Robert Costa

Rank 7 of 47
|
Score 142
5/31/2024, 9:17:39 PM
X
In reply to:
Me
@freespeechorno
·
527d
@costareports Supreme Court interfering in a state court matter?
Robert Costa
@costareports
·
527d
Blanche said Trump and his team will fight the conviction "all the way to whatever court will finally right this wrong," and did not rule out a possible petition for a review by the Supreme Court, should that be the lone remaining option for Trump's legal team at some point.
Robert Costa
@costareports
·
527d
Blanche conceded "it's possible" that Trump could be behind bars during the convention if the judge imposes jail or prison time and declines to pause the sentence as the appeals process plays out. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tru…
Robert Costa
@costareports
·
527d
Spoke w/ Todd Blanche today. Blanche told me it's unlikely Trump's legal team will ask for his July 11 sentencing date to be moved, suggesting that they're eager to get past it and onto the appeal. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tru…

The statement and the preceding conversation engage in a substantive discussion about the legal strategies and potential outcomes related to a high-profile legal case. The discourse involves the potential involvement of the Supreme Court in a state court matter, which is a significant public issue. The tone is analytical and speculative, focusing on the legal process and potential future actions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not cause harm and is focused on discussing legal possibilities, adhering to the principle of striving to do no harm. [+1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by focusing on legal processes rather than personal attacks or derogatory comments. [+1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement promotes understanding by discussing the legal process and potential outcomes, contributing to public knowledge and empathy regarding the complexities of the legal system. [+1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in constructive dialogue by addressing a specific legal question and providing a reasoned response, avoiding personal attacks or ad hominem arguments. [+1]