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.