REDIAL @ #46

They're basing the unconstitutional question on the fact that the Independent Counsel Act expired (sunset) in 1999.

Here is what I found:

DANFORTH @ #2

I don't usually try to second guess Kamala Harris (or Jack Smith either) but that was a GREAT opening statement!

If Trump doesn't bugger out of the debate with a claim of laryngitis (or some such sudden onset), I expect we'll hear a lot of exactly what you said in Harris' opening statement.

Let's give a high five to Jack Smith for being smarter than a bunch of so-called legal experts who call themselves Supremes.

I'll repeat what I said a couple days ago when we were all guessing.

"Nobody knows what's going on in Jack Smith's head."

Now we do. ~ LOL

DANNI

This is supposed to be a policy debate but the only policy the Republican Party has is Project 2025 ~ which is something he does know more about than anyone else, his denials to the contrary.

But don't count on him answering any questions about it. It's a hot button talking with Democrats and Trump will be sane enough to play dumb for six minutes.

So nothing has changed at Wounded Warriors.

I remember way back in the early days when Wounded Warriors got caught flying their regional managers to Hawaii, each one on a chartered Lear, for their conferences.

The only knowledge that Trump has practiced all his life is to rattle off a long string of incomprehensible words that he's memorized from sheer repetition.

I disagree with the open mic decision. The host should have the mute option when Trump goes off the rails when his time is up. Like he always does.

EARTHMUSE

The human animal only permits one Alpha.

I'm sure you know that sooner or later that means death by combat.

The same thing applies to Trump and Putin.

LAMPLIGHTER @ #7

"Is fmr Pres Trump so afraid of a valid outcome that he sees the need to toss a wild-card into the election process? "

Trump is so insecure the question should be . . . When ISN'T he afraid of a valid outcome?

The only thing trustworthy about Donald Trump is that he always carries some loaded dice to make sure things go his way.

LAMP

Personally, I'd like to see the whole case moved to the D.C. jurisdiction where Smith is also working on the J-6 case. But I'm naive don't know how hard and fast those rules are.

It's seems to me a federal judge can make federal decisions no matter where he or she is located. So maybe it's about the jury pool coming from a jurisdiction where the crime happened.

LAMPLIGHTRR @ #9

"I have not a clue to that answer."

Neither do I. But it stands to reason that removing a judge from a case would require a specific cause of action.

Perhaps, for obvious reasons, that is something that might have to happen AFTER a case is reinstated. I'm sure you understand.

Also, I seem to recall at the time of Cannon's appointment, that there was only one other federal judge in that Florida jurisdiction. I don't recall his name.

There's a lot of pushback from the county level over not just one rule, but dozens of rules that would cause chaos and delay in the certification of the 2024 election. The DNC has filed their own lawsuit and Governor Kemp is seeking advice from his own A.G. if the Governor has the authority to disband this "Board." Some legal authorities say "yes, he does" but the Governor wants the backup of the Attorney General before he takes action.

Apparently this self-appointed "Board" is in violation of Georgia State Election Laws and therefore has no authority make new "rules".

DANFORTH @ #3

"Three strikes and YERRRR OUT!"

Cannon has certainly proved that she's incompetent to handle a case of this magnitude.

The 11th Circuit should come to that conclusion themselves, you'd think, after repeated instances of poor judgement and a waste of the courts' time with a stream of frivolous unfounded-in-law motions by the defense that didn't require a hearing.

There are only two conclusions: Incompetent or biased. Both grounds for removal.

People with normal brain functions don't "tell" on themselves.

Trump's predictions are a mirror image of himself. They're called "projection" and they're a quirk, sometimes referred to as a "tell", in Trump's distorted personality that we've known about for years. I doubt he's even aware that he has such a psychological malfunction.

It shouldn't be hard for either candidate to guess the range of topics that are going to be covered. We hear it almost daily on the evening news. Border Security, Immigration, Abortion, Gaza, Economy, Inflation, Ukraine, Pardons, U.S. Supreme Court, Project 2025. (that's the biggie)

I'm sure Harris will be well prepared with policy statements on any of those subjects.

Trump? Meh. He'll probably rattle off a string of words that are incoherent and uncompressible and call it a win.

Look at FISHPAW. Already playing the loser's hand. Tsk, tsk.

YAV

Nothing is ever going to be "crystal clear" to Trump if he loses. He has a lot more riding on this election than staying out of jail. Can you just imagine the beating Trump is going to get from Vladimir Putin for costing the Russia leader his legacy.

Anybody can suffer the loss of an election. That's an ego thing. Not everybody can survive double-crossing one of the most vindictive dictators in the world who took his country into a war that depended on a Trump presidency.

I wouldn't want to be in Trump shoes.

#4 | Posted by danni

Trump relies a lot on creating false impressions.

If Trump loses this election we already know he's going to pull every string and push every button to jam up the election results, most likely at county levels in swing states. I did read that there is a bevy of attorneys already warning election workers that any failure to certify can and will result in a criminal prosecution.

The Harris campaign already knows what's coming, so I trust that they're already putting firewalls in place to shut Trump off at the pass and keep this election out of the hands of the current Supreme Court.

There wouldn't be any question who did (or didn't) win the debate if instant fact-checking was included in the format.

Reminiscent of the Obama-Romney debate when Obama cleverly said to Romney, "carry on."

Which Romney did and immediately got creamed by the fact-checker.

If both candidates can't be held immediately accountable for their incorrect statements, a so-called "debate" is useless.

NOTGOINGBACK

If the Harris campaign continues on its current trajectory, I don't think there's any question she's going to win.

The problem will begin with the legal challenges from the Trump campaign that have already been set in place to spring into action ~ much like they did in 2020 but a lot more legally sophisticated in 2024. IOW, no more fake electors and endless demands for recounts or barnstorming the Capitol building.

I can imagine Trump taking his new more sophisticated legal challenges all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court for adjudication in an effort to use Alito and Thomas to change the official results in his favor.

Doncha get it yet?

Trump's J6 gala is a fundraiser by another name.

You don't seriously think Trump is going to allow any riffraff in to dirty up the place, do you?

There's no money to be made by that. My guess he's going to invite some old faithfuls, play a round of golf, have lunch and an open bar and lay on the guilt trip.

GUNSLINGER

I was thinking the same thing about turning over discovery before the coast was clear to set a trial date.

Without cameras in the courtroom, the public wasn't going to find out anything they didn't already know anyway.

And I am proud to be one of them.

So, over a half billion, they say? WOW! That gonna put some frost on Trump's tootsies.

Which reminds me. I wonder if Mike Johnson is starting to revisit his choice of political umbilical cords.