Federal prosecutors on Thursday said they plan to file felony charges against the man who was arrested last week with firearms in former President Barack Obama’s Washington, DC, neighborhood and accused of threatening several politicians.
Taylor Taranto, who had an open warrant for his arrest related to charges stemming from his involvement in the US Capitol riot, was arrested last week after claiming on an internet livestream the day before that he had a detonator.
Okay, so this isn't the former president we usually talk about here, but then there's this, fourteen paragraphs into CNN's account.
The following day, on June 29, “former President Donald Trump posted what he claimed was the address of Former President Barack Obama on the social media platform Truth Social,” prosecutors wrote in their memo. “Taranto used his own Truth Social account to re-post the address. On Telegram, Taranto then stated, ‘We got these losers surrounded! See you in hell, Podesta’s and Obama’s.’”
This seems to be a relevant bit of information that should be more prominently featured. Trump essentially doxxed Obama in the hopes that one of his deranged followers would make an attempt on Obama's life, and then one of his deranged followers seems to have done just that. How is this not a bigger story?
Federal prosecutors on Thursday said they plan to file felony charges against the man who was arrested last week with firearms in former President Barack Obama’s Washington, DC, neighborhood and accused of threatening several politicians.
Taylor Taranto, who had an open warrant for his arrest related to charges stemming from his involvement in the US Capitol riot, was arrested last week after claiming on an internet livestream the day before that he had a detonator.
Okay, so this isn't the former president we usually talk about here, but then there's this, fourteen paragraphs into CNN's account.
The following day, on June 29, “former President Donald Trump posted what he claimed was the address of Former President Barack Obama on the social media platform Truth Social,” prosecutors wrote in their memo. “Taranto used his own Truth Social account to re-post the address. On Telegram, Taranto then stated, ‘We got these losers surrounded! See you in hell, Podesta’s and Obama’s.’”
This seems to be a relevant bit of information that should be more prominently featured. Trump essentially doxxed Obama in the hopes that one of his deranged followers would make an attempt on Obama's life, and then one of his deranged followers seems to have done just that. How is this not a bigger story?
For any other former president it would be. For Trump it's a Thursday. A big story is a day he doesn't behave like a mid-level crime boss.
Trump essentially doxxed Obama in the hopes that one of his deranged followers would make an attempt on Obama's life, and then one of his deranged followers seems to have done just that. How is this not a bigger story?
For any other former president it would be. For Trump it's a Thursday. A big story is a day he doesn't behave like a mid-level crime boss.
Maybe I'm tired of everyone giving him a pass for being a mid-level crime boss. Maybe the press shouldn't treat tactics like this as normal.
Federal prosecutors on Thursday said they plan to file felony charges against the man who was arrested last week with firearms in former President Barack Obama’s Washington, DC, neighborhood and accused of threatening several politicians.
Taylor Taranto, who had an open warrant for his arrest related to charges stemming from his involvement in the US Capitol riot, was arrested last week after claiming on an internet livestream the day before that he had a detonator.
Okay, so this isn't the former president we usually talk about here, but then there's this, fourteen paragraphs into CNN's account.
The following day, on June 29, “former President Donald Trump posted what he claimed was the address of Former President Barack Obama on the social media platform Truth Social,” prosecutors wrote in their memo. “Taranto used his own Truth Social account to re-post the address. On Telegram, Taranto then stated, ‘We got these losers surrounded! See you in hell, Podesta’s and Obama’s.’”
This seems to be a relevant bit of information that should be more prominently featured. Trump essentially doxxed Obama in the hopes that one of his deranged followers would make an attempt on Obama's life, and then one of his deranged followers seems to have done just that. How is this not a bigger story?
This. Has me unbidden tears fancy that. I am so fucking horrified that this evil moron was president, let alone unstoppably will be again in 15 months for eight years at least. If he had a soul, he sold it to the Devil at the midnight crossroads.
No, he won't. Trump's by no means "unstoppable." One of the features/bugs of being an "evil moron" is making enemies, and the power structures arraying against Trump are firming up and enlarging. There's a good chance he'll appear on ballots, but the Repubs want wins too much to risk another Trump run, and the Dems never fell for his shtick in the first place. His "constituency" is pretty much limited to folks who only pay attention to FOX news (which is also somewhat moderating its rubbish) -- and that, friend, is the more alarming enemy here.
No, he won't. Trump's by no means "unstoppable." One of the features/bugs of being an "evil moron" is making enemies, and the power structures arraying against Trump are firming up and enlarging. There's a good chance he'll appear on ballots, but the Repubs want wins too much to risk another Trump run, and the Dems never fell for his shtick in the first place. His "constituency" is pretty much limited to folks who only pay attention to FOX news (which is also somewhat moderating its rubbish) -- and that, friend, is the more alarming enemy here.
I hope so @Ohher. But I fear, as I said to unfortunate affect way above, that social conservatives beyond the adoring base will have to vote for him in their self interest. Where is it in their self interest not to? To vote for more federal spending outside the military-industrial complex?
The Associated Press is reporting that the prosecutor of Fulton, County, Georgia, is convening a Grand Jury tomorrow to consider indicting Trump and a few others in election fraud and tampering tomorrow.
No, he won't. Trump's by no means "unstoppable." One of the features/bugs of being an "evil moron" is making enemies, and the power structures arraying against Trump are firming up and enlarging. There's a good chance he'll appear on ballots, but the Repubs want wins too much to risk another Trump run, and the Dems never fell for his shtick in the first place. His "constituency" is pretty much limited to folks who only pay attention to FOX news (which is also somewhat moderating its rubbish) -- and that, friend, is the more alarming enemy here.
I hope so @Ohher. But I fear, as I said to unfortunate affect way above, that social conservatives beyond the adoring base will have to vote for him in their self interest.
If by "social conservatives" you mean moral-majority types, they ARE part of his base, not some free-ranging force outside of that base waiting to be harnessed in for extra strength. Worrying that the bible-thumpers will start voting Republican is like worrying that stockbrokers in the City will start voting Conservative.
No, he won't. Trump's by no means "unstoppable." One of the features/bugs of being an "evil moron" is making enemies, and the power structures arraying against Trump are firming up and enlarging. There's a good chance he'll appear on ballots, but the Repubs want wins too much to risk another Trump run, and the Dems never fell for his shtick in the first place. His "constituency" is pretty much limited to folks who only pay attention to FOX news (which is also somewhat moderating its rubbish) -- and that, friend, is the more alarming enemy here.
I hope so @Ohher. But I fear, as I said to unfortunate affect way above, that social conservatives beyond the adoring base will have to vote for him in their self interest.
If by "social conservatives" you mean moral-majority types, they ARE part of his base, not some free-ranging force outside of that base waiting to be harnessed in for extra strength. Worrying that the bible-thumpers will start voting Republican is like worrying that stockbrokers in the City will start voting Conservative.
Indeed. It's conservatives (i.e. small gumment (apart from for the military-industrial working-middle class education (GI bill), health and welfare scheme) = lo-tax constituency) period. Trump is their only possible candidate.
This. Has me unbidden tears fancy that. I am so fucking horrified that this evil moron was president, let alone unstoppably will be again in 15 months for eight years at least. If he had a soul, he sold it to the Devil at the midnight crossroads.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't think he'll win. However, when you look at the risk-assessment grid, like a meteorite strike, you have to take the unlikely seriously when the effect is catastrophic.
However, I will take issue with the "eight years at least." Under the Twenty-second Amendment, if he were to win in in 2024 then he would not be entitled to stand in 2028.
Of course, if you want to postulate that once inaugurated, he would try to remain President for life, then I would agree with you that he would do that if he could get away with it.
This. Has me unbidden tears fancy that. I am so fucking horrified that this evil moron was president, let alone unstoppably will be again in 15 months for eight years at least. If he had a soul, he sold it to the Devil at the midnight crossroads.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't think he'll win. However, when you look at the risk-assessment grid, like a meteorite strike, you have to take the unlikely seriously when the effect is catastrophic.
However, I will take issue with the "eight years at least." Under the Twenty-second Amendment, if he were to win in in 2024 then he would not be entitled to stand in 2028.
Of course, if you want to postulate that once inaugurated, he would try to remain President for life, then I would agree with you that he would do that if he could get away with it.
AFZ
Yeah but his rightful second term was stolen, so they owe him one.
The Associated Press is reporting that the prosecutor of Fulton, County, Georgia, is convening a Grand Jury tomorrow to consider indicting Trump and a few others in election fraud and tampering tomorrow.
Things seem to be coming to a boil.
Indeed. Here's the benefit/problem, though: headlines/publicity. Publicity -- of any stripe -- is, for the man himself and his trumpeting base, red meat. Headlines get the Trump name under news-readers' eyes and into news-listeners ears, and that is a rock-solid winning strategy in the Trump playbook. It's how commercials work for products they try to sell: simple heavy repetition will eventually persuade some of the unpersuaded to try, and their own confirmation biases will do the rest of the job.
Evidence of Trumpian malfeasance? All lies; cue the Wronged Hero. Resistance from the unpersuaded? Crush it, or at least attempt to do so as on Jan. 6. Meanwhile keep repeating the lies ad nauseam. Expand them. Bear down. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Human history -- we needn't go back much further than the 1930s -- shows us how often and how effectively such strategies work.
Yes; but there is a competing effect, which is sheer boredom and nausea. Granted that won't reach the True Believers; but those who followed him simply because he tickled their prejudices, or they wanted to stick it to the man, or whatever, without having fully committed themselves to the whole nutcase scenario... well, having his name constantly publicly coupled with various crimes, esp. espionage-adjacent shit--that isn't attractive at all, and is likely to create a desire to move on.
What I worry about is who they will find to move on to.
This. Has me unbidden tears fancy that. I am so fucking horrified that this evil moron was president, let alone unstoppably will be again in 15 months for eight years at least. If he had a soul, he sold it to the Devil at the midnight crossroads.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't think he'll win. However, when you look at the risk-assessment grid, like a meteorite strike, you have to take the unlikely seriously when the effect is catastrophic.
However, I will take issue with the "eight years at least." Under the Twenty-second Amendment, if he were to win in in 2024 then he would not be entitled to stand in 2028.
Of course, if you want to postulate that once inaugurated, he would try to remain President for life, then I would agree with you that he would do that if he could get away with it.
AFZ
Yeah but his rightful second term was stolen, so they owe him one.
Yes. But that doesn't obligate anyone to change the law to give him one.
This. Has me unbidden tears fancy that. I am so fucking horrified that this evil moron was president, let alone unstoppably will be again in 15 months for eight years at least. If he had a soul, he sold it to the Devil at the midnight crossroads.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't think he'll win. However, when you look at the risk-assessment grid, like a meteorite strike, you have to take the unlikely seriously when the effect is catastrophic.
However, I will take issue with the "eight years at least." Under the Twenty-second Amendment, if he were to win in in 2024 then he would not be entitled to stand in 2028.
Of course, if you want to postulate that once inaugurated, he would try to remain President for life, then I would agree with you that he would do that if he could get away with it.
AFZ
Yeah but his rightful second term was stolen, so they owe him one.
Yes. But that doesn't obligate anyone to change the law to give him one.
This. Has me unbidden tears fancy that. I am so fucking horrified that this evil moron was president, let alone unstoppably will be again in 15 months for eight years at least. If he had a soul, he sold it to the Devil at the midnight crossroads.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't think he'll win. However, when you look at the risk-assessment grid, like a meteorite strike, you have to take the unlikely seriously when the effect is catastrophic.
However, I will take issue with the "eight years at least." Under the Twenty-second Amendment, if he were to win in in 2024 then he would not be entitled to stand in 2028.
Of course, if you want to postulate that once inaugurated, he would try to remain President for life, then I would agree with you that he would do that if he could get away with it.
AFZ
Yeah but his rightful second term was stolen, so they owe him one.
Yes. But that doesn't obligate anyone to change the law to give him one.
The law doesn't apply to him.
If that were the case, he would still be president right now.
At this point, Martin, I think what you're doing is pretty close to trolling, just improvising scenarios to keep the discussion of your apocalyptic predictions going. It's possible Trump will win in 2024, but the evidence for that is gonna have to be more substantial than just "Well, everybody knows he's an unstoppable juggernaut."
If only this moral idiot can manage to delay proceedings long enough, maybe (or so he likely imagines) he can wrangle himself back into office and then pronounce himself president-for-life, thus permanently avoiding consequences for his crimes, Because, of course, what happens to and for and about Trump is far more important than what, God forbid, would happen to the US if he pulled this off.
What I wonder is this: How does this lunatic manage to persuade people smart enough to get through law school to represent him?
Of course, in the US system defendants, including His Emperorship, are entitled by law to representation. For the indigent, this can end up being an attorney appointed by the court.
Trump has a long history of stiffing people he makes business deals with. When attorneys lose his ill-considered legal forays, does he 'neglect' to pay them too? Or are his ever-changing legal advisors the only people whose bills he ever pays? Inquiring minds want to know . . .
Of course he's going to delay. He has almost no other hope at this point. The election thing is highly unlikely, though he's certainly a "burn it all down" type of guy, and would welcome whatever chaos he can throw into the system. And given his age and likely general state of health, hoping to drop dead of a heart attack is maybe his best bet.
As for the lawyers, I can only guess it's hubris. They imagine (the ones who actually take the job) that they can avoid the stiffing/disbarment/public humiliation etc. that his other lawyers have endured.
As for the lawyers, I can only guess it's hubris. They imagine (the ones who actually take the job) that they can avoid the stiffing/disbarment/public humiliation etc. that his other lawyers have endured.
If I were an attorney representing Donald Trump (IANAL) I would insist on payment up front for an amount estimated to include all expenses to the conclusion of a trial and all possible appeals.
If the judge appointed to oversee this mayhem hopes to retain any respect from the judicial community (much less from history), she will tread veeerrry carefully in accommodating Trump's delaying tactics.
If the judge appointed to oversee this mayhem hopes to retain any respect from the judicial community (much less from history), she will tread veeerrry carefully in accommodating Trump's delaying tactics.
She was a Trump appointee. She has little respect in the judicial community as it is.
Nevertheless, there is at least one state case in New York that is going forward, and one potential state case in Georgia that may develop in the next few months.
While he may hope to pardon himself should he get back into office, I really think he will not win a re-election.
Just to add a little counterweight: it is very, very common for an original trial date to be delayed--and the bigger the case, the more likely it is to be delayed. It wasn't so long ago that the prosecution was asking the judge to delay things so that they could properly prepare. That the defendant would do the same is no shock. The original trial date was set just to get things moving, everybody knowing it would not stand. That is the way the system works.
Now the question is: how long to postpone things? As an unbiased judge, you will want to put it out far enough that everybody has a fair chance to prepare properly for the trial, but not so far that it seems like it is delay for delay's sake.
As a biased judge, of course, you don't have to worry about those things.
But just because a delay is given for the original trial date, don't read too much into that. The original date was always nonsense (as proven by the fact that BOTH sides want it continued).
Yes, that is my understanding too (that delays to a certain point are to be expected). However, there's some technical thingy to do with the specific law he's being charged under that means that the Dept of Justice is free to immediately appeal any freaky stuff (like endless delays) instantly to the 11th Whatsit (sorry, can't recall, circuit? court of appeals?), so this judge is on a short leash. The 11th Whatsit are the same people who put paid to most of her antics the last time she had one of his cases.
If the judge appointed to oversee this mayhem hopes to retain any respect from the judicial community (much less from history), she will tread veeerrry carefully in accommodating Trump's delaying tactics.
She was a Trump appointee. She has little respect in the judicial community as it is.
I really don’t think it’s fair or accurate to suggest that simply being a Trump appointee means a judge Carrie’s little respect in the judicial or legal community.
She was slapped down pretty soundly by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the first go-around about Trump—and that was by a panel that I believe included two Trump appointees and a George W. Bush appointee. And she’s young, so she has a long judicial career in front of her, and she may want to be considered for the 11th Circuit herself. My guess is that she cares about her reputation and will very much want to avoid anything that’ll get her slapped down by the appellate court in such a high profile case again.
And yes, it’s not at all unusual for the original trial date to be delayed.
Yep, I'm aware of the exceptions. And that all federal, district and circuit judges (I don't know the overlap) are presidential, i.e. partisan, appointees?
If the judge appointed to oversee this mayhem hopes to retain any respect from the judicial community (much less from history), she will tread veeerrry carefully in accommodating Trump's delaying tactics.
She was a Trump appointee. She has little respect in the judicial community as it is.
I really don’t think it’s fair or accurate to suggest that simply being a Trump appointee means a judge Carrie’s little respect in the judicial or legal community.
She was slapped down pretty soundly by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the first go-around about Trump—and that was by a panel that I believe included two Trump appointees and a George W. Bush appointee. And she’s young, so she has a long judicial career in front of her, and she may want to be considered for the 11th Circuit herself. My guess is that she cares about her reputation and will very much want to avoid anything that’ll get her slapped down by the appellate court in such a high profile case again.
And yes, it’s not at all unusual for the original trial date to be delayed.
I really don’t think it’s fair or accurate to suggest that simply being a Trump appointee means a judge Carrie’s little respect in the judicial or legal community.
She was slapped down pretty soundly by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the first go-around about Trump—and that was by a panel that I believe included two Trump appointees and a George W. Bush appointee. And she’s young, so she has a long judicial career in front of her, and she may want to be considered for the 11th Circuit herself. My guess is that she cares about her reputation and will very much want to avoid anything that’ll get her slapped down by the appellate court in such a high profile case again.
And yes, it’s not at all unusual for the original trial date to be delayed.
@Nick Tamen's sentence-mangling poses no problem, at least for me. It's the potential sentence-mangling which may ensue following Trump's (1) NY state tax-&-business-fraud case, (2) his US stealing-classified-documents case, (3) his (I forget where) defamation-of-Carroll case, (4) his other NY state (I think) (5) pyramid-scheme case, and his NYC falsifying-business-records case that I am wondering about.
Then what was the point of your seemingly-irrelevant “You elect judges!”?
What, in discussion about partisan judges? I don't see how my being aware that some partisan judges are not elected makes my observation pointless.
People were discussing the potential influence of a federal judge. You replied "You elect judges!", as if that was relevant to the case. But since you now claim to know that federal judges aren't elected, why did you bring up the election of judges? You should have known it had no bearing on the matter.
Then what was the point of your seemingly-irrelevant “You elect judges!”?
What, in discussion about partisan judges? I don't see how my being aware that some partisan judges are not elected makes my observation pointless.
People were discussing the potential influence of a federal judge. You replied "You elect judges!", as if that was relevant to the case. But since you now claim to know that federal judges aren't elected, why did you bring up the election of judges? You should have known it had no bearing on the matter.
I was just astounded that of your partisan judges, many are elected, not just political appointees by governors and presidents.
@Nick Tamen's sentence-mangling poses no problem, at least for me. It's the potential sentence-mangling which may ensue following Trump's (1) NY state tax-&-business-fraud case, (2) his US stealing-classified-documents case, (3) his (I forget where [ ed - NY ]) defamation-of-Carroll case, (4) his other NY state (I think) (5) pyramid-scheme case, and his NYC falsifying-business-records case that I am wondering about.
The grand jury has left for the day, as has Windom. No notable witnesses were spotted in the courthouse.
For clarity, the grand jury Reilly is referring to is Special Counsel Jack Smith's DC-based grand jury. It's allegedly handling matters related to election interference and the January 6 coup attempt. When a grand jury deliberates all day without calling any witnesses it's usually because they're finalizing indictments.
Then what was the point of your seemingly-irrelevant “You elect judges!”?
What, in discussion about partisan judges? I don't see how my being aware that some partisan judges are not elected makes my observation pointless.
People were discussing the potential influence of a federal judge. You replied "You elect judges!", as if that was relevant to the case. But since you now claim to know that federal judges aren't elected, why did you bring up the election of judges? You should have known it had no bearing on the matter.
I was just astounded that of your partisan judges, many are elected, not just political appointees by governors and presidents.
So it was just a random comment about the political biases of elected judges in the USA, not intended to have any connection with the comments that preceded it?
Then what was the point of your seemingly-irrelevant “You elect judges!”?
What, in discussion about partisan judges? I don't see how my being aware that some partisan judges are not elected makes my observation pointless.
People were discussing the potential influence of a federal judge. You replied "You elect judges!", as if that was relevant to the case. But since you now claim to know that federal judges aren't elected, why did you bring up the election of judges? You should have known it had no bearing on the matter.
I was just astounded that of your partisan judges, many are elected, not just political appointees by governors and presidents.
So it was just a random comment about the political biases of elected judges in the USA, not intended to have any connection with the comments that preceded it?
Okay, whatever, Martin. You do you.
Whatever you say @stetson. And the the US certainly does the US.
I've forgotten the date. At one stage, Australian courts paid deference to the decisions of English courts. Over the last few decades, that deference has dwindled and now is virtually non-existent. Part of that is from the divergences in statute law, but a lot is due to the quality of the English decisions themselves.
I've forgotten the date. At one stage, Australian courts paid deference to the decisions of English courts. Over the last few decades, that deference has dwindled and now is virtually non-existent. Part of that is from the divergences in statute law, but a lot is due to the quality of the English decisions themselves.
In the movie Evelyn, about a single father involved in a custody dispute, a judge in the Republic Of Ireland is shown as drawing on British law for his decision. I think he says he's "analogizing" from the UK case.
I've forgotten the date. At one stage, Australian courts paid deference to the decisions of English courts. Over the last few decades, that deference has dwindled and now is virtually non-existent. Part of that is from the divergences in statute law, but a lot is due to the quality of the English decisions themselves.
How much of it is simply due to the gradual impact over the years of the High Court’s decisions in Parker v R [1963] and Viro v R [1978], and the Privy Council (Limitations of Appeals) Act 1968‑1973.
After that time English decisions can at best have been persuasive. And the High Court was unpersuaded, quite rightly in my view, by decisions such as DPP v Smith (1961) which have also been controversial in England and Wales.
How much of it is simply due to the gradual impact over the years of the High Court’s decisions in Parker v R [1963] and Viro v R [1978], and the Privy Council (Limitations of Appeals) Act 1968‑1973.
After that time English decisions can at best have been persuasive. And the High Court was unpersuaded, quite rightly in my view, by decisions such as DPP v Smith (1961) which have also been controversial in England and Wales.
And, at the risk of playing Junior Host, how far are we prepared to wander from the actual topic of Donald Trumps trial and tribulations?
Comments
Okay, so this isn't the former president we usually talk about here, but then there's this, fourteen paragraphs into CNN's account.
This seems to be a relevant bit of information that should be more prominently featured. Trump essentially doxxed Obama in the hopes that one of his deranged followers would make an attempt on Obama's life, and then one of his deranged followers seems to have done just that. How is this not a bigger story?
For any other former president it would be. For Trump it's a Thursday. A big story is a day he doesn't behave like a mid-level crime boss.
Maybe I'm tired of everyone giving him a pass for being a mid-level crime boss. Maybe the press shouldn't treat tactics like this as normal.
This. Has me unbidden tears
I hope so @Ohher. But I fear, as I said to unfortunate affect way above, that social conservatives beyond the adoring base will have to vote for him in their self interest. Where is it in their self interest not to? To vote for more federal spending outside the military-industrial complex?
Things seem to be coming to a boil.
If by "social conservatives" you mean moral-majority types, they ARE part of his base, not some free-ranging force outside of that base waiting to be harnessed in for extra strength. Worrying that the bible-thumpers will start voting Republican is like worrying that stockbrokers in the City will start voting Conservative.
Indeed. It's conservatives (i.e. small gumment (apart from for the military-industrial working-middle class education (GI bill), health and welfare scheme) = lo-tax constituency) period. Trump is their only possible candidate.
As I have said elsewhere, I don't think he'll win. However, when you look at the risk-assessment grid, like a meteorite strike, you have to take the unlikely seriously when the effect is catastrophic.
However, I will take issue with the "eight years at least." Under the Twenty-second Amendment, if he were to win in in 2024 then he would not be entitled to stand in 2028.
Of course, if you want to postulate that once inaugurated, he would try to remain President for life, then I would agree with you that he would do that if he could get away with it.
AFZ
Yeah but his rightful second term was stolen, so they owe him one.
Indeed. Here's the benefit/problem, though: headlines/publicity. Publicity -- of any stripe -- is, for the man himself and his trumpeting base, red meat. Headlines get the Trump name under news-readers' eyes and into news-listeners ears, and that is a rock-solid winning strategy in the Trump playbook. It's how commercials work for products they try to sell: simple heavy repetition will eventually persuade some of the unpersuaded to try, and their own confirmation biases will do the rest of the job.
Evidence of Trumpian malfeasance? All lies; cue the Wronged Hero. Resistance from the unpersuaded? Crush it, or at least attempt to do so as on Jan. 6. Meanwhile keep repeating the lies ad nauseam. Expand them. Bear down. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Human history -- we needn't go back much further than the 1930s -- shows us how often and how effectively such strategies work.
What I worry about is who they will find to move on to.
Yes. But that doesn't obligate anyone to change the law to give him one.
He does.
The law doesn't apply to him.
If that were the case, he would still be president right now.
At this point, Martin, I think what you're doing is pretty close to trolling, just improvising scenarios to keep the discussion of your apocalyptic predictions going. It's possible Trump will win in 2024, but the evidence for that is gonna have to be more substantial than just "Well, everybody knows he's an unstoppable juggernaut."
You are not Trump. Please read, inwardly digest and remember this policy statement.
Doublethink, Admin
https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-agrees-delay-hearing-trump-classified-documents-case/story?id=101090376
If only this moral idiot can manage to delay proceedings long enough, maybe (or so he likely imagines) he can wrangle himself back into office and then pronounce himself president-for-life, thus permanently avoiding consequences for his crimes, Because, of course, what happens to and for and about Trump is far more important than what, God forbid, would happen to the US if he pulled this off.
What I wonder is this: How does this lunatic manage to persuade people smart enough to get through law school to represent him?
Of course, in the US system defendants, including His Emperorship, are entitled by law to representation. For the indigent, this can end up being an attorney appointed by the court.
Trump has a long history of stiffing people he makes business deals with. When attorneys lose his ill-considered legal forays, does he 'neglect' to pay them too? Or are his ever-changing legal advisors the only people whose bills he ever pays? Inquiring minds want to know . . .
As for the lawyers, I can only guess it's hubris. They imagine (the ones who actually take the job) that they can avoid the stiffing/disbarment/public humiliation etc. that his other lawyers have endured.
If I were an attorney representing Donald Trump (IANAL) I would insist on payment up front for an amount estimated to include all expenses to the conclusion of a trial and all possible appeals.
She was a Trump appointee. She has little respect in the judicial community as it is.
Nevertheless, there is at least one state case in New York that is going forward, and one potential state case in Georgia that may develop in the next few months.
While he may hope to pardon himself should he get back into office, I really think he will not win a re-election.
His goose is cooked.
Now the question is: how long to postpone things? As an unbiased judge, you will want to put it out far enough that everybody has a fair chance to prepare properly for the trial, but not so far that it seems like it is delay for delay's sake.
As a biased judge, of course, you don't have to worry about those things.
But just because a delay is given for the original trial date, don't read too much into that. The original date was always nonsense (as proven by the fact that BOTH sides want it continued).
She was slapped down pretty soundly by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on the first go-around about Trump—and that was by a panel that I believe included two Trump appointees and a George W. Bush appointee. And she’s young, so she has a long judicial career in front of her, and she may want to be considered for the 11th Circuit herself. My guess is that she cares about her reputation and will very much want to avoid anything that’ll get her slapped down by the appellate court in such a high profile case again.
And yes, it’s not at all unusual for the original trial date to be delayed.
Not everywhere; it varies by state.
Federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the US Senate.
Some states elect their judges.
I am confused. There is a judge Carrie who is a state judge. There is a federal judge Aileen Cannon who is a federal judge. I think it is Cannon who is overseeing the Trump document case. Cannon had very little trial experience when she was appointed judge. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-aileen-cannon-assigned-trump-indicted-documents-case/?ftag=MSF0951a18
What, in discussion about partisan judges? I don't see how my being aware that some partisan judges are not elected makes my observation pointless.
People were discussing the potential influence of a federal judge. You replied "You elect judges!", as if that was relevant to the case. But since you now claim to know that federal judges aren't elected, why did you bring up the election of judges? You should have known it had no bearing on the matter.
I was just astounded that of your partisan judges, many are elected, not just political appointees by governors and presidents.
There may be another indictment soon.
For clarity, the grand jury Reilly is referring to is Special Counsel Jack Smith's DC-based grand jury. It's allegedly handling matters related to election interference and the January 6 coup attempt. When a grand jury deliberates all day without calling any witnesses it's usually because they're finalizing indictments.
So it was just a random comment about the political biases of elected judges in the USA, not intended to have any connection with the comments that preceded it?
Okay, whatever, Martin. You do you.
Whatever you say @stetson. And the the US certainly does the US.
Don't forget that until recently, the senior UK judge was the Lord Chancellor, a member of the government of the day.
Well said. Up until 2009?
In the movie Evelyn, about a single father involved in a custody dispute, a judge in the Republic Of Ireland is shown as drawing on British law for his decision. I think he says he's "analogizing" from the UK case.
After that time English decisions can at best have been persuasive. And the High Court was unpersuaded, quite rightly in my view, by decisions such as DPP v Smith (1961) which have also been controversial in England and Wales.
And, at the risk of playing Junior Host, how far are we prepared to wander from the actual topic of Donald Trumps trial and tribulations?