Dipshit

Donald Trump argued that he is so wealthy he should not have to pay a bond to appeal the defamation ruling against writer E. Jean Carroll, as the amount required is not a deterrent for him.

  MSN

WTF?

In New York, a person must pay a court a cash bond that amounts to 110 percent of the judgment to appeal the ruling of a civil case, meaning the former president would have to pay more than $91 million to challenge the defamation penalty. The court entered its final judgment on February 8, so Trump has until March 9 to pay Carroll or post the cash bond.

[...]

"Having argued to the jury that President Trump has great financial resources, Plaintiff is in no position to contradict herself now and contend that she requires the protection of a bond during the brief period while post-trial motions are pending," the motion states.

Apparently, as cited in Carroll's response, there's a case controlling these things in which a factor is "whether the defendant's ability to pay is 'so plain that the cost of a bond would be a waste of money'." Seems a little ridiculous to me.  But, I guess that's what Trump's lawyers were trying to rely on and ask the court to simply trust him when he says he's rich.

"This fact nullifies risk to the judgment creditor and weighs heavily in favor of an unsecured stay," the motion continues.

[Judge Lewis] Kaplan denied the request for a stay, "much less an unsecured stay," while requesting a written response from Carroll's lawyers.

Which began like this:

Chef's kiss.

[Kaplan] also noted that Trump's team waited until day 25 of the 30-day time limit before requesting a stay of enforcement of the defamation judgment.

I'm surprised they didn't wait until day 30

The motion from Trump's lawyers suggested that the former president be allowed to post a lower bond based on a future judgment following their appeal.

Which is it? He's so rich there's no need to worry about him paying the judgment, or he's too poor to pay such a large amount?

"There is a strong probability that the disposition of post-trial motions will substantially reduce, if not eliminate, the amount of the judgment," Trump's lawyers wrote.

Well, then he'd just get back the difference from the bonding agent.

The legal team suggested that the court project a reduction of the total judgment to $22.25 million so that Trump could post a bond of $24.475 million, which his lawyers said "would be appropriate."

LOL.

Trump has a deadline of March 2 to reply.  Don't expect it before then.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Just another Trump scheme to rip off millions

The co-founders of former president Donald Trump’s media company filed a lawsuit Wednesday, claiming that Trump and other leaders had schemed to deprive them of a stake in the company that could be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The case could complicate a long-delayed bid by Trump Media & Technology Group, owner of the social network Truth Social, to merge with a special purpose acquisition company called Digital World Acquisition and become a publicly traded company.

  WaPo

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

McConnell stepping down

Not soon enough.  His term doesn't end until 2027.

Now that he has single-handedly wrecked the country's bid for greatness, he's not running again.

McConnell’s decision to step aside was also foreseeable for a simple, stark reason beyond his age of 82. His party had moved sharply away from him — and toward his intraparty nemesis, former President Trump — even as he remained its titular head in the upper chamber.

The venom with which Trump attacked him was unignorable.

[...]

President Biden told reporters he was “sorry to hear” McConnell was stepping down. In a later statement, Biden — a Washington institutionalist like the outgoing leader — called McConnell “my friend” and noted that they had been able to work “together in good faith even though we have many political disagreements.”

  The Hill

That alone disqualifies Biden as a capable leader. McConnell never did anything in good faith.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), one of the brashest Trump loyalists in Congress, expressed glee on social media at how McConnell had now been “86’d” alongside former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and outgoing Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) [...] greeted McConnell’s departure as “an opportunity to refocus our efforts on solving the significant challenges facing our country and actually reflect the aspirations of voters.”

[...]

Trump’s resurgence has left McConnell out on an uncomfortable limb. If Trump were to win in November, he would almost certainly engineer McConnell’s ouster — an inglorious end to such a long career.

[...]

Talks have been taking place between the McConnell and Trump camps as to under what circumstances the Senate minority leader might endorse the former president — something he has conspicuously failed to do so far.

One source briefed on those talks told this column that the basic outline would have McConnell endorsing Trump as the party’s de facto leader in return for a quietening of Trump’s attacks.

I'm sure he'll evenetually bend the knee.

McConnell's health issues no doubt also were a deciding factor in his choice.

McConnell suffered a bad fall last year and, in the months afterward, twice froze on camera — two embarrassing moments that sharpened questions about his leadership capacity.

[...]

On Tuesday, he bowed to the apparently unstoppable twin forces of Trumpism and time.

And there'll be nothing but praise and plaudits for him by both the media and Democratic leaders.

The House Freedom Caucus mocked Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) after he announced his retirement from his leadership position Wednesday, suggesting that his stance on Ukraine aligns with his Democrat colleagues.

[...]

He said he plans to serve the remainder of his term, which ends in 2027.

[...]

I will complete my job my colleagues have given me until we select a new leader in November and they take the helm next January,” he said.

[...]

“Our thoughts are with our Democrat colleagues in the Senate on the retirement of their Co-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (D-Ukraine). No need to wait till November… Senate Republicans should IMMEDIATELY elect a *Republican* Minority Leader,” the House Freedom Caucus wrote on X, formerly Twitter.

  The Hill

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 02:30 pm:

UPDATE 03/01/2024:

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/mitch-mcconnell-retiring-senate/?utm_campaign=SproutSocial&utm_content=thenation&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Poor-mouth

Donald J. Trump on Wednesday lost his initial bid for a New York appeals court to pause the more than $450 million judgment he faces in a civil fraud case, a decision that could expose him to financial peril.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers had asked the appeals court to allow him to post only a $100 million bond — a promise from an outside company that the judgment eventually will be paid — because securing one for the full amount was “impossible,” they said.

A single appellate court judge assigned to consider Mr. Trump’s request, Anil Singh, turned him down on Wednesday. Mr. Trump will try again next month with a panel of five appellate court judges, but for now, the former president is still on the hook to post a bond for the full amount of more than $450 million.

  NYTimes

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Bad news and good news for Donald Trump: America on the brink

First, the bad news:

Okay, that's not exactly bad news, because: Supreme Court.  

This, however...

And now for the good news (for the orange god king; bad news for America's dying democracy)...

I was certain that the Supreme Court would deny the application to stay the DC Circuit Court’s mandate affirming Judge Chutkan’s ruling that presidents aren’t, in fact, kings; a move that would have brought the DC trial back to life.

[...]

If they knew they were going to want to rule on the merits, why didn’t they grant cert in December. Applying the same expedited briefing schedule they did today, oral arguments would have taken place this week. As it stands now, oral arguments are set for April 22nd - almost two months from now. And why did it take over a week to grant cert? That only made sense if they were going to deny the stay and someone was writing a dissent or concurrence.

  Mueller, She Wrote

That was the bet most people I was reading were making.

The best case is that they hear this April 22nd, and take about two to three weeks to issue a ruling (going by the Nixon tapes timeline).

More speculation that has no basis in reality for this court.

Of course, Bush v Gore took FOUR DAYS to decide, but that was to seat a republican, so I don’t have much faith in them working that fast. If they take two or three weeks to decide, and we add the 88 days that existed between the pause of the DC proceedings and the trial date, that puts the trial date sometime in late July/early August. Jack Smith has said the trial is expected to take 3 months, and in this scenario, we would have a verdict before the election.

However, Judge Luttig has posited that because they agreed to hear this case on the merits, that there is at least one justice that disagrees with the DC Circuit’s ruling, and he doesn’t see how the case could be decided by the end of this term - which is around July 1st. Any ruling coming later than May could put the trial past the election.

In another scenario, the Supreme Court could make a ruling that remands further review back to the District Court (Judge Chutkan), and anything she decides could be appealed by trump and we’re all the way back at the beginning.

[...]

[T]he Supreme Court said today that the question they are going to decide is “Whether, and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”

[...]

I can envision a scenario where the Justices decide that presidents DO sometimes have immunity over official acts, but remand to Judge Chutkan to determine whether what trump did is an official act, and whether the crimes alleged in the indictment could be subject to presidential immunity. Any ruling she would make would then be subject to the entire appeals process again.

Yes, we are in a doom loop that will suck the life out of us.

But what should we make of the use of the word alleged. Alleged by whom? First, the Supreme Court by law has to take everything in the indictment as fact. Jack Smith has said that these crimes are NOT official acts. So it seems that “alleged” here means that TRUMP is alleging - which, as Lisa Rubin says, gives into trump’s reframing of the question.

[...]

Another thing to consider is that once the ruling is issued - and I’m still sure the Supreme Court will agree that trump isn’t immune - Judge Chutkan could truncate the 88 days needed to prepare for trial.

That's more faith in the court than I have.  They've been meddling in presidential elections (with bad rulings) since Bush v. Gore, and that was before they had three Trump nominees.

I’m very disappointed in the ruling today, but it’s not over until it’s over, and Alvin Bragg’s criminal trial is set to begin March 25th.

You tell me.

I'm wondering what Jack's team is doing right now.

But Vladeck's "best bet" before this ruling was that they probably weren't going to grant cert.

And will not.

There is one possible slant to this decision that might not be good for Trump.

In fact, by taking up the immunity question and keeping the case on hold in the meantime, the justices have all but guaranteed that Trump cannot stand trial on the federal election charges until the waning weeks of campaign season, at the earliest.

If that happens, Trump may have to juggle courtroom appearances with debates and swing state speeches. The trial, which is expected to last several months, could even overlap with Election Day itself.

  Politico

On the other hand, that could be good news for Trump by virtue of him whining loudly and publicly that he's being persecuted in an attempt to keep him from winning, bringing out more rubes to vote for him.

Whether it hurts or helps him to be on trial is anybody's guess. It should hurt. But, this is America.

And in other Supreme Court news...

The problem with that is Congress.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 02:34 pm:

UPDATE 03/01/2024:

And Trump wants to pull out

Maybe he doesn't think quite as highly of Orban now.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Florida was cued up

A Florida Republican senator this week said she has sidelined a bill that seeks to add fetuses to wrongful death lawsuits amid ongoing concern from Democrats that the legislation was an attempt to grant personhood to fetuses.

Lawmakers expected to hear the bill, SB 476, in the Senate committee on Rules on Monday but Chair Debbie Mayfield announced that it had been temporarily postponed.

  Politico

Only the backlash over the Alabama ruling has put a halt to this avenue of MAGA control over conception and women's rights.  It'll come back around.

“Although I have worked diligently to respond to questions and concerns, I understand there is still work that needs to be done,” Grall said. “It is important we get the policy right with an issue of this significance.”

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Plastic people

Microplastics have been found in every human placenta tested in a study, leaving the researchers worried about the potential health impacts on developing foetuses.

  Guardian

No worries, Alabama - MAGA - will protect extrauterine, ectopic, non-viable, AND plastic babies.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Ken Chesebro could be in even bigger trouble

From the Xitter account of Marshall Cohen...

EXCLUSIVE: Ken Chesebro, who helped devise the 2020 electors plot, concealed a secret Twitter from Michigan prosecutors, hiding dozens of damning posts that undercut what he told investigators about his role in the scheme.

Chesebro told MI prosecutors GOP electors were a contingency to be used only if Trump won election suits. Said it was "ridiculous" that legislatures could step in if Trump lost in court. But on his secret Twitter, he said courts didn't matter and legislatures should get involved

Further, Chesebro told MI prosecutors he didn't think Pence should be involved in picking which electors to recognize on January 6. But on his secret Twitter, Chesebro embraced the idea that Pence could throw the election to Trump with the GOP electors

There was an article in The Atlantic in Sept. 2020 that previewed Trump's fale electors scheme. Chesebro told MI prosecutors in 2023 he belatedly saw that article, years after the election. But on his secret Twitter, he literally posted about that article on the day it came out.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

John Oliver on the Supreme Court

Combatting the threat of autocracy in America

Click here

Hmmmmm

According to the White House official, Biden on his visit Thursday “will discuss the urgent need to pass the Senate bipartisan border security agreement, the toughest and fairest set of reforms to secure the border in decades.”

  Politico

Assume he's going to be mentioning Trump's decree that Republicans should vote against the bill so he can run his campaign on the need to do something about the border.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Gamblers

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

GOP: women are chattel

As it stands, Missouri judges cannot legally finalize a divorce if a woman is pregnant.

Three other states have similar laws: Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas. While a couple can still file for divorce in Missouri, the court must wait until after a woman gives birth in order to finalize child custody and child support.

When it comes to domestic violence, there’s no exceptions.

  Fox4KC

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

They came out to vote against Trump

The South Carolina Republican primary is over, and mainstream media are reporting that he trounced Nikki Haley.

I think we have to be honest and say that 40% of the electorate in a deeply Trumpy state like South Carolina voting against Trump is a huge showing of opposition precisely because the nomination race is effectively over.

It’s fair to say that this is Haley’s home state. She was two-term governor. That must figure into the equation.But 40% isn’t that different from the 43.2% she got in New Hampshire or the 40.3% Haley and Ron DeSantis got between them in Iowa.

[T]his is a lot of persistent opposition for a candidate who has always been running as a de facto incumbent. Even if you set that de facto incumbency aside, it’s quite a lot for a candidate who is, whatever technicalities you want to get caught up in, the presumptive nominee. 40% of Republican primary voters are still showing up to say they don’t want Trump even when they know they’re definitely going to get him.

  TPM

That's hopeful.  And it's also probably true about Biden among Democrats.  We're about to have an election where only a minority wants either of the candidates.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 01:48 pm:

It's Sunday

In his opinion [giving rights to incubated embryos], Parker wrote: “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself. [Alabama’s Sanctity of Life statute] recognizes that this is true of unborn human life no less than it is of all other human life—that even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

  Elie Mystal @ The Nation

This is in the decision of a Alabama Supreme Court justice. Tom Parker

The word “God” appears 41 times in [Justice Tom] Parker’s opinion, which also liberally quotes from the Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, and theologians like Thomas Aquinus and John Calvin. In an interview, Parker said he supports the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” which is a code for imposing Christian rule based on biblical precepts on the rest of society.

[...]

The decision came out on Friday, and less than a week later two Alabama clinics, including the state’s largest hospital, have stopped offering IVF because they cannot assume the legal liability that could arise from discarding the unused, unwanted embryos IVF treatments produce.

[...]

Do the icicle babies get a Social Security number? Can their mothers count them as dependents on their taxes? Do their fathers have to pay child support? Are we all nine months older than we think and, if so, do 17-year-olds get to vote in the upcoming election?

[...]

This is clearly unconstitutional. The Alabama ruling, on its face, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The court is privileging one religious sect—dominionist Christians—over all others, and it is doing this to extract legal payments from others, namely hospitals and clinics, that don’t share the justices’ religious viewpoint. Using the power of the state to force others to live in accordance with a particular religious belief is the very definition of state-sponsored religion.

[...]

What’s troubling to me is the extent to which the rest of the country has just accepted that we live under the rule of theocrats in robes and there’s nothing we can do about it. Establishment politicians, media figures, and even non-theocratic judges just kind of shrug and pretend that scripture is a reasonable basis for judicial pronouncements in a free society. If these judges and justices were establishing any religion other than fundamentalist Christianity, people would lose their minds.

[...]

I don’t know how we combat the Christian takeover of the judicial branch—a takeover that has largely already happened—when most people in power won’t even acknowledge that a theocratic takeover of the judicial system is bad and out of step with the principles the country was literally founded on.

[...]

The priests and deacons and ministers of our time are using the bully pulpit of the judiciary to impose their version of God’s will on the rest of us, and their God is spiteful, bigoted, and misogynist.

We are entering a new Dark Age, one where, like the last one, science, education, and facts mean nothing, and Christian myths and legends are given the force of law. I don’t know how to stop them, but I think the first step is to recognize and name what they’re doing.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE 03/07/2024:

It's Sunday

Holy smoke.

Democracy on the run

The move by Republicans comes as the state could see a historic abortion rights amendment on the ballot this November. Republicans in the state see changing the rules as the only way to defeat it, according to the Missouri Independent.

  Democracy Docket

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Me too

For Black History Month - a Trump speech

Trump was himself in South Carolina last night.

On Pro-Trump TV, the coverage was unusual.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

In numbers...

Fox News fact-checking Donald Trump!

And even more shocking:  Newsmax adds a caveat, which is possibly a requirement from either their smartmatic or dominion voting machine lawsuits.

Letitia James cleaning up New York one Major asshole at a time