Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Shadowferal]

I'm curious to see how Trump’s team try to appeal Engoron's judgment. I mean they had a...shot.

[Breccia]

Speaking of appeals, this TheHill article suggests that Trump, having been turned down by a panel of judges, will skip the full review and instead hop to SCOTUS.

Simply put, this appeal failure so far means the original trial resumes. Waiting for the full list of judges to review the case does not slow that down. The only way Trump can keep the original case from moving forwards is an emergency appeal to SCOTUS, which he must do by Feb 12.

Meaning, it's possible we'll hear from SCOTUS sooner than expected.

Speaking of appeals:

I'm curious to see how Trump’s team try to appeal Engoron's judgment. I mean they had a...shot.

They can't. The judge is asking for a meeting, and he's in deliberations without a jury. You can't appeal either of those.

Their only option right now is to either meet with him as requested and beg for mercy, or to wait till Engoron slams the hammer of justice onto Trump Org's testicles and appeal that finding.

Now, maybe that's what you meant. As a reminder, you don't get to just yell "appeal!" and get one. Considering Team Trump put up a witness who admitted he lied under oath, it's less likely they'll get one. You get an appeal if you can find some possible error made against you, by someone who is not you. Team Trump spent the entire case failing over and over. You don't get an appeal just because you suck extra hard.

As another reminder, the NY AG has named Weaselberg specifically in the Trump Org fraud lawsuit. In addition to everything else going on, NY is asking for the $2 million severance (aka "bribe") Weaselberg was given when he retired, and suddenly decided he felt like lying under oath to protect Trump Org.

Meaning, Weaselberg, 76 years old, could go back to jail, and lose the bribe, and cost Trump Org even more than before. Trump really does hire the most incompetent people, doesn't he? Weaselberg might literally have done less damage just telling the truth the first time. Now he's out a bribe, going to jail, and the judge is angry.

P.S. None of this is even about the $130,000 whore payments. Weaselberg is involved in that, too.

[PACOX]

One again Biden casual let's the courts take power away from him

Now he can't even go after his political opponents because President's don't have blanket immunity

[Breccia]

I’ve read thousands of judicial opinions in my four decades as a law student and lawyer. Few have been as good as this one.

The Atlantic, on the "absolute immunity" ruling.

The opinion far exceeds any commentator’s poor power to add or detract, so I’ll mostly let it speak for itself. The bottom line:

For the purpose of this criminal case, former President Trump has become citizen Trump, with all of the defenses of any other criminal defendant. But any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.

As the opinion explains, Trump asked the court to “extend the framework for Presidential civil immunity to criminal cases and decide for the first time that a former President is categorically immune from federal criminal prosecution for any act conceivably within the outer perimeter of his executive responsibility.” Trump argued principally that two considerations compelled such an extraordinary protection: first, that judges are somehow prohibited from reviewing discretionary presidential acts and, second, that policy considerations flowing from the separation of powers required categorical immunity for presidents from criminal prosecution.

The court dismantled these claims patiently, painstakingly, and unsparingly. The first it disposed of with an impeccable discussion of the basic constitutional law of judicial review. Trump invoked, of all cases, the Supreme Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the fountainhead of the judicial power to pass judgment on the constitutionality and legality of governmental action. At one point in that decision, as Trump’s counsel emphasized, Chief Justice John Marshall noted that when the executive exercises discretionary authority, his or her actions “can never be examinable by the courts.”

But Marshall said something else as well, the D.C. Circuit observed. The executive remains an “officer of the law,” and “is amenable to the laws for his conduct,” Marshall wrote, with emphasis added by the D.C. Circuit. And so “the judiciary has the power to hear cases ‘where a specific duty is assigned by law.’ Marbury thus makes clear that Article III courts may review certain kinds of official acts,” including the president’s. The court added a little tour of the history books, citing the famous “Steel Seizure Case,” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the 1952 decision in which the Supreme Court struck down President Harry S. Truman’s executive order seizing control of most of the country’s steel mills. That case, together with Marbury, the court explained, led to the conclusion in yet another case (Clinton v. Jones), that “when the President takes official action, the [courts have] the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law.” And so:

The separation of powers doctrine … necessarily permits the Judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress’s laws … Here, former President Trump’s actions allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws, meaning those acts were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion; accordingly, Marbury and its progeny provide him no structural immunity from the charges in the Indictment.

As for Trump’s second argument, the contention that policy considerations underlying the doctrine of separation of powers required an expansive criminal immunity, the D.C. Circuit did what the Supreme Court has done in assessing claims of civil immunity: weighed the considerations for immunizing the president against those opposing such immunization.

In engaging in that analysis, the appeals court did something very important, from the standpoint both of bolstering its conclusion and of insulating its decision from Supreme Court review. The panel, as smart judges do, limited its analysis to the specific “case before us, in which a former President has been indicted on federal criminal charges arising from his alleged conspiracy to overturn federal election results and unlawfully overstay his Presidential term” (emphasis mine).

And so the balancing question became: Does the nation’s interest in protecting democracy outweigh the danger that potential post-presidency prosecution might deter presidents from doing their job? When posed that way, the question admitted of only one possible answer: yes—by a country mile.

Oh, and it gets worse for Trump.

But there was even more, the court explained. The public interest at issue in the case was not simply the enforcement of criminal law; it was the enforcement of criminal law against an alleged scheme directed at nothing less than the destruction of American constitutional democracy.

Hence the judicial coup de grâce:

The quadrennial Presidential election is a crucial check on executive power because a President who adopts unpopular policies or violates the law can be voted out of office.

Former President Trump’s alleged efforts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election were, if proven, an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government. He allegedly injected himself into a process in which the President has no role—the counting and certifying of the Electoral College votes—thereby undermining constitutionally established procedures and the will of Congress …

We cannot accept former President Trump’s claim that a President has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralize the most fundamental check on executive power—the recognition and implementation of election results. Nor can we sanction his apparent contention that the Executive has carte blanche to violate the rights of individual citizens to vote and to have their votes count.

At bottom, former President Trump’s stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the President beyond the reach of all three Branches. Presidential immunity against federal indictment would mean that, as to the President, the Congress could not legislate, the Executive could not prosecute and the Judiciary could not review. We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter. Careful evaluation of these concerns leads us to conclude that there is no functional justification for immunizing former Presidents from federal prosecution in general or for immunizing former President Trump from the specific charges in the Indictment. In so holding, we act, “not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance.”

The opinion—every jot, title, footnote, and citation of it—is worth your time to read.

And at the end:

What will the Supreme Court do? The strength of today’s opinion makes it far more likely that the Court will do … nothing. Any court—including the Supreme Court—would have a tough time writing a better opinion than the one the D.C. Circuit published today. The best course of action would be for the Supreme Court to deny a stay, and to deny review altogether, in a matter of days.

This isn't the only article I've read, or even posted, saying something like this. Trump is asking for dictator powers -- nobody ever being able to question his actions, even illegal ones, forever. And he's running again. What would Trump do, if he was told by SCOTUS "you can do whatever you want, and nobody can ever challenge you on it, even if it's illegal"? SCOTUS needs to hand down any result other than that -- including, yes, "we don't want to get involved".

[ringpriest]

I must admit as a non-American I find all the Trump drama amusing, but there is one thing I find most perplexing (and also amusing).

The DA's/etc going after him are raging that they think he committed election interference and they despise election interference and that election interference is the worst, etc etc.

Point of Information: Special Prosecutor Smith and DA Fani Willis are not prosecuting Donald Trump for election interference - they're prosecuting him for crimes he committed while trying seize power after losing an election. In less "civilized" countries than the United States, that gets the perpetrator shot or tossed in a cell for the rest of his life. In more civilized countries, it leads to being a public and political outcast while the courts determine how long the perpetrator is going to spend in prison. Only in the United States do they let the perpetrator walk around bragging how he's really going to seize power successfully next time.

[postman1782]

The easy off ramp for the 14th amendment case is that the amendment ends with SCOTUS can simply say its not up to the states or court but Congress to decide if Trump is qualified to run and the Dems don't have a majority in both chambers so can't pass legislation to that effect.

It doesn't say that ONLY CONGRESS has the power though. Otherwise Couy Griffin wouldn't have been removed.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...aiser-00140009

Former President Donald Trump offered an olive branch to Anheuser-Busch on Tuesday, issuing a post on his social media platform calling on conservatives to drop their opposition to the besieged beer company.

“The Bud Light ad was a mistake of epic proportions, and for that a very big price was paid, but Anheuser-Busch is not a Woke company,” Trump wrote. “Anheuser-Busch is a Great American Brand that perhaps deserves a Second Chance? What do you think? Perhaps, instead, we should be going after those companies that are looking to DESTROY AMERICA!”

Y'all, it's legal to drink Bud Light in Donald's America, now. Granted we know it's been for some time, Kid Rock caved and started chugging the stuff again some months ago.

Trump’s message also comes as a top Republican lobbyist for the company is set to host a fundraiser for the former president next month, with some tickets going at $10,000 each.

Jeff Miller, a close confidant of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy who built his Washington business during the Trump years, announced on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday that he would be hosting the fundraiser. The event is set to feature dozens of members of Congress and Republican leadership, as well as Donald Trump Jr.

Ah, he wants those Bud Light-bux from his buddy Jeff Miller. A little quid pro quo one might say.

[Surfd]

Trump’s team also argued that Section 3 is a prohibition on “holding” office, not running for office, and claimed that “Congress can waive this prohibition between now and the end of the next presidential term” on Jan. 20, 2029.

That has got to be the literal dumbest thing I have heard in this ongoing saga of stupidity so far. Like, suggesting something this dumb in court should allow the presiding Judge to slap you with a sanction so heavy your grand children for 7 generations curse your name.

I mean, lets assume this argument actually holds water: I'm Canadian. I'm coming down there RIGHT NOW and I'm going to run for President, and if you try to stop me, well, I will just sue you under the argument that while the current laws prevent me from running for President, there's the possibility that your country could go collectively insane and change the law before the next presidential term to allow my presidential candidacy to be legal, so therefore I have the right to run and there's nothing you can do about it.

[Breccia]

Trump launches baseless conspiracy theories against Haley.

The actual crux of the issue is pretty straightforward. For days, Trump has been suggesting that Haley failed to qualify for the Indiana primary ballot, saying she was “scrambling in Indiana with democrat county clerk offices to ‘verify’ signatures” after the fact, or even that she had “forgot to apply.” He has gone so far as to have his campaign’s attorney threaten litigation to challenge Haley’s ballot status.

But Trump’s allegation is based on a distortion of Indiana law. While signatures to get ballot access were due by Jan. 30, the filing deadline isn’t until this Friday, meaning that Haley is still on track to qualify for the state’s ballot.

Even the longtime Republican voter registration board member at the center of the dispute told POLITICO in an interview that Trump appeared to have false information and that the process is designed to prevent the kind of conspiracy the former president is alleging.

“I think somebody gave him incorrect information based on lack of knowledge, and he went with what he was told,” said Cindy Mowery, the Republican board member on the Marion County Board of Voters Registration.

Haley has been less forgiving, with her campaign accusing Trump of being “confused” at best and “lying” at worst.

“This is more nonsense and confusion from Trump,” Betsy Ankney, Haley’s campaign manager, told POLITICO. “We have more than enough verified signatures in each congressional district, and we will be filing this week before the Feb. 9 deadline. You should be asking whether they are simply confused or whether they were lying and misleading people.”

Over the weekend, an attorney for Trump sent a letter, obtained by POLITICO, to Marion County’s Democratic clerk, Kate Sweeney Bell, accusing her of improperly accepting petition signatures for Haley and demanding she preserve all evidence during the certification process.

In the letter directed at Bell, one of the only Democratic elected officials in a state where Republicans control more than 90 percent of all county-level elected offices across the state, Gary Lawkowski of the Alexandria, Virginia-based Dhillon Law Group said Bell’s “office may be improperly accepting petition signatures for Nikki Haley to appear on the ballot for the 2024 Republican Presidential Primary.”

This is yet another variation of the same theme: if Trump isn't winning, it's because it's rigged. There is no evidence for these claims, because the deadline Trump is talking about...again...hasn't passed yet.

Trump is either confused, or lying. There is no option in which he's right.

[Paranoid Android]

I love Trump. The man we need to tell these snowflake conservatives that Budweiser is Mmmerica. To let him know that giving a few cans of beer to someone is not Woke. That Budweiser spends money on all these dumb farmers who themselves boycotted a product that directly effected them. That you ConservTurds are hurting the veterans out here and the few pennies they give to scholarships. That Anheuser-Busch is a Great American Brand, err a Great Belgian Brand.

Those must be some nice checks Budweiser or someone close to this brand gave donations to Trump. Tell it like it is though my fearless leader and let them know Bud is not WOKE!

Trump, on eve of fundraiser with Anheuser-Busch lobbyist, defends company

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/0...aiser-00140009

There's my answer.

[Shadowferal]

Trump got paid for the beer putz.

[Breccia]

That Anheuser-Busch is a Great American Brand, err a Great Belgian Brand.

Funny story: Trump predicted how this would end.

From May 7:

Trump weighed in on the Bud Light controversy on Sunday in a Truth Social post he wrote promoting a book that calls to “defund leftist woke companies.”

Trump called out Anheuser-Busch – the parent company of Bud Light – in his social media post on Sunday while promoting the “The Great Patriot Protest and Boycott” book. Conservative critics in recent months have called to boycott and protest Bud Light after transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney partnered with the company in a sponsored post.

“It’s time to beat the Radical Left at their own game. Money does talk—Anheuser-Busch now understands that. Great new Book by Wayne Allyn Root. Buy your copy today!” Trump wrote in his post.

[Lenonis]

I must admit as a non-American

It's a pity as we usually find non-Americans to be less biased and more informed about what is really going on....and yet here you are regurgitating the far-right talking points that holding people accountable for criminal behavior is election interference.

Please take your blantant propaganda and go away.

[Edge-]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...sses-rcna91271

A federal judge on Monday rejected a request from special counsel Jack Smith to keep secret a list of 84 potential witnesses in the prosecution of former President Donald Trump over his handling of classified documents.

Federal prosecutors had asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, to keep under seal a list of witnesses who Trump is barred from communicating with directly about the case.

In her order, Cannon said prosecutors failed to explain why it was necessary to keep the names under wraps, or why redacting or partially sealing the document would be inadequate.

Judge Cannon doing her best to get these 84 potential witnesses harassed outta their homes and potentially physically harmed/killed.

[Dontrike]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...sses-rcna91271



Judge Cannon doing her best to get these 84 potential witnesses harassed outta their homes and potentially physically harmed/killed.

We need a reporter to eventually ask her why she's helping Trump so much.

[Edge-]

We need a reporter to eventually ask her why she's helping Trump so much.

I'm just so skeptical that Smith and his team would show up with nothing, and it's not like we have mountains of evidence for why naming them would put them at risk. Including another judge that recently encouraged the jury members in a separate trial related to Donald remain anonymous and never identify themselves for their own safety.

I don't know, but is this something they can appeal? Because this is something I'd want to fight like hell for because I doubt many witnesses would be willing to come forward if they were risking having their lives ruined by MAGA extremist terrorists.

[Breccia]

I don't know, but is this something they can appeal?

No expert, but even if he couldn't, he could just ignore her warnings, force her to try to ban the evidence, and appeal that.

- - - Updated - - -

Person that Trump hired on purpose Bolton says that Trump is chickening out of his SCOTUS hearing (didn't know he had one yet) because he's a fucking coward.

He knows he's badly outnumbered by people who respect the rule of law. Anyone who assumes that the three Supreme Court Justices that Trump appointed will blindly rule in his favor doesn't know the kind of Justices he selected.

It'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS judges Trump appointed react. Simply put, they owe him nothing. He can't fire them.

[Poopymonster]

It'll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS judges Trump appointed react. Simply put, they owe him nothing. He can't fire them.

Hmmm, that sounds awfully American to me.
"Fuck you, I got mine".

[Templar 331]

I'm just so skeptical that Smith and his team would show up with nothing,

They didn't show up with nothing. They just didn't explain it good enough for her boss to approve. I mean her client......her defendant?.......Trump, I mean Trump.....

[Breccia]

Hmmm, that sounds awfully American to me.
"Fuck you, I got mine".

I mean, I'm hesitant to call that "American" only because it hits too close to home. But in this context, no, it's SCOTUSian. SCOTUS judges are not required to repay the WH resident who nominated them -- in theory, they earned that position. They don't have to act a certain way to keep their jobs, either.