The Donald Trump Score Card

Trump adds electric planes to his repertoire after whining about non-existent electric tanks and electric boats that leave you in a death-or-death situation with a great white shark.


Yahoo is part of the Yahoo family of brands

excerpt:

Donald Trump on Friday dropped some confusing remarks about electric planes while criticizing Democrats at a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia.

“All they know is electric. They want electric army tanks. They want electric planes. What happens if the sun isn’t shining while you’re up in the air?” asked the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, apparently referring to solar-powered aircraft.

 

The minds of Americans today seem to be someplace other than in their skull.


YouTube video:

Great Three Stooges Running Gag: "I'm Losing My Mind!"

 

Trump’s Harder Line on Immigration Appears to Resonate, Polls Show

excerpt:

“President Biden worked in good faith with Republicans and Democrats to negotiate a deal that would have delivered additional resources and personnel to enhance border security, expanded lawful immigration pathways and began fixing our broken immigration system,” said Maca Casado, the Biden campaign’s Hispanic media director. But Republicans blocked the bipartisan legislation twice, the first time after Mr. Trump vocally opposed it.

 

Don’t Believe John Roberts. The Supreme Court Just Made the President a King.

excerpt:

"Roberts also created, out of whole cloth, a second category of acts for which the president has “presumptive immunity,” which are at once broader and hazier. Any action that falls within “the outer perimeter of his official responsibility” now enjoys this robust immunity. How do courts know what falls within this category? They must ask if it is necessary “to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.” Roberts suggested that this immunity may also be “absolute,” but “we need not decide that question today.” Rather, the lower courts will have to apply this Jell-O–style standard to the allegations in the indictment, deciding whether this immunity can be “rebutted.” Finally, the chief justice conceded that “unofficial acts” receive no immunity."

 

Judge Chutkan who is overseeing Trump's federal election subversion case in DC could hold what amounts to a mini-trial to determine if Trump has immunity for actions he took to try to steal the 2020 election from Biden.

It would be a trial before a trial that is now required because of the Supreme Court ruling that granted immunity to Trump for official presidential acts.

Such a court action could be completed before the 2024 election and show to the public that Trump is not immune for his actions.

Trump didn't have the courts on his side before the Supreme Court ruling. .Two court decisions clearly ruled against Trump on his immunity claim before he asked the Supreme Court to consider it.

The Supreme Court essentially put the prosecutors on trial and raised the bar to a high level when trying to prosecute a former president.

 

Don’t Believe John Roberts. The Supreme Court Just Made the President a King.

excerpt:

"The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority fundamentally altered American democracy on Monday, awarding the president a sweeping and novel immunity when he weaponizes the power of his office for corrupt, violent, or treasonous purposes. This near-insurmountable shield against prosecution for crimes committed while in office upends the structure of the federal government, elevating the presidency to a king-like status high above the other branches. The immediate impact of the court’s sweeping decision will be devastating enough, allowing Donald Trump to evade accountability for the most destructive and criminal efforts he took to overturn the 2020 election. But the long-term impact is even more harrowing. It is unclear, after Monday’s decision, what constitutional checks remain to stop any president from assuming dangerous and monarchical powers that are anathema to representative government. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in her terrified and terrifying dissent, “the President is now a king above the law.”"

 

https://www.salon.com/2024/07/01/ma...al-experts-alarmed-at-stunning-scotus-ruling/

excerpt:

"When dissenting justices warned that the majority may have just legalized murder by one individual in our country, that warning is to be taken very seriously," he said. "Nor are the consequences of the majority opinion able to be read in isolation. We can not ignore the trend towards authoritarianism."

Sotomayor, joined by Brown-Jackson and Kegan, authored a scathing dissenting opinion.

"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity," Sotomayor wrote. "If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop."

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent," she concluded.

 

The John Roberts Guide To Doing A Coup And Not Getting Caught

excerpt:

"Under the Court’s new framework, acts related to “core constitutional powers” get absolute immunity. The rest of the official acts get “presumptive immunity.” And unofficial acts get none (assuming prosecutors manage to find some)."

 

Trump says his revenge will be a success.


Trump lays out his 'revenge' strategy after conviction makes him a felon

 

Supreme Court's liberal justices warn of 'law-free zone' stemming from Trump immunity ruling

excerpt:

"Roberts went on to state the dissenting justices were overlooking the potential harms of a lack of protection for presidential actions.

"Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute," Roberts wrote.

"Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors.""

 

This is the crux of Roberts' argument.

It's not based on anything textual in the Constitution. He simply doesn't trust the justice system and prosecutors. He trusts the 'good faith' of Trump.

The remedy Roberts issued will give Trump immunity for how he conducts himself with the DOJ. Trump has already shown that he tried to coerce AG Barr into promoting his stolen election narrative. Barr didn't go along with it and resigned. Trump tried to oust his acting AG of the DOJ and install Jeffrey Clark (who has been indicted in GA for trying to overthrow the 2020 election and also faces disbarrment) who was unqualified but is a conspiracy-truther enthusiast who believed Trump's stolen election narratives. Respectable DOJ officials threatened to resign en masse and Trump failed, similar to Nixon's officials in the DOJ who resigned after he tried to oust the Watergate investigator and eventually succeeded, albeit temporarily.

In the past, most presidents have respected the idea that a president would remain independent of the activities of the AG and DOJ. The exceptions have been Nixon and Trump.

Roberts has faith in someone like Trump who has engaged in such nefarious behavior and has given immunity to such people, He doesn't trust the justice system to hold such people accountable but rather anticipates that such accountability will cause an ongoing strife that will damage the Constitution's separation of powers.

 

Some of Trump's people in the DOJ had sufficient respect for the law to stop him.

It likely won't be that way if Trump wins a second term. He will also have the benefit of immunity that the Supreme Court has bestowed upon him.

 

Merchan has delayed Trump's sentencing in the hush money case until September.


New York v. Trump: Merchan delays sentencing hearing until September

excerpt:

"The July 11, 2024, sentencing date is therefore vacated. The Court’s decision will be rendered off-calendar on September 6, 2024, and the matter is adjourned to September 18, 2024, at 10:00 AM for the imposition of sentence, if such is still necessary, or other proceedings," Merchan wrote in a letter to Trump attorneys and New York prosecutors.

 

If the sentence will even happen. Trump's team could continue to argue and perhaps win at throwing out the hush money case because some of the evidence used in it can be considered part of Trump's official actions when he was president, actions that the Supreme Court has ruled have immunity.

 

The hush money case was a NY state criminal case, but the Supreme Court with its immunity ruling has given Trump leverage for overturning the conviction.

The sentencing hearing which would have looked embarrassing before the RNC convention and the second debate, which is scheduled for September 10, will happen after both.

 

A possible weeks-long evidentiary hearing for Trump's federal election subversion case could occur in September and October so that prosecutors can try to determine if Trump's acts were official or unofficial.

Pence could be called into the courtroom as one of many witnesses. A large amount of dirty laundry could be aired to the general public.

The evidence presented in an evidentiary hearing is not subject to the Supreme Court immunity ruling that says evidence related to official acts of a president are not allowed at trials to demonstrate intent of a person. An evidentiary hearing is not a trial, although it can have the appearance of one to the general public that would see Trump's dirty laundry..


Lawrence O'Donnell: The Supreme Court just gave Trump some very bad news

excerpt:

"In this hearing, basically there’ll be some briefs on each side. And then the judge will schedule a day and say, “OK, we start today, Mr. Smith. Who’s your first witness?” It’s exactly like a prosecution.

Sometimes, pretrial, in the evidentiary process, prosecutors don’t want to turn over all their cards. But Jack Smith is going to have to turn over every single one of them. Because the Supreme Court has said to him, in effect, "We need to see every single one of your cards." So every witness he has, he’s going to bring them into that courtroom. They’re all going to be under oath and the defense is going to be able to cross-examine them. The defense probably won’t bring in any witnesses at all. So you’re going to see this incredible Jan. 6 hearing on steroids possibly for six to eight weeks in September to October."

 

Why Trump’s Conviction Barely Registered in Polls

excerpt:

"If anything, Trump’s conviction has caused more voters to change their views about the criminal-justice system than about him. In the days after the verdict, YouGov asked again: Should a person convicted of a felony be allowed to become president? This time, less than a quarter of Republicans said no, and only 14 percent said they would never vote for a felon. Republicans also became more likely to say that Trump’s behavior was acceptable and legal, and to express doubts that the wealthy and powerful receive fair trials. By contrast, YouGov’s polling of the election itself barely budged."

 

The mindset of the conservatives on the Supreme Court seems to be the same as conservatives in the general public. Its immunity ruling was a defense of Trump against prosecutors.

The Supreme Court should have been referring to text in the Constitution to facilitate holding someone like Trump accountable and prevent such behavior in the future. Instead, it chose to defend him based on a perceived threat that (using Justice Roberts' expression) 'enterprising prosecutors' will hold him accountable.

 

Survey shows Michelle Obama only Democrat who can beat Trump.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campai...en-democrat-2024-hypothetical-matchup-survey/