Saturday, February 10, 2024

🎶 “Get ‘Em Out By Friday!” 🎶

Due process and equal protection of law will require court hearings and housing for those persons. Which is why Biden backed the border bill, with funding for more courts.

Personnel simply to round up 20 million people (Trump’s number; not necessarily consistent with reality). Personnel to house and manage those people. Facilities to house these people while they are given due process and equal protection of law. Which is why Biden backed the border bill, to hire more Border Patrol agents and court personnel.

Estimated number of prisoners in the U.S. is 1.8 million. That’s federal, state, and local. Less than 10% of Trump’s number. We incarcerate more of our population than any country on the planet. Trump is illogically talking about imprisoning 10 times that prison population (or, okay, only 5 times). Where are the facilities? The personnel? 

And we haven’t yet gotten to transportation, or which countries will accept these people.

But hey, let’s talk about Biden’s imprecision in recalling who attended a meeting 7 years ago.


Posted by at No comments:

“And I Alone Am Escaped Alive With The Moral Authority To Tell Ye”

Although I’m still not sure if boat parades are decadent, or despairing.

I’m pretty sure a demagogue like Trump is always possible. And at least after FDR, with the exception of Eisenhower (maybe the last decent Republican in the White House), we’ve had a string of ‘em, closer and closer and closer, until we finally got Trump.

All of them Republicans; but there’s also the 20th century birth, and growth, of the Imperial Presidency.

We, the people, wanted this, in other words. And not because we are decadent or in despair. It just makes things easier, you know? Besides: lower taxes, and all the wrong people getting stuff; like the vote, and even a President.
Posted by at No comments:

Alright, Let’s Do This

Posted by at No comments:

All The News That’s Fit To Print

Posted by at No comments:

I Think We’ve Found The Problem With “Special Counsels”

In the middle of his explanation for why he believed that Joe Biden had willfully retained classified records pertaining to Afghanistan but that he couldn’t prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, Special Counsel Robert Hur admitted that jurors “who are unwilling to read too much into” what Hur describes as an 8-word utterance would find his case lacking.
But reasonable jurors who are unwilling to read too much into Mr. Biden’s brief aside to Zwonitzer–“I just found all the classified stuff downstairs”–may find a shortage of evidence to establish that Mr. Biden looked through the “Facts First” folder, which is the only folder known to contain national defense information. These jurors would acquit Mr. Biden of willfully retaining national defense information from the “Facts First” folder.
I’m puzzled how this is not a confession that he, Hur, was really reading too much into two file folders the FBI found in a box in Biden’s garage. 
Indeed, that’s what two bizarre chapters in his story are, Hur the novelist, spinning a story about this box because, he admitted much earlier, this is the best he’s got.
If they can’t go to court and put their conclusions to the test (the Jack Smith exception that proves the rule), they write ridiculous reports that baldly justify their very existence. (“I woulda/coulda/shoulda been a very big deal!”)

Prosecutors ordinarily bring cases where they are warranted based largely on the need to win. If they can’t win the case, it quietly goes away. If it can’t quietly go away, they do their best to win and take their lumps when they lose. (Classic example: the murder trial of O.J.Simpson). Special prosecutors have to justify their existence. Their cases never quietly go away. And if they don’t prosecute (or can’t; Mueller couldn’t bring criminal charges against a sitting President. The only constitutionally allowed remedy there is impeachment.), they have to write reports.

There is no adversarial system for reports. And that’s the problem. They are very one-sided; but they get reported as “truth.” Even when they are as badly written as the Hur report.

Prosecutors are supposed to defend their position in a court of law, facing (ideally) an independent and impartial judge, and a strong defense attorney. They aren’t supposed to write one-sided reports. Prosecutors are like the proverbial man with a hammer: everyone is a guilty nail. This is why you don’t talk to the police without a lawyer. Anything you say can be used against you, and their only interest is in bringing charges. If they can’t (because they won’t win), lucky you. But that doesn’t mean you’re innocent; it just means they can’t prove you guilty.

Which is, as I say, the problem with prosecutor’s reports.
Inevitably. As was Ken Starr's report on Bill Clinton. But there’s the nut: this document contradicts itself. A regular prosecutor could have simply said there was insufficient evidence to prosecute (and left the implication of guilt which always surrounds an investigation to linger on). A special prosecutor can’t do that. The time and expense have to be justified. A report is required by law. Which is neither due process nor equal protection of the laws. Nor is it unconstitutional; so here we are.
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, February 09, 2024

Down The Rabbit Hole 🕳️

Tl;dr: there are people who aren’t interested in what I’m interested in and don’t think the way I do and it means the world is chaos!

Youth is wasted on the young.
Posted by at No comments:

⚰️

Challenge accepted! Which is a helluva trick. We know. We were there. Along with over 100 dead schoolchildren. Isn’t part of that cognitive test? Location in time? What’s in a name? Statehood? And we reach the “Takes one to know one” stage of schoolyard taunts. He certainly has the memory for people shoplifting refrigerators. Is there a statement in there? Tell it to the judge. As opposed to a bathroom in a resort. The well-known defense to illegal possession of classified documents that you hide and refuse to surrender on demand. So tell it to the jury. Maybe he sold the family china? Or the White House China? Dear Dan Crenshaw: Here’s the final nail in that coffin.⚰️  Say “good night, Gracie.”
Posted by at 1 comment:

There’s A Reason Carlson Is On Twitter

...and/or YouTube, and it’s the same reason Putin refuses to do interviews with Western journalists but gave Lord Ca Ca two hours uninterrupted.

It’s also the reason no one is going to pay attention to Carlson, still. Or ever.
Posted by at No comments:

Can We All Agree…?

...that we’ve reached the “I know you are, but what am I?”, stage of these proceedings?

And just leave it there?
Posted by at No comments:

Putin Needs Ukraine For Lebensraum

I’m pretty sure Lord Ca Ca didn’t bring this up.

Peace in our time!
Posted by at No comments:

Black History Month Observed

Well, Netflix had a “Black History Month” collection. Last night; today it’s a “Valentine’s Day Collection.” Still counts, right?

Is this a great country, or what?
Posted by at No comments:

Tucker Goes To Russia, Finds Out It’s Not America

Sure, Matt, that’s what happened. Ron Filipkowski watched the debacle so you didn’t have to. It was all “Putin talks, you listen. Girly man." "In Russia, subject interviews you!”

But, yeah, Joe Biden forgets names. So do I. Have done my entire life.  

I’m still not sure Gaetz isn’t thinking of Trump.
Posted by at 1 comment:

The (Purported) Lesson From Ford’s Pardon

"If Special Counsel Jack Smith wants to do good for our Country, and help to unify it, he should drop all Litigation against Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME, and let our Country HEAL," Trump posted on his own social media site, Truth Social. 
The former president then added: 
"This would be a far bigger and better achievement than anything he has ever done, and will be easy for the Great Patriots of our Country to understand in light of Special Counsel Robert Hur’s Document Report on Joe Biden, where the evidence is overwhelming that he 'willfully retained' important documents!"
Alright, the requisite fact checks: Trump couldn’t read past page one. 

Two : Biden notified the government when he found the documents. Sort of undercuts the “willful” retention argument. Unlike another case, pending in Florida…

Trump is scared shitless, even with Loose Cannon on the bench.
Posted by at No comments:

The NYT Wants To Put DougJBalloon Out Of Business

Biden remembers MAD’s “Snappy Answers to Stupid Questions”:
Posted by at 1 comment:

Sometimes emptywheel Lets Her Enthusiasm Get The Best Of Her

Here, let me help: So, 214 pages later. Or, as ew very helpfully puts it: Was this trip really necessary?
Posted by at No comments:

Every Good Insurrectionist Deserves Favor

Or, you know, from the horse's mouth: Yeah, I know, "Nancy Pelosi." Just chalk it up to Trump's dementia and watch the donut, not the hole. The Supremes are going to decide the Colorado ruling raises impermissible political questions, which the Court generally (wisely) stays away from. Unless it's politics they like: Hobby Lobby, Dobbs, Holder, the football coach who wasn't fired for praying on the football field, etc., etc., etc.

They preach it round and square, as a retired judge once put it to me.

I personally don't care if Trump is on the ballot, or not.  I care about the Constitutional question, and whether the Supreme Court will write a position so full of holes the new Democratic Congress will decide on Jan. 6, 2025 that the victor Donald Trump can't be confirmed to office because of the 14th Amendment, and that Congress affirmatively votes NOT to remove the "disability."

There has to be a better solution to the "problem" of the Constitution, than that.  If only because Congress can so decide without any application of due process (Colorado had a five-day trial) or equal protection under law.

Is that really how the Constitution is supposed to be used?
There is that, of course.  😈 And the cavalcade of stupid that will follow: Unless the candidate is not old enough; or not natural born as a citizen, enough (I'm looking at birtherism). Or doesn't gain the support of enough of the primary voters of one of the two major parties (those who don't even try don't count at all). Other than that, sure, "we, the people" choose our POTUS. So long as enough of us vote in the right states (major population centers and states are SOL if enough low-population rural states go the other way. Popular vote count doesn't elect POTUS; the electoral college does.)

Really, these stupid arguments make me tired.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Ya Takes Yer Chances

Republicans gonna be Republicans. Yup. Republicans gonna be Republicans. I think we’re closing in on a consensus. Or as recently as today: Among other things. And the answer to the question is: “Shit, no!” Not bad; but not what I was thinking. Much better. Biden’s been at this a long time.  I like our chances.
Posted by at No comments:

Ron Filipkowski Didn't Listen To Oral Arguments The Way I Did

Which doesn't make Ron wrong, but still leaves me with a question his analysis doesn't answer (nor was it necessarily intended to):

It seems clear that this decision from the Colorado Supreme Court is going to be reversed, the only question is whether the decision will be made narrowly on a single point of contention from Trump, or if the court will make a very broad decision that no state is able to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment because that is solely the purview of Congress to set a procedure for federal courts or to provide specific authority and procedure for the states to apply.

Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett, Gorsuch and Kagan were clearly skeptical of Colorado's position. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson seemed to agree with Colorado on some points, while Chief Justice Roberts didn't tip his hand with his limited questioning. This could even end up being a unanimous decision with Kagan concurring with most of the decision of the majority and Jackson and Sotomayor concurring on the very narrow point that Congress must enact enabling language with uniform enforcement procedure for each state. 

I won't beat the dead horse of "uniform procedure" again.  It's a spurious point, to my mind, seeing as ballot access requirements vary across all 50 states, with "uniformity" meaning "meet the deadlines/requirements." But the question of enabling legislation looms large in the light of the last sentence of section 3:

But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

Now, can Congress delegate that ability via legislation?  I don't think so.  Can they overrule even a holding of the Supreme Court on the matter?  Seems clear they can.  How does that authority engage with due process and equal protection of the law (also provisions of the 14th Amendment)?  Or is this the Congressional equivalent of the Art. II pardon power?  Which seems to make it kind of fuck up hard any enabling legislation, and once again eviscerate the authority of these section of the Constitution.

Yes, Congress can do that, anyway.  But what legislation does it write that takes that provision into account?  A mechanism to bring such cases before Congress as the final arbiter?  Would that even be binding on Congress?  I think it would violate the provisions of Art. I, on a number of grounds.  But how could Congress enact Constitutionally valid legislation that is so enfeebled from the start?  Congress is expressly given authority to remove the disability if it so votes to.  How does that give Congress the authority to establish how the disability is determined and decided in the first place? (Yes, you'd have to determine an 'insurrection' was involved, and decide it was a disablility within the meaning of the section.  Two things the Court declined to consider at all this morning.)

Besides, with the example of Shelby County v Holder and other cases, which have reduced the VRA to a nubbin (leaving the 15th amendment another "erased" provision), what's to keep future Courts from erasing any attempt to enforce section 3?  Right now they're just declining to.  What does it say when they actively negate the ability to?

As I say, I wasn't really impressed with the quality of the arguments from anybody in that room Thursday morning.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 08, 2024

Change The Facts, Change The…

A good lawyer is a good thing to have. Prime example: Hunter Biden.
Posted by at No comments:

Dese Are De Conditions Dat Prevail!

In the post-Access Hollywood, post-Stormy Daniels, post-Covid/bleach/supply chain ("nobody ever heard of 'supply change' before that"!), problems (medical and paper products-wise), and in a world where the former President is charged with withholding military secrets, nuclear secrets, and probably still having documents he won't/can't surrender (because he sold them/traded them)....

These are ordinary circumstances.  In 400 pages the special counsel justifies his unwillingness to bring charges against Biden, but the real problem there is laxity of systems of control for such documents.  None of which were DOE nuclear secrets, or even information about current allies (Israel, among others.  Trump is still divulging classified information about their military capabilities/strategies).  Most of it was information on the Afghan war.  Not good he had it at home; but again, "home" was not a resort with unfettered access by unknown persons where the boxes were stacked in publicly accessible spaces like auditoriums and bathrooms.

Most notably, no one realized those documents were missing; not even Biden.  National Archives not only knew Trump took documents, Trump refused to give them back; and he actively tried to hide them.  It's still not clear that all the documents have been recovered.

There is a very real issue, too, regardless of responsibility of former Presidents and VPresidents, of control  over classified documents.  The question is not only:  why did Biden still have classified documents from being VPOTUS and a Senator?  It's also:  why did he negligently get away with it for so long?  Which custodians of records were equally negligent about where classified information was?

That one bothers me more than Biden's lack of criminal culpability (the special counsel says bringing charges would be too hard to prove intent/culpability beyond a reasonable doubt).

Change the facts, change the outcome.
Posted by at No comments:

Or Who Qualifies For A State’s Ballot

But states decide those issues on a regular basis, and non-major party candidates regularly disappear without notice.

The Court expressly said this is not “another ballot access issue,” but needs to explain why not.

That’s gonna be the gaping hole in the opinion. 🕳️ 

 Not to argue with my commenters:
The one tack I see: this is the only qual issue that can be addressed by Congress (contra age, natural born, term limits, etc), so that makes it different.

No, Trump's speculative argument about Congressional action isn't any good, but I suspect something along these lines.

Does that make section 3 non-self executing? That was another issue bandied about (but largely ignored) in argument this morning.  If it is, why is it left to Congress to decided on a case-by-case basis who is, or is not, guilty of "insurrection"?  I find that argument specious because:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

I'm not quite sure why "insurrection" is the key word, and "rebellion" isn't, but oh, well.  That last sentence seems to me to be so this section is not a "death sentence," final and irreversible; but it also clearly means Congress removes the disability on a case-by-case basis.  I'm not sure where in there it also says Congress must establish the grounds for the disability, too, and the mechanism for determining it.  I think they meant to make it clear the people have decided that, through the ratification process.

The Court sort of grappled with that today, but seemed content to regard the political implications of the consequences of applying the plain language here.  I know the shadow of Bush v. Gore is supposed to hang over them, but the problem there was a "per curiam" order on a 5-4 vote, and almost no reference (IIRC) to the Electoral Count Act which was the basis for the opinion.  There, Congress had acted and the Supremes were following their lead (there was a deadline looming).  Here, the Court is wimping out and, as I've said, erasing section 3 on the basis that, they don't want to get involved.

I keep coming back to that, I know.  I just think "This is too political, leave it to Congress" is completely the wrong answer to the question. Had the Warren Court done that in Brown v Board, where would be be today?

Besides, failure to get the signatures necessary to get on a state ballot, or to meet the deadlines for same, vary by state and keep a lot of people out in the cold with no chance to let the voters decide.  Who mostly decide by staying home.  That "none of the above" vote in the Nevada primary was because it was available. not because it was a surprising sentiment.  15% of Iowa voters bothered to caucus.  Well over 40% of New Hampshire voters didn't pick Trump.  Winner-take-all leaves a lot of people dissatisfied and out in the electoal cold, which is pretty much the way the power-that-be like it.

The Supreme Court is pretty nakedly their handmaiden.

Posted by at 1 comment:

Pissing On The Judge Who Holds Your Client’s Balls In His Hand

Not really the best legal strategy.

I will say, the lawyer for Trump this morning had the good sense not to disdain or otherwise try to piss if the Supremes this morning.

I didn’t think much of his argument, but that alone put him above every lawyer for Trump I’ve heard/read about in court so far.
Posted by at No comments:

The Dolt Who Would Be King 👑

Following Supreme Court oral arguments in a Colorado ballot access case, Trump held a press conference outside his Mar-a-Lago resort. 
"We're not a respected country anymore," Trump said. "We're left out all over the world. They're laughing at us. And they hate what's happening. They hate seeing it. They love our country."
As Trump veered into a rant on the war on Gaza, Tapper cut him off. 
"I think we've gotten all the legal analysis we're going to get out of President Trump," Tapper said, prompting laughter from the panel. 
"He wants to talk about himself," panelist George Conway noted. "He doesn't want to talk about the Supreme Court and say, 'Oh, the Supreme Court did a nice job today.' He just wants to talk about what's on his mind and himself." 
Correspondent Jamie Gangel suggested Trump had not listened to the Supreme Court's oral arguments.
They didn’t mention his name, not once. Of course he didn’t listen. His name is the only word of those arguments he’d have understood.
Posted by at No comments:

Well, That Went Well

I’m going to start by repeating myself:
The argument for consequences was the primary argument (per the MSNBC panel). So, no Mike Luttig or George Conway on the bench. Too much concern with who gets to be on the ballot for President, especially with third-party candidates standing in the shadows shouting “HELLO!”, while nobody notices. 
I will also note the discussion of the sedition clause (which predates the 14th), which denies one convicted under it from holding office thereafter. This was presented as superseding, or at least making moot, the 14th. So basically the argument was on track to declare cl. 3 an empty set of words in the Constitution. 
Which is the worst outcome imaginable. “We don’t like the consequences of following the Constitution, so we won’t. Let’s just all pretend the Constitution doesn’t say what it says.” 
If that ain’t a “constitutional crisis,” I don’t know what is.
I fsil to understand how cl. 3 makes a special exception to the general rule that states can disqualify candidates for Art. II reasons (age; citizenship), or control ballot access, but cl. 3 is off limits and basically erased from the Constitution by judicial fiat.

The really unmentioned argument is that major party candidates have special privileges not allowed any other candidates, and Presidential candidates especially stand apart from all others. It’s really not even a leap, but a “mind the gap” step, to Elie Mystal’s point:
THAT IS PRECISELY THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW!  THE ONLY UNIFORMITY IS DUE TO THE PARTIES CONTROLLING THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL 50 STATES! That is a consequence of American history, not the Constitution!! Nor is altering that in any way effectively unconstitutional.

I’ll retire to Bedlam.
(Trump on the ballot means less to me than the Court taking an eraser to the Constitution. But yeah, “screaming into the void” feels about right, right now.)
Posted by at No comments:

I Consider This The Weakest Argument

As has been pointed out, states do this every year. Trump recently tried to claim Haley had failed to qualify for the primary ballot in a state due to lack of petition signatures. (He was actually wrong, but no matter.) No one declared a constitutional crisis or cried “Havoc!,” and let slip the dogs of war.

And every year Presidential candidates qualify for 50 state ballots under 50 state laws. Only Democrats and Republicans are”automatically” qualified (it’s not automatic but a function of law, and why political parties still matter). Every other candidate is presumptively disqualified.

This ain’t that complicated, and the Justices are assuming the two major party candidates are ordained by Art. II and the blessings of we, the people. Which is really more disturbing than this:
The Justices pretend they are dealing with fundamental principles. But they are straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

(The pro-Colorado lawyer finally touched on this point. We’ll see if any of the 9 pick up on this. I won’t hold my breath.)

The argument for consequences was the primary argument (per the MSNBC panel). So, no Mike Luttig or George Conway on the bench. Too much concern with who gets to be on the ballot for President, especially with third-party candidates standing in the shadows shouting “HELLO!”, while nobody notices.

I will also note the discussion of the sedition clause (which predates the 14th), which denies one convicted under it from holding office thereafter. This was presented as superseding, or at least making moot, the 14th. So basically the argument was on track to declare cl. 3 an empty set of words in the Constitution. 

Which is the worst outcome imaginable. “We don’t like the consequences of following the Constitution, so we won’t. Let’s just all pretend the Constitution doesn’t say what it says.”

If that ain’t a “constitutional crisis,” I don’t know what is.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Pretty Much The Only Good Question This Morning

Posted by at No comments:

Their Crystal Ball 🔮 Is Broken

The bulk of the argument by Trump’s lawyer is about whether or not the Presidency is an “office.”

And the questions of the Colorado lawyers (i.e., the “defending” counsel) on who has the authority to grant ballot access (“Can one state decide?”) ignores that states all have requirements for ballot access which exclude Presidential candidates every year. RFK, Jr. has run up against that right now. The laws were uniformly written to favor Democrats and Republicans, and everyone else is up shit creek.

Which is the primary reason third-party candidates never act as anything but spoilers in some states.

The arguments/concerns of the Justices just sounds like Lindsey Graham with a fit of the vapors crying out for a fainting couch.🛋️ 
Posted by at No comments:

Okay…

People on both sides of the aisle applaud you for that," Cooper told the Texas Republican who served the country as a Navy SEAL. "[Trump] has put his thumb on scale on this. I understand activist groups make money off this. He is making money off this. He is running an election. This is perhaps a winning issue for him. He does not want improvement despite all the talk of fentanyl, despite all the talk of national security issues. he doesn't want a deal —"
Crenshaw asked for specific evidence.
Sure thing: And besides: Glad I could help.
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, February 07, 2024

“Oh 💩!”

 Judge Engoron asked for information behind the news report that Weisselberg had lied under oath. This is how Trump’s lawyers replied:

“Indeed, we respectfully submit that the Court's request for comment on this speculative media account is unprecedented, inappropriate and troubling.”
And, also, too:
Attorney Alina Habba told the court she conferred with her "ethics counsel" and was advised not to provide further detail. 
"The New York Times article is neither admissible nor reliable," Habba contended, "and it should not be considered in Your Honor’s determination as to the merits of this case."
Now why would they do that?
Second, if Mr. Weisselberg did commit perjury, this Court does not need to await the outcome of a criminal proceeding to resolve the issue. To the contrary, if counsel learns that their client has offered false material evidence, they have an affirmative obligation to take "reasonable remedial measures including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal." Rule 3.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR § 1200.25). If there are facts known to any defense counsel establishing that Mr. Weisselberg committed perjury, such counsel is obligated to disclose those facts, even if privileged and even if it exposes Mr. Weisselberg to prosecution for perjury.?
"Nothing to see here, Judge! Nothing at all!” 

(Based solely on this NYT article Habba and Roberts and Kise* have an ethical obligation to investigate the allegations and report the possibility of perjury to the court and opposing counsel. The dead opposite of what they are doing here.)

(Oops.)

(*Helluva way to end his career, huh?)

(Oh 💩, again.
It didn’t occur to me Habba represents Weisselberg, too.)
Posted by at 1 comment:

The GOP Keeps Making Biden’s Campaign Ads For Him

We may have finally reached a point where journalists can identify and report the bullshit without the Democrats pointing it out while journalists report “opinions differ.”

Because the conflicting opinions are coming from the GOP themselves.
Posted by at No comments:

I Need A Version Of “ETTD” For This

The second Carroll judgment has yet to be filed (which starts the clock for any appeal, beginning with a motion for new trial. I still expect Habba to try to skip that step.) Ruling on the motion for mistrial may explain why.

Trump’s lawyers really do suck. They made a shitshow of the immunity appeal. No one really expects them to get the attention of the Supremes. And they threw do much conspiracy shit in the air in Florida the Special Counsel had to file a response.

It isn’t just Habba, and his fortunes don’t improve with new counsel for the appeal. Besides, thanks to the poor showing in the NY case and Weisselberg’s perjury, Engoron is likely to bankrupt Trump. And the testimony of that trial is likely to finish off the appeal of the summary judgment that’s already pending.

I don’t think the appeals he’s going to spend more money on are going to be worth the investment. His lawyers really suck.
Posted by at No comments:

Georgia Must Be So Proud

"Marjorie, do you think these people are being blackmailed by the intel agencies?" he wondered. "They might have had relations with certain people and pictures and [are] compromised. Do you think that they're currently being blackmailed?"

Greene admitted she had "no proof of that."

"But I, again, I can't understand the vote, so nothing surprises me in Washington, D.C. anymore, Charlie," she remarked. "Literally nothing surprises me because it doesn't make sense to anyone, right?"

"Why would anyone protect Mayorkas unless they're being bribed, unless there's something going on, unless they're making a deal?" Greene added. "You know, because you can't understand it. It makes no sense." 

The woman has weevils in her brain. 

Posted by at 1 comment:

ICYMI

Rep. Green (representing a district in Houston!) has been called the “deciding vote,” but the impeachment failed by four votes. No matter; good on him!

But Johnson is the weakest and worst Speaker in memory.
And furthermore: 😎
Posted by at No comments:

🎶 Dead By Xmas Now Anyway (Hey! Hey!) 🎶

"Trump’s sudden cash demands are exacerbated by a quirk in New York law," wrote political investigations reporter Jose Pagliery. "Not only would the judgment get automatically inflated by an unusually high interest rate of 9 percent, but Trump would need to give the court the enlarged total — plus an extra 10 to 20 percent — in order to appeal and have another day in court. And it would all be due by mid-March."
N.B. It’s not really a “quirk” in New York law. Even Texas has the same statutory requirement at the same interest rate. That’s a statutory interest rate following federal law (same interest rate on federal judgments, so that rate applies to both Carroll verdicts), set at a time when that was a rather low rate. Ah yes, I remember it well. Back when usury laws were repealed, and dinosaurs roamed the mud flats.

Read on, it gets better:
"The self-proclaimed billionaire real estate tycoon is about to be caught in a trap of his own making," Pagliery added, "forced to front a massive amount of cash and possibly liquidate assets — while potentially unable to access the money, because the court order could limit his ability to tap his Monopoly board of properties."
It also seems Trump being president makes him a bad credit risk.
“Sureties require an indemnification agreement, a contract for the bond," said Neil Pedersen, who runs an appellate bond agency in Manhattan. "Now a concern would be: How do you perfect an indemnity of the person that could be the next sitting president? How do you take that person to court?”
Oh, and there’s this:
New York Supreme Court justice Arthur Engoron is still considering how much to penalize the former president in the civil fraud trial, but he signaled that might run even higher than the $370 million sought by attorney general Letitia James, and state laws would put Trump in a sudden and perilous cash crunch....
I told you he’d be broke by November. 😈
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)