Monday, September 05, 2022

"Replying To Popehat"

I saw that tweet alone, at first, and it made me think of all the people frantically jumping on Popehat's feed (he's a big boy, he can take care of himself). But responses to this court ruling betray a certain amount of what really comes perilously close to "Trump Derangement Syndrome," defined here by me as "If Trump gets even one positive ruling in one hearing in one court of law, the Republic is done for and we might as well close up shop now." Viz:
"She's biassed and corrupt," sad Mystal. "Like, I don't know what to tell anybody anymore. I've been saying this since he took office. When you allow Republicans to control the courts you get nothing. Trump judges do not believe in the rule of law. They do not believe in precedent. They do not believe in facts. They do not believe in logic. They just believe in whatever will help Donald Trump and they've proven it again and again and again. So, when I say you cannot trust Trump judges. I don't know what more evidence you need for that fact, right?"

He went on to cite that the argument that Trump has executive privilege is so stupid that it's hard to explain.

"First of all, privilege goes to the current president," he explained. Trump's suit didn't even argue executive privilege, it argued attorney-client privilege. "We only have one president at a time. So, it's not Trump's privilege to have. But even if it was, as you point out, with Bill Barr who believes that the executive of the United States is something closer to a king than a president, even Bill Barr says that if he had a privilege, that privilege still goes with the government and not with Trump."

Barr said over the weekend that the idea that Trump has any kind of privilege over the documents is absurd.

"So, these documents belong in the Archives and it would be like Trump's call for executive privilege over the plane and then parked the plane, Air Force One, at Mar-a-Lago. Can't do that. Even if it was his, we have the right to take it back, but when you allow Trump judges to infect the system these are the kind of decisions you get," Mystal continued

His final point, he said is that the media needs to stop pretending that the Trump judges are the legitimate piece of the judicial system.

"They have to stop carrying water for them and start calling them out as they are, corrupt, leave behind gifts from the Trump administration to destroy the rule of law in America," he closed.

That's the most extreme example I can find.  Basically, reading from the bottom up, anything the media says that is not critical of Trump, is carrying Trump's water.  And anytime a judge doesn't tell Trump to pound sand, such judges are not a "legitimate piece of the judicial system."

Yeah, I'm not seein' that. And it's not like that's the only extreme position being taken on the intertoobs today:

Why are we the frog and this ruling the "boiling water" (the metaphor is false, anyway. People may be that stupid; frogs aren't.)? Don't think about it too hard. It's pretty much "minor victory for Trump means the world has ended and life no longer has meaning."

Back toward reason from that, there's a lot of very particular criticism of very particular holdings in this order, which is not a bad thing:

Not quite: Trump is entitled to return of his personal items if they are not considered evidence of a crime. The court's order rather explicitly states a special master is better positioned to make such decisions than the court spending lots of time doing that either in hearings or in camera. Basically what special masters are for. Whether one is actually needed here, is the pertinent issue. The Court does reference the "special nature" of Trump as FPOTUS. To me that indicates the judge is not ready for primetime, and is afraid of making a mistake where former President's are involved (see the earlier post about the judge trying to make this opinion bulletproof, because she fears the more technical examination of the 11th Circuit.). There really are a lot of problems with this opinion: Orin Kerr also brings back that jurisdiction issue I raised much earlier: Or, to put it more bluntly: That's not quite the legal argument I would go to court on, but the question of jurisdiction is one the appellate court can bring up sua sponte; and may well do. A ruling on that issue wouldn't address the deficiencies of this order, but it would vacate the ruling (if the issue of jurisdiction is decided the way I think it should be). I suspect there's a real balls-up here that the appellate courts (remember, judges see things differently than counsel does, on either side of the bar; and appellate judges have another viewpoint altogether) are not going to like if the DOJ brings it to them. Yeah, that's the real legal issue.

Trial court opinions have virtually no precedential value.  They can be guiding to another trial court, but they have no authority beyond the parties to the case.  This is a mess, and I don't think it survives its first encounter with reality (i.e., the 11th Circuit).  But, we'll see.
Posted by at No comments:

So It Turns Out I Gave That Florida Judge Way Too Much Benefit Of The Doubt

When in doubt yourself, defer to the knowledge of a law professor; preferably a good one.

My doubt now is whether this person should be sitting on the federal bench:

"If this holds up, it's going to require the minting of a whole new area of law for the scope and boundaries of a former Pres's executive priv interests. How the hell is a Special Master supposed to call balls and strikes? This could be huge delays. I think DOJ needs to appeal," wrote Litman. "Cannon's opinion acknowledges that Rule 41 is reserved for exceptional circumstances and must be exercised w/ caution and restraint. Then she storms ahead like a bull in a china shop b/c it's possible that Trump may turn out to have some undefined interest down the line."

The ruling, continued Litman, "never comes close to holding there's an executive privilege interest here. But b/c of the gossamer possibility that there may be one down the line, she orders the gov to stop its review and orders a Special Master to review all docs under completely undefined legal standards." He added that "it reads as if she's never handled criminal cases before."
I don't usually put much stock in who appointed whom, but this woman is a Trump appointee.  I'm guessing the vetting on her was minimal, that her perceived loyalty to Trump was all that counted. Because where I thought she was being rather more clever than most people, it turns out she was even stupider than anyone thought.  One wonders if she even listened to the arguments of the DOJ.  (As we will see in a moment, my temper cools as my cup full of hot coffee is spilled into the saucer of the analysis of Popehat*.)
If this goes to SCOTUS and the presiding judge of the district (Thomas, if I understand correctly) doesn't issue a stay on appeal that the full court supports, that would not be a bad thing. I can't see that happening, though, because even the Court that decided Dobbs was never coo-coo for cocoa puffs over Trump's election arguments, and this one is no better than those. IOW, I see this being reversed and smashed to bits in very short order. Because this opinion just throws a lot of law in the shredder. What I just said about reading comprehension, but now: "Did she even read the caselaw?" I'm no longer giving her that much credit. I honestly think she doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground, and she's too incompetent to sit on the bench. There is, besides, another issue here that the 11th Circuit and even the Supremes will consider an overriding concern: And I'm just gonna drop this here to "prove" I was on the right track earlier: The problem with making an opinion "bulletproof" is that's where you put all your energy, and you ending writing an opinion riddled with error.  And it is still possible the judge is treating Trump as if he were pro se. Obviously that's a whole separate analysis in itself. Doesn't improve her competence on the bench, though. And it does clue you in, O my laypeople, as to how bad this opinion is. Seasoned lawyers are struggling to find even a justification for this. It's that bad. As far as the typical internet freakout about this ruling (it's still that bad): This, too; while we're here. IMHNon-Criminal Lawyer/No Expertise in Executive Privilege JurisprudenceLO, this (executive privileged) is the rock upon which this judge meets the hammer of the appellate process: Now: for the DOJ: to appeal, or not to appeal? That is the question: More fuel for the fire: There are always people, even lawyers, who think only the "good guys" should ever win. I've found that sentiment to prevail among prosecutors and former prosecutors. Defense attorneys and prosecutors turned defense attorneys tend to be both more sanguine and more agnostic, because it's never as simple as "yes" or "no." Yes, this is a bad decision; but how badly, actually, will it play out? And what does it actually interfere with? The DOJ will decide that, and act to protect its interests. My guess is the DOJ really doesn't like bad precedents. And there seems to be a lot in this order that, while it may not be catastrophic, is at least bad law and shouldn't be allowed to stand long (though its precedential value is practically nil until it gets to an appellate court, so there's that irony, too.) I will also point out that Popehat is not a judge, and judges have a perspective different from those of prosecutors or defense attorneys; which is the way the system is supposed to work. Still a lousy opinion, though.

And still, history gets the last laugh: *What? My grandfather drank his coffee that way. I still remember it fondly.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, September 04, 2022

Verifying Veritas

“Thank you to everyone who attended the Rally last night. It was a two-hour speech, and the only disappointment was that they were screaming, 'Please, please, go longer.' They love our Country, and I love them!"
Well, it has only been a week since he hosted Mark Zuckerberg at dinner at the White House.

So you know it must be true.
Posted by at No comments:

“News Networks Are Not Here To Defend Demcracy”

No shit. FixNews used to say "some people say." Tell me what the difference is here.

And rather than start yet another post:
Granted. But it still illustrates Trump really doesn’t understand what the phrase means. Because the way he used it here is the clearest case of talking to himself in a mirror that I’ve ever seen.
Posted by at 1 comment:

I’m Sure The Courts Will Have Sorted This By Late 2024

Or if not, maybe this will: I almost want to see if a convicted felon could run for office from prison and get elected POTUS. It would be an interesting case of first impression whether a President would be released from jail for the term of his Presidency. Could he be released? Would his sentence suspend until the next inauguration?

Well, a a law review article it would be interesting. I honestly don’t think Trump can win another election, from jail or otherwise.
Posted by at No comments:

I Read It…

...as people getting too worked up about really minor shit.

The question of casting, I mean. I watched the first two episodes, and IMHO Tolkien wept. Not over the casting, but the story-telling (or lack of it). This billion dollar waste of money is based on the appendices to LOTR. It’s no more Tolkien than that. Which, briefly, shows what a fine teller of tales Tolkien was.

The various races just seems normal to me. I watch a lot of reruns and it’s odd how “white” the TeeVee world was. And how many decades it took for me to notice it.

It’s the only improvement on Peter Jackson this Prime series makes. Otherwise the only thing this series lacks is Jackson; and Tolkien. And Jackson wouldn’t have touched it with a club, because of the lack of Tolkien. The inclusive casting is the only benefit.

But, you know, racism must out.
Posted by at No comments:

Not Even With A Dessert Topping That Is Also A Floor Wax

I can’t top this, either.
Posted by at No comments:

Time Is Fluid

Reliable sources say the dinner was in 2019. But the truth is: he said what he said.

I’ll leave the explanations to the psychiatrists/psychologists. 
Posted by at 1 comment:

Imagine If Biden Had Called MAGA “Racists”

Had Biden called out the racism in the GOP, the media would not yet have recovered from their fit of the vapors.** Wonder how upset media will be that Trump called Biden “an enemy of the state”?*
"L’etat, c’est Trump.”

And if you thought Rick Scott blowing through almost $200 million: was the only problem the GOP had:
*proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump has no idea what that phrase means, or what the state is.  As if his entire presidency hadn’t already established that point.

**in case you think I exaggerate:
Posted by at No comments:

“45 Wine And Whiskey” 🍷 🥃

Behold the Trump library: "45 Wine and Whiskey" All that’s missing is a love letter from North Korea.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, September 03, 2022

Yeah; No

Not what’s going on. At. All. Quite the opposite, in fact. Personal. Intrusion: I am 67, and haven’t had cable for 20 years, give it take. Tried satellite, gave that up, too. My father and mother each died at 90, still watching cable. The people referenced in these tweets are, from my experience, very old, and getting older. I watch broadcast and some streaming, and there’s a lot of channels thanks to digital technology. Most of it is nostalgia programming for Boomers like me. Oddly, there are no news channels. Period.

My Millenial daughter watches streaming services almost exclusively. No need service there, either. She knows what’s going on, but not from CNN or Fox or MSNBC.
"CPM" is “cost per thousand.” Basically a measure of ROI. CNN is chasing the same eyeballs as Fox. They have to. There aren’t any others.

Cut the damned cord.1
Posted by at No comments:

I Triple Dog Dare You!

"TRUTH is doing really well," he insisted in a post on the platform. "It has truly become our MAGA VOICE, but also a voice for the RINOs and Radical Left Lunatics. Engagements are far better, more interesting, and spirited than anywhere else. I like it much better than Twitter, which is a complete mess. Sign up on TRUTH now, only getting stronger. Google is coming along nicely (I think?)." 
He added, "SEC trying to hurt company doing financing (SPAC). Who knows? In any event, I don’t need financing, 'I’m really rich!' Private company anyone???"
C’mon little man. Put your money where your mouth is.

Go ahead. We’ll watch.
Posted by at No comments:

The Bar In Trump Tower Continues To Draw Attention

I wonder if DOJ has enough evidence (that we don’t know about) to get a few more search warrants? 'Cause that seems to be objectively true.
Posted by at No comments:

“I’m Rubber And You’re Glue”

"What ever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!”
Take back our country from the insurrectionists and lunatics that want to destroy it."
—The Infant-In-Chief
Posted by at No comments:

Now We Know…

...why he took some of it.

Is anybody surprised?  Or will they be if search warrants are issued for Trump Tower and Bedminster, too?
Posted by at 1 comment:

Friday, September 02, 2022

The Problem Of Definition

It’s not a question of admitting error; it’s a question of definition. Was the speech political? Or not?

The President takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Is it inherently political to do so? What would make it political? How much of doing that can’t be political? Indeed, is there anything the POTUS can do which is not also political?

Barack Obama once (and only once) wore a tan suit. Even that was political (not by his desire). I guess it’s a good thing he didn’t walk past a Marine while wearing it.

Arguably Biden had the two Marines behind him to visually emphasize his duty to protect the Constitution, as well as underline the seriousness of his speech. Certainly his Republican opponents (even more so his GOP enemies) want to see his speech as purely political and purely partisan. Must we agree?

Biden’s speech was political, no less so than W’s premature announcement of major military operations being ended in Iraq. He did that on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, with a banner he later blamed on the ship’s crew: “Mission Accomplished.” Probably worse was him flying onto the deck in a fighter jet, wearing the flight suit of a military aviator.

He was acting as Commander in Chief making that announcement, though it could have been done from the White House. So making it the way he did was also political. W was doing it on a carrier for purely political reasons.

Just like Biden, speaking in front of Independence Hall, lighted in bands of red, white, and blue. But again, arguably, Biden did that for the TV cameras. And, again, to underline his point: he is the protector of the Constitution. That is one of his roles. He was taking it seriously, trying visually and verbally to get his point across.

Or was he? How you define it is how you understand the legitimacy, or illegitimacy, of the staging. Do I wish he’d left the Marines out? Maybe. Or was he subtly telling the “ultra-MAGAs” that they defund the enforcement power of the US government, and challenge the very legitimacy of that government, at the risk of we, the people?

You can still argue it was bad optics, or even a misuse of the military. But I’d rather talk about what he actually said. I understand the fallacy of never admitting error; but in this case the greater fallacy is doing the GOP’s work for them.

Watch the donut, not the hole.

ADDING: I’ll just leave this right here:
Posted by at No comments:

Democracy Now? Or maybe…

So some prattling journo on “Washington Week” just said some Democrats wondered why Biden interrupted Trump reminding so many people why they don’t like Trump.

Probably because Biden understands a vote “for” is a more powerful motivator than a vote against. And ultimately Trump is not on the ballot and Biden’s in the White House. And polls say a top concern among voters is the state of democracy.

I think Biden understands offense wins elections. Maybe more Democrats need to learn that, too. Trump is offensive; but that’s not a form of “offense.”
Posted by at 1 comment:

“Cheer Up, Things Could Be Worse”

Sure enough: John Harwood's departure makes a lot more sense, now. Too bad CNN is so far behind the public interest; and attitude. The narrative must be preserved. Blessed be the name of the narrative.
Posted by at No comments:

We Don't Know What We Don't Know

emptywheel points out that what the public doesn't know, the government may: And I'm old enough to remember the old "interoffice memo" envelopes. Legal sized, covered with boxes so you could indicate the recipient, cross out the last one, and use it again almost ad-infinitum (they usually fell apart before the boxes filled up). I can only imagine classified documents are not just slipped into any old cover, contents unrecorded or noted.  Those covers ain't exactly for interoffice distribution, after all: So that makes sense to me.

None of this, of course, helps Trump.
Trump’s supporters seem to think that, once again, the president has outfoxed his critics. But imagine for a moment that such an order existed (it doesn’t), whether or not it’s relevant to Trump’s potential legal liability (it isn’t). That would mean that Trump declassified some of our most sensitive national security secrets not because he wanted the public to know about them, and not because he thought they were wrongly classified; he did it — if he did it — because he was lazy. In this scenario — this defense, such as it might be — he wanted to make it easier to take what might be the crown jewels of our national security state back and forth with him without having to do what every other government official does; that is, use a “secure compartmentalized information facility,” or SCIF. Secret technology that we don’t want to share with China? Too bad. Human intelligence that could be used to smoke out American agents in foreign governments? Not his problem. Specific details about the deployment of U.S. troops overseas? Whatever.
Trump’s “defense” would mean that he committed what would have to be the most stunning and indefensible systematic breach of our national security not just by any president in American history, but perhaps by any person. Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning may be responsible for putting a greater number of government secrets into the public domain, but they at least had substantive reasons for doing so — whether or not we agree with them. In Trump’s version of events, breaching our national security and potentially exposing secrets happened simply because he couldn’t be bothered to handle classified information correctly. It’s not quite the “Twinkie defense,” the standard for wildly improbable justifications for improper behavior, but it’s not far off.

George Conway points out Trump has nothing but lies left: 

It's worth pointing out that the "declassified" lie is as baseless as the election fraud lies Trump actually tried to go to court on. In one infamous case Rudy Giuliani actually confessed in open court that he had no evidence of fraud. Even Giuliani knew lies and bombast wouldn't stand up in court.  Trump's lawyers know that now.  As many have pointed out, nowhere in the "major 4th Amendment" case in Florida did Trump's lawyers allege the documents had been declassified.  They even acknowledged a special master would need security clearance to review the documents.  Why won't they take up Trump's "argument"?  For the same reason Trump lost 60+ cases in 2020, and Giuliani wouldn't allege fraud when pressed on the issue.

They got nothin'.

Trump's lies about the election prompted a mob to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021.  Trump's lies now won't be any kind of bulwark against the prosecutions about to be visited upon him.  And I really don't think the majority of American voters want to cast a ballot for the guy standing in the dock answering for his violations of the Espionage Act.  "Give him four more years to do what he did to government in the last four years" is a pretty damning campaign issue.
Posted by at No comments:

FoxNews Is Having A Day. So Is John Harwood.

Barr is clearly trying to clean the Trump stank off. (For a bit more on that, consider Barr's involvement in preventing the prosecution of Roger Stone, something that came out of the Mueller Report. It appears, per emptywheel, that Stone was involved in an attempt with GRU (Russia) to help LePen win over Macron via some photographs which are now part of the "documents" retrieved by the FBI from MAL.) But not even the flow of all the rivers in the world can do that. Still, nice to see him telling the truth, for once. 

Turns out, John Harwood is having a day, too: The conservative narrative is normative, even as Trump and the GOP push it into sedition. It really couldn't be clearer, could it?
That would work better if the media had actually reported on Trump's statement. Which they barely did.

And I'm really trhing to figure out what John Harwood said that was wrong here:
CNN didn't cut off his mike or switch away from him mid-sentence. But they fired him; instanter.
Posted by at No comments:

School Dazes

It may mean something; it may mean nothing; but I've noticed this latest fight seems to be centered in North Texas. Not in Houston, home of the largest ISD in the state (which has single member districts, so there isn't really even a fight over taking control of the school board. Too many districts to fight in, too many Democrats in those districts, to put it bluntly.); not in Austin (don't confuse "Austin" with "liberal" anymore, please. That's properly Harris County, now.) Not in San Antonio or El Paso or in small rural districts, of which there are literally hundreds. No, the fight is very selective, and centered mostly around Fort Worth, the far more conservative "sister" is the sister cities of the DFW "Metroplex." This is Sen. Hughes argument against posters that are not in English (like the ones one parent submitted, written in Arabic):

“In both the United States Code and the Texas Education Code, the motto is set out in quotation marks and is presented in English. Accordingly, the statutory prescription that the motto be displayed as it appears in the statute, and with no other ‘words, images, or other information,’ limits the legally mandated display of the motto to only posters or framed copies presented in English,” Hughes wrote.

That's not exactly statutory construction as the courts do it.  And it's interesting Sen. Hughes sent this letter to the Texas Education Agency, as if he were delivering an AG opinion letter.  It's fatuous nonsense, in other words, and not worth a wet snap compared to letters from a Texas lawfirm.

The law, by the way, is a year old.  No one noticed until Patriot Mobile decided to donate posters, again to certain school districts in particular.

Anybody surprised by that? Bueller? Ferris Bueller? And the lawfirm is not acting randomly, or sua sponte: Patriot Mobile is going where they think they'll win.  They are acting in these North Texas school districts because they "took over" these four school boards (they claim). I'm not sure how long that's going to last, or how popular the school board members who got their districts into unnecessary lawsuits, are going to be.

It is interesting they aren't talking about CRT or porn in the libraries anymore.  Oh, they'll come back to it.  But they've pretty much run their string of grievances now, and most of Texas isn't interested.  Most school districts have their hands full providing all the educational, health, and welfare services now required of them (I don't remember an ambulance coming to any school I attended below college (none at the colleges either).  Today they are an almost weekly event.  Not to note a decline, just a dramatic change in circumstance.  Standardized tests, state tests, federal requirements, state requirements (posters are putting "God" back into the schools?  Isn't that idolatry?).  "Taking over school districts" is one thing.  Running them is another.

I think this "trend" is rapidly reaching its "sell-by" date.
Posted by at No comments:

But The Two Marines!

The red lighting! Must be “Fair and balanced.” And on a slightly related note: Dear Crunchy Rod Dreher: that would be people like this: "People" covers a helluva lotta ground.
Posted by at No comments:

Suddenly The Suggestions Of Documents At Bedminster…

...seem much more plausible. Stop and realize the FBI already knew this. This is why there are reports that maybe the government still doesn’t have all the documents Trump took. Then consider that Trump started this by insisting on reporting the execution of the search warrant and then filing this “major 4th amendment action.” 

The DOJ is going to be hard pressed not to prosecute Trump. And he doesn’t have any defense; or lawyers that can defend him.
Posted by at No comments:

The Morning After

The very curious definition of "partisan politics:" Which tradition is that? Damn straight.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 01, 2022

"They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred."

Please explain to our audience where Biden is wrong. Your tweet is two years too late. Not to mention the Covid, the bleach injections, the inserting of ultraviolet lights into orifices, the complete inability to implement the Defense Production Act to acquire masks and respirators and soap. Happy days are here again.
Posted by at No comments:

Every Time A Republican In Texas Wins.,.

...I and the four other Democrats in Texas are disenfranchised.

Whom do I sue? Where do I throw my public fit?
Posted by at No comments:

They Know We Can See Them, Right?

“Republican state attorneys general and other leading conservatives are quietly exploring a slew of potential lawsuits targeting President Biden’s plan to cancel some student debt — challenges that could limit or invalidate the policy before it takes full effect,” the Post reporters explain. “In recent days, a number of GOP attorneys general from states including Arizona, Missouri and Texas have met privately to discuss a strategy that could see multiple cases filed in different courts around the country, according to a person familiar with their thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the confidential talks.”

Romm, Stein and Douglas-Gabriel continue, “Other influential conservatives — including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and allies of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank — are mulling their own options as they ratchet up criticism of Biden’s debt-relief plan, two additional people familiar with the matter said. And a conservative advocacy group founded by a major Trump donor said it would file a lawsuit against the policy.”

The Post interviewed John Malcolm, who serves as director of the Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center. The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, has been around 49 years — and its Meese Center was named after Edwin Meese, who served as U.S. attorney general during President Ronald Reagan’s second term and is now 90.

Malcolm told the Post, “The conservative public interest law firms in our network are exploring filing lawsuits against this. They are doing background legal research, trying to find out who might be the most suitable clients for them. They have to find a client with the standing and the gumption to take on a lawsuit. There are several groups in our network who are exploring that right now.”

And they understand the mid-terms are just around the corner?  I know it doesn't affect Ted Cruz, but Ken Paxton (Texas AG) might want to think twice about filing a lawsuit telling debtors to stay in debt until the last sou is extracted, as he's facing pretty stiff headwinds already.  Then again, if he files, it might help him lose, and the new AG can just drop the Texas case.  

The Post interviewed some former college students who have a lot of student loan debt, and they were appalled that Republicans oppose even the modest amounts that Biden favors.

One of those interviewees was 31-year-old Ohio resident Michael Loomus, who dropped out of the University of Toledo and has been struggling to pay down the $11,400 that he owes. Loomus told the Post, “It just seems they are continuously trying to keep borrowers in debt. I don’t make a lot of money.… and before this, it just felt like I’d never pay off my loans.”

If these idiots keep this up, they won't just lose the House and Senate, but several state offices as well.  Beto and Abbott have agreed to a debate.  Hopefull this is an issue that comes up.  I don't think it will serve Abbott well to be on the side of the lenders. 

Posted by at No comments:

What If We Seal All The Hospital Windows In America?

What then?

Come to think of it, I've rarely been in a hospital with opening windows in the rooms.  Maybe tiny transom-like windows you could barely shove a cat through; but not much more than that.

I guess all the murder suicide victims will have to crash through the windows.  After they poison themselves, of course.
Posted by at No comments:

Twitter Is The New Cable News

When OJ was on trial for murder, there were cameras in the courtroom. Some observers thought it affected the judge and his rulings, some thought it affected lawyers and even the jury.

TeeVee is not just a bigger courtroom. Neither is Twitter.

I’ll wait to see how the judge rules before ruling on the judge.

YMMV. 👩‍⚖️ 

I’d love to know what the arguments are; but somebody can take notes.
Posted by at No comments:

Snuffleupagus Stole The Papers!

And took ‘em to Mar-a-Lago!
Posted by at No comments:

I Couldn’t Care Less About The Alaska Election

But Republicans are obviously scared shitless about ranked choice voting.

This tweet on Twitter includes a “context” message pointing out the 60% GOP vote split between two candidates, giving the election to a Democrat (and the first native Alaskan in Congress. That’s actually quite notable.) So, politely, Twitter is telling us Sen. Cotton is full of shit.

Sweet.

Cotton is scared. How does he get the Supreme Court to ban ranked choice voting?

(No, it’s not the silver bullet that ends GOP voter suppression. There are cases where it puts the worst person in the race, in office. But it has advantages over “winner takes all.” And the fact it scares the GOP is lagniappe.)
Posted by at 1 comment:

Trump Has No Idea: Part The Millionth

This is not how you act when you’re under criminal investigation.
Posted by at No comments:

Rule 41

That "argument" (I use the term generously) might work with a jury; until the FBI agent explains it’s standard practice for recording evidence when executing a search warrant.

And it might work with a particularly dim and inexperienced judge who ignores that same FBI agent’s testimony.

But it would never get past the appellate court. And the DOJ could have this case up on appeal in 20 minutes following an adverse ruling.

There is no delay working for Trump in this case. Absent an injunction (which he hasn’t asked for), nothing is slowing down the investigation at all. If the court appoints a special master today, DOJ can freeze that on appeal, finish with the documents, and let Trump rant all he wants while the legal case against him strengthens. DOJ has already said the appointment of a master is moot. The criminal investigation train has left the station and there’s nothing Trump can do to keep it from reaching its destination.

As for that “big” 4th amendment action:
If all you can do is talk about it, you don’t have anything.

Rule 41 covers voluntary (and involuntary) dismissal of actions.  Which would seem to be an announcement Trump’s lawyers know this is pointless and they’re going to drop it sooner than later. Sounds like they don’t have much confidence in the hearing today going in their favor. That or it’s a tacit admission they’ve been ignoring the local rules (and probably the rules in general) and are gonna have to face that music. Rule 41 is not summary judgment (failure to make a case), so that’s a very odd admission.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)