# A Perfectly Reasonable Amount of Schadenfreude about Things Happening to Trump & His Enablers (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 14, 2020, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537 "2020-11-14T00:09:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 210
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4187 "2022-01-20T12:37:53Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > At any rate, she was very happy that even the Trump-appointed SCOTUS judges ruled according to law, not with who put them into their positions. You and she and all the rest of us can enjoy this part, too: > There is no doubt, however, that Trump will be apoplectic that his three Supreme Court nominees, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, did not publicly dissent from denying his bid to keep his West Wing records secret … > > Throughout his presidency, Trump appeared to equate judicial and Cabinet nominations with an act of patronage, viewing those selected as owing him a debt that would be repaid by pursuing his interests rather than honoring the rule of law and the Constitution. He frequently railed at judges who knocked back administration policies, viewing them as politically motivated if they disagreed with his view of a case … > > The Supreme Court ruling was the second legal blow to Trump in as many days. In a late-night court filing on Tuesday, New York Attorney General Letitia James said her office had uncovered “misleading or fraudulent” financial statements from Trump’s business empire. She is seeking to compel testimony from Trump, Trump Jr. and the ex-President’s daughter Ivanka Trump as part of her civil investigation into the Trump Organization. Indeed the Supreme Court ruling was nearly unanimous, the only dissent coming, not from any of Trump’s nominees, but from Clarence Thomas, a man so deluded and incompetent that he’s unfit to be judging hogs at a county fair. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Wiggler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/red_wiggler/32/13190_2.png) [@Red\_Wiggler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Wiggler)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4188 "2022-01-20T14:15:38Z")
And whose wife is implicated in the shenanigans. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4189 "2022-01-20T14:28:34Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > > > > NY attorney general describes possible fraud at Trump family business > > > > It would be more surprising if they found possible business at the Trump family fraud. > > Nicely done! I laughed. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4190 "2022-01-20T16:25:23Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Indeed the Supreme Court ruling was nearly unanimous, the only dissent coming, not from any of Trump’s nominees, but from Clarence Thomas, a man so deluded and incompetent that he’s unfit to be judging hogs at a county fair. As I understood it, the individual votes of members of the court were sub rosa, only the yes/no result was published, and Thomas was the only one who publicly said what his vote was. So it could have been a 5-4 decision, with Thomas and the 3 trump appointees on the same side, those others (if any) just haven’t spoken about it publicly. As you quoted in the article: > [@wolfpup](#): > > Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, did not **publicly** dissent Emphasis added ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4191 "2022-01-20T17:18:05Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > As I understood it, the individual votes of members of the court were sub rosa, only the yes/no result was published, and Thomas was the only one who publicly said what his vote was. So it could have been a 5-4 decision, with Thomas and the 3 trump appointees on the same side, those others (if any) just haven’t spoken about it publicly. > **[Supreme Court paves way for Trump White House document review by Jan. 6...](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-paves-trump-white-house-document-review/story?id=82236640)** > > The Supreme Court has denied President Donald Trump's request for a stay of a lower court mandate. > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied former President Donald Trump’s request for a stay of a lower court mandate that hundreds of pages of his presidential records from Jan. 6 be turned over to the congressional committee investigating the attack on the U.S. Capitol. > > The vote was 8-1. Justice Clarence Thomas would have granted the application. I’ve seen the 8-1 figure several places, I just picked one at random. Do you think this is mistaken? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4192 "2022-01-20T17:29:23Z")
Hm. You may be right - SCOTUSBlog [https://www.scotusblog.com/](https://www.scotusblog.com/) explicitly says the vote count for other decisions, but not this one. On the other hand, why wouldn’t dissenters make their own votes explicit? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4193 "2022-01-20T17:50:13Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > > [@wolfpup](#): > > > > Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, did not **publicly** dissent > > Emphasis added Kavanaugh wrote the bulk of what was released with the decision: > [@](#): > > The Court of Appeals suggested that a former President may not successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, at least if the current President does not support the privilege claim. As this Court’s order today makes clear, those portions of the Court of Appeals’ opinion were dicta and should not be considered binding precedent going forward. > Moreover, I respectfully disagree with the Court of Appeals on that point. A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim. Concluding otherwise would eviscerate the executive privilege for Presidential communications. He continues on for most of two and a half pages. If he wanted to support Trump, I think that he would have. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4194 "2022-01-20T18:02:42Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > I’ve seen the 8-1 figure several places, I just picked one at random. Do you think this is mistaken? At this point, it just seems unclear. I think it’s possible that ABC News (and others) got it wrong in the first rush of information. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > why wouldn’t dissenters make their own votes explicit? Why wouldn’t they all make their own votes explicit? Why would the actual vote not be reported officially? I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4195 "2022-01-20T18:24:18Z")
The plot thickens: > **[Fulton DA in Georgia requests special grand jury for Trump election probe](https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/breaking-fulton-da-requests-special-grand-jury-for-trump-probe/E5HCDM2P75ETRAEUHBK2Q7L3FY/)** > > Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is requesting a special grand jury to aid in her investigation of former President Donald Trump and his efforts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. > Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is requesting a special grand jury to aid in her investigation of former President Donald Trump and his efforts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. > In a Thursday letter to Christopher S. Brasher, chief judge of Fulton County’s Superior Court, Willis said the move was needed because a “significant number of witnesses and prospective witnesses have refused to cooperate with the investigation absent a subpoena requiring their testimony.”… ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4196 "2022-01-20T18:35:14Z")
A grand jury is nice, but does have potential problems. If, and I think this is likely, there are MAGAts on the jury, it’s likely they’ll vote against issuing subpoenas for Trump or his associates. I don’t know the rules about how grand juries work in Georgia, but for petit juries, this kind of thing will be a problem getting a conviction, since those have to be unanimous. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4197 "2022-01-20T18:40:45Z")
It looks like judgments deciding cases get documented with which justices decided and which dissented (and which concurred with only part of the consensus, etc.), but judgments about lower court rulings get only “The Court sez” and dissenting/concurring notes from Justices that want to make them, without the details on who voted which way. Supreme Court watchers may have a sense of how to read the tea leaves and decide that Justices that didn’t dissent probably (or almost certainly) concurred. In this case, if it was close, I suspect more folks would put themselves on the record - but that’s just my uninformed guess. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4198 "2022-01-20T18:46:25Z")
I found this: [https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/grand-jury-indictment](https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/grand-jury-indictment) > While a trial jury must reach a unanimous vote to convict, a grand jury only requires a majority vote of 12 or more to approve an indictment. Furthermore, only 16 of the 23 jurors have to be present. If they decide to approve the indictment, the words “true bill” will be endorsed on it. If there is not enough evidence to support the indictment, they will endorse it “no bill,” and the case will not move forward, and the charges will be dismissed. In Georgia, about 90% of grand juries indict. Across the country, the average is 95%. Therefore, it is likely that there is an indictment when it goes before a grand jury. So there is a good chance that they will find him as indictable as any other ham sandwich. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4199 "2022-01-20T18:56:53Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > A grand jury is nice, but does have potential problems. If, and I think this is likely, there are MAGAts on the jury, it’s likely they’ll vote against issuing subpoenas for Trump or his associates. Does a grand jury have a say about subpoenas? I thought they only voted to indict or not to indict and things like subpoenas were up to the presiding judge. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4200 "2022-01-20T19:06:14Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is requesting a special grand jury to aid in her investigation of former President Donald Trump and his efforts to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. About damn time. Trump asked the SS of Georgia to ‘find’ him 11,000 votes. A Texas woman got 5 YEARS in prison for casting ONE vote while on probation. It’s total, total bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4201 "2022-01-20T19:45:39Z")
I was curious why this was a “special” grand jury and what that meant, so I went looking and found this: > **[EXPLAINER: What's a Special Grand Jury and How Does It Work?](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/georgia/articles/2022-01-20/explainer-whats-a-special-grand-jury-and-how-does-it-work)** > > A prosecutor who’s investigating possible attempts by former President Donald Trump and others to interfere in the 2020 general election in Georgia has called for a special grand jury to help move the case along. > [@](#): > > WHAT IS A SPECIAL GRAND JURY? > > A special grand jury, or special purpose grand jury, is impaneled specifically to investigate any alleged violation of the laws of the state of Georgia. > > HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM A REGULAR GRAND JURY? > > A regular grand jury in Georgia is seated for a limited duration, one term of court — in Fulton County that’s two months. Grand jurors hear everything from felony shoplifting to murder cases and then decide whether to issue an indictment. > > A special grand jury has no set term and focuses on a single topic. Unlike a regular grand jury, a special grand jury can subpoena the target of an investigation to appear before it, former Gwinnett County district attorney Danny Porter said. When the investigation is done, a special grand jury produces a report on its findings but can’t issue an indictment. > > WHY USE A SPECIAL GRAND JURY? > > Special grand juries are used for an expansive topic that takes longer than a single term of court to investigate and often has to do with public corruption, Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia executive director Pete Skandalakis said. ---
**Author:** ![dtilque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d6d6ee/32.png) [@dtilque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtilque)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4202 "2022-01-20T23:07:06Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > When the investigation is done, a special grand jury produces a report on its findings but can’t issue an indictment. You have to wonder what’s the point of a Special Grand Jury if they can’t indict. Maybe an ordinary grand jury can indict purely on the basis of the report? Or the prosecutor could do it without an ordinary grand jury? I also wonder how quashable are Special Grand Jury subpoenas? You know Trump is going to fight any issued to him or a close associate. Can he potentially find a friendly appeals judge to do that? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2022, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4203 "2022-01-20T23:53:33Z")
> [@dtilque](#): > > You have to wonder what’s the point of a Special Grand Jury if they can’t indict. Maybe an ordinary grand jury can indict purely on the basis of the report? Or the prosecutor could do it without an ordinary grand jury? From the article: “If the special grand jury recommends charges, it’s still up to the district attorney to decide whether to pursue an indictment. If the district attorney does want to seek an indictment, the case must be presented to a regular grand jury.” I’d guess that the idea is that by the time the special grand jury arrives at a decision, they’re no longer viewed as an impartial body, so you need another grand jury to review what they made. Or, alternately, because the goal is to allow the process to be free of corruption, while tackling those who are corrupt, _them corrupt politicians who wrote the law_ wanted to add in more steps, to make it harder to go forward… ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2022, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4204 "2022-01-21T00:11:51Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Indeed the Supreme Court ruling was nearly unanimous, the only dissent coming, not from any of Trump’s nominees, but from Clarence Thomas, a man so deluded and incompetent that **he’s unfit to be judging hogs at a county fair.** Maybe that’s what he thought he was doing. It would have been entirely understandable, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Unintentionally\_Blank](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/unintentionally_blank/32/5418_2.png) [@Unintentionally\_Blank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unintentionally_Blank)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2022, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4205 "2022-01-21T01:01:15Z")
About that dropping the _ **One America News Network** _ is there, like, some kind of vocab word that describes this behavior? The overly optimistic inaccurate statement used to defraud? Make America Great Again, Alternative Facts, Truth Social…it’s like any time there’s a statement from the right, it’s…well…a lie. I’d like to submit Alternative Facting, but I’m _happy_ to defer to more catchy phrases. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2022, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537/4206 "2022-01-21T01:11:05Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > > [@Sherrerd](#): > > > > > [@Steve\_MB](#): > > > > > > > NY attorney general describes possible fraud at Trump family business > > > > > > It would be more surprising if they found possible business at the Trump family fraud. > > > > Nicely done! > > I laughed. Jimmy Fallon used the exact same joke in his monologue, last night. Not that I’m claiming we have a _Tonight Show_ writer as a member of The Dope, or even accessing it; it may be a case of Great Minds Think Alike. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537.md?page=209) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-perfectly-reasonable-amount-of-schadenfreude-about-things-happening-to-trump-his-enablers-part-1/925537.md?page=211)