Convicted felon Donald Trump on Trial (Found guilty on 34 felony counts. 54 criminal count still in the air). Supreme Court rules in Trump's favor sends immunity case back to the lower court. Aileen Cannon (R-Florida) dismisses classified docs case

[The Evil Genius]

11 minutes ago, hail2skins said:

DeSantis or Haley each likely get more electoral votes than either Trump did in 2016 or Biden in 2020. I'm not saying they get to 350, but maybe in the 325-330 range.

 

I still think Trump wins in November, but would be very surprised if he gets to 300 EV.

 

I guess?

 

They both kissed and rely on the MAGA ring. I don't see how they are anything nationally without Trump. 

 

Fwiw DeSanrisnis an evil little **** and Nikki doesn't stand for anything. Never has.

Edited June 5 by The Evil Genius

[@DCGoldPants]

14 minutes ago, Bang said:

But i can't vote for him right now and give them a chance at majorities. 
 

 

~Bang

 

Ding Ding Ding. Bad time to run, Larry. 

[hail2skins]

Article related to the discussion yesterday on whether this country is unifiable:

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4703737-do-americans-hate-each-other-enough-to-tear-the-country-apart/

[EmirOfShmo]

2 minutes ago, @DCGoldPants said:

 

Ding Ding Ding. Bad time to run, Larry. 

He's 68. This is his last hurrah...

[The Evil Genius]

Back on topic...seeing some lawyers online say that 36 months wouldn't be unfair or uncommon for the 34 felonies. 

 

Wouldn't that be awesome? 😁

 

I'm not expecting anything fwiw. Just wishing. 😈

Edited June 5 by The Evil Genius

[@DCGoldPants]

1 minute ago, EmirOfShmo said:

He's 68. This is his last hurrah...

 

then there will be no last hurrah. Voted for him as Governor. Partly because I knew if he tried to swing too hard to the right, he'd be checked by a super majority on the other side who I agree with more. Federal Office? Never ever ever. Don't care what he says now about abortion. I know what he opposed in the past. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

22 minutes ago, Bang said:

I don't know, to me right now even a reasonable candidate for them is to rubber stamp the loons in congress' and senate's loony ideas.
Right now Larry Hogan is running for Senate in MD and I really like him, think he's just the sort of stable conservative they will need after the psycho party burns out.
But i can't vote for him right now and give them a chance at majorities. 
the company you keep.

 

~Bang

 

I'm keeping an eye on him to see how he ebbs and flows along. I don't love him BUT he could be the type that could lead some form of conservative movement from the ash heap of MAGA. But I agree with you about giving the GOP control right now also. 

 

I really want to go to a Hogan campaign event, suck him into taking a question from a "sympathetic disabled veteran", and ask him in front of cameras if he thinks agrees MAGA in its current form is a threat to democracy. 

 

Who wants to help?

Edited June 5 by TheGreatBuzz

[Simmsy]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

Sorry, @Simmsy.  but I have a problem with the notion that all our current situation is just a Trump thing.  

 

Aside from the incredible levels of open corruption, Trump really didn't do much that hasn't been GOP SOP all the way back to Reagan.  

 

The whole "we can just deny the existence of any fact we don't like"?  That goes back at least as far as the 80's, and Rush Limbaugh.  

 

The appeals to racism are older than that.  

 

Overturning Roe?  That wasn't something Trump did.  That was something that the GOP has literally created organizations to do, decades ago.  (And Trump didn't pick those justices.  The Heritage Foundation gave him a short list, and Trump spent a few days testing their groveling skills.)  

 

About the only thing I see where Trump differs from the GOP since Reagan, is the fact that he's completely owned by Russia.  (I assume he was owned, decades before.  My theory is that for the last 20 years, the only people he's been able to do business with are Russian criminals who are using him for money laundering.  Which Trump also profits from.)  

 

No, Trump didn't directly do those things, but he gave the GOP the election jolt they needed to get that initial win. Nobody thinks that Trump is in the war room planning out any kind of strategy. At best, he's giving vague descriptions on what he wants and others are doing it...at worst...he probably blindly signs anything that gets put in front of him. So yeah, what Trump was doing wasn't new to the GOP agenda, but he invigorated the party and gave them the wins to finally do it. As to whether it was a good idea is another story.

 

Democrats used to to have a turn out problem, they still do, but the GOP does now as well and they've never had the numbers the Dems have had. Anyways, you talk to any of these maga chuds and they don't know policy, they don't vote regularly, they don't follow politics, they don't even actually follow Trump. They just want to vote for him, seriously. They don't care how bad he is for the country, how guilty he is, they want to tick the box next to his name. 

 

When he is gone, I don't see how the cult isn't fractured. I don't see anyone being able to copy Trump's energy, wrangle up ALL of the maga vote, the GOP vote, the Indie vote and win an election. Of course it could happen, but who is going to do it? Haley? DeSantis? Noem? Kemp? Youngkin? I'll even add that once these maga morons stop getting attention for being Trump supporters, the luster will also wear off and they shall fade away.

[samy316]

If MAGA weren't a cult and 100% devoted to their cult leader (like the People's Temple was to Jim Jones), and they actually got tired of Trump and nominated someone less crazy and/or moderate, that candidate would probably have a very good chance to beat Biden in this election,  That's the sad and ironic part about this election, is that if the Republican party were smart and started to pivot away from Trump back in 2020-21, they could've had a candidate run that wasn't tied to MAGA or extreme-right wing ideology and probably win the 2024 election.  If DeSantis or Haley runs, and they were a clear centrist option, they would've definitely had a good chance to win this election.

 

What a grievous mistake, and one that will cost the R's for a long time to come.

[DCSaints_fan]

43 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Like who? They. Don't. Exist. Anymore.

Youngkin.

 

His campaign for VA governor was quite masterful.  Keeping Trump at arms length to keep the crazies in, but not so close so the purple voters would feel comfortable. 

 

Reminded me of GWB a bit.

[@DCGoldPants]

1 hour ago, Llevron said:

If Trump isn't on the ticket you may lose the crazies but you will probably get the Conservatives/ middle back in numbers. Trump running is hurting them, not helping them.

 

That's the trade off. Who is there more of? Of the "Conservatives/Middle", who are these people by demographics? There aren't new say "Common Sense Republicans" being made right now, IMO. I wouldn't have said that 10 years ago. 

[The Evil Genius]

8 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Youngkin.

 

His campaign for VA governor was quite masterful.  Keeping Trump at arms length to keep the crazies in, but not so close so the purple voters would feel comfortable. 

 

Reminded me of GWB a bit.

 

😅

 

If your example is that Youngkin is a centrist republican...I'm not sure what to say. Sure, he lied about who he was and pulled the wool over the soccer mom's in Virginia. But nationally..he'd have been exposed for the nut job he is.

 

He also won in a non presidential election year, right? Doubt he wins when the turnout to defeat presidential MAGA happens in VA. 

 

I'd also say that the era of Virgiinian politicians being elected on the national scale has been over for quite a bit. It took me a long time to break away from it..but they do not translate as well as natives think. 

Edited June 5 by The Evil Genius

[Cooked Crack]

13 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

His campaign for VA governor was quite masterful.  Keeping Trump at arms length to keep the crazies in, but not so close so the purple voters would feel comfortable. 

 

His campaign was masterful because he didn't have to go through a primary. Didn't have to take wild positions to get the support of the base. 

[Renegade7]

27 minutes ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Youngkin.

 

His campaign for VA governor was quite masterful.  Keeping Trump at arms length to keep the crazies in, but not so close so the purple voters would feel comfortable. 

 

Reminded me of GWB a bit.

 

And then Sweatervest pulled his Mission Impossible mask off and showed everyone he was one of the crazies all along.

 

 

Edited June 5 by Renegade7

[DCSaints_fan]

19 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

😅

 

If your example is that Youngkin is a centrist republican...I'm not sure what to say. Sure, he lied about who he was and pulled the wool over the soccer mom's in Virginia. But nationally..he'd have been exposed for the nut job he is.

 

He also won in a non presidential election year, right? Doubt he wins when the turnout to defeat presidential MAGA happens in VA. 

 

I'd also say that the era of Virgiinian politicians being elected on the national scale has been over for quite a bit. It took me a long time to break away from it..but they do not translate as well as natives think. 

He can at least appear to be a centrist and I think would be quite relatable in the way that GWB was, even though he wasn't really a centrist either.

  

I don't see whats so peculiar about Virginia politics such that local candidates don't translate to a national stage.  People said the same thing about Trump, the Republican base was not going to go for some Fifth Avenue New York grifter who had never run for office

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

1 hour ago, samy316 said:

If MAGA weren't a cult and 100% devoted to their cult leader (like the People's Temple was to Jim Jones), and they actually got tired of Trump and nominated someone less crazy and/or moderate, that candidate would probably have a very good chance to beat Biden in this election,  That's the sad and ironic part about this election, is that if the Republican party were smart and started to pivot away from Trump back in 2020-21, they could've had a candidate run that wasn't tied to MAGA or extreme-right wing ideology and probably win the 2024 election.  If DeSantis or Haley runs, and they were a clear centrist option, they would've definitely had a good chance to win this election.

 

What a grievous mistake, and one that will cost the R's for a long time to come.

 

If Trump is gone then MAGA falls apart...but let's not forget that it is MAGA that is the deep underlying problem and not Trump himself (not entirely). Trump basically gets up in front of crowds and says crazy things, and he notes which crazy things prompted big applause so he realizes e HAS to keep saying those things in order to keep the mob interested:

 

Trump: (says something crazy as Topic #1)

 

Mob: (small, scattered cheers, some boos)

 

Trump: (makes mental note not to bring up Topic #1 any more, then says something crazier as Topic #2)

 

Mob: (massive cheers, calls for Biden and Hillary to be jailed/shot)

 

Trump: (makes mental note to keep bringing up Topic #2 as often and as loudly as possible to keep the Mob from turning against him)

 

What MAGA doesn't realize is that it is highly unlikely they will have a self-sufficient billionaire who is able to pay for his own campaigning and legal fees indefinitely, which will make it much harder for a Trump replacement to gain the same rabid following...so long as Elon Musk doesn't jump in as The New Trump.

Edited June 5 by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

[The Evil Genius]

Elmo has that pesky born American citizen rule to overcome though. . 

[China]

Again, take that conversation to the election thread or somewhere else.

 

Judge Cannon Will Allow Third Parties To Argue In Trump's Defense At Hearing

 

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Tuesday said she would allow third parties to argue about the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel in Donald Trump’s classified documents case.

 

The highly unusual decision means partisan representatives with no other involvement in the case will be allowed to attend a June 21 hearing and opine on Trump’s push to have Smith’s powers curtailed.

 

Cannon will hear from three such “friends of the court.” Two of them, Josh Blackman and Gene Schaerr, will argue in Trump’s favor; a third, Matthew Seligman, will argue for Smith’s continued work on the case.

 

Based on pre-hearing filings, Blackman, together with the Landmark Legal Foundation, will argue that special counsels lack the constitutional authority to actually prosecute a case.

In a countering motion, Seligman said Smith clearly wields that authority and blasted Blackman’s argument as being “at war with precedent and with reason.”

 

Legal experts say Cannon’s decision to consider Trump’s argument against Smith is questionable, and to permit so-called “friends of the court” who are otherwise unrelated to the criminal trial to weigh in for 30 minutes apiece is highly unusual.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The Evil Genius]

That's extremely abnormal. Right? 

[BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen]

14 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

That's extremely abnormal. Right? 

 

It's lawfare, but MAGAts only think lawfare is used AGAINST their Orange God.

 

Some social scientist is going to have a field day when they put together their research project on the Trump Era a few years from now...the stunning hypocrisy and willful refusal to see reality should undermine psychologists' views of people as rational beings.

Edited June 5 by BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen

[LadySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

That's extremely abnormal. Right? 

 

Extremely abnormal = highly unusual

[tshile]

9 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

That's extremely abnormal. Right? 

No, amicus briefs are pretty normal. The public would usually only hear about them in SCOTUS (if they dive deep enough into a case to get to that part) because those are way more publicized than general appellate court stuff. My firm does amicus briefs all the time. You would probably need to be involved in appellate level litigation to really know how often they come up. 
 

i searched the whole article and didn’t find the word “amicus” in it once. So someone wrote an analysis piece on a legal procedure without using the name of the procedure once in the article. Not once. Instead they used “third parties” and “friends of the court” - which is what amicus means. 
 

I suppose we can only read into why someone would do that - but it seems to me it’s certainly not because they’re trying to inform the reader or be factual about it.

 

anyways - amicus briefs:
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

 

 

Quote

The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court in which it is not a litigant. Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal; attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients. Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs are a way to articulate those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal or public policy implications of the court's anticipated decisions will not depend solely on the positions and arguments advanced by the parties directly involved in the case.

 

In prominent cases, amici curiae are generally organizations with sizable legal budgets. In the United States, for example, non-profit legal advocacy organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Center for Law and Justice or the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws(NORML), frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation. If a decision could affect an entire industry, companies other than the litigants may wish to have their concerns heard. In the United States, federal courtsoften hear cases involving the constitutionalityof state laws. Hence states may file briefs as amici curiae when their laws or interests are likely to be affected, as in the Supreme Courtcase McDonald v. Chicago, when thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) filed such briefs.^[15]

 

[China]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

No, amicus briefs are pretty normal. The public would usually only hear about them in SCOTUS (if they dive deep enough into a case to get to that part) because those are way more publicized than general appellate court stuff. My firm does amicus briefs all the time. You would probably need to be involved in appellate level litigation to really know how often they come up. 
 

i searched the whole article and didn’t find the word “amicus” in it once. So someone wrote an analysis piece on a legal procedure without using the name of the procedure once in the article. Not once. Instead they used “third parties” and “friends of the court” - which is what amicus means. 
 

I suppose we can only read into why someone would do that - but it seems to me it’s certainly not because they’re trying to inform the reader or be factual about it.

 

anyways - amicus briefs:
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

 

 

 

 

Amicus briefs are not abnormal.  But this is more than that.  This is having people not involved in the case participate in oral arguments, after amicus briefs have already been filed.

 

So this is abnormal.  You don't see the people of file amicus briefs to the Supreme Court participating in the oral arguments.

[Larry]

38 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofBruceAllen said:

What MAGA doesn't realize is that it is highly unlikely they will have a self-sufficient billionaire who is able to pay for his own campaigning and legal fees indefinitely, which will make it much harder for a Trump replacement to gain the same rabid following...so long as Elon Musk doesn't jump in as The New Trump.

 

You honestly believe that Trump is "a self-suffecient billionaire who is able to pay for his own campaigning indefinitely"  

 

I agree with the poster who said that POTUS was the first business Trump ever ran that made a profit.  

 

[tshile]

5 minutes ago, China said:

 

Amicus briefs are not abnormal.  But this is more than that.  This is having people not involved in the case participate in oral arguments, after amicus briefs have already been filed.

 

So this is abnormal.  You don't see the people of file amicus briefs to the Supreme Court participating in the oral arguments.

you sure about that? I watched one in person. 

it’s certainly well within the rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_29

 

Quote

(8) Oral Argument. An amicus curiae may participate in oral argument only with the court's permission.

I mean I’m far from someone that should be saying what’s usual or not in court. But it’s clearly an option per the rules, and I’ve seen it in person myself 🤷‍♂️