Jump to content

4/15/2024 9:30 ET The People of New York State's Supreme Court vs. Donald J. Trump and the Republican Party


romad1

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Yet Jesse still thinks Trump is strong enough to endure the Presidency. If the Big Guy is cold, he needs to buy some Long John's, very simple, even a Republican could do it

 

Don't most trials only run 3hrs in the morning and 3 in the afternoon? That leaves 10hr for him stay in shape.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

Don't most trials only run 3hrs in the morning and 3 in the afternoon? That leaves 10hr for him stay in shape.....

It's the limo ride to his NJ golf course where he can ride a golf cart that takes up time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

I'm still convinced Trump wants to spend a night in jail. The fundraising email is already written. 

I don't agree with the jail time theory.  I think he's just arrogant enough to assume he will win by just being himself.  Loud and obnoxious.  I think he assumes he can shout down at anyone and the universe revolves around him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, casimir said:

I don't agree with the jail time theory.  I think he's just arrogant enough to assume he will win by just being himself.  Loud and obnoxious.  I think he assumes he can shout down at anyone and the universe revolves around him.

Yeah, the base won't care but the normies will.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, smr-nj said:

I wish people would stop making this about payment to a porn star. 


As distasteful as that might be/was,  it’s not illegal, and it is NOT what this case is about.

I also wish they would stop referring to her as a "porn star", because that just makes Trump look good even to reasonable people. After all, who wouldn't want to bang a porn star, right? Guys who bang porn stars are cool. After all, they're porn stars. The best of the best. Knowhutimean?

She should be referred to as an "adult film actress". Make it as sterile and free of opinion as can be managed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, romad1 said:

I think the best course of action is to let him know that he will be doing jail time for contempt no matter how the jury rules. 

If he is found no guilty and still goes to jail for the contempt charges, that might bring some undecideds back to vote for him. All they will know is that he is innocent but the deep state still sent him to jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, pfife said:

Trial transcripts published here

https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml

Only Day1 published so far.  I read beginning with peckers testimony.

Interesting stuff.   The end is pretty interesting where the lawyers work with the judge on a bunch of evidence matters.   Cool to read them working together for fair trial.  

Did you see all the Enquirer headlines presented in evidence at this link? No wonder the knuckleheads flocked to vote for this guy.

2024-04-24_10-36-52.thumb.jpg.5ebdf97fb0be02ad01201547239f1fdd.jpg2024-04-24_10-37-01.thumb.jpg.ee78e3aed743c1901ca372f5efc2e6a6.jpg2024-04-24_10-37-14.thumb.jpg.32f0acc9d76b575445823fcd158feba0.jpg2024-04-24_10-37-23.thumb.jpg.f8095c0c0b889f8f2296c858f0515548.jpg2024-04-24_10-37-32.thumb.jpg.cb10a8e1186228b4d1c649c6b6142197.jpg2024-04-24_10-37-40.thumb.jpg.7392b2b86aa758bc032f7ca26eaa7f01.jpg

 

Edited by chasfh
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If he is found no guilty and still goes to jail for the contempt charges, that might bring some undecideds back to vote for him. All they will know is that he is innocent but the deep state still sent him to jail.

but on the bright side he will go to jail. Then again, i've heard that jail is where criminals learn how to be better criminals.  So, he'll likely graduate from Rikkers or Attica to go on to burglary and B&Es. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, romad1 said:

but on the bright side he will go to jail. Then again, i've heard that jail is where criminals learn how to be better criminals.  So, he'll likely graduate from Rikkers or Attica to go on to burglary and B&Es. 

Helpful for breaking into the Democratic national headquarters. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romad1 said:

but on the bright side he will go to jail. Then again, i've heard that jail is where criminals learn how to be better criminals.  So, he'll likely graduate from Rikkers or Attica to go on to burglary and B&Es. 

If he goes it will either be a five star rated prison or he'll be confined to Trump Tower with an ankle bracelet made of solid gold

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chas I saw that they added a folder to the site for evidence and it had those pdfs in it but I hadn't looked yet.  Those are hilarious.

I love how Mr Everyone else is fake news literally had his own fake news generator

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pfife said:

Chas I saw that they added a folder to the site for evidence and it had those pdfs in it but I hadn't looked yet.  Those are hilarious.

I love how Mr Everyone else is fake news literally had his own fake news generator

Projection Junction, that's their function!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, yeah, we already knew this, but seeing it laid out in print like this really punches us in the gut.

https://www.vox.com/scotus/24134882/supreme-court-donald-trump-immunity-calendar-delay

How the Court games its calendar to benefit litigants on the right

 

By handling requests from Republican litigants with alacrity, while dragging their feet when a Democrat (or someone prosecuting a Republican) seeks Supreme Court review, the justices can and have handed big victories to right-wing causes while simultaneously sabotaging liberals.

 

Before the Trump case reached the Supreme Court, this penchant for manipulative scheduling was most apparent in immigration cases.

 

During the Trump administration, lower courts often handed down decisions blocking the former president’s immigration policies, and the Court (often over the dissent of several justices appointed by Democrats) moved quite swiftly to put Trump’s policies back in place.

 

In Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary (2019), for example, after a lower court blocked a Trump administration policy locking many migrants out of the asylum process, the Court reinstated this policy about two weeks after the administration asked it to do so. Similarly, in Wolf v. Cook County (2020), the Court reinstated a Trump administration policy targeting low-income immigrants just eight days after Trump’s lawyers sought relief from the justices.

 

Once Biden came into office, however, the Court hit the brakes. In August 2021, for example, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — a Trump appointee who is known for handing down poorly reasoned decisions implementing right-wing policy preferences — ordered the federal government to reinstate a Trump-era immigration policy known as “Remain in Mexico.”

 

Though the Supreme Court eventually reversed Kacsmaryk’s decision, it sat on the case for more than 10 months, effectively letting Kacsmaryk dictate the nation’s border policy for that whole time.

 

Similarly, after another Trump-appointed judge struck down a Biden administration memo laying out enforcement priorities for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Court waited about 11 months before finally intervening and restoring the administration’s longstanding power to set priorities for law enforcement agencies.

 

The point is that, even in cases where the justices ultimately conclude that a conservative litigant should not prevail, they frequently hand that litigant a significant victory by sitting on the case and allowing a Republican policy to remain in effect for sometimes more than a year. (Given the slow pace of most litigation, this might not be particularly remarkable — except for the stark difference in how the Court has treated suits against Trump and Biden’s policies.)

 

The Court’s ability to set its own calendar allows it to manipulate US policy without actually endorsing lower court decisions that cannot be defended on the merits.

 

The Court’s behavior in the Trump immunity case is a close cousin to this tactic. Again, it is difficult to imagine even this Supreme Court ruling that presidents may commit crimes with impunity. But the Court does not need to explicitly declare that Trump is above the law to place him above the law.

 

All it has to do is string out his immunity claim for as long as possible.

 

Ian Millhiser, senior correspondent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...