235 Comments

Thank you Joyce. My dad was a lawyer, judge and all around work-a-day lawyer, and a staunch Republican his entire long life. He and I never agreed on any political hot button or topic in all our relationship. THIS, however, were he still living, would have been one we'd have been able to take to the bar, order a beer, and agree over and over and over on every single point l'orange p'ustule's lawyers made in his "defense"...that this is a case delivered with the same old rusty shovel that was thrown out behind the barn about 20 years ago, insulting to our courts, judges and legal system. Here's to you, Dad, we're finally agreeing!

Expand full comment

Parallels my family -- my parents were staunch Republicans and my Dad was a lawyer -- which is probably why I became one too in my 40s! My Dad was initially a big supporter of Nixon, but as the facts unfurled he changed his position -- based on the facts. Both of my parents would have been horrified at Trump's actions and disdain for the law and my Dad would have followed all these cases minute by minute.

Expand full comment
Jan 10·edited Jan 10

All our parents would be horrified. Consider the difference during Nixon's administration how even though he was breaking laws for his own reelection, so many of his party members stepped up, told him he was out of line and stood by their moral compass. Now the policies are gone, the issues are cultural and spiteful, and it's my-way-or-the-highway with extreme stances and any lies or crimes needed to hold onto power. No more fair competition based on better ideas and visions; it's a food fight.

Expand full comment

It seems that the meaning of "conservative" has changed since then.

Expand full comment

Does the meaning of conservative differ from country to country? My mom has always said in Germany conservatives are about not wasting, conserving of, but I think the quality they share with Republicans here is about racism and nationalism. What they do not share with American conservatives is a disdain for the idea of climate change, or government supports. They may not want to switch quickly from fossil fuels as government wants them to, thus the farmers protesting on tractors in Germany on Monday, blocking the roads in every state in Germany. They made the statement that they are not left or right, but the people. However, some right wingers joined in to try to co-opt the protest. My farming relatives in Germany that I spoke to, told me that they did not feel inclined to join a protest that is being co-opted by the right, and they also don't have time to do this. Since it is winter and not harvest time, and their hens and sheep do not need a lot of care, I assume it is remodeling the house to make it passive that is taking their time. I imagine it is a difficult time for American Republicans who are like Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger. I wonder whether we are seeing the traditional Republicans resigning from the House right now. Will there be more, or is the drive for power all encompassing? The party is totally debased now with the MAGAs running and ruining the show.

Expand full comment

My own gut feeling is that there are many resignations because a. They have been bullied and threatened, b. They don’t or can’t muster the courage to stand up to the threats to them and their families, and c. They are as tired and frustrated as many other Americans. Let’s hope when it comes to the ballot box they will quietly vote with us to preserve democracy and the future of a conservative Republican Party (as different from extreme right wing nationalists).

Expand full comment

It would be more helpful if they stood their ground in the congress and spoke out there. "A" is a valid reason for concern. "B" and "C" are not, and are things these people should have been willing to come to terms with. Had they done so, they could have garnered the support they needed to face down "A" and be protected. Their private votes aren't worth much in the face of their cowardice. They walked into it.

Expand full comment

When critical of thinking is not taught until college, this is what we get, Congress people with zero critical thinking skills

Expand full comment

Anne, I honestly think many of our elected leaders do not know, do not care, and do not bother to learn about processes of governance. Their efforts do not help them nor their constituents but provide opportunities for standing in front of a news camera or appearing on FOX entertainment. They are satisfied to have an audience for the vitriol that serves no one except those who also do not know their government’s workings, probably because they didn’t have a civics class and have neither the time nor the interest in learning. In the end, we are all losers because of their incompetence.

Expand full comment

I watched the faucet spraying republicans out of dc and they appeared scared out of their minds. I differentiate between Chris Christie, as much as I dislike what he did, from magas. It's differentiating sane people vs radicalized by murdoch et al.

The former republican party (including McConnell's) really should be renamed.

Expand full comment
Jan 11·edited Jan 12

I’d suggest renaming still leaves them to gum up the workings of democracy. The party needs to experience a major routing of the elected men and women who currently show their soulless inhumanity and desperate attempts to grasp the brass ring of power for greed’s sake. They are not purveyors of US values.

Expand full comment

Could not agree more. Amongst other things, true conservatism understands and values existing social institutions despite their imperfections and is skeptical of change. Accordingly it makes haste slowly. It is not nihilist.

What we see in the pseudo-religious MAGA movement, like the Tea Party before it, is anything but conservative. It is as radical in its aims as anything that has emerged from the Islamic world in the last 30-odd years. And it feeds on intolerance, ignorance and fear every bit as much as the attraction of Isis holds for certain Muslim males.

But like the poor, we shall always have them with us. There are always those who feel more secure when able to tell others what to do and how to live.

Expand full comment

GWB’s War On Terror was a more subtle prequel to tfg. He wanted to strike Iraq with unspoken motivations, and fixed the facts to sell his propaganda. GWB discarded American values, from implementing “American-style torture” to executing the enemy.

Expand full comment

Heather Cox Richardson in her recent book gives a very concise context and definition of ‘conservative’ relative to US politics

Expand full comment

A lot! Like 180 degrees. Trump speak is getting way too normalized to suit me.

Expand full comment

As much as I don't really like the expression, I am sure there are countless ancestors 'turning in their graves' and have been for some time. My staunch Republican parents would be two of them had they been buried.

Expand full comment

" L'orange p'ustule " is my new favorite name for him! LOL! Thank you for this one, Mimi!

Expand full comment
Jan 10·edited Jan 11

That needs no translation. Do you know to say it in Spanish? I can ask a friend :) if no one knows. (Online translators aren't too inaccurate.) Geesh, my typos are flowing these days, sorry about that. Changed "are" to "aren't".

Expand full comment
Jan 10·edited Jan 10

EDITED: La pústula naranja (The orange pustule) Sorry

Expand full comment

Hahahaha.... I love that!

Expand full comment

That's great! Thanks.

Expand full comment

The word in Spanish is pústula. An abscess full of pus.

Expand full comment

You folks are getting the imagery I intended lolol

Expand full comment

Extremely fitting as referring to dumpty! Even the color! (pus?)

Expand full comment

Pústula naranja en español.

Expand full comment

My father was a practicing trial lawyer specializing in criminal and family law cases. He also was a staunch Republican - BUT - Watergate was a seminal moment for him. I remember him buying a book called "The Presidential Character", and urging me to read it. (I did not.) In that discussion he also emphasized that I must look beyond party affiliation when voting. It was a pretty stunning turn-around.

Expand full comment

Good for him for thinking for himself and having the confidence of character to change his mind.

Expand full comment

Okay, I confess, I had to look up l'orange p'ustule's, not being all that smart. I came up with Citrus Scab, which fits with Trump's coloring - and one of the many uses for the word "scab." Am I close?

Expand full comment

Honest answer, I don't speak French, I sang in French and German and Italian <and English> as an opera singer. I pronounce French well. My reference was a spontaneous re- spelling of "the orange pustule" in order to submit a response to a NYT article. The necessity of avoiding censorship and still retaining the flavor of my first choice of words was the mother of that invention. The apostrophes were a slight mocking of the random word smooshing the French language does. Say it with an enthusiastic fronsch ahksehnt and you'll hear exactly how I imagined it!! Why not just use his name? Because I don't think IT deserves that much identity/ respect/ common decency. Please use any time you wish to! ALORS!

Expand full comment

Thank you! I may use it myself. What is the saying, "Imitation the sincerest form of Flattery?"

Expand full comment

How kind, thank you!

Expand full comment

Stacey Abrams calls tRump the "orange putrescence."

Expand full comment

aaaahahahahaha!!

Expand full comment

According to Google Translate, L'orange p'ustule is Corsican. I thought it was French (and it may be - Google Translate isn't always perfect!). Maybe there's some overlap in the languages? I only speak English except for a tiny bit of Spanish that I learned in Elementary school many, many moons ago.

Expand full comment

hahahaha well my foray into making stuff up indicates that somehow I got SOME language structures correctly inserted into my made up words. lol! Thanks for that info, I love it! Now I want a puffy sleeved Errol Flynn shirt and a small dagger to flourish when I say or type the words! EN GARDE!

Expand full comment

Getting closer! A push colored scab? No matter which language we use.

Expand full comment

An oozing, pus filled protuberance, possibly green and, therefore, clashing with one's orange countenance.

Expand full comment

I like l'orange p'ustule. I wish Rusty Staub when he played for the Montreal Expos had a nickname other than le grand orange.

Expand full comment

Hahahaha! Now we're into the meat of this convo. Oh gosh this is great lololol. Thank you Les!

Expand full comment

Please unblock me

Expand full comment

The President is a servant to the people. That servant has a book of instructions, the constitution and the laws of the land. The former President thought that he was the CEO of the United States. He had no clue of the servant leader for both our country and the world and he still does not have a clue and neither do his lawyers. Thanks Joyce!

Expand full comment
founding

Trump behaved as a sole proprietor, not a CEO, when president. He owned the piggy bank, he told underlings what to do, and he expected every cabinet member to jump when he told them how high. That is all he knows. We watched his "personal employees" bend to his will again and again -- Bill Barr prime among them. Being a CEO requires a broader skill range, including respecting colleagues, competently juggling competing needs, and being accountable to a board of some sort. (I was CEO of two different nonprofit organizations, then a sole proprietor later -- learned these core lessons first-hand.)

Expand full comment
founding

In other words Trump behaved as if he were the head of a private family company? Go figure!

Expand full comment
founding

Exactly 😎

Expand full comment

Trump has only been a FOR HIS PROFIT Only ceo.

Expand full comment

I loved it that self confessed access Hollywood sexual predator and court convicted sexual assaulter Trump, had to look up into the eyes of three women judges today who know full well what a despicable human being and liar he truly is. He knew full well what incredible impact those women’s decision will have on his life.

Expand full comment

I was also ( with a little thrill) pleased to see three women judges on the bench. And one black, and one of Asian descent.

There may be a god after all. Or fate has a sense of humor.

Expand full comment

Stuff like that pushes the meltdown a little closer. I enjoyed it, too.

Expand full comment

‘For the times... they are a’changing’.

Expand full comment

My dad once walked into a county tax office with all women employees. What he said made me cringe: "Anybody working here wear pants?" He thought he was being funny, which was the worst part!

Expand full comment

I would imagine he didnt get the speediest service!

Expand full comment

I feel you!

For all of us whose parents/ grandparents were born between 1915-1965 they were Men - which in itself is a privilege!

White men, even more so!! Even More privilege for white men with money!! Their idea of Humor was a sad result of that cringy inane privilege.

Any men of brown, tan, red, black skin tones Must Realize Now that White Male Privilege is what the republicans are all about- not any other skin tone. Respect you, NO.

If you hold a position like C.Thomas or T.Scott they’ll tolerate you; bribe you if it suits them and their agenda; pretend to be your friend or support you...but when you no longer suit them or their interests... that kind of support or “friendship” will just disappear.

It’s the bait n switch for your vote. That’s all. They’ll USE you to give themselves more power & money. That’s all.

And women- respect for us? Those old misogynistic jokes are actually what they think of us. According to them, We’re not even bright and intelligent enough to determine what happens to our bodies or our own health care! They expect us to sacrifice our fertility & even our life because THEY know best. The old line,”don’t worry your pretty little head” comes to mind.

Those old jokes are still how a lot of Rich, White, Men; Republicans think about all of us... “the others”...

Expand full comment

same thought here!! To have his fate decided by so many women and poc warms my heart.

Expand full comment

I am sure he will go whining about them to his public about how they hate him and are out to get him. Perhaps that is true, but they have the law on their side whatever their personal feelings. This is not true of Judge Cannon.

Expand full comment

Wow! Thank you, Joyce, for such a fabulous breakdown and analysis!

Expand full comment

What you said.

My thoughts exactly.

Joyce puts in a lot of precision in her writings for us.

Expand full comment
Jan 10·edited Jan 10

I was able to listen in and it was fascinating. How everyone can keep their logic together and come up with answers and new questions so quickly made my head spin. I also was struck with the arc of the last 70 years, from mostly white male teachers, doctors, policemen, and judges to now a mix of everyone everywhere and an appellate court of 3 varied women. Change happens almost imperceptibly slowly, but the long view can give one hope. Let's hope justice is just fast enough in this case.

Expand full comment

Bonny,I agree 💯. Meanwhile the Retrumplicans want to move the country back to when this diversity wasn't possible. So sad and frustrating!

Expand full comment
founding

Well, it's perkin' right along, Joyce. On Heather's Politics Chat this afternoon , she referenced in particular and made it clear that she looks at the legal issues as a historian, but but also stated clearly that if we truly want to understand the legal issues themelves, then you are the one we need to follow.

I can't imagine anyone here disputing that. Thank you, as always. Let's see you put up another blow dry video so we can get that technique dialed in too.

Expand full comment

You need her diffuse blow dryer. If I still had my parrot you could see the exuberance of a conventional high speed hair dryer. He was a scream.

Expand full comment
founding

Ha! Joyce has it down.

Expand full comment

Important case conducted with finesse by the three judge panel. I listened to the defense lawyer debase himself every time he repeated his argument that even I understand would not hold any weight. I eagerly await the ruling hopefully very soon. And if any appeal it would be quick. Such a privilege to hear the judges speak. Thank you for such detail on today’s case. Much appreciated and for all you continue to do 🇺🇸🗽🗳️🫶🕯️🥁

Expand full comment

Impressed with Judge Pan

Expand full comment

Indeed. She was spot on. She wouldn't let Trump's attorney get away without answering her question(s).

Expand full comment

Trumps lawyer is going to have to beg for his money and go hungry after that performance!

Expand full comment

If he’s even gotten his full retainer.

Expand full comment

Like most any other lawyer seeking to acquit the former welcher-in-chief.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Joyce, for the link to the court’s proceedings. I tried to keep up with the gravely delivery of the defense, but was only able to grasp the tone of the conversation when the judge questioned. I made my arguments as I listened and will post these conclusions I made, unless your interpretation persuades them.

It was peculiar to the court’s method that interruptions to the defense’s delivery were many more than to the procession. I don’t have a guess why, than that the argument of the defense was open to more questions, or that the conclusion of the judges had already been reached, and their thoughts were being made verbally for the record, and the listening audience.

I was asking myself a few questions as I listened. With only these questions to reason through, I arrived with my own conclusions.

First: Q: Would the serfdom of England have ever achieved their rights if the King’s role, while in power, had not been defused?

It follows, that the founders were aware of the Magna Carta, and so the concept of rights, leading to freedoms, leading to voice and appeal, leading to Democracy, law, and Jurisprudence.

2nd: Q: Would our constitution have been written to return a type of King’s power to the president and so then discount the value of those rights?

So much of the defense argument centered on the Intent of the founders, as if to say that based on the words that are alive in print, they would not be reconsidered by those same writers, had they been here today. The judge asks, as I ask, were the conclusions based on another example, ( fast forward from George Washington ) the judge suggests, would the past, which was then the unknown future, permit a new opinion? We can not answer this question, or any more intemperate the intent of the founders, though we understand the meaning founded in the conclusion that no man is above the law.

3rd: Q: Would the transition of presidential role, the transformation of the presidential role through succession, be effective if allowed to be above the law?

In this question, we remove the “man/woman” person from the role, and consider the many hypothetical scenarios that were illustrated by outcomes holding the role of the presidency more or less subject to the adherence to the law. The defense doesn’t miss a breath pointing out that political power could mix with judicial power, and so disturb the balance.

4th: Q: Is Democracy not sustained by law, and can law be just if it is alone, politically founded?

At the heart of Democracy is the will of the majority to become the law of the land, and evidencing the will of the majority is the vote. We hold that by means of a representative government, that will is bound in law, that lawfulness represents the order that leads to every person’s pursuit of life, liberty, wellbeing and happiness. The systems that have been established, tried, and proven, have transformed partial and missing voting privilege regardless of race, gender, or belief, to all qualified citizens of the republic. As directed by the constitution and it’s amendments, the government seeks the burden to responsibly conduct those roles that assure dynamic representation, and the ability to refine governance thus assuring life, liberty, wellbeing, and happiness.

The courts have been asked, as King Solomon was, to hear another riddle, and to prevail with wisdom. We can believe that wisdom is a universal process lacking the desire of wealth, or influence but all serving in virtue. We can hope that wisdom can be discovered, that it is not just beyond reach.

The rights and freedoms born of the Magna Carter, were concepts won at the threat of civil war. The Republic was founded with blood shed through rebellion, to break away from tyranny. With the final surrender of insurrectionists testing the Republic with bloodshed, in civil war, the governance of the union of states, by Democratic process, and constitutional law, has since been amended that so then and so forth the balance of power, the role of government, and the will of the people will be represented by lawful, and civil, process.

If we are to be civil, ( civil ; relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters, Oxford / ), like Solomon, who asked for guidance and was granted wisdom,

we conclude, as he did, that wisdom, above wealth and power, abounds in the universe.

We construe politics, I.e. Political, having to do with the role of governance, to be objectively the use of power. We should construe Jurisprudence, to be the seeking of a value above and beyond political power. We must question the role given a single man to be above the law, and wisely hold the role of President of the United States, to be bound by the values of civic need.

Expand full comment
Jan 10·edited Jan 10

Stephen, regarding your observation as to why the judges interrupted the defense more often, I can postulate that (1) they were familiar with and trusted the attorney who is a seasoned appellate practitioner and who most likely had argued before one or more of the judges on the DC panel, (2) they were honing the points they will use to craft their opinion denying Trump’s specious (and just plain dumb) immunity argument, and (3) Trump’s lawyer had nothing to offer.

Expand full comment

George Conway said tonight that in his view, the side that receives the most questions from the judge in the appeals cases usually gets 'the short end of the stick.'

Expand full comment

And that’s because the judges are essentially extending every opportunity to that party to explain their arguments better than they sounded on paper. The judges genuinely want to be sure they aren’t missing something. And in a high profile case like this one, it also serves to help the public understand better and demonstrate that the losing side had ample opportunity to explain and defend its position.

Expand full comment

You are spot on Ellen. I don’t know if you have followed his behavior throughout the.E. Jean Carroll trial, but during the trial, he went to Scotland on a pleasure trip. There was no business no tournament at his golf course, and Scotland really doesn’t like him very much so there was no one he needed to see there. He was avoiding attending the trial. As the trial near the end, and was ready to go to the jury, and after Robbie Kaplan had played the deposition tape in which he explicitly admitted, abusing women, he announced that he would’ve attended the trial, but Business kept him away. Then the judge said oh no worries will extend until you can come back and testify. The judge knew Trump was flying home that weekend, because the trial was ending Friday with the jury going into decision-making. But Trump declined to testify the following Monday even though his plane was arriving in New York, and he was going to be at his New Jersey golf course. So he avoided the trial and the jury came back with a guilty that he had abused E. Jean. She had television interview the following day I think May 10 of 2023, so she and her attorney Robbie Kaplan were speaking with the interviewer who questioned the verdict that was Trump had sexually abused her. E. Jean then said :

“He raped me.”

Trump then threw a hissy and started demeaning E. Jean on social media and then he went to court and appealed the verdict. At the August, hearing with the judge, the judge told Trump “you raped her“ and “the statute was too narrow for the New York jury to call it rape, but it was rape.” (you can find this in print on the Washington Post, I think the headline said “judge tells Trump “you raped her”). Then the judge said he was setting the jury trial for January 16, 2024 to determine how much further damages E. Jean should get. She was awarded $5 million by the jury and is asking for $10 million. Now Trump says he is attending the trial. If he attends the trial, Robbie Kaplan will have the right to question him if he gets up on the stand and she’ll ask him about , the deposition that he admitted abusing women. So my guess is he won’t go to the trial. The jury will see him sitting there and they all know he’s already been convicted. He’s just a showman. and a bully. He harassed E. Jean for decades and threatened her. She was too afraid to bring him to court until after the ‘Me Too’ movement. now we’re less than a week away from that jury trial, that the judge set in August after he told Trump “you raped her.” The judge has said the only thing the jury has to do is to decide what the award amount is. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the award amount exceed what E. Jean is asking for. I think they’re going to add some zeros to it and I think Trump knows that. But we can openly print and say that he is a rapist and the judge said so. Let me know if you need me to send you a link to that Washington Post article because I’m in subscriber so I can easily pull it up. I’ve printed the whole thing on this website by the way. I just believe that people need to know all about him without sugarcoating. We don’t need to prevaricate as he does. But we need to expose who he is. And by the way, he gave Sadia Arabia nuclear secrets while he was president without informing Congress. He bypassed the committees that should have been told, and who should have weighed in on whether Saudia Arabia should receive those nuclear secrets. He has damaged our country in so many ways that Jack Smith could start filing several dozen more lawsuits against him, and keep him in court for the next several decades. Jack Smith has been meticulous in everything. He has done to not make any mistakes because he can’t afford to period. And the sooner Trump is put behind bars the safer the country will be. Until last year, when the threat that he wanted to come back to office as a dictator became real, I had been a Kumbaya hippie dippy who didn’t believe in jail except for the worst criminal: murderer and rapist. Well, he’s the worst: he is a rapist, and he is responsible for seven lives being lost on January 6. He has announced that he will put people in concentration camps if he is elected again. And so much more: the fiasco of Covid when he told people not to get shots and they were dying by the thousands. He needs to go away and never come back, and never got near the White House again. I’m someone who didn’t give up any friends throughout any of this and have friends who are both red and blue and it’s high time I have serious talks with my red friends to let them know just how horrid Trump is. Hope I can make a slight dent in their thinking.

Expand full comment

Thank you, for so much information presented in a clear timeline format. His trail of wreckage is so long and convoluted this recap is welcome relief.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Jeff, for your response. Indeed, he spews disinformation as soon as he exits a courtroom. But if one googles, most stuff is available. I like to keep track of the truth: Trump likes to substitute the conflict. George Conway (who in my view is brilliant), said last night that his opinion is that Trump will spend the rest of his life in jail. I hope so for many reasons. If you want to watch a couple of good documentaries and interviews, see 'Unfit' a 2020 doc. And an interview on meidas touch, The Weekend Show, with a Harvard psychiatrist, Dr. Bandy X. Lee. It is a bit long - but well worth watching. She and her colleagues at Harvard sounded the alarm about Trump's cult leader status and mental state years ago but were effectively shut down by the APA president who was a Big Pharma psychiatrist (read paid off with big dollars). It is well worth watching. Best, Valere

Expand full comment

Yes, he manipulates every situation so he can claim to be somehow treated unfairly. And because the counter explanation is usually long and often complicated, he gets away with it in our sound bite world. Plus, as you may have noticed, his supporters are not big fans of context. Heavy sigh.

Expand full comment

His supporters have been sucked into his mental illness, which includes rage, anger, retribution, because he is a malignant narcissist. In this case if the malignant narcissist goes away, some of those people will revert back to their regular states of mind - probably 75% wood. Mental illness is something that can be caught if she will like Covid - but mental illness is caught socially and that’s what we see in the United States. The problem is that the media in the United States and anyone with an authoritative voice is not speaking to Trump being mentally ill. That’s the question that needs to be brought up and addressed at every opportunity. He shouldn’t be on the ballot he shouldn’t be in the White House because he’s mentally ill and he’s incompetent. There are a couple of documentaries and podcast addressing this: ‘Unfit’ from 2020 gives interviews of people who know him well, who were in the cabinet, or otherwise closely affiliated, talk about his mental illness. There are several Harvard psychiatrist and practicing psychologist, teaching and clinical mental health workers who define him as a malignant narcissist and this is the sort of person who enjoys inflicting karma on others. But there was an even more recent podcast on January 6. Interviewer, I think was Harris, and the interview he was a psychiatrist named Lee. You can look on YouTube for that what is chilling? Is that the APA, led by a pharmaceutical psychiatrist, and the very title makes me wonder what kind of psychiatrist this would be except someone who might be on the payroll of pharmaceutical company? Anyway, that president of the APA maligned the credible psychiatrists who were warning the country with books they were writing about Trump being crazy. And somehow the APA effectively kept these important voices from being heard, with the wrong claim that they were speaking from a partisan point of view, which is false: psychiatrist or medical professionals, and they don’t make decisions based on someone’s political party.. So the upshot of all of this is we have an insane incompetent leading the charge for the Republican nomination for president. I don’t think he’s going to win the election, but he needs to be incarcerated for leading the insurrection. Once he’s incarcerated for the rest of his life, the followers he’s influenced will revert back to their former states of mind (that’s the opinion of Dr. Lee, who is currently at Harvard). I think her first name is Brandy. And I found that podcast on the Midas Touch, so it’s easy to find on YouTube. It’s well worth looking at and her colleagues are in the documentary, ‘Unfit.’ So my prediction is, he won’t be elected, and he will be in jail for the rest of his life. The Supreme Court is not going to give him immunity.

Expand full comment
Jan 10·edited Jan 10

Not necessarily. It depends on the court and the expertise of the judges. Yes, the issue is a politically charged one, but from a legal standpoint, the arguments are so lopsided that these very astute judges want to flush out the valid points and think ahead on the effect of their opinion. Expect a put-down of Trump but with at least one concurring opinion (which will look bad for Trump as this means there are more than one possible theories for the Supreme Court to pick from upon further appeal).

Expand full comment

Thank you Laura. It truly seems that things are moving through the courts in a way that does not favor Trump. The judges are recognizing how hollow the briefs are coming from Trump’s attorneys. That’s because they recognize that he is spewing for hot air, and that doesn’t hold very well in courts of dignity.

Expand full comment

I still can't wrap my head around him since he was married to a nemesis and had corgis (they sense bad people and I listen to ours :) ). But my mantra has been - it's all about delay, getting airtime, and shoving it up to scotus so his base can see what a strong man (barf) he is.

Expand full comment

Sherri, my guess is that SCOTUS sees this as a loser for them and walks away from it, but only AFTER the election

Expand full comment

Stephen, thank You for sharing your observations and insights. I particularly like the idea that wisdom ... abounds in the universe. I tend to think along the lines in the NT, that the path to Life (or wisdom) is narrow and few people find it; while the road to perdition is easily found, and well-travelled. I would much rather believe that great numbers of civic-minded citizens will seek, and find, wisdom this year.

Cheers!

Expand full comment

I think it's safe to say many MAGAs will not be included in those numbers. After all, they are now inclined to believe Jesus a rather “weak” character as opposed to their relatively strong Orange Jesus (henceforth referred to as simply OJ). Joyce, this analysis was so welcome; each new post reaffirms my decision to be a paid subscriber.

Expand full comment

I was only listening and for one hot minute thought Sherrod Brown was defending Trump! That blew my mind until I realized it was just a vocal twin, not the real Sherrod.

Expand full comment
Jan 10·edited Jan 11

Stephen, you put a lot of thought into this post. I couldn’t help wondering what scholarly path and discipline brought you to both the process and questions, as well as your conclusions. Nice job. Always a joy to read such a post.

Expand full comment

Just think, when TFG is removed from the stage we can talk about chickens all the time.

Expand full comment

More chickens, less BS. Sounds great!

Expand full comment

Thanks. Needed that!

Expand full comment

Joe Biden has it right: T**** is a LOSER. Spread the word far and wide. Let all the people see the ludicrousness of his candidacy, indeed, of his entire life.

Expand full comment

I hope, that along with a unanimous decision dismissing his immunity arguments, that the panel mandate an expeditious return to the district court and continuation of the trial. tRump's lawyers will endevour to claim any and all 30-day, or 60-day, or other such periods normally granted for extending the appellate process irrespective of lack of meritorious arguments. My sense is that at every level of the federal court system, up to and including SCOTUS, judges are onto his delay game and will take pains to speed up procedures to get tRump back into a courtroom, though consistent with his rights as a criminal defendant.

Expand full comment

SCOTUS will decline this and punt back to the decision of the appeals court, otherwise they’ll be swatted or threatened.

Expand full comment
founding

Also, i expect we’ll get a well-crafted opinion here to add to Judge Chutkan’s. “Stone-cold loser” seems like the best description of Trumps arguments and the case in larger context. Court might want to save what credibility they have left for the other questions they will have before them

If Supremes grant cert i’d take it as evidence they want to cooperate in Trump’s “delay...delay...delay” strategy. Or that they want to earn a credit for @ least one more anti-trump opinion .

Expand full comment

Rusty, but the Gang of 6 will take the appeal “under consideration” until after the election at which point they’ll decline to take it up at all

Expand full comment

This is what I worry about.

Expand full comment

Perfectly legal, nothing anyone can do about it except complain to (?)

Expand full comment

I think they will not even take it up and punt back to the appeals court and their ruling will stand. Roberts is chicken enough he doesn’t want TFG thugs making threats and swatting the court. This keeps the SCOTUS out of the picture and puts targets on the appeals court.

Expand full comment

Pan’s hypotheticals were so close to realities or prospective realities when it comes to Trump, that it seems the justices understand the danger this man poses. I hope their decision is swift and clear with removal of any stay. And then the Supreme Court should refuse to hear it. The grounds are absurd and it’s time to shut down Trump’s abuse of the justice system

Expand full comment

Yes.

And.

They're precisely the the realities that pertained among monarchies pre-1776, and are why the US Constitution & DoI comprise specific mechanisms to mitigate against them.

Expand full comment

The concept that impeachment and Senate conviction is the only gateway to presidential accountability is tantamount to saying that there is a statute of limitation on pursuing justice against a corrupt president; it has to happen while he/she holds office, unless Congress can impeach a former office holder. That seems ludicrous on it's face, since the punishment for a political conviction is loss of the office. That is not a legal punishment for criminal conduct. That is a political consequence. Once the president no longer holds the office, he/she can no longer be impeached, therefore couldn't be tried and convicted for criminal behavior that occurred while in office? It seems to me that the query starts first and foremost with "was there criminal behavior?" That's what a grand jury does, at little or no cost to the accused. Protection against a "wave of legal action against former officials" would begin with "was there criminal behavior?" meaning a lot of grand jury work on the public purse. If the point contended was a difficult decision with legal counsel (which should be part of the federal record) that should adequately protect a former official from frivolous legal action after the fact. Of course, we've seen ample evidence that frivolous claims can be made irrespective of evidence, such as the 60 lawsuits initiated by the tFfg camp claiming fraud in the 2020 election, all of which were thrown out. I doubt that any citizen would object to immunity from criminal prosecution for legitimate acts taken in the course of governance. Here we're talking about BLATANT conspiratorial and criminal acts against the electoral process, which is grounded in the constitution. The concept that it takes political acts (impeachment with Senate conviction) with pure political consequences to be the sole gateway to legal accountability for criminal behavior is simply ludicrous.

Expand full comment

About Trump walking out of the room when a reporter asked him to say "No violence". Check this infographic which shows ten ways that Trump uses to harass judges and prosecutors.

Dictator's Handbook To Attack Judges, Prosecutors And The Rule of Law

https://thedemlabs.org/2024/01/09/dictators-handbook-to-attack-judges-prosecutors-and-the-rule-of-law/

Expand full comment

It seems to me that Trump again is being treated differently by the judiciary. His appeal should be thrown back at the lower court because he is appealing before his trial has even started. These are more delaying tactics and he should be stopped in his tracks here and now.

Expand full comment

Let’s get the appeals done now so he can be tossed in jail instead of being out while he awaits the courts decisions. I want him put in prison as soon as he loses. Like on tv, remand to custody.

Expand full comment

YES!

Expand full comment

Marilyn, read the prosecution's explanation when one of the judges asked about that. It is in Joyce's column today. It explains the reasoning why they went along with the appeal - to get it out of the way so that they can proceed with the real stuff.

Expand full comment