Seems pretty clear that the District Court and Special Counsel are more concerned with the impending judgment in the Court of Public Opinion rather than that of the Supreme Court. Thanks for the post.
I appreciate your excellent insight and analysis which is why I follow/subscribe to you. But can we cut through the crap? The only court in DC that might show any judicial fairness/independence regarding this case is the Supreme Court. The District and Appellate Courts have clearly demonstrated their bias (i.e. corrupt intent) against the defendant. The fact that any of those judges still have any involvement in this case demonstrates how broken the system is. The vast majority of the American people see this for what it is and aren’t buying what the government is trying to sell.
Excellent distillation of the distinctions involved. The district court and the SC are merely pretending to care about the intricate legal issues. But all they really want to do is provide anti-Trump raw material to the media in the run up to the election, the better to sell the forthcoming counterintuitive and improbable faux Harris victory to the public after November 5.
It's a Hail Mary that Chutkin and Smith think will be an effective October Surprise, as you, Ship, have previously pointed out. A point that I do not believe I have seen you articulate explicitly before is that anyone who actually cares about January 6th is already voting Democrat. This Hail Mary will fail.
As many have noted in post Bruen Second Amendment case decisions here and there, lower courts feel free to ignore SCOTUS decisions with no peril attached to their actions. They seem to play the "odds" of whether the SCOTUS will take up a challenge to their decision with no loss for betting wrong. Chutkan and Smith will engage in election interference freely as there is, and will be, no "cost" to them should the case again be before the SCOTUS.
So much for nothing to be brought up 30 days before an election. Seems that they are trying to get something done before time expires for them, or just to simply interfere with the election.
It never gets to trial at the very least because the DC Court and SC did not take the new law seriously enough to determine how it applies to the case before them, and how they will determine that. They jumped to how to use this case in the court of public opinion.
I think if the Uniparty manages to install the Cackling Commie, they will indeed push this to trial. There will be nothing to stop them. Trump will be finished.
There are thousands in and around the Federal government that truly deserve a rope dance. They will never let there be a threat to the Uniparty again.
Well, well, well, Ship now states what I posted as a proper interpretation 3 articles ago, that this case never goes to trial, but couldn't quite bring himself to recognize then.
Pretty soon Ship may be forced to admit (as the evidence staring him in the face keeps screaming out) that his precious DOJ and our courts, particularly the DC Circuit are corrupt beyond repair (and must be disbanded), as I've been telling him for years. (And today's article can only be explained as DOJ/DC Courts corruption with a purpose and when that purpose conflicts with the law, the law and all the rules BE DAMNED!)
Once you have this awakening, Ship, you will come to realize Julie Kelly's reporting did more for your clients than all your court room tactics at least as far as the most serious charges. Don't go too hard on yourself, your clients needed you and I'm glad you were there for them. Your tactics weren't the problem, the corrupt court was the problem; but you can't fix a problem you don't recognize. So, ease off Julie and I'll ease off you.
Thanks for all you do Ship. I mean that in all sincerity.
"Julie Kelly's reporting did more for your clients than all your court room tactics at least as far as the most serious charges" -- twaddle and nonsense.
What charge are you talking about? There were aggressive motions to being filed on 1512 long before Julie discovered it. Nick Smith was among the first to challenge it head on. I started representing clients in Oct. 2021, and filed a motion to dismiss for one client in Nov. 2021. Every judge was denying those motions -- which we all knew to be the case but you file them anyway -- until one judge granted the motion in Garrett Miller's case in April 2022.
Garrett Miller's attorney was Clint Broden out of Dallas. Clint and I happened to have contact on a non-J6 matter in Hawaii -- he had a defendant and I had a witness in a case, a divorced couple -- and that trial was right at the time the brief for Miller was due. Nick Smith finished the brief and filed it since Nick had led the way on briefing this issue back in the fall 2021. It was the motion in Miller's case that was granted -- along with motions in Joseph Fischer and Jake Lang's cases.
So, don't peddle the nonesense that anything Julie Kelly did or wrote had any impact on the challenges made to 1512. Nick was working on it for Ethan Nordean in the Proud Boys case and Dave Fischer was working on it for Thomas Caldwell in the Oath Keeper case.
And I'm not sure what ruling you are referring to re Oct. 2 -- but if you think there are any rulings in these cases -- including Trump's cases -- that you read but I don't read, then you are deluding yourself.
Talk about deluding yourself... You really think the justices are only influenced by the filings made? You really think they don't read what the media is reporting? That's delusional!
As you are well aware, many attorneys have given credit to Julie for her extensive reporting. But TWADDLE on about the attorneys that filed briefs as if I ever suggested they were of no consequence. NONSENSE.
You're the only attorney I'm aware of that is criticizing Julie for her reporting; to the contrary I know of many that praise her. You're petty and churlish when it comes to Julie. Grow up! You lose all objectivity.
Moreover, you know exactly what I meant by Chutkan's 10/2 release of (alleged) SC Smith's brief. but I understand why you would dodge that embarrassing undermining of your 9/23 article; doing so with a technicality only makes you smaller still.
In depth analysis of the application of new law to a case of first impression, and how embracing the facts without application of the new law leads a team astray.
You have a site... why not stay there and rant all you want about him??? My guess is he won't come on to your site and rant about you.
Coming to Ship's site to constantly complain about what he writes is just bad form and it just ruins it for those of us that come here to read what he writes and share our thoughts about each article.
The Heckler's Veto is, I thought, something that the left uses and that we on the right criticize, and for good reason so, please, just stop.
Fair criticism, but you might want to make that point it to Ship for his childish "heckling" of Julie Kelly, one of the best reporters out there. But he's constantly demeaning her and showing his uncontrolled jealousy of her. I've told him often if he'd lighten up on her, I'd lighten up on him. Until he does...
Bill, I do appreciate that and I have often shown you respect, but you are the one that started the war on Julie, and I find it unconscionable. I will not let go until you back off.
As to the substance of this response...
Apparently, you think reporters should only report on subjects for which they have advanced degrees. If so, nearly every Pulitzer and Nobel ever awarded for journalism is invalid. Consider that twaddle and nonsense.
I get your pride at your education and professional background, but I've spent most of my professional career proving one doesn't have to be an attorney to understand and interpret the law, regulations and rulings. Attorneys are one of the few professions that so consistently shows that conceit. I hope PDJT appoints a non-attorney to SCOTUS just to disabuse the entire profession of its misplaced conceit. Perhaps Julie would be a good nominee. LOL!
"But he's constantly demeaning her and showing his uncontrolled jealousy of her. I've told him often if he'd lighten up on her, I'd lighten up on him."
___
It doesn't matter what he does on his site... it is his forum.
There might be some justification for Julie Kelly to come on this site and comment and rebut his criticism and... that might be interesting to us here. I'd welcome it... a lot of others probably would too. But, unlike what you acting as her Champion, seeing her debate Ship would be not an exercise of the Heckler's Veto, it would be a real debate.
But you, not being a party directly involved in the dispute, are not only a distraction, you appear to be picking a subject to attack someone on their site to diminish the value of this site, and Ship's work.
Why would that be... why would you be a distraction here? There are sites that I, and a lot of other people, won't visit and participate in the discussions in the comments sections and it is almost always because somebody... oftentimes people with their own website... the go to other people's sites and, hijack the threads by picking fights that primarily serve to stop intelligent discussions... sometimes they pick fights with other commenters and and sometimes they pick fights with the person running the site. They even had a name for this... concern trolling, defined as" "Concern trolling involves someone opposing an idea or viewpoint, yet acting like they’re an advocate for the cause. A concern troll offers undermining criticisms under the guise of concern. Their goal is to sabotage the cause being discussed, and to inspire doubt among group members.".
If you want a real-life example of that go to the ManhattanContrarian site and read Richard Greene's posts (there are also a few others like him) and interactions on the site... frankly, he's toxic to that site. Interestingly, like you, he has his own site and uses the MC site to promote his own agenda. I stopped reading the comment's sections because of him and have stopped reading the excellent articles that the owner of the site produces.
What matters in these discussions is that nobody, and that includes me, should or do care about third party fights... you have no dog in this fight... let Julie Kelly fight her own fights.
Go to her site and let her know what Ship is saying about her... give her the site info... then, she can come here... or not... and debate directly with Ship. She can argue her points all she wants and Ship can respond to her. Most of us here would welcome the debate and critique the exchange from whatever side we agree with. If you think she's in the same league as Ship everyone here will benefit from the exchange.
It'll be great fun!
But, I suspect, she is not going come here because she isn't not sure she can win those head-to-head fights because, my suspicion, she is wrong far more often than she is right but, whether she is right or wrong it is HER fight and not yours to fight.
So... please, just stop fighting her fights and tell her what's going on and see if she cares enough to debate Ship!
Invite her to take part in a cage match here... I'd guess that there will be a great response from all of Ship's subscribers... it's an intelligent lot... probably far more intelligent than the average blog audience's intelligence and I'm pretty sure we won't beat up on her, well... unless she's wrong and she decides to just attack rather than debate.
But... if she passes on coming here to debate... you should just stop attacking Ship for his criticism about her because... again... it is HER fight to fight, not yours.
If you can't do that... that is, let her fight her fights... then I'd ask that you either go away or, if you stay, stop with these gratuitous attacks against Ship. You are becoming... a bore.
"Good to know you think Bill isn't capable of sticking up for himself."
___
I know you would like to deflect and act like I, or anybody else that have paid to hang out and comment here, don't have a dog in this fight but this is the whole community members' concern also, not just Ship's.
I think the part that you and every heckler in today's public space fail to grasp is that the people in the comments sections are part of the community and when you gratuitously pick fights with Ship you are also picking fights with the community members because we have to wade through your drivel.
Notice if you will, my original comment, like comments I make to people that I think are behaving poorly in comments sections, was a direct to what you wrote and the thread didn't have Ship in it anywhere.
This isn't me trying to protect Ship, it is me exercising my right to try to protect the peace and openness of a public space that I've chosen to take part in against somebody that wants to come in and disrupt that public space.
"This is the point of Trump’s post-election protests that the media refuses to understand or is just too stupid to understand..." May i suggest 40٪/60٪
Seems pretty clear that the District Court and Special Counsel are more concerned with the impending judgment in the Court of Public Opinion rather than that of the Supreme Court. Thanks for the post.
I appreciate your excellent insight and analysis which is why I follow/subscribe to you. But can we cut through the crap? The only court in DC that might show any judicial fairness/independence regarding this case is the Supreme Court. The District and Appellate Courts have clearly demonstrated their bias (i.e. corrupt intent) against the defendant. The fact that any of those judges still have any involvement in this case demonstrates how broken the system is. The vast majority of the American people see this for what it is and aren’t buying what the government is trying to sell.
Excellent distillation of the distinctions involved. The district court and the SC are merely pretending to care about the intricate legal issues. But all they really want to do is provide anti-Trump raw material to the media in the run up to the election, the better to sell the forthcoming counterintuitive and improbable faux Harris victory to the public after November 5.
It's a Hail Mary that Chutkin and Smith think will be an effective October Surprise, as you, Ship, have previously pointed out. A point that I do not believe I have seen you articulate explicitly before is that anyone who actually cares about January 6th is already voting Democrat. This Hail Mary will fail.
As many have noted in post Bruen Second Amendment case decisions here and there, lower courts feel free to ignore SCOTUS decisions with no peril attached to their actions. They seem to play the "odds" of whether the SCOTUS will take up a challenge to their decision with no loss for betting wrong. Chutkan and Smith will engage in election interference freely as there is, and will be, no "cost" to them should the case again be before the SCOTUS.
So much for nothing to be brought up 30 days before an election. Seems that they are trying to get something done before time expires for them, or just to simply interfere with the election.
It never gets to trial at the very least because the DC Court and SC did not take the new law seriously enough to determine how it applies to the case before them, and how they will determine that. They jumped to how to use this case in the court of public opinion.
I think if the Uniparty manages to install the Cackling Commie, they will indeed push this to trial. There will be nothing to stop them. Trump will be finished.
There are thousands in and around the Federal government that truly deserve a rope dance. They will never let there be a threat to the Uniparty again.
Well, well, well, Ship now states what I posted as a proper interpretation 3 articles ago, that this case never goes to trial, but couldn't quite bring himself to recognize then.
Pretty soon Ship may be forced to admit (as the evidence staring him in the face keeps screaming out) that his precious DOJ and our courts, particularly the DC Circuit are corrupt beyond repair (and must be disbanded), as I've been telling him for years. (And today's article can only be explained as DOJ/DC Courts corruption with a purpose and when that purpose conflicts with the law, the law and all the rules BE DAMNED!)
Once you have this awakening, Ship, you will come to realize Julie Kelly's reporting did more for your clients than all your court room tactics at least as far as the most serious charges. Don't go too hard on yourself, your clients needed you and I'm glad you were there for them. Your tactics weren't the problem, the corrupt court was the problem; but you can't fix a problem you don't recognize. So, ease off Julie and I'll ease off you.
Thanks for all you do Ship. I mean that in all sincerity.
Twaddle and nonsense.
Twaddle and nonsense, eh?
Did you read today's ruling? Compare that to your 9/23 post (and my response) and reconsider who is speaking "twaddle and nonsense".
Bill, I'd really like to like you, but your refusal to see the nose on your face is STUNNING!
No wonder the "food blogger with a PACER" account continues to provide much better analysis than the over exposed DOJ trained LAWYER!
"Julie Kelly's reporting did more for your clients than all your court room tactics at least as far as the most serious charges" -- twaddle and nonsense.
What charge are you talking about? There were aggressive motions to being filed on 1512 long before Julie discovered it. Nick Smith was among the first to challenge it head on. I started representing clients in Oct. 2021, and filed a motion to dismiss for one client in Nov. 2021. Every judge was denying those motions -- which we all knew to be the case but you file them anyway -- until one judge granted the motion in Garrett Miller's case in April 2022.
Garrett Miller's attorney was Clint Broden out of Dallas. Clint and I happened to have contact on a non-J6 matter in Hawaii -- he had a defendant and I had a witness in a case, a divorced couple -- and that trial was right at the time the brief for Miller was due. Nick Smith finished the brief and filed it since Nick had led the way on briefing this issue back in the fall 2021. It was the motion in Miller's case that was granted -- along with motions in Joseph Fischer and Jake Lang's cases.
So, don't peddle the nonesense that anything Julie Kelly did or wrote had any impact on the challenges made to 1512. Nick was working on it for Ethan Nordean in the Proud Boys case and Dave Fischer was working on it for Thomas Caldwell in the Oath Keeper case.
And I'm not sure what ruling you are referring to re Oct. 2 -- but if you think there are any rulings in these cases -- including Trump's cases -- that you read but I don't read, then you are deluding yourself.
Talk about deluding yourself... You really think the justices are only influenced by the filings made? You really think they don't read what the media is reporting? That's delusional!
As you are well aware, many attorneys have given credit to Julie for her extensive reporting. But TWADDLE on about the attorneys that filed briefs as if I ever suggested they were of no consequence. NONSENSE.
You're the only attorney I'm aware of that is criticizing Julie for her reporting; to the contrary I know of many that praise her. You're petty and churlish when it comes to Julie. Grow up! You lose all objectivity.
Moreover, you know exactly what I meant by Chutkan's 10/2 release of (alleged) SC Smith's brief. but I understand why you would dodge that embarrassing undermining of your 9/23 article; doing so with a technicality only makes you smaller still.
In depth analysis of the application of new law to a case of first impression, and how embracing the facts without application of the new law leads a team astray.
Put down the mirror, Ship
You have a site... why not stay there and rant all you want about him??? My guess is he won't come on to your site and rant about you.
Coming to Ship's site to constantly complain about what he writes is just bad form and it just ruins it for those of us that come here to read what he writes and share our thoughts about each article.
The Heckler's Veto is, I thought, something that the left uses and that we on the right criticize, and for good reason so, please, just stop.
Fair criticism, but you might want to make that point it to Ship for his childish "heckling" of Julie Kelly, one of the best reporters out there. But he's constantly demeaning her and showing his uncontrolled jealousy of her. I've told him often if he'd lighten up on her, I'd lighten up on him. Until he does...
You are free to come here and write what you want.
What do you make of the fact that I don't block anyone for disagreeing with me?
I'm not afraid of criticism -- that's the arena I've chosen as a career.
You know what I don't do? I don't go onto sites run by engineers or cardiac surgeons and criticize their views about engineering or medicine.
I would sould like an idiot and they would probably call me out for sounding like an idiot.
You might want to consider that.
Bill, I do appreciate that and I have often shown you respect, but you are the one that started the war on Julie, and I find it unconscionable. I will not let go until you back off.
As to the substance of this response...
Apparently, you think reporters should only report on subjects for which they have advanced degrees. If so, nearly every Pulitzer and Nobel ever awarded for journalism is invalid. Consider that twaddle and nonsense.
I get your pride at your education and professional background, but I've spent most of my professional career proving one doesn't have to be an attorney to understand and interpret the law, regulations and rulings. Attorneys are one of the few professions that so consistently shows that conceit. I hope PDJT appoints a non-attorney to SCOTUS just to disabuse the entire profession of its misplaced conceit. Perhaps Julie would be a good nominee. LOL!
"But he's constantly demeaning her and showing his uncontrolled jealousy of her. I've told him often if he'd lighten up on her, I'd lighten up on him."
___
It doesn't matter what he does on his site... it is his forum.
There might be some justification for Julie Kelly to come on this site and comment and rebut his criticism and... that might be interesting to us here. I'd welcome it... a lot of others probably would too. But, unlike what you acting as her Champion, seeing her debate Ship would be not an exercise of the Heckler's Veto, it would be a real debate.
But you, not being a party directly involved in the dispute, are not only a distraction, you appear to be picking a subject to attack someone on their site to diminish the value of this site, and Ship's work.
Why would that be... why would you be a distraction here? There are sites that I, and a lot of other people, won't visit and participate in the discussions in the comments sections and it is almost always because somebody... oftentimes people with their own website... the go to other people's sites and, hijack the threads by picking fights that primarily serve to stop intelligent discussions... sometimes they pick fights with other commenters and and sometimes they pick fights with the person running the site. They even had a name for this... concern trolling, defined as" "Concern trolling involves someone opposing an idea or viewpoint, yet acting like they’re an advocate for the cause. A concern troll offers undermining criticisms under the guise of concern. Their goal is to sabotage the cause being discussed, and to inspire doubt among group members.".
If you want a real-life example of that go to the ManhattanContrarian site and read Richard Greene's posts (there are also a few others like him) and interactions on the site... frankly, he's toxic to that site. Interestingly, like you, he has his own site and uses the MC site to promote his own agenda. I stopped reading the comment's sections because of him and have stopped reading the excellent articles that the owner of the site produces.
What matters in these discussions is that nobody, and that includes me, should or do care about third party fights... you have no dog in this fight... let Julie Kelly fight her own fights.
Go to her site and let her know what Ship is saying about her... give her the site info... then, she can come here... or not... and debate directly with Ship. She can argue her points all she wants and Ship can respond to her. Most of us here would welcome the debate and critique the exchange from whatever side we agree with. If you think she's in the same league as Ship everyone here will benefit from the exchange.
It'll be great fun!
But, I suspect, she is not going come here because she isn't not sure she can win those head-to-head fights because, my suspicion, she is wrong far more often than she is right but, whether she is right or wrong it is HER fight and not yours to fight.
So... please, just stop fighting her fights and tell her what's going on and see if she cares enough to debate Ship!
Invite her to take part in a cage match here... I'd guess that there will be a great response from all of Ship's subscribers... it's an intelligent lot... probably far more intelligent than the average blog audience's intelligence and I'm pretty sure we won't beat up on her, well... unless she's wrong and she decides to just attack rather than debate.
But... if she passes on coming here to debate... you should just stop attacking Ship for his criticism about her because... again... it is HER fight to fight, not yours.
If you can't do that... that is, let her fight her fights... then I'd ask that you either go away or, if you stay, stop with these gratuitous attacks against Ship. You are becoming... a bore.
Whatever!
Good to know you think Bill isn't capable of sticking up for himself.
Enjoy your day watching men pick needless and childish fights with women and sticking up for the bully.
"Good to know you think Bill isn't capable of sticking up for himself."
___
I know you would like to deflect and act like I, or anybody else that have paid to hang out and comment here, don't have a dog in this fight but this is the whole community members' concern also, not just Ship's.
I think the part that you and every heckler in today's public space fail to grasp is that the people in the comments sections are part of the community and when you gratuitously pick fights with Ship you are also picking fights with the community members because we have to wade through your drivel.
Notice if you will, my original comment, like comments I make to people that I think are behaving poorly in comments sections, was a direct to what you wrote and the thread didn't have Ship in it anywhere.
This isn't me trying to protect Ship, it is me exercising my right to try to protect the peace and openness of a public space that I've chosen to take part in against somebody that wants to come in and disrupt that public space.
"This is the point of Trump’s post-election protests that the media refuses to understand or is just too stupid to understand..." May i suggest 40٪/60٪
Awesome.