Maybe they're now trying to build the narrative to blame China instead of people finding out it was themselves.
Looking at the hearings Judge Cannon has scheduled, it's almost like Jack Smith is going on trial.
Well Politico is a democrat mouthpiece so that means they were allowed to report this. But why?
Yeah I understand they're not autonomous and basically an extension of the US government. I was more asking rhetorically.
This isn't a surprise to anybody here, but why are they suddenly admitting this?
What say does the US Senate have in what goes on in the International Court of Justice?
Cohen paid Stormy Daniels and Trump reimbursed him personally as lawyers fees. From what I understand Trump and Daniels never had an affair, but she was threatening to claim they did and the money was to keep her quiet.
The NYC charge is for misclassifying the payments to Cohen, a misdemeanor. The statute of limitations expired so they upcharged to a felony. In order for it to be a felony, the misclassification of the payment needed to be done to cover up a crime. They haven’t named a crime, just ‘election interference.’
Yeah, the professors are radicalizing the students. The administrations are allowing it.
From what I've read BF Borgers conducted fake audits for their clients, most of whom are cryptocurrency & fintech companies. Sounds like they were money laundering for the swamp. I wonder if Trump helped the SEC nail them?
And she has name recognition in AZ.
AZ seems to be a strange state, maybe too many republicans are Rino's still under the influence of the NoName machine.
Trump is polling 4 to 5 points better than generic republicans right now. Also, Senate candidates are lacking name recognition right now, something that'll improve the closer we get to November.
No kidding, it's probably more like 95%. It'll get overturned on appeal but they don't care about that, only the 'convicted felon' label.
I rarely venture into those subs but it's like entering a different reality.
I'm not a big fan of Barnes and I don't believe for a second he knows what Trump's campaign manager is saying.
Cannon knows what is in the redacted documents and she's been proceeding accordingly. She's been deciding what does and doesn't need to remain redacted in the public's interest to know. Seems like the prosecution is slowly hanging itself.
Were the supposed classified documents found in those boxes? Did the GSA ship those classified documents to Trump only to charge him with possessing those documents? Chain of custody? Who had access to those boxes?
They're narrative protectors.
More projection.
Well the SC isn't going to rule that the president has complete immunity. They'll remand the case back to Judge Chutkin as to what constitutes official acts vs private acts. She'll bungle it of course and rule that didn't act in his official capacity. Trump will then have to appeal it again to the Supreme Court to rule correctly.
The point is, all of this will push it past the election.
In future leftists circles participating in the pro-Hamas protests will be a resume enhancer.
I think it'll get remanded by to Judge Chutkan with some kind of framework as to how immunity is to be applied.
Leslie McAdoo Gordon sums it up in the last post of her live thread.
https://x.com/McAdooGordon/status/1783545932040032413
Final recap on votes. Okay, so this is extremely hard to describe because of the question that is being posed. How you articulate that question changes the votes.
So, for example, I think ALL 9 of them think that the POTUS simply cannot be prosecuted for some official things. A motion to dismiss such a case should succeed and likely could be appealed promptly. Example: giving a pardon. Also that all 9 agree the POTUS can be prosecuted, (impeachment or not) for purely private conduct. Example: he shoots his brother-in-law.
The three liberal justices are likely to say that the POTUS can be prosecuted for official acts that are outside the "core" functions of the President. "Core" would be things like the pardon, CinC functions, etc. They seem poised to say that the district court should figure that out first in some way.
Four of the conservative justices (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) appear to be prepared to rule that the POTUS has immunity on the criminal front just as on the civil front as in Fitzgerald, with campaigning being outside the scope of the immunity. They also gave hints that the district court would have to parse out the private from the public in the first instance and would likely allow a prompt appeal of that.
The remaining two conservative justices are a bit harder to read (and Thomas said so little that he could be in this group too, but my instinct tells me he's likely in the other group). Roberts seemed to have problems with both parties' positions. And ACB clearly didn't like the full scope of DJT's position. They look likely to me to go for a limited version of the immunity. Less than DJT's lawyers are asking for (full Fitzgerald type immunity), but they are definitely not going to say there is no immunity, but they don't seem comfortable with immunity only for the "core" functions either.
Remember that the district court ruled and the CofA affirmed that the POTUS has NO "immunity" once he leaves office. Strictly speaking, all 9 of them won't agree with that conceptually; they will find that the POTUS has some kind of protection. But the 3 liberals will call it something other than "immunity." Dreeban called it "an as applied Article II challenge," which they will probably go with.
The conservatives will I think - all 6 - assert that there is a broader protection. There will probably be at least two camps of what the scope is and how it functions procedurally.
So, DJT "wins" the case in the sense that a majority (and probably all the justices) will say that there is "immunity" or something like it for former Presidents and then they send the case back to Judge Chutkan with some kind of framework for applying it to this case.
I predict that the framework will be dictated by the middle - ACB and/or Roberts. They are the swing votes, their formulation will be the key to the other four getting the majority so they will have to compromise on the details.
So, if you don't look at the details and just ask the question who's for DJT and who's for the SC in a general sense, it's 6-3. Six for DJT: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, ACB; 3 for the SC: Kagan, Sotomayor, KBJ.
Read this thread if you want a quick play by play.
Supreme Court has never had video.
I'm sure they were looking for Crossfire Hurricane documents and the PEADS, but the 'classified' documents they're charging him with possessing are a letter Obama wrote him and the chart of one of this hurricanes he drew on with a sharpie. Seriously.
Eat, don't eat, who gives a shit?