Couple Ls for the fat man
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 14:44 last edited by
SCOTUS:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010925zr_2d8f.pdf
The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and
by her referred to the Court is denied for, inter alia, the
following reasons. First, the alleged evidentiary violations at
President-Elect Trump’s state-court trial can be addressed in the
ordinary course on appeal. Second, the burden that sentencing
will impose on the President-Elect’s responsibilities is
relatively insubstantial in light of the trial court’s stated
intent to impose a sentence of “unconditional discharge” after a
brief virtual hearing.Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice
Kavanaugh would grant the application.
IOW, the reason SCOTUS declined is because, as I noted above, the appeal process had not run its course.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 14:57 last edited by
Yep. Same as my #2. #s 1 and 3 don’t apply.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 14:57 last edited by
What a good look that Alito calls Trump to request a favor knowing more Trump shit was headed his way this week.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 16:32 last edited by
“Trump receives unconditional discharge”.
Headline? Or porn flick?
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 17:02 last edited by
A judge sentenced Trump to an unconditional discharge today. I can relate. I had one of those at the Fair in 2007 after a bacon wrapped deep-fried cheesecake. Prayers up to the President elect.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 17:11 last edited by
Wait til he meets Bubba, who’s giving the unconditional discharge.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 18:13 last edited by
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 18:26 last edited by
As a tactic, this is the kind of stuff that elected Trump.
Now, this is going to be overturned. When it is, does a really nice case for violating Trump's civil rights exist? I've read some think it does...
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 18:26 last edited by
Secondly, is there a civil case in here, somewhere?
-
He gets sentenced in NY (5-4 SCOTUS) and Jack Smith can release his report. (As he should, it’s the law. Remember Hur’s report?)
I guess this will officially make him a convicted felon.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:38 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
(...Remember Hur’s report?)
You mean the one that said the dried up, grifting, child molester was too senile to take to court despite his crimes? That report?
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:41 last edited by jon-nyc 1 Oct 2025, 19:41
The one the said over and over there was insufficient evidence to pursue him and then he threw in that comment so he’d be a magat hero instead of a magat goat.
But the point is the Biden DoJ released it.
-
The one the said over and over there was insufficient evidence to pursue him and then he threw in that comment so he’d be a magat hero instead of a magat goat.
But the point is the Biden DoJ released it.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:44 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
The one the said over and over there was insufficient evidence to pursue him
That’s the rub. Trump’s won’t show there was insufficient evidence to pursue him. Just not enough time, especially after scotus hit the ‘start over’ button in July.
-
The one the said over and over there was insufficient evidence to pursue him and then he threw in that comment so he’d be a magat hero instead of a magat goat.
But the point is the Biden DoJ released it.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 19:56 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
The one the said over and over there was insufficient evidence to pursue him and then he threw in that comment so he’d be a magat hero instead of a magat goat.
But the point is the Biden DoJ released it.
IOW, you're willing to accept Hur's comment that there's insufficent evidence, but you won't accept the Hur's comment that, at the time the geezer was not quite as brain-addled as he is now.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 21:38 last edited by
I mentioned the Hur report. Despite knowing exactly what I was referring to you pretended to ask a clarifying question while your real intention was to frame it differently with some commentary. I did the same.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 21:38 last edited by
Easiest captcha evah!
-
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
ETA: Word is that his "sentence" will be --- nothing. He will have the title, much to many people's delight, of "convicted felon,"
Does that change anything, other than bragging rights?
It further legitimizes the saying “anyone can be the President” by demonstrating that even a sentenced convicted felon can.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 22:34 last edited byCouple of convicted felons:
In fairness, though, MLK was jailed for a misdemeanor
-
I mentioned the Hur report. Despite knowing exactly what I was referring to you pretended to ask a clarifying question while your real intention was to frame it differently with some commentary. I did the same.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 22:36 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
I mentioned the Hur report. Despite knowing exactly what I was referring to you pretended to ask a clarifying question while your real intention was to frame it differently with some commentary. I did the same.
No, you used the Hur report's conclusions selectively.
"Not enough evidence to prosecute with reasonable chance of conviction"
Good Robert
"Senile old man."
MAGAT fodder.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 22:41 last edited by jon-nyc 1 Oct 2025, 22:42
I pointed out the real reason he didn’t pursue. But imagine what a goat (not GOAT) he’d be in maga world had he left it at that.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 22:46 last edited by Renauda 1 Oct 2025, 23:00
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man
I believe I should know who that is.
EastNazi German courtroom and all.Hint?
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 22:53 last edited by
Heard some lawyers discussing todays "sentencing."
One comment was that it was "OK. You're done. Go live your life."
A more interesting one was a comment on the behavior of Merchan. In New York, court proceedings are not generally (if at all) televised. Merchan was explicit about not permitting any recording, audio or video, during this trial.
Yet, this morning, he wanted to have his comments aired.
Why?
Why did he break NY court tradition for this one event? Was it to demonize Trump? Was it for some self-aggranidizing motive? Regardless, it was highly unusual.