Trump

[Boyst]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

So if you listen to this, Trump doesn't say specifically that he is going to vote for the abortion free-for-all getting ready to be on the Florida ballot.

 

He just says he will vote against a six week ban because it's not enough time.

 

But it's either six weeks, or the full term, according to the bill.

 

So unfortunately, he just said he's voting in favor of the bill, which lets people abort babies to viability. Unfortunately, the law also, apparently, includes no consent needed for children, and pathways for state funding of the abortions.

 

Here's hoping he changes his tune because this is not a very good look.

 

 

Evangelical voters will still vote for him. This is fine. This will get less traction than whatever happened at Arlington (honestly I don't know what that is all about, not one but).

 

It's not a bad look or good look - he did the right thing and say he doesn't know enough and doesn't have a full stance yet. A statement like that was fine 40-50 years ago but now it's not because we are, as one here says, the dumbest form of ourselves.

 

It's also a states right issues. 

[Boyst]

15 hours ago, Boyst said:

Evangelical voters will still vote for him. This is fine. This will get less traction than whatever happened at Arlington (honestly I don't know what that is all about, not one but).

 

It's not a bad look or good look - he did the right thing and say he doesn't know enough and doesn't have a full stance yet. A statement like that was fine 40-50 years ago but now it's not because we are, as one here says, the dumbest form of ourselves.

 

It's also a states right issues. 

thinking more on this - i think the biggest move for Trump when issues like this come up...

"i think that this is a states rights issue, i do not think that we need to have the federal government and such bureaucracy involved. power like this should be left to the people of each state."

[Billsandhorns]

42 minutes ago, Boyst said:

thinking more on this - i think the biggest move for Trump when issues like this come up...

"i think that this is a states rights issue, i do not think that we need to have the federal government and such bureaucracy involved. power like this should be left to the people of each state."

The issue on that question is the questioner asked how he would be voting for the Florida bill as it is essentially 6 weeks or no limit.

IMO the better answer to that is to tell them how he is going to vote on any issue is a private matter. 

[Boyst]

34 minutes ago, Billsandhorns said:

The issue on that question is the questioner asked how he would be voting for the Florida bill as it is essentially 6 weeks or no limit.

IMO the better answer to that is to tell them how he is going to vote on any issue is a private matter. 

in this specific case, yes. but reverting to it is a state issue not a presidential issue needs to be said and heard.

 

forcing the media to cover that answer would be a huge hit for the folks who want to be reminded what he believes....if he believes.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, Boyst said:

thinking more on this - i think the biggest move for Trump when issues like this come up...

"i think that this is a states rights issue, i do not think that we need to have the federal government and such bureaucracy involved. power like this should be left to the people of each state."

 

Exactly what repealing Roe v Wade did...and Democrats still call that a "nationwide ban on abortion."

 

You think they'll portray a statement from Trump any differently?

[Boyst]

46 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Exactly what repealing Roe v Wade did...and Democrats still call that a "nationwide ban on abortion."

 

You think they'll portray a statement from Trump any differently?

say it enough and the right people here. say it enough and it will have to be repeated, exposed, etc.

[MothersMilk]

Had no idea there was such a movie in the works.

 

https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/entertainment/2024/08/30/trump-film--the-apprentice--finds-distributor--will-open-before-election

[IDBillzFan]

Trump corrects. Fortunately. Can we now pay attention to the issues, please?

 

 

[Ann]

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

9 hours ago, Ann said:

 

 

Goes a long way towards explaining why Smith issued the superseding indictment when he did.

 

It's a 60-day rule.  August 27th is 70 days before the election.  "I didn't violate the rule."

[devnull]

26 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Goes a long way towards explaining why Smith issued the superseding indictment when he did.

 

It's a 60-day rule.  August 27th is 70 days before the election.  "I didn't violate the rule."

 

Do gotta give Smith his due.  Or more to the point, Smith's team.

 

They had to have been burning the midnight oil to get this filed ahead of the deadline when most of them weren't expecting Trump to still be alive

[Ann]

 

[Ann]

 

 

 

Not only is she clearly agitated by SCOTUS immunity ruling, it is unclear whether she even read it.

 

On a number of occasions, she argued with John Lauro, Trump's defense attorney, about the elements of the opinion.

 

"That's not how I read it," she said when misinterpreting what the opinion said.
 

At one point, during a discussion about mandatory appeal based on any other immunity decision she makes, Chutkan opined that "there will be a reversal (on her future immunity order) no matter what I do."

 

That is a dangerous sign. What Chutkan suggested is she will recklessly handle pending immunity questions related to Trump's comms with VP Pence because she feels SCOTUS will overturn her once again.

 

At issue is SCOTUS determining those comms with Pence are "presumptively immune." Chutkan said she didn't read it that way. (That's what it said.)

 

A ruling that Trump-Pence comms are protected under immunity would torpedo the entire indictment. Smith already had to cut 9 pages of original indictment bc Trump's comms with DOJ were conclusively immune.

 

 

Further, those immunized conversations not only are barred from being cited in an indictment, the protected comms cannot be used in any stage of the investigation or prosecution.

 

 

Chutkan, as she has said consistently since this case landed on her docket, emotionally emphasized that the presidential election will not affect her scheduling order, which she will file later today

 

. "I understand there is an election" soon, Chutkan said.
 

“It is not relevant. This court is not concerned with the electoral schedule. It is nothing I will consider."

 

But her own words and actions contradict that assertion. She attempted to rush the proceedings as soon as the SCOTUS mandate returned to her court--so much so that even Jack Smith had to ask to delay her status report and hearing deadline.

 

Further, she is contemplating taking what even she describes as an "irregular" procedure which is allow Jack Smith to file an "opening brief" to outline why he believes the existing indictment is not covered by SCOTUS immunity ruling.
 

Lauro strenuously objected to taking such an unusual step. Such a brief, Lauro argued, would be "enormously prejudicial" and noted Smith already filed a superseding indictment and it is the defense's turn to respond.
 

Chutkan shot back that the defense would have plenty of time to respond to such a brief, which Smith's prosecutor Tom Windom said could be submitted in about 3 weeks.
 

This is PRECISELY the sort of shoddy, hasty work that landed Chutkan in trouble at SCOTUS.

 

 

Chutkan, as I have reported before, was also in full performance mode.
 

She made snide comments to generate laughter in the DOJ friendly crowd.

 

She crossed her arms, held up her hand, pointed, and smirked during her back and forth with Lauro.

 

She took a swipe at Judge Cannon's ruling dismissing documents case by concluding Smith's appointment was unconstitutional. (I doubt she read that opinion either.)

 

But perhaps her most egregious comment--and one that demonstrates she is not concerned or understands the gravity of the matter before her--is when she blurted out "I am not talking about the presidency of the United States I am talking about a four-count indictment."

 

WHAT?

 

This matter is ALL about the future of the presidency--what conduct is immune from criminal prosecution and what conduct is not.

 

This is not just some drug or J6 case.

 

 

That comment alone is disqualifying and a signal that like her colleagues on the DC bench, she DGAF about what SCOTUS determines.

 

More later.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ann]

 

[Ann]

@RealDonaldTrump legal team files urgent appeal for US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to prevent corrupt, compromised, and conflicted New York judicial system from ignoring the US Supreme Court and jailing Trump: "Unlawfully incarcerating President Trump in the final weeks of the Presidential election, while early voting is ongoing, would irreparably harm the First Amendment rights of President Trump and voters located far beyond New York County."

 

 

[Ann]

No. And here is Chutkan's frustration and truly reckless game. Court orders dealing with immunity are automatically appealed before trial. This is what happened when she hastily issued her 1st immunity order in Dec 2023--all proceedings were halted until SCOTUS published its opinion on July 1.

 

So what she indicated today by saying she will be reversed "no matter what she decides" is she will conclude the Trump-Pence comms were private not official conduct--contradicting SCOTUS view.

 

Her order will again move through appellate and SCOTUS and proceedings again put on hold for months. But it doesn't matter because she will have achieved her goal of injecting this issue into the headlines on a weekly basis until the election and beyond EVEN IF HE WINS.
 

 

 

Guys, it’s not a win that the J6 case against Donald Trump is not going to trial before the election. What Chutkan did today by taking the rare—unprecedented?—step of allowing DOJ to file an “opening brief” on additional immunity questions is a way to put Trump on trial without a jury and little recourse. Tom Windom, Smith’s prosecutor, told Chutkan the brief would be “comprehensive.”

 

The document will include grand jury transcripts, 302s (FBI) and other cherry picked “evidence” to salvage the “Big Lie” narrative as people start to vote. You can GUARANTEE DOJ will release new bombshells to put Trump on the defensive and create damaging headlines.

 

It’s a paper trial but without cross examination, defense witnesses, or other due process rights.
 

Nothing to celebrate.

 

 

 

[Ann]

 

 

[devnull]

1 hour ago, Ann said:

 

 

Probably better security than what they gave Trump pre-J13

[Ann]

“If necessary”

 

 

 

 

[Ann]