You get that the point is that this is a conversation that shouldn’t have happened to begin with, right?
Alito spoke with Trump before president-elect asked Supreme Court to delay his sentencing
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
It was a beautifully perfect call. Trump simply wanted to vet someone, you know, because he's so thorough with his vetting process.
Running away from yet another comment. You high school kids need to stick to XBox and tide pods.
I will not pretend to have dug into ethics or bar counsel opinions on this, but I would think that a person's contact with a judge with the person's knowledge that they will be imminently making a filing would be viewed as an ex parte communicatoin, particularly if the conversation could conceivably be construed to raise a quid pro quo scenario, and absolutely if the conversation mentioned the filing. Now of course, Trump is not a lawyer, he is a party, so bar rules don't really apply to him. I'd also guess that, in a hypothetical scenario that it did not raise the filing, the right course of action for the judge would be to disclose it at a minimum. Recusal would also be on the table, subject to the principle (as articulated by scotus' statements) that recusal at scotus sometimes requires a high standard.
i'm more with you than not on this, but i could see it depending on the position.
You don’t find it even a little bit odd that Trump personally called a SCOTUS judge just before the court is set to hear an appeal from him?
Only if Trump wanted something does this make sense.
Even in the best case scenario the optics on this are terrible…
Agreed; the reality of 'political quid pro quo' communications, which few people seem to understand, is that the parties know full well that an ask is being made but that no one will actually make it.
It always kills me in these political scandals when someone is 'defending' a politician and essentially says, "aha but there is no evidence of any smoking gun!" That's right nimrod, because this is the major leagues, and the people who do stupid shit like making the ask are still in the state legislator portions of their careers.
The majority that voted most certainly did vote for Trump whether you like it or not.
Ex parte contact in this situation does not apply because they did not discuss the case. They discussed the placement of a law clerk. You of course know as an attorney that ex parte communication would only apply if they discussed the case without the knowledge of all involved. Which did not happen on the word of a Supreme Court Justice. You however were disingenuous with your response as an attorney. You were deliberately using an appeal to authority of your knowledge as an attorney while lying about the meaning of ex parte communication
Correct. And they disclosed the call as well as the purpose of the call.
Lol. Quid pro quo for a supreme court justice and Trump is to the benefit of a law clerk getting a job? Are you joking?
First, Trump did not receive a majority of the vote.
Second, you think it’s just an enormous coincidence this call takes place just before SCOTUS is set to hear an appeal from him? Do you think it’s normal this call would come from Trump, and not one of his staffers, or do you honestly think he calls to vet people regularly?
Third, you get aardvarks point above that this isn’t something that would be said explicitly and why, don’t you?
You are for some reason taking it as fact that this law clerk was the one and only topic and nothing else was mentioned.
He only won 40 out of 50 states and every swing state… he must of won the minority of votes.
This must be your first encounter with hawkedoff. Among all of the lunatics on the board, he is among the biggest.
He won 30 states not 40.
And he did not win the majority of the electorate votes for President.
He already had his quid pro quo moment when he posted that Aileen Cannon would be a great nominee for the SCOTUS, before she threw out his case.
seems a little 'off' indeed
No genius. He got the MOST votes. That’s not the same thing as the MAJORITY( >50%) of votes.
One of the earliest of entries to my IGNORE list. His inane commentary knows no bounds. He's a bountiful faunt of stupidity and servility to the conservative demagoguery.
I have no ignores, but I do have "scroll pasts". If nothing else, there are always nuggets of comedy gold to be mined.
Odd is meaningless. Identify a wrongful act. Put up or shut the f.uck up. Until then, this is nothing more than the Vindman tripe recycled.
So what was the wrongful act when bill clinton met Lynch on the tarmac?
The wrongful act here is that this represents a clear and obvious conflict of interest for alito to have a private phone call with someone days before they were to hear an appeal on a case regarding them. Judges are not supposed to do that, on any level.
That’s actually not true. You should read up on “ex parte” communication, Mr. Kotter. BTW, Clinton and Lynch both got a pass.
How would you ever know? Remember, it’s Donald Trump you are talking about… and Trump and “the truth” don’t necessarily go hand in hand.
Ok, you don’t know anything. Kudos for admitting that.
Who knows? But do you trust the word of two proven liars because “they said so”?
Annnnd what became of that? NOTHING.
Certainly trust them a lot more than media leftists and message-board leftist
It doesn’t matter if he did talk to Alito, when he talked with Alito, or what he talked to Alito about….If President Trump did it, it’s therefore perfectly legal and acceptable. Ask the Supreme Court!! They ruled as such, all of this would surely fall under official business.
Quit trying to besmirch our good presidents name!!
Quit trying to besmirch our good presidents name!!
Well most and majority can both mean more. Doesnt need to mean more than 50 percent at all. Weird take on your part.
You mean like having a family.member making millions off a case that you are hearing a judge?
Umm no.
Majority means more than half. You seem to be confusing majority with plurality.
