Trump's NY Trial to Begin in March, 2024

A New York Judge has rejected Donald Trump's request to delay his trial in the "Hush Money" - Stormy Daniels case.

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to hush payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. He denies the charges.

Prosecutors intend to prove that Trump resorted to business fraud as a means of concealing the true nature of the payments so as not to hurt his chances of winning the presidency in 2016.

What a difference a year makes. When this Indictment was announced, it was a big deal. Now, it seems so hum-hum. Trump indicted? What else is new?

< Donald Trump Gets Whooped by Jean Carroll Jury | Trump Plays the Nepo Card Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    364 million (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    Banned from business for 3 years.  Sons for 2.

    I'll take it.

    Classic "cut your nose off to (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 12:55:07 PM EST
     spite your face." I saw an interview the other morning on MSNBC. They were talking to Arab American leaders in Dearborn, MI. One man said he would not support Biden now because of Gaza. He said he was willing to endure "short term pain" to make his point. What this idiot does not seem to comprehend is that if the Orange Con man wins in November, there is no "short term pain." Only the long term demise of this republic. There will be no 2028 election. Even with Orange Marmalade dead, the christo fascists will be so embedded in every level of the US Government that there will be no return.

    How does this idiot see letting the MAGA nutballs take control as any kind of answer. They already have representatives in Congress saying out loud to "Kill them all." (Andy Ogles - TN). How does that help Palestinians?

    Israel's genocide in Gaza is a huge problem for Biden. Biden needs to step back from Netanyahu. Tell him to knock it off.  But letting the MAGA crazies have the reins solves nothing for anyone.

    Could Biden End Gaza Genocide With 1 Phone Call? (none / 0) (#46)
    by RickyJim on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 01:38:40 PM EST
    It's wrong (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    It's official (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    So the time to initiate an appeal begins to run (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 05:42:29 PM EST
    from today. While Tr*mp can appeal without first paying the judgment or posting a bond, if he does not at least post a bond to guarantee eventual collection (in the event he loses the appeal), the prevailing party (the NY AG) can initiate collection efforts without awaiting the results of the appeal.

    Bankruptcy? (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 05:57:41 PM EST

    Trump can't escape this': Legal expert says ex-president may file for personal bankruptcy

    But whatever he does, he can't dodge it.

    "It could also prompt him to file for personal bankruptcy because, again, in this order Donald Trump and the business entities that were found liable, are jointly and severally liable," said former litigator Lisa Rubin while being interviewed on MSNBC's "Alex Wagner Tonight." "That means that any one of them can be liable for the whole of the judgment attributed to them and that also means that Donald Trump can't escape this just by plunging those business entities themselves into bankruptcy, because that would leave him individually on the hook for the totality of it."

    "The only way to escape it all together would be to file for personal bankruptcy, which would place an automatic stay on further litigation, including judgment execution."

    I'm hearing (none / 0) (#52)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 06:00:49 PM EST
    He'll never do this, successful businessman yadda yadda.

    I think he might totally do this.  The base no longer cares how successful a businessman he is.  Assuming they ever did.  They literally think he was sent by god to purify America.

    I think they would love it if he told them he was screwing his debtors.


    David Cay (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 25, 2024 at 05:52:38 PM EST
    Johnson who is apparently a NY tax expert said that he will declare personal bankruptcy because he can't get the money out of the company with the monitor. And is sure he doesn't have that kind of money in his personal accounts. He's already been caught trying some shyster money transfers.

    Right now maga is saying he is going to get the money from the Truth Social deal. I hate to tell them but that deal has been in the works since fall of '21 and can't seem to go through. The SEC issued a warning on buying the stock because of Trump's history of fraud. Truth Social brought in only 3.9 million for 3 months last year and lost 49 million. I hardly think it is going to be the 4 billion windfall maga thinks it is.

    I agree that it will be fine with them if he declares bankrupcty. They will come up with some sort of excuse or blame Biden or the deep state. LOL.


    Some tv lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 25, 2024 at 06:24:36 PM EST
    said it's possible we (voters) might not necessarily ever know the source of any finds he uses for this.

    This is interesting.  I would like to know what others think.  Does he have to reveal the source?  MAGA certainly would be fine with it.


    I have (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 26, 2024 at 05:04:47 AM EST
    thought he still has secret documents and would be more than willing to sell them to the Kremlin or Iran or some other enemy country. There have been reports of still missing documents. I would hope national security is keeping an eye on him w/r/t that.

    Meaning for instance (none / 0) (#58)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Feb 25, 2024 at 06:26:18 PM EST
    from a foreign source

    Considering (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 26, 2024 at 05:07:32 AM EST
    bank deposits from foreign sources especially large ones raise the suspicions of the feds, a foreign country would have to pay him with a suitcase of cash. But a large cash deposit in his banking account would also be noticed.

    It's not that it would be noticed (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 26, 2024 at 08:19:04 AM EST
    it's that he doesn't have to tell us where it came from.

    At least that's is what I was asking.


    There is a rule of criminal procedure (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Peter G on Mon Feb 26, 2024 at 07:12:23 PM EST
    in New York, I have heard (not so in many other states), that authorizes the prosecutors to insist on a court hearing to investigate the origin of funds proposed to be used to post bail, to ensure that they are not criminal proceeds or otherwise "tainted." Perhaps there is a similar rule concerning funds proposed to be posted as a bond in a civil case based on crime-like behavior (business fraud or sexual assault, for example). Not that I've ever heard of, but who knows?

    He may (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 26, 2024 at 10:00:42 AM EST
    very well not have to tell "us" but he may have to tell the feds. And eventually we will find out through leaks.

    Wayne LaPierre of the NRA... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by desertswine on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 06:32:58 PM EST
    is on the hook for over 4 mil.

    New York Attorney General Letitia James sued the NRA and the executives in 2020 in state court, alleging that company insiders used the nonprofit as their own "personal piggy bank."

    Letitia James is an ogre killer.

    She is everything they hate (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    I hope she is ambitious

    I cannot understand the SCOTUS decision (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    unanimously overturning the Colorado Supreme Court on federalism grounds. The Constitution explicitly assigns to the states the responsibility of setting rules for elections including federal elections (unless Congress passes a law superseding them, I think). As for the Presidential election, Art. II, §1, cl. 2 says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors," who in turn elect the President. This seems inevitably to contemplate the possibility of inconsistencies from state to state. (For example, Ralph Nader, Jill Stein, and others before them were on some states' ballots for president and not others; same with RFK Jr this year.) I am not an expert in this particular area of constitutional law, but the per curiam just cites that provision and then does not explain why it doesn't apply. The dissenters do not dispute the majority on this point, so perhaps there is some reason why I am just wrong. But what Article II seems to say is almost the opposite of what the Court held. Nor do I see how shifting litigation into the federal courts (90 District Courts, arrayed in 12 Circuits) prevents inconsistent rulings. Nor does the Court explain why XIV/3 requires legislative implementation, based on the language of section 5, which expressly authorizes but does not mandate such legislation, while none of the other clauses of the 13th, 14th or 15th Amendments do. I am totally baffled.

    I think the secret key to understanding them (none / 0) (#97)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 02:24:48 PM EST
    is will this help or hurt Trump.  That seems like such a paranoid statement but I'm running out of explanations.

    As a non-legal, I find the unanimous agreement that states cannot ban federal candidates less troubling than the rest they did.  As the three liberals said in their stunning concurrence.

    To me it looked like a bunch of untouchable old white men saying "we can do whatever we want".

    On the upside they are every day in every way doing everything they can to justify expansion of the court when Democrats win in Nov.*

    *Outcomes may vary


    I was (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 05:29:26 PM EST
    just thinking the same thing. After all their horrible rulings expanding the court is gonna be a much easier sell in 2024 than in 2023. States rights has always been more or less feudalism since where you are born determines your rights or where you can afford to move to determines your rights. If you're unlucky enough to be born in Alabama and don't have the money to move it's basically too bad so sad.

    PWire (none / 0) (#99)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 06:25:43 PM EST

    Supreme Court Opens the Door to Potential Chaos
    March 5, 2024 at 6:27 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 95 Comments

    Rick Hasen: "The Supreme Court's unsigned majority opinion in Trump v. Anderson, ending Colorado's attempt to disqualify Donald Trump from appearing on the ballot as an insurrectionist, is a remarkable self-own. It simultaneously turned what could have been a short, sweet (if weakly reasoned) unanimous holding about states not having the individual power to disqualify presidential candidates from their ballots into a bitter 5-4 dispute over the scope of
     Congress' power to disqualify candidates."

    "And if the majority felt that it needed to take the heat from the court's liberals and from Justice Amy Coney Barrett because it wanted to provide clarity that Congress cannot try to disqualify Trump if he appears to be reelected when Congress counts Electoral College votes on Jan. 6, 2025, it made a mess."

    "Leading scholars and lawyers reading the opinion already disagree over what Congress can do and how, keeping the door open to potential chaos. It's a rare miss by a usually strategic and savvy Chief Justice John Roberts."



    A more thorough and sober analysis (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Peter G on Tue Mar 05, 2024 at 11:00:02 PM EST
    than Hasen's is Marty Lederman's at Balkinization.  I agree with much of Georgetown Prof. Lederman's lengthy analysis, but not all (not that it matters to anyone what I think).

    cognitive dissonance at its finest. (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Mar 07, 2024 at 11:39:30 AM EST
    Saw people in Erie, PA interviewed this morning. All older people complaining about how bad the economy is (it isn't). Bitching about not having money for food and shelter, WHILE DRINKING BEER IN A BAR. What's that cost? About $4 to $5 a bottle? Plus, what, maybe a shot or two?

    If you're retired and have the funds to sit in a bar all GD day drinking, YOU CAN'T complain about the economy.

    They say (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 07, 2024 at 02:12:05 PM EST
    that because it's what they hear on Fox News and they aren't actually in the economy looking for a job. I understand we have 9 million open jobs in this country. We have the lowest UE on record but facts don't matter to these people. It is really all about feelings and vibes.

    Another hammer drops on Trump - in Phoenix. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Apr 25, 2024 at 02:06:01 AM EST
    An Arizona grand jury has indicted eleven state Republicans and seven former aides to then-President Donald Trump for their roles in the Trump campaign's fake elector scheme, and further identified Trump himself is named as Unindicted Co-Conspirator 1.

    The indicted Trump associates (whose names were redacted until they'd been served notice) include former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, campaign attorneys Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis, John Eastman and Christina Bobb, and senior campaign adviser Boris Epshteyn.

    Kenneth Chesebro, the MAGA-addled brainiac who first concocted this harebrained scheme, is Unindicted Co-Conspirator 4 and appears to have turned on his colleagues since pleading guilty in Georgia.

    We are slowy but surely reaching critical mass.

    My favorite indictee is (none / 0) (#109)
    by jmacWA on Thu Apr 25, 2024 at 11:07:59 AM EST
    Christina Bobb... Indicted for election fraud and Chief Counsel for the GOP's election integrity sham.

    Today's hearing was just another (none / 0) (#1)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 02:00:25 PM EST
    campaign stop. I wish the media would stop covering his appearances at court. He is only showing to spew more of his vile.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    this is a problem especially when cameras are not in the courtrooms. He comes out and tells a bunch of lies and the media just sits there. All he needs is enough people to believe his BS.

    He was in great form this morning.. (none / 0) (#3)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 04:38:40 PM EST
    classic incoherent rant.  There's no crime here, even if he was guilty, there's not a crime.  New York is dirty.  He's leading by numbers no one has ever seen before.  A new crime is migrant crime.  I should be in South Carolina.

    It's not a crime, even if I'm guilty of something.


    I just saw that video (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    Holy hell.  

    He's like some weird stand-up comedian... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 08:37:44 PM EST
    from bizarro world. Except his routine is wearing thin.

    I spent most of the afternoon (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 05:18:39 PM EST
    watching Fani Willis testify.

    IMO she is not going anywhere.  

    Hey Peter (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 05:26:09 PM EST
    any chance the SC will do as requested and speak this week.
    So tomorrow?  If seems a pretty simple question.

    Not tomorrow, I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 10:13:03 PM EST
    That's really too soon for them. Plus, they have a case-discussion conference tomorrow. They may take a private straw-vote at the conference, but I can't imagine anything issuing in writing until Tuesday at the earliest (Monday being a federal court holiday).

    I had read there was (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 07:17:51 AM EST
    a conference today and that was one reason Smith fired back so fast.

    I cling to hope.


    Totally plausible to think that, and (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Peter G on Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    that the Court may vote at today's conference. I just meant that if they deny the stay and don't grant review, there might be someone who would want to write something explaining their vote, and that that would not likely be a same-day deal.

    By as requesded (none / 0) (#6)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 05:26:52 PM EST
    I mean get on with it.

    I assume this is the Trump legal thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 05:44:04 PM EST
    We also have Judge Engoron tomorrow.

    I'm just watching the CNN bobbleheads (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    go on and on about how unfortunate it is that THIS case is going first because it's weak and weird and blah blah blah

    I was just reading it's about very serous crimes that he could get jail time for.  

    It's probably both.  But I want it to happen.  Whoever, go.  Do it. Put this POS in a courtroom.

    Uh, you misspelled prison. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 15, 2024 at 08:52:56 PM EST
    The charges (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 05:46:12 AM EST
    aren't as sexy as espionage or stealing classified information but as I understand it the case is pretty strong.

    However what annoys me the most is his attorney Michael Cohen went to jail for this. Why does anybody think Trump shouldn't also?


    Cha (none / 0) (#17)
    by FlJoe on Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    Ching, Don the con is on the hook for $355 mil.

    Took over (none / 0) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    the RNC treasury just in time.

    About that.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 16, 2024 at 03:21:29 PM EST

    Republican Party is strapped for cash, with reports showing that its organizing committee, the Republican National Committee (RNC), has its smallest amount of cash on hand in a decade.

    According to its latest filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the RNC has $8 million cash on hand, the party's lowest fundraising year since 2013.

    I heard (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 17, 2024 at 06:09:32 PM EST
    the lowest since the early nineties but either way I think that 8 million is what is left from at 10 million dollar loan. I would not be surprised to see a downticket bloodbath in November.

    9:30 eastern (none / 0) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 07:40:26 AM EST
    One hour from now.

    This might really be it folks

    Today at the Court - Tuesday, Feb 20, 2024

    The Court will release an order list at 9:30 a.m.

    Supreme (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 08:09:43 AM EST

    Supreme (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 08:19:06 AM EST
    Order list (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 08:22:12 AM EST

    The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a petition for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but "miscellaneous" orders may be issued in individual cases at any time. Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of issuance or the next day

    No idea (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 08:41:54 AM EST
    When that means we might hear something

    Maybe someone here knows?


    So (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 09:18:00 AM EST
    Just found this. I thought this was all over and we were waiting for the court. Apparently not

    Tuesday is the deadline for special counsel Jack Smith to respond to an emergency filing from Trump asking the Supreme Court to step into the dispute over whether he may claim immunity from prosecution.

    Trump asked the high court to temporarily block a scathing and unanimous decision from a federal appeals court handed down earlier this month that flatly rejected his claims of immunity from election subversion charges brought by Smith.

    Smith has until Tuesday afternoon to respond to Trump's claim.



    I think this link (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 10:38:19 AM EST
    Is wrong.  I think we are waiting for the court

    This after *was* the deadline for Special Counsel (none / 0) (#28)
    by Peter G on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 11:56:25 AM EST
    to respond, but they already responded last week, six days early. We are waiting for an order from the Court, which might come this afternoon (I hope so) or any time thereafter.

    Right (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Feb 20, 2024 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    That story at the link was dated today.

    Just sayin


    Tiny frozen babies. (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 21, 2024 at 04:39:17 PM EST

    Nikki Haley sides with Alabama Supreme Court on IVF ruling: 'Embryos, to me, are babies'

    Ive heard rumors she might try No Lables.  I think that's fine.  Between her promises to pardon sh!thead and this she is not a threat to Biden.

    If I lived in Alabama and (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Wed Feb 21, 2024 at 09:16:09 PM EST
    had frozen embryos, I would claim each and every one of them on my tax return.

    AND (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jmacWA on Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 05:07:24 AM EST
    Don't forget the Child Tax Credit.

    What counts as a "dependent" (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 08:58:15 AM EST
    for federal tax purposes is governed by federal tax law in the definitions for, and federal court decisions interpreting the Internal Revenue Code, not by the opinions of escaped lunatics and religious fanatics masquerading as judges of the Alabama Supreme Court.

    Kudos for (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 11:38:55 AM EST
    "opinions of escaped lunatics and religious fanatics masquerading as judges of the Alabama Supreme Court."

    Pretty accurate description IMO.


    Well (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 09:13:17 AM EST
    If the Nine Nazgul agree with them SOMEONE should get a child tax credit.

    Did you read this? (none / 0) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 09:17:13 AM EST
    A wild (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 09:25:25 AM EST
    Opinion with a lot of Christofascist thinking to slog through  so as  to see how they equate in vitro  and in utero embryos  as  both  being  minor children .  And, a  review of the works of Saints  Augustine  and  Aquinas as a  side  order, to boot.

    I don't read many opinions (none / 0) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 09:54:16 AM EST
    and I confess I did not read all of that one, but is the kind of theocratic stuff in there common in legal decisions?

    I can't imagine it is.


    And (none / 0) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 09:56:35 AM EST
    Is it possible the SC will agree?  That too seems hard to imagine.  Or maybe not.

    My guess is (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 11:24:15 AM EST
    that the US Supreme Court will agree. The Alabama decision is derivative of Dobbs--remove rights to abortion, then free to go after other rights... rights to control reproductive capacity.

     Indeed, Dobbs refers to "fetal life", "unborn human beings", and "potential life", as if calling for cases such as Alabama' extrauterine children case where parents can sue over wrongful death of a minor.

    I think the theological references in the Alabama opinion are necessary to its legal decision. since there is not a scientific or other earthly basis upon which to tie personhood to the moment of conception.

     The Alabama opinion relies on the Book of Jeremiah and cites theologians such as  Augustine and Aquinas on the of sanctity of life as "Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing His glory."


    No, I had not read it (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 11:56:29 AM EST
    Here is the direct link, for those who may be interested but who do not have a New York Times subscription, and don't want to have one.

    Is that better (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 07:37:44 AM EST
    than the link I provided that let's you read the PDF without downloading it?

    Sorry (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 23, 2024 at 05:27:24 PM EST
    It worked for me.  In multiple uses.  I don't have an account.

    She is backpedaling today (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 09:11:16 AM EST
    sorry sweety there's video

    I would (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 22, 2024 at 10:05:36 AM EST
    imagine that third parties this year are a bigger threat to Trump than Biden. I can't see any Biden voters voting for RFK or Nikki but I sure can see them voting for those two. In fact on social media I have seen some DeSantis voters switch to RFK because DeSantis had the antivaxx nut supporters.

    Trump wins SC (none / 0) (#55)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Feb 24, 2024 at 08:49:40 PM EST
    Appeal (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Feb 26, 2024 at 09:34:03 AM EST
    with no bond??

    Donald Trump and his co-defendants have filed notices of appeal of the $464 million civil fraud judgment in the New York Attorney General's case against him and his company, MSNBC reports.

    But there is no stay of the judgment yet since Trump has not posted a bond in the amount of the judgment.

    Take Trump Tower.  Please,

    He really (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04:40 AM EST
    does not have the money does he? Sounds to me he's appealing so he can tell the maga morons he appealed but since they don't understand a bond is needed for a stay they will think he doesn't have to pay the money. I guess that will work until Tish starts taking his buildings.

    The (none / 0) (#66)
    by FlJoe on Wed Feb 28, 2024 at 04:30:52 PM EST
    Supemes strike again
    The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether Donald Trump may claim immunity in special counsel Jack Smith's election subversion case, adding another explosive appeal from the former president to its docket and further delaying his federal trial.

    Crazy (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 28, 2024 at 05:06:03 PM EST
    Smith said in court filings that if they took this at all they should not do it as a stay which is what was asked for but take the whole thing on an expedited basis.
    That's what they did, right?

    There is no good news here. But. Considering where we are politically it's probably good this gets decided, very publicly, by the Supreme Court. I've heard no one say it's possible there will be 5 who agree. While a lop sided or unanimous decision would be great 5 is all we need.

    Trump will still lose DC trial or not.  In a way it would be better to defeat him politically BEFORE he is convicted.  
    That would make both more legitimate.  


    I was hoping they would deny the stay (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by Peter G on Wed Feb 28, 2024 at 07:41:56 PM EST
    outright, or grant the petition and summarily affirm. This feels like an awkward compromise between a few Justices who may have wanted to deny outright, and others who wanted to grant but not go fast. They treated the stay application as a petition for review and expedited the case, but not super-expedited, only half-assed expedited. A couple of weeks for each step rather than the several-days-per-step they might have ordered.

    Maybe its just me (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 28, 2024 at 07:58:22 PM EST
    but it seems like a sort of passive aggressive way of saying "we really can't be concerned with these  'political' issues".

    Which is clearly political. I think it's cowardice but I think it's not the apocalypse some are suggesting.  

    He's still going to a salacious sex for money trial in a few days.  And he will be in court every day.


    It is (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 28, 2024 at 09:03:46 PM EST
    difficult to bridle my cynicism.   It would be understandable, and perhaps, even desirable for the SupremeCourt to take the immunity case up given its importance to nation-wide jurisprudence.   However, the best way to do that would be for summary affirmance.

    The timing is just too curious--almost two weeks to decide to take the case and another two months to hold hearings.  Arguments have been made by both sides twice--at the District court and appellate courts. And, the DC appellate court panel's opinion has been widely viewed as masterful.

    It seems the high court , having  granted cert, could  have  scheduled hearings for next week with an opinion handed down two weeks later.  It is hard, for me, not  to think that this slow walk is not a  nice nod to the criminal defendant.  And, a nice nod to each other, say if some of the Republican-appointed justices want to retire, but only if they can do so during the term of a Republican president.

    The  seemingly needless delay is a disservice to the nation, The electorate has a right to know if  the defendant is guilty or not of charges related to overthrowing the government.  A not too great expectation since the criminal defendant is , once again,  a candidate for president.  

    The decision of the court does not do much for the already beleaguered institution.


    Could There Be More Than Meets the Eye Here? (none / 0) (#71)
    by RickyJim on Wed Feb 28, 2024 at 09:34:31 PM EST
    Like today's ruling is just a courtesy to Trump so as to give him a chance to argue immunity in order to avoid jailtime after the Court this week or next rules him ineligible to serve as POTUS on 14th Amendment grounds? :-)

    I think that is very unlikely. Based on (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Peter G on Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 01:26:05 PM EST
    the oral argument, it seems like the Supremes are trying to find a way throw out the Colorado 14/3 case, that is, rule in Tr*mp's favor on that one. But the idea of post-presidential immunity from criminal prosecution is absolutely baseless; I am quite sure they will rule against him on that, forcing him to stand trial in the three criminal cases that it covers (the D.C. Jan 6/Electoral College case, the SDFla Mar-a-Lago documents case, and the Georgia state election interference case). (The fourth criminal case, the one that starts soon, is the NY state business records cover-up of the payments to Stormy Daniels. That one does not address conduct committed while President, so it is not covered by the "immunity" issue.) What explains the S.Ct's handling of the two cases so far, if you are looking for a thread of consistency, would be a willingness to allow Tr*mp to run, and hopefully to be defeated at the polls, thus to be done with him as a public figure and threat.

    On the Other Hand (none / 0) (#73)
    by RickyJim on Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    My impression is that SCOTUS oral argument disagreement with the Colorado decision had to do with a state court deciding qualifications for the offices of President and Vice President.  I think there is precedent for a state court to make that judgment for a Senator or local official.  The Supreme Court might decide that they are the proper body to determine whether or not Trump should be disqualified from running for POTUS and also, perhaps after an evidentiary hearing, give the answer yes, he is.

    That would be great (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 08:11:25 AM EST
    if only.

    Not sure (none / 0) (#74)
    by BGinCA on Thu Feb 29, 2024 at 02:07:29 PM EST
    "would be a willingness to allow Tr*mp to run, and hopefully to be defeated at the polls, thus to be done with him as a public figure and threat."
    is any more likely than a `willingness to let T run and be re-instated as dictator, um `president' and replace Alito, Thomas, et al and cement the theocratic majority on the Supremes."

    But the issue of immunity (none / 0) (#75)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 07:42:37 AM EST
    is a out to come up again in GA.  Everyone expects him to do the same song and dance there

    So a hopeful take would be they knew this was coming again and simply decided dead to take it and get it over with.

    They have taken it in a sort of half azzed expedited way.  I will reserve some judgement to see if they wait until June to speak as some have warned or hear the arguments and respond quickly.

    A trial in DC could still happen.


    I shudder (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 10:34:15 AM EST
    to think how the country would be transformed if the Supreme Court finds in favor of Trump's motion that the president has absolute immunity for"official actions" and can never be prosecuted unless first impeached and convicted.  

    The slow walk on this uncomplicated motion shows the arrogance and hubris of these political hacks.  The awful six seem to be testing the American people.  The Supreme Court has, essentially veto power over the other two branches of our constitutional government.  They are pushing on an abuse of power.  The other branches of government are not without power, if they choose, or are forced, to do so.


    I have a different tske (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    Clearly you speak the truth.  But, I don't think this development warrants the fear and loathing it has produced.

    First, Ive started thinking it might be better if the trial WAS after the election.  Trump is not going to be elected president.  He just isn't.  He could certainly make a solid effort to steal it but he will not ever be elected president again.  There is not a chance in Hell.
    I think the optics of a trial in late summer are bad.  I fully understand why the schedule is what it is.  It still is a very bad look IMO.  I seriously think that could cast a shadow over both the trial AND a Biden win.

    Beat him.  Crush him.  Then convict him.  That works for me.

    That said, I still think it's possible this can be resolved in time for a trial before the election.

    As far as the Nine, they have shown us who they are.  And we should believe them.  
    I think, and have thought for a long time, democrats should RUN on reforming and possibly expanding the court.  
    I know it's been tried but I think people might finally be ready to listen.


    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    I agree.  It maybe best, from a political pint of view, that the trials not occur until after the election on the basis of at least a couple of considerations:  the court room and environs would become a campaign circus , with lots of free TV time---good for a strapped RNC due to legal cost hijacking; and there is always the possibility of a jury going haywire.

    The election interference/Stormy Daniels case is easy to understand and is pretty clear-cut.  So, maybe an exception.  But, I doubt this was the thinking behind the SC's unconscionable and transparent helping out of their favorite candidate.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#82)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 03:19:13 PM EST
    I've been watching the closing arguments in Fulton Co.  Trumps lawyers seem very grouchy.

    The judge says he will decide in "a couple of weeks".

    Fani could go before November.


    Federalist Society (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 04:55:05 PM EST
    judges never rush into these things, if a Democrat is involved.  But, at least, Judge McAfee is elected by Fulton County voters.  So,  he is not beyond accountability as Supreme Court justices seem to believe they are. (He was initially appointed by Republican Governor Brian Kemp, but will stand for election).

    I wish I had your confidence (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 04:24:54 PM EST
    with regard to the outcome of the election. I fear a lot of people are going to sit this one out. For a variety of reasons.

    Democrats have got to get people to turn out and vote. They cannot sit this one out. The stakes are too high.

    And this cr@p about "short term pain" coming out of Michigan is pure lunacy. The are deluding themselves if they think the consequences of not supporting Biden will be short term.



    How did the (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    Nader "short term pain" mantra work out for them in 2000? We got into 2 wars with an idiot/liar for president and it lasted 8 years.

    This is why black people don't see "progressives" as allies because these voters never think about harm reduction.


    That whole thing is BS (none / 0) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 05:19:15 PM EST
    creation mostly of the media.  I would take bets right now Biden wins MI.

    Tlaib (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 02, 2024 at 06:31:42 AM EST
    is now saying she is "terrified of Trump" or some such. These people are so ineffective in getting their issues or concerns heard and think stunts like voting for third parties or primary challenges are gonna make change. Don't understand how alliances work so they are gonna hold their breath until they get what they want.

    I think most people, like us, who follow the news (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 05:17:46 PM EST
    have a hard time appreciating just how totally tuned out most Americans are.  Nearly all the things we agonize about 70-80% don't even know about.  
    There are no longer three news reports at 6 oclock.  People hear what they want to hear and most are NOT, as hard as that is to believe to you and me, paying much attention to this election.

    The presidential campaign has not started.  When it's done they will know.

    Also if it was only our way of life on the ballot I would be joining you is your worry.  It's not.

    Reproductive rights is the issue that's going to
    save us.  Democrats have not lost an election of importance since Dobbs.  
    I still think Trump might NOT be the nominee.  If that happens MAGA stays home and we win everywhere.


    I listen (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 02, 2024 at 06:54:31 AM EST
    to the Bulwark podcast and they say the same thing about how most voters are tuned out. The FBI has said the Russian disinformation campaign is going to be over the top and that worries me.  Sarah Longwell is a lesbian and Tim Miller is gay. One day they mention the GOP and their gay bashing. I always wondered about gay GOP voters. What they said is they heard the gay bashing but thought "oh, they don't mean it" and said it was shocking when they realized the GOP did mean it.

    Dobbs has to be one of the worst supreme court decisions ever made. Typical Federalist Society idiocy where they think they can use 18th century law and apply it to 21st century America. Nowhere is it more evident than the ban on IVF.

    I have heard a couple of people make the predictions that Trump won't be the nominee. I have yet to figure out how that happens. Obviously I think Haley thinks that since she is staying in. The rank and file elected Republicans have shown no ability to stand up to Trump.


    Trump will never drop out voluntarily (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Mar 02, 2024 at 07:06:23 AM EST
    since him freedom is on the line.  But lots of people are starting realize he can't win.  Niki is helping with that.  They may decide that with Trump in the race will lose big.  But Trump out of the race, against his will, they will lose bigger.  

    I think smart republicans might be thinking let him burn it all down and we will pick up the pieces.  

    I don't envy their choices.


    I think (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 08:24:19 AM EST
    that the immunity issue here in GA will be taken up by the GA Supreme court not the SCOTUS since it is a state crime.

    Because it is a state criminal case (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Peter G on Sat Mar 02, 2024 at 05:07:44 PM EST
    any motion to dismiss on immunity grounds would be filed in the state trial court. If the motion is denied, that may or may not be an immediately appealable order under Georgia appellate procedure. Once the dismissal question has been decided (or refused review) in the highest state court to which an appeal (if any) is available, the Supreme Court of the United States would have certiorari jurisdiction to give final review to the federal-law question of whether there is any such thing as "presidential immunity" and if so whether it would cover the charges in the Georgia indictment (which as far as I know do not include any even arguably "official acts" within the "outer perimeter" of a President's duties).

    And the (none / 0) (#79)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 11:40:06 AM EST
    Documents case

    I wouldn't think the GA Supreme Court ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Mar 01, 2024 at 06:41:07 PM EST
    ... would even want to touch that with a ten-foot pole. But then again, I've certainly learned by now that one must never ever say "Never!" in the Never-Neverland of ever-devolving GOP politics.

    Most of the (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Mar 02, 2024 at 07:12:16 AM EST
    GA supreme court decisions haven't been ideologicalbut with conservatives you never know.

    Michael Moore. (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 03, 2024 at 07:52:13 AM EST
    On TV (a) taking credit for the organization of the "uncommitted" vote in the Michigan primary so as to " send a message" to President Biden, (b) claiming these message senders will not vote for Trump, so don't worry, they will just stay home, (c) doing a fast back-pedaling dance of don't blame me if Trump benefits but did you know we got 100,000 votes: and we only expected 10,000 to 15, 000?

    This worked (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 03, 2024 at 12:20:25 PM EST
    out so well in 2000 and 2016 to the point that we got women's bodily autonomy taken away along with a whole host of other issues. Thanks but no thanks.

    So can (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 01, 2024 at 10:28:08 AM EST
    Trump come up with the 175 million for his appeal bond? Rumors are he can't get that amount of money either.

    His (none / 0) (#104)
    by FlJoe on Mon Apr 01, 2024 at 12:31:59 PM EST
    brand new stock is down 24% today.

    Now (none / 0) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 15, 2024 at 01:23:02 PM EST
    the 15th of April and it's down what? 55-60%? Before too much longer it will be worth single digits.

    Trading in the 22's right now. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by vml68 on Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 12:43:43 PM EST
    Really brightens my day watching that price drop.
    I just hope Tr*mp doesn't get to bypass the six month hold period before he gets to unload his shares. I have high hopes that it will be a penny stock by then.

    In the meantime, I encourage all MAGAs who bought high to buy some more stock now. Dollar cost averaging!


    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Apr 16, 2024 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    it's sinking faster than I imagined. I can't think that he'll be able to sell before the 6 month period even then because he is suing the directors, the directors are suing him, the founders have been convicted of insider trading and the accounting firm that did the "audit" of Truth Social has had their license revoked.