Trump’s claims for absolute immunity for anything he did as POTUS will be heard tomorrow by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Live audio of the oral arguments will be streamed on YouTube. Even more fun, Trump plans to attend the hearings. We’ll see if he can behave himself.
Jumping the gun a tad, Trump’s lawyers filed a motion today asking that Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismiss the charges pending against Trump in the Georgia election interference case, claiming he had immunity for all that stuff. Yes, badgering a Georgia secretary of state to “find” votes for him is part of his presidential duties, obviously.
In other news, Judge Tanya Chutkan appears to be a victim of “swatting.”
Yesterday ABC News reported that Jack Smith has a lot of previously unreported details about Trump’s refusal to stop the violence on January 6 (do read it all, if you haven’t). Dennis Aftergut writes for Slate,
We already knew about Trump resisting the entreaties of aides, family, and political allies who begged him, once violence began, to immediately call off the dogs of insurrection. He fiddled for 187 minutes while Rome burned.
So what’s new about the evidence that ABC reported Sunday?
Trump’s reported statements are loaded with cruelty, self-interest, and abandonment of allies. It becomes indisputable that he was using his most violent followers to try to override the voters’ will and keep himself in power.
There is also new evidence that ties the Trump campaign directly to the fake electors plot.
So let’s hope the courts get this stupid “immunity” issue out of the way quickly so we can get on with the trial.
There's very little doubt how the three-judge appeals panel will respond. I think there will be some pointed questions regarding whether the appeal is even appropriate at this time. According to deceased Justice Scalia in a decision he wrote, ya' don't get to appeal before the verdict except under special conditions which Scalia defined and this ain't.
In the DC J6 case, Trump is/was planning to appeal (three-judge panel), then appeal to the full appeal court, then appeal to the Supremes. And do this ad nausium on every motion his defense team makes. It's possible that this round will put an end to the tactic of delays if the court cites the Scalia precedent and everybody else sustains the decision and declines to accept an appeal. It won't be final this week but it could be final next month. The courts could lay down a decision that tells Trump – "Go to trial and if you don't like it, appeal after sentencing."
The GA court system is a different set of rules but by this time, they should know what to expect. I think the appeals beyond the GA Supreme Court will be rejected in 30 seconds with a reminder that the federal appeals system isn't open until after sentencing.
The media acts like there's a rule that all courts have to accept and consider every appeal from anyone named Donald Trump. Actually, everyone who loses in court wants to appeal. Many rich clients will demand an appeal even on flimsy and ridiculous grounds. Those don't get much further than a clerk's desk though the judge signs the order that says, "DENIED." What could happen for Donald Trump is that they will fast-track the process.
I'm hoping for only a one-month delay to the DC J6 trial, from March to April. It will be up to the lower court to write a decision that's forceful enough for the Supremes to let it stand without hearing an appeal (until after sentencing and after the case makes its way thru the lower courts.)
If I'm wrong, we'll see the USSC accept every appeal from Trump and delay every decision. I think they won't but if they do, it will be obvious. And if they do, it completely opens the gate for Georgia to proceed this year.
Stock up on popcorn.
"Let's get on with the trial already."
To tRUMP, those are the 7 most frightening words in the English language!
Let's get on with getting that big bag of shit in prison garb.
Not so fast. To quote Marjorie Taylor Greene, I want it to be painful and slow. Because of this, Trump is sounding more and more deranged on the campaign trail. Remember: it's not the trials that count, it's the election. There is nothing blocking a convicted felon from being elected President. He has to be defeated at the polls, ideally by an overwhelming margin, so it can't be contested. His mouth is his own undoing. I want the trials and convictions too, but they'll mean nothing if he's nonetheless voted in. Patience, grasshopper. Slowly reel the sucker in.
"Remember: it's not the trials that count, it's the election." Moonbat, above.
Absolutely true! But the polls say decisively that if Trump is convicted, he's toast. You have to have been through the grinder or be a trial lawyer to appreciate that a trial is a SHOW for the audience that is the jury. This is true for the prosecution especially, as they lay out the facts according to the rules of evidence knowing the defense is going to try to pick it apart, make it confusing, and distract the jury.
A previous commenter on the last post observed Trump has a plan B, C and D. If/when the truth comes out in trials and Trump tanks in the polls, he's going to try to gin up a revolution. I still say Trump will defect to Russia before he reports to prison.
Delay and work the system is all they do. These are not even sensible arguments. Poor people don't get to game the system like this. I know only a fool would expect true equal justice for all, but we need to get closer than this.
When you consider the whole point of the assault was to get the Congressional Police to overreact and start shooting so the second wave could retrieve the weapons and come in guns blazing, it all makes more sense.
I tried to listen to the audio of the Appeal hearing. I found the voice of Trump's lawyer so abrasive, I couldn't endure the whole thing. Maybe someday a transcript won't be so nauseating. In the first fifteen minutes or so, the main guns fired.
First, there is a jurisdictional issue that suggests the appeal Trump is making is not appropriate until after conviction and sentencing. The judges seemed to take the issue seriously though the prosecution said they (my words) don't want to win on a technicality – they want a ruling on absolute immunity. Trump's paid liar spewed a lot of word salad, but the judges seemed to be entertaining the validity of the argument that this needs to go to trial now. The question of absolute immunity is moot unless there is a conviction.
Second, the question from a judge (not the prosecutor) that under the brief filed by Trump, a president could order the assassination of a political rival by Seal Team Six and he'd be immune from prosecution unless impeached by the House AND convicted by the Senate. It took multiple tries to get Trump's mouthpiece to admit – yes, that's the argument.
Third, a judge cited Trump's defense in the first (I think first) impeachment that impeachment was not necessary because if Trump did something wrong, he could be held accountable legally AFTER he left office. This proved the point that Trump makes no argument based on consistency, only the expediency of the moment.
Going outside the bubble of my opinion, even the legal "expert" on Fox seemed to concede that it didn't go well for Trump. I listen to Youtube clips from Meidas Touch Network. They have a pair of lawyers who seem to know this stuff for real. Nobody is predicting the decision will take a long time or go Trump's way. Ben on Medias predicted the outcome against Trump first on technical grounds. (My prediction from last week) and then if pressed, a rejection of the absolute immunity on the merits (or lack of merits.) And it will go to the Supremes.
Will the High Court take it? Everyone agrees they will. I doubt it. I think the US Supreme Court will let the lower court ruling stand, possibly on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the issue of absolute immunity until AFTER a conviction and sentencing. That would be (obviously) after the facts of what Trump conspired to do is in the public view and a clear majority believes accountability is essential as a deterrent to future tyrants. (That's been my belief for decades regarding Nixon. It was a pardon for Nixon that set the stage for Trump.)
The conservative reply to the hearing seems to be that the gates of hell will open with trials of former presidents for crimes they committed if Trump is tried. Presented as an act of nature that will "just happen" if Trump sits before a jury, the suggestion is an overt threat with no substance as far as I'm concerned.
If the GOP wants to charge Obama with a non-crime, I'll be the first to contribute to his legal defense fund. If the GOP can find a real crime Obama committed as POTUS that was outside the perimeter of protected official acts (as defined by Nixon) v Fitzgerald) then Obama has something to answer for. So should any living president. I'm not in favor of absolute immunity for Trump so Obama is protected. Any president needs to worry about using the office of the presidency for non-official reasons. (Personal benefit, and personal vengeance being high on the list of non-official motives that can land you in jail) But the pitch from the GOP is: lay off Trump or we go after you. Some Republicans are threatening to remove Biden from state ballots if Trump is removed. That Trump is being removed for insurrection and Biden has not committed insurrection does not penetrate. I think voters will see the difference after they see the facts in a trial. So does Trump, which is why he's fighting to avoid a trial.
As usual, while watching the daily commentary on current events I pick up little bits here and there and I will often see dot-to-dot connections that I didn't consciously see before. Not necessarily new news, but often further examples of ongoing patterns.
A little context first: Many of the fans of TFG think he's a great businessman. a) He's not a great businessman. Back in 2016, a colleague of mine who was in management, had a business degree and was a moderate republican said, "He's not a businessman, he's a speculator." His point was that the guy wouldn't last more than a few quarters at our corporation, due to complete incompetence at "real business". I'd go further at this point and say that he's worse than a speculator; he's a grifter.
b) He's run several business into the ground. The only thing he's ever made money at was a reality TV show in which his only contribution was a talent for acting like a boss in front of a TV camera. c) I think what he calls his real-estate empire is closer to a Ponzi scheme… something I don't have proof of but I've seen bits and pieces that suggest he plays a shell game with his "projects" and the loans he gets which he uses to support his lavish lifestyle, while cheating on taxes on the earnings he makes on the money he's borrowed (which he doesn't use to pay the contractors on his "projects").
So, bottom line, he's a grifter with a talent for grifting on TV, and since he watches so much TV and looks at the ratings, he's gotten really good at selling snake oil. That's context #1
Context #2: He appointed Linda McMahon to head the Small Business Administration. Apparently he's familiar with WWE and the popularity it has. And he's noticed the rabid nature of their fandom. WWE is soap opera for sports lovers.
Context #3: I have come to the conclusion in 2024 that TFG is actually taking his legal problems very seriously. He just will never let his followers know that.
So here's where I landed today. (Patience please, but it's all about why his lawyer sounded like a fool in the hearing today.) TFG has probably learned from the recent "good" lawyers that his odds in court are low; and also that his behavior in court will not appreciably improve his chances, nor make them worse. So he understands that his BEST chance of escaping prison is getting elected.
The courtroom drama that had me head-scratching for a while was the back & forth between the third judge and TFG's attorney on his claim that in order to be criminally liable for having an opposing party Senator assassinated, he would have to be impeached first. A ludicrous argument. And it was odd to see the lawyer's refusal to answer a simple yes/no question after the judge used his own answers to lead him to that simple yes/no question.
Back to context again: One of the reporters who was in the courtroom reported that TFG was sitting rigidly, stoic and somewhat scowling during the prosecution's interactions with the judges. But that when it came time for the defense to interact, he perked up, seemed engaged, and was writing notes on a yellow legal pad and showing them to the attorney.
Also: It was reported that TFG was not required to attend the hearing on a pre-trial motion.
So, why did he attend instead of going to Iowa, where I suspect he is feeling a little concern because his numbers have been so high that that if he wins big but at a smaller number than he's had in the lead-up, it will be negative momentum? Answer: (Two parts). 1) He was there to keep his lawyer in line and make sure that the lawyer didn't inadvertently say something that would show up as recorded sound in a campaign ad against him. In other words, he was there to manage the audio part of TV ads. TV, the only thing he's ever succeeded at. Notes on the yellow pad… "Hey, be careful, they're trapping you. Don't admit to xxx." (Specific hints from a professional accountability-dodger). He is constantly the producer and director of his own WWE candidacy. 2) [And this was a new suspicion for me.] TFG can use the audio of an interaction between the lawyer and a judge in a campaign ad, adding to any strategy he has already implemented to make it iron clad safe for him to use his super PAC to pay all of his legal fees. Conveniently this also fits well with his decision to make his campaign all about the "witch hunt."
So, why did he attend instead of going to Iowa,
According to his laywer Alina Habba he was in D.C. today because Joe Biden is trying to create election interference by forcing him into the courtroom when he's on the campaign trail in Iowa. Most people aren't familiar with legal processes and don't realize that Trump was not under any obligation to appear at today's hearing. He showed up soley to reinforce his false accusation of an election interference witch hunt. Poor Donald!
Trump is a bag of shit. I was pleased to hear one of the judges in todays hearing ask a question of Trump's lawyer about the "insurrection". It's nice to know that the judge called it for what it was and that Trump's lawyer didn't correct her for using that term. Legitimate protest and tourist visit have kinda fallen by the wayside as descriptors to describe that horrible event that Trump perpetrated upon our democracy.
Yes, Trump is a fraud, a liar and big bag shit.
"So, why did he attend instead of going to Iowa"
Because his trials are part of his campaign. One thing Stump understands is the tabloid cable news industry. He figured it out years ago, it's how he got elected POTUS in the first place. He knows damn well that telling his lies after a DOJ hearing will get far more news coverage than some boring old rally in front of his low IQ moron magats. The media for the most part has stopped covering his rallies unless he says something juicy like calling for armed violence against his rivals. But they can't resist him in front of a court house spewing the same lies he tells on the campaign trial. Simple.
Yep.
Because his trials are part of his campaign.
Exactly ! brief and to the point.
"a talent for acting like a boss in front of a TV camera" – I even have doubts about that, maybe some day we'll get to see a blooper reel showing multiple re-takes of him screwing up the short simple lines scripted for him which no doubt he wouldn't bother to read and practice beforehand, I imagine it would be hilariously entertaining. Remember "Yo Semites"?
It looks like we failed to notice the LLP* after Trump's name. The rapist will assume a welcome and go anywhere the spotlight shines.
*Limited liability president
I can't believe that judge let Stump ramble on today, why the fuck does that spoiled twit get what he wants, all the time? Won't someone please put a sock in his pie hole!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XahBimlcigA
At an emotional level, I concur. Trump should have to comply with the reasonable restraints put on him by the court or be silent. However, there is no jury to be swayed by Trump's ranting. SO relative to the amount of damages Trump will have to pay, it makes no difference.
It might make a difference in an appeal if Engoron can be shown to be biased. Trump's continual badgering of the judges is no different than athletes "talking shit" to another player to rattle them. If Engoron responds emotionally in a written or verbal comment in a way that the defense can present as proof of bias, that opens the decision to a reversal or reduction, IMO, the prosecution "raised" the ask to 370 million (from 250 million) to give the judge room to to to $250 mil and appear to have delivered a moderate award to NY.
The actual exchange in the courtroom was a request by Trump's lawyer to allow Trump to speak, The judge repeated the restrictions as a condition and Trump took off without making the commitment. The judge once asked Kise to get control of his client before shutting Trump up. An appeals court, looking at a transcript, will find a defiant defendant and no fault on the part of the judge.
Any loser can appeal. It won't be granted unless there are grounds. Engoron has properly and consistently ruled against Trump for three years. The defense will try to say that being denied 90% of the time proves bias. Won't fly. They have to show that at least one decision was flawed and shows the judge ruled wrong to exercise bias against Trump. This isn't Engoron's first rodeo and he has never ruled badly.
What's "badly" mean? Sometimes, a motion SHOULD be granted because it is justified, even if the petitioner is Trump. Sometimes it should be denied, regardless of the name on the petition. A lot of the time, a motion could go either way or be partially granted, partially denied. A "bad" decision is a denial that should have been granted if the judge was impartial. A string of those casts legitimate doubt on the final decision being impartial. IMO, Engoron has been judicious in the classical sense of the word. IMO Engoron loaths Donald Trump personally and he's gonna hang Donald by the balls but he's not going to hand Trump grounds to appeal.
A sidebar: I think NY law provides that in a civil conviction, the defendant has to put up the total damages plus ten percent in the process of filing an appeal. So as Donald tries to drag out the proceeding, it may be very expensive to Trump because he has to tie up hundreds of millions which become unavailable or borrow the money.
Also, from comments the judge made, he might not be convinced that the prosecution proved that both sons were fully aware of the duration and degree of the fraud. Implicit is the comment is a verdict that Beevis and Butthead won't be held equally (to Donald) responsible. I don't agree but if it closes the door to a legitimate appeal and reversal, I can buy it. Much as I'd like to see Trump skinned alive 100% in 100% of the cases, it's gonna be enough if Trump loses 80% in 80% of the cases.
Trump's prospects are not good in ANY of the civil and criminal cases. Next week, E. Jean Carroll is up at bat. That's ONLY damages – the judge will not allow Trump to re-litigate what's established fact from the first trial. SO Trump is screwed and the question is how much.
I expect, probably tomorrow, a decision on Trump's ridiculous absolute immunity defense from the DC appeals court. No responsible legal pundit is predicting Trump will win. They're arguing how the loss will be worded. And whether the Supremes will take the case AND sit on it for a long time to grant Trump the delay it's actually about. (I think they won't but I thought Roe was settled law.)
The USSC hears oral arguments on the 14th Amendment Sec 3 in just three weeks. The Stormy Daniels criminal trial is still on for March 25. (Might happen if there's a month delay in the DC J6 trial.) If the Supremes don't decide on absolute immunity in a timely manner, GA might set a date. (May?)
Jabba the Mutt dropped out yesterday. IMO that will bump Nickkki up to ten points behind Trump in NH. If the USSC creates uncertainty about whether Trump is eligible under the 14th Amendment (by delivering an ambiguous decision about CO) that will create a bigger bump for Nikki. This is the only way I see a possible upset in the primaries – if GOP voters start to hear and believe that Trump will be denied the presidency by the USSC. The narrative is that Trump is inevitable. If it becomes that Trump is ineligible – that the Chief Justice will refuse to administer the Oath of Office, some in the GOP will look for some alternative candidate who can defeat Biden.
So as Donald tries to drag out the proceeding, it may be very expensive to Trump because he has to tie up hundreds of millions which become unavailable or borrow the money.
Maybe he can borrow it from Bank of America. They are headquartered in North Carolina. When Letitia James gets done with him he won't be able to business with any bank headquartered in New York
Outside the courtroom, MSNBC reported a group of people demonstrating with anti-Trump signs and a continuous loop of the theme from the Godfather playing. I guess one could object to this as an insult to Italian Americans. I prefer to see it as painting Trump as having corrupt business practices in a way people can understand. A deal is good when both parties to the deal benefit, not when it is a deal one of the parties cannot refuse. Trump continues to condone by silence threats made on his behalf. In the five minutes he was allowed to speak he could have ranted about the threats of violence on his behalf aimed at the judge. He did not again, as he never does, call off what would be his brown shirts, his paramilitary wing that is constantly prevalent in all his disputes. Rudy is bankrupt because of his liability in false election fraud cases related to brown shirt type tactics. These tactics are the tactics of terror. You have a nice store here and a nice wife and children, it would be a shame if something happened to them, type of negotiating tactic.
I am really tired of republicans defending Trump with what-about speak. It reeks of the early adolescent argumentation so often voiced by the budding miscreant. He admits to no wrong, and they use pubescent level tactics in his defense. In their black and white world of bifurcation you here the constant refrain of all politicians are crooks. No shades of grey. I could try to explain to them the error in their moral reasoning, but I cannot understand it for them. They seem not up to the task. I might be better off if I just had my phone play a loop of the theme from the Godfather. It might be worth a try.
Jennifer Rubin's piece in the WP is a must read IMO. Entitled The Media's worst lapse: Refusing to identify Trump as a cult leader, she nails it. Just a bit of a tease:
Opinion | Why media should identify Trump as a cult leader – The Washington Post