Trump gets gagged, McCarthy gets booted. What's next in Trumpworld?

[AcrossthePond55]

Roll up, roll up for the GOP Mystery Tour!! Trump thread lost-the-count!!!

@SequentialAnalyst yes to Ohio legalizing marijuana.

Well as a few Republicans are starting to mutter, maybe democracy isn't the best way forwards.

An interesting article

"It’s now clearer than ever that Trump, if elected, will use the federal government to go after his political rivals and critics, even deploying the military toward that end. His allies are hatching plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on day one.
The US then “would resemble a banana republic”, a University of Virginia law professor told the Washington Post when it revealed these schemes. Almost as troubling, two New York Times stories outlined Trump’s autocratic plans to put loyal lawyers in key posts and limit the independence of federal agencies.
The press generally is not doing an adequate job of communicating those realities.
Instead, journalists have emphasized Joe Biden’s age and Trump’s “freewheeling” style. They blame the public’s attitudes on “polarization”, as if they themselves have no role. And, of course, they make the election about the horse race – rather than what would happen a few lengths after the finish line.
Here’s what must be hammered home: Trump cannot be re-elected if you want the United States to be a place where elections decide outcomes, where voting rights matter, and where politicians don’t baselessly prosecute their adversaries."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/09/trump-president-democracy-threat-media-journalism?CMP=share_btn_tw

Got this from Axios Sunday Sneak Peek email, re Trump wanting his trial to be televised:

• "The prosecution wishes to continue this travesty in darkness. [Former] President Trump calls for sunlight," defense attorneys John Lauro and Todd Blanche wrote in a legal filing.

And travesty it is. But not because of the prosecution

as much as I want to watch the trial, I think not having it broadcast would be the right thing. t* would only use it for fundraising stirring up his supporters.

plus someone who really really want to be there can go to the courthouse in person.

I think it should be broadcast. Ordinary people can't get in the room, or not more than a handful.

Not allowing broadcast would allow Trump to spread all sorts of lies about what happend & there wouldn't be video evidence to contrary. Justice must be seen to be done.

Much as I loathe the toad, Trump has a right to fundraise & even have free speech (within limits).

Jack Smith is strongly against televising Trump's trial. Obviously he has his reasons but either Trump talks bollocks in the courtroom or he talks different bollocks outside.

Engoron gave up trying to stop Trump fillisbustering in NYAG fraud trial, I suspect to avoid giving defence ammunition for an appeal. But Trump rambling served it's purpose as he only had to testify for one day (anyone know why?) so he managed to avoid direct answers without actually invoking the 5th Amendment.

In a criminal trial, is there any constraint on how long a defendant can be questioned on the stand? If not, he either has to answer succinctly, plead the 5th, or spend weeks giving a rally speech in the courtroom. I assume Smith wants to avoid the last option.

I don't see how Chutkan can control him unless she's willing to use Contempt of court against him, and send him to Time Out in a holding cell

He couldn't have really used the 5th in a civil trial. Well, he could, but the judge is then allowed to infer the worst from it.

Which was why he rambled on to avoid answering directly

It's reminiscent of a school playground yard. And not even a High School schoolyard.

Meanwhile, I've seen some excellent people on CNN who seem to be grown ups, many of them, I'm happy to say, women. And Biden and Blinken have done reasonably well over Hamas, considering the difficulties they have to face in pleasing the folk at home, not offending the Israeli gvt etc.

I am to discover the Supreme Court has only just got a code of ethics!

I'm amazed they finally got one; they've been saying wtte "we are totally incorruptible, so we don't need a code of ethics, and anyway nobody has the power to make us have one" for centuries, as far as I can make out.

(The less self-important courts got their code of ethics some time about fifty years ago.)

However, since there is no mechanism for enforcing it, it's really not that much more meaningful than the unwritten code they've operated under (or in some cases ignored) anyway.

From what I can see the SCOTUS 'code of ethics' is a bit of a joke. Especially since they're going to govern themselves AND they haven't specified exactly how violations would be dealt with. 'All sound and fury' as far as I can see. I think they only did this because the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Cmte were planning to draft one for them!

The 'Standards of Conduct' rules for Federal Employees (Legislative and Executive Branches) are very clear on what you can and cannot do and what the penalties are for violating them. I don't see why (with some very minor alterations) it can't be adopted for all three branches of government. I know lower level Judiciary has its own Code, but when it comes to accepting gifts, favours, etc all 3 branches should have the same code.

I managed to work for 35 years in the Executive Branch and 'stay within the guidelines'. Seems to me the SCOTUS should be able to do the same.

As far as the Federal trial for Doofus being televised, I'm sort of leaning towards 'not'. He's proven with the NY case that he can bloviate on and on and turn what is supposed to be testimony into a campaign rally speech. I don't think we want to turn a federal courtroom into his bully pulpit. Seeing him 'vomit up' his lies and braggadocio 'live' on the stand will (falsely) lend credence to his bullshit to his cult. I know they lap up his shit like kittens with cream, but why give him another avenue to do it?

The GA trial will be televised, AFAIAC that's going to be enough of a bully pulpit for him.

From what I can see the SCOTUS 'code of ethics' is a bit of a joke. Especially since they're going to govern themselves AND they haven't specified exactly how violations would be dealt with. 'All sound and fury' as far as I can see. I think they only did this because the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Cmte were planning to draft one for them!

Just copy out the preamble to the UK constitution which starts "We can do whatever we like".

I wont' charge you for that. Consider it goodwill between tyrannies.

We don't have a written constitution in the UK&NI, do we?

You know, when you put it like that, it is ridiculous. It's a miracle we have such stable government really.

Your analysis is spot on. The MAGA cult already accept anything TFG says as the truth. Him lying in court will just reinforce the deceit - "Trump said this UNDER OATH so it is unquestionably TRUE"

What we do have is laws made by a democratically elected Parliament, including laws about the constitutional role of the monarchy. How laws work in practice is addressed by the judiciary, which set precedents based on a careful reading of the wording of the law in relation to the specific matter in question, such as whether it is legal to deport people to Ruanda.

Better late than never....Happy Thanksgiving to all who celebrate it!

Belated Happy Thanksgiving to those celebrating from me too

Santos has been expelled from Congress, effective immediately. Special election to be held in ~10 days for his replacement.

Trump gag order reinstated by NY appellate court.

But on the down side......

RIP Sandra Day O'Conner, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

Yes - RIP Sandra Day O'Connor - reading her obituary shows just how far to the right the Supreme Court has moved. A conservative appointed by Ronald Regan but would be classed as centre left nowadays, I suspect.

From Washington Post:
She rejected the idea of eliminating the right to abortion, for example, in part because “an entire generation has come of age” relying on it. She co-wrote the principal opinion in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), setting a new standard for judging abortion cases but reaffirming the core holding of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in 1973.


Justice O’Connor’s successor, Samuel A. Alito Jr., would in 2022 excoriate her decision for having “enflamed debate and deepened division,” in his majority opinion wiping out abortion rights.


Reagan appointed Justice O’Connor as a conservative. But she would not qualify for the right flank on today’s court. She wrote an opinion justifying race-conscious admissions in law schools. She supported, for the most part, traditional boundaries between church and state. And while usually deferential to the prerogatives of the states, Justice O’Connor had little tolerance for state laws that trampled on equality.

In other news
US appeals court says Trump must face civil lawsuits over US Capitol attack.
Ruling clears way for Trump to face lawsuits from police and lawmakers seeking to hold him responsible for violence.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/01/trump-civil-lawsuits-jan-6?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I hope Trump has sleepless nights from now on.

Good news on Santos, I wondered if that was going to happen. Jim Jordan kicking up. Course he is

RIP Justice O'Connor. She sounds quite a woman, she really does.

I hadn't read about that appellate decision on civil lawsuits against Doofus. I gave a big Tee Hee. But I suppose they'll file an appeal and take it all the way to SCOTUS. Not that he's had a lot of luck with his hand-picked stooges. I mean, justices.