Very good summary, very complicated indeed. Thank you Techno, outstanding explanation and report! I anxiously await what Garland comes up with now. Should be very interesting.
Thank you Techno, this is the clearest, most comprehensive and well-articulated explanation of what SCOTUS ruling was, and what it means, and its practical implications in terms of pending litigation. Analysis very well done!
Great summary, thank you. Merchan’s order kicking the sentencing was interesting. He wrote sentencing will be on September 18 at 10 AM “if such is still necessary.” Does that suggest he’ll grant a mistrial based on the wrongly admitted evidence of Trump’s official acts while serving as president? I’d like to think so but Merchan has been so over the top with his TDS that he’ll probably find some excuse to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Thank you Techno for using your daughter's nap time to reach out to us/your readers.
I'm curious if the crazy rape allegation lady's trial judgement is now also in jeopardy. SC indicated that President's First Amendment rights were fulsome - and I believe she sued that Trump's tweets defending himself damaged her reputation or something like that.
Also curious for your take on whether SC (or the other lawfare types) were true-believers that the Supremes would rule in their favor? On the one hand, they seemed shocked. On the other hand, given the lengthy majority opinion covering so much of the Presidential Immunity doctrine, it seems like an experienced Constitutional lawyer wouldn't be surprised by all this?
I would be in agreement with you on this assessment but I believe the Court said that the President has broad first amendment rights so that he can speak directly to the American people. It seemed to me that defending himself with regard to this woman's accusations might fall into the "broad" category - particularly since the comments were in response to a reporter's questions (during a press interview, etc.). IE he didn't just walk up to a podium and say "I didn't do this, she's a nut". If a reporter thinks it is valuable to request a president respond to an allegation, one would think his response would be covered by both presidential immunity and the need for the president to speak directly to the public.
The U.S. Supreme Court did in fact rule on constitutional issues. The problem is
that that court needs to uphold the constitution in order to rule on it. Indeed,
that high court oversees all the inferior courts in which it has greenlighted prosecutions that overturn a defendant's presumption of innocence over and over again. It did it four times in the prosecutions against Defendant Trump. The gameplan is a repetitious one. A politically unpopular defendant is targeted by the prosecutor. He goes to news media to demonize the defendant in any number of ways before the case gets to trial. In so doing, he has indoctrinated the minds of the prospective jurors. This is unprofessional misconduct of the worse kind. Yet, the judges all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court approve of it. Thus, you have courts in direct opposition to the the very U.S. Constitution that they are supposed to uphold. Incredibly, this corruption has been in their toolbox for the last 61 years. Major change is needed!
I appreciate your concise writing. My thought is that there was indeed fraud in the election which has been proven over and over again. Also there was no action on J6 to disrupt the process on to send the process back to the involved states as is required. Pence's 30 pieces of silver to betray us, we the people, not Trump has been proven over and over. It has been proven that J6 was a false flag operation just like so very many other actions. It is also a fact that Biden was sworn in earlier than he was supposed to be and that DARPA seized control of computer accounts that they had been blocked from at the same time as the false swearing in ceremony.
Yes. It would appear that in order to charge President Trump with “falsely” claiming election fraud in Georgia, then there must be an investigation of the voting irregularities, including an independent assessment of the physical ballots. So far, authorities have refused to allow inspection of ballots and have recently gone so far to declare that they will destroy the ballots because “they have no storage space”.
Trump’s attorneys should demand a full, legitimate investigation of his vote count fraud.
Thank you for such a great detailed over view of how the Supreme Courts judgment will affect the irregular cases being brought against President Trump. One thing in particular came to mind was the forced exposure of information in the President’s office. That information could be of such a nature to harmful to our nation. There should be guidelines to protect the presidency and the country. I believe that the prosecution and the judge overreached what should be boundaries for both on them as they went fishing for anything they could hold against President Trump. This was not done in one case alone but was also used in the FBI’s invasion of the President’s residence searching for anything that could be used against President Trump. Everything done thus far in all cases was brought forth by the Biden administration and was politically motivated.
Here is a great quote of yours: "Everything done thus far in all cases was brought forth by the Biden administration and was politically motivated." Indeed, in all four of the prosecutions against President Trump, both state and federal, the guiding directive was politics. However, what is it that could override politics? Do we not have a system that could ensure that politics does not control how a case is prosecuted? Most incredibly, we do. The problem is that the public has been blinded from the guardrails that are in place to overrule politics. Those guardrails come from the rules of professional conduct that regulate prosecutors. Those rules mandate that prosecutors absolutely cannot use the news media (either overtly or by leaks) to demonize the targeted defendant outside the judicial process. Despite the rules, they did it in every case. Worse, the state bar associations and the judiciary overseers underwrote every step of these illicit actions. Thus, the only way to keep politics out of cases like these is to discipline the wrongdoers who overturn their own rules of professional conduct.
The Court not only promulgated a monstrous decision; it gave us a concoction of nonsense that I don't even think the court believed in. I suggest reading the dazzling dissent of Sonia Sotomayor. Among other things, I supplemented Sotomayor's magnificent dissent by noting that the doctrine against pleading inconsistent positions, in and itself, should have led to a complete rejection of Trump's positon.
Very good summary, very complicated indeed. Thank you Techno, outstanding explanation and report! I anxiously await what Garland comes up with now. Should be very interesting.
Outstanding distillation of a relatively complicated issue. Thank you for even handed approach and concise writting style.
Thank you Techno, this is the clearest, most comprehensive and well-articulated explanation of what SCOTUS ruling was, and what it means, and its practical implications in terms of pending litigation. Analysis very well done!
Great summary, thank you. Merchan’s order kicking the sentencing was interesting. He wrote sentencing will be on September 18 at 10 AM “if such is still necessary.” Does that suggest he’ll grant a mistrial based on the wrongly admitted evidence of Trump’s official acts while serving as president? I’d like to think so but Merchan has been so over the top with his TDS that he’ll probably find some excuse to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Thank you Techno for using your daughter's nap time to reach out to us/your readers.
I'm curious if the crazy rape allegation lady's trial judgement is now also in jeopardy. SC indicated that President's First Amendment rights were fulsome - and I believe she sued that Trump's tweets defending himself damaged her reputation or something like that.
Also curious for your take on whether SC (or the other lawfare types) were true-believers that the Supremes would rule in their favor? On the one hand, they seemed shocked. On the other hand, given the lengthy majority opinion covering so much of the Presidential Immunity doctrine, it seems like an experienced Constitutional lawyer wouldn't be surprised by all this?
I doubt immunity will apply to Crazy Carroll’s defamation case. Trump’s comments had nothing to do with his official duties.
The immunity decision was expected based on the prior immunity cases. The lefty nitwits were just gaslighting.
I would be in agreement with you on this assessment but I believe the Court said that the President has broad first amendment rights so that he can speak directly to the American people. It seemed to me that defending himself with regard to this woman's accusations might fall into the "broad" category - particularly since the comments were in response to a reporter's questions (during a press interview, etc.). IE he didn't just walk up to a podium and say "I didn't do this, she's a nut". If a reporter thinks it is valuable to request a president respond to an allegation, one would think his response would be covered by both presidential immunity and the need for the president to speak directly to the public.
The U.S. Supreme Court did in fact rule on constitutional issues. The problem is
that that court needs to uphold the constitution in order to rule on it. Indeed,
that high court oversees all the inferior courts in which it has greenlighted prosecutions that overturn a defendant's presumption of innocence over and over again. It did it four times in the prosecutions against Defendant Trump. The gameplan is a repetitious one. A politically unpopular defendant is targeted by the prosecutor. He goes to news media to demonize the defendant in any number of ways before the case gets to trial. In so doing, he has indoctrinated the minds of the prospective jurors. This is unprofessional misconduct of the worse kind. Yet, the judges all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court approve of it. Thus, you have courts in direct opposition to the the very U.S. Constitution that they are supposed to uphold. Incredibly, this corruption has been in their toolbox for the last 61 years. Major change is needed!
Thank you.
I appreciate your concise writing. My thought is that there was indeed fraud in the election which has been proven over and over again. Also there was no action on J6 to disrupt the process on to send the process back to the involved states as is required. Pence's 30 pieces of silver to betray us, we the people, not Trump has been proven over and over. It has been proven that J6 was a false flag operation just like so very many other actions. It is also a fact that Biden was sworn in earlier than he was supposed to be and that DARPA seized control of computer accounts that they had been blocked from at the same time as the false swearing in ceremony.
Yes. It would appear that in order to charge President Trump with “falsely” claiming election fraud in Georgia, then there must be an investigation of the voting irregularities, including an independent assessment of the physical ballots. So far, authorities have refused to allow inspection of ballots and have recently gone so far to declare that they will destroy the ballots because “they have no storage space”.
Trump’s attorneys should demand a full, legitimate investigation of his vote count fraud.
Thank you for such a great detailed over view of how the Supreme Courts judgment will affect the irregular cases being brought against President Trump. One thing in particular came to mind was the forced exposure of information in the President’s office. That information could be of such a nature to harmful to our nation. There should be guidelines to protect the presidency and the country. I believe that the prosecution and the judge overreached what should be boundaries for both on them as they went fishing for anything they could hold against President Trump. This was not done in one case alone but was also used in the FBI’s invasion of the President’s residence searching for anything that could be used against President Trump. Everything done thus far in all cases was brought forth by the Biden administration and was politically motivated.
Here is a great quote of yours: "Everything done thus far in all cases was brought forth by the Biden administration and was politically motivated." Indeed, in all four of the prosecutions against President Trump, both state and federal, the guiding directive was politics. However, what is it that could override politics? Do we not have a system that could ensure that politics does not control how a case is prosecuted? Most incredibly, we do. The problem is that the public has been blinded from the guardrails that are in place to overrule politics. Those guardrails come from the rules of professional conduct that regulate prosecutors. Those rules mandate that prosecutors absolutely cannot use the news media (either overtly or by leaks) to demonize the targeted defendant outside the judicial process. Despite the rules, they did it in every case. Worse, the state bar associations and the judiciary overseers underwrote every step of these illicit actions. Thus, the only way to keep politics out of cases like these is to discipline the wrongdoers who overturn their own rules of professional conduct.
Techno,
I am deeply honored to support your work,
thank you.
Outstanding work! Thank you.
Thank you for the summary. It’s nice to have it all in one place……
Thanks for the summary…
🚼 Blessings & congratulations becoming a dear father who even makes great use of Nap Time‼️❤️🙏
Very helpful I have been waiting for your input for I value your legal analysis.
Excellent assessment! Thank you
The Court not only promulgated a monstrous decision; it gave us a concoction of nonsense that I don't even think the court believed in. I suggest reading the dazzling dissent of Sonia Sotomayor. Among other things, I supplemented Sotomayor's magnificent dissent by noting that the doctrine against pleading inconsistent positions, in and itself, should have led to a complete rejection of Trump's positon.
https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/the-supreme-courts-deformation-of