What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

I wonder if my parents watched it.  They can see it from their backyard.

I remember now your folks bought a place in AC.  That sounds really miserable.

[Caliga]

They're not in AC proper, but rather across the bay from it.  You can see all the casinos from their house, especially at night, though most of them aren't lit up these days.

[DGuller]

They blew up Trump's hotel and casino in Atlantic City today.  https://twitter.com/i/status/1362041922794233862  That seems like a fitting way to end all of this.

I'm surprised Trump Plaza lasted this long.  It looked much more visually pleasing today than it did when it was in business (before the implosion, obviously; well, even after implosion, now that I think of it).

[Caliga]

Nope, they were at their other house so didn't see the demo.

[Admiral Yi]

Court has ruled the NY AG can look at Trump's tax filings.

[The Minsky Moment]

Technically I don't think the Court ruled at all - they just denied an application to stay the lower court order upholding the subpoena.

[Admiral Yi]

[viper37]

Technically I don't think the Court ruled at all - they just denied an application to stay the lower court order upholding the subpoena.

I'll go with Yi

[crazy canuck]

Technically I don't think the Court ruled at all - they just denied an application to stay the lower court order upholding the subpoena.

I'll go with Yi

I wonder what details the general public gets wrong about what you have specialized knowledge about that just makes you shake your head.   

The distinction between denying a stay application and making an substantive ruling is important for a number of reasons.  But you can get by just knowing the subpoena is still in force. 

[Syt]

Oh no!

Anyways ...

[Habbaku]

Yeah, what a tragic loss. 

[Valmy]

Is the implication one only becomes a billionaire by committing tax fraud?

[HVC]

if the tax returns show he's not a billionaire then we're good again, right?

[The Minsky Moment]

I wonder what details the general public gets wrong about what you have specialized knowledge about that just makes you shake your head.   

The distinction between denying a stay application and making an substantive ruling is important for a number of reasons.  But you can get by just knowing the subpoena is still in force.

It's not that big a deal - the end result is similar.

There is a why to it that matters though - Trump already lost the argument of special Presidential protection from subpoenas - there was a decision on that.  What was left was a garden variety overbreadth objection.  It is no different from subpoena objections that get made thousands of times a week across the country.  There is no way the Supreme Court would get involved in such a dispute.

The election lawsuits that were also recently dismissed are a different story.  Those were dismissed as moot in light of the election certification and the admission that they would not have affected the outcome of the election.  However, one of them -- the Pennsylvania lawsuit - raised constitutional issues that although IMO lacked merit, were the sort of issues that the Court might consider.  3 justices voted to grant review on that one despite the apparent mootness.  That's fine and I personally think it might have been a good idea to resolve it on the merits. However, one of those justices issued an opinion dissenting from the order to refuse consideration - not that common in itself - that also raised a lot of Trumpy crap talking points about alleged unreliability of mail-in ballots.  That was not fine at all and unfortunately will feed the conspiratorial narrative that the stauchly right wing Supreme Court somehow had it in for Trump.

[Eddie Teach]

Which justice?