Jump to content

Trump’s America


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 


giphy.gif

 

It really doesn't.  It has had gobs of opportunities to rule for Trump either without creating a much precedent or creating no precedent at all.

The most pro-Trump ruling is the immunity decision, but that's not a personal favor to Trump, that's more of an "imperial president" or "unitary executive" decision.  Everything they've done has implications beyond Trump and Trump only wins if the court likes those implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, C-Man said:

According to this, Trump pushed hard for Maria Baritromo as VP this summer before Susie Wiles put the kibosh on the idea.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14264131/Trump-Maria-Bartiromo-VP-running-mate-J-D-Vance.html

 

Speaking of Susie, what's the O/U on her role as chief of staff?   6 months?  A year?   A true believer like Miller could last an entire Trump term, but Wiles?  She'll have a book that she wants to publish at some point.  

I don't believe she will be willing to take the fall on every inevitable scandal that comes up.    There will be something so heinous that even she throws up her hands.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Speaking of Susie, what's the O/U on her role as chief of staff?   6 months?  A year?   A true believer like Miller could last an entire Trump term, but Wiles?  She'll have a book that she wants to publish at some point.  

I don't believe she will be willing to take the fall on every inevitable scandal that comes up.    There will be something so heinous that even she throws up her hands.

 

 

 

 

I get the sense that the last 8 years have weeded out those types already. Her background tells me she's ready for and has already bought into what's coming.

I do believe that she might leave early, but only because at some point she can cash in. Something like a book, as you say.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, softlynow said:

I get the sense that the last 8 years have weeded out those types already. Her background tells me she's ready for and has already bought into what's coming.

I do believe that she might leave early, but only because at some point she can cash in. Something like a book, as you say.

I think she exits the first time she sees something which could result in jail time for her. She’s not Michael Cohen who’s will willingly break the law. She’s absolutely bought into all of the horrible but still legal things coming from TFG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, hornmpa96 said:

I think she exits the first time she sees something which could result in jail time for her. She’s not Michael Cohen who’s will willingly break the law. She’s absolutely bought into all of the horrible but still legal things coming from TFG.

Nothing anyone in Trump's White House will do will be prosecuted by anyone unless it is with Dotard's permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TexasEd said:

 

He could model it after his idol, Putin who went from president to some other role and then back to president before he changed the law that prevented him from serving multiple terms.

And somewhere on early Russian Internet chat sites was some goober named "дважды рог" talking about how Putin couldn't serve multiple terms because it isn't allowed. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should probably clarify a few things.  First, the 11th Circuit ruling is not some great vindication of anything.  It didn't reverse Cannon.  It denied a motion that was for the same relief granted by the District Court, so arguably moot.  It does perhaps suggest that it would reverse Cannon by reminding/inviting the government to appeal her order.

The 11th Circuit could have held that, because of the appeal, Cannon had no jurisdiction over the motion, but it didn't.  It's a bit unclear to what extent an appeal deprives a trial court of jurisdiction, but in this case, because the district court completely terminated the case, it would seem that jurisdiction lies completely in the court of appeals.  But that's not what the 11th Circuit held.  Would have been nice for it to do so in order to slap down Cannon and the obvious court of appeals/district court forum shop that this was.

Second, apart and aside from Cannon's decisions and predilections, releasing a report on the prosecution of Nauta and the other guy while their prosecution remains pending would be pretty prejudicial to Nauta and the other guy.  There's a valid reason prosecutors don't talk to the public much while an investigation or prosecution is pending.  It's the same reason grand jury proceedings are secret. 

Smith acknowledges the validity of this concern by stating that he won't release the Mar A Lago report publicly until the Nauta and other guy prosecution is finally terminated.

Finally, apart from the rectitude of her decision that the Special Counsel Rules violate the Appointments Clause, it absolutely follows that if a Special Counsel is not validly appointed, it can't validly issue a report to the AG and Congress, which is something those rules provide.  If Cannon had been smarter, she would have added that those rules were an invalid rulemaking and 28 CFR 600.1 et seq. are of no effect, including 600.8 and 600.9, which call for the reports.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Smith acknowledges the validity of this concern by stating that he won't release the Mar A Lago report publicly until the Nauta and other guy prosecution is finally terminated.

Can't Trump just erase it all when he gets into office?

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, safe sex said:

Can't Trump just erase it all when he gets into office?

Well, probably yeah.  The issue is what happens between now and January 21.  The report is written and keeping that sucker under wraps is probably going to be tough under these circumstances, especially if it makes it to Congress .

I still maintain that that reports really aren't going to tell us anything we don't know since both cases were indicted.   Especially so since Smith had to detail his evidence in those massive appendices filed in Chutkan's court to avoid immunity in the 1/6 case.

The Mar A Lago report could be potentially more revealing, but because of the classified subject matter, would be heavily redacted.

And, of course, none of it is going to change any minds.  More details aren't going to convince the irrationals.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, of course, none of it is going to change any minds.  More details aren't going to convince the irrationals.

I feel it's incredibly important for history that it get published, whether or not it changes any minds.

But what are the chances that the Nauta case wraps up in...10 days? Like, this is over isn't it?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, safe sex said:

I feel it's incredibly important for history that it get published, whether or not it changes any minds.

But what are the chances that the Nauta case wraps up in...10 days? Like, this is over isn't it?

Zero.  

The indictments are a part of the historical record and are quite detailed, probably as much detail as we'd get from a Mar A Lago report, again because the documents themselves are classified.

So too is the fact that the indictments were dismissed or terminated, not on their merits, but on procedural technicalities.

I submit that Special Counsel reports are interesting more for the unindicted people and activities; and once indicted, they lose much of the power they may have had.  That is, Trump was never going to be indicted by Mueller, so the report was all we got.  And remember how heavily redacted those were and they were redacted by Mueller, not by Barr, for apolitical reasons.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...