Trump 64: He's Finally In Front Of A Judge

[Xan]

BigStupid wants us to know that it's Meadows' word against his.

[fraurosena]

Trump seems to be in trouble with Judge Engoron today. C'mon, Judge, punish him already!

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A tidbit from today’s TFG trial:

[CTRLZero]

5 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

A tidbit from today’s TFG trial:

No eye rolling?  That’s almost an impossible ask.  

[GreyhoundFan]

Apparently TFG had to take the stand due to gag order violations:

Why is the fine not higher? Or, preferably, a stay in jail.

[GreyhoundFan]

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

wait the lawyer asked the judge to stop rolling his eyes because it's distracting her??

I'm sad this fine isn't higher. So frustrating. Come on judge.

What's his name literally went out into the hall in the middle of his trial and  made inflammatory statements! Any regular person would be in such hot water.

 

[livinginthelight]

7 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

wait the lawyer asked the judge to stop rolling his eyes because it's distracting her??

I'm sad this fine isn't higher. So frustrating. Come on judge.

What's his name literally went out into the hall in the middle of his trial and  made inflammatory statements! Any regular person would be in such hot water.

 

I haven't seen whether the judge or his law clerk were actually rolling their eyes. If they were, this was very unprofessional of them. I see Engoron as very professional though, so maybe the Habba was just trying the "squirrel!" technique?

[Ozlsn]

Get it on record, use it to appeal...

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Where's Tapper??  Watching interview this morning about the what's his name fine from yesterday and they're all like:

 

OooOOOooooOOO this judge is serious

What's his name BETTER listen to the judge this judge is tough

Now he knows the judge is SERIOUS! oh boy!

------

No. 10k is like fining me 5 bucks. 5k was like fining him 1 dollar. This is not serious. This not being tough.  What's his name is not going to change his behavior over this. If anything, it gives him more talking points and would embolden him that clearly there's no negative consequences at all to anything he says.

If you had to pay a 5 dollar fine for something would that deter you??

 

--------

We have stupid traffic cameras on school busses now. It's privately owned and not through the police and somehow legal. The fines go 300$ to 1000$ for 2nd citation and something more insane for 3rd.

I got a 2nd citation before I even got the 1st citation for passing a bus (twice) that I never saw (and never saw on my work commute all the days after while looking for it). 1300$ for me was a significant portion of my yearly wage. It was an actual hardship for me to pay that.

I can tell you now I avoid that freaking road because I don't know where they hid that bus and I do NOT want to get the 3rd citation. Years later, when I do go on that road (large busy road 5 lanes total) I drive at 25-30 mph while everybody else is no joke going 50+.

I am very effectively deterred.

---------------

What's his name is not deterred and the fact that the non-MAGA news aren't reporting this fine and consequence as laughable is part of what's wrong with non-MAGA USA. We're talking like reasonable people about a guy who is intent on literally destroying american institutions.

If Putin got a 5k$ fine from us would we be sitting here going "oh boy NOW putin will take us seriously"

It's a joke and it's an insult to decent law abiding americans. And why the news doesn't report as such, I cannot understand.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

[thoughtful]

41 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

We need Perry Mason (and his opponent Hamilton Burger), since Trump is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial!

[47of74]

4 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Where's Tapper??  Watching interview this morning about the what's his name fine from yesterday and they're all like:

 

OooOOOooooOOO this judge is serious

What's his name BETTER listen to the judge this judge is tough

Now he knows the judge is SERIOUS! oh boy!

------

No. 10k is like fining me 5 bucks. 5k was like fining him 1 dollar. This is not serious. This not being tough.  What's his name is not going to change his behavior over this. If anything, it gives him more talking points and would embolden him that clearly there's no negative consequences at all to anything he says.

If you had to pay a 5 dollar fine for something would that deter you??

 

--------

We have stupid traffic cameras on school busses now. It's privately owned and not through the police and somehow legal. The fines go 300$ to 1000$ for 2nd citation and something more insane for 3rd.

I got a 2nd citation before I even got the 1st citation for passing a bus (twice) that I never saw (and never saw on my work commute all the days after while looking for it). 1300$ for me was a significant portion of my yearly wage. It was an actual hardship for me to pay that.

I can tell you now I avoid that freaking road because I don't know where they hid that bus and I do NOT want to get the 3rd citation. Years later, when I do go on that road (large busy road 5 lanes total) I drive at 25-30 mph while everybody else is no joke going 50+.

I am very effectively deterred.

---------------

What's his name is not deterred and the fact that the non-MAGA news aren't reporting this fine and consequence as laughable is part of what's wrong with non-MAGA USA. We're talking like reasonable people about a guy who is intent on literally destroying american institutions.

If Putin got a 5k$ fine from us would we be sitting here going "oh boy NOW putin will take us seriously"

It's a joke and it's an insult to decent law abiding americans. And why the news doesn't report as such, I cannot understand.

 

Yeah these judges need to act or get off the fucking pot.  They're being fucking cowards by not holding his feet to the fire. 

[Xan]

My take on it is that they're trying not to bog down the trials with appeals.  It's obvious to me that Donald is baiting them to try to give him house arrest or a total gag order.  If a judge does that, there go the lawyers scurrying to file as many appeals as they can.  Maybe the judges think it's better to just put up with him until he can be sentenced for something.

[Xan]

Now he's after Maggie Haberman.

Spoiler

What?  Does he honestly think calling her "Maggot" is going to destroy her or cause her to stop writing about him?  I imagine he struts around Mar-a-Lago patting himself on the back for making up the meanest nicknames for people and thinking about how funny they are.

Also, Donny's grasp of the law appears to be nonexistent.  If he's just going off of old Perry Mason reruns, he's about as out of touch as you can get.  No, let me word that differently.  He is at a level of stupid "the likes of which we have never seen before!"

Also, here's Donny attempting to pretend that he likes babies.

Spoiler

He looks as if he's about to eat the little thing -- bow and all.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

Why is she "peek a boo" james?? what a weird nickname...in a barrel of weird nicknames.

he is so impossibly childish. I would be embarrassed to know somebody who wrote or talked like that.

Even if their plan is to avoid appeals....FUCK that shit. I'm so sick and tired of rich white guys doing whatever the hell the want - ruining the country, ruining the world. There's no accountability if you can pay lawyers to appeal when most people just accept a plea to whatever because they don't have money to back them up, can't miss work, have kids. 

 

 

[backyard sylph]

50 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Why is she "peek a boo" james?? what a weird nickname...in a barrel of weird nicknames.

It's a near rhyme with something truly awful. 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[Becky]

16 hours ago, backyard sylph said:

It's a near rhyme with something truly awful. 

Oh Lawd.  I have wondered what the Peekaboo nickname was all about, but never caught this, it is simply too disgusting to even contemplate.  He is a piece of shit, and I hope Ms. James nails him to the wall.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

2 hours ago, Becky said:

Oh Lawd.  I have wondered what the Peekaboo nickname was all about, but never caught this, it is simply too disgusting to even contemplate.  He is a piece of shit, and I hope Ms. James nails him to the wall.

I'm sad to report I still don't know what this is

but I'm not alone...ish...

there's an article (and several reddit threads)

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/letitia-james-peekaboo-trump-nickname-theories.html#:~:text=It's an intentional allusion to,knows exactly what he's saying.”

....

ok I've now googled more and ended up on a list of ethnic slurs on wikipedia and I've never heard that term before which is why I was so confused. If any one else is and doesn't want to admit it the list is here and it's a "j" word

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#J

also....he's an ass. fuck him.

[livinginthelight]

36 minutes ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

I'm sad to report I still don't know what this is

but I'm not alone...ish...

there's an article (and several reddit threads)

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/letitia-james-peekaboo-trump-nickname-theories.html#:~:text=It's an intentional allusion to,knows exactly what he's saying.”

....

ok I've now googled more and ended up on a list of ethnic slurs on wikipedia and I've never heard that term before which is why I was so confused. If any one else is and doesn't want to admit it the list is here and it's a "j" word

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs#J

also....he's an ass. fuck him.

Thank you. I too had no idea. I'm not happy about knowing but it's further confirmation of what a piece of shit he is.

[GreyhoundFan]

A good read:

 

More:

Spoiler

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Not soon enough: "Trump, his adult children expected to testify in N.Y. fraud trial soon"

Quote

NEW YORK — Donald Trump and three of his adult children are scheduled to testify between Nov. 1 and Nov. 6 in the $250 million civil fraud case that alleges years of financial misconduct by the Trump Organization and those who run it.

The announcement of the Trump family’s upcoming courtroom appearances was made on Friday after New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron ruled that Ivanka Trump, who is no longer a named defendant in the case, may be called by attorneys from the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James to testify under subpoena.

The former president — who is a named defendant along with Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump — is slated to be the last of the four Trump family witnesses, expected to take the stand on Nov. 6, the day before Election Day.

Trump is running for president again in 2024, and currently has a wide lead over the rest of the Republican pack.

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, both executives at the Trump Organization, will testify on James’s direct case on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively. The former president and his sons are expected to be called by their attorneys a second time later in the trial, which opened Oct. 2 and could continue until nearly the end of December.

Ivanka Trump, who is no longer actively involved in Trump Organization business, is scheduled to testify Friday, Nov. 3. Her attorney could appeal Engoron’s decision, potentially stalling her appearance.

James’s lawsuit alleges that the company and its executives purposely inflated the value of Trump’s net worth by up to $2.2 billion from 2011 to 2021 to get better loan rates from lenders and lower insurance premiums. The company and the Trump family have denied wrongdoing.

Ivanka Trump was dismissed from the case in June by an appellate ruling that said her involvement in the business transactions at issue was excluded by the statute of limitations.

Trump has made multiple appearances already to observe the trial, which will be decided by a judge and does not include a jury. Most recently, he sat at the defense table on Wednesday, when his former adviser and attorney Michael Cohen testified against him.

On that day, Trump was fined $10,000 for making a statement in the hallway that appeared to accuse Engoron and his law clerk of being overly partisan. After Trump had posted about the clerk on social media earlier in the trial, Engoron imposed a gag order barring Trump from making comments about the judge’s staff.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Hearings begin as Trump critics attempt to kick him off ballots"

Quote

In two courtrooms 900 miles apart, judges next week will begin to weigh an unprecedented and historic question: Is former president Donald Trump eligible to run for office again given his alleged role in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol?

Starting on Monday in Denver, a week-long hearing featuring witnesses and legal scholars will explore whether Jan. 6 qualified as an insurrection, which could bar Trump from the ballot in Colorado. On Thursday, the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether an obscure part of the Constitution might keep Trump off the ballot there. In coming weeks, courts around the country might hold similar proceedings.

The legal strategy, pursued by an unusual mix of conservatives and liberals, is unlike any tried before against a candidate for president. Legal experts are deeply divided on the merit of the theory, but even its backers acknowledge they face stiff challenges.

The effort hinges on an arcane provision of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which was adopted after the Civil War and is renowned for protecting Americans’ civil rights. The amendment’s lesser-known Section 3 states that people cannot hold office if they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution and then engage in an insurrection or provide help to the nation’s enemies. It was adopted to prevent former Confederate soldiers from gaining office and using their authority to undermine Reconstruction. Until now, it has been little considered since that era.

“It comes out of nowhere and moved from being a really off-the-wall possibility to a very serious potential disruption of the presidential contest,” said Kurt Lash, a law professor at the University of Richmond who wrote a recent law review article exploring the ambiguities of Section 3.

Trump has cast these lawsuits as “nonsense” and “election interference.”

“This is like a banana republic,” Trump told conservative radio host Dan Bongino last month.

The debate over interpretations of that section will move into the courtroom on Monday, as the hearing begins in Denver over a lawsuit brought by Republican and independent voters, including a former GOP leader in the Colorado legislature. It’s unclear who will testify, but witnesses could include people who saw the attack on the Capitol unfold before them.

“A five-day hearing — I’m a little blown away by this prospect,” said Derek Muller, a University of Notre Dame law professor who has closely followed the cases. “Can you imagine this process happening simultaneously in 50 states around the country? It’s a wild process to think about.”

The lawsuits put an unusual wrinkle into a presidential contest that is already unpredictable. Trump is trying to fight off criminal charges in four cases, two of them centered on his efforts to reverse the 2020 election.

The attempts to keep Trump off the ballot have buoyed critics of the former president, but the efforts could blow back on them. Some voters may perceive the lawsuits as political attempts to sideline a candidate who remains popular among Republicans, said Julia Azari, a professor of political science at Marquette University.

“It’s sort of maybe likely to replicate the impeachment process in terms of its political dynamics, which is that it looks like you’re using a vague provision in the Constitution to do whatever you want,” she said.

Trump’s opponents are planning to file lawsuits across the country but carefully selected where they started. Colorado and Minnesota have laws making it relatively easy to sue over whether a candidate can be on the ballot, and Trump’s critics believe they have good odds before those states’ supreme courts.

The Colorado lawsuit argues that Trump should be barred from running for president again because of his actions after losing the 2020 election, including by pressuring state officials to reverse the results and telling armed supporters gathered near the Capitol ahead of the riot to “fight like hell.”

“Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and interfere with the peaceful transfer of power were part of an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States,” attorney Mario Nicolais wrote in the lawsuit. “By instigating this unprecedented assault on the American constitutional order, Trump violated his oath and disqualified himself under the Fourteenth Amendment from holding public office, including the Office of the President.”

Trump’s attorney, former Colorado secretary of state Scott Gessler, contends in court filings that Trump never engaged in an insurrection, noting he told his supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” In addition, he argues Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidency and courts don’t have the ability to keep Trump off the ballot.

“The U.S. Constitution commits to Congress and the electoral college exclusive power to determine presidential qualifications and whether a candidate can serve as President,” he wrote in one filing. “Courts cannot decide the issue at the heart of this case.”

Judge Sarah B. Wallace has not viewed it that way and is planning to hear 36 hours of arguments starting Monday. She is expected to rule by mid-November. The losing side can appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal scholars said if any state bars Trump from running, the U.S. Supreme Court will be sure to take up the matter. Its decision would settle the matter nationwide.

“I think it would be very good if the Supreme Court would take this at the earliest opportunity,” said Josh Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law Houston and the co-author of a law review article contending Trump cannot be kept off the ballot under the 14th Amendment.

Trump appointed three of the nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, but they haven’t always ruled his way, including in challenges he and his allies brought over the 2020 election.

“I don’t think anyone should assume the Supreme Court is going to automatically side with Donald Trump,” said Ben Clements, the chairman of Free Speech for People, an election reform group assisting with the Minnesota case and one in Michigan.

The Minnesota case was brought by a former secretary of state, a former Minnesota Supreme Court justice, a former co-chairman of a county Republican Party and others. The state justices in that case must rule on some legal issues soon after Thursday’s hearing but may send the case after that to a lower-court judge to develop a complete record.

The Colorado residents brought their lawsuit with the assistance of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that helped win a court order last year that removed a county commissioner in New Mexico from office because of his activities on Jan. 6. The Colorado hearing could mirror that preceding one, which featured a police officer who was crushed by the mob at the Capitol, a freelance photographer who took pictures of the commissioner in the crowd, a law professor and an expert on political violence.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold (D), the state’s top elections official, said she expects to testify about how the state determines when to put candidates on ballots. She said she wants the court to rule on whether she must keep Trump’s name off the ballot.

“The position that we have taken is that Trump has engaged in insurrection, and we would like a court to provide guidance for ballot access in Colorado,” she said.

Election officials in other states would also prefer to stay out of a political storm and have courts determine whether Trump can be on the ballot, said Michael Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

“Election officials now already are under extraordinary pressure and are distrusted and caught up in the political crossfire,” he said. “Many of them are nervous about having this new thing dropped on their laps.”

In all the cases, courts will have to consider an array of novel questions, some of them mundane and some of them philosophical. Is the president an officer “under the United States?” (If not, Section 3 does not apply to the presidency.) Is the president an officer “of the United States?” (If not, the oath Trump took when he served as president doesn’t make him subject to Section 3.) Did the attack on the Capitol qualify as an insurrection? (If it didn’t, Trump can get on the ballot.) If it was an insurrection, is it one Trump engaged in? (If he didn’t, he can run again.)

The number of questions speaks to the obstacles for those who are bringing the lawsuits. They need to succeed on every argument. If Trump prevails on any, he will get to run for office again.

While the lawsuit against the New Mexico county commissioner succeeded last year, others did not. A Georgia judge shot down a lawsuit last year that attempted to keep Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R) off the ballot. The judge found she did not participate in the attack on the Capitol even while finding her rhetoric leading up to it was inflammatory.

Alan Rozenshtein, an associate law professor at the University of Minnesota who is hosting a virtual conference on the 14th Amendment on Monday, said he considers Trump a threat to democracy but is not sure he should be prevented from running.

“It’s just not clear if America would remain a liberal democracy after a second Trump presidency,” he said. “On the other hand, you have the possibility of taking the front-runner of a major political party out of the race in a way that is, at least in the short term, anti-democratic, and who knows what in the long term will create. Who knows if taking Trump off the ballot will solve the problem of Trump or inflame it even further? It’s very unclear.”

 

[Ozlsn]

On 10/27/2023 at 12:18 AM, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

We have stupid traffic cameras on school busses now. It's privately owned and not through the police and somehow legal. The fines go 300$ to 1000$ for 2nd citation and something more insane for 3rd.

I got a 2nd citation before I even got the 1st citation for passing a bus (twice) that I never saw (and never saw on my work commute all the days after while looking for it). 1300$ for me was a significant portion of my yearly wage. It was an actual hardship for me to pay that.

I can tell you now I avoid that freaking road because I don't know where they hid that bus and I do NOT want to get the 3rd citation. Years later, when I do go on that road (large busy road 5 lanes total) I drive at 25-30 mph while everybody else is no joke going 50+.

I am very effectively deterred.

There should be an appeal process listed - the private fines here are usually parking lots but it's still legally required they have a mechanism in place to contest the fine. If you never saw the bus (the big, yellow thing right?) it sounds like your plate might have been misidentified.

On 10/27/2023 at 5:54 AM, Xan said:

My take on it is that they're trying not to bog down the trials with appeals.  It's obvious to me that Donald is baiting them to try to give him house arrest or a total gag order.  If a judge does that, there go the lawyers scurrying to file as many appeals as they can.  Maybe the judges think it's better to just put up with him until he can be sentenced for something.

There was a thread somewhere on twitter arguing that - they don't want to give him grounds to delay, which is what he's doing in the belief he'll get elected and it will all go away. Personally I liked the response that the judge should bring the date forward a day every time he breaches the order.

22 hours ago, WatchingTheTireFireBurn said:

Why is she "peek a boo" james?? what a weird nickname...in a barrel of weird nicknames.

I knew it was a racist slur (it's that guy, of course it is) but hadn't made the connection. He just never stops digging.