The Donald Trump Score Card

That's the type of mess Trump loves.

He and his attorneys created a similar mess, temporarily, by convincing Judge Cannon to assign a special master in the documents case to conduct of lengthy inspection of what government documents supposedly were Trump's (such as ones supposedly made his property because they were mixed in with his golf pants or ones he wrote his personal notes on) and which ones belonged to the government (which were the government's property all along).

Cannon was overruled by the 11th Circuit which also wrote a scathing opinion of her. If the U.S. Supreme Court says Trump has immunity, it won't be as easy for a circuit court to overrule an entity like the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

The fact that Trump even managed to get Judge Cannon to oversee his documents case is uncanny. His attorneys traveled about 70 miles to the courthouse where she works with other judges and filed the cases in person, claiming that an unspecified 'technical glitch' prevented them from doing it online like just about every attorney does in today's age.

It could have been just luck. The way Trump operates, though, it gives the impression that under the table activity happened at the courthouse that made it such that Trump ended up with Cannon.

 

Sauer's claim insulates a president from being criminally charged for selling government secrets to adversaries.


At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument

excerpts:

"She also probed Sauer about two hypothetical scenarios to see whether he believed they involved official acts: a president's selling nuclear secrets to a foreign enemy and a president's ordering the military to conduct a coup.

Sauer said both could constitute official acts, meaning the president could be immune from prosecution."

 

Trump had plenty of warning from the more rationale-minded people around him to return the government documents.


Former official told investigators Trump had 'no standing declassification order' regarding documents, filing says

excerpt:

"In late October or early November of 2021, nearly a year before a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago was issued, the former official appealed to Trump to return government records, according to the filings.

"Whatever you have, give it all back," the 302 quotes the former official saying they told Trump.

The former official described an effort get multiple people close to Trump, including his children, to tell him, "There are issues with the boxes. They belong to the government, talk to your dad about giving them back. It's not worth the aggravation."

By late November of 2021, the warnings grew more stark, the former official told investigators. The former official describes telling Trump, who was dressed in golf attire, "Whatever you have, give everything back. Don't give them a reason to indict you, because they will."

Trump responded with a "weird 'you're the man' type of response," the former official told investigators."

 

Judge Kragen raised the issue to Trump's attorney Sauer of trying to cloak criminal behavior in 'official acts of a president' to insulate him from prosecution.


At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument

excerpts:

"The defendant asked the Arizona House Speaker to call the Legislature into session to hold a hearing based on their claims of election fraud," she said.

"We have taken the position that that is official," Sauer responded, saying it is an official act "to defend the integrity of a federal election."


Sauer's response drew skepticism from Kagan.

“Well, ‘attempting to defend the integrity of the election,’ I mean, that’s the defense,” she said. “The allegation is that he was attempting to overthrow an election.”

 

At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument

excerpt:

"Sauer's main argument was that the entire indictment is premised on official acts, which should be protected by immunity in part to ensure that presidents' hands are not tied over fear of prosecution after they leave office.

Sauer accepted that Trump can be prosecuted for private acts that were not tied to his official duties as president."

 

Trump says a president must have absolute immunity so that he can be quite amazing, otherwise the U.S. won't have a country anymore.


Trump says it was 'made clear' that a president 'has to have immunity,' during 'monumental' SCOTUS arguments

excerpt:

"Trump echoed his past argument that without immunity, the president would be reduced to just a "ceremonial" position.

"That’s not what the founders had in mind," he said. "We want presidents that can get quite amazing—quite amazing."

The former president said the Supreme Court justices "were on their game."

"So let’s see how that turns out," he said. "But again, I say presidential immunity is very powerful. Presidential immunity is imperative, or you practically won’t have a country anymore.""

 

Trump has Wednesdays off in this criminal trial in NY so that the judge can handle other issues.

This Wednesday, Judge Merchan will be seeing Steve Bannon at a pre-trial hearing for the 'We Build The Wall' scheme.

Trump pardoned Bannon before his federal criminal case had a chance to go to trial.

Bannon was charged with state crimes in NY by Alvin Bragg which can't be pardoned by Trump..


Bannon Due in Court Over 'We Build the Wall' Scheme Wednesday

 

'Surprising' and 'disturbing': Legal experts react to Supreme Court arguments on Trump's immunity claim

excerpt:

"Justice Samuel Alito even posited if, without immunity, presidents would be incentivized to commit crimes in order to stay in power rather than peacefully retire because of concern they will be prosecuted by a "bitter political opponent" after leaving office.

"Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?" Alito asked."

 

This problem didn't seem to exist until Trump came along.

Giving Trump immunity would mean that he could violate laws to try stay in office indefinitely anyway, regardless of the possibility of him wanting to stay in office illegally for fear of being prosecuted by a political rival after leaving office.

Trump is already accused of violated laws to try to stay in office. He did that without immunity. Think of what he would do with immunity.

 

What demonic power does he have over these guys....and the GOP ?

 

No sign of Ivanka either.

The least Melania and Ivanka could do is show up for just one event with Trump at his criminal trial. It would show support that Trump claims they have.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/30/tru...second-term-economic-agenda-analysts-say.html

excerpt:

"A second Trump term could bring higher tariffs, attempts to weaken the dollar, even higher deficits, deportation of illegal immigrants, and other policies that could put upward pressure on inflation," Piper Sandler analysts wrote last week.

"Most of the major policy initiatives being suggested by Donald Trump's campaign would be inflationary," Paul Ashworth, Capital Economics' chief North America economist wrote Monday. "Whether it's narrowing the trade deficit via tariffs or a dollar devaluation, curbing immigration or, now we learn, compromising the Fed's independence."

When it comes to tariffs, Wall Street analysts note that businesses pass on higher import costs to their customers by raising prices.

Trump flatly rejected that idea in the TIME interview. "A lot of people say, 'Oh, that's gonna be a tax on us.' I don't believe that. I think it's a tax on the country that's [exporting] it."

 

Voters in the U.S. may not understand the ramifications of Trump's economic agenda for a second term. They are harking back to a rosy view of Trump that they have now that wasn't rosy in 2020 when he was in office.

The voting public may derive some joy from the thought of having Trump stick it to foreigners, but it will have a damaging effect on their financial situation, the type that they're already complaining about, such as inflation, which would likely worsen under Trump.

 

In three swing states, the percentage of people today who view the economy as being 'good' in 2020 has nearly doubled from what they thought it was in 2020.

image;

 

The fact that Trump wasn't reelected in 2020 has given him an advantage in that four years have passed that have allowed the public to mellow on negative views that they once had of him in the 2020 era. As an example, the shock of his violent riot at the Capitol has subsided with less people now seeing it as a negative event.

Trump loyalists, such as Barr, Graham, and McConnell are an extreme example of it, but some surveys show that the voting public also has developed an increasing favorable view of Trump as the years have passed since his term ended.

Trump knows how to cultivate and harvest such sentiment. Since he announced his run for the presidency in 2015, he's continually used the ploy of going back to a supposed rosy, long-lost era of the past.

 

CLC Files Complaint Alleging Illegal Payment Set-Up for Trump Legal Fees

excerpt:

"According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid — and how much they are being paid — through this arrangement.

The arrangement also appears to have violated the federal ban on corporate political contributions: Red Curve is an LLC, which — if treated as a corporation for federal tax purposes — would be legally barred from making any contributions, such as an in-kind contribution or advance, to Trump’s campaign and any other “hard money” committee — even if that payment or advance is fully reimbursed."

 

'Surprising' and 'disturbing': Legal experts react to Supreme Court arguments on Trump's immunity claim

excerpt:

"The fact that we haven't had something like this happen before is consistent with the government's position that there are institutional norms that have largely held," said Ray Brescia, a professor at Albany Law School. "So, to upset that delicate balance because, in the words of Justice Alito, we can't hold the president accountable for trying to subvert democracy in the fear that a future president might try to subvert democracy is just totally Alice in Wonderland."

 

It's not known if Alito really believes this or if he was just playing devil's advocate to try to flesh out the issue.

It's sounds like self-parody, like saying that free and fair elections will need to be shut down by Trump and run by the military because they might become corrupt in the future.