Alas! This has nothing to do with the always excellent quality of your Morning Memo, David. Just a few "typos" that caught my retired-tech.-editor's eye. Under Rules of Law Porn, the quote from Felix Frankfurter reads “If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every many can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.” Um, "many" should be "man." One more: under Warning: Trump is Still At It,1st paragraph reads "Even as we contend with the slow-moving legal accountability for Donald Trump’s past misdeeds, he continues to engage in the same conduct that lead to his indictment for subverting the 2020 election and is now directing it toward the 2024 election." That "lead" should be 'led," the past tense of "to lead." Has nothing to do with the element, lead (Pb, if I remember the Periodic Table correctly)! I apologize for my 78-year-old's "copy editor's eyes!"
Thanks Dave. Yes, Trump's words before Judge Chutkan were not only "ahistorical'" -- they were not even "argument" but, entirely rhetorical with no citations to applicable case law. DENIED.
The immunity decisions: I suspect some coordination. Chutkan decided her motion but held it back til the appellate court decided their motion given the possibility that the latter could cause some sort of conflict -- like one found immunity, the other not -- wherein Chutkan would have to change her decision to the extent it was affected by the appellate decision.
Obviously, there’s not one no conflict between the two courts; the writing’s on the wall for the appellate court’s decision(s) re Chutkan’s decision. And if the past is prologue, the defendant’s application to SCOTGOP to be heard -- to accept his appeal -- will be denied. Politically speaking, the Republicans on the panel have absolutely no need for the defendant which is to say no reason for loyalty specially where it would seek an absolutely insane decision. That is, a POTUS needs no proof of mass fraud to act to overrule an election.
As for the court of appeals’ punt: immunity denied til such time as he proves sufficient fraud to justify J6 and overturning an election which... is highly unlikely because it’s already proven to have been not so. A very elegant eff off there.
Thanks for providing documentation of Giuliani's ongoing decimation in the justice system. I am usually not able to slog through the complex opinions of the Courts, but this one was worth the time and effort to get to the final decision by Judge Howell: DENIED. Also, it was shorter than most ; )
Alas! This has nothing to do with the always excellent quality of your Morning Memo, David. Just a few "typos" that caught my retired-tech.-editor's eye. Under Rules of Law Porn, the quote from Felix Frankfurter reads “If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every many can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.” Um, "many" should be "man." One more: under Warning: Trump is Still At It,1st paragraph reads "Even as we contend with the slow-moving legal accountability for Donald Trump’s past misdeeds, he continues to engage in the same conduct that lead to his indictment for subverting the 2020 election and is now directing it toward the 2024 election." That "lead" should be 'led," the past tense of "to lead." Has nothing to do with the element, lead (Pb, if I remember the Periodic Table correctly)! I apologize for my 78-year-old's "copy editor's eyes!"
Thanks Dave. Yes, Trump's words before Judge Chutkan were not only "ahistorical'" -- they were not even "argument" but, entirely rhetorical with no citations to applicable case law. DENIED.
Thanks David for a quick Monday rundown. And kudos
to the Civil and Federal no go
immunity for Trump. Just keep those wheels of Justice moving turning faster and with the right outcome: 20 yrs somewhere, never to be
heard from again.
The immunity decisions: I suspect some coordination. Chutkan decided her motion but held it back til the appellate court decided their motion given the possibility that the latter could cause some sort of conflict -- like one found immunity, the other not -- wherein Chutkan would have to change her decision to the extent it was affected by the appellate decision.
Obviously, there’s not one no conflict between the two courts; the writing’s on the wall for the appellate court’s decision(s) re Chutkan’s decision. And if the past is prologue, the defendant’s application to SCOTGOP to be heard -- to accept his appeal -- will be denied. Politically speaking, the Republicans on the panel have absolutely no need for the defendant which is to say no reason for loyalty specially where it would seek an absolutely insane decision. That is, a POTUS needs no proof of mass fraud to act to overrule an election.
As for the court of appeals’ punt: immunity denied til such time as he proves sufficient fraud to justify J6 and overturning an election which... is highly unlikely because it’s already proven to have been not so. A very elegant eff off there.
Thanks for providing documentation of Giuliani's ongoing decimation in the justice system. I am usually not able to slog through the complex opinions of the Courts, but this one was worth the time and effort to get to the final decision by Judge Howell: DENIED. Also, it was shorter than most ; )
Good I guess but we still have a loooooong way to go before the law applies equally to rich and poor.