Trump's NY Civil Trial

[Mr. Deez]

This is the problem with all of these cases - Trump will be found guilty in all of them. The SCOTUS will be the final arbitrator. He might win some/most on that level (depending on the make-up of the Court) but he will not win all.

Not sure about all. The FL case may go his way, event though it actually has the most merit. The other 3 are purely partisan exercises. The rest are meritless, riddled with selective prosecution, or both. However, I think there will a conviction in all 3 because of the venue. The evidence will be irrelevant.

I think those who assume the Court will bail him out will be disappointed. Where they have clear jurisdiction (like the DC case), they may. However, will they bend the rules and make up extra-legal reasons to intervene in the NY and GA cases? No. Keep in mind that they could have intervened in the 2020 election and chose not to.

This is why I think those voting for him in the primary are foolish. They're voting for a guy who will certainly be spending most of his time and resources in '24 fighting legal challenges and could very easily be incarcerated on Election Day. I understand the unfairness of it all, but I don't see how handing the election to Gavin Newsom remedies that unfairness.

 

[Garmel]

What may save Trump might be the length of the trials. Many of them may go into 2025.

Two things we might find out

1) Can a president self-pardon?
2) If he can pardon himself can the president use the supremacy clause to pardon himself of state convictions? Kind of a stretch but it's possible although Jonathan Turley doesn't think so.

 

[Garmel]

This is the problem with all of these cases - Trump will be found guilty in all of them. The SCOTUS will be the final arbitrator. He might win some/most on that level (depending on the make-up of the Court) but he will not win all.

That's why Trump is dumb for attacking DeSantis constantly. He may need DeSantis to pardon him.

 

[Mr. Deez]

What may save Trump might be the length of the trials. Many of them may go into 2025.

If the judge doesn't want that to happen, he can often keep things moving.

1) Can a president self-pardon?

I see no reason why he can't. The Supreme Court has held that his pardon power (at least in the context of federal crimes) is absolute. The remedy against abuse of that power is impeachment.

2) If he can pardon himself can the president use the supremacy clause to pardon himself of state convictions? Kind of a stretch but it's possible although Jonathan Turley doesn't think so.

No. The supremacy clause protects federal authority over state authority when there is concurrent jurisdiction between both federal and state law, and when it applies, there is clear statutory language to preempt state law. I'm not aware of that in any of the state cases.

Nor would we want something like this. If it was possible to pardon for state offenses, all it would take is having an anti-death penalty president, and he could pardon or grant clemency to every death row inmate on the United States.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Garmel]

 

[Garmel]

In the other NY civil trial. Get a load of this.

 

[Mr. Deez]

In the other NY civil trial. Get a load of this.

There's no bigger defender of the right to seek damages in civil court than I, but this lawsuit is load of crap. People with serious lawsuits don't need political donors to bankroll their legal fees. They can find someone to take their case on a contingent fee. The fact that she couldn't or didn't should tell you something. Does that mean Trump didn't do anything to her? No. Maybe he did, but the fact that the normal attorney-client arrangement isn't in place suggests that the evidence is weak. I'm extremely sceptical.

In addition, we have statutes of limitations for a reason. Evidence gets lost inadvertently. Memories fade. Witnesses die off. We put those concerns aside for minor children, because they have no standing to sue on their own, but E. Jean Carroll is a grown-*** woman who was in her 50s when this incident allegedly occurred. I see absolutely no justification for allowing this case to go forward. I do know that the State of New York changed their limitations period to allow cases this old to proceed, but frankly, it strains the limits of due process. It's truly absurd.

 

[EDT]

 

[Garmel]

This is how you deal with libs.