If Trump wasn't running for President he wouldn't be able to afford lawyers for all his court cases. He depends on the money from his campaign to fund all his numerous legal expenses. He's campaigning to stay out of prison. It's not rocket science. *Word of advice to all the schmucks who donated money to Trump after he said he was tortured in the Fulton County jail. Talk to anyone who was actually tortured in jail and see the difference. Don't be a schmuck or a mark for a grifting lying con.
Trump has Judge Cannon in his pocket. He knows that everytime they throw out another ridiculous challenge she will delay once again to make another decision. Stall, and stall some more Aileen, you Trump loyalist unfit to be in your position of authority.
@JuanValdez, others -- yall are going to love this one. Thomas, in his lone concurring opinion in the SCOTUS Trump immunity ruling, gave Judge Cannon a "legit" reason to dismiss the classified document charges against Trump. He added a section that questions if Jack Smith was lawfully appointed (Cannon has yet to rule on this but many felt she wouldn't go that far). What's striking about this (or not at all) is that there was no briefing about this, and it has nothing to do with the Jan. 6 immunity case. Prediction: Cannon will dismiss the classified document case right before the election, giving no time for an appeal to reverse her decision, boosting Trump's talking point about bogus charges. 23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) (supremecourt.gov) It is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office “established by Law,” as required by the Constitution. When the Attorney General appointed the Special Counsel, he did not identify any statute that clearly creates such an office.
And it's really crazy that Roberts claimed it was not based on one president but for all presidents. Yet, they carved out and specified so many things to make it specifically apply to Trump. That being said. I'm done reading all the opinions yet and various things that are scary so far and also not as scary so far. But I have more to read.
To be fair, this particular one wasn't Roberts. It was Thomas and only Thomas. That very corrupt dude.
Yes. Understood, but his statement undermines the rest of the majority, and brings up an issue not even addressed before the court.
Trump to sue DOJ for $100M over Mar-a-Lago raid, alleging 'political persecution' Trump attorney says 'unconstitutional' raid should never have been approved by Garland, Wray https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...ar-a-lago-raid-alleging-political-persecution
related: Let Trump’s Resounding Victory Be the End of Lawfare Biden should pardon Trump, as he (inevitably) pardons his son. By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY November 6, 2024 1:40 PM For four years, President Joe Biden divided the nation by weaponizing law enforcement against his political adversaries, appeasing America’s enemies, and ceding his administration to his party’s woke radicals. Now, with his failed presidency winding down, and with one more humiliation inevitable, Biden can act as the unifier he promised Americans he would be four years ago. Let’s make a deal. Obviously, Biden is going to pardon his son, Hunter, who has been found guilty in two felony criminal cases involving federal gun and tax charges. Particularly on the latter, he is looking at a sentence of imprisonment. It had to be excruciating for the president to sit on his hands while his Justice Department — after trying mightily to make the cases against Hunter disappear — was forced by the electoral politics of 2024 to prosecute Hunter twice. The election is over now, and the president has no more concerns about damaging Vice President Kamala Harris’s failed bid for the White House. Biden is not going to allow his son to be sentenced to years in a penitentiary. What father would? But Biden also cares about his legacy — deeply by all accounts. His administration has been a one-term disaster, and his party has been routed. He has to know that clemency for his son — an abuse of the pardon power for the sheer personal benefit of the president and his family — would mark him as deeply corrupt, in addition to historically inept. Yet there’s a way he can get what he needs but still be remembered for a statesmanlike act. Biden can pardon President Trump. He can give Governor Kathy Hochul (D., N.Y.) the support she would need — against the blind rage of New York progressives — to pardon Trump from Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s preposterous prosecution, in which Trump may otherwise face imminent sentencing. And he can recommend that Georgia, too, expunge its indictment of the now-president-elect. Biden can pronounce lawfare an un-American failure that the public has emphatically rejected — not only returning Donald Trump to the White House but apparently doing so with a popular majority. This would not simply be an act of statesmanship. It would be an act of partisan self-interest. To begin with, what I am suggesting is essentially cost-free because the four criminal cases at issue are going nowhere, and it also appears a fifth case — the New York civil-fraud caper — is headed for deep reduction in the fines imposed on Trump, and possibly an outright reversal. What Biden would be extinguishing, and inducing Democrats in New York and Georgia to extinguish, are cases that would otherwise be tied up in years of litigation and that embarrass Democrats by their patent pettiness. But let’s get to the main problem: The Democratic Party has suicidally defined itself solely by what it is against — Trump . . . rabidly. The public, broadly speaking, is not with Democrats on that subject. This does not mean the public approves of Trump’s behavior; it means Americans are even more put off by the Democrats’ stunning overreach. Nothing is more emblematic of that overreach than the lawfare campaign against Trump. The Biden-Harris Justice Department, in quiet conjunction with two elected progressive Democratic DAs (Bragg and Fani Willis of Fulton County, Ga.) and with elected progressive Democratic attorney general Letitia James (also of New York), set about not simply to prosecute their arch political nemesis but to choreograph the scheme in accordance with the 2024 campaign calendar — something the Justice Department explicitly prohibits federal prosecutors from doing. Thus was Trump strategically indicted by all four criminal prosecutors in 2023 — even though the supposed offenses in the Bragg case had occurred seven years earlier, and even though the other cases (particularly the ones centered on the events surrounding the Capitol riot) could have been charged much earlier. The objective was to rush Trump to trial in the stretch-run of the presidential race and force him to defend himself simultaneously against four major felony cases — something that progressive prosecutors wouldn’t dare do to a terrorist or a notorious criminal. It was a grotesque violation of due process, designed to humiliate the Democrats’ nemesis and get him convicted, destroying his campaign after it was too late for Republicans to switch him out. And that was only after AG James sued Trump in what was essentially a corporate death-penalty case — a fraud case without fraud victims, based on conduct going back over a decade that federal and state prosecutors (even Bragg!) had declined to charge. The nearly half-billion-dollar judgment, imposed by Judge Arthur Engoron — an elected progressive Democratic club lawyer in a robe — was designed to bankrupt Trump and his family, put them out of business in New York (the center of Trump’s business universe), and sully Trump with the electorate while softening him up for the onslaught of criminal prosecutions. This lawfare strategy failed for two reasons. First, it is banana republic stuff that repulsed even millions of Americans who are the antithesis of Trump fans. It was, writ large, the classic progressive stratagem of deploying legal processes punitively against the Left’s enemies, such that even if cases are ultimately lost the prohibitive cost and stigma destroys the target and serves as an in terrorem warning to any American who even thinks about resisting “progress.” This was underscored by the nature of these lawsuits: With some narrow exceptions, the progressive prosecutors lacked “meat and potatoes” crimes, so they served up lawyerly artifice instead. You needn’t have had fondness for Donald Trump to grasp that if they could do this to him, they could do it to anyone. Second were the unexpected turns in the immunity litigation (grown out of Biden-Harris DOJ special counsel Jack Smith’s January 6 case), which culminated in the Supreme Court’s ruling that presidents — including former presidents — are presumptively immune from criminal prosecution for official presidential acts (and absolutely immune when core executive functions are implicated). Because immunity is the rare claim that criminal defendants may appeal pre-trial, the issue enabled Trump to counter the progressive prosecutors with a strategy of delay, delay, delay. On July 1, 2024, when the now-president-elect prevailed in the Supreme Court, the result was an extensive new round of litigation, ensuring that the pre-election January 6 trial so coveted by Democrats could not happen. Because of the immunity detour, lawfare came to be defined by (a) Bragg’s ridiculous case, which embarrassed even Democrats; (b) the misadventures of Fani Willis — her potential disqualification over the fallout of an extramarital affair with Nathan Wade, the lead prosecutor she’d recruited, derailed Trump’s Georgia prosecution even before looming immunity claims could be addressed; and (c) the incorrigible overzealousness of Jack Smith, whose Florida prosecution of Trump could never get off the ground because of his insistence on charging dozens of classified-information crimes rather than doing a tight, straightforward obstruction case. The public could draw no conclusion other than that Democrats were exploiting the legal system to harass and attempt to destroy an adversary they could not vanquish through conventional politics. It should never happen again. In their blind hatred of Trump, Democrats have self-immolated. They calculated that the vast majority of the public shared their Trump derangement, and that this could camouflage Biden’s failures and senescence, as well as Harris’s vapidity. They figured anti-Trump animus alone would paper over the collapse of the border, the worst inflation in decades, and a world on fire due to Biden’s failure of deterrence. They thought lawfare would carry them to victory in the absence of ideas — other than woke progressivism, which they habitually disavow rather than defend when it comes time to face the voters. They assumed all the old Democratic constituencies Trump was courting would “come home” in the end. It was all wrong. They portrayed Trump as the chaos agent, but it is they who are in shambles. Democrats have also done profound damage to the legal system. The enduring effect of lawfare is not about Trump; it is about undermining the public perception that the legal system is fair and impartial. That perception, the faith that it projects the reality of justice, is the vital undergirding of the rule of law. Without it, America cannot prosper. Lawfare inexorably breeds two-tiered justice, which is no justice at all. Biden can go a long way toward repairing the damage to his party and the justice system. He can ratify the voters’ judgment that in the United States we must resolve our disputes in history’s greatest democratic political process, not in courtrooms rigged by partisan prosecutors and judges. And Biden can turn the reputational stain of pardoning his son into a bipartisan clemency package that calls on the nation to turn the page from the corrupting legacy of lawfare. link should work for everyone: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024...LM2MzU2xaeVN5ODFjRGRTWlZCWlpHSkVhMGszVVQwOQ==
Let Trump's election be the end calling the of holding people accountable with extensive evidence of crimes "Lawfare" especially by a far more independent DOJ.
