It looks like they are gonna rule he isn't immune, and he can appeal that to the SCOTUS, but the asphalt case precedent should mean they will remove the stay in his DC case, and it should proceed. They really shouldn't even hear the appeal, but just kick it back until he appeals on conviction, however perhaps they want the constitutional issue resolved, but removing the stay is what matters for now and puts his DC trial back on track.
A super Nova of Shit flying in all direction when the star collapses into a black hole.
I think we’ll gain insights into the nucleosynthesis of ketchup and lies*. The bullshitrino flux will torch everything within his radius.
thehill.com
No shit your golden years will be hard to enjoy without immunity from your crimes coming back to haunt you. So sad.
Trump: It would be hard to enjoy ‘golden years’ of retirement without immunity
Former President Trump claimed Tuesday that if U.S. presidents were not broadly protected by presidential immunity, their retirement years would be plagued with legal battles that would make it difficult to enjoy their “golden years.”
In a series of posts Tuesday, Trump doubled down on his presidential immunity defense, hours after attending arguments before federal appeals court judges in Washington.
“WITHOUT IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD FOR A PRESIDENT TO ENJOY HIS OR HER ‘GOLDEN YEARS’ OF RETIREMENT,” Trump wrote Tuesday afternoon on Truth Social.
“THEY WOULD BE UNDER SIEGE BY RADICAL, OUT OF CONTROL PROSECUTORS, MUCH LIKE I AM, BUT WITHOUT THE RETIREMENT!!!” Trump added.
Trump, the GOP front-runner for president in 2024, warned in similar posts Tuesday that if the courts ultimately find presidential immunity does not apply, then other presidents would similarly not be immune from prosecution.
“IF A PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE IMMUNITY, THE COURT WILL BE ‘OPENING THE FLOODGATES’ TO PROSECUTING FORMER PRESIDENTS. AN OPPOSING HOSTILE PARTY WILL BE DOING IT FOR ANY REASON, ALL OF THE TIME!” Trump wrote.
In a second post, Trump added: “IF THEY TAKE AWAY MY IMMUNITY, THEY TAKE AWAY CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S IMMUNITY. WITHOUT IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!”
The hearing Tuesday morning reviewed a motion from Trump’s team to toss his election interference charges. During the hearing, Trump attorney John Sauer argued presidents could only be criminally prosecuted if they had been tried and convicted already by the Senate.
Trump faces four criminal indictments, including two cases involving his efforts to stay in power after losing the presidential election in 2020.
Trump was impeached for the second time for his actions surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, but he was ultimately acquitted in the Senate, after 57 senators, including seven Republicans, voted to convict and 43 senators voted to acquit. The vote needed a two-thirds majority.
Trump: It would be hard to enjoy ‘golden years’ of retirement without immunity
Former President Trump claimed Tuesday that if U.S. presidents were not broadly protected by presidential immunity, their retirement years would be plagued with legal battles that would make it dif…
They need to stop giving that man a bully pulpit free of charge.No shit your golden years will be hard to enjoy without immunity from your crimes coming back to haunt you. So sad.
Trump: It would be hard to enjoy ‘golden years’ of retirement without immunity
Former President Trump claimed Tuesday that if U.S. presidents were not broadly protected by presidential immunity, their retirement years would be plagued with legal battles that would make it difficult to enjoy their “golden years.”
In a series of posts Tuesday, Trump doubled down on his presidential immunity defense, hours after attending arguments before federal appeals court judges in Washington.
“WITHOUT IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD FOR A PRESIDENT TO ENJOY HIS OR HER ‘GOLDEN YEARS’ OF RETIREMENT,” Trump wrote Tuesday afternoon on Truth Social.
“THEY WOULD BE UNDER SIEGE BY RADICAL, OUT OF CONTROL PROSECUTORS, MUCH LIKE I AM, BUT WITHOUT THE RETIREMENT!!!” Trump added.
Trump, the GOP front-runner for president in 2024, warned in similar posts Tuesday that if the courts ultimately find presidential immunity does not apply, then other presidents would similarly not be immune from prosecution.
“IF A PRESIDENT DOES NOT HAVE IMMUNITY, THE COURT WILL BE ‘OPENING THE FLOODGATES’ TO PROSECUTING FORMER PRESIDENTS. AN OPPOSING HOSTILE PARTY WILL BE DOING IT FOR ANY REASON, ALL OF THE TIME!” Trump wrote.
In a second post, Trump added: “IF THEY TAKE AWAY MY IMMUNITY, THEY TAKE AWAY CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S IMMUNITY. WITHOUT IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE VERY HARD FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION!”
The hearing Tuesday morning reviewed a motion from Trump’s team to toss his election interference charges. During the hearing, Trump attorney John Sauer argued presidents could only be criminally prosecuted if they had been tried and convicted already by the Senate.
Trump faces four criminal indictments, including two cases involving his efforts to stay in power after losing the presidential election in 2020.
Trump was impeached for the second time for his actions surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, but he was ultimately acquitted in the Senate, after 57 senators, including seven Republicans, voted to convict and 43 senators voted to acquit. The vote needed a two-thirds majority.
Trump: It would be hard to enjoy ‘golden years’ of retirement without immunity
Former President Trump claimed Tuesday that if U.S. presidents were not broadly protected by presidential immunity, their retirement years would be plagued with legal battles that would make it dif…
apnews.com
After this spring if they want an interview or quote, they will need to arrange permission and a visit with the BOP and he can talk to them from behind glass using a phone where everything is recorded by prison authorities except lawyer stuff. That should discourage "political visits" by the magats in congress.
Being required to stick to the relative, material facts in a civil fraud case is a bridge too far.
Judge says Donald Trump won't give own closing argument at civil fraud trial after disputing rules
Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after Judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission.
NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump won’t make his own closing argument in his New York civil business fraud trial after his lawyers objected to the judge’s insistence that the former president would stick to “relevant” matters.
Judge Arthur Engoron rescinded permission on Wednesday, a day ahead of closing arguments in the trial.
The trial could cost Trump hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and strip him of his ability to do business in New York. His lawyers had signaled Thursday that he planned to take the extraordinary step of delivering a summation personally, in addition to arguments from his legal team.
Trump is a defendant in the case, brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. She claims his net worth was inflated by billions of dollars on financial statements that helped him secure business loans and insurance.
The former president and current Republican 2024 front-runner denies any wrongdoing, and he has lambasted the case as a “hoax” and a political attack on him. James and the judge are Democrats.
It’s extremely unusual for people who have lawyers to give their own closing arguments. In an email exchange that happened over recent days and was filed in court Wednesday, Engoron initially approved the unusual request, saying he was “including to let everyone have his or her say.”
But he said Trump would have to limit his remarks to the boundaries that cover attorneys’ closing arguments: “commentary on the relevant, material facts that are in evidence, and application of the relevant law to those facts.”
He would not be allowed to introduce new evidence, “comment on irrelevant matters” or “deliver a campaign speech” — or impugn the judge, his staff, the attorney general, her lawyers or the court system, the judge wrote.
Trump attorney Christopher Kise responded that those limitations were unfair and said Trump could not agree to them.
And you wonder why the NY judge recend it........
The box is getting tighter in NY and DC if the stay at least is removed and the trial in DC proceeds.
Another rant? Trump will not be in prison after this spring. You have no sense of how long this is going to drag out. There will be a trial in late spring. It should only take a few weeks but probably will drag on for more than two months. After he's found guilty of election interference by a jury then the appeals process will begin to unwind. As long as he has money to fund his legal effort, it will drag on, probably for years. During the whole time, he will be free to talk and say whatever he likes. Gag orders mean nothing to him. Go ahead and charge him with contempt of court, enforcing THAT will drag on for years too.
I think you’re responding to the type specimen of his bold optimistic (but unlikely) event/timeline speculations.
He fears Chutkan like the Lord for a reason and from what I can see his trial should be over in 2 months and I expect a ruling on his stay of proceedings, if not immunity soon. Such cynicism is unwarranted IMO, he has a bad case for immunity and disqualification, but this stuff is still just a matter of opinion and the legal pundits have been busy. I would expect the stay to be dropped at least and the trial to proceed. If the trial is stretched out, it will be during the primary and election season with a verdict coming well before the convention. The public has the memory of a gnat and the closer to election day shit happens to Trump the better I figure.
I don’t think I’ve seen you provide a definite analysis to back this opinion. I would not mind being convinced in a way that bare statement doesn’t.
The pace of events means that things quickly FIFO through the public's attention. I noticed during the Trump years his popularity would go down after a major fuck up or something he said, then a few weeks later it would rise again, many were quick to forget and forgive Donald repeatedly. I doubt it is an opinion that can be proved by data one way or the other.
