Ben Meiselas: 'Donald Trump Lawyer Instantly Makes a TOTAL FOOL of HERSELF on LIVE TV, Again'

Source:Meidas Touch- Donald Trump propagandist & perhaps Trump University graduate, Alina Habba.

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on how Donald Trump’s lawyer went on right-wing media and made an instant fool of herself again." 

From the Meidas Touch

"Newsmax host Sebastian Gorka, filling in for Greg Kelly on Wednesday, absolutely fawned over Alina Habba — the legal spokesperson for former President Donald Trump.

After playing a clip of Habba dressing down the press in Washington a few months ago, Gorka welcomed Habba on to the show and served up an enormous softball to kick off his interview.

“What kind of training have you had?” Gorka asked. “Because you make it look just so easy! You walk up to the insane lying press and you just … you just have no podium, no teleprompter, and you just crush them! How do you make it look so easy, Alina?”

“Patriotism,” Habba replied. “I think it’s the same thing that you suffer from, right? We love our country. And I haven’t had any training. PR is not my thing. I’m a lawyer. But I’m passionate about the president getting back to business and cleaning up our country. And when you have passion for anything and you have the facts on your side, I think it’s relatively easy to speak from the heart and to speak honestly and eloquently.”

Habba has gotten much criticism for a series of gaffes while speaking on behalf of the former president. In early December, Habba pledged that Trump would testify in his New York fraud trial just days before he bailed.

“People that are afraid cower, President Trump doesn’t cower,” Habba said — four days before Trump cowered. 

Habba was shredded by legal experts for a comment she made in late August — in which she seemed to directly contradict the arguments of other Trump attorneys seeking to delay Trump’s various court cases because he needs time to prepare for them.

“What is he going to have to be prepped for? The truth?” Habba told Fox News on Aug. 27. “You don’t have to prep much when you’ve done nothing wrong.”

And in a June interview, Fox News anchor Shannon Bream busted a claim from Habba in real time that the photo of a box taken during the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago merely contained “pictures” and “mementos” – forcing Habba to backpedal right on the spot.

But Gorka, nonetheless, remains a big fan. He lauded Habba for saying “patriotism” is what makes her an effective spokesperson.

“I’m happy to suffer very seriously from the disease of patriotism,” Gorka said.

Watch above, via Newsmax." 

From Mediate

As I wrote about Alina Habba back in November on The New Democrat: 

"Alina Habba is not really a trial lawyer. She can barely afford to do whatever she does as a lawyer right now. She's more of a public relations lawyer, if anything at all, who makes her living trying her client's cases on TV and on social media. But she's officially Donald Trump's civil lawyer right now because she's about the best of what's left to try to defend him, because of his own financial situation and all the evidence that's against him right now, in multiple cases. 

Perhaps one of the reasons right now that Alina Habba owes millions of dollars, is because her own client is not paying her. But she's trying to work for him anyway, perhaps banking on the fact that defending a former President of the United States, would lead to clients who can and would pay her very well for her legal advice and actions in the future. But that career strategy is obviously not working out for her right now." 

As I wrote about Alina Habba a couple weeks ago on The New Democrat: 

"So to put all of this in English: (or perhaps broken American English) Donald Trump lost his civil immunity case in the E. Jeanne Carrol case, because his own damn lawyer Alina Habba, didn't file her motion in time to win that appeal and give her client civil immunity here. 

My post about DJT's lawyer Alina Habba from back in November still stands here. She's not up to the task, doesn't have the experience, the knowledge, the professionalism, to defend a client at the level of Donald Trump, when you are talking about a former President of the United States and now serial criminal defendant. 

DJT needs much better legal representation. But Alina Habba might be the best of what's left to even consider representing a man who not only commits felonies on a regular basis, but who leaves incriminating evidence against him all over the place, either thinking he'll never get caught, or convicted, or he's simply above the law and has some constitutional right that no other American citizen has." 

As I wrote a couple weeks ago on The New Democrat: 

"So what what Ben Meiselas is talking about here (and I will get to the point faster) is that Donald Trump's New York County lawyer, Alina Habba, is arguing to the appeals court, that her client Donald Trump has absolute immunity, period. And she referenced Nxon V Fitzgerald, a case that that US Air Force officer Arthur Ernest Fitzgerald made against President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. " 

And as I wrote last week about Alina Habba on The New Democrat: 

"OK, to try to explain Alina Habba and what she's up too or why she does and says the things that she does, especially on national TV, where she'll never be able to run away from her garbage statements, or in court, where again everything piece of trash that she tried to present in court on behalf of her client Donald J. Trump, I can only come up with a few possibilities for why she does this and puts herself through, as someone whose never even met her. 

I guess one possibility is that she's a total moron. But then how the hell she get out of high school, let alone through college and then law school, and then pass the bar exam. So I don't think just labeling her as a total moron makes much sense here. 

I guess another possibility is that Alina Habba is a pathological liar who simply can't help herself and perhaps she's corrupt as well, which would along with her being a compulsive liar, would explain all of her garbage statements as a freakin lawyer, whose supposed to be a member of the American Bar Association. Along with being a pathological liar, she also just happens to be President of the Compulsive Liars of America, (not saying such organization exists) which seems to be a position unlike being a civil defense attorney, that she would be well-qualified for. 

Another possibility and I think one that has real possibility, just based on her statements and behavior, she got her law degree from Trump University, which would explain horrible statements and positions as a lawyer... 

I think crook and pathological liar, are the best possibilities for why Alina Habba does the things that she does and says the things that she does. But you are welcome to weigh in on this as well and tell me what you think about this and her."

I promise this is my last post about Donald Trump's New York County propagandist Alina Habba. But only because this is my last post of 2023 for The New Democrat. Warning! You could hear a lot more from me about her in 2024.

Nothing has changed here, other than the fact I guess, if Alina Habba got paid to make a fool of herself on national TV, Oprah Winfrey could go to Alina for loans. I mean Alina Habba would be the richest woman and perhaps person in the entire world, (not just MAGA World, which isn't much bigger than Pluto, in American terms) if her simple job in life was to make a fool for herself, not just on national TV, but in civil court as well.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: Newsnight With Abby Phillip: 'A Look at Nikki Haley’s History of Comments About The Civil War'

Source:CNN- former U.N. Ambassador, as well as Governor of South Carolina, and 2023 Republican presidential candidate, Nikki Haley.

"CNN’s Abby Phillip looks back at former South Carolina governor and GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s past comments about the Civil War. Former George W. Bush advisor Mark McKinnon and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton discuss." 

From CNN

Nikki Haley: “What was the cause of the United States Civil War,” an audience member asked. Haley took a few deep breaths before responding, “Well, don’t come with an easy question.” South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union and the place where the first shots were fired in the Civil War. Given that she was born there and later served six years as the state’s governor, the question actually should’ve been easy to answer." 

From Forbes Magazine

Nikki Haley: “Of course the Civil War was about slavery,” something she called “a stain on America.” She went on to reiterate that “freedom matters. And individual rights and liberties matter for all people.”

From the Associated Press

Shermichael Singleton: "As an African-American who happens to be a Conservative, I thought her answer was quote despicable and embarrassing 

Whatever bump that she could've received from John Sununu, whatever bump that she could've received from the last several weeks now, I think that's all gone, I think it's over for her. You have a presidential candidate whose unable to answer a complicated question because they're trying to placate to a base who in my opinion wouldn't vote for her anyway. So why be so uncomfortable telling the truth? The Civil War about slavery and any comparisons that one would like to make about tradition, is odious to me. If you can't be factual about history, I question your judgment to make decisions about the present that would ultimately make the future."

From what I wrote about Nikki Haley back in October: “Also, between Joe Biden and Nikki Haley, would Trump voters turn out and vote for her? They tend not to turn out and vote in big numbers, when they’re cult leader (sometimes you have to be frank) isn’t on the ballot. And would they vote for someone whose not just a woman, but a Never-Trumper, whose also not from their race, ethnicity, generation, culture, etc?

And if she goes out-of-her-way for their vote and just tries to appeal to those voters, would that turn Independents off for her and also turn out more Democrats against her?”

From The New Democrat

There are times in every successful leader's career where they are tested and you know right there how strong of a person and leader that they are and how good their character is. The old expression you: "You never have a 2nd chance to make a 1st impression", is how I look at Nikki Haley right now. 

I wasn't going to vote for her anyway, if it was a choice between her and Joe Biden. But she just reenforced not just to Democrats, but Independents, as well as Conservative Republicans, (you know, normal Republicans) who are suffocating in Trumpland right now, hoping for hope that there's any shot in hell, that they'll be able to vote for anyone other than Donald Trump or Joe Biden for President in 2024, that she's still a late night TV host, looking for a prime time spot, but simply isn't ready big leagues yet.

Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton had the perfect comment here about Nikki Haley:  "You have a presidential candidate whose unable to answer a complicated question because they're trying to placate to a base who in my opinion wouldn't vote for her anyway. So why be so uncomfortable telling the truth? 

Does Nikki Haley really think that even in her home state of South Carolina, that that the far-right, is going to vote for a South Asian, as well as East Indian-American woman, a gen-xer, a daughter of immigrants, for President of the United States? Of course not. So why does she feel the need to try to get those folks who live in Fantasy Land ideologically and culturally? 

I agree with Shermichael Singleton that this disqualifies her as a serious presidential candidate now. Maybe Nikki and Ron DeSantis can run for President together as a duo now. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas: 'Donald Trump Makes DESPERATE PLEA For Judge Cannon To Save Him'

Source:Meidas Touch- left to right: U.S. Federal Judge Aileen Cannon & Defendant Don.

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump’s latest classified information procedure act filing (CIPA) before Judge Aileen Cannon asking her to violate the law for him to stop Special Counsel Jack Smith." 

From the Meidas Touch

"CIPA Section 3 requires the court, upon the request of the government, to issue an order "to protect against the disclosure of any classified information disclosed by the United States to any defendant in any criminal case." The government's motion for a protective order is an excellent opportunity to begin educating the... 

From the U.D. Department of Justice

As I wrote on The New Democrat back in November:

"I don't want to make light of Judge Aileen Cannon or the case that she's presiding over, because we're talking about what could possibly be a treason case against The Donald J. Trump. But of the 3 felony cases against Donald Trump, this is 3rd most important. 

We know that Judge Cannon is friendly towards Donald Trump. We know of all the 3 judicial districts that Trump is being tried in, Miami, Florida and Dade County, is the most friendly to him, of that 3. The other two cases against him, are in Washington and Atlanta, which are both, big cities, in big metro areas, that are overwhelmingly Democratic and anti-Donald Trump. 

So unless Judge Cannon holds to her May 2024 deadline for her trial to begin, even with all the discovery, motions, and appeals that will be brought in her trial, the Washington case and the Atlanta case, might already be underway. And her case might have to be the 3rd one anyway, because of all the classified material and security clearances that will have to be made in her trial. 

And Donald Trump could already be headed for conviction both in Washington and Atlanta, by the time Judge Cannon's Miami case is underway. Or perhaps because she gets removed from her case because of how friendly she is to Donald Trump and his lawyer and how bias she is towards Jack Smith's Special Counsel lawyers in this case." 

So what Ben Meiselas is arguing here, is that Donald Trump's lawyers in Miami, Florida are arguing, is that Donald Trump should have special access to the classified information and evidence against him and not just have to be in court to be able to see it and have a personal copy of this information. 

But, the whole point of the Classified Information Procedures Act, is to prevent defendants like Donald Trump, or anyone else whose facing these charges like this against them, to have this information and then be able to use that information against the prosecutors as blackmail: "You drop the charges against me and I won't release or sell this information to the public... 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'The Coming Biden Blowout'

Source:Harry Litman talking to David Frum from The Atlantic about the 2024 presidential election.

"Harry talks with David from about his recent article in the Atlantic arguing that the Republican party is galloping ahead with an electoral strategy certain to secure defeat in November 2024. Frum discusses why the polling suggesting that Trump is even with or even ahead of Biden is flawed, and why Trump’s historical track record as a weak candidate will hold in the coming election. They end by discussing the possibility that Trump could change direction as a candidate to pursue a more effective strategy, which Frum suggests is beyond Trump’s capacities." 

From Harry Litman

"The Republican plan for 2024 is already failing, and the party leadership can see it and knows it.

There was no secret to a more intelligent and intentional Republican plan for 2024. It would have gone like this:

(1) Replace Donald Trump at the head of the ticket with somebody less obnoxious and impulsive.

(2) Capitalize on inflation and other economic troubles... 

From The Atlantic 

Just for the record: I sure as hell hope that David Frum is right here. 

The only pushback I have to what Frum is arguing here, is that we went through this in late 2015 and the most of 2016 with Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton. 

During the 2016 election cycle, Trump was considered so damaged for the Republican Party, that not only would Trump lose, but he would lose Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, maybe Indiana as well, to go along with Florida, Ohio, and the rest of the states that HRC had to win to the that election. Plus, Republicans were supposed to lose Congress as well (House & Senate) because with Donald Trump on the top of the ballot, Congressional Republicans wouldn't be able to hold the House and Senate, because they would be tied to Donald Trump, etc. Anyone whose old enough to remember the 2016 general election, knows what happened during those elections.

Now the pushback to what I just said and I agree with this, is we already know what Donald Trump is like as President and he's even more unpopular and in more legal, as well as financial trouble today, Joe Biden already beat him in 2020, and Republicans had a bad year in 2022 because of Donald Trump and his MAGA followers. And despite President Biden's unpopularity, the economy is improving with not just high economic and job growth, as well as low unemployment, but wages are now rising faster than prices again, as David Frum also mentioned. 

The only real prediction about this that I have myself, is I think Donald Trump's legal situation is biggest achilles heel here. He can't afford any convictions before the 2024 presidential election. There's polling out there right now that even 2/3 of the Republican Party would not vote for Donald Trump for President, if he's a convicted felon before election day 2024. And if his Washington trial goes to trial  by let's say the spring or late spring of 2024, he'll probably lose that case by some point during that summer and perhaps be remanded into custody as well, which would officially end his presidential campaign. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Michael Popok & Ben Meiselas: 'Donald Trump in For RUDE AWAKENING When MEANING of Supreme Court Ruling is REVEALED'

Source:Meidas Touch- U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts & Defendant Don.

"On the most recent episode of the Legal AF podcast, trial lawyers Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok debate whether the US Supreme Court denying an immediate appeal to decide whether Donald Trump has immunity from criminal prosecution and federal court is a win, or a loss for special counsel Jack Smith and Justice." 

From the Meidas Touch

Just in any case anyone who follows The New Democrat has Alzheimer's and can't remember what they had for lunch today: we're not lawyers. But Ben Meiselas just gave the perfect analysis for why the Supreme Court not taking Donald Trump's immunity claim and going past the appeals court in Washington and instead letting the appeals court go first. 

Ben Meiselas: "Jack Smith in his brief to the Supreme Court, admitted that he was asking for extraordinary relief in going to the Supreme Court first. 

The reason why there was no dissent at the Supreme Court, was because the appeals court is moving so fast and had expedited this case and that this wouldn't delay Jack Smith's case that much at all. Maybe a few weeks or months, but this trial will happen and be concluded before the 2024 presidential election."

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: 'Donald Trump Shares Paper's Word Cloud Describing Potential Second Term'

Source:CNN trying to go inside the mind of Donald J. Trump. I guess they missed the warning sign.

"Former President Donald Trump shared a word cloud posted by the Daily Mail that featured "revenge" and "dictatorship" as some of the most common words people surveyed chose to describe what a potential second Trump term would be about." 

From CNN

Just to pushback on what Scott Jennings said here, who I do respect as a Republican political analyst for his honesty and political intelligence, but who I'm going to quote here and then pushback here on him. 

Scott Jennings: "Donald Trump is going to try to make this election a referendum on Joe Biden. If we have a referendum on Joe Biden and hold him to his promises. Joe Biden's promises were I'm (meaning Joe Biden) going to calm every down, I'm going to have a boring presidency, I'm going to be an adult. That is how Trump wants to win the race. 

If I'm Joe Biden, I'm going to try to remind people that the Trump years weren't all that calm, they were chaotic as well. The problem is if you look at the polling, a lot of people are having nostalgia for the Trump years, particularly on the economy. So that's Biden's challenge that this is not as good as you remember."

I think if Scott Jennings was Donald Trump's presidential campaign manager and he was like the only person in the world that could get Donald Trump to take advice from anyone not named Donald Trump and he could get Donald Trump to discipline himself, (and pigs flew over the Atlantic Ocean and Mojave Desert was flooded with rain tomorrow) that might be the presidential campaign that Donald Trump would run. Assuming that little scenario about DJT being convicted and remanded into custody at the some point during the summer of 2024, wasn't hanging over their heads. Don't bet your paycheck on that not happening. Especially if you need your paycheck.

I think what Scott Jennings is laying out his preferred presidential campaign against Joe Biden. And saying this is how he would run that campaign and perhaps lending advice to Nikki Halley, if she were to somehow defeat DJT for the Republican nomination.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Michael Popok: 'Supreme Court Finally FACE TO FACE With Donald Trump Threats, NOW WHAT?'

Source:Meidas Touch- left to right: U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts & Defendant Don.

"For the second time in less than 25 years, the United States Supreme Court may choose our next President, just like they picked Bush over Gore in 2000. Michael Popok of Legal AF explains how the Court’s decisions over the next 60 days as to whether  Trump can have his DC indictment dismissed on immunity grounds; whether 2 of his counts for obstruction of congress on Jan6 should be dismissed, and whether states can ban Trump from the ballot, coupled with their earlier political decisions on abortion, guns, voting, etc could choose our next president." 

From the Meidas Touch

Just for the record: The New Democrat doesn't rely on the Medias Touch, whether you are talking about Michael Popok here, or Ben Mesielas, for their political commentary. (Left-wing propaganda might be more accurate) For the same reason why we don't rely on MSNBC's left-wing commentators for their political commentary, (or left-wing propaganda) because we're not leftists. We rely on Medias for their legal commentary because they're good lawyers and legal analysts. 

As far as Michael Popok saying "the Supreme Court finally face to face with Donald Trump... , that will be about presidential immunity and whether the President of the United States is above the law either as President, or after he leaves The White House, for criminal charges against him, when he was President. And you know where I as a blogger and where The New Democrats stands on presidential immunity when it comes to criminal liability. Of course no American is above the law, including the current President and former President's.

As I said last week on The New Democrat: 

"What we know about at least 7, if not 8 of the current U.S. Supreme Court Justices, including the 3 that then President Donald Trump appointed, is that they're not there to save Donald Trump's neck. (To put it mildly) They are there to interpret the law and rule of the constitutionality of current laws. 

We know that the current SCOTUS is not there to save DJT's neck,  because of all the rulings against then President Trump back in 2020, when he was trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and just automatically get himself declared the winner of that election, regardless of the final vote tallies in the Electoral College. 

I'm thinking even Justice Sam Alito will rule against DJT because all the power it would give future Democratic President's and not just DJT.  And perhaps just Clarence Thomas rules in favor of DJT, or doesn't make any ruling at all, because he doesn't want to lose 8-1 on a case this important." 

The current Supreme Court, is  not a MAGA court, (to correct what Michael Popok said) with Clarence Thomas and perhaps Samuel Alito being exceptions to that. They proved that during the 2020 presidential election and they also showed that in Donald Trump's tax returns case. Assuming the Supreme Court goes by the law and the Constitution once again, they'll rule against Donald Trump again as it relates to presidential immunity and they'll do that fairly soon in 2024. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: 'Donald Trump Shares Christmas Message Insulting Politicians'

Source:CNN- Donald J. Trump representing The Devil this holiday season.

"Former President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to unleash an online torrent of fury and bitterness against some politicians including President Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. Reporter Shelby Talcott joins "CNN This Morning" to discuss Trump's Christmas message." 

From CNN

“Merry Christmas to all, including Crooked Joe Biden’s ONLY HOPE, Deranged Jack Smith,” Trump began in a Truth Social post at 2:38 p.m. EST.  

Trump frequently describes Smith, who is prosecuting the former president over his actions connected to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, as deranged. The Supreme Court just Friday said it would not immediately consider a request by Smith to make a determination on Trump’s insistence he is immune from prosecution because he was taking presidential actions at the time. 

“Included also are World Leaders, both good and bad, but none of which are as evil and ‘sick’ as the THUGS we have inside our Country who, with their Open Borders, INFLATION, Afghanistan Surrender, Green New Scam, High Taxes, No Energy Independence, Woke Military, Russia/Ukraine, Israel/Iran, All Electric Car Lunacy, and so much more, are looking to destroy our once great USA. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL. AGAIN, MERRY CHRISTMAS!” the former president concluded. 

Trump remains the favorite to win the GOP presidential nomination. He has a 54 percent lead in the aggregation of polls kept by Decision Desk HQ and The Hill.

Trump is also looking strong in a one-on-one match-up against Biden. The Decision Desk-The Hill aggregation of polls shows Trump with a 1.9 percent lead." 

From The Hill

Since this is the holiday season, I'm going to have a little fun with this Donald Trump post and let people imagine what would American politics be like with the same economic and foreign affairs circumstances, had Donald J. Trump had just decided to go home and retire from American politics all together. If that happen, imagine what Joe Biden's political situation would be right now. 

As someone who was born when Jimmy Carter became President of the United States in 1977, I think that's the best way to look at Joe Biden's political situation right now. It's the all chaos of the Carter years, in the Democratic Party, facing a normal, center-right, Republican Party, led by Ronald Reagan, in 1979-80. 

I'm old enough to remember when most Republicans didn't like dictators, or say that maybe we should have a dictator in America, or the Constitution is outdated and we need to throw it out and govern through Martial Law, or immigration is Un-American. Anyone whose in the mid or late 40s right now, or older, remembers that Republican Party as well.

But that's not the political situation today. Americans aren't happy with the economy and aren't feeling the growth in it and they think prices are too hight today. But we don't have 7-8% unemployment like we had in 1979-80, Unemployment is less that half today, what it was 44 years ago. Inflation and interest rates were more than double 44 years ago, from where they now. Real American personal income is actually rising today.

But the problem that President Biden had today, is that Americans aren't feeling that economic growth, because interest rates are still too high for them and inflation even at 3%, is still 3 times as high as it was even in late 2020. 

So you are President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, as well as Senate Majority Chuck Schumer and the Senate Democrats, who want to at least keep control of the Senate for the next Congress, or House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the House Democrats, want to be in control of the House in the next Congress, you have to convince American voters, especially the core Democratic voting groups, as well as Independents who don't want to take another long shot on Donald Trump, whose only running for President again to stay out of prison and punish his political opponents, you have to convince these voters, that Democratic Party not only feels their pain, (to paraphrase Bill Clinton) but that things are going to get better if the Democratic Party is able to stay in power.

The Democratic Party needs a plan to empower more Americans to take control over their own lives and where they'll be able to afford to live in America comfortably again and not have to worry about how they're going to be able to pay the rent or mortgage, or is driving now too expensive for them, or how they going to afford just to pay for groceries, etc.

As bad a human being as Donald Trump is, (and to me, he's the definition of human garbage) running against him in 2024, even if he's personally bankrupt and not just convicted but then remanded into custody of the U.S. Marshals before the 2024 election, won't be enough. 

Hillary Clinton and the Democrats simply tried running against the Donald Trump and company in 2024, because they knew she wasn't a popular leader at that point and it didn't work, because Democratic turnout was too low and she lost too many Democrats to Donald Trump. 

So what Democrats needs in 2024 is of course make the case for why America can't afford a President Donald Trump again, but what would a 2nd term for President Biden look like and how things would get better in his 2nd term as President.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CBS News: 'Supreme Court Declines To Fast-Track Donald Trump Immunity Dispute'

Source:CBS News with Defendant Don (as The New Democrat calls Donald J. Trump)

"The Supreme Court on Friday declined to fast-track a dispute over Donald Trump’s immunity for his actions as president." 

From CBS News

"The Supreme Court on Friday declined for now to take up a landmark case over whether former President Donald Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for alleged crimes committed while he was in office, a move that allows the appeals process to play out first.

The court issued a one-line, unsigned order denying the request from special counsel Jack Smith: "The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied." There were no noted dissents.

The Supreme Court's decision Friday is a blow to Smith and his team of prosecutors, who have pushed the courts to move quickly to hold trials in the Washington case and the second prosecution in Florida before the presidential election swings into full gear. Trump's attorneys, meanwhile, have urged the courts to delay the trials until after the election. 

The special counsel's office declined to comment on the court's decision." 

From CBS News

From Donald Trump's lawyer: "In 234 years of American history, no President has ever faced criminal prosecution for his criminal acts until 19 days ago," 

Just to correct the record: Donald J. Trump is not being prosecuted for his official acts as President. He's being prosecuted for criminal acts as President. 

From Find Law: 

"The President is immune from civil liability absolutely for suits arising from actions relating to official duties. This includes all acts in the "outer perimeter" of those duties. However, the President is not immune from actions arising from unofficial conduct."

Yes, this is a win for Donald Trump and his legal team. There's no way to spin that other than to say that win could be very temporarily. 

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, the same court that handled Mark Meadows claim to move his Atlanta case to Federal court, that rejected that appeal, the decision that was written by Judge William Pryor just this week, is also handling President Trump's claim of presidential immunity. They're going to take this on January, 8. So the Trump mean might only get a couple weeks delay here, before they have to decide whether or not then go to the Supreme Court, if they lose at the appeals court. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Amanpour & Company: Stephen Vladek: 'How Will SCOTUS Rule on Donald Trump’s Jan. 6. Legal Case?'

Source:Amanpour & Company interviewing Professor of Law Stephen Vladek. 

"The U.S. Supreme Court is facing several landmark cases while their approval ratings remain at a record low. Professor of law Stephen Vladek joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the cases attracting attention — from the trials awaiting Donald Trump to a vital reproductive rights decision — and whether we are witnessing a constitutional crisis in the nation's highest court." 

From Amanpour & Company

"The double jeopardy protection applies in both state and federal courts. It only applies in criminal cases and criminal law. Thus, the protection does not apply in civil lawsuits.

The double jeopardy rule also bars multiple punishments for lesser included offenses. A lesser included offense is an offense that the government must necessarily prove to convict someone for a greater offense. Suppose the federal government charges a criminal defendant with burglary and trespass. The government attorney must prove the defendant trespassed to prove they committed burglary. Thus, the court cannot impose additional punishment on the defendant for both the trespass and the burglary.

When Does Double Jeopardy Attach?

Double jeopardy attaches at different times depending on the type of criminal trial. In a jury trial, it typically attaches when the court swears in the jurors. In a bench trial, it attaches when the court swears in the first witness to testify.

Once double jeopardy attaches, the government typically cannot call for a second prosecution of a criminal defendant for the same criminal offense. However, there are some exceptions to the general rule." 

From Find Law

As I wrote yesterday on The New Democrat: 

"I think the question in Donald Trump's immunity case is where do any former U.S. President has presidential immunity from prosecution in criminal cases, even for actions that they committed while they were President. 

I think the answer to this presidential immunity question is obviously no, for the simple fact that we are a constitutional, federal republic and we have a liberal democratic, federal form of government. And a big part our our constitutional system is that no one is above the law, no one is below the law, including the most powerful people in the country, including the most powerful person in the country, the President of the United States. 

And I'll give you another prediction as a non-lawyer. The Supreme Court will rule against Donald Trump's immunity claim, but as Joan Biskupic said in the CNN video, they'll allow for Donald Trump's lawyers to ,make other defenses in his Washington trial. 

The reason why I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will rule against Donald Trump's immunity claim and I don't think it will be close, perhaps just Clarence Thomas rules in favor of Trump, if he doesn't recuse himself from the case, but the reason why I believe this, is I have a hard time believing that there are 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court, who believe that Joe Biden, or any other future Democratic President, should have presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, which is exactly what will happen if DJT wins this. 

The other reason why I believe SCOTUS will rule against DJT is a practical one.  If DJT were to get immunity here, the President and future President's would just be able to order his cabinet members and other executive officials to take actions that he knows are illegal and unconstitutional, knowing that he can't be prosecuted and telling his people essentially, don't worry about it, he'll pardon them, even if they're caught. " 

I put in the quote having to do with double jeopardy because that's one of the claims the Donald Trump's Washington lawyers are making for why the former President shouldn't even be tried at all for his role in the January 6, 2021 insurrection. They're arguing that President Trump was already impeached, tried, and acquitted in Congress. The House of Representatives impeached President Trump and then the Senate acquitted him. 

But once again I'm not a lawyer. And if you are taking the time to count how many times I've said that in just the last 6 months, I suggest you get a life. But double jeopardy only apples to civil and criminal cases, not Congressional. After DJT loses on presidential immunity, (and I believe he will for reasons I've already given) he'll lose on double jeopardy as well and will head to trial in Washington in the spring of 2024.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Michael Popok: 'Supreme Court Delivers MAJOR HINT To Jack Smith in Donald Trump Case'

Source:Meidas Touch- left to right: U.S. Department of Justice Special Counsel Jack Smith & U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts.

"Has the Supreme Court sent a message to the Special Counsel Jack Smith by agreeing in the same 48 period to 1) review quickly whether they will decide directly whether Trump has immunity from prosecution; and 2) decide if the DOJ is properly using the main criminal count against Trump—obstruction of an official proceeding? Michael Popok of Legal AF explains that the Supremes don’t do anything by accident as they decide in the same term whether  to set Jan6 defendants AND Trump free." 

From the Meidas Touch

I agree with Michael Popok, that there are at least 5-9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices who think we as a country need to know whether or not Donald J. Trump is an insurrectionist, before the 2024 presidential election and that alone is why they'll take Special Counsel Jack Smith's direct appeal on the presidential immunity question or not. 

Of course Donald Trump and his legal team will hate that, because they'll probably lose that decision and then would ultimately be convicted simply because of the evidence against DJT and the fact this trial will be in Washington, but only because that's where these crimes were convicted. 

I think DJT will lose at the Supreme Court, again because of the evidence against him, the fact that he's running for President again in 2024. But I don't see 5 votes up there to give not just this former President, but future former President's, or President Joe Biden for the remainder of his presidency, or future current President's, presidential immunity, when it comes to criminal prosecution. 

What we know about at least 7, if not 8 of the current U.S. Supreme Court Justices, including the 3 that then President Donald Trump appointed, is that they're not there to save Donald Trump's neck. (To put it mildly) They are there to interpret the law and rule of the constitutionality of current laws. 

We know that the current SCOTUS is not there to save DJT's neck,  because of all the rulings against then President Trump back in 2020, when he was trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election and just automatically get himself declared the winner of that election, regardless of the final vote tallies in the Electoral College. 

I'm thinking even Justice Sam Alito will rule against DJT because all the power it would give future Democratic President's and not just DJT.  And perhaps just Clarence Thomas rules in favor of DJT, or doesn't make any ruling at all, because he doesn't want to lose 8-1 on a case this important. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CNN: The Situation Room With Wolf Blitzer: 'George Conway Predicts How Supreme Court May Rule On Donald Trump’s Presidential Immunity Filing'

Source:CNN legal analyst George Conway.

"Conservative lawyer George Conway, Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic and senior political commentator Gloria Borger join CNN's Wolf Blitzer to discuss former President Donald Trump's ongoing legal battles." 

From CNN

For the 100th time, perhaps just in 2023 alone, I'm not a lawyer, but I agree with George Conway who is a longtime Washington lawyer in the Republican Party. The Supreme Court will take Donald Trump's immunity case and perhaps rule on it in February. 

I think the question in Donald Trump's immunity case is where do any former U.S. President has presidential immunity from prosecution in criminal cases, even for actions that they committed while they were President. 

I think the answer to this presidential immunity question is obviously no, for the simple fact that we are a constitutional, federal republic and we have a liberal democratic, federal form of government. And a big part our our constitutional system is that no one is above the law, no one is below the law, including the most powerful people in the country, including the most powerful person in the country, the President of the United States. 

And I'll give you another prediction as a non-lawyer. The Supreme Court will rule against Donald Trump's immunity claim, but as Joan Biskupic said in the CNN video, they'll allow for Donald Trump's lawyers to ,make other defenses in his Washington trial. 

The reason why I believe the U.S. Supreme Court will rule against Donald Trump's immunity claim and I don't think it will be close, perhaps just Clarence Thomas rules in favor of Trump, if he doesn't recuse himself from the case, but the reason why I believe this, is I have a hard time believing that there are 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court, who believe that Joe Biden, or any other future Democratic President, should have presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, which is exactly what will happen if DJT wins this. 

The other reason why I believe SCOTUS will rule against DJT is a practical one.  If DJT were to get immunity here, the President and future President's would just be able to order his cabinet members and other executive officials to take actions that he knows are illegal and unconstitutional, knowing that he can't be prosecuted and telling his people essentially, don't worry about it, he'll pardon them, even if they're caught. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas: 'Donald Trump’s Horrible Lawyer BLOWS IT Again'

Source:Meidas Touch- Donald J. Trump's civil propagandist, Alina Habba.

"MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas on the horrible Donald Trump lawyer Alina Habba making a fool of out of herself during an interview with Don Jr’s girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle." 

From the Meidas Touch

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." 

From Congress.GOV

"Civil cases usually involve disputes between people or organizations while criminal cases allege a violation of a criminal law."

From U.S. Courts

Just for the record: Alina Habba is Donald J. Trump's New York County civil attorney, not criminal attorney. 

As I wrote on The New Democrat back in November about Alina Habba: 

"Alina Habba is not really a trial lawyer. She can barely afford to do whatever she does as a lawyer right now. She's more of a public relations lawyer, if anything at all, who makes her living trying her client's cases on TV and on social media. But she's officially Donald Trump's civil lawyer right now because she's about the best of what's left to try to defend him, because of his own financial situation and all the evidence that's against him right now, in multiple cases. 

Perhaps one of the reasons right now that Alina Habba owes millions of dollars, is because her own client is not paying her. But she's trying to work for him anyway, perhaps banking on the fact that defending a former President of the United States, would lead to clients who can and would pay her very well for her legal advice and actions in the future. But that career strategy is obviously not working out for her right now." 

As I wrote last week on The New Democrat about Alina Habba: 

"My post about DJT's lawyer Alina Habba from back in November still stands here. She's not up to the task, doesn't have the experience, the knowledge, the professionalism, to defend a client at the level of Donald Trump, when you are talking about a former President of the United States and now serial criminal defendant. 

DJT needs much better legal representation. But Alina Habba might be the best of what's left to even consider representing a man who not only commits felonies on a regular basis, but who leaves incriminating evidence against him all over the place, either thinking he'll never get caught, or convicted, or he's simply above the law and has some constitutional right that no other American citizen has." 

As I wrote last week on The New Democrat about Alina Habba: 

"So to put this in American English: President's (current & former) can't be held personally libel for official acts that they commit while President of the United States. Running for President and campaigning for President, challenging or illegally challenging, like with election interference, aren't official acts as President. So Alina Habba (winner of Amateur Night at the American Bar Association for he 2nd day in a row) was referencing a case to help her client, that she apparently didn't even bother to read." 

As I wrote yesterday on The New Democrat about Alina Habba: 

"It’s one thing to either go o national TV as a lawyer, speaking for your client and either lying, or simply not knowing what you are talking about. It’s another thing to do that in court. But in Alina Habba’s case (who really needs to be back in law school as a student, if any law school would accept her) she has the unique talent to quite frankly bullshit both national TV audiences, as well as U.S. Federal courts and act as if she’s in moot court back in law school and was too busy partying or drinking the night before, to prepare for her case and to do her homework." 

OK, to try to explain Alina Habba and what she's up too or why she does and says the things that she does, especially on national TV, where she'll never be able to run away from her garbage statements, or in court, where again everything piece of trash that she tried to present in court on behalf of her client Donald J. Trump, I can only come up with a few possibilities for why she does this and puts herself through, as someone whose never even met her. 

I guess one possibility is that she's a total moron. But then how the hell she get out of high school, let alone through college and then law school, and then pass the bar exam. So I don't think just labeling her as a total moron makes much sense here. 

I guess another possibility is that Alina Habba is a pathological liar who simply can't help herself and perhaps she's corrupt as well, which would along with her being a compulsive liar, would explain all of her garbage statements as a freakin lawyer, whose supposed to be a member of the American Bar Association. Along with being a pathological liar, she also just happens to be President of the Compulsive Liars of America, (not saying such organization exists) which seems to be a position unlike being a civil defense attorney, that she would be well-qualified for. 

Another possibility and I think one that has real possibility, just based on her statements and behavior, she got her law degree from Trump University, which would explain horrible statements and positions as a lawyer. For any of you that is not familiar with Trump University: 

"Trump University (also known as the Trump Wealth Institute and Trump Entrepreneur Initiative LLC) was an American company that ran a real estate training program from 2005 to 2010. It was owned and operated by The Trump Organization. A separate organization, Trump Institute, was licensed by Trump University but not owned by The Trump Organization. In 2011, amid multiple investigations, lawsuits and student complaints, it ceased operations.[2] It was founded in 2004 by Donald Trump and his associates Michael Sexton and Jonathan Spitalny. The company offered courses in real estate, asset management, entrepreneurship, and wealth creation.[3]

Despite its name, the organization was not an accredited university or college. It conducted three- and five-day seminars (often called "retreats") and used high-pressure tactics to sell them to its customers.[4] It did not confer college credit, grant degrees, or grade its students.[5] In 2011, the company became the subject of an inquiry by the New York Attorney General's office for illegal business practices, which resulted in a lawsuit filed in August 2013.[6] An article in the National Review called the organization a "massive scam".[7]

Trump University was also the subject of two class actions in federal court. The lawsuits centered around allegations that Trump University defrauded its students by using misleading marketing practices and engaging in aggressive sales tactics. The company and the lawsuits against it received renewed interest due to Trump's candidacy in the 2016 presidential election. Despite repeatedly insisting he would not settle, Trump settled all three lawsuits in November 2016 for a total of $25 million after being elected president." 

From Wikipedia

I think crook and pathological liar, are the best possibilities for why Alina Habba does the things that she does and says the things that she does. But you are welcome to weigh in on this as well and tell me what you think about this and her.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Harry Litman: 'Mark Meadows Removal Decision Spells Trouble. FOR DONALD TRUMP!'

Source:Harry Litman- left to right: Defendant Don & Defendant Mark. Also known as the Chief & Deputy Chief of the Keystone Kops of American politics.

"The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to reject Mark Meadows's bid to have his case moved to federal court hints at a potential outcome in Trump's effort to have his case tossed out on grounds of presidential immunity. Opinion... 

From Harry Litman

“Meadows cannot point to any authority for influencing state officials with allegations of election fraud,” Pryor wrote. “At bottom, whatever the chief of staff’s role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate.”

“Meadows cannot have it both ways,” Pryor wrote. “He cannot shelter behind testimony about the breadth of his official responsibilities, while disclaiming his admissions that he understood electioneering activity to be out of bounds. That he repeatedly denied having any role in, or speaking on behalf of, the Trump campaign, reflects his recognition that such activities were forbidden to him as chief of staff.”

From POLITICO

"​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​The Hatch Act, a federal law passed in 1939, limits certain political activities of federal employees, as well as some state, D.C., and local government employees who work in connection with federally funded programs. ​The law’s purposes are to ensure that federal programs are administered in a nonpartisan fashion, to protect federal employees from political coercion in the workplace, and to ensure that federal employees are advanced based on merit and not based on political affiliation.​​​​ ​" 

From the U.S. Office of Special Counsel 

From I wrote about the Mark Meadows case on The New Democrat back in August:

"George Conway already explained in this video (that's linked on this post) about the Hatch Act. If Meadows is making a free speech argument by saying that he was advocating for the President of the United States in Georgia, when he was trying to convince the Secretary of State to overturn the election there and declare President Trump the winner, he would be in violation of the Hatch Act, which is a Federal felony. 

Under Federal law, Federal officials, who are not elected officials, meaning they don't serve in Congress or are not President or Vice President, are barred from weighing in on and contributing to political campaigns and elections. Legally, they're supposed to be above politics. So which felony does Mr. Meadows want to plead guilty to: the Federal Hatch Act, or the Georgia RICO ACT?" 

From what I wrote on the Mark Meadows case on The New Democrat back in September: 

"It’s clear that what Mark Meadows was doing post-2020 election day, after President Donald Trump had already lost to Joe Biden, (and that’s according to the 50 United States, including Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) he was working on behalf of his de-facto client Donald J. Trump, to overturn that presidential election and just automatically declare President Trump the winner of that state. Even though it was clear that the President lost that election by 12,000 votes. Mr. Meadows wasn’t acting as White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, on behalf of the U.S. Federal Government, which is why he lost today." 

What I wrote yesterday on The New Democrat about the Mark Meadows decision: 

"The term slam dunk, especially since the days of the Iraq War back in the early 2000s, gets thrown around a lot. Sort of like the football in the modern NFL, (to use a modern sports reference) but slam sunk is appropriate in the Mark Meadows case and I'll explain why. 

I guess it's legal to be both a campaign official and a U.S. Government official at the same time. (But you might want to consult a lawyer on that) You just can't do both jobs at the same time. 

There's no statue or law in the U.S. Government that allows for one of their government official to interfere in democratic elections, especially to try to benefit one particular candidate or another. Which is what then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was trying to do back in late 2020 in Georgia, to get that presidential election thrown out and just automatically declare Donald Trump the winner of the Georgia election. 

Mark Meadows wasn't acting as White House Chief of Staff when he was trying to get Georgia state officials to reverse the election there and just automatically declare President Trump the winner there. He was acting on behalf of his de-facto client Donald Trump, as a campaign employee for the Donald Trump presidential campaign. Which is why he lost back in October and lost yesterday and will keep losing, as long as keeps fighting the charges against him."

I would ask what were Mark Meadows and company thinking when they went through this whole overturn the 2020 presidential election scheme, just because their candidate Donald Trump lost. But it's obvious they weren't thinking at all. 

I mean to try to corrupt state elections officials, that you don't even know, at lost not well, who are literally in the business to supervise state elections, like in Georgia, but Arizona, and other states as well, thinking that of course they would do that for them, is not thinking at all. It's like being in debt for over a million dollars, when you only make 30 thousand-dollars a year, thinking that you can pay off your debt by winning the lottery or robbing a string of convenient stores, or something. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ben Meiselas: ‘Appeals Court Sends POWERFUL Message That Has Donald Trump PANICKED’

Source:Medias Touch- left to right: U.S. Federal Judge William Pryor & Defendant Don.

Source:The New Democrat

“MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on how a new ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a lower courts ruling against Donald Trump’s former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has serious implications against Donald Trump for his immunity claims.”

From the Meidas Touch

“A federal appeals court has rejected former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows’ attempt to move his Georgia election interference criminal case to federal court.

The opinion of the three-judge panel of the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, delivered by a conservative jurist appointed to the court by former President George W. Bush, is a resounding blow to arguments raised by Meadows that his case should be moved because the allegations in the indictment were connected to his official duties in the Trump White House.

“At bottom, whatever the chief of staff’s role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate,” wrote Chief Judge William Pryor.

“So there is no ‘casual connection’ between Meadows’s ‘official authority’ and his alleged participation in the conspiracy,” Pryor added.

Pryor said that the federal removal statute at issue “does not apply to former federal officers,” but that even if it did, “the events giving rise to this criminal action were not related Meadows’s official duties.”

Pryor was joined in his opinion by Circuit Judges Robin Rosenbaum, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Nancy Abudu, an appointee of President Joe Biden.

Moving the case to federal court could let Meadows get the charges dismissed altogether by invoking federal immunity extended to certain individuals who are prosecuted or sued for conduct tied to their US government roles.

Meadows has the option of appealing the decision to the Supreme Court or asking the full appeals court to hear the case.

Meadows was the first of five defendants to file motions to move the case to federal court, and the appeals court’s decision in his case will likely make it difficult for his co-defendants to successfully move their cases to federal court.”

From CNN

“In Blassingame v. Trump, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether former President Donald Trump is entitled to absolute presidential immunity from damages liability for allegedly inciting a riot at the U.S. Capitol.

On January 6, 2021, a crowd of supporters of then-President Donald Trump marched on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to forcibly prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. Trump allegedly incited that action by, among other things, encouraging attendance at the January 6 protest and urging the crowd to “fight like hell” and “take back [the] country with . . . strength.” The plaintiffs in this case, U.S. Capitol Police officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, sued Trump for damages for the harm these actions caused them. Among other things, the officers allege that Trump’s unlawful conduct caused them to suffer both physical and emotional injuries.

Trump filed a motion to dismiss, arguing in part that he is entitled to absolute presidential immunity and therefore cannot be held liable for the events on and leading up to January 6. CAC filed an amici curiae brief in the D.C. District Court in support of the plaintiffs on behalf of law professors who are experts in constitutional law, executive immunity, and separation of powers principles. Our brief argued that Trump is not entitled to absolute presidential immunity.

Our brief made two key points. First, it explained that absolute presidential immunity does not shield a former president sued in his personal capacity from damages liability for unofficial conduct. The Supreme Court has determined that absolute presidential immunity protects a president from private suits for damages challenging official acts, and it has held that that immunity extends to the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official responsibility. But the Court has made clear that such immunity does not extend beyond the “outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. In other words, there is no absolute immunity for a president’s unofficial acts. Our brief argued that Trump’s conduct in allegedly inciting a riot at the Capitol to forcibly disrupt a session of Congress fell far outside the outer perimeter of his official responsibility and therefore does not warrant immunity.

Second, our brief argued that the separation of powers concerns and public policy considerations underlying the Supreme Court’s immunity precedent further compel the denial of Trump’s claim for absolute immunity. The Supreme Court has explained that under separation of powers principles, courts must refrain from reviewing a president’s official actions in private suits for damages, as the threat of such litigation could inhibit the performance of his official functions. Trump, however, sought to invoke the immunity doctrine as a shield from damages liability for private conduct that allegedly sought to preserve his own private interests by forcibly interfering with Congress’s official functions. To apply the doctrine of presidential immunity in this case would therefore been a perversion of the separation of powers. And the public interest rationale for presidential immunity lies in ensuring that an official may act without fear of personal liability in fulfilling the responsibilities of his public office. That rationale is inapplicable when an official is pursuing his own personal agenda. Thus, our brief argued that neither of the rationales underlying absolute presidential immunity justifies application of that doctrine in this case.

On February 18, 2022, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued its decision.

Echoing arguments we made in our brief, the court rejected former president Trump’s claim that he is absolutely immune from all claims in the litigation.”

From The Constitution

Alina Habba: “The Supreme Court is looking at presidential immunity, which is a protection for President’s so they operate without being prosecuted or persecuted and attacked when they come out of office. But what has happened is that he (meaning Donald Trump) is being prosecuted, persecuted, and attacked and they’re ignoring presidential immunity. So finally on January 16, the Supreme Court is going to take it up and going to look at it real hard and going to say, look, we have no business attacking someone who was in his scope of the presidency, was doing his job, was protecting the election, was doing the things that a President should do. Instead they call him an insurrectionist, they can’t beat him in the polls.”

This latest statement from Alina Habba, is in the 1st minute of this Medias Touch video, that I copied word for word for anyone who reads this post. I went into her (so to speak) last week on The New Democrat as far as why she has no business representing a high profile politician Donald Trump, especially in criminal, as well as civil cases:

“My post about DJT’s lawyer Alina Habba from back in November still stands here. She’s not up to the task, doesn’t have the experience, the knowledge, the professionalism, to defend a client at the level of Donald Trump, when you are talking about a former President of the United States and now serial criminal defendant.

DJT needs much better legal representation. But Alina Habba might be the best of what’s left to even consider representing a man who not only commits felonies on a regular basis, but who leaves incriminating evidence against him all over the place, either thinking he’ll never get caught, or convicted, or he’s simply above the law and has some constitutional right that no other American citizen has.”

It’s one thing to either go o national TV as a lawyer, speaking for your client and either lying, or simply not knowing what you are talking about. It’s another thing to do that in court. But in Alina Habba’s case (who really needs to be back in law school as a student, if any law school would accept her) she has the unique talent to quite frankly bullshit both national TV audiences, as well as U.S. Federal courts and act as if she’s in moot court back in law school and was too busy partying or drinking the night before, to prepare for her case and to do her homework.

CNN: 'Conservative Judge Delivers Major Setback To Key Donald Trump Ally'

Source:CNN- former White House Chief of Staff & current Fulton County, Georgia defendant Mark Meadows, getting is mug shot taken back in August.

"A federal appeals court rejected Mark Meadows’ effort to move his Georgia election interference case to federal court. CNN's Elie Honig discusses the impact of the ruling." 

From CNN

“We cannot rubberstamp Meadows’ legal opinion that the president’s chief of staff has unfettered authority,” Pryor wrote.

The panel found that Meadows’ efforts to contact Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger about possibly altering the outcome of the 2020 election fell squarely outside his official duties. His decision to join a call with Trump and Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021 — a now-infamous call that is at the heart of the state prosecution — “reflected a clear attempt to further Trump’s ‘private litigation interests,’” rather than any government function.

The panel characterized Meadows’ December 2020 visit to Georgia as an attempt to “infiltrate” an ongoing recount — an act, Pryor said, that was far outside his official duties.

“Meadows cannot point to any authority for influencing state officials with allegations of election fraud,” Pryor wrote. “At bottom, whatever the chief of staff’s role with respect to state election administration, that role does not include altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate.”

Pryor, an appointee of President George W. Bush, dismissed much of Meadows’ legal position. The judge said Meadows was trying to simultaneously argue that his official duties encompassed some partisan political matters while also acknowledging he was not permitted while acting in his official job to get involved in election-related advocacy for any candidate.

“Meadows cannot have it both ways,” Pryor wrote. “He cannot shelter behind testimony about the breadth of his official responsibilities, while disclaiming his admissions that he understood electioneering activity to be out of bounds. That he repeatedly denied having any role in, or speaking on behalf of, the Trump campaign, reflects his recognition that such activities were forbidden to him as chief of staff.”

Though the ruling was unanimous, the two other judges — Obama appointee Robin Rosenbaum and Biden appointee Nancy Abudu — issued a stark warning that the court’s interpretation could produce a “nightmare scenario” and “cripple the federal government” by allowing state prosecutors to intimidate and interfere with federal officials by subjecting them to the threat of criminal action in state court.

The Democrat-appointed judges explicitly urged Congress to change the law, known as a “removal” statute, to make clear that former officials prosecuted over their official duties can move their cases to federal court even after those officials have left their posts.

“These types of actions can cripple government operations, discourage federal officers from faithfully performing their duties and dissuade talented people from entering public service,” Rosenbaum wrote, in a concurring opinion Abudu joined.

An attorney for Meadows, George Terwilliger III, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision and to indicate whether Meadows plans to appeal to the full bench of the 11th Circuit or to the Supreme Court." 

From POLITICO 

As I wrote on The New Democrat back in August: 

"Of course I'm not a lawyer (if you are just reading my blogging for the very first time) but here's my argument for why Mark Meadows case shouldn't be in the Federal court system and why it should say in Fulton County, Georgia. 

The Meadows legal team is going to have to answer the question where is it in the interest of the United States and under Mark Meadows job description, for the White House Chief of Staff, to try to convince the Secretary of State of Georgia, to throw out enough legal votes, for then President Donald Trump to win that election in 2020. Which is what Meadows was trying to do on behalf of then candidate Trump in 2020, so the President could overturn the 2020 election and be declared the winner and be able to stay in office. 

The Meadows legal team is not going to be able to do that because Meadows was clearly acting as a Trump campaign official, not as Federal Government official. And so was President in November or December of 2020, when he was trying to do the exact same thing, when he was talking to the Georgia Secretary of State as well. 

George Conway already explained in this video (that's linked on this post) about the Hatch Act. If Meadows is making a free speech argument by saying that he was advocating for the President of the United States in Georgia, when he was trying to convince the Secretary of State to overturn the election there and declare President Trump the winner, he would be in violation of the Hatch Act, which is a Federal felony. 

Under Federal law, Federal officials, who are not elected officials, meaning they don't serve in Congress or are not President or Vice President, are barred from weighing in on and contributing to political campaigns and elections. Legally, they're supposed to be above politics. So which felony does Mr. Meadows want to plead guilty to: the Federal Hatch Act, or the Georgia RICO ACT?" 

As I wrote on The New Democrat back in September: 

“The Meadows legal team is going to have to answer the question where is it in the interest of the United States and under Mark Meadows job description, for the White House Chief of Staff, to try to convince the Secretary of State of Georgia, to throw out enough legal votes, for then President Donald Trump to win that election in 2020. Which is what Meadows was trying to do on behalf of then candidate Trump in 2020, so the President could overturn the 2020 election and be declared the winner and be able to stay in office.

The Meadows legal team is not going to be able to do that because Meadows was clearly acting as a Trump campaign official, not as Federal Government official. And so was the President in November or December of 2020, when he was trying to do the exact same thing, when he was talking to the Georgia Secretary of State as well.

George Conway already explained in this video (that’s linked on this post) about the Hatch Act. If Meadows is making a free speech argument by saying that he was advocating for the President of the United States in Georgia, when he was trying to convince the Secretary of State to overturn the election there and declare President Trump the winner, he would be in violation of the Hatch Act, which is a Federal felony.

Under Federal law, Federal officials, who are not elected officials, meaning they don’t serve in Congress or are not President or Vice President, are barred from weighing in on and contributing to political campaigns and elections. Legally, they’re supposed to be above politics. So which felony does Mr. Meadows want to plead guilty to: the Federal Hatch Act, or the Georgia RICO ACT?”

I don’t want to sound like I’m kissing my own ass: (which would be impossible for me to day anyway, at least physically) but for anyone who predicted that Mark Meadows was actually going to win this, perhaps also believes in Santas Clause as well.

It’s clear that what Mark Meadows was doing post-2020 election day, after President Donald Trump had already lost to Joe Biden, (and that’s according to the 50 United States, including Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan) he was working on behalf of his de-facto client Donald J. Trump, to overturn that presidential election and just automatically declare President Trump the winner of that state. Even though it was clear that the President lost that election by 12,000 votes. Mr. Meadows wasn’t acting as White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, on behalf of the U.S. Federal Government, which is why he lost today."

The term slam dunk, especially since the days of the Iraq War back in the early 2000s, gets thrown around a lot. Sort of like the football in the modern NFL, (to use a modern sports reference) but slam sunk is appropriate in the Mark Meadows case and I'll explain why. 

I guess it's legal to be both a campaign official and a U.S. Government official at the same time. (But you might want to consult a lawyer on that) You just can't do both jobs at the same time. 

There's no statue or law in the U.S. Government that allows for one of their government official to interfere in democratic elections, especially to try to benefit one particular candidate or another. Which is what then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was trying to do back in late 2020 in Georgia, to get that presidential election thrown out and just automatically declare Donald Trump the winner of the Georgia election. 

Mark Meadows wasn't acting as White House Chief of Staff when he was trying to get Georgia state officials to reverse the election there and just automatically declare President Trump the winner there. He was acting on behalf of his de-facto client Donald Trump, as a campaign employee for the Donald Trump presidential campaign. Which is why he lost back in October and lost yesterday and will keep losing, as long as keeps fighting the charges against him.

You can also see this post on WordPress.