Oooh, that’s gonna leave a mark…
Some judge just landed on Trump’s super secret mailing list…
To be clear, that’s the legal standard for a motion to dismiss. The court accepts the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true only for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiff’s complaint is legally adequate to move the case forwards.
Silly Judge, lawsuits may only proceed against Democratic presidents!
Maybe it’s obvious, but what exactly does “no ruling” mean? How is that different from denying the motion to dismiss the suit?
Trump’s involved in a lot of lawsuits. Against him!
Voters, do you think a man whose business depends on finding legal loopholes for his unfair business practices is the person who’s going to craft legislation that helps you?
We need a change. We need a Congress that will check one-party rule.
Power corrupts.
Did Futerfars argue that the Zervos case applies here? If so, would that not be an admission that The Trump Foundation = DJT himself?
Maybe DJT is just an obligatory codefendant.
I thought that this issue was addressed decisively in Jones v. Clinton. Or did I miss something?
What about his kids? Are they President now too?
“If the [appeals court] says that Clinton versus Jones is still good law, then this case will continue,”
I think the judge misspoke here. What he really means is, “Does the appeals court think that Clinton versus Jones applies to state as well as federal cases.” If so, the case goes forward.
Yes: The “D” behind President Clinton’s name.
“If the [appeals court] says that Clinton versus Jones is still good law, then this case will continue,” Scarpulla added. The Supreme Court’s 1997 decision in Jones allowed a federal civil lawsuit to proceed against President Clinton while he was in office.
The 2018 iteration of SCOTUS says "Nah!"She’s withholding her ruling so the motion remains pending.
“If the [appeals court] says that Clinton versus Jones is still good law, then this case will continue,
Of course it’s not still good law. Clinton was a Democrat. But now have a republican president, so it would be soooo not fair if he could get sued because Democrats are uncivil mobs and the GOP needs a way to fight back against that.
Now, if the GOP ever allows a Democratic president again, this law would then be “good” again.
Excerpt from the book…’ The Misleading Mind ’ …
Three umpires are sitting in a bar, sharing a beer together. They begin talking about their job and the difficulties they face in calling balls and strikes. The first umpire states quite confidently, “There’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as they are!” The second umpire, with a slight look of disapproval, says, “No, no, no, there’s balls and there’s strikes, and I call them as I seem ’em.” The third umpire says, “You know, you’re both wrong. There’s balls and there’s strikes, and they ain’t nothin’ till I call ’em.”
And like that, nothing exists until we perceive, label, and interpret it.
Or, put differently: The first umpire claims we perceive the world as it actually exists. The second umpire claims we interpret the world that exists. The third claims we create the world through our perception of it.
“No ruling” here means “no ruling yet.”
She’s holding off until an appeals court in another case gives her some guidance she thinks she needs about whether incumbent presidents have to answer lawsuits.
Nothing in the law is ever final.
If it were, Trump would be a slave-owner.
Can POTUS be caught having sex with a preteen child and be wholly disowned by any sitting Republican congressperson in front of a camera?
No he’s too fucking dumb! Imagine if he did use drugs or alcohol!