Fogbow

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:12 pm who were these women appointed by?

sad-cafe wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 2:12 pm who were these women appointed by?

THE GOVERNMENT DID SOMETHING
CLEVER, POSSIBLY AN ARGUMENT FOR
THE SUPREME COURT DOWN THE ROAD.
THEY REFERENCED ONE OF THE
AMICUS BRIEFS.

THEY SAID IT COULD BE DECIDED AS
A MATTER OF THE EXECUTIVE
VESTING CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION, WHICH SAYS THERE'S
AN INTEREST -- THERE'S A
GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST IN MAKING
SURE FOLLOWING EACH ELECTION
THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS PASSED
ON, THAT CONTROL OF THE WHITE
HOUSE IS PASSED ON TO THE WINNER
OF THAT ELECTION, EXECUTIVE
VESTING.

SO YOU MIGHT SAY THAT HERE WHERE
A FORMER PRESIDENT INTERFERED
WITH THAT SPECIFIC CLAUSE,
THERE'S NO IMMUNITY.
THAT VIEW, IF ADOPTED, I THINK
THE PANEL DECISION, FRANKLY WILL
BE BROADER SAYING THERE'S NO
IMMUNITY.

BUT PERHAPS THAT WILL BE
ATTRACTIVE TO THE SUPREME COURT.

Mueller, She Wrote @MuellerSheWrote wrote: Today, Trump’s lawyers argued that you can only indict a president if he’s been impeached and convicted by Congress. But check out the argument Trump’s lawyers made during his impeachment. And the judges brought this up today during the immunity hearing.

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pm From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources Trump himself, while his lawyers scream and try to smash down the door to shut him the hell up.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pm From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pm From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pm

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561

Former President Trump intends to personally deliver part of the defense's closing argument at the conclusion of his civil fraud trial in New York

Suranis wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 8:04 pm Maybe he is trying to tell Jack Smith "I'm not scared of you! I'll even talk in front of you!!!" when we all know he would fill his depends at one glimpse of Zod's steel gaze.

realist wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 7:01 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue Jan 09, 2024 6:33 pm From the I'll Believe It When I See It department...

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources

https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/ ... =103642561

He's represented. I have never seen a judge allow that sort of crap when the party is represented.
But that's only my 40 years of experience. OMMV

Over objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account.

The social media company filed a petition last year asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reconsider a three-judge panel's July ruling, which upheld a lower court's order holding that Special Counsel Jack Smith's office could execute a search warrant on Trump's Twitter account without notifying the former president.

The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Twitter's petition in a one-sentence decision issued Tuesday.

Because no member of the court requested a vote, a formal tally was not recorded among the 11-member appellate court.

However, the court's four members who were appointed to their posts by Republican presidents voiced their opposition to the handling of the matter in a fiery 12-page statement attached to the decision.

Rolodex wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:27 pm IANAL and didn't read the GOP judges' replies, but as a general normal person, I'd assume that tweets belong to twitter, not to the person who posts them. Thus whoever writes the tweet wouldn't need notification for info re any tweet or twitter account - a warrant would notify twitter. But what do I know.

Foggy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 1:27 pm So the four whiners wrote a nastygram, but none of them voted to hear the case.

Profiles in courage.

Over objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account.

noblepa wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 2:40 pm

Over objections from four judges appointed by Republican presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday rejected a petition from Twitter seeking to rehear a case regarding the search of Donald Trump's Twitter account.

The way I read that sentence, the four judges who wrote the nastygram DID vote to hear the case.

Note that it says that the court rejected the petition "over the objections of four judges . . .".

D.C. Cir. wrote:Upon consideration of appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc, the response thereto, the amicus curiae brief filed by Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of rehearing en banc, and the absence of a request by any member of the court for a vote, it is ORDERED that the petition be denied.

Because no member of the court requested a vote, a formal tally was not recorded among the 11-member appellate court.

The options at this juncture are limited. Once informed of the search, President Trump could have intervened to protect claims of executive privilege, but did not, and so these issues are not properly before the en banc court.