The indictment is a joke. “8647” is restaurant slang for cutting someone off, not a death threat. Watts and the rest of the case law make this dead on arrival. But that’s almost beside the point.
The real story is a justice system that prosecutes the innocent and protects the guilty. They’re not trying to win, they’re trying to grind him down. Years of legal fees, lawyers, hearings, stress, time he’ll never get back. That’s the punishment. The verdict is irrelevant. This is what Russia does, Hungary and Poland did this too. The point is to make people suffer.
On staying: I get the instinct to fight, but fighting on their terms is the trap. They have unlimited money and unlimited time, it’s not theirs, it’s yours.
Every dollar he spends defending himself is a dollar fed back into a system that’s already rotted through. Leaving isn’t surrender; it’s refusing to subsidize your own prosecution. If everyone with options left, the machine would have nothing to chew on.
Restaurant slang (as noted above) perhaps, but to “86” is better known as slang for tossing an unruly drunk out of a bar—one tosses, not kills. This is what power does to your brain.
According to Trump, knowing the law and legal process is less important than knowing movies, screenwriting, and so-called gangster talk. Maybe Martin Scorsese should have lunch with him (in an Italian restaurant).
Blanche, referring to the buckshot: “It’s not an exact science. It scatters everywhere. Sometimes it just disappears actually.” Hmmm, what other evidence will disappear? Further, the Secret Service agent fired five times and missed. It is stupefying irresponsible for anyone to shoot without being highly confident and competent about striking a perpetrator AND not striking innocent people. A bullet from a handgun easily is lethal for 50 yards.
Did they even inspect the weapons for recent use? For what ammo was still in them?
I do agree, that the officers (including local and Secret Service) should be competent with their weapons, but to be real, it is difficult to shoot a moving person, especially if you are moving as well, which happens in 'fluid' situations.
I would also like to know if they had taken measures to secure the doors going downstairs when our 'gunman' ran through the place where they check for weapons.
Have to say, a simple turnstile setup, requiring an officer to push a button to release, would have prevented a 'runner' from breaking through.
The main point of this and other similar lawsuits is not necessarily to win, but to harass and intimidate. The target must now pay an attorney, spend time in court, and be subjected to threats from MAGA neanderthals across the country. And the American taxpayers are footing the bill! :(
Many thanks, Lisa Needham. By the way, anyone working in corporate is familiar with "86 this" or "deep six" that. ("Deep six" comes from the U.S. Navy, I believe.) Ubiquitous, ages-long usage, which could lend credence to the casualness of the remark.
It is some comfort that these charges should be thrown out, assuming competent courts somewhere. It is no comfort, only alarm/horror, that the ultimate court of the land yesterday all but guaranteed that American citizens descended from the formerly enslaved are voiceless and unrepresented. Just say they are partisan Ds and that will end any litigation. Beyond a travesty, The contribution of Ivy League law schools to American jurisprudence and society.
"86 47" is a nice, simple, short phrase that in the dictionary meanings does not communicate violence, but rather removal, and since there are non-violent means for that removal, there is no indication of violent intent.
Pretty sure, if it survives to the trial stage, that any jury will throw it out. The very best Trump will ever get is a hung jury.
I have to say though, that I do not Trust this Supreme Court to honor precedent. I do not trust this Supreme Court to not radically move the goal posts to favor Trump's agenda.
Based on SCOTUS's prior ruling, Trump could have Comey brought to him at an official event, and personally shoot Comey to death in front of cameras, and declare it was an official act of protecting the presidency or some other weak BS, and the burden of proof shifts to those declaring it was murder.
This entire concept of a "Unitary Executive" is a completely deliberate misread of Article 2 in the Constitution. If anyone reads the ENTIRE Article 2, this becomes blindingly obvious.
Aside from the very first sentence in Section 1 "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." the rest of Section 1 is entirely about the election and installing of the POTUS. It is Section 2 that lists his actual powers, and Section 3 that lists primarily his duties, including "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and Section 4 that talks about removing POTUS through impeachment.
Sections 2 and 3 together are less than a page of normal speech, easy to read and understand.
Nowhere does it include even the power to Fire any of those who were approved by the Senate, let alone Dictate to them what they must do. ANY action that is NOT one of his powers and duties is outside the scope of his official acts. Certainly anything he does that violates the laws passed by Congress (and of course the Constitution) Can Not Possibly be an Official Act.
Reading the Constitution to say that Trump has the entire power of the entire executive branch with no constraint by any law upon his actions (unless removed by -partisan- Impeachment...) is an overt effort to dismantle the Constitution and therefore grounds for the removal of those Justices who signed that decision.
FYI: When you READ the constitution, and you read Article 2 section 4 on the removal of "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" where the standards are "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", read the next few lines in the Constitution. Article 3 Section 1: ... "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"...
They would have simply referred to Impeachment, if that is what they intended. In Article 2 Section 4 they could have included "judicial Officers" as found in Article 6. The standard is clearly intended to ensure the Judges, whose power rests in their Credibility, behave as being above even the appearance of impropriety.
Such as found in the American Bar Association "Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."
With the standard being radically different, so must be the process. Unfortunately, as a nation, we FAILED to enforce this standard and now our courts (especially SCOTUS) has become very corrupted with partisan intent, to the point of corrupting and ignoring the very constitution.
The original sin was allowing two partisan branches to install Judges then make it near impossible to remove them. The only sensible cure is to change how we appoint and remove Judges and Justices, to get the Politics out of our Judiciary.
The indictment is a joke. “8647” is restaurant slang for cutting someone off, not a death threat. Watts and the rest of the case law make this dead on arrival. But that’s almost beside the point.
The real story is a justice system that prosecutes the innocent and protects the guilty. They’re not trying to win, they’re trying to grind him down. Years of legal fees, lawyers, hearings, stress, time he’ll never get back. That’s the punishment. The verdict is irrelevant. This is what Russia does, Hungary and Poland did this too. The point is to make people suffer.
On staying: I get the instinct to fight, but fighting on their terms is the trap. They have unlimited money and unlimited time, it’s not theirs, it’s yours.
Every dollar he spends defending himself is a dollar fed back into a system that’s already rotted through. Leaving isn’t surrender; it’s refusing to subsidize your own prosecution. If everyone with options left, the machine would have nothing to chew on.
Restaurant slang (as noted above) perhaps, but to “86” is better known as slang for tossing an unruly drunk out of a bar—one tosses, not kills. This is what power does to your brain.
The saying came from a bar, #86 on a street in New York City that I can't remember. It was known for tossing out unruly drunks.
Excellent! Great history—thanks!
You know, I think I remember that number as I flew through the saloon doors.
According to Trump, knowing the law and legal process is less important than knowing movies, screenwriting, and so-called gangster talk. Maybe Martin Scorsese should have lunch with him (in an Italian restaurant).
Blanche, referring to the buckshot: “It’s not an exact science. It scatters everywhere. Sometimes it just disappears actually.” Hmmm, what other evidence will disappear? Further, the Secret Service agent fired five times and missed. It is stupefying irresponsible for anyone to shoot without being highly confident and competent about striking a perpetrator AND not striking innocent people. A bullet from a handgun easily is lethal for 50 yards.
Did they even inspect the weapons for recent use? For what ammo was still in them?
I do agree, that the officers (including local and Secret Service) should be competent with their weapons, but to be real, it is difficult to shoot a moving person, especially if you are moving as well, which happens in 'fluid' situations.
I would also like to know if they had taken measures to secure the doors going downstairs when our 'gunman' ran through the place where they check for weapons.
Have to say, a simple turnstile setup, requiring an officer to push a button to release, would have prevented a 'runner' from breaking through.
The worst part of this fascist regime is that I have to know more about the law than ever, and I wrote law for a living.
The main point of this and other similar lawsuits is not necessarily to win, but to harass and intimidate. The target must now pay an attorney, spend time in court, and be subjected to threats from MAGA neanderthals across the country. And the American taxpayers are footing the bill! :(
The Comey indictment strikes me as analogous to charging someone with intent or incitement to commit sexual assault for wearing FJB gear.
It's projection, pure and simple. Roy Cohn had an apt pupil.
And let’s not forget that said pupil ran out the door when Cohn was diagnosed with AIDS—such is the loyalty of an unbrave man.
Many thanks, Lisa Needham. By the way, anyone working in corporate is familiar with "86 this" or "deep six" that. ("Deep six" comes from the U.S. Navy, I believe.) Ubiquitous, ages-long usage, which could lend credence to the casualness of the remark.
I had forgotten 'Deep 6' which is very much on point, as I am sure some Mob Boss would have used that to indicate 'giving Joe a pair of cement shoes'.
Ha Ha Ha I needed that, Douglas.
I've actually been thinking that Trump mixed up 'deep six' and 'eighty-six'.
Why not? (Go Badgers.)
It is some comfort that these charges should be thrown out, assuming competent courts somewhere. It is no comfort, only alarm/horror, that the ultimate court of the land yesterday all but guaranteed that American citizens descended from the formerly enslaved are voiceless and unrepresented. Just say they are partisan Ds and that will end any litigation. Beyond a travesty, The contribution of Ivy League law schools to American jurisprudence and society.
Perhaps a more survivable charge - at least before SCOTUS on “emergency” appeal - would be if Comey encouraged African Americans to vote.
The truth is you can’t make this shit up. The courts and congress needs to understand the meaning of NO and explain it to Trump!
"86 47" is a nice, simple, short phrase that in the dictionary meanings does not communicate violence, but rather removal, and since there are non-violent means for that removal, there is no indication of violent intent.
Pretty sure, if it survives to the trial stage, that any jury will throw it out. The very best Trump will ever get is a hung jury.
I have to say though, that I do not Trust this Supreme Court to honor precedent. I do not trust this Supreme Court to not radically move the goal posts to favor Trump's agenda.
Based on SCOTUS's prior ruling, Trump could have Comey brought to him at an official event, and personally shoot Comey to death in front of cameras, and declare it was an official act of protecting the presidency or some other weak BS, and the burden of proof shifts to those declaring it was murder.
This entire concept of a "Unitary Executive" is a completely deliberate misread of Article 2 in the Constitution. If anyone reads the ENTIRE Article 2, this becomes blindingly obvious.
Aside from the very first sentence in Section 1 "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." the rest of Section 1 is entirely about the election and installing of the POTUS. It is Section 2 that lists his actual powers, and Section 3 that lists primarily his duties, including "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and Section 4 that talks about removing POTUS through impeachment.
Sections 2 and 3 together are less than a page of normal speech, easy to read and understand.
Nowhere does it include even the power to Fire any of those who were approved by the Senate, let alone Dictate to them what they must do. ANY action that is NOT one of his powers and duties is outside the scope of his official acts. Certainly anything he does that violates the laws passed by Congress (and of course the Constitution) Can Not Possibly be an Official Act.
Reading the Constitution to say that Trump has the entire power of the entire executive branch with no constraint by any law upon his actions (unless removed by -partisan- Impeachment...) is an overt effort to dismantle the Constitution and therefore grounds for the removal of those Justices who signed that decision.
FYI: When you READ the constitution, and you read Article 2 section 4 on the removal of "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States" where the standards are "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors", read the next few lines in the Constitution. Article 3 Section 1: ... "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"...
They would have simply referred to Impeachment, if that is what they intended. In Article 2 Section 4 they could have included "judicial Officers" as found in Article 6. The standard is clearly intended to ensure the Judges, whose power rests in their Credibility, behave as being above even the appearance of impropriety.
Such as found in the American Bar Association "Rule 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary
A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."
With the standard being radically different, so must be the process. Unfortunately, as a nation, we FAILED to enforce this standard and now our courts (especially SCOTUS) has become very corrupted with partisan intent, to the point of corrupting and ignoring the very constitution.
The original sin was allowing two partisan branches to install Judges then make it near impossible to remove them. The only sensible cure is to change how we appoint and remove Judges and Justices, to get the Politics out of our Judiciary.
Why aren't these lawyers disciplined/disbarred?
Takes time. Based on how long it took to disbarr some of Trump's earlier lawyers, I expect more than a year.
Thank you for the chuckles!