9 Comments
Nov 21, 2023Liked by Chris Geidner

This is a good, concise summary of yesterday’s important legal issues. Thank you Chris

Expand full comment

Trump should have been disqualified under 14A, sec. 3 by Congress already.

I am sympathetic up to a point about the First Amendment concerns here. The oral argument seemed to go on rather long for a court of appeals hearing. The judges (as I would expect from such sensible liberals) were being careful.

But, for a third time he is poisoning the well. He is not just a presidential candidate. We should not treat him like one. I fear many are doing that. They are for a third time saying how horrible he is but treating like he's just a presidential candidate.

Expand full comment

Great work as always. And chilling. A question: why can’t Main Justice take over the prosecution of Brother Paxton for Federal crimes under which he been indictment for what, 8 years now? Clearly the USA’s in Texas lack the stones but maybe this would be a good opportunity (after he was impeached but not removed) to give him a taste of his own medicine?

Expand full comment

Hating interesting times since Newt Gingrich broke the system with a straight face

Expand full comment

Argh!!!!! That’s all I have to say about this whole anti-Democratic shitshow. Chris, does TX fed court have jurisdiction in the Media Matters suit because the Space Nazi lives in TX? MM won’t try and get it removed to CA where Xitter is headquartered and where there are robust anti-SLAPP statutes?

Expand full comment

"Millett, along with Judges Cornelia Pillard and Brad Garcia — all Democratic appointees"

This is not something that Republican judges would even feel the need to discuss. Front of the classroom handraisers thoughtfully considering the propriety of letting a fascist demagogue call for their heads on spikes are going to let the right destroy the world for the sake of seeming - not being, seeming - neutral and unbiased.

Expand full comment

Well, all the various "gag rule" arguments so far are embracing the "running for president" status of the defendant in considering his 1st Amendment appeals to "free speech", which really underline the basic strategy of tRump and his legal team to put himself up as a presidential candidate, creating an instant dilemma for the courts regarding tRump's SM and "campaigning" reaches into inflammatory, violence-provoking, and intimidating messaging. He has done a commendable effort in creating carve-outs not thinkable for any other American, and really, really placing enormous pressures on one of the basic tenet of jurisprudence, to wit: No man is above the law. tRump has demonstrated time and time again that he MUST be considered an exception to that bedrock of our system, because...well, because he's an ex-president, failed in his re-election, but a viable candidate for another term, so ABSOLUTE right of untrammeled speech.

There seems no choice in the matter but send it up to SCOTUS, as an appellant decision supporting even a severally delimited restriction on speech content will quickly be appealed, and nothing definitively can be resolved absent the Supremes deciding the question. And yet again, will this be a case of "tRump's judges" ruling against him as a FORMER president no longer protected by his office, or will they in fact create the exception per his candidacy and allow him unrestricted latitude in speech while he "campaigns" for office as a criminal defendant?

Expand full comment