In today's hearing for the Florida document's case, Trump's lawyers argued it would be "unfair" to have the trial prior to the election, while Jack Smith's lawyers argued that DoJ policies do not prohibit trials 60 days before an election as it does not cover indicted people, just unindicted. https://abcnews.go.com/US/judges-determine-fate-2-trumps-criminal-trials-florida/story?id=107684124
Joyce Vance also pessimistic. The Court is clearly trying to take as much time as possible over something that should be expedited in order to prevent the trial this year. Absolutely corrupt.
Anyone got a good live tweet thread of today's Willis hearing? I'm seeing a lot of single quotes that seem to indicate that the phone records don't actually show a lot of interaction between Willis and Wade and/or the PI screwed up and said certain records show Wade's phone was where Willis lived, but, in reality, she didn't live there at the time. Here's the rebuttal to Merchant's claims about phone records. This is what I thought: If the phone records are dispositive, they prove Bradley and the ex-friend lied. pic.twitter.com/RGaErywdQO— emptywheel (seiceáil) (@emptywheel) March 1, 2024 I'm also seeing that Willis's lawyer was absolute sh*t today and may have screwed up so badly that he may have turned what should have been a slam dunk into a close call that could either way. I don’t think he’ll disqualify despite this weak summation. But I’m less and less sure about that as things move along. https://t.co/2lVrxaSlV3— Anthony Michael Kreis (@AnthonyMKreis) March 1, 2024
Everybody should lusten to the recent episode. What is said above doesn't cover all the mess SCOTUS is creating. I'm now convinced that this case no chance to be heard before the election. McCord says best case - the absolutely best case - is September, and is insanely streamlined.
You say that as you seem to approve of casual political violence. Most here don't, and we have long said itcis unacceptable. So long that we don't need to do it anymore to the few make those snarky comments. But you make excuses for political violence, or the promotion of, as it has, does, and will happen by your boy and your fellow supporters.
You ever get tired of making baseless accusations against people who disagree with you and weak excuses for the violence and vulgarity?
Ok. The sun is shining and I've recovered from my very real anger about all of this. Fck the fascists. In the nicest possible way, we can't analyse a decision where you aren't quoting the terms of the actual judgement but are talking about something unrelated that the Judges did not specifically rule on. Especially you are conflating the concept of blanket presidential immunity (which has always been believed not to exist in the US) vs whether a president can be prosecuted for exercising his war powers. First the OLC opinions don't say the president has immunity. They just say he can't be indicted while in office. This was the whole rationale for the Mueller report - he handed an obstruction case on a platter for the day the president left office. This is how DOJ has always understood it - see Nixon. Marcy is conflating things here. Obama does not need some special new blanket immunity for this completely different situation. I am not an expert on this stuff, but the president has quite broad prerogative in relation to war powers and national defence that DOJ will not mess with, nor can a Court review. This is the same as how it's not murder for Biden to order air strikes of the Houthis. That has nothing to so with the current case. Right - arguably he could be charged with that. The court specifically dealt with your argument here. It is crucial that the president does not have a blanket immunity for official acts on the outer perimeter of his duties - otherwise he could torture domestic enemies with impunity. Criminal Jeopardy needs to exist so that he takes the legal advice and balances constitutional factors vs national interest etc. The fact that Bush has not been prosecuted for that should indicate that the president already has more than enough practical protections without needing to become an unaccountable king.
He also can't distinguish between posts that are actual "murder fantasies" and snarky, tongue-in-cheek examples of how absurdly partisan this SCOTUS decision is. It was the Courts that started the ST6 "fantasy."
Not that I have positive feelings for the SC, but what in the post he quoted made him believe I was talking about violence? I corrected a factual error about cert. Trump fans really can't read.
I listened to Leah Litman (who Yoss recommends) on PSA today. She echoed McCord but with even grimmer calculations. As she says, Trump's pleading is absurd and the Court of Appeals is obviously correct. She believes Trump will lose. The whole point though, is to scupper the trial by delaying into the summer.
McCord was even more dire than that. She said that SCOTUS could cause a repetitive process of appeals on five different points, each being sent back to Chutkan and having to go through the appeals process. Her hedging best case scenario is that the trial starts in September. But both her and Wiessmann really seemed to think it would be after the election.
SCOTUS believes that if they can delay the trial verdicts until after the election…he can win. They know his VP will be chosen based on their agreement to pardon him when he resigns some point during his second term. That way they can get what they want…a Republican presidency…while still ruling against his immunity claims so that they don’t provide that power to a Dem president. Thats it. That’s the game.