Clearly Dubya has considerably more good sense than does trump. There isn’t the screaming need to be the malignant narcissist in public every moment of everyday.
Dubya knows to shut the fuck up as does Obama.
Edit to add
I hated Nixon with a deep abiding passion. He died the same day my treasured dog did and I counted those flags at half staff for my pup and not Nixon
But
Now there is trump who is far beyond in disgrace and criminality. And in American lives lost because of his incompetency
I am speaking of the 800,000 lives lostbto covid in his term. Remember he said it would go c awaycwith warm weather. Then his “strong light and hydroxychloroquine” presser and when Americans were dying by the hundreds he said “I take no personal responsibility at all”.
I hate him. I cannot post my thoughts beyond that or I’d get banned… and rightly so.
Funny.
A conservative “movement,” fueled by anger over how broken our government is, is being led by a guy intent on breaking every single law of every single country on the planet.
Funny. But doesn’t make me laugh.
They certainly don’t hang around Trump.
Maybe if their reading audience dropped their subscriptions NYT would clean up their act.
You may need to adjust your snark meter.
“Explain Why You Think The Law Doesn’t Apply To You…”
Trump: reflex action? Force of habit? It always worked before…also as ex president…no laws apply to me personally despite scads of people going to jail or in current legal jeopardy acting on my direction.
The deference to tangeranus continues unabated.
Some of us anyway.
Do ya think we could get Commander to bite trump?
That’s because W doesn’t remind you every single day of his double digit IQ by continuing to open his mouth like someone we all know does.
I’d love to see a situation where tfg’s lawyers argued that it would be perfectly lawful for Dark Brandon to send a team to take out them and their families because he had determined it was in the best interests of the country.
I’d had them in my Kindle at least a couple years before finally reading them this past summer. I was seriously impressed by the quality of his thought and of his writing. In the 20th century the word was that he was a plodder, tolerated massive corruption, and thought nothing about the sacrifice of his men. What a bunch of crocks those were. I think propaganda from Lost Cause assholes drove the story; after all, once he left office Reconstruction policies and the occupation of the traitor states was dropped, and the myth of the poor little Southerners beset by carpetbaggers and incompetent [read: Black] leadership soon became received wisdom.
I am convinced Grant has been as undervalued as Harry Truman. (And DeSatan says systemic racism [and white supremacy cultivation] is not a thing. Jeesus H…)
I would love to see an historically accurate [no crap from the Shelby Footes] serialized documentary based on the memoirs. There’s so much there there.
Bad idea. They’ll need someone to make covfefe runs.
(music swells - long, low angle shot of 3 horsemen dark against sky moving away from camera - halfway to horizon two of them get tangled in each other’s stirrups and fall off, kicking and screaming, Ryan looks behind and laughs at them - too late he turns to be struck off the saddle by a low hanging branch. His noble horse stops, goes over to his bruised body, gives it a kick, and gallops off, followed by the other two)
fade to black
end credits
Back in my day ANY politician in his situation would have proceeded from the official ouster to the parking lot with his personal items in a cardboard box, and a pithy farewell comment.
It appears any motivation supplied by shame has run dry!
Certainly Kevin can find new areas to bollix up and fail at?
Twain met him after his presidency and encouraged him to write his memoir. (they were both big cigar fans) It’s a shame about all the corruption around him. He hired cronies (which was the standard at the time) but he himself seems like he could have been an able president if he had chosen staff more wisely.
I like all the replies above, but would add, simply, that it forces Team Trumpster Fire to explain themselves to the public. This allows for another robust, public schooling on the law that can be used to counter Trumpster Fire’s propaganda campaign. The extended process servers another purpose of schooling Judge Chutkin’s peer down South. The compare and contrast will be amusing to see. Lastly, it shuts a deep-state, Chutkin hates me whine that I am sure they had T’d up if there was I simple dismissal.
This is not a civil case. When someone’s life or liberty is at stake, it implicates core Due Process protection, both procedural (the right to notice and the right to be heard) and substantive (fundamental fairness) as well as the defendant’s rights under the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments.
Accordingly, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the entire body of ethics law are far less stringent about the obligation that an argument be well grounded in fact and law or represent a good faith argument for the reversal or extension of existing law imposed on civil litigants. There is no real equivalent of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 in the federal criminal rules-at least as to conduct of defense counsel. Nor should there be because it is difficult to imagine any more dangerous tool of oppression (and endless appellate practice) than that.
Criminal lawyers are bound by criminal statutes forbidding things like fraud, extortion, jury tampering, etc., the limits on out of court speech intended to prevent defendants from “trying their cases in the newspapers” (provisions very much in play in Trump cases), the contempt statute, and the rules of professional responsibility of whatever state licensed them. But in criminal cases, especially death cases, even the ethics rules governing the attorney’s duty to argue within the law may be deemed relaxed or inapplicable.
Courts have what’s called “inherent authority” to control proceedings and argument before them above and beyond and powers committed to writing, but this authority is circumscribed in civil cases and even more severely circumscribed in criminal cases.
Judges also have the contempt power, but that too is far more limited–and yet also somewhat broader–than lay people think. Judges have the power to punish contempt that occurs in the courtroom such as conduct that is disruptive, literally contemptuous of the court or the judge, obstreperous, or disobedient of the court’s orders from the bench. They have the power to punish disobedience of written orders and, to some extent, oral rulings from the bench, committed outside the courtroom. When they are punishing, however, it becomes a criminal proceeding within the proceeding, and Due Process protections apply. Judges also have the coerce compliance with an order of the court through continuing fines and/or imprisonment. The coercive power is never going to come into play in the context of arguments or filings, however. And indeed, the punitive power is rarely going to be imposed on lawyers defending a criminal defendant unless the court has entered an order or given a warning.
Another complicating factor is the defense attorney’s duty to avoid a waiver trap. That is, even after a court has ruled, a defense attorney often has the option of continuing to put objections based on an argument the court has already ruled upon on the record each time the issue comes up lest some appellate court unfavorably disposed to your client’s case fixate upon the one time you didn’t as waiver. And it is not always clear when you have to do this and when you don’t so criminal lawyers are given a certain amount of leeway on that as long as it isn’t disruptive or an attempt to taint the jury (e.g. “your honor, I restate my objection based upon the grounds stated [reference the filing, argument or order]” to which the proper judicial response is a simple “noted, overruled.”).
Bottom line is that a criminal defense attorney is expected to throw everything against the wall to see what sticks and is supposed to get leeway to do that.
Thanks! I really appreciate the thorough explanation, even if it does mean that DT’s lawyers’ actions are more reasonable than I wanted to believe. 