| ...
| The D.C. Circuit opinion, by contrast, is a very big deal,
| and in its unanimity across political ideology--given that
| the panel included two judges appointed by Democratic
| presidents, along with a Trump appointee--it is a bit of
| surprise. In combination, the district and appeals court
| rulings make the landscape for Trump's efforts to delay his
| trial (currently scheduled for March) rather dimmer. And
| the D.C. Circuit's ruling makes that court look like a
| tough market in which to sell sweeping claims of
| presidential immunity Trump needs to avoid trial.
|
| The first notable aspect of the D.C. Circuit opinion is
| that it is unanimous in all material respects. There are
| two concurrences, one by Judge Gregory Katsas, and one by
| Judge Judith Rogers--the latter of whom take sharp issues
| with non-central aspects of Chief Judge Sri Srinavasan's
| opinion for the court. Both Judge Katsas and Judge Rogers,
| however, sign onto the key reasoning of the opinion. This
| is a remarkable show of unity from a philosophically and
| ideologically diverse court. Chief Judge Srinavasan, after
| all, is an appointee of President Obama. Judge Rogers was
| appointed by President Clinton. And Judge Katsas was not
| only placed on the court by President Trump, but previously
| served in Trump's White House counsel's office.
| ...
<https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/two-court-rulings-on-presidential-immunity-move-the-trump-cases-forward>

--bks

Federal Appeals Court upholds gag order on Trump:
<https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208578024.0.pdf>

--bks

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 20:55:01 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:

>Federal Appeals Court upholds gag order on Trump:
><https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208578024.0.pdf>
>
> --bks

"WASHINGTON, Dec 8 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Friday narrowed but largely upheld
a gag order that bars Donald Trump from assailing prosecutors, court staff and potential
witnesses in a federal criminal case that accuses him of illegally trying to overturn his
2020 election loss."
<https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-partially-upholds-trump-gag-order-federal-election-case-2023-12-08/>

Swill
--
"I don't want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in
the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
- Paul Weyrich, co founder of Heritage Foundation and Moral Majority

Not left, not right, https://www.forwardparty.com/

Heroyam slava! Glory to the Heroes!

Sláva Ukrajíni! Glory to Ukraine!

Putin tse prezervatyv! Putin is a condom!

Go here to donate to Ukrainian relief.
<https://www2.deloitte.com/ua/uk/pages/registration-forms/help-cities.html>

|
| Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
| Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
| at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
| ...
<https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunity-1851528>

--bks

bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in
news:ulaes0$pdd$2@reader2.panix.com:

> |
> | Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
> | Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
> | at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
> | ...
> <https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunit
> y-1851528>
>
> --bks
>

Can you imagine the Supreme Court
declaring that ANYONE is above the law
and cannot be prosecuted for any crime?

Yet that is that the Trumpists are
calling for.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 20:12:48 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

> |
> | Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
> | Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
> | at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
> | ...
><https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunity-1851528>
>
> --bks

How is it a "loss" that the court wants to weigh in on the subject?

Kremlin Girl <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> |
>> | Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
>> | Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
>> | at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
>> | ...
>><https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunity-1851528>
>
>How is it a "loss" that the court wants to weigh in on the subject?

This proves that you incessant complaints about paywalls
are bullshit. Your question was answered in the article.

--bks

NoBody wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 20:12:48 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> |
>> | Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
>> | Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
>> | at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
>> | ...
>> <https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunity-1851528>
>>
>> --bks
>
> How is it a "loss" that the court wants to weigh in on the subject?
>

It's a loss because Don Fatso made it a loss. According to
precedent he will lose the motion. It's speculated he expected
that and only did this to delay the trial. Smith is pushing for a
speedy decision that will avoid delaying the trial; if the
speculation is right and Smith succeeds, that is a lose and loss
for the Donfather.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 12/13/2023 4:16 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 20:12:48 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> |
>> | Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
>> | Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
>> | at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
>> | ...
>> <https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunity-1851528>
>>
>> --bks
>
> How is it a "loss" that the court wants to weigh in on the subject?

It's a loss in that Trump doesn't get to play his delaying game.

|
| Federal appeals court denies Trump's presidential immunity
| defense in E. Jean Carroll case
| ...
<https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-denies-trumps-presidential-immunity-defense-e-je-rcna129521>

--bks

On 12/13/2023 11:00 AM, Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> |
> | Federal appeals court denies Trump's presidential immunity
> | defense in E. Jean Carroll case
> | ...
> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-denies-trumps-presidential-immunity-defense-e-je-rcna129521>
>

This makes that idiot Alina Habba look like an even bigger idiot. She was
adamant in arguing to the appeals court that presidential immunity is "unwaivable."

"We hold that presidential immunity is waivable and that Defendant waived
this defense," the ruling said.

The panel noted that Carroll first filed her defamation suit in November 2019
and Trump filed his response in January 2020. He didn't raise the
presidential immunity defense until January 2023. To allow him to use the
defense now would cause "undue prejudice" to Carroll, the judges said.

Trump attorney Alina Habba said the court's ruling "is fundamentally flawed
and we will continue to pursue justice and appropriate resolution."

What is "fatally flawed" is the idea that Habba is any kind of reputable lawyer.
She is a fucking incompetent idiot. This isn't the first time she has cost Trump
due to her incompetence. The reason Trump's civil fraud trial is a bench trial
rather than a jury trial is because Habba *fucked up* and didn't make a request
for a jury trial in time. The New York AG requested a bench trial, and Habba had
to get Trump's motion to object filed by a certain date, but she fucked up and
didn't do it, so it's a bench trial.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:57:24 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

>Kremlin Girl <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> |
>>> | Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
>>> | Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
>>> | at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
>>> | ...
>>><https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunity-1851528>
>>
>>How is it a "loss" that the court wants to weigh in on the subject?
>
>This proves that you incessant complaints about paywalls
>are bullshit. Your question was answered in the article.
>
> --bks

Actually the question wasn't answered in the article. Since you don't
know *why* the Court wants to hear it, declaring it to be a "loss" is
extremely premature.

Meanwhile, Bradley ignores a victory for Trump (go figure):

"The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's federal election
interference case in Washington, D.C., has stayed proceedings in the
case while the appeals process plays out.

Trump's lawyers had requested the proceedings be stayed but special
counsel Jack Smith's team opposed an all-out stay, saying they felt
certain filings could still move forward to keep the case on track for
the March 4 trial date."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-puts-hold-trumps-federal-election-interference-case/story?id=105637511

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 05:35:40 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 20:12:48 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
>> Sherman) wrote:
>>
>>> |
>>> | Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
>>> | Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
>>> | at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
>>> | ...
>>> <https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunity-1851528>
>>>
>>> --bks
>>
>> How is it a "loss" that the court wants to weigh in on the subject?
>>
>
>It's a loss because Don Fatso made it a loss. According to
>precedent he will lose the motion

Which precedent? Please cite.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:00:39 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

> |
> | Federal appeals court denies Trump's presidential immunity
> | defense in E. Jean Carroll case
> | ...
><https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-denies-trumps-presidential-immunity-defense-e-je-rcna129521>
>
> --bks

This is a bizarre statement from the court:

"The panel noted that Carroll first filed her defamation suit in
November 2019 and Trump filed his response in January 2020. He didn't
raise the presidential immunity defense until January 2023. To allow
him to use the defense now would cause "undue prejudice" to Carroll,
the judges said."

Courts are normally concerned with prejudice against the *accused*.

NoBody wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:00:39 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> |
>> | Federal appeals court denies Trump's presidential immunity
>> | defense in E. Jean Carroll case
>> | ...
>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-denies-trumps-presidential-immunity-defense-e-je-rcna129521>
>>
>> --bks
>
> This is a bizarre statement from the court:
>
> "The panel noted that Carroll first filed her defamation suit in
> November 2019 and Trump filed his response in January 2020. He didn't
> raise the presidential immunity defense until January 2023. To allow
> him to use the defense now would cause "undue prejudice" to Carroll,
> the judges said."
>
> Courts are normally concerned with prejudice against the *accused*.
>

Yes, you're still an idiot. This is a civil case where both
parties come in as legal equals. There is no accused. There is
defendant and plaintiff. A civil case judge is equally concerned
about prejudice against the defendant and plaintiff.

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

On 12/14/2023 4:11 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:57:24 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
> Sherman) wrote:
>
>> Kremlin Girl <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> |
>>>> | Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
>>>> | Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
>>>> | at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
>>>> | ...
>>>> <https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunity-1851528>
>>>
>>> How is it a "loss" that the court wants to weigh in on the subject?
>>
>> This proves that you incessant complaints about paywalls
>> are bullshit. Your question was answered in the article.
>>
>> --bks
>
> Actually the question wasn't answered in the article. Since you don't
> know *why* the Court wants to hear it, declaring it to be a "loss" is
> extremely premature.

Agreeing to hear it at all is a loss for Trump.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 04:34:14 -0800, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:

>NoBody wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:00:39 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
>> Sherman) wrote:
>>
>>> |
>>> | Federal appeals court denies Trump's presidential immunity
>>> | defense in E. Jean Carroll case
>>> | ...
>>> <https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-denies-trumps-presidential-immunity-defense-e-je-rcna129521>
>>>
>>> --bks
>>
>> This is a bizarre statement from the court:
>>
>> "The panel noted that Carroll first filed her defamation suit in
>> November 2019 and Trump filed his response in January 2020. He didn't
>> raise the presidential immunity defense until January 2023. To allow
>> him to use the defense now would cause "undue prejudice" to Carroll,
>> the judges said."
>>
>> Courts are normally concerned with prejudice against the *accused*.
>>
>
>Yes, you're still an idiot. This is a civil case where both
>parties come in as legal equals. There is no accused.

Oh please. Even in civil cases one is accused of something by
someone.

You're still an idiot....and drunk.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:11:59 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:57:24 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
>Sherman) wrote:
>
>>Kremlin Girl <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> |
>>>> | Donald Trump has released a statement slamming Special
>>>> | Counsel Jack Smith after the Supreme Court agreed to look
>>>> | at whether the former president can be criminally charged.
>>>> | ...
>>>><https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-jack-smith-washington-dc-immunity-1851528>
>>>
>>>How is it a "loss" that the court wants to weigh in on the subject?
>>
>>This proves that you incessant complaints about paywalls
>>are bullshit. Your question was answered in the article.
>>
>> --bks
>
>Actually the question wasn't answered in the article. Since you don't
>know *why* the Court wants to hear it, declaring it to be a "loss" is
>extremely premature.
>
>Meanwhile, Bradley ignores a victory for Trump (go figure):
>
>"The judge overseeing former President Donald Trump's federal election
>interference case in Washington, D.C., has stayed proceedings in the
>case while the appeals process plays out.
>
>Trump's lawyers had requested the proceedings be stayed but special
>counsel Jack Smith's team opposed an all-out stay, saying they felt
>certain filings could still move forward to keep the case on track for
>the March 4 trial date."
>
>https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-puts-hold-trumps-federal-election-interference-case/story?id=105637511

And Bradley the Russian troll runs away.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 07:15:46 -0500, NoBody <NoBody@nowhere.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 19:00:39 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
>Sherman) wrote:
>
>> |
>> | Federal appeals court denies Trump's presidential immunity
>> | defense in E. Jean Carroll case
>> | ...
>><https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/federal-appeals-court-denies-trumps-presidential-immunity-defense-e-je-rcna129521>
>>
>> --bks
>
>This is a bizarre statement from the court:
>
>"The panel noted that Carroll first filed her defamation suit in
>November 2019 and Trump filed his response in January 2020. He didn't
>raise the presidential immunity defense until January 2023. To allow
>him to use the defense now would cause "undue prejudice" to Carroll,
>the judges said."
>
>Courts are normally concerned with prejudice against the *accused*.

And Bradley has run away.

|
| A federal judge on Tuesday granted the Justice Department
| access to nearly 1,700 records recovered from the cellphone
| of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) in a long-running legal battle
| in the criminal investigation of former president Donald
| Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
| ...
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/12/19/rep-perry-records-jan6/>

--bks

|
| Donald Trump Loses Effort to Delay E. Jean Carroll
| Defamation Case
|
| The defamation trial will begin in January after an appeals
| court rejected Trump's presidential immunity defense and a
| motion to stay that ruling
| ...
<https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trump-loses-motion-delay-e-jean-carroll-defamation-case-1234937597/>

--bks

Bradley K. Sherman wrote:
> |
> | Donald Trump Loses Effort to Delay E. Jean Carroll
> | Defamation Case
> |
> | The defamation trial will begin in January after an appeals
> | court rejected Trump's presidential immunity defense and a
> | motion to stay that ruling
> | ...
> <https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/donald-trump-loses-motion-delay-e-jean-carroll-defamation-case-1234937597/>
>
> --bks
>

Will this jury do $148.000.000? Or better?

--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed

>> | Donald Trump Loses Effort to Delay E. Jean Carroll
>> | Defamation Case

|
| A federal appeals court on Friday allowed a lawsuit brought
| by a group of U.S. Capitol Police officers against former
| President Donald Trump to move forward, ruling that Trump
| is not entitled to absolute immunity from civil lawsuits.
| The suit focuses on Trump's alleged conduct surrounding the
| Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
| ...
<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-jan-6-immunity-us-capitol-police-officers-civil-suit-appeals-court/>

--bks

>>> | Donald Trump Loses Effort to Delay E. Jean Carroll
>>> | Defamation Case

> | A federal appeals court on Friday allowed a lawsuit brought
> | by a group of U.S. Capitol Police officers against former
> | President Donald Trump to move forward, ruling that Trump
> | is not entitled to absolute immunity from civil lawsuits.
> | The suit focuses on Trump's alleged conduct surrounding the
> | Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.

|
| The Fulton County judge overseeing the Georgia election
| interference case has denied Rudy Giuliani's request to
| push back a deadline for motions to be filed in the case.
|
| In an order Friday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge
| Scott McAfee rejected Giuliani's extensions request,
| keeping in place a Monday deadline.
| ...
<https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/judge-denies-giulianis-request-extend-deadlines-georgia-election-case-rcna132601>

--bks

On Sat, 6 Jan 2024 13:59:27 -0000 (UTC), bks@panix.com (Bradley K.
Sherman) wrote:

>>>> | Donald Trump Loses Effort to Delay E. Jean Carroll
>>>> | Defamation Case
>
>> | A federal appeals court on Friday allowed a lawsuit brought
>> | by a group of U.S. Capitol Police officers against former
>> | President Donald Trump to move forward, ruling that Trump
>> | is not entitled to absolute immunity from civil lawsuits.
>> | The suit focuses on Trump's alleged conduct surrounding the
>> | Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol.
>
> |
> | The Fulton County judge overseeing the Georgia election
> | interference case has denied Rudy Giuliani's request to
> | push back a deadline for motions to be filed in the case.
> |
> | In an order Friday, Fulton County Superior Court Judge
> | Scott McAfee rejected Giuliani's extensions request,
> | keeping in place a Monday deadline.
> | ...
><https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/judge-denies-giulianis-request-extend-deadlines-georgia-election-case-rcna132601>
>
> --bks

Poor Bradley doesn't know the difference between Guilianni and
Trump...