I thought he’d eliminated rape.
Lock him up. In a rubber room.
Perfect.
Brexit update:
Getting your energy bills paid is now a prize on a game show.
Trump gets his “special master”. While the DOJ has already reviewed the docs, it means they cannot be used for investigation purposes, and likely brings the investigation to a grinding crawl. Which was his goal.
The ruling is so broad and so rife with inaccuracies that the DOJ has to appeal this. This judge shouldn’t even have heard the case, she was supposed to refer it back to Reinhart’s court.
I never want to hear a word about activist judges ever again.
1 Like
FloridaJudge is a thing now.
Brexit update part deux:
2 Likes
This is new and fun:
Probably not an appealable order.
Seriously. Where do they find these people?
1 Like
I can’t read the article (paywall), but the headline is saying a lot.
How much do you think Saudi Arabia would pay for a run down on Israel’s nuclear defenses…
$2 billion, perhaps?
1 Like
So, lawyers, please check my understanding here.
The quickest way to circumvent this special master nonsense would be to go ahead and indict Trump now. That way, the affidavit is released and the materials seized would become evidence and, as such, Trump’s recourse would be to petition the court to have items of evidence excluded, so the special master becomes moot.
As an aside, there are 3 days remaining before we hit the 60-day cut off for action that may impact an upcoming election. Tick tock…
Oh, and in other news, Bannon is going to turn himself in tomorrow for an indictment on state charges in NY over his wall-building fraud scheme. He’s been pardoned by Trump for this - acceptance of which is an admission of guilt - but the pardon doesn’t apply to state charges while the acceptance of guilt does.
He’s already facing jail time for contempt (minimum 1 month) but this could add years in jail. Or he could talk…
Not to pick nits…or maybe specifically to pick nits, but…we’ve talked about this before and accepting a pardon is not an admission of guilt, at least not in a legal sense. A jury may infer guilt based on acceptance, but it carries no legal consequence. So when you say it “applies” to state charges, only so much as it influences a judge’s or jury’s thought process. It’s not exactly a guilty plea.
There is a 1915 SCOTUS decision that says it is.
A 2021 federal appeals court says that the 1915 decision does not say that.
"But Senior U.S. Circuit Judge David Ebel declined to adopt that “draconian” reading of Burdick, saying the statement was an aside, or dicta, in the court’s overall holding on the legal effect of someone’s unaccepted pardon. Ebel said no court since had ever held that accepting a pardon was akin to confessing guilt and that the ruling instead simply meant that accepting one “only makes the pardonee look guilty by implying or imputing that he needs the pardon.”
'If the Court had meant to impute other, legal consequences to the acceptance of a presidential pardon, it surely would have said so explicitly," Ebel wrote."
Ex-soldier’s acceptance of Trump pardon didn’t constitute confession of guilt, court rules | Reuters