You’re assuming that trump can find real lawyers to do his legal work. His reputation for not paying his legal bills notwithstanding, it is my understanding that none of the big law firms wanted to touch this because (a) working for trump is bad PR and (b) this case is/was a total loser, doomed from the outset.
7 Likes
Enter the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, stage right. As in in leans right, 9-8, with a 9th Dem-appointed judge being blocked by who knows who. But will that even matter, as either way it’s headed to SCOTUS.
1 Like
Pretty sure it’s just random. Maybe they eventually rule against him, but if it’s those 3 on motions I think the stay is certain. Then we’ll have to see what happens in terms of them assisting in the dilatory tactics or not…and I suppose there’s the full bench somewhere in there too…but the entire Trump and GQP game with this at this point to try to at least just get to next fall before any of it can effect the midterms…at which point they can just decide not to care anymore and let Trump’s cards fall as they may or maybe shut down the committee, try to seal all its records, etc. WTF do they really care if they can have Desantis in 2024 instead and utterly destroy Biden’s presidency for 2 years straight while surfing this country’s white supremacy addiction? I dunno. We’ll see…we really don’t have a choice but to watch…
6 Likes
The argument will be that it doesn’t matter if they agree or not…that the separation of powers is, in fact, important to understand as standing in the way of a gov’t under control of one party colluding with itself to abuse power against its perceived enemies or dissidents in order to perpetuate and expand its power over the rest of the country. It is structural, baked in, not a matter of the whims of the branches.
ETA: The more I think on it, the more I expect some attempt at soaring and scornful verbiage from someone like Rao, calling this an attempt to use one party rule to abuse power to destroy political enemies.
5 Likes
I’m a sucker for this.
Here’s the Canadian variety.
3 Likes
Trump’s lawyers knew they would lose at the District Court. I remain hopeful but not delusional that there might be a shred of integrity in two of the judges. Rao seems a bit bat shit.
4 Likes
Wonder what Rao thinks about the January 6 violence and attempted coup.
2 Likes
Indeed. It was a foregone conclusion for them. The goal is to run it up the flagpole to where they believe they’ve got a lock on judicial loyalty (how’s that for an oxymoron?).
5 Likes
So what does lynch mean here?
4 Likes
She’s probably disgusted that it was so indiscreet and heavy handed. She doesn’t like amateurs.
8 Likes
I think what he means is that because of the procedural posture the judge left it in, where the decision grants no affirmative relief and just denies all relief sought, the appeals court would need to not just grant a stay (which would apply to some affirmative ruling like an injunction against the Archives), but to actually make the first ruling to grant affirmative relief. Technically there’s nothing to “stay” yet, I suppose. She didn’t order the Archives to comply (I don’t think…didn’t read it all), just left them to do so of their own volition because they indicated they were willing and intended to. It’s largely just choosing the correct language to fit the procedural posture of everything. Trump will need to ask for the injunction against the Archives.
10 Likes
Nope, but what she did do was to claim that investigating 1/6 isn’t important to voters, “as we saw in the VA election”. “And Republicans are going after social issues”, so I guess the millions of dollars in damage that was done to the Capitol building, the amount of police officers that were hurt, or the interruption of the peaceful transfer of power isn’t as important as fighting over what interpretation of the causes of the Civil War, and racism-fact or fiction is the way to win elections.
All said with a dead pan delivery.
7 Likes
So wouldn’t it take time to argue for that. Would they order an injunction without listening to both sides argue for and against?
1 Like
5 Likes
Hmm.
18 Likes
How does she know what’s important to voters? Where’s her data. Anecdotes don’t count. And anyway, justice proceeds apace regardless of whether voters care about the case or not.
4 Likes
They could do it ex parte I think…often just to maintain status quo until both parties can be heard more thoroughly and the injunction decided on a more long-term basis. I’m not an appellate procedure expert tho. Eminent domain cases rarely end up in the appeals process, generally being more about compensation than the validity of the taking. We’ve taken a few issues up there, but it’s usually more like an evidentiary ruling…altho we had one recently that challenged the validity up to the SJC…and we just took one where we’ll be challenging the validity of a taking and that too could go up the appeals route. Rare tho.
2 Likes
Thanks. I appreciate your input.
2 Likes
I know, right. How can you compare what happened on 01/06 with what voters want? Do we only investigate crimes if the people want them investigated? Is that why we have protests over certain crimes, and not others?
I can take a conservative opinion, but can you least back up your assertion?
4 Likes
Well, I’ve done enough damage for one night. Good night all.
5 Likes