Said the Supreme Court, disposing of Trump v. Thompson with sublime efficiency.
Justice Thomas would have granted what was an application for stay of mandate and injunction pending review.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a statement that began:
The Court of Appeals suggested that a former President may not successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, at least if the current President does not support the privilege claim. As this Court’s order today makes clear, those portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion were dicta and should not be considered binding precedent going forward....It's clear... but he chooses to write about it anyway:
Without sufficient assurances of continuing confidentiality, Presidents and their advisers would be chilled from engaging in the full and frank deliberations upon which effective discharge of the President’s duties depends.
ADDED: Now that this decision has come out, I find myself very interested in finding out the specifics of what Trump said and did while the siege of the Capitol was under way. I could have accepted executive privilege for the reason Kavanaugh stated, but that isn't what's happening and I like the opportunity to find out this important information — after all we've been through, including the second impeachment. I hope it's a big letdown for Trump haters, but if it's not, it will be good to know.
Posts
163 comments:
I wish Republicans weren't such squishes, because it would be nice if we could turn the tables on the corruption of the left...but of course...they won't do a thing about it.
Hillary solved the problem by deleting 30,000 emails. If only Nixon had had her chutzpah.
I would like to see all of the Biden Regime communications.
The stuff we learned from Hunter's Laptop have made me curious.
It is the correct result- the privilege should only be able to be invoked by the present holder of the office, not a past one. It sounds like the DC court is saying it wouldn't have mattered if the present office holder had invoked it- that may or may not be the right result- I would have read the full order.
This opinion, of the Appeals court, will, of course, change the moment it is Biden's communications being subpoenaed by Congress.
As if additional support for the precedent of destroying records was needed…
The strategy of communicating only with your legal team, having them do all the dirty work, then make them your defense team so they won’t have testify against you also has legs. You just need to find the lawyers willing to do the shit…ha ha ha! As if that’s a problem…
"It is the correct result- the privilege should only be able to be invoked by the present holder of the office, not a past one. "
No. It's a communications privilege, and if serves the function of making frank conversation possible. If the next President can disclose it all, it goes against the function of the privilege. The question should be about when the *communication* happened, not whether the person is still President.
Usually Presidents argue for presidential power, but that didn't happen this time. Short-sighted.
I would like to see what Putin told Biden.
Something along the lines of "How is Hunter's new job?"
Or "Did Hunter enjoy those underage girls we sent over?"
"Your brother's investment company sure looks profitable eh?"
"The Court of Appeals suggested that a former President may not successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, at least if the current President does not support the privilege claim."
So Biden decides?
Ann Althouse said...
Usually Presidents argue for presidential power, but that didn't happen this time. Short-sighted.
Gee.
It is almost as if they are preparing for a time when it doesn't matter how many people support the regime for some reason.
Total mystery right?
As the great Margot Cleveland noted, Kavanaugh claims this does not establish precedent because this ruling "only applies to Trump".
I would also note there are several lawsuits making their way through the courts pursuant to the legality of J6 Committee subpoenas, as the committee itself is unlawful and illegal under the Constitution.
Hopefully, the next R prez will declassify every single e-mail and document of every single employee of the Executive branch.
Same with texts on government-issue phones.
Open the entire government that we pay for.
Same should be done for the House and Senate.
Maybe then someone will think it's not such a great idea.
But Joe was too focused on his afternoon pudding...
The walls are closing in!
This time they've really got him!!!
Seriously, the guy has been out of office for a year and they are still obsessing over him. C'mon folks, this is not normal, rational, behavior. I think it is going to boomerang. Even people that didn't like him are starting to feel like the persecution is going too far. They are starting to feel sympathetic.
Donald Trump has been highly visible for 40 years now. For all the efforts, nobody has ever gotten anything on him. If they coulda, they woulda.
Give it a rest.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
"Without sufficient assurances of continuing confidentiality, Presidents and their advisers would be chilled from engaging in the full and frank deliberations upon which effective discharge of the President’s duties depends."
Of course. But then, who cares?
I’ll be very surprised if Trump’s communications are anything but a nothing burger. But, Democrats have shown their ability to turn a no into a yes so they will see a crime in anything that is disclosed.
Biden and Democrats will live to regret this chipping away at executive privilege. If I am a Republican I would be planning to use this precedent for forcing disclosure from Biden on all things related to Biden’s corruption in selling access to the office of Vice President and President with the Biden crime family. After all, selling out American policy on China and the Ukraine for a few dollars is surely a greater threat to America than a few unarmed grannies walking into the Capitol while security guards hold open the doors for them.
I'd like to see all the footage.
I'd like to know about all the FBI informants in the crowd.
The SC allowed the Court of Appeals decision that executive privilege does not apply without affirmation or analysis - was the correctness of that determination not part of the request of a stay?
Trump should have boxed up all his files and sent them to his presidential library, where they would be "under review" for the next decade or so before becoming public.
https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2018/may/22/presidential-libraries/
The counter argument is that these supposedly “full and frank deliberations” can and often do come out anyway, the real harm for which the privilege has been found to exist is in another branch of government being able to force their disclosure while the President is trying to govern, and so the privilege should be interpreted narrowly and should only be invokable by the current sitting President.
THis is just the same ol' game this court is always playing. If they want to deny something, then they accept the Appeals court reasoning. If they want to stop something, then they claim the Appeals court got it wrong OR there's some higher principle that supercedes it. They don't like Trump - so whatever the Appeals court says is OK.
In this case. If in 2025 the R's go after Biden, expect a different result.
Frankly, who cares? The R's don't want to defend their President nor will they use their Congressional power (if they get it back) to hurt Biden. So, for the D's its open season on Trump and any other R President they want to go after.
They impeached Trump TWICE over nothing on a purely partisan basis. I'm sure if the J6 Committee doesn't find a "smoking gun" it will NOT stop them from recommended trump be punished and the Democrat House agreeing to it.
the J6 has already decided their verdict, they're just hoping and praying they can find more persuasive evidence. I doubt they will find it. Trump had no real friends in Congress. And you can be sure that Meadows, Barr, etc. would've thrown trump under the bus in a second. So, if there's any evidence that would hang trump it would've come out in the last year.
Trump after all did nothing. He wanted a rally, he spoke at the rally. He then, addressed the Capital Hill protesters and told them to stop and behave peacefully. He also offered Pelosi the NG. So what could he have done wrong?
You can be sure the J6 committee will come up with something. No matter what.
What Critter and Darkisland said.
This is just more Rope-a-dope by PDJT. There is nothing there, maybe some talk about the grandchildren or the weather. He knew that everything he said would be outed someday, and if he did not say it, they would lie about it. 40% of the country believes that PDJT is literally worse than Hitler, 40% appreciate what he did for USA, and the rest yawn.
He's the cleanest guy in history. Latest "scandal" that has "the walls closing in on him" is that he understated the value of some property in NY during a business deal.
Oh, the humanity!
"Seriously, the guy has been out of office for a year and they are still obsessing over him."
Hillary called, wondering when you decided to start noticing this pattern, as clearly it was recently.
"No. It's a communications privilege, and if serves the function of making frank conversation possible. If the next President can disclose it all, it goes against the function of the privilege. The question should be about when the *communication* happened, not whether the person is still President."
This is wrong- the privilege has to be invoked by someone with the power to invoke it. A non-president, even a former one, doesn't have that power. What you are arguing for, as you concede in the following comment below the one I quote above, is that Biden should have invoked this privilege- I agree with that assertion as a matter of principle. However, I am quite sure the Biden handlers are depending on the DC appeals court to change their opinion if Biden is on the other end of this process in the future, and I think they are quite rational in that belief.
So Thomas is the only justice without an intense fear of appearing pro-Trump. God help us. Roberts can't play any issue straight. His comments about this decision not being binding tells you he's willing to extend exec-priv just not to Trump, but maybe to some future more worthy soul like Joe. Disgusting.
Ann Althouse said...
Usually Presidents argue for presidential power, but that didn't happen this time. Short-sighted.
Jonathan Turley made this exact point when he recently recited the cases where the Biden admin has weakened presidential power with tenuous litigation.
Jonathan Turley: Biden has a 'reckless attitude toward litigation'
Jonathan Turley tells 'The Ingraham Angle' Biden admin is taking very weak arguments and creating really strong precedent against their own office.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G03dnrzh2tw
Blogger West TX Intermediate Crude said...
He's the cleanest guy in history. Latest "scandal" that has "the walls closing in on him" is that he understated the value of some property in NY during a business deal.
I've not been following it that closely so perhaps something has changed. My understanding is that he used a different valuation for property taxes and for a bank loan.
BFD. Does anyone have the same tax valuation and appraisal (based on expected selling price)for any property they own?
I know my appraised and assessed value are very different. Appraised value is based on the market, assessed value is based on politics.
Is the NYC tax office so lax that they don't send out an inspector peroodically to see what a property is worth? Is the bank so lax they don't send out an appraiser before lending?
Of all the crimes he could possibly have committed, this seems the least likely.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
No. It's a communications privilege, and if serves the function of making frank conversation possible. If the next President can disclose it all, it goes against the function of the privilege. The question should be about when the *communication* happened, not whether the person is still President.
I'm so happy to see this. Althouse validates my layman's reaction to this travesty. The communication was privileged, so what changed? He isn't credibly accused of a crime and I don't buy the fig leaf that this "relates to legislation" under consideration. What legislation? A law preventing presidents from talking like a politician?
Turley is a fool if he doesn't see what is really going on- the weakening will be reversed the second it isn't Trump that is the target.
"Hillary called, wondering when you decided to start noticing this pattern, as clearly it was recently."
False equivalence much?
Josh Blackman of Volokh Conspiracy at Reason had some interesting observations:
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/scotus-gdrs-trump-v-thompson-grant-dictumize-and-retreat/
Wait till Biden leaves office and the Republicans have both houses AND the presidency.
Biden better have lots of bleachbit.. cause the door is open now.. Hunter and daddy can be investigated.
and the subpoena was not issued by a legitimate committee, but it's totes fine,
so the privilege should be interpreted narrowly and should only be invokable by the current sitting President
Uh huh. Then why isn't this decision binding? Why did they leave it open to interpret the "traditional" way once Trump is no longer a threat to govern?
Biden came to restore our norms but has ended up breaking with tradition wherever convenient to Biden to do so. It's a huge list now. An ugly list. This is just the latest one in the news. You know your side isn't impressing America by acting childish and power hungry. On the contrary being are genuinely scared of what Biden might do next, followed by the fear he'll die and leave Kammie in charge, followed by the fear if that causes Kamala to die of fright (she looks scared of her job already) that Nancy is lurking there two heatbeats away. We have not been in such peril sine the Cuban Missile Crisis.
I’m not convinced that this will be a Trump-only rule. The courts are starting to apply a bunch of Trump-only rules to Biden. For example, the courts used Trump’s unofficial tweets as a basis for determining the “true” purpose of various executive/administrative actions, instead of relying on the official record, and the courts are now starting to do the same thing to the Biden administration.
Presidential advisors already have to assume that their advice to the President is not protected from disclosure. Not only can someone else in the room leak the advice to the press, and there is always someone else in the room, but also the President can waive the privilege.
Paul said...
Wait till Biden leaves office and the Republicans have both houses AND the presidency.
Been there, done that.
What we got was 3 years of Mueller and the full federal government conspiring against the sitting President that pretty much negated his entire term.
Oh, and Trump himself swearing every other day he's going to "declassify" stuff but never did.
It's going to be funny when the next Republican president doesn't grant exec privilege to Biden's communications, and we find out he never communicated. About anything.
Nixon fought to keep the Pentagon Papers from the public, even though they nailed LBJ, not him.
I like all the people who believe Biden will be similarly open to disclosure.
Don't you remember how going after your political enemies was, GASP!, what third-world dictators did?
That was just one administration ago.
it will be good to know. what the current party leader's INSTINTS were, while something that resembles a runaway train was happening. His instincts supposedly being his greatest asset.
Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked.
Did the Peterson post disappear?
Did I miss something?
Blogger farmgirl said...
Did the Peterson post disappear?
Did I miss something?
It is the Putin post.
The Peterson part is below the fold in the link.
Oh- thank you- Lord, get out of my routine for one day and I’m lost!!
Achilles- not saying you’re Lord!
Phrasing- it’s all in the phrasing…
Usually Presidents argue for presidential power, but that didn't happen this time. Short-sighted.
It's only shortsighted unless you understand that "Trump was not a normal president, this isn't a normal decision, and has nothing to do with the future".
Dicta, not precedent.
Just how it works these days.
If someone runs for prez on the platform of total transparency, they will win.
-- Declassify all files related to Epstein (with the appropriately censored photos and videos).
-- Every file relating to UFOs
-- Every file relating to JFK
-- All of the contents of Hunter's laptop (appropriate censoring).
-- All of the Hillary server evidence.
Go ahead and post whatever things that are now memory-holed that you'd like to see.
Nothing is going to be done about any of these things.
We paid for the investigation, and the items are now property of a government that we fund.
Let us see it all and let the chips fall where they may...
I'd give it a day - don't want to spoil Inauguration Day - but on January 21, 2025, the new president should do an online data dump of every communication of not only Biden, but Obama and Clinton.
The historians, most of whom are lefties, will someday regret that written communication in government was ended by Chief Justice Roberts.
Most Presidential advisors go home from their meetings with the President and scribble in their diaries, right?
It's a terse decision. Possibly because no agreement on details, and possibly because not a close question for the majority. Court treated this as a Congressional request against a sitting president, as did the lower court, and rejected lower court alternative analysis for former presidents. If memory serves, Biden Administration did not give Committee everything it requested, but did document by document review, and allowed a subset. Committee did not challenge its selections.
So sky not falling on executive privilege. It might be falling on Trump's challenges to Committee's authority, which did not bother Court except maybe Ginni's hubby.
We can already guess more-or-less what he said, right? Not what the delusional Trump haters imagine, of course. But enough dumb stuff that they will be able to make hay with it. That goes without saying where Trump is concerned.
Josh Blackman gets it.
SCOTUS GDRs Trump v. Thompson: Grant, Dictumize, and Retreat
The Supreme Court summarily deems the "central question" of the D.C. Circuit's opinion as "nonbinding dicta" to avoid hamstringing some future, more worthwhile, president.
https://reason.com/volokh/2022/01/19/scotus-gdrs-trump-v-thompson-grant-dictumize-and-retreat/
Douglas B. Levene: "I’m not convinced that this will be a Trump-only rule."
This is undeniably a Trump-only dicta that will never be applied or be allowed to be applied to any democrat.
In fact, the court made clear they don't ever want to see this "ruling" used as a cite in any future filings.
But lets face it, by now the democraticals and their GOPe dem-adjacent allies have learned very well how not to "know" a great many obvious things.
What's the Trump only dicta?
Blackman also rips into Kavanagh since, as W's former Staff Secretary, he has an obvious conflict of trying to thread the needle of screwing Trump while still protecting his old boss.
Kavanaugh is gonna go down in history as the worst Republican SC pick since GHWB nominated Souter.
Darkisland @11:55
Is the NYC tax office so lax that they don't send out an inspector perodically to see what a property is worth? Is the bank so lax they don't send out an appraiser before lending?
I'm learning on the fly here. Plus applying experience with agriculture land in Iowa.
An interview I heard on the radio. they talked about how Trump would say his apartment @ address X was 25K sq ft, but it was only 12k sq ft. So I'm guessing an apartment in a certain location is valued at a number. $80k/sq ft. So just changing that number raises the value. But I assume Apt in NYC is like Farm ground in Iowa. Each parcel is identified at the govt office. Farm ground is acres, apts are square ft. All is digitized so a Banker would go through the list of assets, and square it with the govt documents. Every house I bought is at the county recorders office and it lists the sq ft, lot size, number bathrooms, Bedrooms,garages, sheds, etc. So its simple to sit in an office and run a quick valuation. This is not current selling price. But an asset valuation number.
Almost nobody understands this stuff, so the public is eating it up, not understanding there cant be a crime there.
Readering: "What's the Trump only dicta?"
Its referenced in the post immediately preceding mine.
But a warning for you readering: the explanation is not packaged into hoax dossier form, so you definitely wont like it.
Per Blackman, straight from the opinion
Any discussion of the Court of Appeals concerning President Trump's status as a former President must therefore be regarded as nonbinding dicta.
and his reaction
Huh? How can the Supreme Court modify a lower-court opinion without granting the application, at least in part? The Supreme Court does not have a roving jurisdiction to simply correct lower courts in the absence of an actual appeal. I welcome FedCourts experts to opine on this point. Has there ever been a case where the Supreme Court modified a lower court decision without granting an application? Then again, the Supreme Court pretends to overrule Korematsu in the court of history, whatever that is.
Ultimately, this entire opinion is a legal fiction--call it dicta, if you will! Indeed, remember Chief Justice Roberts tried to pawn off Roe's viability line as dicta? The Chief is a smart lawyer. This dicta nonsense is insulting to our intelligence. But that's where we are. Once again, the Court punches a ticket good for one ride: Trump loses, but no adverse precedent is set that could hamstring some future, more worthwhile, president.
Christopher B: "Blackman also rips into Kavanagh since, as W's former Staff Secretary, he has an obvious conflict of trying to thread the needle of screwing Trump while still protecting his old boss."
Not hard to do when he's got Roberts and Robert's 3 lefty allies there to help.
Drago said...
Douglas B. Levene: "I’m not convinced that this will be a Trump-only rule."
This is undeniably a Trump-only dicta that will never be applied or be allowed to be applied to any democrat.
My guess is that it will protect Bushes too.
I would like to hear some of those conversations now as well.
Trump’s own Supreme Court justices keep ruling against him. I’m beginning to suspect The Apprentice may have been Fake TV and Trump’s eye for personnel is actually pretty crappy.
The Court upholds the part of the lower court ruling, ie the holding, that the committee can get a sitting or former president's documents if necessary for its appropriate investigation. The Court implicitly rejects, by calling it dicta (with further explanation from Kavanaugh), the alternate holding that the Committee can get a former president's papers whenever the current president allows it. There is no anti-Trump dicta from the USSC that can be pulled back for another former prsident.
Earnest Prole: "Trump’s own Supreme Court justices keep ruling against him. I’m beginning to suspect The Apprentice may have been Fake TV and Trump’s eye for personnel is actually pretty crappy."
The entirety of republican-dom swore that The Federalist vetting process was the conservative gold standard and McConnell made it perfectly clear there were plenty of GOPe senators prepared to vote with dems to shoot down any nominee that was outside The Federalist process.
But here we go again, its Trump's fault again for not having sufficient power to defeat the combined force of the democraticals and 50% of elected republicans on every single issue.
So lets get back to nominating "true conservatives" who will fight more effectively than Trump...like Jeb! or Mitt.
Readering: "There is no anti-Trump dicta from the USSC that can be pulled back for another former prsident."
LOL
Blackman's summary is concise and perfect: "Trump loses, but no adverse precedent is set that could hamstring some future, more worthwhile, president."
Trump loses because he is a crook, like Nixon, see US v Nixon (1974), but not every Committee will be able to show it's investigating a crook. That's the holding. Not dicta.
The Court appeared to accept the Trump argument that got the most attention, by relegating the DC Cir analysis to dicta: former presidents have privileges too. But it implicitly added, who cares, you are such a dirtbag we would have let the Committee get this stuff before you left office.
Well, if they have the evidence that's he's a crook, let's hear it, or do we have to wait until the fishing expedition is over.
Face it, we now have the rule of men, not law.
Readering: "Trump loses because he is a crook,...."
Well well well. It didnt take much to rip off that "legal analysis" facade, did it?
Condolences on the collapse of your innumerable hoaxes over the last 5+ years.
"The entirety of republican-dom swore that The Federalist vetting process was the conservative gold standard and McConnell made it perfectly clear there were plenty of GOPe senators prepared to vote with dems to shoot down any nominee that was outside The Federalist process."
I agree. But I'd make two other points. Kavanaugh was part of a deal with Kennedy. Step down and I'll replace you with someone you like. we got kavanaugh who's just a younger version of Anthony Kennedy. Bartlett had to rammed through at the last second. If Mittens and the RINO sisters had balked, then Biden would have filled the seat. However, there's no excuse for Goresuch.
The problem goes back to the Conservative refusal to do their homework, identify True conservatives, and DEMAND the Republican Presidents nominate them or else. Instead, they sit on ass, and then yell "We support our commander in chief" when the pick comes down. They even supported Souter (Bush playing 4-D chess) and Roberts (what a handsome man!). Fakes like Hugh Hewitt even led cheers for harriet miers.
Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee who almost got the SC nomination that went to Merrick Garland, wrote the appeals court opinion that the SC agreed with but took the time to note was mostly bullshit (dicta) because they didn't want to say that Judge Millett was being a little hysterical; and if you read her description of J6 at the beginning of her opinion, which was possibly ghost written by Rachel Maddow, you can see why.
So why do you think the USSC said in record time that the Committee could get the Trump documents authorized by the Biden Administration?
Readering: "But it implicitly added, who cares, you are such a dirtbag we would have let the Committee get this stuff before you left office."
LOL
Readering has moved quickly from This-is-not-a-Trump-only-decision to the inevitable of-course-this-is-a-Trump-only-decision-and-rightfully-so!!
Readering is such a lefty hack he/she/xe cant avoid doing that anymore.
It's a fact specific decision that has nothing to do with Trump's status as a former president. Hence, all holding from Supreme Court, no anti-Trump dicta.
I am probably wrong in this, but I read the readering comment as a hopeful sign that he is beginning to see through the bullshit that is coming out of the obsession to with Trump. But he might just be flexible enough to twist himself into that knot and believe it in that short of a time, once he googled around and was given what passed for a plausible justification if you hate Trump enough.
Drago pathological attacks stuff I write without thinking.
Readering: "So why do you think the USSC said in record time that the Committee could get the Trump documents authorized by the Biden Administration?"
LOL
Seriously?
This is a deep mystery to you?
Because they get to abuse their positions to poke Trump in the eye and do it in a way that is clearly a Trump-only "decision"...that could help the democraticals in their next hoax impeachment effort and provide campaign fodder to democraticals in 2024.
This has got to be one of the biggest "duh" answers that has ever been provided in the history of "teh interwebs".
Readering: "Drago pathological attacks stuff I write without thinking."
Tell me more about pee tapes....
Trump loses because he is an outsider, representing the deplorables, and betraying the moneyed and powerful. No other reason. The 'Just Us'es have spoken.
We have. far more solid evidence that Biden is a dirtbag, evidence at tenth of which would have put Trump in jail.
Isn't the Appeals Court's finding that Trump's claim of privilege would have failed even if he were an incumbent a finding of law? Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to review those kinds of decisions and not defer to the lower court?
No idea what TiV trying to say. It's a short decision from USSC. Students learn difference between holding and dictum in first term law school. I think the USSC was being snarky here. The Court of Apoeals gave alternative holdings. The USSC did not like one of the holdings, but rather than overturn it (which takes time and the Committee anxious for the docs), it said, here's the holding we uphold, the rest is DC holding not needed and so we call it dictum. But the DC Cir anticipated that the Court could have held that executive privilege protected Trump's docs (as Thomas apparently thought), and so provided an alternative holding--not if the sitting president OKs their production. That's really a rejected holding, not Trump aimed dictum.
The Vault Dweller said...
Isn't the Appeals Court's finding that Trump's claim of privilege would have failed even if he were an incumbent a finding of law? Isn't the Supreme Court supposed to review those kinds of decisions and not defer to the lower court?
************
They often defer to lower courts, when they don't take a case on appeal, or uphold its decisions when they do.
But IIRC they are not supposed to give "advisory opinions." I'm not sure this is one, but it looks like one.
What say you, Professor Emerita?
Readering: "No idea what TiV...That's really a rejected holding, not Trump aimed dictum."
Ladies and gentlemen (with apologies to the Woke crowd), that is some serious post hoc disingenuous pretzyled "logic".
Congrats readering.
You may have outdone Left Bank with that one, and that is no small feat.
Drago, find where I have ever written word one about pee tapes or any of the dossier. I never wrote about that stuff. Waited to see what if anything Mueller turned up. You are pathological about me. I do miss the happy interval of AA moderation, when you largely disappeared from comments.
But it implicitly added, who cares, you are such a dirtbag we would have let the Committee get this stuff before you left office.
no question that Trump lives in these lefty's heads 24/7.
readering: " I do miss the happy interval of AA moderation, when you largely disappeared from comments."
All lying leftists are happiest when those who notice their nonsense are kept from commenting.
Quelle surprise.
This is why I'm full on "Trump 2024:" the establishment continues to act like Trump was some one-time aberration which justifies all sorts of abuses of the law. "Because Trump" is not a clause in the Constitution which allows them to throw the rest out.
readering: "But it implicitly added, who cares, you are such a dirtbag we would have let the Committee get this stuff before you left office."
Michael K: "no question that Trump lives in these lefty's heads 24/7."
Note how seamlessly readering tossed that comment out and then proceeded immediately to question the value of comments pushing back on that sort of lunacy.
Lefties are always gonna lefty.
I do appreciate readering going Full Beria for all the learned and erudite and wise Althouse commentariat to see though.
It's helpful when leftists are explicit about their views and intent.
Trump needs better lawyers
BillieBob Thorton: "Trump needs better lawyers"
The "better lawyers" know what will happen to them if they take up any Trump action.
There are far too few high quality lawyers that are willing to risk their futures by challenging the establishment.
Still waiting for an explanation better than mine for why the USSC is very quickly giving the Committee the Trump documents approved by Biden over Trump's assertion of executive privilege.
With Trump soundly beating Hillary and Harris in 2024 according to today's polling, and beating Biden by a little bit less, they have to go on this fishing expedition to try to trump up some crime against Trump, you know, in order to save "our democracy."
"Trump needs better lawyers"
There is a concerted effort to choke off Trump's access to lawyers, FBI raids on their offices, bullying on social media, by moneyed and powerful people who will be around long after Trump is gone.
Readering: "Still waiting for an explanation better than mine for why the USSC is very quickly giving the Committee the Trump documents approved by Biden over Trump's assertion of executive privilege."
Still waiting for an explanation better than mine for why the USSC is very quickly giving the Committee the Trump documents approved by Biden over Trump's assertion of executive privilege that allows readering to continue pretending this was a sound legal ruling and not an Trump-as-Executive-only ruling.
FIFY
Well, guess what?
Given that this is transparently a Trump-only poke in the eye by the SC, you'll be waiting a long time.
Perhaps we should get Pink Panther-Mueller on the case to find such a mythical "explanation".
"which takes time and the Committee anxious for the docs"
No time for due process! There is an election coming up, and a fishing expedition to mount!
Personally, I seriously doubt that there is going to come out anything about J6 that damages Trump, unless it is twisted leaks with copious omissions, but this is about getting inside the opposition political network for political reasons. It has nothing to do with J6, and nothing is going to come up.
Trump offered the NG to protect the Capitol and Pelosi rejected his offer, she had the last, best chance to avert it.
tim in vermont: "Personally, I seriously doubt that there is going to come out anything about J6 that damages Trump, unless it is twisted leaks with copious omissions..."
Oh, you forget!!
Schiffty-Schiff literally read into the record during impeachment hearings the fake phone call transcript that he proudly created himself!!
And every lefty, including those at Althouse blog, went along with it.
The hoax insurrection "committee" (Pelosi's Poodles) will create out of whole cloth whatever they need...as they've done time and time again.
Imagine if the courts had been this solicitous of the need for speedy justice after the election and before J6, but the Just Us saw no need. Delay, delay, delay, whatever you do, don't allow the facts to come before a court!
The political calculations by the Congressional Dems pushing for release of the Trump docs are more interesting than the Court's decision. The reality is that Trump is probably the weakest Rep candidate that might be nominated in 2024 since half the country can't stand him -- witness the fact that a walking zombie got more than 7 million more votes than Trump last time around. The record that Team Biden is creating is digging a really deep hole for them, and it's very unlikely that Biden will improve over time. Especially unlikely if the Reps win big in the midterms, after which any Biden agenda in Congress becomes a dead letter, to be followed by lots of investigations of Biden and Hunter and all the lefty craziness being pushed by the executive agencies.
There are plenty of Dems, in Congress and elsewhere, who know all of that. Yet their obsessive focus on Trump is something they just can't shake, even though it would be in their interest to see him as the Rep nominee in 2024.
Can't anyone on Team Dem play this game?
Well the new normal is that every time congress changes hands and an opposing president is in office a commission needs to be launched with subpoena power and used, like this one to search phone records, emails without a warrant and use them for political gain. From now on.
Then drag the opposing political opponents before this tribunal and demand all of their personal and professional correspondence. Including all of their financial records no matter if legal or not.
Thanks democrats for the new normal.
Wait, you mean after all this Drago and I are saying much the same thing? There is no analysis in the opinion of grounds for giving up the documents. I take from that the analysis is, implicitly, Trump (the guy trying to stop Biden from being inaugurated) is a dirt bag. Drago takes from that that the Court wants to poke Trump (the guy he thinks should be trying to stop Biden from being inaugurated) in the eye. Not a lot of separation except of course on whether Trump was in the right or not and thus whether the Court had a sound legal basis, which obviously it did not share with an express discussion.
Drago is doing a poor man's simitation of Alec Baldwin's "Always Be Closing" seminar. When he spam-bombs his bore-gasim all over Althouse: Nothing to see here, Jake... It's 'gina-town.
Dolan, I agree Trump is the weakest candidate, but I also believe he is several orders of magnitude worse than the other names mentioned. I can live with De Santas or Cruz like I lived with Reagan and the Bushes for all my fault-findding. Another Trump term fills me with dread. Because of the Cold War I was someone who felt worse about Reagan 1980 than Trump 2016. But Reagan 1984 was not that big of a deal for me whereas Trump 2024....
readering: " I take from that....."
LOL
Yes, we know. What you and your co-democraticals take is whatever it is you want to believe to serve your narrative needs for the day. As you are doing on this thread.
It's not complicated.
Readering: "Dolan, I agree Trump is the weakest candidate,..."
See: Pied Piper Strategy and the Clinton 2016 campaign.
Also see: Carter 1980 Campaign and their assessment of potential opponents.
Or don't.
effinayright said...
(inter alia)
They often defer to lower courts, when they don't take a case on appeal, or uphold its decisions when they do.
But IIRC they are not supposed to give "advisory opinions." I'm not sure this is one, but it looks like one.
*****************
I should have read the opinion. The Supremes denied an application for a stay of mandate and injunction pending review..."
So it wasn't an "advisory opinion."
QED
"the guy trying to stop Biden from being inaugurated"
The guy asking for his day in court, you mean. You see that you have built your whole opinion on a lie, that Trump was doing anything but trying to get a fair hearing, which he never did get, for his complaints.
Al Gore, being of the elect, of course got his hearing, but Trump, not being "one of us," of course never did.
It was Bush who went to USSC, not Gore, who won in FSC.
Trump went to lots of courts and lost everywhere. Committee investigating the other places he went. USSC gives green light. We'll see what comes of it.
Yeah, I thought Bush stronger (and better) candidate in 1980. Weaker candidates for nomination can still win general election.
"Trump went to lots of courts and lost everywhere"
Based on anything but the facts, based on standing, based on the idea that a remedy was impossible, based on anything but looking at his complaints.
What you are constantly repeating is the kind of thought stopping phrase used by cults to keep their members in line, and to keep them from following any course of inquiry which might lead that member astray. Your statement is obviously incomplete. And right now in AZ, the Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to keep any audit into the last election from happening, as are the Democrats in PA, where one of their Supreme Court "justices" is known by the DOJ to be mobbed up.
The Wisconsin investigation has found enough illegality, in the form of Zuckerbucks, drop boxes, fraudulent same day registrations, etc, to have easily swung the election. That never got before a court of law in time.
My strategy is to just get you guys to keep talking, and let others decide, so I thought I would give you a glimpse of the scoreboard.
The Trafalgar Group is very accurate in its polling. It found 55.7% of voters prefer a Republican candidate in the upcoming congressional races. 42.2% prefer a Democrat. Let me put that in perspective. Remember the 2010 congressional races when the Tea Party flipped 63 seats for Republicans, which gave them their largest majority in decades? Republicans received 51.7% of the votes overall. Democrats got 44.9%. That was a 6.8-point gap. This is a 13.5-point gap.
Readering: "It was Bush who went to USSC, not Gore, who won in FSC."
Because the democraticals attempted to steal the election by violating the US Constitution and having the democratical Florida State Supreme Court usurp the US Constitutionally specified powers of the Florida State Legislature.
And yet you claim to be some kind of a lawyer, don't you?
Well, you sure are a democratical lawyer.....
Are you some kind of a lawyer, Drago?
Part of what is hurting Democrats so much is that they are forced into making absurd arguments like we should not be able to examine the software that counts the votes which decide our elections, that the legislature in charge of setting the laws for the election, per the US Constitution, should not have the right to examine the software.
You can't keep making arguments like that with a straight face and expect moderates without heavy commitment to the Democrats, unlike yourself, to buy them.
Voter ID is supported by supermajorities of Americans.
Nobody but the people who were hoping to cash in on the graft supported BBB.
Nobody wants a collection of crazed partisans, that would be the Democrats, to have untrammeled power based on almost the slimmest possible majority, which is what discarding the filibuster means to everybody not a committed partisan Democrat.
So go ahead, repeat your mind guard phrases to keep the members of the cult on board, fewer and fewer people are listening.
More voters (61%) believe that former President Donald Trump was legitimately elected in 2016, than believe President* Biden was legitimately elected in 2020 (57%), according to a new poll from Scott Rasmussen.
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/more-voters-believe-trump-was-legitimately-elected-biden-poll
So, time to file for all Obama's files so carefully kept confidential up to now. Clinton's too. Sauce for the goose. What did Barack kt about Benghazi anyway? And Biden?
Are you some kind of a lawyer, Drago?
1/20/22, 4:06 PM
A juris doctor needs nowhere near the brainpower of an actual doctor. Michael Avenatti and even Congress critters have JDs. I suspect Drago is too high-function to be a lawyer.
"It was Bush who went to USSC, not Gore, who won in FSC."
That is true.
I watched the trial before Judge Saunders (a Democrat) in which it was obvious to anyone with a brain that Gore had no case. His witnesses were jokes and Bush attorney Phil Beck made them look like utter fools. The FSC paid no attention to that case before overturning Judge Saunders.
It should be increasingly obvious to the American public that the Democrats specialty is gaslighting them at every opportunity. It was true then and it is even more true now.
I would hope that liberals like Readering understand the danger here. The issues are only tangentially about policy (about which reasonable people can disagree) but about the bastardization of our media, legal and regulatory state.
Readering: "Are you some kind of a lawyer, Drago?"
Would I have to be?
I am not a working biologist, yet I somehow know how to effectively define and idenify a female/woman or a male/man.
This "skill" apoarently eludes most democraticals.
Drago said:
"The "better lawyers" know what will happen to them if they take up any Trump action.
There are far too few high quality lawyers that are willing to risk their futures by challenging the establishment."
tim in vermont said:
"There is a concerted effort to choke off Trump's access to lawyers, FBI raids on their offices, bullying on social media, by moneyed and powerful people who will be around long after Trump is gone."
We're much farther down the road to ruin than I thought if a former president can't get decent legal counsel. Sad commentary on the current state of affairs.
Ok, I think I got the answer I was looking for from Drago.
It would be interesting to learn what Obama, Biden, Rice and Comey discussed in their Jan 3 meeting … We need a committee.
Lawyer readering tells us why he lies and obsesses.
Another Trump term fills me with dread.
I didn't know you were a swamper, readering. I don't blame you.
Oh, no. The walls are closing in.
To be clear, it was a riot, not a siege.
Webster: "a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender."
Nevertheless, apparently it was worse than 9-11, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, the War of 1812, and that one time when the 4 Puertorriqueños shot and injured 4 congressmen. Talk about laying siege.
The Fed's stonewall makes January 6 feel like RussiaGate. Maybe it will actually be an epiphany.
Readering: "Ok, I think I got the answer I was looking for from Drago."
I gave you the relevant political answer.
You didn't like it.
Because you get quite emotional about it.
The real story is the FBI MLK files. Who has had oversight on that pile of dem self immolation? Hillary maybe? Comey? I'd bet that well is a dry hole by now. I'll wait around till 2027. Remember the shit that was heaped on Jackie Chan when he said America was as corrupt as Red China? How quaint.
not suspicious at all
https://dailycaller.com/2022/01/20/henry-cuellar-fbi-court-authorized-search-texas-democrat/
I don't like or not like. You are or you aren't.
Michael K: Back before the inauguration I repeatedly called folks who persisted in claimint the election was stolen from Trump loons. Stopped doing so after the inauguration. But the fact that the lie persists and that Trump commands such support for a public life entirely focused on the lie a year later fills me with dread.
Readering: "I don't like or not like. You are or you aren't."
LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGKkmpbhv9k
-- Every file relating to JFK
Yeah.....the FBI had there hands ALL over that as well.
I never understood Jack Ruby's motivation........let alone, Oswald.
readering: "But the fact that the lie persists and that Trump commands such support for a public life entirely focused on the lie a year later fills me with dread."
"Joe Biden Claims 2022 Elections 'Could Easily Be Illegitimate'"
2019: Hillary Clinton Labels Trump an ‘Illegitimate President’
Lets just cut to the chase: List of Democrats who called Trump ‘illegitimate’
Literally shaking right now.................LOL!
Just talk. Which I never did besides. Trump acted. (Now 2000....)
doctrev said...
Are you some kind of a lawyer, Drago?
A juris doctor needs nowhere near the brainpower of an actual doctor.
********************
You speak very well of yourself, DOCtrev!!! SNORT
I'm sure Mr. Justice Alito and quite a few others on the Supremes, today and in the past, would like to have a few words with you.
They might step you through the very conmplicated process of judicial reasoning, with all its curlicues, exceptions and abstractions, as opposed to "differential diagnosis", which essentially is rote learning:
You know..."The head bone connected to the neck bone,
The neck bone connected to the back bone,
The back bone connected to the thigh bone...."
Or how 'bout the mnemonic for remembering the 12 cranial nerves?"
"On old Olympus' Towering Top, a Finn and German viewed some hops".
Man, my brainpower has run out of steam already, just trying to remember the medical memory aids!!! Good thing I didn't choose to go to med school!
Readering: "Just talk. Which I never did besides. Trump acted. (Now 2000....)"
Centuries from now, anthropologists will see this sentence and engage several graduate students to attempt to decipher the meaning and plumb the intellectual "depths" of the supposed point of this comment.
I wish them well.
BTW, does "just talk" also include using foreign sources, including russians!, to create a hoax dossier which is then injected into a willing establishment bureaucracy to weaponize the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the nation in a Stasi-like "investigation" with unlimited illegal leaks to an aligned praetorian-pravda-"press" designed to undermine a duly elected President?
That kind of "just talk"?
Asking for a friend.
But the fact that the lie persists and that Trump commands such support for a public life entirely focused on the lie a year later fills me with dread.
He ran a Presidential campaign from his basement with a diaper on his face.....and his rallies never attracted more than about 50 people separated by social distancing rules......we can't gather because COVID!!
Joe Biden doesn't know his ass from a whole in the ground. He should be drooling on a bib in a rest home.
Trump had rallies with tens-of-thousands. Trump had the economy humming along.
......and you can't see fraud in the election results??
It fills me with dread!!
Loon.
Readering said...
Just talk. Which I never did besides. Trump acted. (Now 2000....)
Wow.
You can't even think about how obviously hypocritical this sounds can you?
You pretend that Trump is different.
Trump is different.
Trump spent 4 years being attacked for Russian Collusion. And now we all know it was a lie from the start.
And you pretend like you didn't support that at all.
Biden openly took millions of dollars from Ukraine. Biden bragged about getting prosecutors in Ukraine fired on video.
Trump wanted that obvious corruption investigated and was impeached for it.
And the current President has admitted taking billions of dollars from foreign countries for decades and you are totes cool with that.
Now you are pretending that Trump challenging 2020 is different than Democrats challenging every single election Republicans have won since 2000.
The only thing different is the democrat precincts counting ballots behind boarded windows and kicking out republican poll observers for a week after the election in 2020.
It has to start sounding a little hollow even to you.
"Just talk"
"Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday was ripped on Twitter for defending President Biden’s comments that cast doubt on the 2022 midterms."
LOL
It just gets worse and worst for Russia Russia Russia Collusion Truther/"Muh Sacred Legitimate Elections!" Readering!
Come on readering! Get out there and give Biden's Earpiece and Veep Throat "what for" over questioning our elections!!
Still literally shaking (with an added shudder!)..............LOL!
PS. Ammo is still flying off the shelves at the sporting goods store, and it's expensive.
Yeah, it's not a lie.
Trump was free to challenge election in many courts, which he and his allies did. They lost. That should have been end of story for everyone. But it was not then, and a year later, OMG.
I will now skip over all posts with that TM LOL.
Loon.
Snappy comeback!! It sounds like a distorted your cognitive dissonance.
Russia Collusion Truther To This Very Day, readering: "But it was not then, and a year later, OMG."
The russia collusion hoax utterly collapsed over 2 years ago and all the many cascading lies were exposed and debunked....but readering still passionately believes in the entire sad saga of spurious stupidity...years later!..OMG!
Readering said...
Trump was free to challenge election in many courts, which he and his allies did. They lost. That should have been end of story for everyone. But it was not then, and a year later, OMG.
Joe Biden did a better job dealing with the facts at hand.
This is what a president looks like when the walls are actually closing in.
This ruling is political. It's the court rolling over for the Congress. That said, it is what it is but like all things Trump-centric it will come back and bite some swamp critter in the ass one day. I gather from all this J6 willful hysteria is that the Left is truly afraid of Trump, wants to dirty him up so he won't be the nominee in 2024 and more importantly to make sure in this year's election almost all genuinely pro-Trump candidates either lose in the primary or un the general. The Democrats know they are going to smashed this November so they want the right sort of Republicans to win. As for 2024 the Dems know Trump has a real chance to be the nominee so this show they are putting on is to discourage Trump or weaken him and at the same time be a not so subtle message to any other Republican candidate.
The Court remembers that Bill Barr is on the record that he told Trump to his face that he had personally looked into the allegations of election fraud and that it was all bullshit.
>Bill Barr is on the record
Bill Barr is a Bushie, and slow walked a lot of things. Amazing how he sandbagged Trump. Hints are a lot of the declassification did not happen due to him, as well as the pardoning of Assange. With a GOP Senate that hates your guts, it was hard for Trump to get anyone confirmed. That was why Trump's first AG was kept till after the mid terms. Beautifully done, how he was forced to recuse himself so Mueller was appointed on his witch hunt. I am still amazed Trump survived that.
The Bush's are establishment, and HATE Trump. Amazing how they were vilified by the press and both called Hitler, but obviously Trump is not a member of their cozy uniparty club.
The current establishment GOP is doing their best to destroy Trump. What happens to the GOP as more Trump backed candidates win? Lots of anti Trumpers deciding not to run again. What impact will Trump's Social Media Site, Truth, have?
effinayright said...
doctrev said...
Are you some kind of a lawyer, Drago?
A juris doctor needs nowhere near the brainpower of an actual doctor.
********************
You speak very well of yourself, DOCtrev!!! SNORT
I'm sure Mr. Justice Alito and quite a few others on the Supremes, today and in the past, would like to have a few words with you.
They might step you through the very conmplicated process of judicial reasoning, with all its curlicues, exceptions and abstractions, as opposed to "differential diagnosis", which essentially is rote learning:
You know..."The head bone connected to the neck bone,
The neck bone connected to the back bone,
The back bone connected to the thigh bone...."
Or how 'bout the mnemonic for remembering the 12 cranial nerves?"
"On old Olympus' Towering Top, a Finn and German viewed some hops".
Man, my brainpower has run out of steam already, just trying to remember the medical memory aids!!! Good thing I didn't choose to go to med school!
1/20/22, 6:37 PM
And here I thought triggering a witness was only seen in poor quality Aaron Sorkin films.
I could have accepted executive privilege for the reason Kavanaugh stated, but that isn't what's happening and I like the opportunity to find out this important informatio
What we're going to get is another nothing burger
What the Dems are going to get is a complete rectal exam of the Biden* Admin, and all their corruption, come 2025.
It's amazing how stupid the Democrats are when it comes to "long term"
Readering said...
It was Bush who went to USSC, not Gore, who won in FSC.
Yep, Gore got some dishonest Democrat FSC members to rewrite FL election law in his favor, and Bush went to SCOTUS to get that blocked.
Your point? Trump couldn't find any honest lower Courts willing to stop the steal, which is to say he couldn't get the "day in court" that Gore got
doctrev wrote:
And here I thought triggering a witness was only seen in poor quality Aaron Sorkin films.
********
Confess! when I wrote: "On old Olympus' Towering Top, a Finn and German viewed some hops".
You said to yourself, "Lessee....olfactory, optic, oculomotor, trochlear, trigeminal..., abducens, facial, auditory...., glossopharyngeal, vagus, sensory, and hypoglossal. Got them!"
QED
Post a Comment