For any Trumpers that might wander into this thread.
Trump tweeted this morning that a President (himself) should have total immunity including “ crossing the line”. Of course the line is legality.
Trump has moved from “I’m innocent” to it’s a “political witch hunt.” Now he is fully transitioned into the “yes it was illegal but I should be able to” defense
I mention this because you Trumpers need to change your boot licking defenses accordingly. The political witch hunt stuff is so yesterday
Without fail, one of the local ballwashers will write a response purporting to tell you what he really meant to say.
Ever notice that the guy that "tells it like it is" always needs someone else to filter his language.
It really is incredible. Only exception is when there’s something negative they actually acknowledge. In that case it’s trump card number 2 - avoid the topic with whataboutisms.
All of which concerning Trump reinforces the fears many constitutional political commentators have that American is determined on a path to lose its democracy.
What drugs are you on? Smoking crack? Losing our democracy- Hilarious!!!! You are entering Baghdad "we're doomed" agip territory.
Somewhat off topic from Trump's main trials, but I really can't think of one reason he has decide to testify at the second Carroll defamation trial. I know he wants the judge to yell at him and sanction him, because then he can cry victimhood, persecution, conspiracy, etc. But it's easy to do that without taking the stand. What is driving this? This seems like a really crazy move, with no upside for Trump.
Somewhat off topic from Trump's main trials, but I really can't think of one reason he has decide to testify at the second Carroll defamation trial. I know he wants the judge to yell at him and sanction him, because then he can cry victimhood, persecution, conspiracy, etc. But it's easy to do that without taking the stand. What is driving this? This seems like a really crazy move, with no upside for Trump.
For every dollar in penalties to E Jean Carroll he can raise 5 times as much if he pitches a fit that gets replayed all over right wing media.
They saw that coming so they masterfully muted Trump by not asking questions allowing him to rift. Brilliant.
More relatedly, Pete Navarro get a well deserved 4 months in the can after a jury of his peers found him guilty of skipping out on a subpoena. You're not allowed to do that in America. We have laws and process.
Peter Navarro was sentenced Thursday to four months in jail for contempt of Congress after defying a subpoena related to the congressional investigation into the January 6, 2021, US Capitol attack.
He's not in DC jail yet. Judge gave him a week to submit a brief saying his sentence is stayed pending appeal. Very nice of that judge. Most people would be in the clink right away.
Somewhat off topic from Trump's main trials, but I really can't think of one reason he has decide to testify at the second Carroll defamation trial. I know he wants the judge to yell at him and sanction him, because then he can cry victimhood, persecution, conspiracy, etc. But it's easy to do that without taking the stand. What is driving this? This seems like a really crazy move, with no upside for Trump.
The cult believes that Trump is them and he is their voice. To them, he is not fighting a lawsuit for which he is obviously guilty, instead he is fighting injustice. Apparently, they feel strongly that defaming / libeling a woman from the highest platform in the land is acceptable behavior and makes him an even better leader. They feel that everyone should be able to be a loud mouthed misogynist and maybe even cross over to sexual assault with impunity. Because he is fighting for them!
Testifying and pontificating about his victimhood speaks to that crowd. To normal people, it is idiocy.
Here is Trump's Brief in the Colorado appeal to The Supremes.
He leads with the argument that a president is not an "officer" as recited in the 14th Amendment. Trump places a heavy emphasis on this - leads with it and goes on with it for 13 pages. So did a lot of Amicus briefs I skimmed through. They must think this is a real winner argument that the SCOTUS can use to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court quickly and easily, without getting near the insurrection issues. I tend to agree. Remember that the Colorado district court also found a president is not an officer for the 14th Amendment.
Trump then argues he never engaged in insurrection, rather "President Trump repeatedly called for peace, patriotism, and law and order." I don't think he does a very good job here. He fails yet again to provide a definition of "insurrection" which means he doesn't have a reasonable one to propose. He just recites all his "peaceful" tweets/post and says that can't be an insurrection. Some other attacks on the credibliity of the evidence, but does not seem to address any of the facts set forth by Colorado courts. I think Trump wants to avoid this topic as much as possible, other than to say "whatever those guys did, I had nothing to do with it."
He argues that the judiciary can only enforce section 3 of the 14th Amendment "through congressional implementing legislation such as 18 U.S.C. § 2383." He just relies on that Griffin case, but does not say much else at all.
What is surprisingly absent as far as I can tell is ANY kind of due process argument that had been mentioned by a lot of commentators and that was discussed quite a bit in this thread. Trump must have come to the conclusion that was a weak argument. Go figure. I thought it would have been the lead argument.
Here is Respondent Norma Anderson brief in the Colorado case on appeal to the SCOTUS. It also notes that Trump doesn't challenge much of the facts -- and Trump appears to have conceded that there was an insurrection in 1/6/21, even though he denies he had any part in it. That is a huge concession by Trump.
Some interesting legal arguments in here. One is that Anderson argues that Trump et al. had to show that the Colorado state law is unconstitutional and Trump never argued it was.
Punitive award, meant to get him to stfu. He won't, so judge will at some point order him to stfu. If he continues he end up in jail for violating order.
nice to see at least some justice in the world. Trump was ordered to pay E Jean Carrol 83 million in that defamation suit. serves him right.
No.
That's the Garland justice system at work.
She in fact defamed him with accusations from 30 years ago with no evidence and a story that made zero sense.
Garland didn’t select the jurors and Trump’s legal team participated in the actual selection. Trump received a fair trial and he could have testified had he wanted to.
She in fact defamed him with accusations from 30 years ago with no evidence and a story that made zero sense.
Garland didn’t select the jurors and Trump’s legal team participated in the actual selection. Trump received a fair trial and he could have testified had he wanted to.
Wasn't this the trial where the judge already declared him liable and so it was just about how much $$? Was this the one where the judge did not allow a jury? How can you guys not see thru this?
Trump now has: 91 felony counts 11 aides convicted 4 indictments 2 impeachments $83.3 million defamation verdict $25 million fraud judgment $5 million sexual assault verdict $1.6 million tax fraud conviction A university shut down A charity shut down And is on trial for fraud.
Garland didn’t select the jurors and Trump’s legal team participated in the actual selection. Trump received a fair trial and he could have testified had he wanted to.
Wasn't this the trial where the judge already declared him liable and so it was just about how much $? Was this the one where the judge did not allow a jury? How can you guys not see thru this?
Do you actually think there is a case in which a judge "did not allow or a jury"?
Or are in the real world in which Trump's legal team, working on his behalf, declined a jury trial by not checking a simple box on a form?
The first case does not exist. The second one does.
