231
Anyone noticed how Trumps legal plan has a lot of weird overlap with Sovereign Citizens?
Dudes repeatedly having to be told "you can't just declare immunity mate" so he goes on Truth Social and malds about how unfair it is.
Well of course they're similar. Both Trump and Sovereign Citizens are idiots with no conceptual idea of how our government works.
If you have lawyers you can pay, or pretend to pay, to make your stupid arguments, all of a sudden courts take you seriously.
That's the baffling part to me. He doesn't pay them. He doesn't even pretend to pay them. And yet new lawyers keep popping up to argue his cases for him.
His supporters pay them very well. They get bait and switched into donating to his PACs to instead of his campaign directly and those PACs pay the legal bills.
"As Trump's legal battles ramped up in the second half of last year, so did his legal spending -- with his political action committees reporting a total of $34 million in legal expenditures in the second half of last year compared to roughly $26 million in the first half, according to the disclosures.
Trump's leadership PAC, Save America, continued to foot much of Trump's legal bills in the second half of last year, spending nearly $26 million on legal fees and other related expenses, while only raising $6 million."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-spent-50m-pac-super-pac-money-legal/story?id=106843612
His newer lawyers have apparently been asking for payment up front.
“Think about the exposure you’ll get”
"People die from exposure."
"Please hold off punishing me from unsuccessfully cheating in the last election until I am able to successfully cheat in this one"
"Okay."
I'm not so sure on this one. Supremes, even Trump appointees, like power and influence. Trump has already come out and said he isn't going to be bound by law which means they effectively will have no power anymore. The salary of a Supreme Court justice isn't enough to live on lavishly. Just as Justice Thomas who lives large by being buddy-buddy with industry leaders who stand to benefit from his rulings. No power in the future, no benefits in the future.
I'll believe that when I see it. Been told "No, they're definitely going to hold him accountable. He's in REAL trouble now, not like the last several decades of fake trouble he's been in" too many times now. I hope my pessimistic skepticism is misplaced, but I'm not holding my breath.
I’m not holding my breath.
I'm not either, but those with the decision to make lose if they give into Trump on this one. Thats a key difference to his prior decisions that went in his favor.
But it's not a matter of Trump... He won't survive another term. He might not make it to election, win or lose - he's old as fuck.
It's about the freedom society, or whatever they call themselves - where will their backers land?
Because where their power meets the groups money is where luxury happens...
This was always the plan.
Stall as long as possible and then as a last ditch effort claim its too close to the election.ß
Could we get 100,000 (or however many it takes) eligible Lemmy users together, and all sign each others’ petitions to run for president, then all start committing crimes and be immune since we’re running for ~~god emperor~~ president.
Innocent people don’t need immunity. He admitted guilt. All we have to do is lock him up now.
I really enjoyed 2021 through mid-2023 when I stopped having to hear about this asshole all the time.
He literally consumes all news coverage whenever he opens his mouth or anything happens with him.
There is no "right" to be able to run for president. Why do courts keep pretending that matters?
He can't do this with the Georgia RICO case. He's fucked there in terms of appealing to SCOTUS.
There's a scenario there where Trump becomes President and then a state declares him guilty. What happens when they try to make him serve his sentence?
This is not a question we should ever need to answer, but we're staring at the possibility.
The trial would have to either be postponed until after the election or last that long. I don't think either is especially likely.
It's currently proposed to start on Aug 5. DA Fani Willis does not expect it to conclude until the winter, and possibly into 2025. So yes, this is a real possibility.
I had not heard that. Not good news.
You think there's ever going to be a jury of 12 that wouldn't have at least 1 person there refuse to vote guilty, no matter what? It's pretty much impossible that he'd get a jury conviction. Even if he shot someone in the face on a public stage.
They have 900 jurors to screen. Trying to agree on 12 that are politically neutral and actually not ending up with at least one secret Maga boy that lied on his screening survey will be nearly impossible out of the state of Georgia.
If he can do crimes and be immune, Biden can, too. Take a gun to the debate and take care of Donald.
I could shoot someone on 5th avenue....
This is some kind of psyop to see who snaps first and straight-up murders that motherfucker.
(Spoiler: it turns out to be Mike Lindell on a five day bender.)
You're now on a list. I know you're not serious, but be careful when saying this kind of stuff online. You don't know who may be reading, thinking you're threatening a former U.S. president, and taking you seriously.
Sure, the first rule is always take Internet comments seriously. That’s super efficient.
Meanwhile, the people who actually call judges offices, and write emails and texts using their full, real name to deliberately, literally threaten them with murder - yeah, nothing.
Hell, the guy who broadcast for them to do that got fined, what, 50 cents?
So i think we can relax a little about random stupid Internet comments. And take this traitor, more seriously.
What's your source on people threatening judges with their real names?
And you don't think the secret service take all these things seriously?
Sure, the first rule is always take Internet comments seriously. That’s super efficient.
Meanwhile, the people who actually call judges offices, and write emails and texts using their full, real name to deliberately, literally threaten them with murder - yeah, nothing.
Hell, the guy who broadcast for them to do that got fined, what, 50 cents?
So i think we can relax a little about random stupid Internet comments. And take this traitor, more seriously.
So, last week the Federal Appeals Court ruled against Trumps immunity motion and gave him until today to go to the Supremes. The question really is if SCOTUS will take the case.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It met a deadline to ask the justices to intervene that the federal appeals court in Washington set when it rejected Trump’s immunity claims and ruled the trial could proceed.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Donald Trump faces a Monday deadline for asking the Supreme Court to extend the delay in his trial on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 election loss.
The federal appeals court in Washington set the deadline for filing when it rejected Trump’s immunity claims last week and ruled the trial could proceed.
If Trump were to defeat President Joe Biden, he could potentially try to use his position as head of the executive branch to order a new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases he faces or even seek a pardon for himself.
The Supreme Court has previously held that presidents are immune from civil liability for official acts, and Trump’s lawyers have for months argued that that protection should be extended to criminal prosecution as well.
The case was argued before Judges Florence Pan and J. Michelle Childs, appointees of Biden, a Democrat, and Karen LeCraft Henderson, who was named to the bench by President George H.W.
The original article contains 973 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
More like Supreme Cunts
Bro are his lawyers a few sheets of notes come up with something else?
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2024
231 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19246 readers
2813 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS