Couple Ls for the fat man
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 03:29 last edited by
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, 06:14 last edited by
Of course. Until New York is overturned.
And on January 20th, Donald J. Trump will be Jon's President.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 11:33 last edited by
That would have happened regardless. So these Ls are pure gravy for me.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 12:38 last edited by
I watched an attorney (one who is licensed, if that's the word, to argue before SCOTUS) talk about this. He made some interesting points.
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case. I forget his reasoning for this - I'll have to rewatch it - but it makes sense if that's the case.
On the bright side, just like the child-molester, Trump can effectively pardon himself.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 12:40 last edited by
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?
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 12:43 last edited by
It makes him historic.
-
I watched an attorney (one who is licensed, if that's the word, to argue before SCOTUS) talk about this. He made some interesting points.
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case. I forget his reasoning for this - I'll have to rewatch it - but it makes sense if that's the case.
On the bright side, just like the child-molester, Trump can effectively pardon himself.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 12:43 last edited by@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
Trump can effectively pardon himself.
US President cannot pardon state offenses.
-
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?
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 12:46 last edited by@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, 12:46 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
It makes him historic.
I think that damn spell-checker changed histrionic for you.
-
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
Trump can effectively pardon himself.
US President cannot pardon state offenses.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 13:04 last edited by@Axtremus said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
Trump can effectively pardon himself.
US President cannot pardon state offenses.
Point taken.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 13:09 last edited by
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 13:14 last edited by
Now he’ll be even more historic.
-
I watched an attorney (one who is licensed, if that's the word, to argue before SCOTUS) talk about this. He made some interesting points.
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case. I forget his reasoning for this - I'll have to rewatch it - but it makes sense if that's the case.
On the bright side, just like the child-molester, Trump can effectively pardon himself.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 13:19 last edited by@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case
His point is that there was no statement of jurisdiction in the appeal - IOW, why SCOTUS should hear this case. The "right way to do this would be to file an appeal in US district court on a writ of prohibition. If that's denied go to SCOTUS."
-
I watched an attorney (one who is licensed, if that's the word, to argue before SCOTUS) talk about this. He made some interesting points.
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
However, and I think this is where SCOTUS is coming from, he questioned whether SCOTUS actually has jurisdiction in this case. I forget his reasoning for this - I'll have to rewatch it - but it makes sense if that's the case.
On the bright side, just like the child-molester, Trump can effectively pardon himself.
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 13:37 last edited by jon-nyc 1 Oct 2025, 13:38@George-K said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
First of all, the decisions by the lower appellate courts gave no legal basis for denying the appeal. One of judgments was only one page long, with no cited law. The other, though longer, also cited no legal basis for denial. They just said "nope."
I haven't read the judgement. But the case seemed pretty weak according to Advisory Opinions analysis yesterday. TFM made three arguments: (1) Immunity gives him the right to stay sentencing pending appeal , (2) Some evidence shouldn't have been allowed due to presidential immunity, (3) he's president elect, so he's special.
(1) It's true that in general, claims of immunity are adjudicated before court proceeding start (or continue) because immunity gives you immunity from the process itself. But this doesn't really apply since the crimes he was convicted of occurred before he was president.
(2) Some evidence introduced was from when he was president and might not have been allowed. This is true as far as it goes, but in general sentencing doesn't stop just because a defendant wants to appeal some evidence. You appeal after sentencing.
(3) The constitution doesn't recognize president-elect as a 'citizen+'. And while it's true he is busy interviewing people for roles, this stuff even happens before elections. We have one president at a time, and the fat man aint him.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 13:37 last edited by
Is there anybody in the legal profession that doesn't think Bragg's case gets overturned?
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 13:40 last edited by
If that happens, think of how historic TFM will be. The first convicted felon to be president, and the president to have his felony convictions overturned. He's just racking up the records here.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 14:27 last edited by
Hysterical.
-
wrote on 10 Jan 2025, 14:31 last edited by 89th 1 Oct 2025, 14:32
Trump will be known in the history books for his MAGA movement and January 6th. Maybe for presiding over COVID. And his business successes and bankruptcies, and I guess felonies, too. Oh and maybe giving Elon a blowjob, but future kids will claim it's AI.
-
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.
