The last four years has illustrated the fact the courts can't be trusted ... period. Until the courts can once again be trusted as being fair and not manipulative, therefore President Trump has to go full steam ahead regardless of what legal garbage spews out of all the courts in this nation. Fortunately, Trump has the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and others on his side and as my leader and benevolent dictator, Trump can do whatever he damn pleases. Fight fire with fire.
During the time I was working on a steam car during the Jimmy Carter years, I purchased a burner capable of generating one million BTUs per hour, it would also make one heck of a flamethrower. The maker of the burner used it for preheating engine blocks for brazing cracks in the cylinder walls. I still have it and should send it to Trump with a note: Aim it at the balls.
I read this interesting "legal" article by Brent E. Zepke, Esq.
"A Supreme Court No Longer?" and I quote from same>
“First, the alleged evidentiary violations at president-elect Trump’s state-trial court 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.”
It is crystal clear the Supreme Court by saying the above "alleged evidenciary violations"
and ..... "can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal" is problematic in light that
Brady Evidence was likely concealed, material Evidence was Destroyed and the Jury
was effectively influenced by same which are all Federal Crimes and therefore immediately
elevates this State Case to Federal Jurisdiction. Not to mention by the Time this State
Case winds its way thru the State Court and finally to the US Supreme Court the
DAMAGE IS DONE and ELECTION INVOLVING TRUMP IS OVER.
CAN WE ALL SAY "DELAY OF PROCEEDINGS"
"Obstruction of Justice" is a very serious Federal Crime and governed by
18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE where the following Codes
are involved as follows>
18 U.S. Code § 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
18 U.S. Code § 1504 - Influencing juror by writing
18 U.S. Code §510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an
18 U.S. Code § 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
18 U.S Codes - More as shown in Chapter 17
Is there any OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the State of California?
Is there any OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the Santa Barbara?
Corruption Destroys our Country and Destroys our Citizens
Background, The N.Y. case, The U.S. Supreme Court, The Failed Prosecutions of Donald J. Trump, Impact.
Tennis Terms - Game, Set, Match.
Regardless of what you think of President Trump, the author Mr. Zepke, Esq. questions:
The unanswered questions are twofold:
Do we still have a Supremacy Clause?
How would the Court have ruled if the plaintiff had not been Donald Trump?
Have unfortunately been answered. Seupremacy Clause has been compromised, and change the name to Obama or Clinton and you have the answer - There would have been riots in the streets feed by rioters for sale.
The Supreme Court is political, and this shows that you can’t predict how justices will decide, even if you, the President, ( 45) selected them. Another reason to focus our attention on our ultimate judge, Almighty God, not John Roberts
Technically the SCOTUS divide falls more between court activists and US Constitution strict constructionists. Warren court was very activist and just made up legal principles to match the outcomes they wanted. (Roe vs Wade) Trump wants rulings grounded more in the express four corners of the US Constitution itself. (Chevron defense case and oveturning Roe v Wade)
Trump has attempted to rebalance the longstanding "liberal courts" by appointing more strict constructionists. But this was never intended to be a branch of government owned by anyone, esp partisan forces .....but by sound and independent jurists who with legal elegance can support their rulings.
Only lately has it become a DEI wasteland as well as a rabid touchstone for vicious partisan attacks by those who should know better.
Times have changed drastically since Earl Warren (for which our Show Grounds are named) was Chief Justice. Did Justice Warren know what a woman is? I bet he did. Justice Brown-Jackson apparently doesn’t know the difference. Yes, society is much more complicated nowadays, different genders, men marring men, DEI, Obamacare, the list goes on. Has SCOTUS become a political entity? Many would think so. There is some discussion that Justice Sotomayor is in failing health and may have to retire at some point. We wish the best for her, but if she is unable to continue, it will give President Trump a unique opportunity to set the court for years to come.
As for the legal challenges facing Trump, I’m not a lawyer, my daughter is, I am not, so it’s hard for me to make heads or tails of the specific elements of his legal situation. It does seem the NY case does have appearances of conflicts of interest with the judge and his lobbyist daughter, not to mention evidentiary issues as well. Clearly, the Georgia case was an absolute disgrace with a corrupt DA, Fani “Grey Goose” Willis making a mockery of our legal system. Yes, the corrupt Democratic machine is running scared of Trump by not stopping him at the ballot box. If law fare is to end, it is important that Dems get a taste of their own medicine, starting by going after our Senator, Adam Schiff. Couldn’t happen to a more corrupt SOB!
I am remembering the SCOTUS ruling was more that legislators who duly pass legislation by all appropriate rules, cannot be protected by the Supreme Court even if they pass stupid legislation. Were the Obamacare mandated charges a tax or were they a fee? I believe that was the adjudicated issue. Someone please correct me, if I am way off base here.
So SCOTUS did not technically "approve" Obamacare, just recognized there were no grounds offered to over turn what they may have been calling "stupid" but duly enacted legislation.
That was left up to us to elect legislators who could over-turn it. Which we did not. But it also appear Obamacare by now has imploded under its own bloated and under-funded weight. Time wounds all heels.
I remain curious why after POTUS ruling that more Patriots chose not to opt out of ObamaCare. It was easy: send an email, some bureaucrat sent me back an opt out / participation waiver number for use on IRS income tax returns. Americans forget Freedom of Religion is an available out from participating. ObamaCare clearly gave everyone an option. It was far too costly; a waste of money for some of us.
Way back then, the country was littered with billboards demanding the Impeachment Earl Warren. A-political at the time myself, but this was an essential platform of the John Birch Society, which in fact decades later can only be seen now as remarkably prescient.
But the long vilified JBS was definitely not a prophet in their own times. Used to be a JBS book store in town, run by a perennial and genial candidate for city mayor.
I was addressing (1) the comments on the NDA which related to the New York (state) law and (2) the Special Counsel’s investigation.
From when Trump lost in 2019 to this moment Trump claims he won and was the President. Jack Smith was appointed Special Council to take over and independently investigate the facts already in the public domain and in the hands of the DOJ. If I use your argument there was no time since 2019 for the DOJ to look into if, and if so how, Trump interfered with the election.
As for the Pelosi assertion, I’d like to see Congress come up with the facts which, now Republican, they will investigate.
Trump should have phrased his comments better. I think his claim was that the election was stolen. There is a great body of facts out there that supports that occurrence. The Russia hoax, the laptop, those 51 liars signing the letter, miscreants like Schiff saying he has seen the evidence, etc. He never said he was president. How can a person presenting his case be interfering with his upcoming election?
The damage was done. The lesson is what Harry Reid said years ago, "So I lied, we won."
Trump started using the term "rigged", which covered all the 2020 "covid" aberrations made to former election processes too -- that some how remarkably all gave advantage only to Democrats.
Along with the very sketchy, late night slim margin swing state precinct victory margins for Biden, when election observers were banned from "getting too close" to those counting the votes. 2020 was rigged. I have no discomfort claiming that. Including gas-lighting the 81 million "popular vote" and instant Office of the President Elect swag. Democrats were ready to pounce- and now we know why.
Trump ALWAYS could phrase things better. Problem is, he won’t. He says he won and he’s NEVER corrected that statement. As for facts of election fraud in the 2019 election with the continued assertion that it happened NO facts to substantiate that claim have been brought forward.
A legal document (a properly crafted and signed NDA) can be pierced if the document was to cover up illegal activity.
Trump spent millions to delay court proceedings to avoid being tried. Jack Smith failed because he was obstructed.
The factual basis of the January 6th indictment is laid out in the Special Counsel’s Report. I suggest you take time away from your sideline attorney gig and read it.
Just look at legal ethics and judicial ethics. Public trust in the legal system has been greatly damaged. Both the prosecuting city attorney and the judge violated their ethics codes.
Mike, thanks for your interest. The point is NDA's are governed by state laws. Jack Smith was appointed by A.G. Garland, three days after Trump announced his candidacy, appointed Smith to be the obstructor. Pelosi ordering the destruction of all J6 materials means there is no factual basis, which is why Biden pardoned the committee.
As a commoner, after signing a NDA it is next to impossible to discover illegal activity; plus most of us can never afford high cost attorney fees when wronged. America’s legal system serves those with deep pockets and who qualify for a taxpaid public defender. The legal manipulations are theatrics that scare off good folks from civic and political participation.
It did not cover up illegal activity. Regardless of the garbage the jury used to rule upon. That is why we have a built in appeals process. Juries can, do and will get things wrong .And that is the nature of the beast. Onwards with the appeals. And quite frankly a self-pardon at the end of his term is very okay with me, to finally sweep this partisan lawfare attack into the scrap heap of US history.
Mr. Zepke, between the conservatives on the Supreme Court and the Republican/maga Congress, they just might as well have given him a crown he thinks of himself as a king anyway.
Sharpie guy has continuously lied over and over since being sworn in, but that doesn’t matter anymore. Nobody cares as long as they’re all filling their pockets. I’m sure you’re aware that he’s made a few billion in just the 2 or 3 days with his crypto scam. I thought there was some sort of rule that a president could not run his own companies or run businesses while in office. Oh wait, that’s right, who cares. Something about ethics, but since sharpie guy ignored it his first term, he’s ignoring it again, who cares? At least sharpie guy can afford groceries with his billions.
Sharpie guy said he was not going to seek revenge and retribution, no, he’s gonna let his lackeys do it. Speaker Johnson stated they were not looking back when questioned about the pardons for the J6 insurrectionist and seditious rioters. Just hours later, he announced that Barry Loudermilk would lead a committee to look into the J6 original committee. Sharpie guy wants a different outcome where “he did nothing wrong”. So much for not looking back. America already knows the truth, but sharpie guy wants to waste the governments time and money to get back at the original J6 committee. Barry Loudermilk and his committee better find something or it’s going to be “off with their heads”.
Someone on this website, I forget who, questioned why there were so many LBTGQ+ women in leadership and department head position. It’s because after centuries of running this country, men haven’t done such a great job, mainly because they’re after power and wealth with a lot of greed thrown in. Don’t get me wrong there have been men with character, and really just wanting to serve their country, men with ethic and moral compasses. Unfortunately, this administration doesn’t seem to have any of those came to men.
I wish the Republican/maga Congress would grow a backbone, like Bishop Budde. We have a spineless republican/maga Congress. Just the way sharpie guy likes it.
Remember how "progressive" people cheered when Margaret Thatcher died? Be careful of what you wish for and remember that one form of sexism doesn't justify another.
I’m sorry, Mr. Clauses, I do not remember people cheering when Ms. Thatcher died. I don’t really follow British politics too much. Also, it’s despicable for people to cheer when someone dies
I remember seeing it on the online news sites when her death was reported. Being controversial as she was, she drew much praise, but also much criticism. She was very conservative in her politics, being a close ally of Ronald Reagan.
The reality is that the matter brought to the Supreme Court by President Trump’s lawyers was an interlocutory appeal that both (1) bypassed the NY State appellate system and (2) invoked federal jurisdiction at the top of the federal judicial system. Under the circumstances, it would have been extraordinary if the Supreme Court had taken the matter on the merits. The delay may be painful, but the Supreme Court wants the NY appellate system to address the many mistakes made by a NY DA and a NY trial judge before the federal court system then tackles the case on the merits. This approach is standard judicial restraint which allows the State courts to go first before the federal courts weigh in. If the NY State appeals courts don’t fix the problem, President Trump has preserved all his rights and remedies in the federal system, including his claims that his Due Process and First Amendment rights were violated. Again, it may be painful to watch all this play out so slowly but the Supreme Court’s restraint here is the better long term precedent.
Robert, I appreciate your thoughtful response describing a typical case where the N.Y. courts get first review of the merits. However, in this case the issue was whether the Supremacy Clause meant that the N.Y. court never had jurisdiction to bring a case based on federal law. If "no," then the impact would be to eliminate any discussion of merits: there can be none. To not do this was to create a precedence that any state trial court could wrongfully bring a case under federal law against any candidate and prevent an appeal by not sentencing the candidate. That potential is why the quote from Biden and Milley about the abuse, from just bringing an action, can bring.
Agree Robert, which is why the put turtles under the lamp posts in front of the US Supreme Court Building, the law moves slowly even when demands for justice should be swift. However, one of their other tactics was to simply bankrupt Trump using economic warfare against him. Bleed him out. That tactic needs harsher remedies as well.
Required reading and point by point regurgitation by anyone coming here who keeps relishing the pre-mediated "convicted felon" label when discussing anything about President Trump. They they cannot lay out the aberrant facts of this case, and why it shall be over-turned they need to STFU.
Lou, I do think every appointment deserves a seasoning curve. One can only do the best they can do with the "advise and consent" they get before going forward with a judicial appointment. Plus no President should "own" a SCOTUS justice anyway.
We invest too much in labeling Obama judges or Nixon judges etc ...when in fact we need to dig far deeper into the legal fundamentals used to support or reject any SCOTUS ruling.
Eg: the total partisan distortions applied when Roe v Wade was over-turned. That was a shameful partisan moment instead of being a valuable teaching moment. I hope 2026 becomes the Year of the US Constitution and we all join a study group to fully understand this document as our basics, before moving on to the processes that have amended and interpreted it.
I hear you about judges but there is no question that the justices nominated by Obama and Biden are ideologically and judicially very different than the ones nominated by Reagan, Bush and Trump. I wish these justices would decide cases without considering their policy preferences but unfortunately that hasn't been the norm to date. Of course, I prefer the so-called conservative justices since I generally agree with their rulings.
We can start by referring to them as activist or strict-constructionists, instead of labeling by the administration and senate that nominated and appointed them.
Yes, I too prefer the more strict constructionist judges too. That is one way to take partisan politics out of the courts in the future; simply by no longer referring as such.
They do evolve over time in their own judicial thinking which we have seem many times. What was it we really should have been looking for, instead of mere partisan endorsements.
This can also open up more voters to the reasons why elections matter; not just for the party nor personality but for the commitment to a standard of later judicial interpretation that should be the key motivation in their appointments in the first place.
The highly partisan and virulently mean-spirited Kavanaugh appointment horror show, just because Democrats wanted to taint him forever as "the rapist who overturned" Roe v. Wade was as low a point as our judicial system should ever face again. Just like they tried to forever taint Trump as the "convicted felon", torturing our legal system beyond all recognition just to score a political point.
We have seen a great deal of legal "creativity" of late haven't we? When someone really wants to go after an individual. Show me the man, I will show you the law he just violated.
Partisan lawfare against Trump has lowered everyone' expectations about our judicial system. Looking forward to a renewal time during our 250th Anniversary - the year of the US Constitution. Let's all take a new look at it, article by article and relive what the Founders intended and what they rejected.
The last four years has illustrated the fact the courts can't be trusted ... period. Until the courts can once again be trusted as being fair and not manipulative, therefore President Trump has to go full steam ahead regardless of what legal garbage spews out of all the courts in this nation. Fortunately, Trump has the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and others on his side and as my leader and benevolent dictator, Trump can do whatever he damn pleases. Fight fire with fire.
Bill maybe you meant FOR TRUMP USE A FLAMETHROWER?
During the time I was working on a steam car during the Jimmy Carter years, I purchased a burner capable of generating one million BTUs per hour, it would also make one heck of a flamethrower. The maker of the burner used it for preheating engine blocks for brazing cracks in the cylinder walls. I still have it and should send it to Trump with a note: Aim it at the balls.
I read this interesting "legal" article by Brent E. Zepke, Esq.
"A Supreme Court No Longer?" and I quote from same>
“First, the alleged evidentiary violations at president-elect Trump’s state-trial court 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.”
It is crystal clear the Supreme Court by saying the above "alleged evidenciary violations"
and ..... "can be addressed in the ordinary course on appeal" is problematic in light that
Brady Evidence was likely concealed, material Evidence was Destroyed and the Jury
was effectively influenced by same which are all Federal Crimes and therefore immediately
elevates this State Case to Federal Jurisdiction. Not to mention by the Time this State
Case winds its way thru the State Court and finally to the US Supreme Court the
DAMAGE IS DONE and ELECTION INVOLVING TRUMP IS OVER.
CAN WE ALL SAY "DELAY OF PROCEEDINGS"
"Obstruction of Justice" is a very serious Federal Crime and governed by
18 U.S. Code Chapter 73 - OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE where the following Codes
are involved as follows>
18 U.S. Code § 1503 - Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally
18 U.S. Code § 1504 - Influencing juror by writing
18 U.S. Code §510 - Obstruction of criminal investigations
18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an
18 U.S. Code § 1513 - Retaliating against a witness, victim, or an informant
18 U.S Codes - More as shown in Chapter 17
Is there any OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the State of California?
Is there any OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in the Santa Barbara?
Corruption Destroys our Country and Destroys our Citizens
Howard Walther, Member of a Military Family
As a history major, well done
Background, The N.Y. case, The U.S. Supreme Court, The Failed Prosecutions of Donald J. Trump, Impact.
Tennis Terms - Game, Set, Match.
Regardless of what you think of President Trump, the author Mr. Zepke, Esq. questions:
The unanswered questions are twofold:
Do we still have a Supremacy Clause?
How would the Court have ruled if the plaintiff had not been Donald Trump?
Have unfortunately been answered. Seupremacy Clause has been compromised, and change the name to Obama or Clinton and you have the answer - There would have been riots in the streets feed by rioters for sale.
Good Job.
The Supreme Court is political, and this shows that you can’t predict how justices will decide, even if you, the President, ( 45) selected them. Another reason to focus our attention on our ultimate judge, Almighty God, not John Roberts
Technically the SCOTUS divide falls more between court activists and US Constitution strict constructionists. Warren court was very activist and just made up legal principles to match the outcomes they wanted. (Roe vs Wade) Trump wants rulings grounded more in the express four corners of the US Constitution itself. (Chevron defense case and oveturning Roe v Wade)
Trump has attempted to rebalance the longstanding "liberal courts" by appointing more strict constructionists. But this was never intended to be a branch of government owned by anyone, esp partisan forces .....but by sound and independent jurists who with legal elegance can support their rulings.
Only lately has it become a DEI wasteland as well as a rabid touchstone for vicious partisan attacks by those who should know better.
YEP!!!!!!!🙏
Times have changed drastically since Earl Warren (for which our Show Grounds are named) was Chief Justice. Did Justice Warren know what a woman is? I bet he did. Justice Brown-Jackson apparently doesn’t know the difference. Yes, society is much more complicated nowadays, different genders, men marring men, DEI, Obamacare, the list goes on. Has SCOTUS become a political entity? Many would think so. There is some discussion that Justice Sotomayor is in failing health and may have to retire at some point. We wish the best for her, but if she is unable to continue, it will give President Trump a unique opportunity to set the court for years to come.
As for the legal challenges facing Trump, I’m not a lawyer, my daughter is, I am not, so it’s hard for me to make heads or tails of the specific elements of his legal situation. It does seem the NY case does have appearances of conflicts of interest with the judge and his lobbyist daughter, not to mention evidentiary issues as well. Clearly, the Georgia case was an absolute disgrace with a corrupt DA, Fani “Grey Goose” Willis making a mockery of our legal system. Yes, the corrupt Democratic machine is running scared of Trump by not stopping him at the ballot box. If law fare is to end, it is important that Dems get a taste of their own medicine, starting by going after our Senator, Adam Schiff. Couldn’t happen to a more corrupt SOB!
The Supreme Court politically approved Obama Care.
I am remembering the SCOTUS ruling was more that legislators who duly pass legislation by all appropriate rules, cannot be protected by the Supreme Court even if they pass stupid legislation. Were the Obamacare mandated charges a tax or were they a fee? I believe that was the adjudicated issue. Someone please correct me, if I am way off base here.
So SCOTUS did not technically "approve" Obamacare, just recognized there were no grounds offered to over turn what they may have been calling "stupid" but duly enacted legislation.
That was left up to us to elect legislators who could over-turn it. Which we did not. But it also appear Obamacare by now has imploded under its own bloated and under-funded weight. Time wounds all heels.
I remain curious why after POTUS ruling that more Patriots chose not to opt out of ObamaCare. It was easy: send an email, some bureaucrat sent me back an opt out / participation waiver number for use on IRS income tax returns. Americans forget Freedom of Religion is an available out from participating. ObamaCare clearly gave everyone an option. It was far too costly; a waste of money for some of us.
Way back then, the country was littered with billboards demanding the Impeachment Earl Warren. A-political at the time myself, but this was an essential platform of the John Birch Society, which in fact decades later can only be seen now as remarkably prescient.
But the long vilified JBS was definitely not a prophet in their own times. Used to be a JBS book store in town, run by a perennial and genial candidate for city mayor.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”. B. Goldwater
I was addressing (1) the comments on the NDA which related to the New York (state) law and (2) the Special Counsel’s investigation.
From when Trump lost in 2019 to this moment Trump claims he won and was the President. Jack Smith was appointed Special Council to take over and independently investigate the facts already in the public domain and in the hands of the DOJ. If I use your argument there was no time since 2019 for the DOJ to look into if, and if so how, Trump interfered with the election.
As for the Pelosi assertion, I’d like to see Congress come up with the facts which, now Republican, they will investigate.
Trump should have phrased his comments better. I think his claim was that the election was stolen. There is a great body of facts out there that supports that occurrence. The Russia hoax, the laptop, those 51 liars signing the letter, miscreants like Schiff saying he has seen the evidence, etc. He never said he was president. How can a person presenting his case be interfering with his upcoming election?
The damage was done. The lesson is what Harry Reid said years ago, "So I lied, we won."
Trump started using the term "rigged", which covered all the 2020 "covid" aberrations made to former election processes too -- that some how remarkably all gave advantage only to Democrats.
Along with the very sketchy, late night slim margin swing state precinct victory margins for Biden, when election observers were banned from "getting too close" to those counting the votes. 2020 was rigged. I have no discomfort claiming that. Including gas-lighting the 81 million "popular vote" and instant Office of the President Elect swag. Democrats were ready to pounce- and now we know why.
Trump ALWAYS could phrase things better. Problem is, he won’t. He says he won and he’s NEVER corrected that statement. As for facts of election fraud in the 2019 election with the continued assertion that it happened NO facts to substantiate that claim have been brought forward.
He claims it was rigged. ITA. It was rigged.
Glad some knows more than Trump
A legal document (a properly crafted and signed NDA) can be pierced if the document was to cover up illegal activity.
Trump spent millions to delay court proceedings to avoid being tried. Jack Smith failed because he was obstructed.
The factual basis of the January 6th indictment is laid out in the Special Counsel’s Report. I suggest you take time away from your sideline attorney gig and read it.
Mike, we can forget all the legal acrobatics.
Just look at legal ethics and judicial ethics. Public trust in the legal system has been greatly damaged. Both the prosecuting city attorney and the judge violated their ethics codes.
Mike, thanks for your interest. The point is NDA's are governed by state laws. Jack Smith was appointed by A.G. Garland, three days after Trump announced his candidacy, appointed Smith to be the obstructor. Pelosi ordering the destruction of all J6 materials means there is no factual basis, which is why Biden pardoned the committee.
Brent that is just the TIP OF THE ROTTEN LEGAL ICEBURG, is it much worse
than we call can imagine. Oh, let's just RE-IMAGINE THIS ALL AWAY.
Mike Brady, I suggest you carefully read Brady V Maryland https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/83/
By using LAWFARE against Trump and many others
DELAY was used as a WEAPON. See below>
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/justice-crime-pretrial-delay-felony-cases-0
You sound like a local SB Attorney is this you? Mr. Brady Michael Bustany >
https://www.lawyers.com/santa-barbara/california/brady-michael-bustany-4733739-a/
Howard, you’re correct and Mike is wrong. I noticed that Mike is also using his time for a sideline attorney gig!
It is not just BRADY that was VIOLATED but the "Abuse of Proceedings"
in CONTEXT of multiple questionable Criminal Cases filed against a former President Trump just before he ran again for President. It is Crystal Clear
why all of these interrelated Criminal Cases were filed against Trump. I
am not a BIG TRUMP FAN but this was beyond the pale.
As a commoner, after signing a NDA it is next to impossible to discover illegal activity; plus most of us can never afford high cost attorney fees when wronged. America’s legal system serves those with deep pockets and who qualify for a taxpaid public defender. The legal manipulations are theatrics that scare off good folks from civic and political participation.
It did not cover up illegal activity. Regardless of the garbage the jury used to rule upon. That is why we have a built in appeals process. Juries can, do and will get things wrong .And that is the nature of the beast. Onwards with the appeals. And quite frankly a self-pardon at the end of his term is very okay with me, to finally sweep this partisan lawfare attack into the scrap heap of US history.
Mr. Zepke, between the conservatives on the Supreme Court and the Republican/maga Congress, they just might as well have given him a crown he thinks of himself as a king anyway.
Sharpie guy has continuously lied over and over since being sworn in, but that doesn’t matter anymore. Nobody cares as long as they’re all filling their pockets. I’m sure you’re aware that he’s made a few billion in just the 2 or 3 days with his crypto scam. I thought there was some sort of rule that a president could not run his own companies or run businesses while in office. Oh wait, that’s right, who cares. Something about ethics, but since sharpie guy ignored it his first term, he’s ignoring it again, who cares? At least sharpie guy can afford groceries with his billions.
Sharpie guy said he was not going to seek revenge and retribution, no, he’s gonna let his lackeys do it. Speaker Johnson stated they were not looking back when questioned about the pardons for the J6 insurrectionist and seditious rioters. Just hours later, he announced that Barry Loudermilk would lead a committee to look into the J6 original committee. Sharpie guy wants a different outcome where “he did nothing wrong”. So much for not looking back. America already knows the truth, but sharpie guy wants to waste the governments time and money to get back at the original J6 committee. Barry Loudermilk and his committee better find something or it’s going to be “off with their heads”.
Someone on this website, I forget who, questioned why there were so many LBTGQ+ women in leadership and department head position. It’s because after centuries of running this country, men haven’t done such a great job, mainly because they’re after power and wealth with a lot of greed thrown in. Don’t get me wrong there have been men with character, and really just wanting to serve their country, men with ethic and moral compasses. Unfortunately, this administration doesn’t seem to have any of those came to men.
I wish the Republican/maga Congress would grow a backbone, like Bishop Budde. We have a spineless republican/maga Congress. Just the way sharpie guy likes it.
Remember how "progressive" people cheered when Margaret Thatcher died? Be careful of what you wish for and remember that one form of sexism doesn't justify another.
I’m sorry, Mr. Clauses, I do not remember people cheering when Ms. Thatcher died. I don’t really follow British politics too much. Also, it’s despicable for people to cheer when someone dies
I remember seeing it on the online news sites when her death was reported. Being controversial as she was, she drew much praise, but also much criticism. She was very conservative in her politics, being a close ally of Ronald Reagan.
Mr. Clausen,
Ok, thanks for the info.
The reality is that the matter brought to the Supreme Court by President Trump’s lawyers was an interlocutory appeal that both (1) bypassed the NY State appellate system and (2) invoked federal jurisdiction at the top of the federal judicial system. Under the circumstances, it would have been extraordinary if the Supreme Court had taken the matter on the merits. The delay may be painful, but the Supreme Court wants the NY appellate system to address the many mistakes made by a NY DA and a NY trial judge before the federal court system then tackles the case on the merits. This approach is standard judicial restraint which allows the State courts to go first before the federal courts weigh in. If the NY State appeals courts don’t fix the problem, President Trump has preserved all his rights and remedies in the federal system, including his claims that his Due Process and First Amendment rights were violated. Again, it may be painful to watch all this play out so slowly but the Supreme Court’s restraint here is the better long term precedent.
Robert, I appreciate your thoughtful response describing a typical case where the N.Y. courts get first review of the merits. However, in this case the issue was whether the Supremacy Clause meant that the N.Y. court never had jurisdiction to bring a case based on federal law. If "no," then the impact would be to eliminate any discussion of merits: there can be none. To not do this was to create a precedence that any state trial court could wrongfully bring a case under federal law against any candidate and prevent an appeal by not sentencing the candidate. That potential is why the quote from Biden and Milley about the abuse, from just bringing an action, can bring.
Agree Robert, which is why the put turtles under the lamp posts in front of the US Supreme Court Building, the law moves slowly even when demands for justice should be swift. However, one of their other tactics was to simply bankrupt Trump using economic warfare against him. Bleed him out. That tactic needs harsher remedies as well.
Required reading and point by point regurgitation by anyone coming here who keeps relishing the pre-mediated "convicted felon" label when discussing anything about President Trump. They they cannot lay out the aberrant facts of this case, and why it shall be over-turned they need to STFU.
Trump appointed Amy Coney Barrett.
Lou, I do think every appointment deserves a seasoning curve. One can only do the best they can do with the "advise and consent" they get before going forward with a judicial appointment. Plus no President should "own" a SCOTUS justice anyway.
We invest too much in labeling Obama judges or Nixon judges etc ...when in fact we need to dig far deeper into the legal fundamentals used to support or reject any SCOTUS ruling.
Eg: the total partisan distortions applied when Roe v Wade was over-turned. That was a shameful partisan moment instead of being a valuable teaching moment. I hope 2026 becomes the Year of the US Constitution and we all join a study group to fully understand this document as our basics, before moving on to the processes that have amended and interpreted it.
I hear you about judges but there is no question that the justices nominated by Obama and Biden are ideologically and judicially very different than the ones nominated by Reagan, Bush and Trump. I wish these justices would decide cases without considering their policy preferences but unfortunately that hasn't been the norm to date. Of course, I prefer the so-called conservative justices since I generally agree with their rulings.
We can start by referring to them as activist or strict-constructionists, instead of labeling by the administration and senate that nominated and appointed them.
Yes, I too prefer the more strict constructionist judges too. That is one way to take partisan politics out of the courts in the future; simply by no longer referring as such.
They do evolve over time in their own judicial thinking which we have seem many times. What was it we really should have been looking for, instead of mere partisan endorsements.
This can also open up more voters to the reasons why elections matter; not just for the party nor personality but for the commitment to a standard of later judicial interpretation that should be the key motivation in their appointments in the first place.
The highly partisan and virulently mean-spirited Kavanaugh appointment horror show, just because Democrats wanted to taint him forever as "the rapist who overturned" Roe v. Wade was as low a point as our judicial system should ever face again. Just like they tried to forever taint Trump as the "convicted felon", torturing our legal system beyond all recognition just to score a political point.
Why isn’t the judges daughter brought up on charges or the judge
We have seen a great deal of legal "creativity" of late haven't we? When someone really wants to go after an individual. Show me the man, I will show you the law he just violated.
Partisan lawfare against Trump has lowered everyone' expectations about our judicial system. Looking forward to a renewal time during our 250th Anniversary - the year of the US Constitution. Let's all take a new look at it, article by article and relive what the Founders intended and what they rejected.
And what charges would you suggest they be brought up on? I am especially interested in what you propose the daughter did.