Kansas Crimson

Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 7:09 am (Hard to believe this was the next to last thread on the first page.)

@judgeluttig
The brilliant Roger Parloff of
@Lawfare
may well have blown Trump v. Anderson wide open.

What Justice Scalia Thought About Whether Presidents Are “Officers of the United States”

In a 2014 concurrence and a short letter elaborating on it, Scalia indicated that the president was an “officer of the United States.” [...]

There is no serious reading of 14A-3 that concludes it does not cover Presidents.

There is no serious reading of 14A-3 that concludes it would not cover the events of and surrounding 1/6.

In my opinion, there is a good-faith argument that can be made that there has not yet been a judicial proceeding conclusively (for 14A-3 purposes) establishing that Trump "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [the Constitution of the United States]."

I would disagree with this argument - in my opinion, the Colorado trial court's finding (undisturbed through Colorado Supreme Court review) is more than sufficient, in this eligibility (NOT punishment) context.

But I think this is the ONLY plausible legal off-ramp for the Court (and it's an off-ramp I expect they'll take, or something extra-legal, like some mealy-mouthed nod in the direction of judicial discretion).

I would support arresting and detaining seditionists in Congress and the administration. It was slow rolling insurrection in plain sight. They have no defense.

Sparko wrote: ↑Mon Jan 29, 2024 8:35 pm I would support arresting and detaining seditionists in Congress and the administration. It was slow rolling insurrection in plain sight. They have no defense.

^^^*


*If only the past tense verb in your middle sentence, applied.

You’re both identifying some of the shoes that have yet to drop.

Sanctions and more fines? Oh, well never mind.

Seeing as trumpty dumpty is likely to stiff her for her time, no need to pile on more self inflicted losses.

Confronting the prospect of being sanctioned over her unfounded suggestion that Judge Kaplan had served as a mentor at a New York law firm to Carroll’s lawyer and that the relationship had been unfair to Trump in the defamation trials, Habba wrote a letter to Judge Kaplan Tuesday declaring that the “issue has seemingly been resolved,” Reuters reported.

Still stinging from the jury’s verdict on Friday in the second defamation trial that awarded Carroll $83.3 million in damages from Trump, Habba seized on a New York Post article that alleged Judge Kaplan had played a “mentor” role for Roberta Kaplan (no relation), when the two both worked at the same New York law firm in the early 1990s.

In a Monday court filing, Habba wrote to the judge that "the underlying defamation case tried last year, and the damages trial completed last week, were both litigations in which there were many clashes between Your Honor and defense counsel. We believe, and will argue on appeal, that the Court was overtly hostile towards defense counsel and President Trump, and displayed preferential treatment towards Plaintiff's counsel."

That prompted Carroll’s lawyer to respond to the allegation on Tuesday in her own letter to the judge. "I remember no direct interaction from that time period with Your Honor at all. This is hardly surprising since at that time, I was a very junior associate at a large New York law firm and Your Honor was one of the leaders of the Paul, Weiss litigation department," she wrote. Kaplan also told the judge that Carroll’s lawyers “reserve all rights, including but not limited to the right to seek sanctions" over Habba’s baseless motion.

Having read Kaplan’s letter, Habba then wrote the judge once again, saying that her filing had been misinterpreted. “The point of my January 29 letter was to verify whether the information in the New York Post article is accurate. Since Ms. Kaplan has now denied that there was ever any mentor-mentee relationship between herself and Your Honor, the issue has seemingly been resolved.”

The convicted rapist, financial fraud, who wants to fuck his own daughter, insurrectionist and stealer of classified documents and titular head of the Rubepublican Party loves a fighter. Even if she is only punching herself in the face.

japhy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:30 pm Sanctions and more fines? Oh, well never mind.

Seeing as trumpty dumpty is likely to stiff her for her time, no need to pile on more self inflicted losses.

Confronting the prospect of being sanctioned over her unfounded suggestion that Judge Kaplan had served as a mentor at a New York law firm to Carroll’s lawyer and that the relationship had been unfair to Trump in the defamation trials, Habba wrote a letter to Judge Kaplan Tuesday declaring that the “issue has seemingly been resolved,” Reuters reported.

Still stinging from the jury’s verdict on Friday in the second defamation trial that awarded Carroll $83.3 million in damages from Trump, Habba seized on a New York Post article that alleged Judge Kaplan had played a “mentor” role for Roberta Kaplan (no relation), when the two both worked at the same New York law firm in the early 1990s.

In a Monday court filing, Habba wrote to the judge that "the underlying defamation case tried last year, and the damages trial completed last week, were both litigations in which there were many clashes between Your Honor and defense counsel. We believe, and will argue on appeal, that the Court was overtly hostile towards defense counsel and President Trump, and displayed preferential treatment towards Plaintiff's counsel."

That prompted Carroll’s lawyer to respond to the allegation on Tuesday in her own letter to the judge. "I remember no direct interaction from that time period with Your Honor at all. This is hardly surprising since at that time, I was a very junior associate at a large New York law firm and Your Honor was one of the leaders of the Paul, Weiss litigation department," she wrote. Kaplan also told the judge that Carroll’s lawyers “reserve all rights, including but not limited to the right to seek sanctions" over Habba’s baseless motion.

Having read Kaplan’s letter, Habba then wrote the judge once again, saying that her filing had been misinterpreted. “The point of my January 29 letter was to verify whether the information in the New York Post article is accurate. Since Ms. Kaplan has now denied that there was ever any mentor-mentee relationship between herself and Your Honor, the issue has seemingly been resolved.”

The convicted rapist, financial fraud, who wants to fuck his own daughter, insurrectionist and stealer of classified documents and titular head of the Rubepublican Party loves a fighter. Even if she is only punching herself in the face.

This sounds like it should be a small deal (and of course it is, except perhaps in the eyes of the judge here), but it was a clownish misstep of Habba to fail to include the comma in the name of the law firm in question. They’re quite particular about it, and there’s no way the judge and his clerk missed the error.

It's probably nothing. And that's why trumpty dumpty and his attorneys are screaming about it I suppose. Because it's nothing really. They can always produce documents to show it is all legit if they have them. I smell complete exoneration in the offing.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 87163.html

I wonder if she is gonna get paid?

What am I saying, of course she isn't. She should just be happy for all of the great press she has received and that she did not get disbarred.

A former White House attorney for Donald Trump said Wednesday he's "not surprised" the former president is looking for new representation for his appeal of the defamation trial verdict, calling out Trump lawyer Alina Habba's management of the case. Trump announced late Tuesday that he was seeking new counsel for his appeal of the $83.3 million verdict in the defamation lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. Habba, who served as Trump's lead attorney and frequently clashed with the presiding judge throughout the trial, handled the case "in the mafia way," Ty Cobb told CNN Wednesday, according to HuffPost.

“She’s done his bidding. She's articulated his political narrative of victimization and unfairness in the judicial system and made some outlandish claims, including the conflict claims,” Cobb continued. "And she lost, so she's a loser. I’m not surprised that Trump is looking for appellate representation.”

CNN legal analyst Elie Honig echoed Cobb's lack of surprise, explaining in a separate appearance Wednesday that when a lawyer and client receive a verdict like the jury awarded, they do often seek different counsel for the appeal.

"Here is my assessment of Alina Habba's performance as a lawyer," Honig said in a clip flagged by RawStory. "The good news is she is clearly passionate and believes in her client, and she is fairly effective at communicating one simple message. The downside is she doesn't know what she's doing in the courtroom." Honig went on to argue that Habba "can't even do things that you learn in evidence class" like move exhibits into evidence and uphold the rules of hearsay, citing the court transcript.

"The other thing is — and look, maybe this is an impossible task — she had zero client control," Honig said, adding: "Allowing her client to be muttering audibly in front of the jury, to walk out during the other side's closing argument, that is just inexcusable, and I think that's reflected in the huge verdict that they got hit with."

OK, so she did a shit job. But who else was going to take the case?

She did the job she was hired to do.

Somewhat related - a thing that doesn’t get talked about nearly enough is how screwed the GOP is going to be this summer/fall by how much donor money is going to Trump’s personal legal matters. This is all a zero-sum game, and every dollar that goes to those is a dollar that can’t go for ad buys, groundwork, etc.

And that’s BEFORE thinking about whether Trump will use donor money to make the $88.3mm deposit he will be forced to post in order to appeal the Carroll verdict.

(In the “Trump tells on himself by accident all the time” file - my ears perked up when, in the course of some of his recent ramblings, he talked about people getting “debanked” for their views. I would not at all be surprised if he is disclosing, obliquely, that banks are no longer lending to him.)

that girl is hott. so she will be fine. good looking people get to skate through life. rightfully so.

No matter how many time he stays he won, he didn't. Except in the eyes of the Rubepublicans.

Donald Trump bizarrely and falsely suggested on Wednesday that he had come out on top in his New York civil cases.

“Are you thinking of potentially trying to use campaign funds to pay some of the penalties?” a reporter asked the former president at a news conference following his meeting with Teamsters Union leaders in Washington, D.C.

“What penalties?” Trump asked.

“In the New York fraud cause and the defamation case,” the reporter replied.

“I didn’t do anything wrong,” said Trump. “I mean, that’s been proven as far as I’m concerned.”

He claimed that “Actually, we won in the court of appeals.”

Actually, he didn’t.

In the defamation case, jurors awarded writer E. Jean Carroll an astonishing $83.3 million in damages on Friday. She had accused him of defaming her after she came forward in 2019 with allegations he raped her in 1996.

And as long as innocence is "proven" in trumpty dumpty's mind, who cares what the jury or the judge decided.

But back to the question at hand, who is going to pay the bills for trumpty. We know he doesn't, so I guess the Rubes need to pony up and buy their boy out of his troubles.

He should have pled mental infirmity as he left the White House.

No one has better luck in political enemies.

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:40 pm No matter how many time he stays he won, he didn't. Except in the eyes of the Rubepublicans.

Donald Trump bizarrely and falsely suggested on Wednesday that he had come out on top in his New York civil cases.

“Are you thinking of potentially trying to use campaign funds to pay some of the penalties?” a reporter asked the former president at a news conference following his meeting with Teamsters Union leaders in Washington, D.C.

“What penalties?” Trump asked.

“In the New York fraud cause and the defamation case,” the reporter replied.

“I didn’t do anything wrong,” said Trump. “I mean, that’s been proven as far as I’m concerned.”

He claimed that “Actually, we won in the court of appeals.”

Actually, he didn’t.

In the defamation case, jurors awarded writer E. Jean Carroll an astonishing $83.3 million in damages on Friday. She had accused him of defaming her after she came forward in 2019 with allegations he raped her in 1996.

And as long as innocence is "proven" in trumpty dumpty's mind, who cares what the jury or the judge decided.

But back to the question at hand, who is going to pay the bills for trumpty. We know he doesn't, so I guess the Rubes need to pony up and buy their boy out of his troubles.

Just goes to show you that he has zero intention of ever paying that money.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:58 pm

japhy wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 2:40 pm No matter how many time he stays he won, he didn't. Except in the eyes of the Rubepublicans.

Donald Trump bizarrely and falsely suggested on Wednesday that he had come out on top in his New York civil cases.

“Are you thinking of potentially trying to use campaign funds to pay some of the penalties?” a reporter asked the former president at a news conference following his meeting with Teamsters Union leaders in Washington, D.C.

“What penalties?” Trump asked.

“In the New York fraud cause and the defamation case,” the reporter replied.

“I didn’t do anything wrong,” said Trump. “I mean, that’s been proven as far as I’m concerned.”

He claimed that “Actually, we won in the court of appeals.”

Actually, he didn’t.

In the defamation case, jurors awarded writer E. Jean Carroll an astonishing $83.3 million in damages on Friday. She had accused him of defaming her after she came forward in 2019 with allegations he raped her in 1996.

And as long as innocence is "proven" in trumpty dumpty's mind, who cares what the jury or the judge decided.

But back to the question at hand, who is going to pay the bills for trumpty. We know he doesn't, so I guess the Rubes need to pony up and buy their boy out of his troubles.

Just goes to show you that he has zero intention of ever paying that money.

I hope he tries not to.

DC appeals court rules trump is not immune from prosecution

I can see the ketchup flying now

jhawks99 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 10:30 am I can see the ketchup flying now

It must really be something, to be this unfairly treated over and over and over again. The only logical conclusion is that everything is rigged against you.

KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2024 9:19 am DC appeals court rules trump is not immune from prosecution

"Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday criticized what he called the "nation-destroying" ruling from the federal appeals court that said Trump is not immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results.

Trump, in a Truth Social post, said that "a President of the United States must have Full Immunity in order to properly function and do what has to be done for the good of our Country," calling for the ruling to be overturned.

"A President will be afraid to act for fear of the opposite Party’s Vicious Retribution after leaving Office," he posted, saying that "it will become a Political Weapon.""

No, Mr. Trump, future Presidents will hopefully be afraid to BREAK THE LAW for fear that they will be held responsible for their criminal actions by a court of law.

aka…i wish i were king