Just recorded this week’s Serious Trouble.
Don’t listen hoping for bunnies and rainbows.
Aside from the immunity debacle, the obstruction decision, a Cannon ruling, and a brief dive into the administrative state cases.
My favorite part of this episode will be how Josh (and Sara) get increasingly concerned about my apocalyptic tone and my refusal to throw them a cheery “on the other hand.”
Honestly I actually do hate it when people make up reasons to be optimistic when there aren’t any because they don’t want to “end on a negative note” or whatever
Does it include Trump trying to use the immunity decision to get the NY conviction overturned since they used acts while in office as evidence? Or did that come out too late?
Coming soon: "Judge Cannon, the only reason the defendant had access to these documents in the first place is that he was acting in his official capacity as President of the US, therefore he is immune from prosecution for anything arising from those actions after leaving office."
You laugh but Trump will absolutely argue there can be no evidence of his access to the documents or anything pre-1/20-noon about his knowledge or intent.
And I mean, Roberts isn't STUPID. This is not an oversight or a whoopsie-doodle. This is highly specific language from a man who is greatly accustomed to a large corpus of case law getting hung off what he writes.
There's a good chance his lawyers will half assedly gesture in the direction of immunity and Cannon will construct her own answer in reply to the typo riddled submission.
True, but unfortunately for him (assuming the case ever gets to trial) even if he's only tried on facts arising *after* the May 2022 subpoena, he's still royally screwed.
All the more reason someone with a new power to use the DOJ in any manner they see fit should have him immediately remanded into custody as a threat to national security.
Don't underestimate him--he'll argue you can't use anything since then either because he didn't lose the election and thus is rightfully still President.
How can acts of corporate fraud be "official presidential acts"? He acted in his capacity as a corporate office to commit corporate fraud concering disbursement of corporate funds, while hiding it all from White House comms. How can any of it possibly qualify as "official acts"?
The opinion says you can’t even offer EVIDENCE of official acts, let alone prosecute based on them. Talking to underlings can be an official act. The prosecution in that case offered evidence of some discussions with underlings in 2018.
Jesus Christ, what a heaping shitburger of an opinion.
Too bad Joe won't use the power he’s been given to save the republic and fix this mess. Watching him squander his one chance to save millions of lives is going to be epically tragic.
Justice Merchan previously considered Trump's immunity defense (including as to presentation of evidence) and held it had been waived (even before the SC opinion). Do you think he will still find the waiver relevant?
Prior Order :
www.documentcloud.org/documents/24...
One bright thing here: everyone who ever presumed to lecture any other country about their lack of democratic policies & legal systems now owes those people a Soviet-style struggle session in which they must performatively eat a big slice disgusting humble pie for the amusement of the masses
