altonaga placed a call.

The chief judge — an appointee of former President George W. Bush — is said to have made a more pointed argument: It would be bad optics for Judge Cannon to oversee the trial because of what had happened during the criminal investigation that led to Mr. Trump’s indictment on charges of illegally retaining national security documents after leaving office and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.

In August 2022, the F.B.I. obtained a search warrant from Judge Reinhart to go to Mar-a-Lago to hunt for any remaining classified documents that Mr. Trump had failed to turn over after receiving a subpoena for them.

The agents found thousands of government files that Mr. Trump had kept, even though under the Presidential Records Act they should have gone to the National Archives when he left office. The files the F.B.I. recovered included over 100 marked as classified, including some at the most highly restricted level.

Soon after the search, Mr. Trump filed a lawsuit against the government protesting the seizure of the materials, which he claimed were his personal property, and asking for a special master to be appointed to sift through them. Rather than letting Judge Reinhart handle that lawsuit, as would be the normal procedure, Judge Cannon chose to decide the matter.

Shocking legal experts across ideological lines, she barred investigators from gaining access to the evidence and appointed a special master, although she said that person would only make recommendations to her and she would make the final decisions.

Judge Cannon’s decision was unusual in part because she intervened before there were any charges — treating Mr. Trump differently from typical targets of search warrants based on his supposed special status as a former president.

She also directed the special master to consider whether some of the seized files should be permanently kept from investigators under executive privilege, a notion that was widely seen as dubious since it has never successfully been made in a criminal case.

Prosecutors appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta. In a repudiation, a three-judge panel that included two Trump appointees reversed her order and ruled that she never had legal authority to intervene in the first place.

“It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president — but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation,” the panel wrote.

Limits on when courts can interfere with a criminal investigation “apply no matter who the government is investigating,” it added. “To create a special exception here would defy our nation’s foundational principle that our law applies ‘to all, without regard to numbers, wealth or rank.’”

Mr. Trump’s lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, but it declined to hear the case. In December 2022, Judge Cannon dismissed Mr. Trump’s lawsuit.

Six months later, the grand jury in Miami indicted Mr. Trump, alleging in detail how he had stored highly sensitive documents in a bathroom and on a stage at Mar-a-Lago and persistently led his aides and lawyers to stymie efforts by the Justice Department and the National Archives to recover them.

Under the district’s standard practices, according to its clerk, the new case went into a system that would randomly assign it to one of a handful of judges whose chambers are in the West Palm Beach division, which covers Mar-a-Lago, or in either of its two adjoining divisions, Fort Pierce and Fort Lauderdale.

It went to Judge Cannon.

 

Edited June 20 by Francisco 2.0

[Red Five 40846]

Odds that Trump has promised her a Supreme Court seat?

[South Austin 52454]

13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Odds that Trump has promised her a Supreme Court seat?

Odds that she blew him for one?

[C-Man 27194]

More Aileen Cannon fuck-fuck games:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-favorite-judge-puts-mar-085347210.html

The tables have turned.

Had everything gone according to plan, Donald Trump would be on trial right now in South Florida for hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago ocean estate after leaving the White House. The politician, still licking his wounds from his New York conviction, would be desperately fighting to stave off a humiliating distinction: becoming the first former president to be branded a two-time felon.

Instead, a very different trial of sorts will be underway this Friday at a tiny federal courthouse in the sunny beach city of Fort Pierce—one that will awkwardly put the Department of Justice on the defensive, with government lawyers asserting their most fundamental right to even try this historic case.

All the pressure will be on Special Counsel Jack Smith, the roguish-looking federal prosecutor whose quiet demeanor has only added to the gravitas of this legal fight.

Meanwhile, Trump won’t even need to be there, leaving the top Republican presidential candidate free to continue criss-crossing the country, while the prosecutor that’s been on his tail for a year is stuck in a courtroom.

Photograph of Alto Lee Adams Sr. Courthouse
Supporters of former President Donald Trump stand outside of the Alto Lee Adams Sr. U.S. Courthouse on March 1, 2024 in Fort Pierce, Florida.

The power dynamic has shifted, and it’s all due to one person: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

“Judge Cannon is a disgrace to the concept of impartiality and integrity on the federal bench. This case should already have been tried to a verdict,” said Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor who has monitored the Mar-a-Lago case.

Her MAGA-friendly rulings have managed to delay the case so badly that it now looks as if Trump might escape trial altogether if he manages to win the national election in 138 days. After all, what’s the point of prosecuting a man who, as president, can order his attorney general to simply kill the investigation—or choose to pardon himself? Trump has made clear he has no intention of respecting the DOJ’s independence if he returns to office, despite the fact that both options are red lines of corruption so familiar to banana republics around the world.

Cannon continues to push back key deadlines and give in to Trump’s delay tactics by considering legal arguments that other judges have quickly dismissed. In her latest move, she’ll explore whether Attorney General Merrick Garland even had the authority to appoint Smith as special counsel on Nov. 18, 2022—a DOJ practice that has been used several times in high-profile cases without any successful challenge and has become standard in American politics.

At the start of the year, the judge wouldn’t prioritize setting aside a couple of days to review the classified material at the core of the case. By contrast, she’s dedicating all-day Friday for a hearing that will serve as a mini-trial.

Starting promptly at 9:30 a.m., she’ll hear from lawyers on both sides, review evidence in court, and even entertain novel arguments from outside parties who want to weigh in. And if that weren’t enough, Cannon earlier this month indicated that she’s willing to review “supplemental briefs” afterward—opening the possibility that this could take weeks.

Trump’s lawyers want the indictment to be dismissed in its entirety, a bid premised on the notion that Smith is powerless and his appointment “invalid.” They point to the Constitution, arguing that his “office of the special counsel” wasn’t first approved by Congress.

“The Appointments Clause does not permit the attorney general to appoint, without Senate confirmation, a private citizen and like-minded political ally to wield the prosecutorial power of the United States. As such, Jack Smith lacks the authority to prosecute this action,” they wrote in February.

In March, the DOJ countered by pointing to history. Special counsels have been used to investigate all kinds of political scandals, dating back to the presidency of James A. Garfield in the 1880s.

The Supreme Court already took a look at this in 1974, when it decided during the Nixon affair that the AG does indeed have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor. Since then, there have been special counsels during every single presidential term—even during Trump’s time in office. Prosecutors noted how the appellate court in D.C. came to the same conclusion when it backed the appointment of Robert Mueller to explore Trump’s Russiagate debacle.

“Congress has also long demonstrated its understanding that the attorney general has authority to appoint special counsels by repeatedly appropriating funds for the attorney general to compensate them,” prosecutors wrote.

But here come the experts.

Last week, a band of conservative activists threw its support behind Trump, arguing that the real problem here is that the AG shouldn’t have plucked Smith from his job as an anti-corruption prosecutor in Europe, and instead should have tapped one of the nation’s active 93 Senate-confirmed U.S. Attorneys. The Trump-friendly argument conveniently says that “nearly all the special prosecutors appointed during the past 40 years—aside from Smith and Robert Mueller—have been lawfully appointed.”

That group includes Edwin Meese III, who served as Ronald Reagan’s AG, Michael B. Mukasey, who was George W. Bush’s AG, and a favorite foe of the American progressive movement: Citizens United, the force behind the Supreme Court’s landmark decision that allowed corporations to spend unlimited funds on elections. Their 11-page screed villainizes Smith for targeting Trump.

“Smith’s prosecution here shows that he wields the power to profoundly alter the trajectory of a presidential election, and with it the destiny of the nation. He is thus one of the most powerful officials in the entire United States government. The idea that he can exercise that enormous power without Senate confirmation is intolerable, and even worse, the idea that he can do so without holding an office created by Congress is unthinkable,” they wrote.

Donald Ayer, a former U.S. Attorney who also served as George H.W. Bush’s deputy AG, thinks it’s time for a reality check.

“It’s a trivial question that ought not to have any serious consideration at all. We’ve had numerous cases that have gone forward before, and it’s not a serious argument that’s being made,” he told The Daily Beast. “The case has been unnecessarily delayed and it should be much farther than it is. Indeed, it probably should have gone to trial.”

Friday marks the two-year anniversary since Trump’s White House valet, Walt Nauta, testified before a grand jury in D.C. and gave prosecutors key details that helped the FBI justify its search warrant.

Here’s Felon Trump’s Crazy SCOTUS Plan—and It May Even Work

On June 21, 2022, Nauta recalled packing Trump’s “crazy amount of undershirts, socks, underwear, hairspray” at the White House and later moving around bankers boxes at Mar-a-Lago—some of which investigators would later discover were stuffed with classified documents. During that session, the loyal Trump aide recalled how his boss limited the number of boxes that would be reviewed before sending them back to the National Archives—a potentially damning admission that could hint at Trump’s refusal to hand them all back when he was asked to.

“Once I started putting them in there—he was like, okay, that's it,” Nauta said at the time.

Fast-forward to now, and Smith will be fighting to keep the case alive. If Cannon rules against him, legal scholars say he might have the ammunition he needs to finally request the judge’s recusal from the case.

But no matter what happens on Friday, Judge Cannon has already gotten what she wanted. The case has been pushed back so far that legal experts say it’s unlikely it will go to trial before the election.

[Biff Tannen 45665]

38 minutes ago, C-Man said:

or choose to pardon himself?

I'm tired of journalists, and hell, everyone, seemingly accepting this is a thing that presidents can do.  I'm well aware the corrupt SCOTUS would probably side with him, but as of now, this concept has never been attempted.  Yet we all just pretend it's a thing.  Way to go idiots.

[C-Man 27194]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm tired of journalists, and hell, everyone, seemingly accepting this is a thing that presidents can do.  I'm well aware the corrupt SCOTUS would probably side with him, but as of now, this concept has never been attempted.  Yet we all just pretend it's a thing.  Way to go idiots.

You’re delusional if you don’t think he’s going to do exactly this if he’s convicted and still wins in November. If he gets re-elected, all kinds of shit we’ve never seen in this country is gonna go down.

[Biff Tannen 45665]

Just now, C-Man said:

You’re delusional if you don’t think he’s going to do exactly this if he’s convicted and still wins in November. If he gets re-elected, all kinds of shit we’ve never seen in this country is gonna go down.

I'm well aware.  That's not what I said.  I said it's fucking annoying that people have apparently just accepted that a president can pardon themselves.  We are manifesting it.

[C-Man 27194]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm well aware.  That's not what I said.  I said it's fucking annoying that people have apparently just accepted that a president can pardon themselves.  We are manifesting it.

Right. Gotcha. We’re not manifesting anything, though. We just know who we’re dealing with and the lengths he’ll go to save his own ass.

[atomheartbevo 89628]

51 minutes ago, C-Man said:

You’re delusional if you don’t think he’s going to do exactly this if he’s convicted and still wins in November. If he gets re-elected, all kinds of shit we’ve never seen in this country is gonna go down.

He can’t pardon the state stuff.

[dcbc 14465]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

He can’t pardon the state stuff.

It's unlikely he can pardon himself.  But he'll try, and he'll try to pardon the state stuff.  At his age, it's a game of run out the clock as opposed to any valid, legal arguments.

[4th&Five 41519]

Yeah, if he wins then “he can’t” isn’t really a thing anymore. 

[dcbc 14465]

2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Yeah, if he wins then “he can’t” isn’t really a thing anymore. 

Well, it is.  But that won't prevent him from trying.  It's a fine line between reality and horse shit.

[Underdog 28583]

He'll just try and sell off the States that convicted him or trying to convict him, sorry NY but you belong to China now and Georgia?  Should've looked for those missing 11,780 votes... Russia is your new daddy. 

[BamaATL 16593]

9 minutes ago, Underdog said:

He'll just try and sell off the States that convicted him or trying to convict him, sorry NY but you belong to China now and Georgia?  Should've looked for those missing 11,780 votes... Russia is your new daddy. 

Been on high alert since 2008

[Neonmoon 38129]

He doesn’t need to win. When has Trump ever been held accountable? Yes he’s been convicted of civil and now criminal cases. So what? Does anyone here believe they’re collecting 500 billion or he’s going to jail? Trump figured out long ago, the justice system can be lawyered and papered in perpetuity. There are no consequences. Just keep filing appeals and suing and counter suing. Eventually the other party gives up. 
 

If he hasn’t lost his freedom or his money, he’s not been held accountable for shit 

 

 

[YGIFS 19449]

1 hour ago, dcbc said:

It's unlikely he can pardon himself.  But he'll try, and he'll try to pardon the state stuff.  At his age, it's a game of run out the clock as opposed to any valid, legal arguments.

He can absolutely pardon himself. 
 

“I’m the greatest and healthiest President since Washington.   But to better serve you for the next 47 months, never hurts to have a full physical.  Results will come back tremendously.  But while I’m at the doctor’s office, you’ll hear that the cabinet is invoking the 25th amendment for a few hours to continue to protect you Great Americans Again.  As such, VP Scott will run things for a few hours.  I’ll be back in the Oval this evening to continue my work for the American people.”

Scott pardons him that afternoon after the cabinet votes in lock step and signs back power before dinner. Even dumbass Trump knows how easy this would be.  

[Biff Tannen 45665]

16 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

He can absolutely pardon himself. 
 

“I’m the greatest and healthiest President since Washington.   But to better serve you for the next 47 months, never hurts to have a full physical.  Results will come back tremendously.  But while I’m at the doctor’s office, you’ll hear that the cabinet is invoking the 25th amendment for a few hours to continue to protect you Great Americans Again.  As such, VP Scott will run things for a few hours.  I’ll be back in the Oval this evening to continue my work for the American people.”

Scott pardons him that afternoon after the cabinet votes in lock step and signs back power before dinner. Even dumbass Trump knows how easy this would be.  

This could conceivably work, but he won’t have any federal crimes to be pardoned from anyway. Cannon has seen to that. 

[DDD Dad 14326]

1 hour ago, dcbc said:

Well, it is.  But that won't prevent him from trying.  It's a fine line between reality and horse shit.

Have you not been paying attention to the Supreme Court thread?  It is far from certain how they'd react to a self-pardon attempt.

[HornPhD 1368]

4 hours ago, South Austin said:

Odds that she blew him for one?

While wearing a blonde wig

[dcbc 14465]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

He can absolutely pardon himself. 
 

“I’m the greatest and healthiest President since Washington.   But to better serve you for the next 47 months, never hurts to have a full physical.  Results will come back tremendously.  But while I’m at the doctor’s office, you’ll hear that the cabinet is invoking the 25th amendment for a few hours to continue to protect you Great Americans Again.  As such, VP Scott will run things for a few hours.  I’ll be back in the Oval this evening to continue my work for the American people.”

Scott pardons him that afternoon after the cabinet votes in lock step and signs back power before dinner. Even dumbass Trump knows how easy this would be.  

This is like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

40 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Have you not been paying attention to the Supreme Court thread?  It is far from certain how they'd react to a self-pardon attempt.

Take some friends to vote in November, and hopefully, we'll continue to be able to wonder.

[kevwun 15764]

Is the hearing this morning the one where if Cannon fucks it up, she might get removed from the case?  I remember our resident lawyers speculating that one of the upcoming ones had the potential to be a big enough screw up to justify it.

[Captainant 27637]

3 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Is the hearing this morning the one where if Cannon fucks it up, she might get removed from the case?  I remember our resident lawyers speculating that one of the upcoming ones had the potential to be a big enough screw up to justify it.

Aintnothingonnahappen.gif

 

The justice system is made completely limp and feckless by trumpco. This will continue to be delayed until it is forgotten and below the fold

[Red Five 40846]

So in one case, the Supreme Court is dragging their feet on the question of "Is it cool for a president to commit all the crimes he wants?", and in this one, Judge Dipshit is hearing arguments on whether or not it was legal in the first place to appoint a special counsel? 

[South Austin 52454]

6 minutes ago, kevwun said:

Is the hearing this morning the one where if Cannon fucks it up, she might get removed from the case?  I remember our resident lawyers speculating that one of the upcoming ones had the potential to be a big enough screw up to justify it.

As a lawyer practicing for 25 years, I wish judges could be removed from a case on the basis of incompetency.

[elfenix 34223]

Quote

 

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said he’s filing suit against the State of New York weeks after former President Donald Trump was convicted on 34 felony charges.

“I will be filing suit against the State of New York for their direct attack on our democratic process through unconstitutional lawfare against President Trump,” Bailey announced on Twitter. “It’s time to restore the rule of law.”

 

https://www.kctv5.com/2024/06/21/missouri-ag-says-hes-suing-new-york-direct-attack-trump/

 

Edited June 21 by elfenix

[Biff Tannen 45665]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

So in one case, the Supreme Court is dragging their feet on the question of "Is it cool for a president to commit all the crimes he wants?", and in this one, Judge Dipshit is hearing arguments on whether or not it was legal in the first place to appoint a special counsel? 

Yep.  And in the third one, they have manufactured a conflict of interest where none exists because the DA was banging one of her assistants.

[Red Five 40846]

2 minutes ago, elfenix said:

https://www.kctv5.com/2024/06/21/missouri-ag-says-hes-suing-new-york-direct-attack-trump/

 

Bailey went on to say that he is filing suit against the state of New York on the grounds of "Oh come on man, this is such bullshit. I mean, geez, stop being dicks ok?".

[YGIFS 19449]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yep.  And in the third one, they have manufactured a conflict of interest where none exists because the DA was banging one of her assistants.

So Trump isn't the only one who 'got off'?  I'll see myself out.

Edited June 21 by YGIFS

[Js1 85286]

15 hours ago, YGIFS said:

VP Scott

Tap dancing for the white man on his way to not being picked 

[Fudge Nuggets 19189]

Nothing good is going to happen.  If anything, she's going to rule that Jack must be removed which will delay, delay, delay; just like dotard ordered.

[Js1 85286]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Nothing good is going to happen.  If anything, she's going to rule that Jack must be removed which will delay, delay, delay; just like dotard ordered.

Oh I will not be surprised if she goes rogue and rules that the SC is not constitutional or whatever.  And then the 11th circuit will slap her ass down, yet again, and she still won’t be removed from the case.

”you once again created a special exemption for the former President with no basis in legal doctrine. You need to recuse and let someone else handle this case”

Cannon:

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yep.  And in the third one, they have manufactured a conflict of interest where none exists because the DA was banging one of her assistants.

I’m still trying to understand this argument.  “Your honor, the prosecutor is a vegetarian and since I love steak they can’t possibly be allowed to be on this case where I murdered someone and I told a room full of people I was going to kill this person, then was caught with the murder weapon and the entire act of me killing the person is on video”.  

['stache 21797]

No prediction on the other shit but I think the immunity decision will be out this morning  and it will be a per curium affirmance. Such an absurd proposition.

[Gatorubet 30185]

26 minutes ago, elfenix said:

https://www.kctv5.com/2024/06/21/missouri-ag-says-hes-suing-new-york-direct-attack-trump/

 

Which will solidify the historical research by the Heritage Foundation on the Founder’s previously held, but not discussed, view of the Constitutional right of former Presidents to Bigly Seek Revenge.

 

[Biff Tannen 45665]

8 minutes ago, 'stache said:

per curium affirmance.

[South Austin 52454]

34 minutes ago, elfenix said:

https://www.kctv5.com/2024/06/21/missouri-ag-says-hes-suing-new-york-direct-attack-trump/

 

1. So nobody in the Missouri Attorney General’s office knows anything about standing?

2. Please let the judge assigned to this lawsuit bring the sanctions hammer down like in the bullshit election contests, so we can add this fuckstick to the FAFO list.

[YGIFS 19449]

It means "Your shit's all retarded and gay"  

[Gatorubet 30185]

8 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

It means "Your shit's all retarded and gay"  

it is centuries long precedent at the Supreme Court that we acknowledge our legal foundations from British Common Law.  And we know from British history of the Peasant’s Revolt. And we know of the young king’s promise that he would not take revenge, and that, as soon as the danger to the King had passed, he slaughtered the participants in the revolt or imprisoned them.  This precedent clearly supports the right of the sovereign/president to take revenge on the peasants who have angered that president.      

< Justices Thomas and Alito > 

“Sounds good to me!”

[dcbc 14465]

16 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

It means "Your shit's all retarded and gay"  

 

['stache 21797]

Well I was wrong, no immunity decision today. It's going to be a 4 pager and the delay feels very much political.

[elfenix 34223]

27 minutes ago, South Austin said:

1. So nobody in the Missouri Attorney General’s office knows anything about standing?

2. Please let the judge assigned to this lawsuit bring the sanctions hammer down like in the bullshit election contests, so we can add this fuckstick to the FAFO list.

the last time missouri filed suit with questionable standing it was allowed.

[Red Five 40846]

8 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

Well I was wrong, no immunity decision today. It's going to be a 4 pager and the delay feels very much political.

What's the hurry?

[wildcat09 29346]

12 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

Well I was wrong, no immunity decision today. It's going to be a 4 pager and the delay feels very much political.

July 2nd, man. Them holding it for as long as possible was obvious from the moment they took the appeal. 

[Js1 85286]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

July 2nd, man. Them holding it for as long as possible was obvious from the moment they took the appeal. 

[Pig Bellmont 8712]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

So in one case, the Supreme Court is dragging their feet on the question of "Is it cool for a president to commit all the crimes he wants?", and in this one, Judge Dipshit is hearing arguments on whether or not it was legal in the first place to appoint a special counsel? 

Yes. All to enable a fascist to gain power and money 

[SquishMitten 10403]

1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I’m still trying to understand this argument.  “Your honor, the prosecutor is a vegetarian and since I love steak they can’t possibly be allowed to be on this case where I murdered someone and I told a room full of people I was going to kill this person, then was caught with the murder weapon and the entire act of me killing the person is on video”.  

I don’t get it either. Seems like another thing that the media has just accepted as an actual issue, kinda like the self-pardoning mentioned above. Both of them were on the same side and working towards the same outcome, right? I would absolutely agree it could be a problem if they were on opposing sides of the issue, but that’s not the case here. Who cares if they were banging? Maybe it’s unprofessional, but it’s not illegal afaik, and I don’t see how it has any impact on the legitimacy of the case or the alleged crimes. How does “they were fucking” have any relevance here at all? Is there some underlying issue that I’m missing? Like, they were conspiring together to hide exculpatory evidence or something?

[Red Five 40846]

3 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I don’t get it either. Seems like another thing that the media has just accepted as an actual issue, kinda like the self-pardoning mentioned above. Both of them were on the same side and working towards the same outcome, right? I would absolutely agree it could be a problem if they were on opposing sides of the issue, but that’s not the case here. Who cares if they were banging? Maybe it’s unprofessional, but it’s not illegal afaik, and I don’t see how it has any impact on the legitimacy of the case or the alleged crimes. How does “they were fucking” have any relevance here at all? Is there some underlying issue that I’m missing? Like, they were conspiring together to hide exculpatory evidence or something?

Something about Willis profiting from it. 

[jimmyjazz 45890]

32 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I don’t get it either. Seems like another thing that the media has just accepted as an actual issue, kinda like the self-pardoning mentioned above. Both of them were on the same side and working towards the same outcome, right? I would absolutely agree it could be a problem if they were on opposing sides of the issue, but that’s not the case here. Who cares if they were banging? Maybe it’s unprofessional, but it’s not illegal afaik, and I don’t see how it has any impact on the legitimacy of the case or the alleged crimes. How does “they were fucking” have any relevance here at all? Is there some underlying issue that I’m missing? Like, they were conspiring together to hide exculpatory evidence or something?

In the history of this country, I seriously doubt co-counsels working long late hours have ever had sex.

I crack myself up.