MojoTomkat
@jasonatdabeach.bsky.social
1.5K followers
88 following
240 posts
Dem/Progressive 🏳️🌈LGBTQ+ No One Left Behind
Humane Treatment & Protection Of All Animals❤️
🎵(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace Love & Understanding 🎵Imagine 🎵"Heroes" 🎵This Must Be The Place 🎵Die letzte Ballade ...what would I sing about if nobody cares anymore?
Posts
Media
Videos
Starter Packs
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Enten: "Trump is doing absolutely awful in the minds of the American people. We're talking about new lows. CNBC, -13 net approval on the economy. It's -19 among Quinnipiac ... He's not just beating himself with record lows -- this is the lowest for any president ever."
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Here's a fun little nugget from Trump's demand that DOJ pay him, personally, $250 million: In his memo, he argues that prosecutors "should have foreseen" that he has "immunity from prosecution for officials acts." Thank you John Roberts, great rule of law-ing, sir! static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics...
![Moreover, as former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge and now-Attorney General Merrick
Garland should have foreseen, President Trump had immunity from prosecution for
official acts.23 As such, given the Supreme Court's immunity decision and Judge
Cannon's dismissal of the prosecution on grounds that the Special Counsel's
appointment violated the appointments clause and his office was funded through an
19 Superseding Indictment at 1-4, United States v. Trump et al., No. 23-80101-CR, 2024 WL 3404555
(S.D Fla. July 15, 2024) (the original indictment was dated June 8, 2023).
20 United States v. Trump, No. 23-80101-CR, 2024 WL 3404555, at * 1 (S.D. Fla. July 15, 2024)
(hereinafter " Dismissal Order”).
21 Order Denying Motion for Franks Hearing and Reserving Ruling on Balance of Motion Pending
Necessary Factual Development at 9, U.S. v. Trump et al., No. 23-80101- CR (S.D. FL June 27, 2024)
(Document 655) (“But the Court determines that some of the terms in that document ( e.g.,
'national
defense information' and ‘Presidential Records'), do not carry ‘generally understood meaning[ s]' such
that a law enforcement agent, without further clarification, would have known to identify such
material as 'seizable” property'[.]"); accord. id. at 10 ("the present record does not indicate , for example,
whether the clarifying information in the affidavit was attached to the warrant or expressly
incorporated into it [See ECF No. 567 p. 13] ”) .
22 Constitutional Questions After the Raid on Mar-a-Lago, National Constitution Center 2 ( August 18,
2022), https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/Mar-a-lago_Raid_Transcript.pdf .
23 Trump v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 2312, 2327 (2024) .](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:bpna2qi2e44fafbhhtqjak3x/bafkreicz6cwnbxxtz5qt3avx6tftshxlv6atsp6k23hmvgdffohy2aigmq@jpeg)
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
Reposted by MojoTomkat
