Donald Trump 2020

[Pig Bellmont 8664]

1 minute ago, SubliminalHorn said:

When do they rulings come down?

Typically June/July but May arguments are super rare so I dunno 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Pig Bellmont

[SubliminalHorn 6622]

lol at sekulow arguing that it’s too distracting. Yeah a criminal investigation is distracting to everyone. That’s why there are, wait for it, lawyers. 

[SimonBolivar 10890]

Just now, SubliminalHorn said:

lol at sekulow arguing that it’s too distracting. Yeah a criminal investigation is distracting to everyone. That’s why there are, wait for it, lawyers. 

And that was Breyer's retort. 

[TXSG8R 3325]

Just now, SubliminalHorn said:

lol at sekulow arguing that it’s too distracting. Yeah a criminal investigation is distracting to everyone. That’s why there are, wait for it, lawyers. 

One of the justices said exactly that (Breyer I believe).  Sekulow said its still a burden on the president because lawyers have to carve time out of the president's schedule to discuss the case and/or strategy.  

[Dahobbs 17406]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

IMO His argument is way too extreme. It’s basically just “he’s the president”. I think there is room for better legal strategy and arguments (understatement)

And the justices are begging for those arguments and not getting them. This is being driven by client demands and not necessarily the best legal strategy. I've worked with some of the other attorneys involved on Trump's side and know them to be good lawyers.

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Two times, two times.

That's fuct up, it edited both the double-posts, not just the second one.

Username checks out. 

[triplehorn 2664]

Roberts points out that Trump is arguing for absolute immunity whereas DOJ is arguing for a heightened standard to get POTUS records.  The DOJ then says they agree with Trump that he’s absolutely immune. Roberts points out that DOJ’s position now doesn't make sense - if POTUS is absolutely immune, then why would there be any standard ?  DOJ gone tits up for Trump.

[kevwun 15570]

Just now, TXSG8R said:

One of the justices said exactly that (Breyer I believe).  Sekulow said its still a burden on the president because lawyers have to carve time out of the president's schedule to discuss the case and/or strategy.  

Now that he isn't playing golf every other day, he should have lots of time.

[SubliminalHorn 6622]

1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

One of the justices said exactly that (Breyer I believe).  Sekulow said its still a burden on the president because lawyers have to carve time out of the president's schedule to discuss the case and/or strategy.  

Trump can cut his tweet time in half and have the majority of the day open 

[WhatTheBuck 28696]

Just now, TXSG8R said:

One of the justices said exactly that (Breyer I believe).  Sekulow said its still a burden on the president because lawyers have to carve time out of the president's schedule to discuss the case and/or strategy.  

"I know you're busy with a pandemic."

Lol. Yeah, right. 

[Pig Bellmont 8664]

1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

One of the justices said exactly that (Breyer I believe).  Sekulow said its still a burden on the president because lawyers have to carve time out of the president's schedule to discuss the case and/or strategy.  

And when the President spends all day watching tv and tweeting 125 times, the argument that his time is so valuable is especially weak

[henrygandorf 29169]

5 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

lol at sekulow arguing that it’s too distracting. Yeah a criminal investigation is distracting to everyone. That’s why there are, wait for it, lawyers. 

if we would just stop distracting him, he would be doing all the best presidenting. 

[Continental Op 3934]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not a CPA, but is it significant that they aren't a "Big Six" firm (understanding that Big Six doesn't exist anymore and is no guarantee of ethics)?  I understand that they are internationally large and prominent, but a lot of times, an international firm will buy an insignificant, possibly shady or not very good small firm to get a foothold in the US market.  Seems that's the case here.

The Big Four is more  "guarantee of no ethics" than "no guarantee of ethics".  The accounting profession is a joke.  We love to put up a smokescreen of independence in the auditing/assurance profession but when the shit hits the fan everyone knows which side their bread is buttered on.    

[BrickHorn 18134]

3 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

One of the justices said exactly that (Breyer I believe).  Sekulow said its still a burden on the president because lawyers have to carve time out of the president's schedule to discuss the case and/or strategy.  

What a genius defense. All criminal defendants should use that. “I know the state wants justice for this grisly string of axe murders, your honor, but this whole trial thing is just a huge distraction for my client and a real annoyance. It would really be much more convenient for him if the court would dismiss all charges and let him do what he wants with his free time.”

[Captainant 27249]

Just now, Continental Op said:

The Big Four is more  "guarantee of no ethics" than "no guarantee of ethics".  The accounting profession is a joke.  We love to put up a smokescreen of independence in the auditing/assurance profession but when the shit hits the fan everyone knows which side their bread is buttered on.    

next you'll tell me that credit rating agencies are full of shit and lie all the time just to rake in fees from the bond sellers?

[Continental Op 3934]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

next you'll tell me that credit rating agencies are full of shit and lie all the time just to rake in fees from the bond sellers?

Whispers "Guess what... Pro westling is fake!" 

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

next you'll tell me that credit rating agencies are full of shit and lie all the time just to rake in fees from the bond sellers?

[TXSG8R 3325]

6 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

And when the President spends all day watching tv and tweeting 125 times, the argument that his time is so valuable is especially weak

Not remotely arguing otherwise, just regurgitating what Sekulow's rebuttal was.  Their entire stance seems to be built around burden to the president.  If its burdensome, it should be kicked out to after their term.  Essentially, a president is immune to any legal proceedings while in office.  Theres just no way (hopefully) that argument can pass muster. 

 

EDIT:  to be precise, criminal proceedings.  Sekulow argues thats how this is different from Clinton vs Jones.  Civil proceedings are less burdensome because they only involve the loss of money.   

Edited May 12, 2020 by TXSG8R

[BrickHorn 18134]

2 minutes ago, Continental Op said:

Whispers "Guess what... Pro westling is fake!" 

[Biff Tannen 45439]

1 minute ago, TXSG8R said:

Not remotely arguing otherwise, just regurgitating what Sekulow's rebuttal was.  Their entire stance seems to be built around burden to the president.  If its burdensome, it should be kicked out to after their term.  Essentially, a president is immune to any legal proceedings while in office.  Theres just no way (hopefully) that argument can pass muster.  

If this passes, the next argument will be he is immune after the presidency also.  This isn't about the office of the president, it's about Trump specifically.

[Bozo_Casanova 26146]

Sorry lawyers for the dumb questions: is Noel Francisco essentially arguing that since a local DA could not indict until after the President leaves office he therefore also cannot even investigate in a way that would require any participation from either the president or by inference even the custodian or agent of the President's records without a "special need" that he does not define?

Edited May 12, 2020 by Bozo_Casanova

[Ghost of LL 15327]

41 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

@Ghost of LL - is he (Sekulow) arguing categorically that a local prosecutor cannot subpeona a sitting president, OR EVEN a custodian or agent of a sitting president? Or is there some nuance I'm missing?

No--there's no nuance.  It's a pretty extreme position.  And his problem is that for the Court to adopt that position, it would have to overrule its precedent in Clinton v. Jones.

36 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

When do they rulings come down?

Probably end of June.

Just now, longhornmatt said:

Not sure I agree with that.  He’s only an experienced Supreme Court advocate because he was Pat Robertson’s scam collaborator and one of their grifts was setting up organizations to raise money for lawsuits on Religious Right issues.  He isn’t a Supreme Court advocate because he rose through the usual channels on merit, his background is pretty mediocre, and he frankly seems like a dumb political hack most of the time.

Well, ok.  I'm not sure that I said that he's a good lawyer or a skilled advocate.  I think he is probably the latter and definitely not the former.  But regardless--he is a fairly experienced Supreme-Court practitioner.  

[Bateshorn 9853]

I love it when Surly’s law dogs show up and do their thing.  Keep up the good work.

[High Plains Drifter 10961]

20 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And stronger fiber. 

 

and more taste.

[DDD Dad 14142]

Was there more than one case argued this morning?  I stopped listening about an hour ago.

[TXSG8R 3325]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Was there more than one case argued this morning?  I stopped listening about an hour ago.

Yes, this is the second case.  

[jimmyjazz 45426]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yes.  He's a very experienced Supreme Court advocate.

The trouble is that he has really bad precedent to deal with here (Clinton v. Jones).

He was shockingly bad to my eyes as a layman during the impeachment hearings.  The man is a whore.

[TwiceHorn 31069]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

Yes.  He's a very experienced Supreme Court advocate.

The trouble is that he has really bad precedent to deal with here (Clinton v. Jones).

Eh, I'm not sure I agree.  By his own count, he's had 12 cases at the Supreme Court, which is nothing to sneeze at, but pales in comparison to many others.  And it's not 100% clear to me that he was lead counsel or presented the oral argument in all 12 (looks like 8).  There are supreme court advocates that do that in one year.

Most of his cases have been religious liberty or abortion-issue cases, which are pretty far afield from this.

"Experienced," yes.  "Very experienced," ymmv.  A top Supreme Court advocate, no.

Edited May 12, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14142]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The man is a whore.

 

[Ghost of LL 15327]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh, I'm not sure I agree.  By his own count, he's had 12 cases at the Supreme Court, which is nothing to sneeze at, but pales in comparison to many others.  And it's not 100% clear to me that he was lead counsel or presented the oral argument in all 12 (looks like 8).  There are supreme court advocates that do that in one year.

Most of his cases have been religious liberty or abortion-issue cases, which are pretty far afield from this.

"Experienced," yes.  "Very experienced," ymmv.  A top Supreme Court advocate, no.

That's a fair assessment.  

[elfenix 34161]

2 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Yeah, but the stock market is (somehow) going strong and yachts can be gassed up cheaply.  And the dead people were pretty much all old poors anyway.  They were probably glad to go so they could stop being poor and go be with Jesus.  We're winning.  
Nobody wins like us.  Believe me.
 

The stock market got 2 trillion dollars in support from the fed, big companies got bailed out in stimulus, and a lot of captive dollars don't have anywhere to go (where else are you going to put those retirement dollars?). Also, stock issuance has been massively negative for the last 25 years

 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by elfenix

[TwiceHorn 31069]

28 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Also, Trump literally only hired Sekulow because he sees him on Fox News.  Any normal Republican President would have someone like Ted Olson or Paul Clement, and Sekulow wouldn’t be anywhere near their radar.

Yes, these are what I consider "very experienced" Supreme Court advocates.  Probably also include Ken Starr in there.  And they have argued and prepared a much wider range of cases than Sekulow.

I can't say Sekulow is a hack.  But he has some hack-like qualities.  And is hoorish.  They're all hoors though.

Edited May 12, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23355]

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Hugo Stiglitz

[TwiceHorn 31069]

6 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Sekulow is a simple grifter who learned from Pat Robertson.   He had a completely nondescript career until Pat Robertson hired him and he got in the game of conning televangelism consumers.

His scam is simple:  through his “charities” he gets Religious Right people to donate money for legal challenges to abortion laws, and then he has the charity hire his law firm to handle the case and pay himself huge legal fees.

https://apnews.com/9d2ed80ca912d18abd6650f55d2db935
 

“Charity watchdogs for years have raised concerns about the blurred lines between for-profit businesses tied to Sekulow and the complex web of non-profit entities he and his family control.

The Associated Press reviewed 10 years of tax returns for the ACLJ and other charities tied to Sekulow, which are released to the public under federal law. The records from 2008 to 2017, the most recent year available, show that more than $65 million in charitable funds were paid to Sekulow, his wife, his sons, his brother, his sister-in-law, his nephew and corporations they own.”

That, too.  He's pretty disgusting, actually.  A shame that he's associated with the cause of religious liberty.

[Eskimohorn 5593]

Kavanaugh probably cut his teeth on the Paula Jones case. He saw the light of executive privilege during the Bush administration. Funny how that works.

This will be a 5-4 decision

[TwiceHorn 31069]

3 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

 Sekulow’s Supreme Court advocacy experience is based on hiring himself through scams.

Yep.  And I sense without deep diving, that the cases he's given himself have been pretty easy.

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/12/donald-trump-haters-joe-biden-clinton-244629

 

 

Quote

President Donald Trump is losing a critical constituency: voters who see two choices on the ballot — and hate them both.

Unlike in 2016, when a large group of voters who disliked both Trump and Hillary Clinton broke sharply for Trump, the opposite is happening now, according to public polling and private surveys conducted by Republicans and Democrats alike.

 

Quote

“Of the nearly 20 percent of voters who disliked both Clinton and Trump in 2016, Trump outperformed Clinton by about 17 percentage points, according to exit polls. Four years later, that same group — including a mix of Bernie Sanders supporters, other Democrats, disaffected Republicans and independents — strongly prefers Biden, the polling shows. The former vice president leads Trump by more than 40 percentage points among that group, which accounts for nearly a quarter of registered voters, according to a Monmouth University poll last week.”

 

[DDD Dad 14142]

That, too.  He's pretty disgusting, actually.  A shame that he's associated with the cause of religious liberty. domination.

FIFY

[Guest Lobo]

Did I just hear a United States Supreme Court Justice start a question with, "Like, if you pretend..."  ???

If you're a grown man and you start questions with "Like", you should be thrown into a lake.  Do adults listen to how they speak anymore?  What the fuck?  

Guy went to Yale and probably speaks Latin, but he begins official questioning with, "Like uh...if you pretend."

How are some of you allowed to walk around?  

[Message Board User 12388]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

I love it when Surly’s law dogs show up and do their thing.  Keep up the good work.

They’re only here because they heard an ambulance.

[elfenix 34161]

They’re only here because they heard an ambulance.

Don't you die on me, RBG

[henrygandorf 29169]

ok, so walk us through what happens if this goes against trump (or against the order to halt the acct firm from disclosure or whatever).  let's say in 4-6 weeks, we get the ruling we want.  then what?  i'm of the opinion that we'll never ever see anything, but i'm also of the opinion that none of it really matters in the grand scheme (general election). 

but it would be great to see the runway timing on this land right around when he's out of office.  i want his post-president life to be as uncomfortable and embarrassing as possible, where pretty much everyone hates him.  kinda like his actual presidency. 

[jimmyjazz 45426]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

ok, so walk us through what happens if this goes against trump (or against the order to halt the acct firm from disclosure or whatever).  let's say in 4-6 weeks, we get the ruling we want.  then what?  i'm of the opinion that we'll never ever see anything, but i'm also of the opinion that none of it really matters in the grand scheme (general election). 

With regards to Mazars, I'm hoping they are compelled to release, even if they don't.  The added stress that will put on Trump will be an absolute riot.  It will send him way farther into orbit.

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

With regards to Mazars, I'm hoping they are compelled to release, even if they don't.  The added stress that will put on Trump will be an absolute riot.  It will send him way farther into orbit.

If the court rules as it should and Mazars is going to release, expect some lawsuit about a previously unknown NDA that Trump signed with them years ago preventing them from releasing anything, and we wait further to see how legit this NDA is.

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31069]

Just now, Francisco 2.0 said:

If the court rules as it should and Mazars is going to release, expect some lawsuit about a previously unknown NDA that Trump signed with them years ago preventing them from releasing anything, and we wait further to see how legit this NDA is.

 

 

Mazar's has said they will comply with a court order.

Most NDAs contain a provision that they do not apply in the instance of a court order of disclosure.  And whether they contain such a provision or not, they do not apply in the instance of a court order of disclosure.

Further, by the doctrine of merger and bar, such a claim would be precluded by the current litigation.  I.e., if there was some other ground for withholding, like an NDA, he should have asserted it in this case.

That of course does not mean that Trump won't file another frivolous lawsuit.

[Francisco 2.0 32290]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Mazar's has said they will comply with a court order.

Most NDAs contain a provision that they do not apply in the instance of a court order of disclosure.  And whether they contain such a provision or not, they do not apply in the instance of a court order of disclosure.

Further, by the doctrine of merger and bar, such a claim would be precluded by the current litigation.  I.e., if there was some other ground for withholding, like an NDA, he should have asserted it in this case.

That of course does not mean that Trump won't file another frivolous lawsuit.

Thx.

I didn't expect Mazar's to not comply; rather, Trump would file another suit asserting there was an NDA in place.   Buy himself another month or two while that sorts itself out.

 

 

[ChiTownDoc 21065]

45 minutes ago, Lobo said:

How are some of you allowed to walk around?  

 

[TwiceHorn 31069]

19 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

ok, so walk us through what happens if this goes against trump (or against the order to halt the acct firm from disclosure or whatever).  let's say in 4-6 weeks, we get the ruling we want.  then what?  i'm of the opinion that we'll never ever see anything, but i'm also of the opinion that none of it really matters in the grand scheme (general election). 

but it would be great to see the runway timing on this land right around when he's out of office.  i want his post-president life to be as uncomfortable and embarrassing as possible, where pretty much everyone hates him.  kinda like his actual presidency. 

They will be ordered to disclose, likely with some assurances that they won't be made public.

If they don't disclose, they will be subject of a contempt citation in the district court and will receive a daily fine until they do, and someone might go to jail until they do, like the salon bitch in Dallas.  This may involve one or two brief trips back to court for the party seeking the documents.

We the public are unlikely to see anything, unless it's by unauthorized leak.

Edited May 12, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Dnaguy 11704]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They will be ordered to disclose, likely with some assurances that they won't be made public.

If they don't disclose, they will be subject of a contempt citation in the district court and will receive a daily fine until they do, and someone might go to jail until they do, like the salon bitch in Dallas.  This may involve one or two brief trips back to court for the party seeking the documents.

We the public are unlikely to see anything, unless it's by unauthorized leak.

Which will happen.... in October.

Edited May 12, 2020 by Dnaguy

[SubliminalHorn 6622]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

Did I just hear a United States Supreme Court Justice start a question with, "Like, if you pretend..."  ???

If you're a grown man and you start questions with "Like", you should be thrown into a lake.  Do adults listen to how they speak anymore?  What the fuck?  

Guy went to Yale and probably speaks Latin, but he begins official questioning with, "Like uh...if you pretend."

How are some of you allowed to walk around?  

You sound old