Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

In It to Win It

In It to Win It's Journal
In It to Win It's Journal
July 2, 2024

Manhattan DA won't oppose Trump filing request to have NY conviction tossed, likely delaying sentencing

Manhattan DA won't oppose Trump filing request to have NY conviction tossed, likely delaying sentencing


The Manhattan district attorney's office said Tuesday it would not oppose former President Donald Trump's request to file a motion arguing that his hush money conviction should be tossed, a move that will almost certainly delay Trump's sentencing, which is currently set for July 11.

"Although we believe defendant's arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion," assistant district attorney Josh Steinglass wrote in a letter to Judge Juan Merchan.

Prosecutors asked for two weeks to respond to the defense motion.

On Monday, just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling that Trump has some presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken to overturn results of the 2020 election, Trump's attorneys sent a letter to Judge Merchan asking to him to "set aside the jury's verdict" in his hush money case.

Trump in May was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a 2016 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
July 2, 2024

Trump attorney argues 'fake electors' scheme was an 'official act'

Trump attorney argues ‘fake electors’ scheme was an ‘official act’


An attorney for former President Trump suggested the so-called “fake electors” scheme qualifies as an “official act,” which would prevent it from being prosecuted under the recent Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.

Trump attorney Will Scharf told CNN Monday night that some acts alleged in the former president’s federal election subversion indictment do constitute private conduct but the effort to put forth slates of alternate electors in 2020 from key battleground states is not one of them.

“We believe the assembly of those alternate slates of electors was an official act of the presidency,” Scharf said, noting the Supreme Court left that question for lower courts to decide.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that core presidential powers are immune from criminal prosecution and that presidents are presumptively entitled to immunity for all official acts. They do not enjoy immunity for unofficial, or private, actions, the high court said.
July 2, 2024

Hunter Biden sues Fox News over explicit images featured in a streaming series

Hunter Biden sues Fox News over explicit images featured in a streaming series


NEW YORK (AP) — Hunter Biden accused Fox News in a lawsuit of unlawfully publishing explicit images of him as part of a streaming series.

The president's son filed the lawsuit Sunday in state court in Manhattan over images in “The Trial of Hunter Biden,” which debuted on the streaming service Fox Nation in 2022. The series features a “mock trial” of Hunter Biden on charges he has not faced and it includes images of Biden in the nude and engaged in sex acts, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims the dissemination of intimate images without his consent violated New York's so-called revenge porn law.

“Fox published and disseminated these Intimate Images to its vast audience of millions as part of an entertainment program in order to humiliate, harass, annoy and alarm Mr. Biden and to tarnish his reputation,” according to the lawsuit.

A Fox News spokesperson called it an “entirely politically motivated lawsuit" that was "devoid of merit" in an emailed statement. The statement noted that attorneys for Biden sent them a letter demanding its removal from streaming platforms in April 2024.
July 2, 2024

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer insists Biden can win her state and says she's behind him 100%

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer insists Biden can win her state and says she's behind him 100%


LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Monday insisted that President Joe Biden can still win her state, a key battleground in the 2024 election, even as many national Democrats question whether Biden should move forward after his shaky debate performance.

Whitmer's statement comes as many in her party question whether she could step in for Biden and run against Republican Donald Trump this fall. Whitmer and several other top national Democrats have publicly backed Biden since Thursday's debate.

“I am proud to support Joe Biden as our nominee and I am behind him 100 percent in the fight to defeat Donald Trump," she said in her statement. “Not only do I believe Joe can win Michigan, I know he can because he’s got the receipts: he’s lowered health care costs, brought back manufacturing jobs, and is committed to restoring the reproductive freedom women lost under Donald Trump.”
July 2, 2024

Trump may or may not sign an abortion ban, but any little protection of abortion that remains in federal law

would go away if Trump is elected.

The Biden Administration is litigating in federal court to have emergency abortions protected by EMTALA, a case in which the Biden DOJ proactively initiated. The hypothetical next Trump Administration won't fight for that.

A future Congress may never deliver an abortion ban to Trump if he's elected again, but he will continue appointing anti-abortion judges to the federal bench.

The Biden Administration is litigating to maintain FDA approval of abortion medication.

The Supreme Court has pretty much made clear that they love a unitary executive. I can imagine that Trump signs an executive order in an attempt to revoke the approval of abortion medication.

All the voter-approved state constitutional amendments that protects abortion may make you feel safe, but mean absolutely nothing and is no hindrance to an anti-abortion executive branch and anti-abortion federal judges.

To top off all of your nightmares, it would give Trump an opportunity to appoint Matthew Kacsmaryk to the Supreme Court. FOR. A. LIFETIME!

July 2, 2024

Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person..."

Keith Boykin
@keithboykin

Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"

Trump’s Lawyer: "That could well be an official act."

– Trump v. US, oral arguments



https://x.com/keithboykin/status/1807882854178882019
July 1, 2024

Mississippi law restricting children's social media use blocked

Mississippi law restricting children's social media use blocked


(Reuters) - A federal judge on Monday blocked Mississippi from enforcing a new law that requires users of social media platforms to verify their ages and restricts access by minors to their sites if they lack parental consent, saying it was likely unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden in Gulfport, Mississippi, sided with tech industry trade group NetChoice in finding the law unduly restricted its users' free speech rights in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

It marked the latest ruling in which a court blocked a state law designed to protect young people online as lawmakers nationwide look for ways to address rising concerns about the dangers posed by social media to the mental health of children.

The measure, which was set to take effect on Monday, required all users to verify their ages before they could open accounts and required minors under 18 to obtain parental consent to do so.

NetChoice, whose members include Meta's Facebook and Instagram, Alphabet's YouTube, Snap Inc's Snapchat and Elon Musk's X, sued in June, arguing the law, H.B. 1126, signed into law by Republican Governor Tate Reeves, stifled users' free speech and would force online businesses to censor speech.
July 1, 2024

The Court's Trump immunity decision is a blueprint for dictatorship.

Vox


The Court’s six Republicans handed down a decision on Monday that gives Donald Trump such sweeping immunity from prosecution that there are unlikely to be any legal checks on his behavior if he returns to the White House. The Court’s three Democrats dissented.

Trump v. United States is an astonishing opinion. It holds that presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution — essentially, a license to commit crimes — so long as they use the official powers of their office to do so.

Broadly speaking, Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion reaches three conclusions. The first is that when the president takes any action under the authority given to him by the Constitution itself, his authority is “conclusive and preclusive” and thus he cannot be prosecuted. Thus, for example, a president could not be prosecuted for pardoning someone, because the Constitution explicitly gives the chief executive the “Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States.”

One question that has loomed over this case for months is whether presidential immunity is so broad that the president could order the military to assassinate a political rival. While this case was before a lower court, one judge asked if Trump could be prosecuted if he’d ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” and Trump’s lawyer answered that he could not unless Trump had previously been successfully impeached and convicted for doing so.

Roberts’s opinion in Trump, however, seems to go even further than Trump’s lawyer did. The Constitution, after all, states that the president “shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” So, if presidential authority is “conclusive and preclusive” when presidents exercise their constitutionally granted powers, the Court appears to have ruled that yes, Trump could order the military to assassinate one of his political opponents. And nothing can be done to him for it.



https://x.com/imillhiser/status/1807843504279678988
July 1, 2024

Elie Mystal's response to Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader
@RalphNader

A dictatorial, unelected majority in the Supreme Court has just rendered America a dictatorial president above the law. Thank you Hillary Clinton, whose blundering campaign let the dictatorial Trump become president and led to a rightwing dictatorial majority on the Supreme Court. -R

Elie Mystal
@ElieNYC

MAYBE CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS ISN'T THERE TO WRITE THIS OPINION TODAY IF YOU DON' T RUN FOR PRESIDENT OR DID YOU THINK PEOPLE WOULD FORGET THAT ON TODAY OF ALL MOTHERFUCKING DAYS???

https://x.com/ElieNYC/status/1807841731435717056
July 1, 2024

I know the election is months away (which in a lifetime for a campaign)... but I'm getting kind of anxious

Because I feel like the universe is aligning for Trump. This man is like a cockroach, he just won't go away. He seems more lucky than a cat with 9 lives.

On top of that, I came across a couple of videos that got a lot of reactions this weekend that ranted about the debate. Specifically, the parts that caught my attention is that they blame Joe Biden for the loss of abortion rights, so they question why should we elect Joe Biden to restore Roe since "he's the reason it's gone." Seemingly, these videos are people that did vote for Joe Biden in 2020. I'm kind of worried that although abortion is sticking to the Republican Party, it is not sticking as much to Trump specifically as it does to the broader Republican Party.

I feel that a certain slice of people that do care about abortion rights aren't connecting Trump to the judges he appointed that overturned Roe; or, generally, they aren't connecting the Supreme Court to the loss, or restoration and preservation, of abortion rights and therefore aren't seeing the need to have a Democrat in the White House to appoint judges that could restore and/or preserve abortion rights.

People commented and made response videos but the lies spread faster than the truthful responses.

Profile Information

Member since: Sun May 27, 2018, 06:53 PM
Number of posts: 8,644
Latest Discussions»In It to Win It's Journal