January 10Jan 10 1 hour ago, DrPhilly said: Not wasting my time reacting to your silly trolling on this one. Maybe waste your time trying to understand America’s laws instead
January 10Jan 10 This was a state case. SCOTUS ruling on immunity has no effect at the state level, and it only covers official acts as president. The crimes committed in New York predate his time as president and they're state level crimes. He is, however, a convicted felon.
January 10Jan 10 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: This was a state case. SCOTUS ruling on immunity has no effect at the state level, and it only covers official acts as president. The crimes committed in New York predate his time as president and they're state level crimes. He is, however, a convicted felon. @Dave Moss you must be the worst US history professor in the country
January 10Jan 10 7 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: This was a state case. SCOTUS ruling on immunity has no effect at the state level, and it only covers official acts as president. The crimes committed in New York predate his time as president and they're state level crimes. He is, however, a convicted felon.
January 10Jan 10 5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: His last ditch effort was for a "stay" in sentencing AND he lost. No effect whatsoever other than Trump making more frivolous claims.
January 10Jan 10 5 minutes ago, DrPhilly said: His last ditch effort was for a "stay" in sentencing AND he lost. No effect whatsoever other than Trump making more frivolous claims. Of course it had an effect. That’s why the judge spent so much time talking about it. Get your head out of your ass.
January 10Jan 10 Who in the hell allowed this to happen while Biden is still "lying in state" at the White House? ILA President Harold Daggett Credits President Donald J. Trump’s Support As Key To Helping His Members Secure Greatest Contract NORTH BERGEN, NJ (January 8, 2025) - The leader of the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) has a message to incoming President Donald J. Trump: "You have proven yourself to be one of the best friends of working men and women in the United States.” Harold J. Daggett, International President of the ILA, cites a face-to-face meeting he had with President-Elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago in Florida on December 12, 2024, joined by his son and ILA Executive Vice President Dennis A. Daggett, as the chief reason the ILA was able to win protections against automation for his 85,000 members, and negotiate a tentative Master Contract Agreement. "President Trump clearly demonstrated his unwavering support for our ILA union and longshore workers with his statement "heard round the world” backing our position to protect American longshore jobs against the ravages of automated terminals,” said ILA President Daggett. "President Trump’s bold stance helped prevent a second coast wide strike at ports from Maine to Texas that would have occurred on January 15, 2024, if a tentative agreement was not reached.” At the mid-December meeting in Mar-A-Lago, the two ILA leaders met for two hours with President-Elect Trump and spelled out the cause for an impasse in negotiations with the ocean carriers represented by United States Maritime Alliance (USMX). In the presence of ILA President Harold Daggett and Executive Vice President Dennis Daggett, President Trump spoke by telephone to USMX officials to express his support for the ILA. He then posted a powerful message on "Truth Social” announcing his support for the ILA. "There has been a lot of discussion having to do with ‘automation on United States docks,” President Trump wrote. "I’ve studied automation and know just about everything there is to know about it. The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen. Foreign companies have made a fortune in the U.S. by giving them access to our markets. They shouldn’t be looking for every last penny knowing how many families are hurt.” The ILA Leader said his union now regards President Donald Trump as one of the greatest friends of Organized Labor and champion of the working men and women of this country. "He’s a hero to our ILA union and members,” said the ILA leader. "President Trump gets full credit for our successful tentative Master Contract agreement,” said ILA President Daggett.
January 10Jan 10 Man. I could have SWORN you guys said Trump was going to prison. I mean. I saw you guys say it over and over and over... I was convinced!!! But here we are. No prison. Not even probation. No penalty at all. So, I have to know... are you sad? Are you guys balled up in a corner with tears running down your faces?
January 10Jan 10 53 minutes ago, Dave Moss said: yeah, he made the argument. SCOTUS rejected even hearing the case.
January 10Jan 10 2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: yeah, he made the argument. SCOTUS rejected even hearing the case. They did hear it and made a decision yesterday, 5-4. Try actually watching (or reading) the news.
January 10Jan 10 48 minutes ago, Captain F said: Man. I could have SWORN you guys said Trump was going to prison. I mean. I saw you guys say it over and over and over... I was convinced!!! But here we are. No prison. Not even probation. No penalty at all. So, I have to know... are you sad? Are you guys balled up in a corner with tears running down your faces? celebrating someone getting away with crimes they were convicted of .... wow, you won.
January 10Jan 10 8 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: celebrating someone getting away with crimes they were convicted of .... wow, you won.
January 10Jan 10 1 minute ago, Captain F said: wow, that easily triggered? even after a win? here, have your prize so you don't pop a blood vessel.
January 10Jan 10 11 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: wow, that easily triggered? even after a win? here, have your prize so you don't pop a blood vessel. Oohh batman cookies. Thanks cupcake.
January 10Jan 10 2 hours ago, Dave Moss said: Of course it had an effect. That’s why the judge spent so much time talking about it. Get your head out of your ass. Stop trolling.
January 10Jan 10 2 hours ago, Dave Moss said: They did hear it and made a decision yesterday, 5-4. Try actually watching (or reading) the news. I did read the news. He filed a request to intervene. They denied it. Intervening would have meant a stay in sentencing and a future argument on whether immunity is a factor in sentencing. SCOTUS declined to intervene. They considered a request to intervene and declined. That's it.
January 10Jan 10 12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I did read the news. He filed a request to intervene. They denied it. Intervening would have meant a stay in sentencing and a future argument on whether immunity is a factor in sentencing. SCOTUS declined to intervene. They considered a request to intervene and declined. That's it. They didn't decline to hear the case or whatever you said happened. Instead SCOTUS issued an order (see below)
January 10Jan 10 Dave - It obviously had no impact or the sentencing wouldn’t have proceeded. They had months to halt things and they didn’t. The NY courts rejected all of Trumps appeals and those all came after the SCOTUS ruling on immunity which occurred months ago. The immunity ruling had zero impact on the NY case other than giving Trump one more angle for appeal which ultimately resulted in nothing.
January 11Jan 11 1 hour ago, DrPhilly said: Dave - It obviously had no impact or the sentencing wouldn’t have proceeded. They had months to halt things and they didn’t. The NY courts rejected all of Trumps appeals and those all came after the SCOTUS ruling on immunity which occurred months ago. The immunity ruling had zero impact on the NY case other than giving Trump one more angle for appeal which ultimately resulted in nothing. wrong
January 11Jan 11 2 hours ago, Dave Moss said: They didn't decline to hear the case or whatever you said happened. Instead SCOTUS issued an order (see below) Do you know what a stay is? Trump asked SCOTUS to stop the sentencing hearing so they could consider the merits of the case - of whether the broad ruling the issued last summer and arguments Trump was making about "grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency" If they granted the stay, practically it would have delayed sentencing to 2029, but the legal request was to stay the hearing to consider arguments. SCOTUS declined the stay. In doing so they told Trump we don't even think your argument has enough merit to put a pause on the sentencing to consider more deeply your arguments. That's what happened, legally.
January 11Jan 11 14 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Do you know what a stay is? Trump asked SCOTUS to stop the sentencing hearing so they could consider the merits of the case - of whether the broad ruling the issued last summer and arguments Trump was making about "grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency" If they granted the stay, practically it would have delayed sentencing to 2029, but the legal request was to stay the hearing to consider arguments. SCOTUS declined the stay. In doing so they told Trump we don't even think your argument has enough merit to put a pause on the sentencing to consider more deeply your arguments. That's what happened, legally. The judge said he wasn’t going to punish Trump. But he also wanted to wrap up the case. SCOTUS obliged. It sounds like you don’t really understand what happened to me.
January 11Jan 11 8 hours ago, Dave Moss said: It sounds like you don’t really understand what happened to me. Oh no, what happened to you Dave? Hopefully, whatever happened, it will be for the better.
Create an account or sign in to comment