|
The Chicago 7 and their layer famously got a whole bunch of contempt of court charges and jail time handed out. As that trail was a circus -and many lawyers, not involved in the trail, at the time were opening questioning the judges decisions- and did end in a mistrial, it's probably more of an example of why judges wouldn't hand out more jail time for contempt of court rather than then why they would.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
Those interested in more detail behind contempt and its underpinnings may find Florida's Benchguide to Contempt insightful and enlightening. In particular, consider the distinction between coercive and punitive, and how appellate courts would treat a sanction that restricts civil liberties for each purpose.Murgos posted:Chutkan's order lifting the stay on the gag order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.124.0.pdf One of the more on point elements is her again, repeatedly, distinguishing between permissible and impermissible public statements: quote:Two of Defendant’s social media posts since the Order’s entry illustrate the comprehensible difference between the statements it permits and those it proscribes. First, on October 20, 2023 after the Order was entered, but before it was administratively stayed—Defendant stated: I do think it continues to highlight how broad Justice's initial request was. If Chutkan, far less ideologically inclined to protect Trump than the Supreme Court will be, saw much of the initial request as overreach... that may be helpful as a point when evaluating measures called for ITT (such as the revocation of all electronic devices to remedy a statement made in an in person interview)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Eh, Engoron and Chutkan both recognize that Trumps tweets are directing his followers to perform acts of violence. And yet neither have done anything that would motivate him to stop
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
It's also important to remember that the goal is not simply punishing Trump, it's to get him to stop making inflammatory statements. The judges are interested in do the least necessary to accomplish that. If a $5,000 fine was enough to change Trump's behavior, then it was the perfect remedy. They're ratcheting it up as is necessary to meet the objective.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
Well, let’s hope and pray that they find Trumps pain point before someone gets murdered by a good Christian man in a red hat.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's also important to remember that the goal is not simply punishing Trump, it's to get him to stop making inflammatory statements. The judges are interested in do the least necessary to accomplish that. Also, beginning today is the trial in the 14th Amendment lawsuit brought by CREW in Colorado. Today, Brandi Buchman (who has done a lot of live coverage of Jan 6 cases) is livetweeting. The thread begins here A couple specific bits I want to call out: First, another instance of Schrödinger's congressional proceeding: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1719010641086689544 It is at once as good as a courtroom, superior to the courtroom, or an empty political charade depending on the case and Trump's needs. That's not entirely wrong (the committee is distinguishable from impeachment hearings and the House's impeachment process distinct from the Senate's), but something that tickles me personally. More relevant (including to ongoing thread discussions that will not die until, at earliest, this is hashed out through the courts) is Colorado's Secretary of State's stance: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1719013593583088011 https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1719014116969402709 The third and fourth of those tweets are probably most crucial to the thread discussions here: Griswold doesn't (and needn't) have evidence to provide as to whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. One of the questions at play is who is the finder of fact for whether Trump is barred by age, citizenship/birth status, and/or the 14th amendment. As I noted upthread, we've seen that question play out for a federal office in Georgia with MTG. Troublingly for Trump's odds here and elsewhere, the answer wasn't "congress" or "judges in a case brought by federal prosecutors". https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1719031033184518252 https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1719038921043038354 Without detail that Buchman isn't providing I can't say for certain, but it seems like the distinction here is Hodges speculating on the motives of the crowd vs testifying to his own motives. The Trump team (like any good originalists) pivot between "plain language" and "the meaning understood at the time" as it suits their needs... but that superposition will necessarily collapse on insurrection. CREW seems set to make the case that both parties on the ground that day saw the events as an effort to prevent or protect the orderly transition of power and both parties believed that the crowd was there in support of (and, to differing extents, at the behest of) Trump. Breaking chronology, I'll return to Trump's opening this morning: https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1719009842206052410 The  coded language mockery reflects a long held belief in violent activist (and shitposter) circles that "in minecraft" is a magic, immunizing phrase or, conversely, that there are certain magic words you need to say to be held accountable for ensuing violence. It's not entirely offbase, the court does have some sorceryish standards around incitement (NAACP boycotts come to mind), but the specific attempts to apply that to fash violence during the Trump era has left a lot of folks bankrupted and imprisoned in the wake of Charlottesville and after Jan6. As with the arguments in front of Chutkan (and I reiterate: your speech is limited because of other people's reaction to your speech is an even more rare and frowned upon subset of prior restraint), it seems to betray a misplaced confidence. The standard here, as with Chutkan, is not "is Trump criminally and/or financially liable for the actions taken as a result of his speech." They continue to argue as if that much higher bar must be cleared. For purposes of the 14th (or the limited gag order in DC), the Supreme Court may yet decide that the testimony and evidence is insufficient, but Trump likely does himself no favors by arguing against the highest, most permissible possible bar. Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Also, beginning today is the trial in the 14th Amendment lawsuit brought by CREW in Colorado. Today, Brandi Buchman (who has done a lot of live coverage of Jan 6 cases) is livetweeting. The thread begins here Twitter threads are not available to anyone who isn't logged into Twitter (it's just a link to one post), so if there's anything important you care to share, this link is effectively a blackhole. The selected tweets you included are visible, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Devor posted:Twitter threads are not available to anyone who isn't logged into Twitter (it's just a link to one post), so if there's anything important you care to share, this link is effectively a blackhole. The selected tweets you included are visible, though. You can always try dumping a twitter link into ThreadReader or similar tools, if it's a popular salient thread it will usually be able to pull it up https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1718998982674788622.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Devor posted:Twitter threads are not available to anyone who isn't logged into Twitter (it's just a link to one post), so if there's anything important you care to share, this link is effectively a blackhole. The selected tweets you included are visible, though. Here is the start: https://nitter.net/Brandi_Buchman/status/1718971808072790250#m That also enables you to read responses, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...le-scotus-bout/quote:Boxing referee-turned-judge knocks out attempt to boot Trump off 2024 ballot, paving way for possible SCOTUS insurrection clause bout
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
For clarity, this is a suit in New Hampshire, not either the MN or CO suits that've been discussed in the thread. The litigant appears to be a cloutchasing moron, but Dan Abrams (of newsnation prime time infamy)'s Law and Crime doesn't link to the docket or opinion so I can't even speculate on the merits. It was kicked for standing, with the judge further opining that it's a political question outside the scope of the courts. That's far from obvious to me, but may be a valid response to a lovely suit  Judge is a GWB appointee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Breaking chronology, I'll return to Trump's opening this morning: "If my client is guilty, why is there so much evidence against him?  " is a pretty interesting legal argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:"If my client is guilty, why is there so much evidence against him? The Trump stance seems to be that if it were insurrection, it'd be insurrection. CREW (and, elsewhere, Justice) wouldn't need language analysts and law profs and congress critters, they'd point to Trump personally leading the charge over the barricades or video of him approving the battle plan and to execute Pence if he refused or any of the other things that would be obvious insurrection. Since they don't have that, they have to throw anything at the wall to hope it sticks and convinces the judge to find insurrection and Trump's culpability where there was none. To my eyes, it meshes pretty well with the argument that the 14th lacks a detailed factfinding process and firm definition because it was only meant to apply to unambiguous, uncontested instances of insurrection. That it was meant to be as cut and dry as the other bright line constitutional requirements. I don't buy that for a variety of reasons discussed up thread, but it's on much firmer ground than most Trump arguments. ETA: Not trying to poo poo on you or be pedantic - just giving an explanation that isn't "look at these morons"... which is probably too charitable to Trump lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:ETA: Not trying to poo poo on you or be pedantic - just giving an explanation that isn't "look at these morons"... which is probably too charitable to Trump lawyers. I think it's more that all he's got is crazy and stupid for council, and they're all straining every brain cell they have to figure out some sort of defense. They can't use any factual defense, their client refuses any defense that might paint him as other the than the greatest most manly man to ever live, and everyone around them is combo criming and grifting 24/7. Fantastic attorneys would be hard pressed to put forth a competent defense, and none of those people have willingly come within a 1000 yards of having Trump as a client since the 80s. All they can do is hope for a reverse 12 Angry Men, but lack the ability to do anything more solid than a cheap and threadbare knock off of South Park's Chewbacca defense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:For clarity, this is a suit in New Hampshire, not either the MN or CO suits that've been discussed in the thread. The litigant appears to be a cloutchasing moron, but Dan Abrams (of newsnation prime time infamy)'s Law and Crime doesn't link to the docket or opinion so I can't even speculate on the merits. He filed pro se in 27 states, roughly half a dozen of them have already dismissed his suits for lack of standing, and the Supreme Court has already denied him cert once. Although he went to law school and pretends to be a lawyer, he has never actually been licensed to practice law. And Trump isn't the only person he's suing. He's notorious for two things: a) suing anyone who says mean things about him or otherwise impedes him in any way b) petty fraud Just a couple months ago, he sued a Wikipedia editor for $180 million for putting on his Wikipedia page that a Texas tax professor had given him an award for sleazy tax accountants who give terrible tax advice. Can't make this poo poo up! He's got quite a track record of outrageous lawsuits, most of which get slapped down before they go too far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:"If my client is guilty, why is there so much evidence against him? this is what trump's legal team is accusing the government of doing with their case against trump. because it's always projection
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 06:46
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:ETA: Not trying to poo poo on you or be pedantic - just giving an explanation that isn't "look at these morons"... which is probably too charitable to Trump lawyers. Oh don't worry, I received it as an interesting exploration of where they are probably coming from, and I think you're probably on the money! Though I suspect Gyges is also saying something pretty true. He's got awful lawyers whose potential arguments are heavily constrained, and there's also a mess of both grifters and true believers involved. A heady cocktail that is giving us some batshit legal thinking. InsertPotPun posted:remember when they presented trump's "healthcare plan" to leslie stahl and it was a bound copy of tweets and existing laws? gently caress me I totally forgot about that, lmao how can one man do so many incredible bits
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 08:33
|
|
|
Yes, but other than that  . Lawandcrime continues to be a great example of a lovely outlet that occasionally pays good folks.Colorado continues today - including the cspam link https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1719356857725116454 Simi was one of the most important expert witnesses in the Unite the Right trial that ended in multimillion dollar judgments against many of the organizers and has also testified in front of the Jan 6 committee. I expect Trump's team to use their cross as another opportunity to hammer on the committee and its report, but am skeptical the judge is going to be swayed by whatever taint-by-association argument they'll make. From a recap of his Charlottesville testimony, it's clear why CREW sought him out quote:“He explained, in the most academic terms possible, the degree to which the performance artistry of the white supremacists is not accidental. It’s deliberate stagecraft, constructed to promote both violent spectacle and plausible deniability.” ETA: Beginning at page 36 of the transcript, Simi's testimony in Virginia included the front stage/back stage explanation A stretch from the cross show some of his effectiveness. Counsel for an Identity Evropa tries to bait him in to first overreaching for a conclusion and then to soften his reporting. Neither works so well: quote:Q Very well. Immersing yourself in the beliefs, I think you testified earlier about a core characteristic of the belief system is white genocide or something like that? Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Nov 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 15:43
|
|
Courtesy of the politoon thread:Skios posted:Chip Bok
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Courtesy of the politoon thread: What's the spying on congress thing about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 04:25
|
|
|
Jim Jordan has announced that Congress will investigate claims that the Justice Department was spying on Congressional staffers who were investigating Justice Department leaks, so of course Bok will just grab it as "Jordan says it, I believe it, that settles it." "Spying" in this case means "subpoenaing personal phone call and email records", because conducting an investigation and gathering evidence through normal chains of evidence in the court system is now unthinkable prying into personal affairs, especially if those affairs are defending the Trump administration from all crime investigations. I may be mischaracterizing the linked article, but gently caress me if I'm going to register for the Wall Street Journal, and they're the only ones reporting on the thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:Jim Jordan has announced that Congress will investigate claims that the Justice Department was spying on Congressional staffers who were investigating Justice Department leaks, so of course Bok will just grab it as "Jordan says it, I believe it, that settles it." No, that's pretty much it. It's also an opinion piece from the WSJ Editorial Board (notoriously bad) and not an actual article from the news side (generally good) and that is why you aren't seeing that specific claim anywhere else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 14:27
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:Jim Jordan has announced that Congress will investigate claims that the Justice Department was spying on Congressional staffers who were investigating Justice Department leaks, so of course Bok will just grab it as "Jordan says it, I believe it, that settles it." It shows how far the fourth estate has failed in its duty to (amongst everything else) be a watchdog for the public trust - one of the reasons a Free Press is enshrined in the Constitution. This type of thing was bread & butter for reporters covering Washington. Constant investigation and questioning helped keep Congress & all of government (more) honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:It shows how far the fourth estate has failed in its duty to (amongst everything else) be a watchdog for the public trust - one of the reasons a Free Press is enshrined in the Constitution. This type of thing was bread & butter for reporters covering Washington. Constant investigation and questioning helped keep Congress & all of in (more) honest. This is the long term effect of ending the fairness doctrine and most importantly not enforcing anti-trust laws limiting media ownership consolidation. Resulting in a small number of rich fucks controlling the vast majority of the media. https://billmoyers.com/story/media-consolidation-should-anyone-care/ That's a 5 year old story and the situation has only gotten worse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
Oooh, Don Jr. takes to the stand in New York. This is gonna be spicy. [edit] Also looks like Cannon is going to delay the FL document's case until after the Washington DC case completes: https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1719788345117557070 Cimber fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Nov 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Oooh, Don Jr. takes to the stand in New York. This is gonna be spicy. So basically, after the election?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So basically, after the election? Probably, yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
Watch: Cannon will delay the trial start date until after the election, and then an Appeals court will remand Trump to jail awaiting trial for some as-yet-to-be-exposed evidence demonstrating he's a flight risk. (Yes, I know this has basically a 0% chance of actually happening...but it would be funny.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Literally the Mr. Burns meme where Trump is saved by having too many charges to prosecute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
Junior’s testimony seems to amount to “I’m too stupid to be responsible” as predicted. I doubt that Engoron will be sympathetic to that argument though. Murgos fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Nov 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 23:53
|
|
|
https://i.imgur.com/CCzd1pC.mp4 "All the crimes he's committed can't fit in a courtroom, rendering him immune to prosecution."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
Can you use an insanity defense in a civil suit? Asking for a friend
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
Insanity is just a defense against the mens rea of a crime or liability. If the elements have the necessary mental components then sure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:So basically, after the election? what a shock who could ever have seen this coming
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
Is there any sort of potential review of the judge’s decision, re: timeline or is it pretty much set in stone?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
basically, they'd have to find that the judge abused their discretion, and that it would prove an undue burden. A very high bar to clear
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
SirFozzie posted:basically, they'd have to find that the judge abused their discretion, and that it would prove an undue burden. A very high bar to clear IANAL, but it sounds like Cannon made her decision based on an incorrect understanding of CIPA Section 4. That's something which is more easily appeals Le than a judge's discretion. I know MeidasTouch is frowned on as leftist grifters by some goons, but the Legal AF podcast describes it in layperson terms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 01:44
|
|
|
So Jr today claims today on the allegations that he signed documents that inflated Dons worth by $2 bil that he just signed things that CPAs put in front of him, and he had no idea what he was signing. Yes, this was all a scheme made up by accountants and the Trumps are completely innocent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW0mYGHel74
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
OgNar posted:So Jr today claims today on the allegations that he signed documents that inflated Dons worth by $2 bil that he just signed things that CPAs put in front of him, and he had no idea what he was signing. "I was incompetent, your honor." Works every time. 30% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
Looks like Eric is still up for tomorrow. Don on Monday and Ivanka has been shifted to next Wednesday according to a graphic I saw on CNN. A better breakdown of todays BS. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKq5O4roAhw OgNar fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Nov 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 02:57
|
|