Donald Trump

[Iassel]

He’s not going to be granted absolute immunity. Which is what some other posters here seem to think is going to happen.

I mean I don’t think anyone genuinely expects an absolute immunity ruling - even this SC isn’t that fucking mental.

It seems pretty clear that Trump will win on some level of immunity however, even if it doesn’t ‘save’ him from all of the indictments against him.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I mean I don’t think anyone genuinely expects an absolute immunity ruling - even this SC isn’t that fucking mental.

It seems pretty clear that Trump will win on some level of immunity however, even if it doesn’t ‘save’ him from all of the indictments against him.

I think realistically, it's all about PR for the Conservative justices. It is not about Trump. With the exception of perhaps Alito and Thomas, I genuinely think the rest of them see him as a circus clown and would be quite happy to be rid of him.

They care about basically one thing and that's preserving their own little fiefdom. They have already made it onto the gravy train, they don't care for some deranged man's pseudo-ideological conquest. In practice, that usually means they will argue Conservative talking points so they continue to be looked after by the various lobbies and try and determine some wishy-washy middle ground that puts their independence or authority at no risk. That's basically what happened on the ballot case. Despite being the protectorate of state's rights, on that occasion they argued the need for a federal mandate, but didn't dismiss the merits of the case against Trump, they just kicked it into the territory of "not our problem".

I suspect, to Seb's point, the same will happen here. They don't need or want to protect Trump, they just want to make sure they're still sat in those seats. That means not giving out the power to remove them, not empowering Trump, but also ensuring no progress on this is made prior to the election to keep their paymasters happy. Whatever mechanism they choose for that is sort of moot, if that's what they want to do, then they will make it happen.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Interesting exchange today with Pecker (you can make the jokes yourselves).

Defence cross-examined him, focusing on small details that might paint him as unreliable. Things like when meetings took place, who was present, what was in certain agreements. These are obviously details that it would be quite easy to misremember, but nothing that stuck out as hugely relevant to the core of the story.

They also focused a lot on how securing NDAs and buying stories is an important part of the Enquirer's normal operational model. And how these deals were done in the interests of the business.

Upon re-direct from the prosecution, this seems to have fallen apart.

(Paraphrasing)
"Of the hundreds or thousands of NDAs executed, how many of them were in coordination with a campaign to help a presidential candidate?"
"Only one. This one."

"If this was purely an ordinary business transaction, publishing the McDougal story would have helped your bottom line. So did you kill the story to help candidate Trump?"
"Yes."

So this deal, it would appear, is not at all similar to the other stories they purchase as part of ordinary business.