Tonight, I had planned to tell you the story of Pumpkin the chicken, winding some string around her foot, which led me to bring her inside for some attention, which turned into a bath, and then a little photo session that got photobombed by Tofu.
I must confess, I think I was on pins and needles waiting for your reliably lucid explanation for todays SCOTUS news. Having felt that way helped me realize that your level headed expositions of the currently almost daily legal upheavals in US life have become an important part of my daily life… literally helping me, and so many others “keep a grip.”
"We feel we are all in this together" - yes, and it seems to me that there are more of us each day that are in this together with Joyce. What a blessing!
Should SCOTUS decide Trump has immunity, their ruling will greenlight that he's above the law. Even above the SCOTUS. I hope SCOTUS is thinking about self-preservation and job security if not democracy.
Harry Litman seemed to think that the DC Court was most likely already writing up their decision, basically that their decision would be fast. That the Supreme Court denied Jack Smith’s writ, was also not that big a deal; that they were just waiting on the lower court to give them something to hang their judicial hats on before issuing their decision. Let’s hope he’s right and that word comes down from on high before tfg can delay things any further and completely knock the already packed schedule in the head.
Our court system seems incredibly slow and in these cases concerning tfg, we have a person who had an especially nasty mentor, Roy Cohn, his attorney who “fixed” the NY system so tfg could build his way to success. Trump now is using this system to his advantage. There is no fast track unless one is poor. It takes lots and lots of money and maybe sometimes a blackmail of sorts to pull off what tfg is attempting to do here. So far, he’s been terribly successful in pulling it off.
I wonder what would happen if the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal after the appeals court decided in favor of the Government? Would the Appeal's Court ruling stand? What would this mean going forward?
… allows SCOTUS to avoid soiling its hands, and potential criticism for weakening *or* strengthening The Office of POTUS, which is SCOTUS’s co-equal branch of US Government.
This is my take as a lawyer: We are in very uncharted waters at the moment; political and cultural currents coming from every where. I think SCOTUS feels like it must be careful. I think their denial of cert is only a small bump in the road. Trump's argument for presidential immunity is bullshit. If they were to agree with Trump, they would loose credibility with many people. There is no reason to get Trump off the hook and let him be president. I think there is a good chance Biden will be elected and I'm sure the Court is well aware that could make Biden the dictator. The Court's real goals are to further the conservative grip on America. No need to keep Trump around to cause major problems for them and diminishing their very significant powers.
I sure would love to hear Joyce's opinion on the odds of SCOTUS declining to take the case after the Appeals Court rules. Do y'all think that they would stay out of it and leave it with the Appellate decision?
From one Barbara to another! If the SCOTUS declines to hear the case, the court of appeals ruling stands and serves as precedent. That would be a great result, assuming the lower court rules against trump.
If nothing else, it would prevent people asking why the Trump-appointed justices, who were all extremely skeevy during their pre-confirmation hearings--some even seeming to outright lie--don’t recuse themselves, and why Thomas doesn’t recuse himself because of his wife’s role in supporting the insurrection. The obvious lack of ethics in our current SCOTUS makes it highly unlikely that any of those people would recuse, even though they should. But they are judges, and like rich people, the laws don’t apply to them. Laws only apply to the rest of us.
SCOTUS signals that the Appellate Court is the proper procedural step preventing a lengthy battle over skipping that step. When Appellate denies Trump’s plea, SCOTUS denies hearing the case thus protecting 6 SCOTUS Judges from having to stab him in the back on record
Thank you Joyce for your thorough explanation of today’s seemingly unsettling development.I join all of your other followers in thanking you for everything you invest into this project to keep all of us focused on reality.
Enjoy your family, friends, and pets during the next several days.Get some rest... hopefully these continuing events will subside momentarily for peace and celebration of the season!
Like Heather Cox Richardson, Joyce sure helps keep us focused. I look to both of them, plus Jack Smith, every morning to give me hope. I truly am frightened for democracy. I so want to believe that NO ONE is above the law.
Between the time for filing a petition for rehearing en banc and then for filing a cert petition in SCOTUS, we're looking at a delay of at least 135 days if Trump loses in the D.C. Circuit, plus whatever time it takes for the court to issue its decision.
Potentially, however, the time could be shortened by 45 days. Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (2022 ed.) <https://www.uscourts.gov/file/64220/download> deals with en banc hearings. Under the rule, Jack Smith could petition the D.C. Circuit to hold the hearing scheduled for January 9 as an en banc hearing rather than a panel hearing. Rule 35(b). "A petition that an appeal be heard initially en banc must be filed by the date when the appellee’s brief is due." Rule 35(c). As the appellee, Smith, based on the D.C. Circuit's December 13 order <https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208579363.0_2.pdf>, would have until December 30 to file the petition for an en banc hearing. If the court granted the petition, an initial en banc hearing should eliminate the 45-day period for petitioning for a rehearing en banc following the court's decision.
"An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless: (1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance." Rule 35(a). This case ought to fit the requirement of subsection (2).
I hope Smith will file a petition for an en banc hearing and will do so a soon as possible to allow the court plenty of time to keep the January 9 hearing date if the court grants the petition.
Hi CGW, I read the link you posted. Does this mean that Judges Henderson, Childs and Pan would have the en banc hearing? Thank you for picking up on this and sending it to all of us. It sounds like a position solution (we need all the positives we can get). There truly is not much time to meet the deadline for filing the petition for an en banc hearing. Do you have a contact number for Jack Smith? I looked for the office phone number for 'Jack Smith, DOJ' but only came up with the number for the DOJ office of public affairs: 202-514-2007.
Perhaps someone will forward your suggestion to him. Or if you have a local FBI field office, you may be able to send a message through them. But thank you so much for posting this.
Yes, Barbara Stikker nailed it: in an en banc hearing, all active judges on the court not otherwise disqualified (e.g., recusal for conflict of interest) would hear the parties' arguments, not just the three judges originally assigned to the panel.
Both, in my view. An en banc hearing would help ensure the most thorough vetting of the issues before the case goes to SCOTUS. I'm sure the three-judge panel would do an excellent job, but in a case of this importance, an en banc review from the outset will likely provide SCOTUS with assurance that the decision it reviews will have aired the arguments as fully as possible. So I think an en banc hearing would be a good thing in this instance -- in the sense that, as you put it, "more is better" for getting the issues fully thrashed out.
As for the time frame, an en banc hearing from the start will avoid what I think would be an inevitable petition for a rehearing en banc by the losing party (which I expect will be Trump) if the appeal is heard first by a three-judge panel. The party losing a decision by a three-judge panel would have 45 days to petition the court of appeals for a rehearing en banc. By starting with an en banc hearing, there'd be no basis for seeking a rehearing en banc, so the 45-day delay for a rehearing petition disappears.
Bottom line, in my view: an en banc hearing form the outset both enhances the likelihood of a decision SCOTUS would affirm and shortens by 45 days the time for getting the case to the Supreme Court.
CHW, This is a fab analysis/synopsis. So, Jack Smith has a team of attorneys, including Alex Whiting, who he brought in for prosecution help I’m by the way, I was hoping he was bringing him in to prosecute the whole gang for their non-participation in holding Saudi Arabia accountable for killing Jamal Khashoggi. But maybe he’s here to help with prosecution generally. I don’t know the staffing of the DOJ for these cases against Trump but in your opinion, do you think any one of them has discussed the above suggestion for en blanc? The only contact I could find was the generic public affairs office and I don’t think that’s going to be a very speedy way to send this suggestion.
I know Joyce is having a few days off but if you put the suggestion on the email that goes directly to her perhaps she would have a direct source to reach Jack Smith with this idea
But I have another question, and I’m not sure you’re able to answer/weigh in. I don’t have it in front of me, but I read in several articles from sources, such as Politico, Reuters, that the Manhattan 2nd Circuit Appeals Court had ruled in favor of E. Jeanne Carroll and against Trump to reject his appeal for presidential immunity defense. The. Appeals Court said he waited too long to make the immunity defense. Now he is asking the same 2nd Court of Appeals to delay the E. Jean Carroll trial set for January 16, 2024 for up to 90 days for his attorneys to ‘weigh legal moves’ including potentially, asking the Supreme Court to review his claim of presidential immunity in the E. Jean Carroll case. Is this nonsense? On one hand it sounds like a stretch for him to think he can include anything at all to do with E. Jean Carroll with presidential immunity. Why would he need 90 days to make this kind of a decision? And he can always appeal to the Supreme Court for the case, and that would be one way for the court to decide if they will even hear it. Sorry I know so little about law, but I thought I would inquire of you. I can’t in my most wild, conjuring, even dream that the very court that said ‘no, sir, you do not get to claim presidential immunity’ would give him 90 days to ponder their next steps. They’ve had since July 19, 2023 to ponder their next steps. This is when Judge Kaplan told Trump you raped her.” Regardless of whether he is an ex- President, wouldn’t this be a kind of pressure preferential treatment to give them 90 days to think about their next steps? Do regular clients get that kind of leeway or would they have to just show up and take their lumps on January 16? I’m not trying to think ahead of the federal appeals court. The best (in my view) would be the appeals Court would deny him the 90 days, he would have to then make a decision about appealing to the Supreme Court to determine his presidential immunity in a rape case.
Sometimes think I’ve been reading too much Joyce Vance and I should just go watch ‘My Cousin Vinny.’ But we’re supposed to be as informed as possible, so thank you if you have any response to this last question. My opinion for whatever it’s worth is it’s simply a 90 day delay and they don’t have any intention at all of appealing the question of ‘does Trump have presidential immunity in the E. Jean Carroll case to the Supreme Court.
Jack Smith has a corps of highly experienced trial and appellate lawyers steeped in the arcana of the federal rules of civil, criminal, and appellate procedure, so I'm confident they know about the rule for petitioning for an initial hearing en banc. I think they should petition, but they could have some tactical or strategic reason for not doing so. I'd be disappointed if they didn't petition, but I trust they'd have good reasons if they don't petition (even if those reasons are obscure to us).
Although Trump's motion for a stay says it's asking for 90 days, he's actually asking for at least 135 days. From his memorandum in support of the motion: "President Trump seeks a 90-day stay of the mandate as he evaluates appellate options relating to the Panel’s ruling, including: (1) petitions for panel reconsideration and/or reconsideration en banc, which are not due until 45 days after the entry of judgment, see Fed. R. App. P. 35(c), 40(a)(1)(D), Local Rules 40.1-2; and (2) a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, which is not due until 90 days after entry of the judgment, see Sup. Ct. R. 13(1)" <https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60761/gov.uscourts.ca2.60761.139.2.pdf>. To delay as long as possible, he'll almost certainly file a petition for panel reconsideration and then a petition for rehearing en banc (a minimum 45-day delay) followed by a cert petition in SCOTUS (a minimum 90-day delay).
You're right. He doesn't NEED the time to decide what he's going to do; he just wants to TAKE all that time. And the rules allow him (like anyone else) to take that time. Some litigants actually need the time. For example, government agencies that lose an appeal often have conflicting interests to balance in deciding whether to continue an appeal and then have layers of supervisory review for agency lawyers to obtain approval for their recommendation. But not Trump. With 11 days having already passed since the court of appeals decided the immunity issue in this case on December 13 <https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60761/gov.uscourts.ca2.60761.132.1.pdf>, Trump and his lawyers almost certainly know what they're going to do: as always, delay, delay, delay. So the purpose of the motion isn't to decide what to do; it's to prevent the trial from beginning on January 16, which would mean the trial would be postponed for at least three to four months, even assuming Judge Kaplan could reschedule it that quickly.
In my opinion, the Second Circuit should deny the stay. Under Rule 41(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure <https://www.uscourts.gov/file/64220/download>, a motion to stay the mandate "must show that the petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay." When seeking a stay while deciding whether to file a cert petition, a party moving for the stay must also demonstrate "(1) a reasonable probability that four Justices would vote to grant certiorari; (2) a significant possibility that the Court would reverse the judgment below; and (3) a likelihood of irreparable harm, assuming the correctness of the applicant's position, if the judgment is not stayed." Packwood v. Senate Select Comm. on Ethics, 510 U.S. 1319, 1319 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice 1994); see also Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc., 501 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1991) (Scalia, J., in chambers) (“There must be a reasonable probability that certiorari will be granted (or probable jurisdiction noted), a significant possibility that the judgment below will be reversed, and a likelihood of irreparable harm (assuming the correctness of the applicant’s position) if the judgment is not stayed.”); United States v. Silver, No. 18-2380 (2d Cir. 2020).
I don't see Trump's motion satisfying those criteria. Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure <https://www.uscourts.gov/file/64234/download> makes clear that "[i]In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense, including: [long list of affirmative defenses omitted]." Trump failed to invoke a claim of immunity when he answered Carroll's initial complaint, and the Second Circuit simply held that presidential immunity, like other affirmative defenses, can be waived by failing to plead it. Even if Trump wants to claim presidential immunity as a variant of sovereign immunity ("L'État, c'est moi" ["I am the State"] and all that), he doesn't get anywhere because a State itself can waive sovereign immunity (as the federal government has done in a limited fashion with the Federal Tort Claims Act). I didn't see anything in Trump's "MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENT MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE AND STAY OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS" [sic] leading me to believe either that four Justices would grant his cert petition or that five Justices would vote to reverse the Second Circuit's decision -- or that the Second Circuit panel would vote to reconsider its decision or that the active judges on the Second Circuit would agree to an en banc rehearing. In the end, a President's defamation of a private citizen about conduct the President engaged in well before becoming President strikes me as conduct well outside even the "outer perimeter" of official presidential duties and responsibilities.
I heartily agree with watching "My Cousin Vinny." More people should do that, repeatedly. We need a few judges handling Trump the way Judge Chamberlain Haller (Fred Gwynn's character) handled an unprepared Vinny in his courtroom: firmly, without coddling. And for seeing what a jury can do in a civil case when the jury's really angry about a defendant's conduct (à la the verdict in Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman's case against Rudy Giuliani), I suggest Paul Newman's "The Verdict" and Matt Damon's "The Rainmaker."
All hands on deck! But most likely Jack Smith’s team knows of this possibility.
And please keep FBI out of it. They have a deserved reputation for overlooking messages. Plus it’s not their ballgame, and any participation by them looks like they are overstepping their boundaries. IMO.
Have set foot in only one court, small claims, in my life. So excuse the dumb question. Assume Jack gets an en banc review out of the gate, can the CC (which I’d bet my last nickel holds for the good guys) do a Colorado court deal where you have 14 days to get an appeal going to the Court or the stay is lifted?
[OOPS! I posted this previously but accidentally as a comment rather than a reply.]
Thanks for your question, Marnie. I doubt that the time for filing a cert petition in SCOTUS can be shortened.
Once the court of appeals issues its decision, the Supreme Court's rules <https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/2023RulesoftheCourt.pdf> kick in and set the timeline to taking the case to the Court. SCOTUS Rule 13.1 provides that "petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by . . . a United States court of appeals . . . is timely when it is fled with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment."
"For good cause, a [single] Justice may extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days." Rule 13.5. The rule also notes, however, that "[a]n application to
extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not favored."
There doesn't appear to be any rule allowing the Court or a single Justice to reduce the time for a filing with the Court. The only rules dealing with adjusting filing deadlines appear to provide for extensions of time. In particular, there doesn't appear to be any rule allowing for reducing the time to file a cert petition.
As for stays, the court of appeals could lift the stay when the court issues its decision. But even if the court does that, the Supreme Court, or even a single Justice of the Court, can grant a stay. See SCOTUS Rule 23. Given the historic significance of this case, I doubt the court of appeals will lift the stay, but even if it does, I'd expect the losing party (Trump, I hope) will immediately ask the Supreme Court to issue a stay, and I think the Court or a Justice (here, Chief Justice Roberts, who's the Justice assigned to the D.C. Circuit <https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitAssignments.aspx> and would receive a motion to stay a decision in that circuit) would likely issue a stay in this case. I also think a stay in a case of this significance would not arise from an interest in helping the party seeking the stay and would not indicate how the Court will ultimately decide the case.
CGW - I'm copying and printing and saving in my notebook:) Your last sentence gives hope. Thank you for your complete responses. It will help us to keep calm should a single justice, such as Roberts offer the stay.
Thanks for taking time from blow drying the hen to give us your insights, Joyce… Gosh how is it this force of perpetual firehose seems only to grow? Your steady hand is much appreciated. Happy baking/cooking… and EATING! (all caps intended 😂)
Loved the precious photo Joyce. All your animals and chicks seem almost human. A good diet and lots of love must bring it all together. Enjoy your festivities and loved ones. Blessings and prayers for your dedication to words we can trust that have shaped our nation and the bravery to save it by us all that you inspire so well 🗽🇺🇸🗳️🫶❤️
Dear Joyce, what Tutone said so very well. I love the law and believe in justice through facts and reason. You are a gift to all of us able to see your posts! Sent with thanks.
So, let's see...it was decided (in civil court) that he at least attempted to rape the columnist, then slandered her for going public with it and has been ordered to pay her 5 million dollars. It was decided in a bench trial that he and his company committed a conspiracy to unlawfully boost the value of his holdings to get many millions of dollars in reduced interest rates on loans; the judge hasn't decided just how much he'll be forced to pay in fines, but he could lose his right to do business in New York and pay many millions in money to the state, representing the money he unrightfully saved in interest payments. He's charged, but not yet convicted of elections fraud in both state and federal court, and charged but not yet convicted for unlawfully retaining top secret state documents in non-secured storage, even flaunting them in front of persons without security clearance. One federal suit has been delayed a bit on appeal of a pretrial motion, denied by the circuit court, to dismiss the charges of election interference on claims of presidential executive immunity, which has never before been considered to extend beyond the term of office, or to extend to actions taken beyond those of official business of the office, which don't include campaigning for re-election. I think that about sums it up. Were I the prosecutor of any of the trials that have not yet entered pre-trial discovery, I'd just get started with their own pre-trial discovery, assuming that they might slip on in front of the one first delayed on appeal if that appellate court doesn't move promptly, or if a subsequent appeal to SCOTUS lingers on. Since he's dead set on obstructing justice in any way possible, why not wrap him up in an stranglehold of pre-trial sequences multiplied by three or four and let him start selling real estate to pay his legal bills. I have no doubt that there are enough lawyers in the country who'd be happy to get a crack at those billions by clocking many thousands, yes even millions of hours juggling motion after motion, appeal after appeal until the whole putrid mess crashes to the ground under the weight of unpaid fees and he has to resort to public defenders to represent him. What a scenario! That could meet the definition for being hung by his own petard.
Just a tiny clarification about the fact that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. The judge in the case, Lewis A. Kaplan said in Trump's defamation hearing that Trump raped her. The jury in the case awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 Million. On May 10, 2023, the day after the civil trial, E. Jean and her attorney, Robbie Kaplan appeared on a network show (CNN or NBC) and was asked how she felt about Trump being found 'not guilty' or rape. E. Jean stated she had told Trump's attorney: 'He did it and you know it.' Trump charged her with defamation, and Judge Kaplan then wrote in his opinion after the defamation hearing that "Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll." Aaron Blake, Washington Post, July 19, 2023 wrote that: 'Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll.' You may find this story still save on WaPo. I'm not sure if it is only available to subscribers, so I am copying Judge Kaplan's words here: "The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote. He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.” The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
The Jan 16, 2024 hearing is to determine how much will be awarded to E. Jean Carroll, in addition to the $5 Million. Earlier yesterday (Friday, December 22, 2023) Trump's attorneys filed an appeal in federal appeals court attempting to delay the January 16 court case because his attorneys are attempting to decide whether this case falls under 'presidential immunity.' As if.
Presidential immunity?!! This too?? You must be kidding me! There is only one word that should be considered here or anywhere -- only ONE! And that word is "force"! I thought ANYTHING "forced" is against the law! I, as a woman, don't give a flying youknowwhat about "digital penetration" etc. The word rape is literally "forced" sex of ANY kind! Period! And even marital sex, if forced, IS rape to any woman. How many men would be just "OK" with being "buggered"? like prison sex? Give me a break!!!! Force is still force!!
Yep. If you read the WaPo article by Aaron Blake, July 19, 2023, the judge said: "You raped her." Then Trump and company shut up and went away from the attempt to claim he 'defamed' her. And the only decision by the jury on January 16, 2024 will be how much Trump will owe E. Jean for destroying her life. I think this attempt to try to say E. Jean Carroll defamed him after the jury had determined he sexually abused her, more than any other words or actions by Trump, shows how utterly stupid he is: the judge had to explain to him in court on July 19, 2023 that he had raped her and he read it out to him. "Sir: do you not understand rape?" And for me personally, it is important to point out that Trump indeed has been convicted of rape. As the judge stated: the jury could not call it 'rape' per se because of the narrow way the statute is written. But by any definition, what he did was 'rape.' I am not 100% certain, but I believe the jury heard the deposition by E. Jean Carroll's attorney, Robbie Kaplan, in which Trump responded to her question that it was perfectly fine for him (I think he may have said 'celebrities') to grab women by their sexual anatomy. I hope the award is at least $500 Million. I have increased the dollar amount in my mind this morning because, while I have utmost sorrow for the suffering of the Georgia vote counting workers who were terrorized, and thus received $149 Million, E. Jean Carroll was terrorized as well. Recall that she was afraid Trump would kill her or have her killed if she spoke up - and she was only finally able to speak up after the 'Me Too' movement gave her support in numbers of women who had been abused. We call Donald Trump don Don for a reason. He bullies and threatens and sends code messages that he has the power to harm. E. Jean Carroll was terrified that he would send his goons for her. So today I'm thinking $500 Million, but we have a few weeks until January 16 and I may increase the dollar amount in my mind to $10 Billion or so. He can go to Saudi Arabia for a loan. And late yesterday (December 22, 2023) he had the kajones to file a motion to delay the January 16, 2024 court hearing because his attorneys are pondering filing E. Jean Carroll's case under the 'presidential immunity' case that the SCOTUS has said it will not hear on certiorari (Jack Smith wanted to jump the DC appeals court by having the SCOTUS decide on the presidential immunity issue - Supreme denied it, now it is back to the District Appeals Court - and a possible delay). It is truly a stretch that Trump could believe any part of his rape of E. Jean Carroll could be under the most outer perimeter of the role of a president. Presidents are not immune from rape, whether before, during or after taking office. Here's something else you may or may not know: a NYT reporter interviewed women at a Republican party planning meeting in western Pennsylvania. They were all strong Trump supporters - and this meeting was being held after the jury verdict in E. Jean Carroll's trial. The reporter asked them whether Trump's now recognized by a jury abuse of women had an impact on their support of Trump. Every one of them responded: "Not at all. It's more important for us to support and vote for the Republican candidate." Ahem and sigh - and with that kind of attitude, we know we have to get the blue vote out. 💙 Convicting him is one thing - but let's make sure as many people as possible know what a danger he is.
Well, if the Supreme Court eventually rules that Trump is immune from any thing he did when president, just think what Joe Biden might do and get away with. He could order the arrest of Trump until a verdict is returned in all of Trump's US trials. Or, he could order the CIA to take Trump to a black site for interrogation. He might even be able to shoot Trump on 5th avenue. We definitely live in absurd times.
Have a wonderful holiday and well-earned rest, Joyce. Perhaps there is reason to be hopeful with SCOTUS. Enjoy your cooking, baking, and being with family and friends.
I must confess, I think I was on pins and needles waiting for your reliably lucid explanation for todays SCOTUS news. Having felt that way helped me realize that your level headed expositions of the currently almost daily legal upheavals in US life have become an important part of my daily life… literally helping me, and so many others “keep a grip.”
Thank you, Professor!
I agree completely with your statements - the level headed commentary and explanations help me get my blood pressure down when I'm ready to scream.
We call out “Hi Joycie!” when she comes on screen… consider her a member of the family. Her beautiful mind is always calming. Great understated humor.
We feel we are all in this together.
"We feel we are all in this together" - yes, and it seems to me that there are more of us each day that are in this together with Joyce. What a blessing!
And I never imagined what joy could lay hidden in a hobby lovingly bathing and blow-drying a pet chicken before holidays🕎❤️🎄
🐓Pumpkin’s voice *is* so soothing.
I gotta get me a pet chicken.
Ikr. 😀
So do we!! Welcome to the family!!
Me too...Hi Joyce
I was going to say something like this, but less articulate. What a relief this community and Prof. Vance bring in anxious times! 🤩
Should SCOTUS decide Trump has immunity, their ruling will greenlight that he's above the law. Even above the SCOTUS. I hope SCOTUS is thinking about self-preservation and job security if not democracy.
Amen to that!
Dreaming on...the DC court of appeals decides the case quickly against Trump, he appeals, SCOTUS declines to hear it.
The scenario where a President can perform a criminal act with impunity is pretty ridiculous.
Harry Litman seemed to think that the DC Court was most likely already writing up their decision, basically that their decision would be fast. That the Supreme Court denied Jack Smith’s writ, was also not that big a deal; that they were just waiting on the lower court to give them something to hang their judicial hats on before issuing their decision. Let’s hope he’s right and that word comes down from on high before tfg can delay things any further and completely knock the already packed schedule in the head.
I hope Harry Litman is right. But I, for one am losing hope.
Take heart! Try to feel determined to do what you can--not much alone, but together we are a ferocious army carrying banners of democracy!
I SO hope you are right!
Our court system seems incredibly slow and in these cases concerning tfg, we have a person who had an especially nasty mentor, Roy Cohn, his attorney who “fixed” the NY system so tfg could build his way to success. Trump now is using this system to his advantage. There is no fast track unless one is poor. It takes lots and lots of money and maybe sometimes a blackmail of sorts to pull off what tfg is attempting to do here. So far, he’s been terribly successful in pulling it off.
Yup he’s using the Justice system to destroy the Justice system
You are so right. He can be above our laws because money rules. Frightening.
I wonder what would happen if the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal after the appeals court decided in favor of the Government? Would the Appeal's Court ruling stand? What would this mean going forward?
If the 2nd Court of Appeals rules (one way or the other) and the Supremes refuse to hear an appeal, the COA decision is the final word.
Thanks! Fred.
This scenario of:
1. Court of Appeals gives TFG the 👎, then
2. SCOTUS refuses to hear the case
… allows SCOTUS to avoid soiling its hands, and potential criticism for weakening *or* strengthening The Office of POTUS, which is SCOTUS’s co-equal branch of US Government.
This is my take as a lawyer: We are in very uncharted waters at the moment; political and cultural currents coming from every where. I think SCOTUS feels like it must be careful. I think their denial of cert is only a small bump in the road. Trump's argument for presidential immunity is bullshit. If they were to agree with Trump, they would loose credibility with many people. There is no reason to get Trump off the hook and let him be president. I think there is a good chance Biden will be elected and I'm sure the Court is well aware that could make Biden the dictator. The Court's real goals are to further the conservative grip on America. No need to keep Trump around to cause major problems for them and diminishing their very significant powers.
I sure would love to hear Joyce's opinion on the odds of SCOTUS declining to take the case after the Appeals Court rules. Do y'all think that they would stay out of it and leave it with the Appellate decision?
I wonder if passing on hearing the appeal establishes as precedent that SCOTUS agrees with it?
Good thought. Maybe, obliquely or perhaps functionally/legally, so. That could be like a pocket veto.
While keeping their hands out of it officially by “declining to offer opinion,” SCOTUS might keep their hands from getting any trump on them.
The best mind to sort out this question of how SCOTUS may or may not soil itself with trump, is Joyce’s.
I mean agrees with the lower court ruling
From one Barbara to another! If the SCOTUS declines to hear the case, the court of appeals ruling stands and serves as precedent. That would be a great result, assuming the lower court rules against trump.
Thanks Barbara
If nothing else, it would prevent people asking why the Trump-appointed justices, who were all extremely skeevy during their pre-confirmation hearings--some even seeming to outright lie--don’t recuse themselves, and why Thomas doesn’t recuse himself because of his wife’s role in supporting the insurrection. The obvious lack of ethics in our current SCOTUS makes it highly unlikely that any of those people would recuse, even though they should. But they are judges, and like rich people, the laws don’t apply to them. Laws only apply to the rest of us.
SCOTUS signals that the Appellate Court is the proper procedural step preventing a lengthy battle over skipping that step. When Appellate denies Trump’s plea, SCOTUS denies hearing the case thus protecting 6 SCOTUS Judges from having to stab him in the back on record
Actually I think this is like the scenario that happened in the 2020 election. I don’t think SCOTUS wants to touch this.
Do you mean the 2000 election?
Yes. The scenario where a president can perform SO MANY criminal acts with impunity ........... frightening........
Thank you Joyce for your thorough explanation of today’s seemingly unsettling development.I join all of your other followers in thanking you for everything you invest into this project to keep all of us focused on reality.
Enjoy your family, friends, and pets during the next several days.Get some rest... hopefully these continuing events will subside momentarily for peace and celebration of the season!
Like Heather Cox Richardson, Joyce sure helps keep us focused. I look to both of them, plus Jack Smith, every morning to give me hope. I truly am frightened for democracy. I so want to believe that NO ONE is above the law.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Thanks for posting.
Merry Christmas, Joyce and enjoy your family festivities. 💖 Tofu’s photos! 🎄😻🎄
Between the time for filing a petition for rehearing en banc and then for filing a cert petition in SCOTUS, we're looking at a delay of at least 135 days if Trump loses in the D.C. Circuit, plus whatever time it takes for the court to issue its decision.
Potentially, however, the time could be shortened by 45 days. Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (2022 ed.) <https://www.uscourts.gov/file/64220/download> deals with en banc hearings. Under the rule, Jack Smith could petition the D.C. Circuit to hold the hearing scheduled for January 9 as an en banc hearing rather than a panel hearing. Rule 35(b). "A petition that an appeal be heard initially en banc must be filed by the date when the appellee’s brief is due." Rule 35(c). As the appellee, Smith, based on the D.C. Circuit's December 13 order <https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208579363.0_2.pdf>, would have until December 30 to file the petition for an en banc hearing. If the court granted the petition, an initial en banc hearing should eliminate the 45-day period for petitioning for a rehearing en banc following the court's decision.
"An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless: (1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or (2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance." Rule 35(a). This case ought to fit the requirement of subsection (2).
I hope Smith will file a petition for an en banc hearing and will do so a soon as possible to allow the court plenty of time to keep the January 9 hearing date if the court grants the petition.
Hi CGW, I read the link you posted. Does this mean that Judges Henderson, Childs and Pan would have the en banc hearing? Thank you for picking up on this and sending it to all of us. It sounds like a position solution (we need all the positives we can get). There truly is not much time to meet the deadline for filing the petition for an en banc hearing. Do you have a contact number for Jack Smith? I looked for the office phone number for 'Jack Smith, DOJ' but only came up with the number for the DOJ office of public affairs: 202-514-2007.
Perhaps someone will forward your suggestion to him. Or if you have a local FBI field office, you may be able to send a message through them. But thank you so much for posting this.
Valere, in an en banc hearing, the entire court of appeals bench (here, the DC Circuit, hears the appeal, not just three judges.
Wow! Thank you.
Yes, Barbara Stikker nailed it: in an en banc hearing, all active judges on the court not otherwise disqualified (e.g., recusal for conflict of interest) would hear the parties' arguments, not just the three judges originally assigned to the panel.
Oh my. Is that a good thing? More is better? Or are you suggesting this just because it would help us in the time frame?
Both, in my view. An en banc hearing would help ensure the most thorough vetting of the issues before the case goes to SCOTUS. I'm sure the three-judge panel would do an excellent job, but in a case of this importance, an en banc review from the outset will likely provide SCOTUS with assurance that the decision it reviews will have aired the arguments as fully as possible. So I think an en banc hearing would be a good thing in this instance -- in the sense that, as you put it, "more is better" for getting the issues fully thrashed out.
As for the time frame, an en banc hearing from the start will avoid what I think would be an inevitable petition for a rehearing en banc by the losing party (which I expect will be Trump) if the appeal is heard first by a three-judge panel. The party losing a decision by a three-judge panel would have 45 days to petition the court of appeals for a rehearing en banc. By starting with an en banc hearing, there'd be no basis for seeking a rehearing en banc, so the 45-day delay for a rehearing petition disappears.
Bottom line, in my view: an en banc hearing form the outset both enhances the likelihood of a decision SCOTUS would affirm and shortens by 45 days the time for getting the case to the Supreme Court.
CHW, This is a fab analysis/synopsis. So, Jack Smith has a team of attorneys, including Alex Whiting, who he brought in for prosecution help I’m by the way, I was hoping he was bringing him in to prosecute the whole gang for their non-participation in holding Saudi Arabia accountable for killing Jamal Khashoggi. But maybe he’s here to help with prosecution generally. I don’t know the staffing of the DOJ for these cases against Trump but in your opinion, do you think any one of them has discussed the above suggestion for en blanc? The only contact I could find was the generic public affairs office and I don’t think that’s going to be a very speedy way to send this suggestion.
I know Joyce is having a few days off but if you put the suggestion on the email that goes directly to her perhaps she would have a direct source to reach Jack Smith with this idea
But I have another question, and I’m not sure you’re able to answer/weigh in. I don’t have it in front of me, but I read in several articles from sources, such as Politico, Reuters, that the Manhattan 2nd Circuit Appeals Court had ruled in favor of E. Jeanne Carroll and against Trump to reject his appeal for presidential immunity defense. The. Appeals Court said he waited too long to make the immunity defense. Now he is asking the same 2nd Court of Appeals to delay the E. Jean Carroll trial set for January 16, 2024 for up to 90 days for his attorneys to ‘weigh legal moves’ including potentially, asking the Supreme Court to review his claim of presidential immunity in the E. Jean Carroll case. Is this nonsense? On one hand it sounds like a stretch for him to think he can include anything at all to do with E. Jean Carroll with presidential immunity. Why would he need 90 days to make this kind of a decision? And he can always appeal to the Supreme Court for the case, and that would be one way for the court to decide if they will even hear it. Sorry I know so little about law, but I thought I would inquire of you. I can’t in my most wild, conjuring, even dream that the very court that said ‘no, sir, you do not get to claim presidential immunity’ would give him 90 days to ponder their next steps. They’ve had since July 19, 2023 to ponder their next steps. This is when Judge Kaplan told Trump you raped her.” Regardless of whether he is an ex- President, wouldn’t this be a kind of pressure preferential treatment to give them 90 days to think about their next steps? Do regular clients get that kind of leeway or would they have to just show up and take their lumps on January 16? I’m not trying to think ahead of the federal appeals court. The best (in my view) would be the appeals Court would deny him the 90 days, he would have to then make a decision about appealing to the Supreme Court to determine his presidential immunity in a rape case.
Sometimes think I’ve been reading too much Joyce Vance and I should just go watch ‘My Cousin Vinny.’ But we’re supposed to be as informed as possible, so thank you if you have any response to this last question. My opinion for whatever it’s worth is it’s simply a 90 day delay and they don’t have any intention at all of appealing the question of ‘does Trump have presidential immunity in the E. Jean Carroll case to the Supreme Court.
Thanks for the kind words.
Jack Smith has a corps of highly experienced trial and appellate lawyers steeped in the arcana of the federal rules of civil, criminal, and appellate procedure, so I'm confident they know about the rule for petitioning for an initial hearing en banc. I think they should petition, but they could have some tactical or strategic reason for not doing so. I'd be disappointed if they didn't petition, but I trust they'd have good reasons if they don't petition (even if those reasons are obscure to us).
Although Trump's motion for a stay says it's asking for 90 days, he's actually asking for at least 135 days. From his memorandum in support of the motion: "President Trump seeks a 90-day stay of the mandate as he evaluates appellate options relating to the Panel’s ruling, including: (1) petitions for panel reconsideration and/or reconsideration en banc, which are not due until 45 days after the entry of judgment, see Fed. R. App. P. 35(c), 40(a)(1)(D), Local Rules 40.1-2; and (2) a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, which is not due until 90 days after entry of the judgment, see Sup. Ct. R. 13(1)" <https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60761/gov.uscourts.ca2.60761.139.2.pdf>. To delay as long as possible, he'll almost certainly file a petition for panel reconsideration and then a petition for rehearing en banc (a minimum 45-day delay) followed by a cert petition in SCOTUS (a minimum 90-day delay).
You're right. He doesn't NEED the time to decide what he's going to do; he just wants to TAKE all that time. And the rules allow him (like anyone else) to take that time. Some litigants actually need the time. For example, government agencies that lose an appeal often have conflicting interests to balance in deciding whether to continue an appeal and then have layers of supervisory review for agency lawyers to obtain approval for their recommendation. But not Trump. With 11 days having already passed since the court of appeals decided the immunity issue in this case on December 13 <https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca2.60761/gov.uscourts.ca2.60761.132.1.pdf>, Trump and his lawyers almost certainly know what they're going to do: as always, delay, delay, delay. So the purpose of the motion isn't to decide what to do; it's to prevent the trial from beginning on January 16, which would mean the trial would be postponed for at least three to four months, even assuming Judge Kaplan could reschedule it that quickly.
In my opinion, the Second Circuit should deny the stay. Under Rule 41(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure <https://www.uscourts.gov/file/64220/download>, a motion to stay the mandate "must show that the petition would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay." When seeking a stay while deciding whether to file a cert petition, a party moving for the stay must also demonstrate "(1) a reasonable probability that four Justices would vote to grant certiorari; (2) a significant possibility that the Court would reverse the judgment below; and (3) a likelihood of irreparable harm, assuming the correctness of the applicant's position, if the judgment is not stayed." Packwood v. Senate Select Comm. on Ethics, 510 U.S. 1319, 1319 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice 1994); see also Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc., 501 U.S. 1301, 1302 (1991) (Scalia, J., in chambers) (“There must be a reasonable probability that certiorari will be granted (or probable jurisdiction noted), a significant possibility that the judgment below will be reversed, and a likelihood of irreparable harm (assuming the correctness of the applicant’s position) if the judgment is not stayed.”); United States v. Silver, No. 18-2380 (2d Cir. 2020).
I don't see Trump's motion satisfying those criteria. Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure <https://www.uscourts.gov/file/64234/download> makes clear that "[i]In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense, including: [long list of affirmative defenses omitted]." Trump failed to invoke a claim of immunity when he answered Carroll's initial complaint, and the Second Circuit simply held that presidential immunity, like other affirmative defenses, can be waived by failing to plead it. Even if Trump wants to claim presidential immunity as a variant of sovereign immunity ("L'État, c'est moi" ["I am the State"] and all that), he doesn't get anywhere because a State itself can waive sovereign immunity (as the federal government has done in a limited fashion with the Federal Tort Claims Act). I didn't see anything in Trump's "MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENT MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE AND STAY OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS" [sic] leading me to believe either that four Justices would grant his cert petition or that five Justices would vote to reverse the Second Circuit's decision -- or that the Second Circuit panel would vote to reconsider its decision or that the active judges on the Second Circuit would agree to an en banc rehearing. In the end, a President's defamation of a private citizen about conduct the President engaged in well before becoming President strikes me as conduct well outside even the "outer perimeter" of official presidential duties and responsibilities.
I heartily agree with watching "My Cousin Vinny." More people should do that, repeatedly. We need a few judges handling Trump the way Judge Chamberlain Haller (Fred Gwynn's character) handled an unprepared Vinny in his courtroom: firmly, without coddling. And for seeing what a jury can do in a civil case when the jury's really angry about a defendant's conduct (à la the verdict in Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman's case against Rudy Giuliani), I suggest Paul Newman's "The Verdict" and Matt Damon's "The Rainmaker."
All hands on deck! But most likely Jack Smith’s team knows of this possibility.
And please keep FBI out of it. They have a deserved reputation for overlooking messages. Plus it’s not their ballgame, and any participation by them looks like they are overstepping their boundaries. IMO.
Thank you!
Have set foot in only one court, small claims, in my life. So excuse the dumb question. Assume Jack gets an en banc review out of the gate, can the CC (which I’d bet my last nickel holds for the good guys) do a Colorado court deal where you have 14 days to get an appeal going to the Court or the stay is lifted?
[OOPS! I posted this previously but accidentally as a comment rather than a reply.]
Thanks for your question, Marnie. I doubt that the time for filing a cert petition in SCOTUS can be shortened.
Once the court of appeals issues its decision, the Supreme Court's rules <https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/2023RulesoftheCourt.pdf> kick in and set the timeline to taking the case to the Court. SCOTUS Rule 13.1 provides that "petition for a writ of certiorari to review a judgment in any case, civil or criminal, entered by . . . a United States court of appeals . . . is timely when it is fled with the Clerk of this Court within 90 days after entry of the judgment."
"For good cause, a [single] Justice may extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari for a period not exceeding 60 days." Rule 13.5. The rule also notes, however, that "[a]n application to
extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is not favored."
There doesn't appear to be any rule allowing the Court or a single Justice to reduce the time for a filing with the Court. The only rules dealing with adjusting filing deadlines appear to provide for extensions of time. In particular, there doesn't appear to be any rule allowing for reducing the time to file a cert petition.
As for stays, the court of appeals could lift the stay when the court issues its decision. But even if the court does that, the Supreme Court, or even a single Justice of the Court, can grant a stay. See SCOTUS Rule 23. Given the historic significance of this case, I doubt the court of appeals will lift the stay, but even if it does, I'd expect the losing party (Trump, I hope) will immediately ask the Supreme Court to issue a stay, and I think the Court or a Justice (here, Chief Justice Roberts, who's the Justice assigned to the D.C. Circuit <https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/circuitAssignments.aspx> and would receive a motion to stay a decision in that circuit) would likely issue a stay in this case. I also think a stay in a case of this significance would not arise from an interest in helping the party seeking the stay and would not indicate how the Court will ultimately decide the case.
CGW - I'm copying and printing and saving in my notebook:) Your last sentence gives hope. Thank you for your complete responses. It will help us to keep calm should a single justice, such as Roberts offer the stay.
Wow. Thanks so much.
Thanks for taking time from blow drying the hen to give us your insights, Joyce… Gosh how is it this force of perpetual firehose seems only to grow? Your steady hand is much appreciated. Happy baking/cooking… and EATING! (all caps intended 😂)
Loved the precious photo Joyce. All your animals and chicks seem almost human. A good diet and lots of love must bring it all together. Enjoy your festivities and loved ones. Blessings and prayers for your dedication to words we can trust that have shaped our nation and the bravery to save it by us all that you inspire so well 🗽🇺🇸🗳️🫶❤️
Dear Joyce, what Tutone said so very well. I love the law and believe in justice through facts and reason. You are a gift to all of us able to see your posts! Sent with thanks.
Enjoy the holidays with your wonderful household - and thank you for keeping me sane.
So, let's see...it was decided (in civil court) that he at least attempted to rape the columnist, then slandered her for going public with it and has been ordered to pay her 5 million dollars. It was decided in a bench trial that he and his company committed a conspiracy to unlawfully boost the value of his holdings to get many millions of dollars in reduced interest rates on loans; the judge hasn't decided just how much he'll be forced to pay in fines, but he could lose his right to do business in New York and pay many millions in money to the state, representing the money he unrightfully saved in interest payments. He's charged, but not yet convicted of elections fraud in both state and federal court, and charged but not yet convicted for unlawfully retaining top secret state documents in non-secured storage, even flaunting them in front of persons without security clearance. One federal suit has been delayed a bit on appeal of a pretrial motion, denied by the circuit court, to dismiss the charges of election interference on claims of presidential executive immunity, which has never before been considered to extend beyond the term of office, or to extend to actions taken beyond those of official business of the office, which don't include campaigning for re-election. I think that about sums it up. Were I the prosecutor of any of the trials that have not yet entered pre-trial discovery, I'd just get started with their own pre-trial discovery, assuming that they might slip on in front of the one first delayed on appeal if that appellate court doesn't move promptly, or if a subsequent appeal to SCOTUS lingers on. Since he's dead set on obstructing justice in any way possible, why not wrap him up in an stranglehold of pre-trial sequences multiplied by three or four and let him start selling real estate to pay his legal bills. I have no doubt that there are enough lawyers in the country who'd be happy to get a crack at those billions by clocking many thousands, yes even millions of hours juggling motion after motion, appeal after appeal until the whole putrid mess crashes to the ground under the weight of unpaid fees and he has to resort to public defenders to represent him. What a scenario! That could meet the definition for being hung by his own petard.
Hello Just Sayin,
Just a tiny clarification about the fact that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. The judge in the case, Lewis A. Kaplan said in Trump's defamation hearing that Trump raped her. The jury in the case awarded E. Jean Carroll $5 Million. On May 10, 2023, the day after the civil trial, E. Jean and her attorney, Robbie Kaplan appeared on a network show (CNN or NBC) and was asked how she felt about Trump being found 'not guilty' or rape. E. Jean stated she had told Trump's attorney: 'He did it and you know it.' Trump charged her with defamation, and Judge Kaplan then wrote in his opinion after the defamation hearing that "Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll." Aaron Blake, Washington Post, July 19, 2023 wrote that: 'Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll.' You may find this story still save on WaPo. I'm not sure if it is only available to subscribers, so I am copying Judge Kaplan's words here: "The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote. He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.” The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”
The Jan 16, 2024 hearing is to determine how much will be awarded to E. Jean Carroll, in addition to the $5 Million. Earlier yesterday (Friday, December 22, 2023) Trump's attorneys filed an appeal in federal appeals court attempting to delay the January 16 court case because his attorneys are attempting to decide whether this case falls under 'presidential immunity.' As if.
Presidential immunity?!! This too?? You must be kidding me! There is only one word that should be considered here or anywhere -- only ONE! And that word is "force"! I thought ANYTHING "forced" is against the law! I, as a woman, don't give a flying youknowwhat about "digital penetration" etc. The word rape is literally "forced" sex of ANY kind! Period! And even marital sex, if forced, IS rape to any woman. How many men would be just "OK" with being "buggered"? like prison sex? Give me a break!!!! Force is still force!!
Yep. If you read the WaPo article by Aaron Blake, July 19, 2023, the judge said: "You raped her." Then Trump and company shut up and went away from the attempt to claim he 'defamed' her. And the only decision by the jury on January 16, 2024 will be how much Trump will owe E. Jean for destroying her life. I think this attempt to try to say E. Jean Carroll defamed him after the jury had determined he sexually abused her, more than any other words or actions by Trump, shows how utterly stupid he is: the judge had to explain to him in court on July 19, 2023 that he had raped her and he read it out to him. "Sir: do you not understand rape?" And for me personally, it is important to point out that Trump indeed has been convicted of rape. As the judge stated: the jury could not call it 'rape' per se because of the narrow way the statute is written. But by any definition, what he did was 'rape.' I am not 100% certain, but I believe the jury heard the deposition by E. Jean Carroll's attorney, Robbie Kaplan, in which Trump responded to her question that it was perfectly fine for him (I think he may have said 'celebrities') to grab women by their sexual anatomy. I hope the award is at least $500 Million. I have increased the dollar amount in my mind this morning because, while I have utmost sorrow for the suffering of the Georgia vote counting workers who were terrorized, and thus received $149 Million, E. Jean Carroll was terrorized as well. Recall that she was afraid Trump would kill her or have her killed if she spoke up - and she was only finally able to speak up after the 'Me Too' movement gave her support in numbers of women who had been abused. We call Donald Trump don Don for a reason. He bullies and threatens and sends code messages that he has the power to harm. E. Jean Carroll was terrified that he would send his goons for her. So today I'm thinking $500 Million, but we have a few weeks until January 16 and I may increase the dollar amount in my mind to $10 Billion or so. He can go to Saudi Arabia for a loan. And late yesterday (December 22, 2023) he had the kajones to file a motion to delay the January 16, 2024 court hearing because his attorneys are pondering filing E. Jean Carroll's case under the 'presidential immunity' case that the SCOTUS has said it will not hear on certiorari (Jack Smith wanted to jump the DC appeals court by having the SCOTUS decide on the presidential immunity issue - Supreme denied it, now it is back to the District Appeals Court - and a possible delay). It is truly a stretch that Trump could believe any part of his rape of E. Jean Carroll could be under the most outer perimeter of the role of a president. Presidents are not immune from rape, whether before, during or after taking office. Here's something else you may or may not know: a NYT reporter interviewed women at a Republican party planning meeting in western Pennsylvania. They were all strong Trump supporters - and this meeting was being held after the jury verdict in E. Jean Carroll's trial. The reporter asked them whether Trump's now recognized by a jury abuse of women had an impact on their support of Trump. Every one of them responded: "Not at all. It's more important for us to support and vote for the Republican candidate." Ahem and sigh - and with that kind of attitude, we know we have to get the blue vote out. 💙 Convicting him is one thing - but let's make sure as many people as possible know what a danger he is.
God bless you Joyce☺️
Just when you think you've hit bottom...............The bottom falls..
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
Baking with family can be fun. Peace and good cheer.
Thanks for the one bright spot. I needed something to shore up my hope. Have a great weekend!
Well, if the Supreme Court eventually rules that Trump is immune from any thing he did when president, just think what Joe Biden might do and get away with. He could order the arrest of Trump until a verdict is returned in all of Trump's US trials. Or, he could order the CIA to take Trump to a black site for interrogation. He might even be able to shoot Trump on 5th avenue. We definitely live in absurd times.
Have a wonderful holiday and well-earned rest, Joyce. Perhaps there is reason to be hopeful with SCOTUS. Enjoy your cooking, baking, and being with family and friends.