We surely are in this together. Tonight will mark a year since my husband died here at home in Decatur, and we followed every second of every moment of this nightmare together, because we felt it was our responsibility to do so ... and I have missed talking to my pal. But I’m still reading and watching. Let’s see this through.
Karen, I'm sorry for your loss. I do know what you're going through. I love that you were able to share in All Things Trump together, doing as much as possible to hold onto our democracy. He would be proud of you, knowing that you continue to follow everything that's going on, especially right now.
You're not alone in this "fight." Thousands --- millions, actually --- of us are doing our best to make sure that Trump never gets within 10 miles from the White House.
Trust me, you were blessed to have been married to your best friend. Not everyone can say that. Take care, and God bless.
Karen, anniversaries like this are so hard, and there are so many, aren’t there? I hear sweetness and power and peace in your memories. This week as you continue this journey you two started together i pray it is a deep celebration of those memories for you.
Thank you for sharing with your friends (as we are!) here.
What a difficult time in history to be without your sounding board and confidant. I am so sorry! We are all in this together, whether we are known or unknown to each other.
I am so sorry, Karen, for the loss of your husband, and thank you for being here. We are in this — and that encompasses little AND big “thises” — together.
Karen Rousseau: Very sorry for your loss. From your comment, you seem to have been mutually in love and having earned the trust of best friends. I believe you have had a treasure together. Thank you for sharing.
You say it so well: "I'm still reading and watching. Let's see this through."
Wow so much to comprehend this week. I’ll be unavailable Tuesday half the day. I think this was the best comment I saw this weekend on the immunity claim,
“Olbermann also chimed in.
"Still hasn't occurred to Flatulence J. Trump that if Biden has presidential immunity he could arrest and detain without trial, Trump, his family, and every one of his supporters and never face consequences. Oh and cancel the election. You want to play this game, MAGA? You lose."
Well said Rusty. I like the "shoot a justice" one Joyce proposed.
We all know his claims are absurd. But we've seen some wack moves by the GOP of late. My confidence in this court isn't what I'd call rock solid.
We may be closer to the edge than we think.
This election should be a "gimme" based on the recent extremely unpopular rulings of the court. But I'm with Joyce, my teaching experience confirms the primacy/recency concept.
Primacy may be gone but we still got recency let's use the shit out of that one..
What worries me is that the SC justices don't absolutely have to come out with their ruling by the end of June when this session ends. What if they come out with it say on November 6 or better, January 7, and Flathead Donnie has won?
The first witness, Mr Pecker, the catch-and-kill guy, so appropriately named will testify. How amusing. I’ll try to get in the courtroom tomorrow with my devises and my turkey sandwich. I forgot if food is allowed in. If not I’ll toss it. That being my only concern.
“I believe he is going to blow…he will do something so unhinged out of his rage that it will decide the election”- said Tony Schwartz today, predicting Trump will not be able to take the psychological pressure of being trapped in court with the constant accusations directed against him by witnesses and the prosecutors, in front of the seated jury that will decide his fate. Ever since the indictment was first filed, I have believed that Trump will become emotionally incapacitated at some point in the trial, when his mounting rage finally explodes uncontrollably.
Aren’t there signs Trump is cracking up under this intense pressure? Look at Joyce’s telling of the events of this particular week — the decision on the bond may be number 1 as it carries a threat of asset seizure.
His handling of his positions on abortion and now Ukraine seems a sign of mental weakness and dissociation. I wonder how he views the Mike Johnson situation. In recent months he may have told Viktor orban that , as president, he would not send another dollar to Ukraine (that’s what orbansays, anyway)and was ordering congress not to pass the Senate bill. He’s seeing a lot of loss of control.
Stephanie Kopf of Lincoln's Bible "fame" on Twitter said when he realizes he's lost control over the law is when he will become unhinged; because his whole life he has been granted immunity either through his father's deals with the mafia, etc. or others who took over where his father left off after his death. (Stephanie has been writing about him since at least 2017, if not before)
Starting at minute 41:35, she explains 45's rise to power in Manhattan courtesy of the Genovese and Gambino crime families:
In that event, Bragg can make a motion to have him examined -- to see whether he is a threat to himself or others -- or is too nutsy koo koo to stand trial.
Whether or not Trump actually is farblonget would be secondary to the political effect of that motion.
A friend pointed out last week that he drinks a ton of Diet Coke every day, and maybe he can’t stay awake without the caffeine in it. Especially since he’s up all night rage tweeting.
I agree. These are people Drumpf thought he'd had on his side, then discarded, thinking he could do whatever he wants. It will not please him to have to sit quietly and let them speak.
I think Tonynisnright.
Schwartz also said if somehow Drumpf is reinstalled in the White House he'll leave the country. I will too.
And yet, given what we know about Trump's behavior and values, there are voters who say Biden would be at least as bad, if not worse. I can't begin to comprehend that kind of thinking. False equivalence and willful ignorance - - two powerful anti-democracy forces weakening our country. The rest of us must do everything we can to re-elect Biden and defeat Trump and MAGA.
I just got done with a 15 day cruise to Hawaii. I was talking to a lot of folks who really believe what FOX says. It was creepy how they would get worked up all by themselves. "I believe in immigration but only if it's done the right way." They would say their family came from somewhere else as did my family. Ellis Island was closed a long time ago. We never could agree on what they meant by right way.
We kinda' moved in uninvited by the locals that were here.
What was driving them was "fear of the other", but mostly it was people of color our marginalized groups. I don't know if they even know why they were pissed.
I think I did convince one guy that not voting, was ceding his voice to someone else.
It is almost impossible to get through to those whose opinions are a reaction to unacknowledged fear. Encouraging abstract hatred of an undefined Other is one of the basic tools of tyrants like Murdoch & Co.
Faux News is a toxin that has poisoned great swaths of the country. My friend who traveled through the states in an RV says that in many place it's all the "news" available. I wonder how many laundered rubles Putin gives it.
What a closer ..."That's the world Trump is advocating for—I'm a criminal and you're stuck with me. It is the most forthright statement of authoritarianism imaginable. This is how Trump would end democracy, not with a bang, but with a whimper. The courts have to stand in his way."
These depraved criminals have been present in politics for many decades. It is just that with the extreme economic iniquities created by global corporate oligarchies these past 40 odd years creating ongoing social radicalisation and Putin’s successful media capture operations in the English speaking world becoming repetitive and therein increasingly obvious, in the face of this new reality, they are becoming exposed by their unrepentant arrogant and manipulative behaviour. Trump’s insistence that the elected US president is above all rule of law is an echo of Nixon’s infamous reply to the journalist David Frost’s leading question on whether a POTUS could do something illegal as long as it was within the best interests of the nation. Nixon replied: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal (1977).
Joyce -- thanks for the refresher course. I am still worried about Trump, who has begun declaring "the only way he can lose a court case is if the jury is rigged". This is, of course a repeat of his 2020 campaign declaration that he would only lose the election "if it is rigged", and though no "rigs" were found, he created chaos in a few states -- Arizona in particular. I have faith in the prosecution team and Judge Marchen to invalidate any such "rigging" that the defendant's lawyers may declare.
Let's go -- and let's remain in this together. I give Joyce Vance and Mary Trump my appreciation for keeping me sane by their mentoring and allowing me to comment and read others' comments on their Substacks. Thanks to all you fellow commenters.
We liberals are working behind the scenes...especially in our own states. It is a daunting task but we keep going. While I'm "out" some of my friends are not. There are lawyers, doctors, business owners, veterans, therapists, and teachers working to keep our democracy. We are walking a thin line here in the red states. It is scary.
Yeah, I'm out as well. All my republican friends are dead. Mostly from lives of excess that were cut short. Wouldn't quit smoking, wouldn't quit drinking etc. even though they knew it was killing them.
I don't see myself making any new friends from GOP either.
I have faith in the most recent generation, the kids voting for the first time. Working on climate change and cleaning the environment. For them the destruction of the planet is much more tangible. The kids I taught in the early 90's gave me hope., but there was a decade or more of students who just didn't care. They were fatalistic.
Does anyone actually believe that the extreme wing of the Supreme Court will allow not grant Trump immunity? All they had to do was deny Certiorari and the well written & well thought-out Court of Appeals decision would have stood. The ONLY reason to grant a hearing is to overturn the decision. We may all be in this together, but they (the traitorous 5) are not with us.
Let us hope so…May the women of this country speak up about their loss of rights and equality regardless of their ideologies! May they realize the status of their citizenship as members of this country is in real peril. The next right to go will be our right to vote if we aren’t careful. Don’t throw away your voice!
“… we won’t be tolerating any of THOSE jokes at this newsletter! We’re a family-friendly operation…”
aw, shoot. And here I was hoping you would veer off and regale us with some chicken story, Joyce… you know pecking, pecking order, that kind of thing. We NEED the chicken stories in these difficult times!
I am thankful for Judge Merchan. I think he will be an excellent “umpire “. I would not want to be in his shoes. He will have to have the patience of Job with trump.
There are 34 felonies. Strength in numbers. I hope so.
I think the Prosecuting attorneys are of a higher caliber. I terrible thought just went through my head. Will Trump say his attorneys are incompetent and ask for a mistrial?
At least Pecker won’t be a hearsay witness and I think that important.
Joyce, until you brought it up his name wasn’t 😂 in my mind. So thank you for that.
It is a busy week. Tuesday with Gag order violations and consequences. I think the graduated punishment is the smartest way to go.
Someone must have had a word with Judge “loose” Cannon as she is finally doing something.
That is a good idea to ask SCOTUS if they like the idea of trump doing something to them if they don’t agree on his so-called presidential immunity.
I guess trump will be selling more crap to raise money for new bail. Maybe he could sell pieces of his flyover hair.
Buckle up and I am so relieved that we are in this together. Thanks so much Joyce for letting us know what to expect this week.
Monica, regarding your question on whether Trump could draw a mistrial by claiming his lawyers are incompetent: the answer is no. However, following his conviction, especially provided he appeals with different lawyers (appellate lawyers), one of the grounds on appeal would most certainly be that he received “ineffective assistance of counsel.” That claim on appeal is almost routine, in Texas, at least. It’s a constitutional claim so the courts must address it.
Waah!!! As a Texan (by marriage), I request that you omit El Paso from the Oklahoma zoo. We tend to be a bit smarter here, except for the guy whose house I pass on the way to the grocery store, who had a flag that said "GOD, GUNS & TRUMP", and had one up today that said "all aboard the Trump train". You can give him to the zoo, even though it would take away a source of entertainment. 😇
I escaped to the mountains of NM over 10 years ago so would I need a visa to go visit friends & family? Not in summer—that place was like living in a microwave!
Oh, the next grift was revealed yesterday. Melania is pitching a Mothers' Day necklace. For $245 you can buy some kind of charm on a chain that has her name engraved on the back.
Thanks Joyce for the breakdown of the week in Trump land.
Wow. big week coming up.
These are gut-wrenchingly serious issues, and the Supreme Court hasn't shown any eagerness to rule on Trump's immunity.
I can picture you asking, these hypos in court. In my mind the issue couldn't be clearer.
Propose some insanely outlandish acts that a President could perform with total immunity.
I love your "He could assassinate a Supreme court Justice...". scenario. But while it is clear to both of us that this is outrageous, I expect the court will do one of two things.
One, issue a quick decision regarding your hypo affirming the absurdity on its face, (a guy can hope can't he?).
Or two, waffle around for a while stalling a decision and focussing on the minutae,. and nuance of wordings. effectively delaying this until after the election (which might render it moot)..
i expect the court will do something in between those two scenarios..
I wish I could argue this myself as a mathematician. The logic it will take to affirm Trump has total immunity, is simply missing. I haven't studied law, but logic is logic.
I've just finished reading Project 2025 and its dystopian vision. If the court stalls on this until after what will surely be contested election outcome, parts of the program might begin to be implemented.
For the sake of sanity while reading the Heritage Foundation's fever-dream, I devoured Barbara McQuaid's new book 'Attack from Within". reading them side by side. I highly recommend Barb's book to everyone.
All this means we need every vote we can get in November. We need to keep women's issues, Dobb's, IVF, et al in the public discourses. We need to hammer his extreme visions and threats in the media and amongst ourselves. We can't let "Trump ennui" set in.
We need strong outreach to swing voters, young voters, first time voters... I want 98% turnout.
The press needs to keep repeating these stories. People have notoriously short memories (primacy and recency).
We need to use recency to the fullest.
45,000 or so votes cleverly spread over Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin in the last election could have given those states to Trump.
It was a lot closer than I liked. Folks need to be reminded just how close it was.
We need to stay focused and stay energized and engaged. Talk to anyone and everyone we need their vote.
Together we are stronger and we are in this together.
It sometimes feels like the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. what with IVF and increasingly harsher abortion laws. It's easy to get complacent.
I truly appreciate this thorough "week ahead" summary as well as the daily/periodic updates. It saves me from reading so many details in multiple articles until I can understand better where my focus should be. Thanks to Joyce and to the commenters.
The real "joke" is going to be when Stormy Daniels testifies as an eyewitness to the fact that Trump's equipment is a "joke." He's going to have a hard time living that one down.
What is more important to me than the appearance of his junk is that the "sexual encounters was a sexual assault. She refuses to call herself a victim, but it was a rape.
Having been raped as a child, it's easy to see why Ms Clifford chose this profession as a way to reclaim her power. But she says she didn't say "no", conditioned as rape victims are to compliance, as a psychiatrist once told me. And of course when you're a "star" they let you do it,
I don't want drumpf imprisoned. I want him castrated.
And no more "stars" as candidiases, rethugs give us fakes as candidates bc they think we don't know the difference.
How about both imprisoned AND castrated? I hadn't heard before that Ms. Clifford was a rape survivor. I hope her testimony calls the encounter what it was, or at the very least, describes it in terms that make the rape obvious.
Use this interactive chart to visualize the connections between David Pecker, Michael Cohen, Trump and others involved in the NY election interference case.
Succinctly put, Joyce, and as you say, that's all he's got. And that's exactly what a majority on the Court has to reject out of hand. Can't be any other way...no "narrow" ruling, no remanding in order to set up another round of appeals. Failing that, the Court fails America, fails the democratic order, full stop.
Thomas and Alito will guarantee their two votes for some contrived immunity, attaching some notional "official acts" to a count or two in the indictment, but surely the other seven Justices won't have it, declaring that no immunity - implied or otherwise - shields a president from consequences of alleged criminal acts, and allows the DC trial to proceed without encumbrances.
There's still a lot of confusion on the Manhattan case charges, which seem far from clear-cut. We keep hearing that "it's really election interference" but will that really be what's charged?
I've read that in fact the tax laws are the most solid "second crime". Bragg listed those as possibilities along with the state and federal election laws. Everyone seems to assume that he will focus on the latter, possibly because Trump was obviously concerned with the election. But from what I read, to prove the federal election law violation Bragg must show that Trump *knew* that his actions broke those laws, which may be hard.
I wonder if Bragg can effectively tell the jury "OK, if you don't think Trump knew that that he was violating election laws, he certainly knew that he was breaking tax reporting laws". Meaning an easy upgrade to felony but not the explicit defense of election integrity everyone wants to see.
Or, does Bragg have to pick one or the other early in the trial; maybe even in opening statements? I hope he goes for the more sure thing even if it isn't the flashiest crowd-pleaser.
You may want to re-read the last several posts Joyce has made about this case. "Reading comprehension" is hard for many Americans since they no longer teach it in public school.
Wow, you have a truly awful case of "aggressive superiority complex". Untreated, that can lead to people thinking you're an abusive, arrogant, self-important blowhard, or an idiot, or all of that. Maybe seek help. I don't personally care, so... just sayin'.
I am just scanning these comments but for anyone reading Joyce’s newsletters or reading other reliable news sources will know that the New York criminal case is an election interference case. And what the prosecutors can say to the jury is governed by a number of factors - way too many to cite here but governed in part by the rules of evidence. Joyce has done an excellent job on a daily basis to explain those rules to her readers and, even as an attorney practicing for over 30 years, I learn from her. You can too.
Gee Dan, you went on the attack pretty fast! Why not ask TCinLA, what mistakes he thinks you have made, rather than going immediately for the “I am not continuing this conversation in any reasonable tone of voice” arrack, immediately?
Ah, TCInLA, Don here demonstrates a weakness in your approach. Perhaps explaining the flaws in his “reading comprehension” would keep the discussion on track? Almost everyone who feels insulted feels free to respond in kind, you know, and then look what happens to the quality of the conversation. That said, Din’s reflexive turn to more personal and bitter insults, rather than asking what errors you believe he has committed, does suggestions intentional misdirection rather than even the most disingenuous misunderstanding, doesn’t it?
I doubt that I've missed *any* of Joyce's posts on the Trump trials. So it's highly unlikely that I overlooked an explanation of what I've brought up here. If anyone can point to where that was in fact done I'll be glad to go read it. In any case there's no excuse for TC's gratuitous abuse. He or she is as I diagnosed, and should take my advice.
Dan, it's pretty clear that you don't want to examine the evidence that this is indeed election interference. It's not muddy, and I don't see what information you have added that contributes to the idea that this is anything other than an election interference case, in spite of Trump's lawyers trying to make it about anything else. I mean, no one except Melania needs to have an opinion about who Trump shtupped two weeks before the election. The thing we need to be concerned about is it appears Trump used a bunch of campaign funds to pay off not only the shtuppees, but various unsavory media sources to keep that information out of the the public eye. If Trump really thought it was unimportant, he coudl have kept the campaign money in the campaign fund ccounts, let the mediado their things and ignored it. But Trump cleary thought it would influence the election if this informatin came out, and he went, at the time, and continues to this day, to go to great lengths to pretend what he did, didn't happen, or if it did happen, it's not what it looks like, and the only reason it looks bad is because the people he paid to cover it up failed him and have it out for him. This astounding refusal to take any responsibility for his own actions, which have been discussed ad nauseum all over the internet and which there really is very little question about at this point, is the real point of the trial. The thing that distinguishes normal people from criminals is that criminals really do believe that they are entitled to lie, cheat, and hurt other people any way they can to get what they want. Trump misused campaign funds and lied to the American people, as well as screwing up many people's lives, some of whom were also criminals and deserved what they get, but some of whom were just more or less dumb, helpless victims. Where do you stand on all of this, that is the quesition? Don't bother to insult me, it will just waste all of our time. Please answer the questions, or don't bother to respond at all. THanks.
My question was clear: the viability of election charges vs tax charges. No wonder TC is frustrated with reading comprehension. Btw when I suggested that he's a blowhard I had yet to see your irrelevant screeds, which are far more impressive in that regard.
Having read the indictment I don't see how drumpf can argue he didn't know it was illegal. Payjng far more than the "legal retainer" or legal expense but in fact twice as much to cover Cohens taxes, because it wasn't labor at all but reimbursement for a bribe, seems pretty clear to me. And I don't think this jury is stupid. They understand paying taxes.
The jury will understand properly filing taxes. So, although Trump's falsification of those documents evidently did not decrease what he paid, it's probably a comparatively easy upgrade to "felony".
==> The *Federal* election law issue is unusual. It requires proving not only that he did break them, which is a reach, but that he *knew* he was breaking them. So a comparatively difficult upgrade to "felony". I don't know about the State election law situation.
Hence my questions to Joyce, which nobody has actually read before telling me - as if I don't know - that Trump really did this for the election.
We surely are in this together. Tonight will mark a year since my husband died here at home in Decatur, and we followed every second of every moment of this nightmare together, because we felt it was our responsibility to do so ... and I have missed talking to my pal. But I’m still reading and watching. Let’s see this through.
Karen, I'm sorry for your loss. I do know what you're going through. I love that you were able to share in All Things Trump together, doing as much as possible to hold onto our democracy. He would be proud of you, knowing that you continue to follow everything that's going on, especially right now.
You're not alone in this "fight." Thousands --- millions, actually --- of us are doing our best to make sure that Trump never gets within 10 miles from the White House.
Trust me, you were blessed to have been married to your best friend. Not everyone can say that. Take care, and God bless.
I am so sorry for your loss! ❤
So sorry for your loss Karen. We will all be seeing this through with you.
Karen, anniversaries like this are so hard, and there are so many, aren’t there? I hear sweetness and power and peace in your memories. This week as you continue this journey you two started together i pray it is a deep celebration of those memories for you.
Thank you for sharing with your friends (as we are!) here.
Together!
My condolences for your loss.
We who have experienced loved ones, grieve with you. We stand with you and hold you in the light, our prayers, and enfold you in love.
What a difficult time in history to be without your sounding board and confidant. I am so sorry! We are all in this together, whether we are known or unknown to each other.
So sorry for your loss.
I am so sorry, Karen, for the loss of your husband, and thank you for being here. We are in this — and that encompasses little AND big “thises” — together.
May you find comfort in the battle for truth.
Remember him and it will never be a loss.
Karen Rousseau: Very sorry for your loss. From your comment, you seem to have been mutually in love and having earned the trust of best friends. I believe you have had a treasure together. Thank you for sharing.
You say it so well: "I'm still reading and watching. Let's see this through."
I love your spirit!
Thank you, Karen, for sticking with it and us as we will be sticking with you.
I’m so sorry. We all need someone to help us through these times.
May his memory be for a blessing.
💔
My condolences.
Wow so much to comprehend this week. I’ll be unavailable Tuesday half the day. I think this was the best comment I saw this weekend on the immunity claim,
“Olbermann also chimed in.
"Still hasn't occurred to Flatulence J. Trump that if Biden has presidential immunity he could arrest and detain without trial, Trump, his family, and every one of his supporters and never face consequences. Oh and cancel the election. You want to play this game, MAGA? You lose."
Well said Rusty. I like the "shoot a justice" one Joyce proposed.
We all know his claims are absurd. But we've seen some wack moves by the GOP of late. My confidence in this court isn't what I'd call rock solid.
We may be closer to the edge than we think.
This election should be a "gimme" based on the recent extremely unpopular rulings of the court. But I'm with Joyce, my teaching experience confirms the primacy/recency concept.
Primacy may be gone but we still got recency let's use the shit out of that one..
Call it the Biden immunity case.
Excellent idea, Barbara!
What worries me is that the SC justices don't absolutely have to come out with their ruling by the end of June when this session ends. What if they come out with it say on November 6 or better, January 7, and Flathead Donnie has won?
I worry about that too, a lot. We can't stop our outreach. We need to keep these heinous things in the forefront of everyone's minds. Recency!
Or Jan 21st
That makes our job of stopping the former guy from winning.
We MUST make sure Biden wins. Money, volunteering, GOTV...we must make the Blue wave turn into a Blue Tsunami!
The first witness, Mr Pecker, the catch-and-kill guy, so appropriately named will testify. How amusing. I’ll try to get in the courtroom tomorrow with my devises and my turkey sandwich. I forgot if food is allowed in. If not I’ll toss it. That being my only concern.
Love me some KO and make it a point to never miss his dulcet voice Tues-Fri.
Adding "catch up with Keith Olbermann" to list. Been watching him since his sports anchor days mid 80's NBC LA. Always dead-on commentary.
My late husband was a sports fiend so knew about Keith long before I fell for his great commentary on MSNBC. I’ve been a fan ever since.
Perfectly stated!
“I believe he is going to blow…he will do something so unhinged out of his rage that it will decide the election”- said Tony Schwartz today, predicting Trump will not be able to take the psychological pressure of being trapped in court with the constant accusations directed against him by witnesses and the prosecutors, in front of the seated jury that will decide his fate. Ever since the indictment was first filed, I have believed that Trump will become emotionally incapacitated at some point in the trial, when his mounting rage finally explodes uncontrollably.
Aren’t there signs Trump is cracking up under this intense pressure? Look at Joyce’s telling of the events of this particular week — the decision on the bond may be number 1 as it carries a threat of asset seizure.
His handling of his positions on abortion and now Ukraine seems a sign of mental weakness and dissociation. I wonder how he views the Mike Johnson situation. In recent months he may have told Viktor orban that , as president, he would not send another dollar to Ukraine (that’s what orbansays, anyway)and was ordering congress not to pass the Senate bill. He’s seeing a lot of loss of control.
The idea of trump experiencing loss of control makes me smile…
Stephanie Kopf of Lincoln's Bible "fame" on Twitter said when he realizes he's lost control over the law is when he will become unhinged; because his whole life he has been granted immunity either through his father's deals with the mafia, etc. or others who took over where his father left off after his death. (Stephanie has been writing about him since at least 2017, if not before)
Starting at minute 41:35, she explains 45's rise to power in Manhattan courtesy of the Genovese and Gambino crime families:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK0lAc9nkaU
Lynell!!! Great video link on Fred’s son Donald and Concrete Mob
Thanks, Dave. Personally, I think Stephanie is the real deal.
In that event, Bragg can make a motion to have him examined -- to see whether he is a threat to himself or others -- or is too nutsy koo koo to stand trial.
Whether or not Trump actually is farblonget would be secondary to the political effect of that motion.
“Farblonget” Thank you very much Daniel. I was wondering what my problem was.😵💫
i'd love to see Trump hopped up on his drug of choice in court. Unable to sit still or keep his mouth shut.
Give him the Bobby Seale treatment.
I believe he already is, perhaps he’s falling asleep because he’s taking downers, Xanax ?
A friend pointed out last week that he drinks a ton of Diet Coke every day, and maybe he can’t stay awake without the caffeine in it. Especially since he’s up all night rage tweeting.
Yes! Vanity Fair mag speculates that he's missing the big constant caffeine hits of drinking 12 cans per day!
Ego is his drug of choice.
I'm 67 - "Bobby Seale" ... a Black Panther? What was the "treatment"?
I see him falling asleep because of the stress and not wanting to deal with it. That being said I don't feel sorry for him
It seems a possibility to me as well. I'm not a psychologist, but a historian, so this isn't a professional judgment.
MSNBC's Jen Psaki on Sunday 4/21 referred to this too, as dfg's "upcoming Krakatoa emotional meltdown".
What about the idea that he could be moved to another room with video and audio for him, but jury won't have to listen to explosions from Trump?
I agree and hope…
I agree. These are people Drumpf thought he'd had on his side, then discarded, thinking he could do whatever he wants. It will not please him to have to sit quietly and let them speak.
I think Tonynisnright.
Schwartz also said if somehow Drumpf is reinstalled in the White House he'll leave the country. I will too.
I believe he'll lose it also. He'll be his own undoing.
Dream
And yet, given what we know about Trump's behavior and values, there are voters who say Biden would be at least as bad, if not worse. I can't begin to comprehend that kind of thinking. False equivalence and willful ignorance - - two powerful anti-democracy forces weakening our country. The rest of us must do everything we can to re-elect Biden and defeat Trump and MAGA.
I agree 100%.
I just got done with a 15 day cruise to Hawaii. I was talking to a lot of folks who really believe what FOX says. It was creepy how they would get worked up all by themselves. "I believe in immigration but only if it's done the right way." They would say their family came from somewhere else as did my family. Ellis Island was closed a long time ago. We never could agree on what they meant by right way.
We kinda' moved in uninvited by the locals that were here.
What was driving them was "fear of the other", but mostly it was people of color our marginalized groups. I don't know if they even know why they were pissed.
I think I did convince one guy that not voting, was ceding his voice to someone else.
It is almost impossible to get through to those whose opinions are a reaction to unacknowledged fear. Encouraging abstract hatred of an undefined Other is one of the basic tools of tyrants like Murdoch & Co.
Try "Trump hates dogs" and "Trump stole from kids with cancer."
And they're effective at getting people to believe them. Just look what's happened to the word research.
Jim-Bob at the lube rack isn't doing "research", and he doesn't work on a "Campus".
he's just looking shit up on FOX online.
We didn't think of reading the encyclopedia as research, it was simply a reference.
Faux News is a toxin that has poisoned great swaths of the country. My friend who traveled through the states in an RV says that in many place it's all the "news" available. I wonder how many laundered rubles Putin gives it.
BRAVO! People I follow who want us to help change maga minds say just what you did -- engage them in respectful convos. Ask questions.
They’ve been fed a lot of lies.
What a closer ..."That's the world Trump is advocating for—I'm a criminal and you're stuck with me. It is the most forthright statement of authoritarianism imaginable. This is how Trump would end democracy, not with a bang, but with a whimper. The courts have to stand in his way."
These depraved criminals have been present in politics for many decades. It is just that with the extreme economic iniquities created by global corporate oligarchies these past 40 odd years creating ongoing social radicalisation and Putin’s successful media capture operations in the English speaking world becoming repetitive and therein increasingly obvious, in the face of this new reality, they are becoming exposed by their unrepentant arrogant and manipulative behaviour. Trump’s insistence that the elected US president is above all rule of law is an echo of Nixon’s infamous reply to the journalist David Frost’s leading question on whether a POTUS could do something illegal as long as it was within the best interests of the nation. Nixon replied: Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal (1977).
We may be closer to the edge than we think regarding the election.
To you and I it's obvious, but...
And so do the people.
Joyce -- thanks for the refresher course. I am still worried about Trump, who has begun declaring "the only way he can lose a court case is if the jury is rigged". This is, of course a repeat of his 2020 campaign declaration that he would only lose the election "if it is rigged", and though no "rigs" were found, he created chaos in a few states -- Arizona in particular. I have faith in the prosecution team and Judge Marchen to invalidate any such "rigging" that the defendant's lawyers may declare.
Let's go -- and let's remain in this together. I give Joyce Vance and Mary Trump my appreciation for keeping me sane by their mentoring and allowing me to comment and read others' comments on their Substacks. Thanks to all you fellow commenters.
Trump know's about recency and repetition, and I just saw how well it was working.
i met a lot of seemingly normal people from all over the country. Damn few liberals.
I spoke with mostly veterans, hoping we could at least agree on defense of our country.
Definitely stepped out of my tiny bubble. It was eye-opening.
We liberals are working behind the scenes...especially in our own states. It is a daunting task but we keep going. While I'm "out" some of my friends are not. There are lawyers, doctors, business owners, veterans, therapists, and teachers working to keep our democracy. We are walking a thin line here in the red states. It is scary.
Be sure you’re right, then go ahead
Thanks Barbara, now the Davie Crocket song in going round in my head
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3H__8Q3MTw
Yeah, I'm out as well. All my republican friends are dead. Mostly from lives of excess that were cut short. Wouldn't quit smoking, wouldn't quit drinking etc. even though they knew it was killing them.
I don't see myself making any new friends from GOP either.
Probably a good idea!
This is encouraging, Pam!
I have faith in the most recent generation, the kids voting for the first time. Working on climate change and cleaning the environment. For them the destruction of the planet is much more tangible. The kids I taught in the early 90's gave me hope., but there was a decade or more of students who just didn't care. They were fatalistic.
Yup. Together.
Does anyone actually believe that the extreme wing of the Supreme Court will allow not grant Trump immunity? All they had to do was deny Certiorari and the well written & well thought-out Court of Appeals decision would have stood. The ONLY reason to grant a hearing is to overturn the decision. We may all be in this together, but they (the traitorous 5) are not with us.
I think they want to appear to be contemplative. It's just a white washed delay tactic.
Voting is so important this year. I want to see a 98% turnout.
Pissing off women is a poor strategy if one wants to win an election. It's women who will save us from Trump.
100% !!!
Let us hope so…May the women of this country speak up about their loss of rights and equality regardless of their ideologies! May they realize the status of their citizenship as members of this country is in real peril. The next right to go will be our right to vote if we aren’t careful. Don’t throw away your voice!
Granting a hearing caused an additional delay. That may be all the help to Trump they dared give.
“… we won’t be tolerating any of THOSE jokes at this newsletter! We’re a family-friendly operation…”
aw, shoot. And here I was hoping you would veer off and regale us with some chicken story, Joyce… you know pecking, pecking order, that kind of thing. We NEED the chicken stories in these difficult times!
“Foul play!”
(...umm, to effect that pun: “fowl”.
Carry on.)
🥇 best laugh of the day. Thanks Mike.
Though there’s some real competition out there. On other sites and networks ( reportedly).
I am thankful for Judge Merchan. I think he will be an excellent “umpire “. I would not want to be in his shoes. He will have to have the patience of Job with trump.
There are 34 felonies. Strength in numbers. I hope so.
I think the Prosecuting attorneys are of a higher caliber. I terrible thought just went through my head. Will Trump say his attorneys are incompetent and ask for a mistrial?
At least Pecker won’t be a hearsay witness and I think that important.
Joyce, until you brought it up his name wasn’t 😂 in my mind. So thank you for that.
It is a busy week. Tuesday with Gag order violations and consequences. I think the graduated punishment is the smartest way to go.
Someone must have had a word with Judge “loose” Cannon as she is finally doing something.
That is a good idea to ask SCOTUS if they like the idea of trump doing something to them if they don’t agree on his so-called presidential immunity.
I guess trump will be selling more crap to raise money for new bail. Maybe he could sell pieces of his flyover hair.
Buckle up and I am so relieved that we are in this together. Thanks so much Joyce for letting us know what to expect this week.
Monica, regarding your question on whether Trump could draw a mistrial by claiming his lawyers are incompetent: the answer is no. However, following his conviction, especially provided he appeals with different lawyers (appellate lawyers), one of the grounds on appeal would most certainly be that he received “ineffective assistance of counsel.” That claim on appeal is almost routine, in Texas, at least. It’s a constitutional claim so the courts must address it.
Gotta love Texas. Put a fence around it and give it to Oklahoma as a new zoo.
Or let Texas go.
Wait'll they find out about tariffs and trade agreements
We keep trying to get Mexico to take it back but they want too much money.
Yeah, I 'm with Bugs Bunny. Saw off TX, FL, AL for starters
Waah!!! As a Texan (by marriage), I request that you omit El Paso from the Oklahoma zoo. We tend to be a bit smarter here, except for the guy whose house I pass on the way to the grocery store, who had a flag that said "GOD, GUNS & TRUMP", and had one up today that said "all aboard the Trump train". You can give him to the zoo, even though it would take away a source of entertainment. 😇
I escaped to the mountains of NM over 10 years ago so would I need a visa to go visit friends & family? Not in summer—that place was like living in a microwave!
@ Laura McElroy. Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate it.
Oh, the next grift was revealed yesterday. Melania is pitching a Mothers' Day necklace. For $245 you can buy some kind of charm on a chain that has her name engraved on the back.
There you go. Perfect for Mother’s Day
And you shouldn’t have to pay more than $175 for shipping
Thanks Joyce for the breakdown of the week in Trump land.
Wow. big week coming up.
These are gut-wrenchingly serious issues, and the Supreme Court hasn't shown any eagerness to rule on Trump's immunity.
I can picture you asking, these hypos in court. In my mind the issue couldn't be clearer.
Propose some insanely outlandish acts that a President could perform with total immunity.
I love your "He could assassinate a Supreme court Justice...". scenario. But while it is clear to both of us that this is outrageous, I expect the court will do one of two things.
One, issue a quick decision regarding your hypo affirming the absurdity on its face, (a guy can hope can't he?).
Or two, waffle around for a while stalling a decision and focussing on the minutae,. and nuance of wordings. effectively delaying this until after the election (which might render it moot)..
i expect the court will do something in between those two scenarios..
I wish I could argue this myself as a mathematician. The logic it will take to affirm Trump has total immunity, is simply missing. I haven't studied law, but logic is logic.
I've just finished reading Project 2025 and its dystopian vision. If the court stalls on this until after what will surely be contested election outcome, parts of the program might begin to be implemented.
For the sake of sanity while reading the Heritage Foundation's fever-dream, I devoured Barbara McQuaid's new book 'Attack from Within". reading them side by side. I highly recommend Barb's book to everyone.
All this means we need every vote we can get in November. We need to keep women's issues, Dobb's, IVF, et al in the public discourses. We need to hammer his extreme visions and threats in the media and amongst ourselves. We can't let "Trump ennui" set in.
We need strong outreach to swing voters, young voters, first time voters... I want 98% turnout.
The press needs to keep repeating these stories. People have notoriously short memories (primacy and recency).
We need to use recency to the fullest.
45,000 or so votes cleverly spread over Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin in the last election could have given those states to Trump.
It was a lot closer than I liked. Folks need to be reminded just how close it was.
We need to stay focused and stay energized and engaged. Talk to anyone and everyone we need their vote.
Together we are stronger and we are in this together.
It sometimes feels like the republicans are shooting themselves in the foot. what with IVF and increasingly harsher abortion laws. It's easy to get complacent.
Recency, recency, recency...
Thanks again Joyce you've charged me up.
I will say my young daughters who cant vote hope their older siblings think about what Dobbs means for them. They are very concerned.
I was in high school when Roe was decided. Thought we had a solved problem. Washington state enshrined the right in our state constitution.
I can still see the justices lying faces at their confirmation hearings. Prattling on about settled case law
Unfortunately the Equal Rights Amendment was DOA.
I truly appreciate this thorough "week ahead" summary as well as the daily/periodic updates. It saves me from reading so many details in multiple articles until I can understand better where my focus should be. Thanks to Joyce and to the commenters.
Thank you, again, Joyce. There is so much speculation buzzing around. I like having my feet on the ground. Your information is helpful.
The real "joke" is going to be when Stormy Daniels testifies as an eyewitness to the fact that Trump's equipment is a "joke." He's going to have a hard time living that one down.
Title of the next NY Post article will be "Pecker exposes Trump. Instead of the Reverse".
What is more important to me than the appearance of his junk is that the "sexual encounters was a sexual assault. She refuses to call herself a victim, but it was a rape.
Having been raped as a child, it's easy to see why Ms Clifford chose this profession as a way to reclaim her power. But she says she didn't say "no", conditioned as rape victims are to compliance, as a psychiatrist once told me. And of course when you're a "star" they let you do it,
I don't want drumpf imprisoned. I want him castrated.
And no more "stars" as candidiases, rethugs give us fakes as candidates bc they think we don't know the difference.
How about both imprisoned AND castrated? I hadn't heard before that Ms. Clifford was a rape survivor. I hope her testimony calls the encounter what it was, or at the very least, describes it in terms that make the rape obvious.
TBH/ the size of t💩p’s genitalia shouldn’t enter into it. (A misshapen double entendre, I do declare!)
Use this interactive chart to visualize the connections between David Pecker, Michael Cohen, Trump and others involved in the NY election interference case.
https://embed.kumu.io/57dca2676fb8b16685918531f068864f#election-interference-101
Follow the money from Knight Insurance and Axos Bank to Trump's questionable $175 bond.
https://thedemlabs.org/2024/04/03/trumps-bonds-don-hankey-greg-garrabrants-chubb-insurance-axos-bank-knight-insurancefollow-the-money/
"...I'm a criminal and you're stuck with me".
Succinctly put, Joyce, and as you say, that's all he's got. And that's exactly what a majority on the Court has to reject out of hand. Can't be any other way...no "narrow" ruling, no remanding in order to set up another round of appeals. Failing that, the Court fails America, fails the democratic order, full stop.
Thomas and Alito will guarantee their two votes for some contrived immunity, attaching some notional "official acts" to a count or two in the indictment, but surely the other seven Justices won't have it, declaring that no immunity - implied or otherwise - shields a president from consequences of alleged criminal acts, and allows the DC trial to proceed without encumbrances.
Thomas should be recused by the rest of the court for any case having to do with election interference. It shouldn't be up to him.
Without that they have lost all credibility. especially in light of their ethics problems..
Too bad they can't. Their little private club says each gets to decide for themselves.
I'll bet that if the DOJ gives SCOTUS her example of shooting a supreme court justice, they might be able to get Thomas and Alito to see the light.
There's still a lot of confusion on the Manhattan case charges, which seem far from clear-cut. We keep hearing that "it's really election interference" but will that really be what's charged?
I've read that in fact the tax laws are the most solid "second crime". Bragg listed those as possibilities along with the state and federal election laws. Everyone seems to assume that he will focus on the latter, possibly because Trump was obviously concerned with the election. But from what I read, to prove the federal election law violation Bragg must show that Trump *knew* that his actions broke those laws, which may be hard.
I wonder if Bragg can effectively tell the jury "OK, if you don't think Trump knew that that he was violating election laws, he certainly knew that he was breaking tax reporting laws". Meaning an easy upgrade to felony but not the explicit defense of election integrity everyone wants to see.
Or, does Bragg have to pick one or the other early in the trial; maybe even in opening statements? I hope he goes for the more sure thing even if it isn't the flashiest crowd-pleaser.
Thanks.
It will be interesting to hear the arguments. I wish there were cameras allowed. Big kudos the our media friends inside giving us the info.
I, too, wish cameras were allowed!
You may want to re-read the last several posts Joyce has made about this case. "Reading comprehension" is hard for many Americans since they no longer teach it in public school.
Wow, you have a truly awful case of "aggressive superiority complex". Untreated, that can lead to people thinking you're an abusive, arrogant, self-important blowhard, or an idiot, or all of that. Maybe seek help. I don't personally care, so... just sayin'.
I am just scanning these comments but for anyone reading Joyce’s newsletters or reading other reliable news sources will know that the New York criminal case is an election interference case. And what the prosecutors can say to the jury is governed by a number of factors - way too many to cite here but governed in part by the rules of evidence. Joyce has done an excellent job on a daily basis to explain those rules to her readers and, even as an attorney practicing for over 30 years, I learn from her. You can too.
So, Ms. Attorney, you have nothing on my actual question. Maybe do more than "scan", at least for your clients. Just sayin'.
Gee Dan, you went on the attack pretty fast! Why not ask TCinLA, what mistakes he thinks you have made, rather than going immediately for the “I am not continuing this conversation in any reasonable tone of voice” arrack, immediately?
Umm... TC was explicit re my "mistakes"; and on the root cause of your reading comprehension issues. Are you guys a tag team? Great for lulz, anyway!
But my question is, why not respond to the content of the question rather that turning it into a junior high tit for tat insult fest?
Keep working on your "Junior Counselor" merit badge. Can't be far to go. Hope this helped!
Ah, TCInLA, Don here demonstrates a weakness in your approach. Perhaps explaining the flaws in his “reading comprehension” would keep the discussion on track? Almost everyone who feels insulted feels free to respond in kind, you know, and then look what happens to the quality of the conversation. That said, Din’s reflexive turn to more personal and bitter insults, rather than asking what errors you believe he has committed, does suggestions intentional misdirection rather than even the most disingenuous misunderstanding, doesn’t it?
Perhaps this is true, but why the insult?
I doubt that I've missed *any* of Joyce's posts on the Trump trials. So it's highly unlikely that I overlooked an explanation of what I've brought up here. If anyone can point to where that was in fact done I'll be glad to go read it. In any case there's no excuse for TC's gratuitous abuse. He or she is as I diagnosed, and should take my advice.
Dan, it's pretty clear that you don't want to examine the evidence that this is indeed election interference. It's not muddy, and I don't see what information you have added that contributes to the idea that this is anything other than an election interference case, in spite of Trump's lawyers trying to make it about anything else. I mean, no one except Melania needs to have an opinion about who Trump shtupped two weeks before the election. The thing we need to be concerned about is it appears Trump used a bunch of campaign funds to pay off not only the shtuppees, but various unsavory media sources to keep that information out of the the public eye. If Trump really thought it was unimportant, he coudl have kept the campaign money in the campaign fund ccounts, let the mediado their things and ignored it. But Trump cleary thought it would influence the election if this informatin came out, and he went, at the time, and continues to this day, to go to great lengths to pretend what he did, didn't happen, or if it did happen, it's not what it looks like, and the only reason it looks bad is because the people he paid to cover it up failed him and have it out for him. This astounding refusal to take any responsibility for his own actions, which have been discussed ad nauseum all over the internet and which there really is very little question about at this point, is the real point of the trial. The thing that distinguishes normal people from criminals is that criminals really do believe that they are entitled to lie, cheat, and hurt other people any way they can to get what they want. Trump misused campaign funds and lied to the American people, as well as screwing up many people's lives, some of whom were also criminals and deserved what they get, but some of whom were just more or less dumb, helpless victims. Where do you stand on all of this, that is the quesition? Don't bother to insult me, it will just waste all of our time. Please answer the questions, or don't bother to respond at all. THanks.
@Notes for Useful Beauty. 🎯🎯🎯⚖️🇺🇸🗽
My question was clear: the viability of election charges vs tax charges. No wonder TC is frustrated with reading comprehension. Btw when I suggested that he's a blowhard I had yet to see your irrelevant screeds, which are far more impressive in that regard.
Really uncalled for TCinLA - it just comes across as arrogant and insufferable.
Having read the indictment I don't see how drumpf can argue he didn't know it was illegal. Payjng far more than the "legal retainer" or legal expense but in fact twice as much to cover Cohens taxes, because it wasn't labor at all but reimbursement for a bribe, seems pretty clear to me. And I don't think this jury is stupid. They understand paying taxes.
The jury will understand properly filing taxes. So, although Trump's falsification of those documents evidently did not decrease what he paid, it's probably a comparatively easy upgrade to "felony".
==> The *Federal* election law issue is unusual. It requires proving not only that he did break them, which is a reach, but that he *knew* he was breaking them. So a comparatively difficult upgrade to "felony". I don't know about the State election law situation.
Hence my questions to Joyce, which nobody has actually read before telling me - as if I don't know - that Trump really did this for the election.