On many occasions you have made statements about what I believe, what I think, my level of intellience or lack thereof, my level of sense or lack thereof, what I am doing.
I know you are making up these stories because I know what I think, what I believe, etc., and you are invariably incorrect.
I assume you do it to try and make sense of your world.
When you post detailed narratives of what is going on in the world without any explanation of where your ideas come from, I can only assume you are likewise making up stories to make sense of your world.
When I post, I go to some length reading and listening to others whether Democrat, Republican, or other. I sift through all the information, research bits that I don't understand and pull everything together based on research, the law, opinions including my own, etc.
I learn in the process and I hope to provide a reasonably well-rounded, rational, well argued nugget that others may understand and hopefully challenge and/or expand upon.
What I don't do is argue the case for people who pluck stories out of their arse, whatever their agenda. I don't do it because I can't rationalise fantasy in the political genre.
I'm pretty sure Shaye Moss said in her testimony that her phone was going non-stop while she was in the police station which she ignored whilst filing her complaint. In the end the police officer started fielding the calls and so witnessed some of the harassment directly.
I'm not sure if this was directed at me, nor quite what you're asking, but Ireand's s*xual revolution has been compacted into a relatively short time period in relatively recent history.
I think maybe that has affected behaviour, like leaving children unsupervised in a cake shop before they've learned the boundaries of polite society.
I stopped opening mail from Irish chaps a long while ago because so many of them were really rather unpleasantly obscene.
I've always assumed it's a function of s*xual repression and misogyny from a long history of Catholic oppression. It's like some men don't have the experience, or skills to know how to behave within a more sexually liberated framework.
As I understand it, not only did Rudy avoid admitting defense evidence at the discovery stage leading to liability by default, he was also economic with providing evidence of his assets.
I heard Judge Howell instructed the jury to assume he had enough assets to cover any amount they saw fit to award.
I wouldn't underestimate the amount of common sense going on in the legal system at the moment.
It might appear frustratingly slow and accommodating of Trump's every whim, but everything he loses as a result of interlocutory motions and appeals tightens the case(s) against him. They can't be re-appealed post-conviction.
It looks very much like Trump et al are being given free reign to stitch themselves up like kippers to me.
These lawyer types are focussed on the model of precedent which likely extends to a canny sense of Trump et al's playbook. Trump has left a comprehensive trail of his behavioural precedents leaving him rather predictable. I don't think Trump fully understands that, given he can't empathise with others whom he cannot manipulate according to that limted range playbook.
Personally, rather than criticising, I'm watching and learning. There's so much more to come.
He admitted liability by default rather than provide evidence at disclosure.
In other words, he had something to hide such that it was worth copping a $148M fine for. Bear in mind, admitting liability in this civil case goes to the heart of the criminal charges against Rudy in Georgia. Whatever he is hiding, it's even bigger than criminally conspiring to overturn the results of the election.
There are a limited number of criminal charges that are worse.
Like Trump, his only hope is in Trump's re-election and a dictatorship where the constitution, supreme court and the rules of law as they stand are ditched. Faced with financial ruin and the likelihod of going to prison for the rest of his life, publicly licking Trump's arse is not really that surprising.
We are talking about the man who targetted poor and Black communities in New York with his 'broken windows' over-policing, revenue-stimuating policies and then took advantage of 9/11 when people were most emotionally vulnerable in order to elevate himself.
Trump has had to deposit the $5.5M that has been awarded to E. Jean Carroll while he appeals the ruling and will have to do likewise with any award arising from his civil fraud case in New York.
Hopefully, there are similar requirements in Georgia, otherwise people would be able to squander their assets paying lawyers for frivolous appeals as an act of spite.
And I also heard that the judge indicated that as Rudy had avoided providing full documentation of his wealth that the jury shoulld not be constrained in awarding damages that would restore the plaintiffs' reputation.
I did wonder if Rudy was losing his 80 year old marbles when he repeated his defamatory statements outside the court yesterday, but then I read this statement:
Nah, he knows exactly what he's doing. I've just lost much of my sympathy for his life laying in ruins with this statement.
The punitive amount of $75M (the plaintiffs were awarded $73.2M between them, $275K was legal fees) was meant to send the message that it's unacceptable to forever alter/ruin people's lives for personal gain and convenience.
It's devastating to see an old man's life dissolve, especially in the realisation that he's likely to spend his last years in prison, but he tried to do worse to these two women. They could have been murdered and may still be yet.
Rudy kinda maliciously fired a garden hose only to have it deflect back in his own face, except the stakes were much higher. Feckin' pointless, too.
There is lots of unfairness and corruption. Those at the bottom of heap suffer the most and those at the top take advantage of their position.
The thing is, there are certain structures in place that allow corruption and unfairness to be challenged. Being able to vote governments in, or out is one of them.
The law is another, and whilst the system often fails the most vulnerable in society, the system's very existence enable's challenging the system.
Evolution is a painfully slow process, but in the US and many other democracy-based countries there is a system by which the people can evolve towards fairness and integrity.
Trump has publicly intimated that he wants to diminish, or remove the system(s) that, whilst not necessarily providing unblemished fairness and integrity now, provide the means of reaching that goal. He wants to scrap the constitution, diminish and/or end the institutions that would keep his own behaviour in check and disregard the law. If he is enabled to do this then there is no means to object, or stop anything he does in the future that is unacceptable: he and his cronies wil be able to rape anyone they like, kill anyone they like, take anything they like. Survival for ordinary citizens will hinge on obedience and fealty. Debate, or opinions will become dangerous and life-threatening activities.
We have seen this happening with other countries and autocratic regimes time and time again.
In summary, the US system covers a middle-ground area of fairness and integrity, leaning towards gross unfairness and duplicity, but it has within that system the means to create change for the better. Trump has publicly stated in many ways that he wants to remove the bits that enable citizens to create change for the better.
Trump was found liable for s*xual abuse and defamation in the E Jean Carroll suit based on similar fact evidence: two other women testifed that Trump had assaulted them in a similar pattern of behaviour, but had not raped them.
Trump mischaracterised the verdict that did not include the claim of s*xual battery and tried to appeal the damages of $5M down to $1M. Judge Kaplan, however, later affirmed that Trump had raped Carroll.
Anyone who supports, or votes for Trump is committing an act which condones rape and gender based violence.
Assuming that he can get other lawyers prepared to work for him.
They would have to be prepared to be campaign spokespeople rather than lawyers as well as risk not being paid. It's unlikely to be a particularly good career move as infamy is not the same as perceived competence.
Claiming incompetent counsel might be his only option for post conviction appeal, so perhaps pre-trial is not the time to play his ace-ish card.
It could also backfire, just as trying to get a 2026 DC trial date versus Jack Smith's proposed January 4th 2024 date did. Precedent works in less than mysterious ways.
But, you could be right. Perhaps he'll fire his already stretched-thin team now and then claim he wasn't given enough time to prepare on post-conviction appeal, if that's possible. I think that would still come under poor representation, though, and he'd have to prove legal error, rather than disatisfaction.
Perhaps it's all about a perceived existential threat.
Whether that's collectively, i.e. Ukraine, Israel, Palestine, the US democracy, the Russian empire; or individually, i.e. leaders holding on to power, people making their mark in history to attain a certain immortality, or people maintaining their primary needs to survive.
We strive to physically survive, but also emotionally. We often mistake status, wealth and our roles as an integral part of our existence. We hold on to our identity in terms of nationality, race, religion, political opinions, talents, work lives, family roles as if each thin is everything we are.
Even posting on here has an element of existential threat as if an alternative opinion is a menace to our being.
There will be many real purposes on many real or imagined, justifiable or unethical, sensible or idiotic levels. It's pretty impossible to untangle, or distill down to one specific reason.
He can try, but that doesn't mean he'll succeed. It's not like his track record of Supreme Court appeals indicates a bias in his favour.
I do think Trump is being treated favorably by the courts in as much as any other US citizen would have had their pre-trial release revoked by now under similar circumstances.
I, however, have an alternative perspective to the fear theory: I think the leeway he's been given and the depth of legal analysis involved at every stage is about leaving him with no grounds to sucessfuly appeal any future convictions. These prosecutorial lawyers and judges haven't been hit with the stupid stick and apart from Judge Aileen Cannon, they deserve credit for their competency.
I do think there may have been an intimidation and fear element to Judge Sarah Wallace's bizzarely incongruent rulings regarding Section 3 of the 14th Amendment in Colorado, but that it was likely a personal issue. It wouldn't be surprising and it's even understandable given the threats that have been issued towards other officials by Trump supporters following Trump's media rhetoric.
I also think intellience and security in the event of a violent uprising will be better prepared in the wake of J6. For one thing, the convictions and lengthy sentences issued to the J6 rioters will likely intimidate the less organised, along-for-the-ride Trump supporters. The numbers weren't great enough to pull off a coup on J6 despite the lack of security and I'd hazard a guess a lot of those people didn't fully understand what they were getting themselves into. They do now.
That was perhaps demonstrated by the Trump supporters being out-numbered by the press when Trump was arrested and indicted. They might be happy to go out for a jolly and attend the relative safety of Trump rallies, but an uprising, or violent protest with potential life-ruining consequences is a whole other ball game.
Nothing in Trump's frivolous defense suggests that he has a leg to stand on thus far. The legal system is clearly going through the motions, literally and figuratively, but an observer's frustration and impatience shouldn't be mistaken for error in, or intimidation of the justice system.
A fairly good predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Another is statement of intention.
The first drone strike that Trump authorised after his inauguration killed 22 civilians including 10 children under the age of 12. He described it as a 'win'.
In the midde of his presidency Trump pubicly introduced the idea that he might serve three terms in office, or much longer.
Trump made 30,573 false, or misleading claims whilst in office. That's an average of 21 public lies and manipulations every day.
Trump has stated that "the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" is allowable because he wasn't made president as he demanded.
Trump has been found liable for s*xual assault.
Trump has said he can grab women by the pu**y and they just let him.
Trump has stated his intention to seek retribution against his critics through the DoJ. Right wing loyalists are looking to expand his powers should he become president again, as well as curbing the DoJ, FBI and ther federal agencies.
Trump has been found guilty of persistent financial fraud.
Trump has promised to pardon participants in the J6 attack on the Capitol who have been convicted. He has recorded a song with the 'J6 choir' consistin of some 20 of the incarcerated men.
Trump attempted to ban all Musim people from entering the US.
(that's just a handful of instsances off the top of my head.)
Assuming Judge Chutkin's ruling is upheld on appeal, the next question is whether the Supreme Court accepts the case for review, or remands an inevitable appeal by Trump back to the lower court.
If it does accept, it's likely to stay the prosecution for the duration of the process, potentially delaying the trial start date. That could threaten the aspiration to have Trump cleared, or convicted prior to the presidential election.
However, given the frivolity of the defense motions that prosecuting Trump breaches double jeopardy law due to his second impeachment, or that official-act civil litigation immunity extends to acts beyond the scope of presidential duties, criminal acts, or post-presidency, it's perhaps unlikely that the Supreme Court will review prior to the whole evidence being presented at trial. The proper and usual time for the Supreme Court's attention and possible intervention is post-conviction.
As I said above, I agree with your sentiments regarding how we treat others internationally, but this blog is about the current internal legal machinations in the US, specifically holding Trump and other Republican politicians to account for alleged breaches of constitutional and related laws.
Trump and others stand accused of trying to overturn the democratic system and replace it with an autocratic one. Trump has made many public overtures of his intent to continue on that path to dismantle the democratic republic, including removing the institutions that can hold his megalomania in check.
Do you think that there should be laws/rules in place and that they should be applied to stop dictatorial aspirations, or corruption?
Do you think if Trump becomes president again that he's going to be fair and kind to US citizens, or citizens of other countries for that matter?
Like Suzie, I had a close shave and it was harder turning back toexcrutiating pain than slipping over the edge into serenity and bliss.
Some years later I read a novel involving a near death experience and relating to the protagonist, I realised I had been harbouring some considerable anger - not sensible and justifable rage at the arrogant hospital feck up that lead to me almost pegging from unanaesthetised agony, but because I felt cheated out of the solace of death.
It's not how society expects you to feel given a second chance at life. The socially acceptable response of gratitude and living life to the fullest from then on, but that fails to take the experience of trauma into account.
Having said that, the experience gave me an insight into the phenomenal power of mind over matter, not to mention the physical survival process. The adage 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' is fitting.
Yep, there appears to be a certain amount of support for an incarcerated Trump presidin over the country with nary a thought f the practicality, nor effectiveness.
As for the lottery, it would be a perfect Trump grift, especially if the same kind of voting ID disenfranchisement were applied to buying tickets.
Are you suggesting that if Trump is convicted and sentenced to a prison term that he might be allowed out on bail (and become the next president) whilst appealing the conviction?
Post conviction bail, unlike pre-trial bail is not a constitutional right. Although most states allow it, it's rarely granted when long sentences are involved and there is a flight risk.
In the case of less serious crimes and shorter sentences, it's usualy only granted if the lower court has made an error that is likely to result in reversal in the defendant’s favor, or the error is so constitutionally egregious that the defendant deserves a new trial.
Given the level of interlocutory appeals in Trump's cases to evaulate constitutional law, it's perhaps unlikely there will be any grounds to appeal that which has already been comprehensively reviewed through the appellate system.
An error likely to reverse any conviction is perhaps also unlikely given the calibre of prosecutorial team and their lawyering.
The only way I can see Trump getting post conviction bail is if the justice system, or individual players therein are too afraid to imprison him for their own benefit, but if that were the case, why would he have been indicted and held to account in the first place?
Whilst I agree that the US hasn't been held accountable for it's war crimes and other destructive conduct (neither has the UK and many other countries), I see that as a seperate subject from the one I raised with this blog. Maybe I'll get to that one day, but it would require a lot of reading and research on my part.
I disagree that holding Trump to account for his actions is just a time killer. It's an existential issue where the US system is under threat.
Whilst I agree with you that many parts of that system warrant change, Trump and the Republican extremists are attempting to create change in the opposite direction from that which I would like to see for the American people. I'm particulary concerned for the welfare of non-white and other already oppressed citizens, including women.
jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,982)
RE: A Glitch?