Monday, July 01, 2024

Gravity

This decision adds a lot more gravity to Trump’s statements. 

That is not a small thing.
And that evidence can’t be used against him because those discussions were “official acts,” even if the acts were not. So it is, effectively, absolute immunity.

I still think the documents case survives. The D.C. case? I’m not so sure.
That's the gravity of the situation now. I’m not sanguine Trump’s criminal prosecutions survive, even as the civil judgments will likely bankrupt him. He will have to spend a great deal to get the criminal cases dismissed, and access to that cash is going to diminish rapidly.

But still… this is as bad as it gets. The only way to make a silk purse out of this sow’s ear is to use it to defeat Trump at the ballot box.🗳️ (If he challenges that, it’s probably money he won’t get for his legal defense.)

Got to look for the silver lining where you can. If we can keep Trump out of office, we can probably get s 28th amendment, too. Biden’s capstone on his legacy. 

And maybe we can even get Congress to take the Court by the throat. I really think this could be the apex of the rising authority of the Court. I think they finally went too far.
"The second thing, and Katy, this is a big deal, it's on page 18," she added. "There's a big paragraph in terms of the guidelines for Judge Chutkan in determining what's official and what's unofficial. And they say, the majority, 'In divining official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president's motives.' This was a huge issue at oral argument: Chief Justice Roberts asking John Sauer 'what about bribery?'" 
"Let's say former president Trump or a president appointing somebody to an ambassadorship gets a whole bunch of money for that, are you saying we can't consider the bribery but we can consider the acceptance of the money?" she elaborated. "That's nonsensical. Despite that, they're carving a rule that says the motive can't be considered. If you appoint somebody, it doesn't matter whether you're doing that for your own private gain." 
"How can that be? How can they write an opinion that says that?" host Tur pressed. 
"I want to be clear with what we're seeing here," Rubin replied. "I want to go back to [former solicitor general] Neil Katyal's comments — this is not so much an opinion as it is a broad edict meant to serve a particular moment, even while they say they are writing a rule for the ages."
It’s a rule for the age of Trump; nothing less and nothing more.

I still say that’s a campaign theme. Gotta start there.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)