"This is the end of the road for the President."
February 22, 2021 7:54 AM   Subscribe

 
Looks like SCOTUS wasn't enjoying the spotlight being shined on them sitting on the matter.
posted by NoxAeternum at 7:57 AM on February 22 [6 favorites]


Show us what you were hiding, you pathetic old gasbag.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 7:58 AM on February 22 [38 favorites]


(Thank you for the "bonus" link; I am happy to have been trolled.)

So these are still controlled documents, right -- they're treated as evidence? Or will they appear as an attachment to some public filing at some point?
posted by wenestvedt at 7:59 AM on February 22 [30 favorites]


Seeing Federalist Society types go ride-or-die for the framers' original intent or whatever instead of what's best for Republicans at any given moment... well, it doesn't exactly make me feel good, but it makes me feel something.
posted by box at 8:02 AM on February 22 [12 favorites]


As long as they’re part of an investigation, the DA has a responsibility to keep them confidential. But if they are used as support for bringing charges, they will enter the public record in a court filing.

Personally, I can’t wait.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 8:06 AM on February 22 [14 favorites]


"This is the end of the road for the President."

Surely, this.
posted by Melismata at 8:11 AM on February 22 [100 favorites]


Trump must be seething that all these Federal judges he gave jobs to aren't paying him back for his trouble.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:11 AM on February 22 [40 favorites]


The Supreme Court also issued an opinion about Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid, with John Roberts joining the liberal judges in voting to leave intact a ruling about Pennsylvania extending the deadline for mail-in ballots (Bloomberg). Somebody who knows more about law than I do, which is almost anybody, might have something meaningful to say about that.
posted by box at 8:12 AM on February 22 [7 favorites]


that 2nd link.. does anyone want to weigh in on the blinding speed it took this to become the preeminent rickroll of these times? on one level this shit happens in such a natural way: of course I will click this link, of course I know what to expect, etc. but how would you explain this to an alien? "Well there's this 80s song you see.." What a time to be alive.
posted by elkevelvet at 8:20 AM on February 22 [21 favorites]


People were doing it for Roger Stone's twitter account for a long time, elkevelvet. It's much more satisfying when you click on Trump's though because that was like his... thing. I dunno what other person I associate more with one specific website or item as their totem/source of power.
posted by OnTheLastCastle at 8:22 AM on February 22 [8 favorites]


I love that the justices didn’t even comment.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 8:25 AM on February 22 [9 favorites]


Lock him up!
posted by Splunge at 8:25 AM on February 22 [14 favorites]


I first saw the blank twitter gloat after Milo Yiannopoulos was kicked off in 2016.
posted by muddgirl at 8:38 AM on February 22 [5 favorites]


Who?
posted by thejoshu at 8:48 AM on February 22 [54 favorites]


People were doing it for Roger Stone's twitter account for a long time, elkevelvet. It's much more satisfying when you click on Trump's though because that was like his... thing. I dunno what other person I associate more with one specific website or item as their totem/source of power.

Given his transphobia, you'd think his Twitter account was his horcrux.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 8:49 AM on February 22 [2 favorites]


The Supreme Court also issued an opinion about Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid,

Rick Hasen (UC Irvine law prof) Twitter thread on the topic

immediate reason: the whole case is moot, because election is over & Biden would have won even without Penn; SC deciding not to bother hearing a case where a ruling won't change anything is pretty common.

Medium-range speculation: SC as a whole is sick and tired of Trump election shenanigans & the spotlight that results; Barrett & Kavanagh are waiting for a "live" case where a similar ruling actually changes an election in favor of conservatives (because this would blow up the right of state SC's to rule on state election laws a.k.a. "independent legislature doctrine", which is a right wing concept that would let R-dominated state legislatures essentially decide who wins an election regardless of actual voting results; no point throwing this bomb unless you can actually get results.)

Medium/long range: "So the bottom line is that the independent state legislature doctrine hangs out there, as a ticking time bomb, waiting to go off in a future case."
posted by soundguy99 at 8:51 AM on February 22 [23 favorites]


Somebody who knows more about law than I do, which is almost anybody, might have something meaningful to say about that.

I've not dug much into it, but one take I saw called out part of Thomas' dissent seems to be more or less arguing that it's not enough to show that there's no evidence of fraud that that you have to somehow prove that there wasn't any. I wonder if he'd be interested in a tiger preventing rock as well.
posted by Candleman at 9:05 AM on February 22 [9 favorites]


"This is the end of the road for the President."

Surely, this.

"Roads? Where we're going we don't need 'roads'."
posted by otherchaz at 9:07 AM on February 22


"This is the end of the road for the President."

President? I think not.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 9:08 AM on February 22 [9 favorites]


"This is the end of the road for the President."

Former president.

/takes a long drag, closes eyes
posted by saturday_morning at 9:20 AM on February 22 [67 favorites]


I wonder if he'd be interested in a tiger preventing rock as well.

Funny, I read it the exact opposite way; Thomas seems to be arguing that correlation is not enough, that it's important to have an understanding of why the phenomenon (in this case a non-fraudulent election) exists rather than accepting the result at face value. I happen to agree with him on that but I also believe that sufficient evidence was supplied by state election committees before being completely ignored by conservatives.

Surely, this.

I am right in line with this sentiment. Trump is going to do every sleazy, mobsteresque thing he can think of to keep his finances from seeing the light of day. I think this is gonna be the Nixon tapes of the 21st century.
posted by Leeway at 9:27 AM on February 22 [3 favorites]


It does look like Trump and his minions are going to spend a lot of time and money in court for the next couple of years. (WaPo) overview of some of the lawsuits and other court cases.
To me (not a lawyer and certainly not an American lawyer), it looks like these people are so incredibly, monumentally stupid that they may loose some or even all of those cases, and invite some really interesting investigations, because they are insisting that their lies are truths. But I guess we won't know until they are under oath.
posted by mumimor at 9:27 AM on February 22 [3 favorites]


Who?

His name was Robert Paulson.
posted by Omon Ra at 9:30 AM on February 22 [5 favorites]


Former president.

Former TV personality.
posted by mikelieman at 9:41 AM on February 22 [21 favorites]


If you're religious you might take comfort in the idea that there may be consequences for his actions after he dies, but otherwise I wouldn't hold your breath. He'll just fundraise off the rubes, use the money to do everything he can to delay his day in court and run out the clock until he dies. The only people or institutions in this world who can actually hold him to any sort of account are other mobsters.
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:41 AM on February 22 [22 favorites]


Former TV personality.

Former Steak pitchman
posted by glaucon at 9:43 AM on February 22 [4 favorites]


I think this is gonna be the Nixon tapes of the 21st century.

He has exhausted his appeals. Wouldn't there be felony criminal penalties for Mazars USA (or him) to withhold or falsify evidence, at this point?
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 9:44 AM on February 22 [3 favorites]


Former TV personality.

Former Steak pitchman.


Former twitter gobshite.
posted by Catblack at 9:47 AM on February 22 [20 favorites]


Former game show host.
posted by drstrangelove at 9:59 AM on February 22 [10 favorites]


Bonus: Trump's Twitter Reaction

I knew exactly what was going to be at the end of that link, and I clicked it anyway, and I still enjoyed it. Truly, this is the best of the web.
posted by mhoye at 9:59 AM on February 22 [45 favorites]


I also like “alleged billionaire“. But then I guess this case will settle the issue, if he actually provides the evidence.
posted by cardboard at 9:59 AM on February 22 [17 favorites]


Teetotaler and former (er, current) booze dealer.
posted by at by at 10:03 AM on February 22 [1 favorite]


I also like “alleged billionaire“. But then I guess this case will settle the issue, if he actually provides the evidence.

I suspect there may have been billions in his accounts at one time or another. Whether or not it actually belonged to him, or was just part of a large scale international money laundering setup is another question.
posted by nubs at 10:08 AM on February 22 [20 favorites]


While Trump finances are under scrutiny, I would really like to see the Scottish government get involved and take a look at Turnberry. I thought they had made noises about looking at its perpetually-losing-money status, but nothing came of it. The rumors have always been that Turnberry was being used to launder Russian money. The Scottish government closing Prestwick (as they had intended,) now that Trump isn't funneling US military money to the airport, would be sweet, too.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:45 AM on February 22 [14 favorites]


Former game show host.

I think this is the platonic ideal. Good workshopping people. I'm buying the first round.
posted by mikelieman at 10:53 AM on February 22 [19 favorites]


Thomas seems to be arguing that correlation is not enough, that it's important to have an understanding of why the phenomenon (in this case a non-fraudulent election) exists rather than accepting the result at face value.

Thomas does not operate under good faith so don't give him too much credit. The fact that he cites Bush vs. Gore helps illustrate what the intent is.

Here's the full document (page 25). It argues, among other things, that if a state legislature enacts election laws, they have to be followed, even if those laws will have a negative effect on the election. That having an appearance of lacking "confusion" is more important than democratic representation (which reminded me of Scalia's statement that "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."). That the state supreme courts are unqualified to rule on their state's laws. And ignores the fact that the mailing date extension was a direct response to partisan disruption of the mail system (and even if the disruption wasn't partisan, that it would still be more important to have the lack of confusion than to ensure that people are allowed to vote).

And perhaps most importantly, focuses on spreading the idea that absentee ballots are used for fraud.
posted by Candleman at 10:58 AM on February 22 [12 favorites]


He has exhausted his appeals. Wouldn't there be felony criminal penalties for Mazars USA (or him) to withhold or falsify evidence, at this point?

Sure, but as long as the penalties for withholding evidence are less bad than the consequences of that info getting into the wild, he'll fight tooth and nail to keep them (or at least parts of them) hidden from public view.
posted by Leeway at 11:02 AM on February 22 [3 favorites]


Former everything

Still, and always, a Republican.
posted by nushustu at 11:03 AM on February 22 [6 favorites]


If you're religious you might take comfort in the idea that there may be consequences for his actions after he dies, but otherwise I wouldn't hold your breath.

True but I'm hoping that it puts closer scrutiny on what his devious spawn are doing outside of the spotlight. With rumours of Eric's wife Lara running for the U.S. Senate seat in 2022, Ivanka doing the same if/when a Florida seat comes open, and how much money-laundering fuckery that Jared, Uday and Qusay are up to at any moment, best to put the screws to them earlier rather than when one of them is giving their nomination acceptance speech at the 2024/28/32 GOP convention.
posted by hangashore at 11:20 AM on February 22 [9 favorites]


Former wrestling heel without being a wrestler ( . . . but . . . aren't those usually people *playing* at being bad guys?)
posted by Seamus at 11:20 AM on February 22 [2 favorites]


Still, and always, a Republican.

From August 2001 to December 2011 he called himself a Democrat.
posted by kinnakeet at 11:29 AM on February 22 [11 favorites]


Who?

That's a Republican's line.
posted by zardoz at 11:37 AM on February 22


Thomas seems to be arguing that correlation is not enough, that it's important to have an understanding of why the phenomenon (in this case a non-fraudulent election) exists rather than accepting the result at face value. I happen to agree with him on that but I also believe that sufficient evidence was supplied by state election committees before being completely ignored by conservatives.

Yeah, no. Thomas' "correllation" is "just because no laws were broken doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed," a sophism that definitely requires the double-negative in order to appear to be logical.

It's a call to enumerate every single detail that can be said to define a fair election, after which a single element will be discovered to not have been satisfied, an element not even necessarily enshrined in law, which is then leveraged into a whole new argument, going "Ah HA" and relitigating the entire Ghilooly again. "Prove you aren't a murderer." "Well, I haven't killed anyb-" "No, not what you haven't done, what you HAVE done." It also lets the people who claim fraud without evidence off the hook.

It's a twist on the classic "make 'em follow their own rules" attack.
posted by rhizome at 11:52 AM on February 22 [16 favorites]


From August 2001 to December 2011 he called himself a Democrat.

DINO
posted by nushustu at 12:21 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]


The Scottish government closing Prestwick (as they had intended,) now that Trump isn't funneling US military money to the airport, would be sweet, too.

Or, as a Ryanair ad run in Norway called it, London Prestwick Airport.
posted by acb at 12:24 PM on February 22 [5 favorites]


From August 2001 to December 2011 he called himself a Democrat.
[B]ullshitters, although they represent themselves as being engaged simply in conveying information, are not engaged in that enterprise at all. Instead, most essentially, they are fakers and phonies who are attempting by what they say to manipulate the opinions and attitudes of those to whom they speak. What they care about primarily, therefore, is whether what they say is effective in accomplishing this manipulation. Correspondingly, they are more or less indifferent to whether what they say is true or whether it is false.
- Harry Frankfurt
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 12:32 PM on February 22 [10 favorites]


And the really infuriating thing about Thomas' argument that it's critical to avoid confusion is that (virtually) all of the "confusion" was caused by either the Republicans fighting steps to allow people to vote safely or by lying about what happened. It's attempting to enshrine the practice of intentionally creating confusion in order to allow the Supreme Court to step in selectively control or overrule voting.
posted by Candleman at 12:40 PM on February 22 [15 favorites]


If you want to be a public servant you should be subject to public scrutiny. I don't think this is a difficult concept. Politicians don't get to keep secrets about how much money they have or where it comes from.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 12:45 PM on February 22 [27 favorites]


Correspondingly, they are more or less indifferent to whether what they say is true or whether it is false.

That said, Trump can definitely be called a Republican with some objective certainty, insofar as the Republican Party has effectively ceded its identity to him, allowing itself to be defined entirely by his actions in and out of office.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:12 PM on February 22 [3 favorites]


Unbelievable to me, that his tax returns have't been leaked. I assume that like any entity with a secure database, the workers on the inside can query the data. Is the lid on the IRS really that tight? So weird.
posted by Rash at 1:23 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]


Is the lid on the IRS really that tight?

I bet it got special attention from the FBI to prevent a leak. Plus, the GOP has defanged the IRS with continuous pressure over the last many decades. Releasing or leaking Trump’s tax returns would have dramatically damaged the org from the GOP.
posted by glaucon at 1:33 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]


Somebody gave the New York Times (see also) twenty years of them, though I think the speculation is that it's more likely somebody at an accounting firm than it is somebody at the IRS.
posted by box at 1:34 PM on February 22 [5 favorites]


Is the lid on the IRS really that tight?

I think we've had that discussion before, maybe there is a MeFite who has worked in accounting or for the IRS who had some insider knowledge? As I remember it, privacy is guarded religiously by the IRS, even for potentially bad guys. It makes sense, since the whole system would break down if people didn't trust their personal information would be treated safely.
posted by mumimor at 1:46 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]


Yeah, but didn't the Supreme Court just rule that it was ok to release it?
posted by Melismata at 1:48 PM on February 22


Still, and always, a Republican.
From August 2001 to December 2011 he called himself a Democrat.


He changed his political affiliation like a half-dozen times, and was a member of both major parties, the Reform Party, and independent. I think the moral of this shitty story is that he was willing to ingratiate himself to anyone he perceived as being able to do him political and business favors.

1987 - Republican Party
1999 - Independence Party
2000 - ran for president as Reform Party candidate
2001 - Democratic Party
2009 - Republican Party
2011 - no party
2012 - Republican Party
posted by aught at 1:50 PM on February 22 [20 favorites]


If you want to be a public servant you should be subject to public scrutiny. I don't think this is a difficult concept. Politicians don't get to keep secrets about how much money they have or where it comes from.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia


Yep. If you seek or hold power, you get scrutiny, and the more power, the more scrutiny.

Also doesn't matter to me if it is public or private power. If you have power, you get held to account for how you acquire and use it.

Not negotiable.
posted by Pouteria at 1:58 PM on February 22 [9 favorites]


Yeah, but didn't the Supreme Court just rule that it was ok to release it?

As evidence to the grand jury investigation, yes, but not to the public:
Any documents produced under the Mazars subpoena would be protected from public disclosure by grand jury secrecy rules,” the panel said in an unsigned opinion, “which greatly reduces the plausibility of the allegation that the district attorney is acting out of a desire to embarrass the president.”
This seems to increase the odds that it will be leaked, but the ruling does still officially limit disclosure.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:59 PM on February 22 [3 favorites]


In some other even weirder and worse timeline Trump and Ross Perot won the office back in the late 80s and people are basically living in a Bioshock game right now.
posted by loquacious at 2:02 PM on February 22 [14 favorites]


Hm, maybe I should actually play Bioshock since Nvidia did give me a free steam code for it when they stopped selling games themselves on GeForce Now. That way I could know what we have narrowly avoided. (For the time being anyway)
posted by wierdo at 2:13 PM on February 22 [1 favorite]


They got Al Capone on tax fraud, too.
posted by basalganglia at 4:38 PM on February 22 [7 favorites]


I'm optimistic today, after watching a bit of the Garland hearings and reading about the endless idiocy of the Trump lawyers. Add in Cruz going to Mexico for good measure.
I think they will "get" Trump for a lot more than tax fraud. He has been protected by "his" AGs. Now they are gone. Senate Republicans don't seem eager to obstruct justice when it comes to Trump, he is a huge problem they can't get rid of politically because they are a bunch of spineless hypocrites.
posted by mumimor at 4:50 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]


I thought they built that wall to keep Cruz out of Mexico.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 4:54 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]


Would you kindly Make Rapture Great Again.
posted by glonous keming at 5:01 PM on February 22 [4 favorites]


maybe I should actually play Bioshock since Nvidia did give me a free steam code for it when they stopped selling games themselves on GeForce Now. That way I could know what we have narrowly avoided. (For the time being anyway)

Or Last of Us 1 & 2!
posted by glaucon at 5:35 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]


Speaking of SCOTUS, Clarence Thomas is going all in on mail-in ballots being evil.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 5:47 PM on February 22 [5 favorites]


Trump can definitely be called a Republican with some objective certainty, insofar as the Republican Party has effectively ceded its identity to him, allowing itself to be defined entirely by his actions in and out of office.

You bet he can: he didn't do jack shit. Since the Republican philosophy is "small government," him golfing most of the time, Mitch locking down Senate work to "half of what Republicans propose and none of what Democrats do," decimating countless departments by attrition, reducing leadership to acting positions that don't bother the Senate with confirmations...government was small indeed under Trump, both in size and activity.
posted by rhizome at 5:48 PM on February 22 [3 favorites]


Speaking of SCOTUS, Clarence Thomas is going all in on mail-in ballots being evil.

Five states have had all-mail voting for two decades. Thiry-four states have had no-excuse absentee ballots for 45 years. Vote by mail isn't anything new, but if it were up to Clarence he would go all in on the women's vote being evil, too.
posted by JackFlash at 6:41 PM on February 22 [22 favorites]


Clarence Thomas is Uncle Ruckus personified.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:06 PM on February 22 [8 favorites]


Trump hasn't actually exhausted his appeals, I think. I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that the dismissal was of a request for a hold pending a full appeal. Given the lack of dissent, or even signature, of the dismissal, the former game show host's legal team realize and advise him that a actual appeal would be ridiculed. I'll be interested to see whether that advice prevails or whether the narcissist forges ahead and forces some hack to proceed.
posted by anadem at 8:15 PM on February 22 [2 favorites]


Thomas' dissent seems to be more or less arguing that it's not enough to show that there's no evidence of fraud that that you have to somehow prove that there wasn't any. I wonder if he'd be interested in a tiger preventing rock as well.

Or perhaps we can interest him in a blockchain...
posted by pwnguin at 10:03 PM on February 22


[One deleted. To keep this thread on topic, let's not get into general US election / voting supression discussion. kliuless, your comment would make a fine FPP on that issue, though, just as it is. If you'd like to post it, let me know if you need your text.]
posted by taz (staff) at 12:32 AM on February 23 [4 favorites]


> Speaking of SCOTUS, Clarence Thomas is going all in on mail-in ballots being evil.

The link to Slate, for those whose firewalls and filters block Taboola because it is a scummy ad service: Clarence Thomas Promotes Trump’s Voter Fraud Lies in Alarming Dissent
posted by at by at 8:01 AM on February 23 [5 favorites]


I really want to see kiluless' post now!
posted by JHarris at 10:26 AM on February 23 [8 favorites]


kliuless' post is here: the party of voter suppression
posted by Surely This at 10:01 AM on February 24 [4 favorites]




Millions of pages...
posted by Surely This at 10:54 AM on February 25 [1 favorite]


Millions of pages...
posted by Surely This


Eponysterical!! The press's headline is surprisingly muted, considering how much they know that having "Trump" in the headline sells papers. Dare I hope that they're keeping their promise to not cover him as much?
posted by Melismata at 12:22 PM on February 25 [2 favorites]


« Older Daft Punk: Epilogue   |   90,000 Packages Are Stolen in N.Y.C. Every Day.... Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.