In case you are interested

[k9krap]

The NY Supreme Court is posting the court transcripts to their website, nycourts.gov.  They say they will be posted by the close of the following day.  Just look under the Public Information menu item and they are there under the criminal case (not the civil one).

[minx]

I honestly wish more people were paying attention to this, especially the part where the publisher of the Enquirer said that he and Trump had an agreement where they (the Enquirer) would only publish stories about other politicians that made them look bad, and only publish ones about Trump that made him look good. I forget what the dollar amount exchanged for each killed story was, but 10K sticks in my mind.

This is no one-off mistake, but a very clear trail of deliberate behavior, that cumulated in paying off McDonald and Daniels as well. And the media shouldn't be billing it as 'hush money', but a political payout to suppress information that could prevent Trump from winning. Cause that's what it is.

"Trump's political payoff trial continues in NY today. The former president is accused of paying off tabloids to publish negative stories about his opponents to influence the 2016 election."

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Meanwhile, there are 3 other cases still pending without any mention of when they'll begin. Not that the current one is to be dismissed out of hand but it pales greatly in comparison to an insurrection, attempted coup, and national security threats. Paying off the NE is akin to giving an unruly child a candy bar to quit screaming at the grocery store.



www.theguardian.com/culture/2024/apr/23/jon-stewart-trump-trial

[minx]

Yeah, but those aren't going anywhere until the Supreme Jackasses make their ruling.

[k9krap]

SCOTUS hearing is tomorrow on the immunity issue.  

[minx]

They should be able to rule the same day.

If Trump can brazenly steal classified documents, incite a riot (we'll be kind and simply use that term) then what exactly is there to prevent any president from just declassifying anything and mailing it to our enemies?
I mean, the president has the authority to declassify anything and clearly this case is deciding if the president has to go through normal channels to do so, right? So the president therefore is fully allowed to commit treason and do it openly. Because the president is above the law.

On that point alone, this should be cut and dried. And I hope Smith brings this up as his point.
'So what we're debating is if a president can be indicted and tried for removing highly classified documents for their own person use. If you rule that this is within the law, the it follows that a president could de-classify our top military secrets and simply send them to any entity, regardless of if they are friendly or not for their own profit. Treason is fine. So where exactly does a line get drawn? Or are we just saying that the president can do whatever the hell they want with no consequences until the next election?

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Anything less than 9-0 is unacceptable.

[minx]

And it shouldn't take more than 4 weeks (and I'm being super, super generous here). This should have superseded any case on their docket.

[k9krap]

Obviously, we were all wrong!

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Not going to read anything into the "journalism" out there making the call long before the call is made by the ones that are in charge of making it. I'm not even sure where they got the idea that a decision wouldn't be coming until June. This is, for all practical purposes, one of the most simple calls ever brought all the way to scrotus.

Am I the only one that thinks conservative justices of the past would need no debate when it comes to the absurd notion that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW?

[k9krap]

Joyce explains it all here. joycevance.substack.com/p/presidential-immunity?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=607357&post_id=143986809&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=11rww3&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

[minx]

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd say that Nixon had integrity, and yet here we are.

[minx]

And I know it will never happen, but wouldn't it be nice if Biden spoke out on the campaign trail and said that judging by the questions that Justice Alito and his fellow conservatives were asking, not only would it be legal, but it would be fine for me to commit treason, or order the murder of any fellow Americans who disagreed with me. This is NOT Democracy. EVERY American, regardless of their position should never be above the law.

Furthermore, I call on Former President Trump to do the right thing and allow these trials to take place so that he can receive a fair and impartial hearing and the American public can have all the information they should before the November elections.

Like I said, will never happen. And this callout should have been made from the beginning. Continually asking what the Former President was afraid of. If what he did was legal and aboveboard, wouldn't he WANT the chance to defend himself and clear these charges from his name and reputation?

Sigh.

[Dave's Not Here Man]

Biden is probably better off not commenting too much because you know; witness intimidation, jury tampering, obstruction of justice.... oh wait he'd be immune right?

I'd be down for an old-fashioned address from the Oval Office (has he even done one yet?) where he lays this shit out in as few words as possible. He doesn't even need to say the name but maybe once toward the end, "in November you will be choosing between Democracy and the Rule Of Law, or Trump. Choose wisely."

[k9krap]

It’s illegal to campaign from the White House, even though 45 did it, so the Oval Office speech is out. And he said in this morning’s interview with Howard that he can’t “get into the Supreme Court”.