Category Archives: legal news

legal news

Will nominee show up at RNC?

1 Comment

Given what I believe is happening with regard to convicted felon Donald Trump’s post-conviction antics, it is fair to wonder about this possibility.

It is that the 45th POTUS might be unable to attend the Republican Party nominating convention that will launch his candidacy against President Joe Biden.

Trump is going to be sentenced for the conviction handed down by the jury in NYC on 34 counts relating to an illegal hush money payment to an adult film actress, Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels.

Sentencing occurs July 11. Four days later, GOP convention delegates will meet in Milwaukee to nominate Trump for another run for the White House.

Judge Juan Merchan has wide latitude here. He could sentence Trump to jail time; he could sentence him to probation. He could impose an immediate jail term; he could say Trump can wait several weeks before reporting to the slammer.

Suppose he gets jail time. Suppose the judge orders the 45th POTUS to report immediately to the hoosegow.

That means the GOP convention will nominate an individual who is in jail, serving time for felonies committed that sought to hide an extramarital tryst. Trump denies even knowing Clifford, let alone having sex with her in the hotel room years before running for POTUS in 2016.

He paid her 130 grand anyway. Go figure.

Oh, and he’s now been calling the judge a crook, the jury was rigged, the prosecutor was biased against him.

A judge usually looks for signs of contrition in criminal defendants. He is not getting a hint of it from this defendant.

Republican convention delegates, though, are blind to the reality that they are facing … that their next presidential nominee is a felon.

legal news

What happened to SCOTUS?

For as long as I have been covering and commenting on our court system, I have followed a few basic tenets of what I consider to be fair and impartial justice.

One of them is simple and straightforward. It states that judges must always be fair, impartial and objective when interpreting the law. They cannot possibly accept gifts from litigants or potential litigants. Period. End of story.

What in the hell, then, has become of that tenet? US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas finally has owned up to the revelation that over the years, he has accepted more than $4 million in travel and other assorted gifts from wealthy contributors. One of notably is Texas gazillionaire Harlan Crow, who has given Clarence and Virginia Thomas cruise trips, first-class jetliner rides, rooms at posh hotels and Lord knows what else.

Thomas only recently reported it. He’s not required to do so under SCOTUS rules. The nation’s highest court is the single judicial institution that does not police itself … but it damn sure keeps a close eye on the conduct of other federal judges serving on lower courts.

Thomas, appointed to the high court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, has assumed the unofficial title of chief grifter on the nation’s federal judiciary.

This is simply beyond belief. Oh, and get a load of this: Justice Thomas once told a TV documentary filmmaker that he prefers stay at Walmart parking lots in his recreational vehicle because that’s how “normal” people choose to relax.

It’s not clear when this scandal will expire. It seems we keep hearing of new gifts being lavished on the Thomases from their wealthy friends, some of whom actually have legal matters pending on the highest court in the land.

I am left only to lament the presence on this court of a justice who doesn’t grasp the gravity of his acceptance of these gifts … and to call on him once again to resign!

legal news

Alito’s wife is the boss?

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has acknowledged that he flies an upside-down Old Glory at his home. It’s an international symbol of distress.

Under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t mind one little bit about the flag. However, and this is important: Alito sits on the nation’s highest court that might have to decide whether POTUS No. 45 is immune from prosecution or whether he broke the law by pilfering classified documents away from the White House.

What we have here is a perception problem.

Alito said he and his wife co-own the house they share and that he cannot dictate to her whether she can fly the flag in that manner. He said he told her to take it down, but she refused. Really?

Why in the name of good husbandship doesn’t he just take the damn thing down himself? I guess the rules in the Alito household prohibit such ballsy behavior.

To be fair, I have to hand it to Justice Alito at least for recognizing there could be a perception problem, given that he asked his wife to remove the flag. What astounds me to no end, though, is why he didn’t act on it in a more, um forceful manner.

As for Mrs. Alito, she is making a political statement that has a direct impact on how her husband might be asked to do his job.

Chief Justice John Roberts has refused to meet with congressional Democrats to discuss the matter. Alito says he won’t recuse himself from any future action involving POTUS No. 45.

And as a friend of mine said in a social media meme earlier today, it’s more than a little weird that a man who cannot control what his wife does in his house feels compelled to dictate to millions of women how they must handle reproductive rights.

We live in a bizarre political environment.

crime news, legal news

Verdict is in: guilty!

Before we dance too far into the weeds of what Donald Trump’s conviction on all 34 felony counts of illegal campaign funding, I want to share a quick thought or two.

I accept the jury’s verdict. Second of all, the 45th POTUS — as predicted — called the trial a sham, a farce and said the fight is “far from over.”

Third, and this is most critical, the seven men and five women who today delivered their decision were all approved by the prosecutors and by Trump’s legal team. They were vetted carefully in accordance with New York state law,

For the 45th POTUS to suggest the trial was rigged against him means he doesn’t accept what I have just laid out … which is that his legal team approved the jurors right along with the prosecution.

So, there you have it. We have a convicted felon running for president of the United States.

Well done, jurors.

legal news

SCOTUS justice blames wife for the flag

3 Comments

Associate US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has fallen back on the “blame my wife” defense in a case involving an upside-down flag flying at his home.

Alito has refused to recuse himself from any cases involving the former POTUS’s legal troubles involving his loyalty to the Constitution and to the nation.

He has been flying an upside-down flag at his home. The upside-down flag, of course, is the international symbol of a nation in distress.

According to The Hill: “I had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of that flag. I was not even aware of the upside-down flag until it was called to my attention. As soon as I saw it, I asked my wife to take it down, but for several days, she refused,” Alito wrote, noting that they own their home “jointly” and that she has a “legal right to use the property as she sees fit.” 

Alito is now perceived as a justice who cannot remain impartial regarding cases involving the ex-POTUS. As they about perception, it’s the same thing as reality.

Alito rejects calls to recuse himself from Jan. 6 cases over upside-down flag issue (thehill.com)

The man shouldn’t be deciding these cases. Justice Alito has laid his bias out there for the whole world to see.

legal news

Would he really jail an ex-POTUS?

4 Comments

New York District Judge Juan Merchan well could exhibit the gawdiest stones imaginable if he follows through with a veiled threat against the 45th POTUS.

You see, the former POTUS just can’t keep his trap shut despite the existence of a gag order that Merchan has imposed on him while he stands trial on allegations that he violated campaign finance laws when he paid off an adult film star.

Merchan has declared the ex-Philanderer in Chief to be in contempt of court and said he might send the criminal defendant to the hoosegow.

Wouldn’t that be rich? Well … yeah, it would be.

legal news, national news

Why delay, SCOTUS?

Many details soar over my occasionally pointed head, such as the apparent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the 45th POTUS deserves presidential immunity.

The high court heard oral arguments this week from the ex-POTUS’s legal team and the legal eagles assembled by special counsel Jack Smith. At stake is the pending trial on the Jan. 6 assault on the government that took place at the former Liar in Chief’s urging.

I heard reports yesterday that justices appear inclined to deny the ex-POTUS’s claim of immunity from prosecution, but are going to drag their feet in issuing their decision.

Why wait? Why delay this matter any longer than necessary? Why not issue a ruling and if it’s the way media have speculated, then let’s get on with the trial post haste?

SCOTUS can move quickly on these matters. Look at what they did in 2000 when given the case involving the recount of Florida ballots in that year’s presidential election. They heard oral arguments and then — boom! — stopped the recount with Texas Gov. George W. Bush ahead in Florida by 527 votes, giving him the state’s electoral votes … and thus, the presidency over Vice President Al Gore.

It was done in a matter of days.

The current SCOTUS is equally capable of delivering a decision of monumental importance.

crime news, Donald Trump, legal news, political news

First time for everything, yes?

1 Comment

POTUS No. 45 keeps bitching out loud that “this is the first time” a former president has gone to court to face a criminal prosecution.

It’s as if he’s suggesting that the unprecedented nature of the trial is unjust.

Uhhh, no. It’s not unjust, Mr. Former Liar in Chief.

It’s just that this great nation has never been led by someone so inherently corrupt. The law just caught up with the ex-Philanderer in Chief.

He’s on trial in New York City on a 33-count indictment alleging that he spent campaign funds illegally to cover up a tryst he had with an adult film actress. He paid her hush money — get ready for this — to keep quiet about an event he denies ever occurred. 

Go figure that one out, folks.

Yeah, it’s the first time a former POTUS has gone on trial. I get it. I agree, too, that No, 45 has reason to worry.

It damn sure isn’t unjust, as the ex-POTUS seems to suggest.

legal news, media news, political news

Who’s the insane one?

4 Comments

I suspect we’re going to see social media images like the one that appears on this brief blog post.

It gives anyone who backs the presumed Republican Party presidential nominee the what-for given the moron’s bizarre proclivities. The picture shows the ex-POTUS saluting a North Korean general, I presume in advance of his meeting with North Korean despot and murderer Kim Jong Un.

I cannot predict these images and texts will spell the difference in the upcoming election. They damn sure should!

To think that this idiot’s fans, cultists and minions would suggest that Joe Biden has lost his snap is, as the meme suggests, “laughably irrelevant.”

Except that I am not laughing.

legal news, national news, political news

Now … the trials await

4 Comments

The talking heads have been blabbing and blathering about the U.S. Supreme Court decision to hear the case involving presidential immunity as it regards the most recent former POTUS.

The decision likely will delay the trial that the ex-POTUS is claiming shouldn’t take place because he has some form of immunity against any of the charges brought against him.

The former Liar in Chief has four criminal trials awaiting him. The first one will occur in New York state court and will determine whether he broke campaign finance laws when he paid off an adult film star to keep quiet about a one-night tumble the two of them allegedly took before he became a candidate for president.

The trial is set to begin in March. It could end in a few weeks and, get this, the former POTUS could end up being convicted of a felony. This trial could conclude well before the November presidential election.

Then we have the three other trials. One of them involves his role in inciting the mob assault on the government; another involves his pilfering of classified documents as he left the White House; a third case is set for Fulton County, Ga., and it involves allegations that the former POTUS sought to interfere with election results.

Of the four, the first one — involving the porn star — is likely to go first.

Then the former Moron in Chief’s supporters will have to decide whether they really want to vote for a candidate who’s been convicted of a felony. Fifty percent of Republicans have made it known they cannot vote for a convicted felon.

One also has to ask why the SCOTUS chose to hear the case that had been tossed by two lower courts that ruled the former POTUS had no claim to immunity. Four justices voted to hear the case, which is all that was required. Let us hope for all our worth that the court isn’t trying to delay this matter beyond the November election.

I am going to rely on my belief in reports that Chief Justice John Roberts is concerned about the court’s public standing and will work to ensure that it decides this matter quickly. Then a trial can commence and perhaps be concluded in time for voters to make this critical decision.

The SCOTUS clearly has complicated matters unnecessarily.