Someone should remind MAGA yet again that the sword cuts both ways. Sure they have their pewpew sticks if OHJB does the tyranny, but I'm not sure an M1A1 is all that worried about a bunch of overwrought chucklefucks with ARs.
Said it before…even the proto-fascists in SCOTUS have absolutely NO incentive to side with Assmouth. They’ve all got lifetime appointments, and even the dumb ones (I’m looking at YOU Kegs) are smart enough to know they can do more long-term damage to the country by keeping their heads down and punting. There’s no downside to dodging this wrench.
I'd be a whole lot more confident if there weren't dominionists on SCOTUS angling for theocratic authoritarian rule. At some point those "justices" will likely want to make that argument, even if they punt it this time.
Thomas, Alito, and Barrett are the crazies. It takes four votes to grant certiorari (have the Court even hear the case) and five to grant a stay (preventing Chutkan from going ahead with the trial until they rule). Kavanaugh? I doubt it. Gorsuch? Nah. Roberts? Certainly not.
Maybe. But Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have both voted in ways that support religious (christian) primacy- even when it conflicted with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Both voted in 2020 to require taxpayers to fund religious schools, for example. Both voted in 2020 to strike down public health restrictions limiting the crowd size at gatherings including worship services, characterizing the classification of worship services as non-essential as “religious discrimination.” Both have voted in favor of religious (christian) monuments in public places and said that citizens should not even be allowed to challenge religious displays in court. Both voted to expand “ministerial exception,” allowing religious organizations to fire employees for otherwise protected status (race, national origin, gender...). So I wouldn't rule them out.
Yes, yes and yes about what a few of those fuckers want. However…they don’t NEED Assmouth, and if your goal is a religious theocracy he’s not the “man” for the job. The reality is he and his cultists worship #1 the Assmouth, and #2 any other deities. A second Assmouth presidency would be all about him, and securing power for his spawn. No room for Jeebus in there. They will be more “effective” in their own way going back to being the shadowy group which distorts the country, not in the spotlight.
It took courts this long to come to a verdict regarding something that should be so glaringly obvious: that the President isn't above the law and CAN be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.
Like, everyone knows that already and should know that.
Trump's more likely to die of old age before the courts even convict him, if they would even get that far.
In the end, it pretty much says that, but it brings the receipts and does the math, whichever metaphor you want. And that's exactly what was needed. It was very important that the opinion have no loose threads that lawyers could use on appeal -- "But what about this part? They didn't really prove it!"
It takes over 50 pages to say it, but it does basically say "lol get fucked loser".
Well, it's good to hear that our very own self-presumed "Roi Soleil" or Sun King isn't divine after all. The appeals court seems to have understood perfectly that if they went the wrong way on this one, the republic would be over and the American Monarchy might as well move in and start measuring for new drapes. Here's supposing the full set of appeals judges are approximately as smart as their three peers, and will laugh very hard at Donald's appeal while also producing a well-reasoned, thorough opinion on how insane his position is.
"What? You say our glorious God Emperor of MAGAKind is NOT divine? HERESY! You shall pay for your blasphemy vile xenos scum! (xenos here referring to those south of the border of course)"
I wanted to do a deeper dive on today’s (2/6) decision by the 3-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals, which AFFIRMED Judge Chutkan’s opinion that TFG’s defenses of “absolute presidential immunity” (API) from criminal prosecution, and double-jeopardy (DJ), are complete and utter bullshit. As Taylor Swift has said: “Are you ready for it?”
Now that TFG’s defenses have been rejected, the main issue is how quickly the DC election interference case can go to trial. In a separate order, the panel directed that its mandate to return the case to the trial court would issue on 2/12/24 (next Monday, or 6 days from now), unless TFG filed a petition for writ of certiorari with SCOTUS by then. In other words, the trial court’s stay will be lifted unless TFG gets his fat ass in gear. That same order stated that if TFG wants to fuck around and file a petition for en banc review by the full DC COA, he can find out that the trial court stay will be lifted, unless he files for SCOTUS review by 2/12. Under ordinary circumstances, TFG would have 45 days to petition for en banc review, and 90 days thereafter to file his cert petition with SCOTUS. The panel essentially said “fuck off with that shit.” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593674.0_3.pdf
Assuming TFG files his cert petition with SCOTUS by 2/12, Jack Smith will face a choice. He previously stated that SCOTUS “ultimately” needs to decide this issue. If it were me, I’d probably argue that given the thoroughness of the Panel’s opinion, SCOTUS should either (a) deny cert, or (2) in the alternative, expedite the appeal in order to affirm the Panel’s decision ASAP. My personal guess is that the SCOTUS majority doesn’t want to touch this case with a 10-foot pole, and would let it go to trial. (I likewise suspect that a majority will allow TFG to remain on the ballot in the CO case, so this will be their way of “splitting the baby.”)
Of note, the Panel demonstrated that it did a lot of research in its 57-page opinion, with many cases cited from the 1800s as well as the Federalist Papers (designed to appeal to the so-called “originalists” on SCOTUS). They also quoted recent opinions from Gorsuch and Kavenaugh, as well as quotes from a few dissenting opinions by Dead Scalia and Corrupt Thomas. Talk about backing them into a corner.
The 1st substantive portion of the opinion deals with the Amicus Brief filed by American Oversight (the AO Brief), which argued the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal absent “explicit” Constitutional or statutory immunity. I previously argued why I thought the AO Brief was a bad idea, and the Panel ultimately decided that it DID have jurisdiction. My prior Note: https://substack.com/@2cats2furious/note/c-46533370?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=2knok4
The next portion of the opinion seems to have been written by Judge Henderson, a Poppy Bush appointee. This portion makes the distinction between a President’s discretionary v ministerial (required) acts, arguing criminal liability for only the latter. Henderson noted at oral argument that it would be bizarre that a President - who has a Constitutional duty to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed - could claim immunity from criminal prosecution by violating federal laws. See my prior Note for further explanation: https://substack.com/@2cats2furious/note/c-47129205?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=2knok4
The less attention paid to TFG’s “interpretation” of the Impeachment Judgment Clause and principles of double jeopardy, the better. Suffice to say the Panel was not impressed. My guess is that Pan wrote this portion of the opinion.
Finally, I want to note that in the meat of the opinion, pp 19-20, the Panel noted that TFG’s claims of API were not persuasive in general, and in this case “in particular.” That text made me smile, because I immediately envisioned the gif of the kitteh who knocks items off a dresser, with captions of “Fuck this,” “Fuck that,” and “Fuck this thing IN PARTICULAR.” I’m pretty sure the Panel didn’t mean to invoke that image, but it did, and I ❤️that so much.
Well, yes, all of this is entirely germane, but .... did they remember to cite some guys who were involved in the prosecutions at the Salem Witch trials? Because as we know, that sort of thing is the conservative gold standard for legal research and argumentation, right on up to SCOTUS.
“(They even talked about how a bunch of the Republican senators who acquitted Trump of trying to overthrow the government had many reasons for doing so, many of which had absolutely zero to do with whether Trump had tried to overthrow the government.)” - I assume none of the reasons laid out are because of the verbal threats, mailed threats, texted threats, phoned threats, armed threats, poop threats on walls, brick threats through windows, hammered threats at skulls by the great unwashed MAGA faithful? But they should be.
There was an article in (I think) Salon wherein Dahlia Lithwick and Molly Jong-Fast were discussing the E. Jean Carroll verdict.
Molly said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Oh, look, the justice system ISN'T as badly broken as we all thought! All it took was a judge that was able to find their spine!"
Someone should remind MAGA yet again that the sword cuts both ways. Sure they have their pewpew sticks if OHJB does the tyranny, but I'm not sure an M1A1 is all that worried about a bunch of overwrought chucklefucks with ARs.
"Trump has until the Feb. 12 — six days from now — to appeal." So I assume he'll file an appeal on 2/12 at 11:59 PM.
It'd be a kick if he were five minutes late
Let's get somebody to set his clocks back, just for s*its & giggles. Melania, are you listening?
But not unsurprising considering his legal team. He's about one iteration from having to get Larry Klayman to tag in.
Said it before…even the proto-fascists in SCOTUS have absolutely NO incentive to side with Assmouth. They’ve all got lifetime appointments, and even the dumb ones (I’m looking at YOU Kegs) are smart enough to know they can do more long-term damage to the country by keeping their heads down and punting. There’s no downside to dodging this wrench.
I can't enjoy reading "Assmouth" enough times. Ass-bolutely the best nickname for PAB, bravo :)
👨🍳💋
I'd be a whole lot more confident if there weren't dominionists on SCOTUS angling for theocratic authoritarian rule. At some point those "justices" will likely want to make that argument, even if they punt it this time.
Thomas, Alito, and Barrett are the crazies. It takes four votes to grant certiorari (have the Court even hear the case) and five to grant a stay (preventing Chutkan from going ahead with the trial until they rule). Kavanaugh? I doubt it. Gorsuch? Nah. Roberts? Certainly not.
Maybe. But Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have both voted in ways that support religious (christian) primacy- even when it conflicted with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Both voted in 2020 to require taxpayers to fund religious schools, for example. Both voted in 2020 to strike down public health restrictions limiting the crowd size at gatherings including worship services, characterizing the classification of worship services as non-essential as “religious discrimination.” Both have voted in favor of religious (christian) monuments in public places and said that citizens should not even be allowed to challenge religious displays in court. Both voted to expand “ministerial exception,” allowing religious organizations to fire employees for otherwise protected status (race, national origin, gender...). So I wouldn't rule them out.
Yes, yes and yes about what a few of those fuckers want. However…they don’t NEED Assmouth, and if your goal is a religious theocracy he’s not the “man” for the job. The reality is he and his cultists worship #1 the Assmouth, and #2 any other deities. A second Assmouth presidency would be all about him, and securing power for his spawn. No room for Jeebus in there. They will be more “effective” in their own way going back to being the shadowy group which distorts the country, not in the spotlight.
Go Engoron! Burn Tr*mp Inc dowwwwwnnnnnnn!
It took courts this long to come to a verdict regarding something that should be so glaringly obvious: that the President isn't above the law and CAN be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office.
Like, everyone knows that already and should know that.
Trump's more likely to die of old age before the courts even convict him, if they would even get that far.
I think it took that long because they wanted to write a bullet-proof opinion.
I read lawyer blogs. They say it's tight and solid. One said it was among the best he'd seen.
I really feel like: lol 😂 get fucked loser would have been fine
I like that. That would be a refreshing legal opinion.
In the end, it pretty much says that, but it brings the receipts and does the math, whichever metaphor you want. And that's exactly what was needed. It was very important that the opinion have no loose threads that lawyers could use on appeal -- "But what about this part? They didn't really prove it!"
It takes over 50 pages to say it, but it does basically say "lol get fucked loser".
Well, it's good to hear that our very own self-presumed "Roi Soleil" or Sun King isn't divine after all. The appeals court seems to have understood perfectly that if they went the wrong way on this one, the republic would be over and the American Monarchy might as well move in and start measuring for new drapes. Here's supposing the full set of appeals judges are approximately as smart as their three peers, and will laugh very hard at Donald's appeal while also producing a well-reasoned, thorough opinion on how insane his position is.
Meanwhile, in the FarQMAGA camp:
"What? You say our glorious God Emperor of MAGAKind is NOT divine? HERESY! You shall pay for your blasphemy vile xenos scum! (xenos here referring to those south of the border of course)"
Ta, Evan. A few more thoughts.
I wanted to do a deeper dive on today’s (2/6) decision by the 3-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals, which AFFIRMED Judge Chutkan’s opinion that TFG’s defenses of “absolute presidential immunity” (API) from criminal prosecution, and double-jeopardy (DJ), are complete and utter bullshit. As Taylor Swift has said: “Are you ready for it?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHH52hPJEFU
Some thoughts, in no particular order:
Now that TFG’s defenses have been rejected, the main issue is how quickly the DC election interference case can go to trial. In a separate order, the panel directed that its mandate to return the case to the trial court would issue on 2/12/24 (next Monday, or 6 days from now), unless TFG filed a petition for writ of certiorari with SCOTUS by then. In other words, the trial court’s stay will be lifted unless TFG gets his fat ass in gear. That same order stated that if TFG wants to fuck around and file a petition for en banc review by the full DC COA, he can find out that the trial court stay will be lifted, unless he files for SCOTUS review by 2/12. Under ordinary circumstances, TFG would have 45 days to petition for en banc review, and 90 days thereafter to file his cert petition with SCOTUS. The panel essentially said “fuck off with that shit.” https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593674.0_3.pdf
Assuming TFG files his cert petition with SCOTUS by 2/12, Jack Smith will face a choice. He previously stated that SCOTUS “ultimately” needs to decide this issue. If it were me, I’d probably argue that given the thoroughness of the Panel’s opinion, SCOTUS should either (a) deny cert, or (2) in the alternative, expedite the appeal in order to affirm the Panel’s decision ASAP. My personal guess is that the SCOTUS majority doesn’t want to touch this case with a 10-foot pole, and would let it go to trial. (I likewise suspect that a majority will allow TFG to remain on the ballot in the CO case, so this will be their way of “splitting the baby.”)
As for the Panel’s decision itself, they obviously spent the 4 weeks since oral argument well, as this is a particularly thorough and well-reasoned opinion. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0_3.pdf
Of note, the Panel demonstrated that it did a lot of research in its 57-page opinion, with many cases cited from the 1800s as well as the Federalist Papers (designed to appeal to the so-called “originalists” on SCOTUS). They also quoted recent opinions from Gorsuch and Kavenaugh, as well as quotes from a few dissenting opinions by Dead Scalia and Corrupt Thomas. Talk about backing them into a corner.
The 1st substantive portion of the opinion deals with the Amicus Brief filed by American Oversight (the AO Brief), which argued the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal absent “explicit” Constitutional or statutory immunity. I previously argued why I thought the AO Brief was a bad idea, and the Panel ultimately decided that it DID have jurisdiction. My prior Note: https://substack.com/@2cats2furious/note/c-46533370?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=2knok4
The next portion of the opinion seems to have been written by Judge Henderson, a Poppy Bush appointee. This portion makes the distinction between a President’s discretionary v ministerial (required) acts, arguing criminal liability for only the latter. Henderson noted at oral argument that it would be bizarre that a President - who has a Constitutional duty to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed - could claim immunity from criminal prosecution by violating federal laws. See my prior Note for further explanation: https://substack.com/@2cats2furious/note/c-47129205?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=2knok4
The less attention paid to TFG’s “interpretation” of the Impeachment Judgment Clause and principles of double jeopardy, the better. Suffice to say the Panel was not impressed. My guess is that Pan wrote this portion of the opinion.
Finally, I want to note that in the meat of the opinion, pp 19-20, the Panel noted that TFG’s claims of API were not persuasive in general, and in this case “in particular.” That text made me smile, because I immediately envisioned the gif of the kitteh who knocks items off a dresser, with captions of “Fuck this,” “Fuck that,” and “Fuck this thing IN PARTICULAR.” I’m pretty sure the Panel didn’t mean to invoke that image, but it did, and I ❤️that so much.
Ready for any questions or comments!
Well, yes, all of this is entirely germane, but .... did they remember to cite some guys who were involved in the prosecutions at the Salem Witch trials? Because as we know, that sort of thing is the conservative gold standard for legal research and argumentation, right on up to SCOTUS.
not to be a pedant but alito cited an ENGLISH witch finder jurist from the 17th c.: matthew hale.
not one of our home grown assholes.
(which in some ways makes it worse as our US america lawyer conservative asshats frequently chafe at the idea of 'international law').
Thanks for the correction -- Matthew Hale it is, then.
you forgot alito's preference for 14th century rulings.
That's what I was referring to.
I loved your screaming 😱 toddler picture of trump - perfect 👍
“(They even talked about how a bunch of the Republican senators who acquitted Trump of trying to overthrow the government had many reasons for doing so, many of which had absolutely zero to do with whether Trump had tried to overthrow the government.)” - I assume none of the reasons laid out are because of the verbal threats, mailed threats, texted threats, phoned threats, armed threats, poop threats on walls, brick threats through windows, hammered threats at skulls by the great unwashed MAGA faithful? But they should be.
Well, I for one, am not going to comment until I get the "truth" from Tucker
"former presidents can’t be criminally prosecuted unless they were first impeached and convicted for the same offenses by Congress."
`
At which point it would be double jeopardy.
*reads further*
D'oh!
Prof Melissa Murray just eviscerated the Trump attorneys' fauxguments
This was probably the "Court of Appeals" he was blathering about having 'largely won' the other day. Wishful thinking much?
He doesn't want "The President" to have immunity.
He wants *Trump* to have immunity.
It's almost like he's never really understood the job...
There was an article in (I think) Salon wherein Dahlia Lithwick and Molly Jong-Fast were discussing the E. Jean Carroll verdict.
Molly said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Oh, look, the justice system ISN'T as badly broken as we all thought! All it took was a judge that was able to find their spine!"
"They just didn’t buy Trump’s arguments that he couldn’t do his duties as president if he couldn’t commit crimes."
`
Ol' Stinky's like the bus from "Speed", only with crimes.