Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

Trump signs Executive Order ordering the removal of, and this is an exact quote, "the repeal of unlawful regulations".

"Which regulations are unlawful?"

Congress makes the laws, the judiciary decides if they're legal. Trump can't remove them. That's unConstitutional. The exception is the Administrative Procedure Act, which still requires notifying Congress, getting their response, and an actual emergency. Trump even cites this, saying there is a "good cause" reason to just, you know, not follow that, by yelling "Fentanyl!" into the camera. Instead, he's already ordered his secretaries to just remove the regulations he claims are illegal, without the authority to actually do that.

Trump is trying to do everything by Executive Orders, again, and this will go to the courts, again, and he's going to lose, again. This is just another Trump announcement of wanting to be a dictator.

"Wait, there are only ten SCOTUS cases listed. Surely Trump will only change ten regulations, the ones cited in those ten cases, and nothing else."

If Trump is allowed to remove or ignore ten laws because he says so, why not a hundred? Why not a thousand? No, that's not how this works. Also, SCOTUS didn't remove those regulations, only pointed out the way they were being carried out, which is the Executive Branch, was incorrect.

Trump is saying he is above the law. Hey @tehdang want to comment on that? You've been very vocal on that on that very specific phrase of late. Care to use it here, too? Or are you going to go hypocrite on this one, too?

[gondrin]

So, here is a little court case that, if ruled in favor of Trump, could literally allow him to take over the Judiciary Branch.

Let that sink in. I am going to post it in its entirety here.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250429...federal-courts

The Trumpian Plot to Take Over the Federal Courts

The conservative legal movement’s latest broadside against the judiciary is likely to fail, but it illuminates how far they’re willing to go to dismantle the rule of law.

A top Trump-aligned legal group filed a lawsuit last week that argued that two key components of the judicial branch are actually part of the executive branch—a novel legal theory that would radically expand President Donald Trump’s influence over the federal courts.

The America First Legal Foundation, or AFLF, was founded by top Trump adviser Stephen Miller and enjoys close ties with the administration. It argued in its complaint last week that the agencies at issue—the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts—exercise regulatory power and not judicial power, despite the fact that their work is closely tied to the functioning of the federal courts.

Under the Supreme Court’s most recent separation-of-powers decisions, AFLF claimed, the two agencies must therefore fall within the executive branch’s power. “[Both agencies] must be overseen by the president, not the courts,” the group asserted. “Judicial relief here not only preserves the separation of powers but also keeps the courts out of politics.”

The lawsuit does not technically come from Trump or his administration. Nonetheless, it amounts to a serious threat to judicial independence that is being carried out on the president’s behalf. If successful, it would wrest control of the federal courts’ support agencies away from Chief Justice John Roberts and place them in Trump’s hands instead, with dire implications for the rule of law.

AFLF v. Roberts is ostensibly about an entirely different matter: the Freedom of Information Act. The post-Watergate transparency law allows private citizens to obtain copies of certain government records from various federal agencies upon request. Congress placed limits on the kinds of records that can be obtained through FOIA, as well as limits on the government agencies and institutions from which they can be obtained.

Congress itself—including its committees and the individual offices of its representatives and senators—is not subject to FOIA requests, for example. Nor are the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. The Smithsonian Institution is not considered to be an “agency” within FOIA’s terms. The Executive Office of the President and its components, which are usually just referred to as “the White House,” are also exempt.

Among those government bodies that are traditionally not subject to FOIA are the two at question here. The Judicial Conference is the chief policymaking body for the federal courts, headed by the chief justice of the United States and various other federal judges from around the country. It periodically revises the various federal rules of court procedure, supervises the courts’ electronic docket systems, and investigates federal judges for wrongdoing and potential impeachment.

The Administrative Office is the federal judiciary’s administrative arm. In addition to providing support staff for the Judicial Conference itself, it provides a “broad range of legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and program support services” to the federal courts as a whole, according to its own website. In essence, the Administrative Office does everything for the courts but decide cases and write rulings. Its director is appointed by the chief justice, and its work is overseen by the Judicial Conference as a whole.

Both agencies are the product of an early twentieth-century push to bolster the federal judiciary’s independence. Congress established the Judicial Conference in 1922 at the behest of former president and then–Chief Justice William Howard Taft to give the federal courts more control over their own inner workings. In 1939, Congress created the Administrative Office to place under the judiciary’s control certain administrative powers that were previously carried out by the Justice Department.

This state of affairs went unquestioned by lawmakers, presidents, judges, and the general public for the last nine decades until AFLF sent a FOIA request to Roberts himself last summer. The request doubled as a broad attack on the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office and Roberts’s own power over them. AFLF said it sought any records held by the two agencies that involved Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and his criticism of alleged ethical lapses by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The two conservative justices have come under public and congressional scrutiny in recent years for trips and vacations provided by conservative billionaires that weren’t reported in their annual ethics disclosures. In response, the Judicial Conference promulgated new regulations that narrowed the definition of what counted as “personal hospitality,” a category of gifts that is not required to be reported, to clarify matters in the future. AFLF framed this saga in its complaint last week as “an onslaught to destroy the impartiality and political neutrality of Article III courts and, particularly, the Supreme Court” by “the media and enterprising lawmakers.”

“This lawfare has been led by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, relying upon an ideologically favorable legacy media, to falsely accuse Justices Thomas and Alito of ethical improprieties,” the group complained. “Their aim was simple: to chill the judicial independence of these Supreme Court justices.”

AFLF had good reason to think that Roberts would ignore its FOIA request. Federal courts have previously ruled that the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office were exempt from FOIA. In a 2008 decision, for example, Judge Emmet Sullivan held that the two agencies fell under the law’s exemption for the “courts of the United States” because that term referred to the entire judicial branch, not merely the individual courts themselves.

In anticipation of Roberts’s refusal, AFLF laid out an argument for why the two agencies were actually part of the executive branch. The group took an exceptionally narrow view of what counted as the “judicial branch,” arguing that only the courts themselves fell within it. “Courts have the power to interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes between adversaries,” the group argued. “They do not create law, which is the responsibility of Congress, nor do they enforce it, which is the responsibility of the President.”

The Judicial Conference, though led by judges, is not a court of law. Since it exercises regulatory powers over the courts and oversees the Administrative Office, AFLF argued that it is more akin to an executive branch agency. It also not-so-subtly suggested that Roberts’s power to appoint and dismiss the Administrative Office’s director was unconstitutional, by saying that it was subject to “potential constitutional constraints.”

Ironically, this monster is one of Roberts’s own making. The chief justice and his conservative allies have chipped away at constitutional protections for independent federal agencies in recent years, holding that the president must be able to hire and fire the heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in 2020, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, in 2021, whenever he wishes. The justices have sharply narrowed a 1935 Supreme Court case that insulated certain agencies from the executive branch’s whims and, if Trump has his way, may overturn it altogether in the next few years.

Nonetheless, the Administrative Office responded last November that FOIA does not apply to the judiciary and cited the available case law that supported that conclusion. (It also insisted that most of what AFLF sought would be covered by various other exceptions, either way, but that part isn’t really relevant here.) AFLF responded by filing this lawsuit, which used the denied FOIA request to argue that the federal judiciary’s policymaking and administrative bodies actually belong to the president.

The group argued—directly, this time—that Roberts’s ability to hire and fire the Administrative Office’s director was unconstitutional, citing a 2021 Supreme Court ruling written by Roberts that reaffirmed that only presidents may appoint federal officials who carry out significant executive branch duties. “The Judicial Conference’s duties are executive functions and must be supervised by executive officers who are appointed and accountable to other executive officers,” the lawsuit claimed.

All of this is ridiculous under any reasonable understanding of the separation of powers. Judicial independence requires keeping certain functions within the judiciary’s control. The so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” is a bracing lesson for what an aggressive and adversarial president could try to do if he had control of these two agencies. Trump could stack the Judicial Conference with loyalists who could investigate federal judges for issuing rulings against him and rewrite the courts’ procedural rules for his own benefit. Elon Musk’s I.T. gurus could seize control of the Administrative Office to gain root access to the federal courts’ electronic filing system, read its sealed dockets, pilfer through federal judges’ emails and internal communications, and purge court employees on ideological grounds.

I have a hard time imagining that the federal courts will agree with these arguments, given the stakes involved for the judges who would decide them. Nor will they welcome AFLF’s Orwellian claims that it is working to preserve judicial independence and resist “ideological capture” of the courts by ceding much of the federal courts’ infrastructure to another branch of government. Even if these arguments fail in court, they are a disturbing benchmark for the extent to which Trump and his allies are trying to wrestle every other freestanding institution in the nation into submission.

[Edge-]

So, here is a little court case that, if ruled in favor of Trump, could literally allow him to take over the Judiciary Branch.

Let that sink in. I am going to post it in its entirety here.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250429...federal-courts

so the judicial branch is actually the executive branch?

so there are only two co-equal branches?

has anyone dug up the founders corpses to tell them? they'd be fascinated to hear this.

it's wild how much republicans and conservatives have outright contempt for the law

[We are covfefe]

Psh two branches? There's only 1 branch and its drump. The others are merely formalities at this point (not really, but they sure want people to see it that way).

[gondrin]

so the judicial branch is actually the executive branch?

so there are only two co-equal branches?

has anyone dug up the founders corpses to tell them? they'd be fascinated to hear this.

it's wild how much republicans and conservatives have outright contempt for the law

The fact they are trying to argue that rulemaking within a branch of government is in the sole responsibility of the Executive Branch, which is absolute nonsense. Each branch gets to make the rules for their individual branch unless Congress passes a bill that specifies something. If Trump gets to nominate someone loyal to him to said rulemaking department within the Judicial Branch(which is headed by John Roberts of all people, Chief Justice), that would now mean that Trump could make the rules on how SCOTUS is run. And if DOGE is allowed to go into their Administrative arm, that would mean they could basically put backdoors into everything, look into every sealed docket and the like.

Both of those departments within the Judicial Branch are not part of the Executive Branch, much like the Government Accountability Office is part of the Legislative, not the Executive.

Oh, and to tell you how bad the far-right absolutely hates the Constitution, Newsmaxx anchor and Trump sycophant Greg Kelly stated that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Yep, you heard it right. An amendment to the US Constitution is unconstitutional.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...2d1f830f&ei=16

Newsmax host claims the ‘Deep state’ is using two-term limit to keep Trump ‘under their thumb’

Newsmax star Greg Kelly has claimed that the 22nd Amendment, which prevents a president from serving more than two full terms, “might be unconstitutional itself” and is “a way the deep state keeps the presidency under their thumb.”

The MAGA-boosting host’s claim comes as the president and his supporters continue to float the notion of Trump running for a third term, which now includes the Trump Organization selling hats and t-shirts emblazoned with “Trump 2028” and the phrase “(Rewrite the Rules)” for $50.

In a recent interview with The Atlantic, meanwhile, Trump played coy and left the door open to having the Justice Department investigate whether it would be legal for him to run for the White House again in 2028.

“Was this the rare democratic norm he was unwilling to shatter?” The Atlantic noted. “‘That would be a big shattering, wouldn’t it?’ he mused, laughing. ‘Well, maybe I’m just trying to shatter.’ He noted, twice, that his supporters regularly shout for him to seek a third term, but concluded, ‘It’s not something that I’m looking to do. And I think it would be a very hard thing to do.’”

During the Monday night broadcast of his primetime Newsmax program, Kelly applauded the Trump family’s company offering merchandise teasing another Trump term. On top of that, he insisted that despite the Constitution explicitly outlawing another presidential campaign for Trump, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

“Donald Trump for president in 2028. Why not? Well, the Constitution says not, but maybe the Constitution is wrong,” the far-right host exclaimed. “President Trump has been playing with this, and he's been playing with it for years. And it's kind of amusing, and it's kind of serious at the same time.”

Telling his viewers to “take a look at this,” Kelly pointed out the new Trump 2028 “hat modeled by Eric Trump,” letting them know they could buy one for “50 bucks a pop.” Adding that it is “really getting some people very upset,” Kelly gleefully noted that “it’s all fun.”

After airing clips of Trump suggesting that he could serve another term in office, Kelly wondered if Trump is “trying to make a constitutional point” because the “22nd Amendment about not being able to run for a third term just might be unconstitutional.”

Kelly went on to grouse that there are no term limits for members of Congress before continuing to complain that presidents currently face limits on how long they can occupy the White House.

“Why do we have presidential term limits? Well, George Washington kind of started the tradition of two terms, but it wasn't mandated by the law,” he said. “FDR, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, got carried away, was actually elected to a fourth term, and Republicans didn't like it. And some Democrats sued, and they got together to pass the 22nd Amendment.”

Adding that it is a “big deal to change the Constitution,” Kelly then claimed that the 22nd Amendment “might be unconstitutional itself” and that “it should be looked at” by Trump and his administration.

“This is a way the deep state keeps the presidency under their thumb,” the Newsmax host fumed. “Only two terms. Nobody else in federal government, other than the vice president, I guess is — no, I don't know if it applies to the vice president anyway.”

Still, despite his concerns about “deep state” operatives preventing Trump from serving in perpetuity, Kelly insisted that “Trump is not running in 2028.” But, according to the Trump loyalist, this “looks to me and some other constitutional heavyweights” as something that “should be explored.”

While one GOP lawmaker has proposed a long-shot resolution to pave the way for Trump to attempt a third term, the president cannot circumvent the two-term limit set by the Constitution.

Unless a new amendment is put forth by Congress, which would require two-thirds of both chambers just to propose it, and it is then passed by three-fourths of all state legislatures, Trump is unable to seek re-election in 2028.

[Fugus]

so the judicial branch is actually the executive branch?

so there are only two co-equal branches?

has anyone dug up the founders corpses to tell them? they'd be fascinated to hear this.

it's wild how much republicans and conservatives have outright contempt for the law

The fact that they are using the judges own rulings for all the other branches that weren’t judges should be very telling to the judges so much so that even if they rule against this, they should realize that they laid the ground work for it and it has been what they have been supporting the entire time when they enabled it for all the other groups.

[Edge-]

Oh, and to tell you how bad the far-right absolutely hates the Constitution, Newsmaxx anchor and Trump sycophant Greg Kelly stated that the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution is unconstitutional.

Yep, you heard it right. An amendment to the US Constitution is unconstitutional.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...2d1f830f&ei=16

ok at this point i'm convinced the only amendment conservatives actually like is the second amendment and even then they get uneasy when enough brown and black folk start getting armed

[gondrin]

The fact that they are using the judges own rulings for all the other branches that weren’t judges should be very telling to the judges so much so that even if they rule against this, they should realize that they laid the ground work for it and it has been what they have been supporting the entire time when they enabled it for all the other groups.

This will literally get tossed as John Roberts is not going to rule to basically remove his ability to make rules for his branch of Government. Along with most of the rest of SCOTUS. Maybe Thomas would rule in favor of Trump because Thomas would rule against banning slavery if he had the chance.

[We are covfefe]

Fairly certain they don't like any amendments unless it gives them justification to hate minorities or consolidate more power.

[Fugus]

This will literally get tossed as John Roberts is not going to rule to basically remove his ability to make rules for his branch of Government. Along with most of the rest of SCOTUS. Maybe Thomas would rule in favor of Trump because Thomas would rule against banning slavery if he had the chance.

Agreed but the fact that their own rulings are being cited should be an eye opener to them as to just what they have been supporting.

I doubt they would care either way, but just the fact that this case is literally telling the judges “This is your own standard, now see if you can hold yourself to it” and is pretty blatant about that is very telling.

[Poopymonster]

Trump signs Executive Order ordering the removal of, and this is an exact quote, "the repeal of unlawful regulations".

"Which regulations are unlawful?"

Congress makes the laws, the judiciary decides if they're legal. Trump can't remove them. That's unConstitutional. The exception is the Administrative Procedure Act, which still requires notifying Congress, getting their response, and an actual emergency. Trump even cites this, saying there is a "good cause" reason to just, you know, not follow that, by yelling "Fentanyl!" into the camera. Instead, he's already ordered his secretaries to just remove the regulations he claims are illegal, without the authority to actually do that.

Trump is trying to do everything by Executive Orders, again, and this will go to the courts, again, and he's going to lose, again. This is just another Trump announcement of wanting to be a dictator.

"Wait, there are only ten SCOTUS cases listed. Surely Trump will only change ten regulations, the ones cited in those ten cases, and nothing else."

If Trump is allowed to remove or ignore ten laws because he says so, why not a hundred? Why not a thousand? No, that's not how this works. Also, SCOTUS didn't remove those regulations, only pointed out the way they were being carried out, which is the Executive Branch, was incorrect.

Trump is saying he is above the law. Hey @tehdang want to comment on that? You've been very vocal on that on that very specific phrase of late. Care to use it here, too? Or are you going to go hypocrite on this one, too?

He'll sign executive orders, hustle through getting shit done while it's going through courts.
The Time frame between signing an illegal EO and a judge saying "Stop that shit" can put a lot of people in danger.

[Edge-]

He'll sign executive orders, hustle through getting shit done while it's going through courts.
The Time frame between signing an illegal EO and a judge saying "Stop that shit" can put a lot of people in danger.

So fun trip down memory lane - https://www.denver7.com/news/nationa...ecutive-orders

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell says Biden’s reliance on executive action in the early days conflicts with the Democrat’s pledge as a candidate to be a consensus builder. In a speech from the Senate floor on Tuesday, McConnell criticized Biden's orders by saying “you can’t legislate by executive action unless you are a dictator.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/o...ve-orders.html

Even the NYT OpEd board got in on the action of getting upset about his use of EO's.

I wonder where they are now...speaking of how many EO's is Donald up to and how does that compare?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-f...-order-record/

President Trump has set a historic record during the first 100 days of his second term, signing far more executive orders than any other president in U.S. history over the same period.

Mr. Trump has signed 142 executive orders so far, according to data from the American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The previous record was held by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who issued 99 executive orders during his first 100 days in 1933, primarily to combat the Great Depression, according to the Roosevelt Institute.

142 EO's in 100 days, with many more not fully counted yet!

According to the American Presidency Project's data, President Joe Biden did not reach 142 executive orders until September 2024, while President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush required nearly their entire first terms to hit that milestone. Obama reached 142 executive orders in December 2012, and Bush in May 2004. Mr. Trump's use of executive authority over the past 100 days also surpasses the number of executive orders signed by Obama and Bush during their entire second terms. Obama hit 129 executive orders, and Bush 118.

Oh...so a LOT more than any POTUS prior.

Mr. Trump has defended his heavy reliance on executive actions as necessary to deliver on campaign promises and to move quickly amid ongoing gridlock in Congress.

Ah, so dictatorial power grabs as he said he was going to do? We have co-equal branches and a separation of powers for a reason. He should read some of what the founders wrote.

"We're signing executive orders at a pace that no one can keep up with. Expect the same pace in the next 100 days — trade deals, peace deals, and tax cuts," a senior White House official said. "The American public doesn't have the luxury of waiting."

It almost sounds like the intentional/plan is to overwhelm everyone with EO's...actually that literally does sound like the plan.

"It is what the American people demanded, deserved and Donald Trump delivered," Gidley said, referring to his November victory.

Approval ratings disagree.

According to a new CBS News poll, 64% of Americans think Mr. Trump is trying to increase presidential power — including 84% of Democrats.

And polling on if Donald is trying to be a dictator.

According to the poll, 76% of those surveyed said Mr. Trump should work with Congress to pass laws while 24% said he should use executive orders to change regulations.

Someone investigate CBS for reporting on this.

[Breccia]

Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S. spent about $220 billion more in first 100 days than last year

Just a reminder: even if DOGE saved $150 billion (they didn't), and even if DOGE cost nothing (it did, I posted on that today), this means Trump still spent more than Biden.

His claims of cutting spending are lies. Or, he's incompetent. Pick one. He's getting negative results.

[Edge-]

https://www.fooddive.com/news/usda-w...safety/746613/

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is withdrawing a Biden-era rule aimed at reducing salmonella contamination in raw chicken and turkey products.

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service scrapped the proposal, introduced last summer, in response to concerns from chicken and turkey producers that it would be too costly to implement, the agency said in a Federal Register notice.

The rule would have required poultry producers to develop monitoring systems and keep salmonella levels below certain thresholds. The chicken and turkey industries have argued that poultry is safe to eat when cooked properly.

MAKE AMERICA SICK AGAIN BECAUSE WHO NEEDS TO FEEL SAFE THAT THEIR POULTRY PRODUCTS WILL BE SALMONELLA FREE?

Really, you can't replace that signature salmonella flavor.

The FSIS estimates there are 125,000 chicken-associated and almost 43,000 turkey-associated foodborne illnesses per year due to salmonella contamination, and the withdrawal of the rule overturns a more than three-year effort to improve food safety.

In addition to scrapping the raw poultry proposal, the USDA is delaying the start of inspections under an associated rule that declared salmonella a contaminant in raw, breaded stuffed chicken products.

For years, salmonella in raw poultry was not considered to be a threat to human health under the reasoning that the bacteria is typically neutralized in the cooking process. However, poultry still remains a leading source of foodborne illness — and while data suggests that salmonella contamination in chicken and poultry products has been on the decline, there hasn’t been an observed reduction in the number of illnesses.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest had called the USDA’s move to limit salmonella “the greatest advance for food safety” since the agency took steps on E. Coli in ground beef in the 1990s.

“The decision by the Trump administration to repeal that proposal will let poultry processors continue to ship raw chicken and turkey even after products test positive for high levels of the most dangerous strains of Salmonella,” Sarah Sorscher, CSPI director of regulatory affairs, said in a statement. “Make no mistake: Shipping more Salmonella to restaurants and grocery stores is certain to make Americans sicker.”

But do you know who is thrilled?

The National Chicken Council applauded the repeal of the rule, saying it would have had “no meaningful impact on public health” and raise costs for both consumers and producers.

“We remain committed to further reducing Salmonella and fully support food safety regulations and policies that are based on sound science, robust data, and are demonstrated to meaningfully impact public health,” Ashley Peterson, NCC senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs, said in a statement.

The repeal of the rule also comes after the USDA faced criticism for being slow to finalize or update many safety standards to protect against the risk of foodborne illness. A report from the Government Accountability Office found that the USDA has largely paused work on standards for illness-causing pathogens since 2018, with the exception of salmonella in raw poultry.

Food recalls reached a five-year high in 2024, impacting big-name brands including Boar’s Head. Listeria contamination at chicken supplier BrucePac led to the recall of more than 12 million pounds of chicken in foodservice and grocery store items.

Yep, the poultry industry. Nevermind we just came off of, as the article notes, a five-year high in food recalls.

[Draco-Onis]

Despite Trump's promised cuts, U.S. spent about $220 billion more in first 100 days than last year

Just a reminder: even if DOGE saved $150 billion (they didn't), and even if DOGE cost nothing (it did, I posted on that today), this means Trump still spent more than Biden.

His claims of cutting spending are lies. Or, he's incompetent. Pick one. He's getting negative results.

The plan was never to save money but to give the government over to the oligarchs to cut the parts they don't like. The Pentagon got a budget increase and zero cuts, the part of the government that has never passed an audit and is filled with waste, fraud and abuse.

[Xath]

https://www.the-independent.com/news...-b2741549.html Alarm bells going off for people yet?

[PhaelixWW]

https://www.the-independent.com/news...-b2741549.html Alarm bells going off for people yet?

Why... why are you pretending that the alarm bell isn't already broken from overuse?

[Edge-]

https://www.the-independent.com/news...-b2741549.html Alarm bells going off for people yet?

if i didn't know better, he's panicking his "foreign policy" is falling apart and he has no domestic policy, so he was looking to do the local strongman thing and was figuring out how he can get started

[Breccia]

Wake me when we get to the "the dog ate my legal brief" portion of the defense's excuses.

We have arrived.

Mike Lindell claims, under oath, that because he can't use AI to mount a defense, he can't mount any defense at all.

After using-

No, really.

After using a generative artificial intelligence program to submit a court filing rife with errors — including citing to several nonexistent cases — attorneys representing MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell in a high-profile defamation case are seeking to push the trial date over “significant burdens” imposed on them by the court’s demand that they explain why they should not be punished for the “wholly deficient” motion they filed.

Lindell’s attorney, Christopher Kachouroff, on Monday filed a motion for a continuance, saying the request was “necessitated by extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances,” and cited the Order to Show Cause from U.S. District Judge Nina Y. Wang, which requires Kachouroff to explain why he and his co-counsel, Jennifer DeMaster, should not be subject to discipline for the egregious error.

Wang last week accused Lindell’s counsel of authoring the filing through “blind reliance on generative artificial intelligence” and threatened them with the highest level of sanctions, including referral to their respective state bars for disciplinary proceedings. Responding to the court’s misconduct allegations has “threatened the foundation of a fair trial” and “rendered timely and adequate trial preparation impossible,” according to Kachouroff.

“The Show Cause Order is scathing. It has triggered national media coverage, subjecting defense counsel to reputational harm, emotional distress, and significant distractions from trial preparation,” Kachouroff wrote in the nine-page filing. “Counsel has expended a majority of last week investigating the circumstances of the erroneous filing and responding to the Order, diverting critical time from compliance with the trial preparation, now just five weeks before the trial date. The public nature of the Order also raises concerns about potential jury prejudice, while the threat of sanctions has impaired counsel’s ability to zealously represent Defendants. These extraordinary circumstances, combined with new pretrial obligations imposed post-conference, necessitate a continuance to ensure a fair trial.”

"Did he...did he say, under oath, that he got caught cheating so hard, it caused emotional damage? And he should get some kind of benefit for that?"

Yes. He also said being caught cheating would prejudice the jury.

"But...he got caught making up case law that didn't exist!"

Again, Lindell has no case. He can argue inadequate counsel, but he's not. He is instead arguing that he cannot argue a case on the merits, and that being caught cheating is unfair to him.

If @cubby were alive, he'd be rolling in his grave.

While this case is kind of unique, at least I hope it is, this is yet more continued Team Trump tactics. "I'm allowed to break the rules, nobody's allowed to stop me." It's the entitlement that Trump has had his entire "adult" life that his cultists, feeling like someone else is at fault for their poor decisions, flock to.

[Edge-]

"Did he...did he say, under oath, that he got caught cheating so hard, it caused emotional damage?

I'm a bit disappointed you didn't hyperlink to it, so I'll embed -



Remember everyone, Mike Lindell was a close ally to Donald Trump for many, man years.