|
Kchama posted:“She can influence the prosuectors” isn’t actually a thing that can DQ her. MPF's comment Main Paineframe posted:She runs the office. All the other prosecutors in the office are her employees and subordinates, and therefore highly vulnerable to potentially being influenced by her. was in response to Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Wait, why would Willis getting DQ for being improperly horny also apply to the whole office? It is the correct description of why Willis' whole office is DQ'd if she is. e:Added MPF quote for context on new page
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 03:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:MPF's comment Oh, yes, that’s correct. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 03:48
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I don’t know if putting all the horny people in prison is going to lead to less sex. Defund the 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 04:01
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:I am pretty sure that Bradley was a witness identified and called by Merchant, the lawyer for Trump’s side (technically for one of his co-defendants but it’s just as good for Trump if this case goes Merchant’s way) and this clip was Merchant trying to get him to substantiate the gossiping he did to her that got her to launch the case and he was just absolutely refusing to. This seems to be about as close to the truth, or at least what will be the final version of it, that we are going to get. One tidbit that’s gotten lost in all the recent reporting and speculation is that Wade and Willis broke up before the indictment was voted out of the grand jury. Which to me makes the whole thing seem moot anyway. If Willis had no financial stake in Wades employment at the time the charges were voted out by a presumably neutral grand jury then why the hell are we even here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 04:16
|
|
|
Murgos posted:This seems to be about as close to the truth, or at least what will be the final version of it, that we are going to get. It's a reed to be grasped at to delay the trial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 04:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1762650003322056820
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 04:20
|
|
|
Well then, lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 04:24
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:Well then, lol Can’t keep dragging her feet if she’s kicked off the case
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 04:27
|
|
|
I find the Cannon documents case to be the most interesting and the worst set of facts for Trump. I have pictures of those boxes saved on my phone because they're so drat funny. If Cannon isn't a shithead, what is Trump facing as a first-time offender if this gets ruled on first? Secondly, Cannon has proved herself to be a shithead. What's the worst that she can do upon a guilty conviction? And if she does that very bad thing, can this ruling be changed/appealed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 05:45
|
|
|
Are there still realistic grounds to remove the case from Cannon in the future?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 06:43
|
|
|
small butter posted:I find the Cannon documents case to be the most interesting and the worst set of facts for Trump. I have pictures of those boxes saved on my phone because they're so drat funny. If it goes all the way to a guilty conviction, not much. Federal guidelines for sentencing are fairly ironclad. She can rule away from them, of course, but the state can appeal and get her poo poo slapped down at that point. Anything substantive she directly does can be subject to appeal, even though the state wants to avoid that. Her goal is very much to get him over the finish line to Jan 20 of next year. If he wins the election, then the case goes away. If he doesn't that is an issue for him. As for what he is facing? It is... Weird. The classified docs stuff maximums are 10, 20 and 5 years for the three types of charges, and the multiple counts will get lumped in together. However, what actually happens is math. And that math is fuzzy because one of his big mitigating factors (first time offender) might not actually be true by the timr his sentence comes down here. The general consensus is basically 'the rest of his life'. Man is pushing 80 and if he goes to jail he will almost certainly die there. Probably somewhere around 5-15 years by federal guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 06:59
|
|
|
Pappyland posted:Are there still realistic grounds to remove the case from Cannon in the future? Really kinda depends on Cannon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 07:11
|
|
|
small butter posted:
I think legal eagle said she could just straight up kill the case before the verdict or if she was so inclined or just give him no prison time. I do wonder if she'll just wait for the election and if he loses maybe just start acting like a judge so her legacy might not be so trash.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 07:56
|
|
|
Scapegoat posted:I think legal eagle said she could just straight up kill the case before the verdict or if she was so inclined or just give him no prison time. I do wonder if she'll just wait for the election and if he loses maybe just start acting like a judge so her legacy might not be so trash. She's a chudge, her legacy will be diamond if she keeps the corpulent crime goblin from jail. She doesn't care about what people lacking brain spiders think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 11:01
|
|
|
Canon is great; up to the point where it starts loving up prescient narrative intent. Best bet would be to put her in a corner where she has to defy Trump in any way. Let MAGA take care of the rest. Play stupid games...
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 12:38
|
|
|
Caros posted:Anything substantive she directly does can be subject to appeal, even though the state wants to avoid that. Her goal is very much to get him over the finish line to Jan 20 of next year. If he wins the election, then the case goes away. If he doesn't that is an issue for him. If we're so sure that she wants to help Trump and not, you know, actually serve justice, how was she not already taken off the case? By what mechanism does the case go away if Trump wins? Does Trump unilaterally stop it? Do the feds stop it by getting replaced by prosecutors who drop it? What happens if there's a guilty verdict after Trump wins but before he's inaugurated?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 14:40
|
|
|
small butter posted:If we're so sure that she wants to help Trump and not, you know, actually serve justice, how was she not already taken off the case? when you got that many questions number them man 1) She's got a history of being really chudgy but she hasn't done anything yet on the case that's so overt and extreme it would force reassignment. TBF it's basically impossible for this to happen unless she's extraordinarily stupid. 2) It depends on how Trump wins. If the judge does something to toss the case, that's appealable and the prosecutor will appeal it and then it will be sent back, but cause delay. If Trump somehow wins a jury not guilty verdict the case goes away forever he's not guilty. If the case is delayed until after the election, and then Trump wins, then once he is in office he could order the DOJ to drop the case or (arguably) issue a self-pardon. [Important note: nobody at all is actually arguing that Trump didn't do it; factually the case is a slam dunk]. 3) It would depend more on the timing of sentencing than the timing of conviction; in federal cases they have separate sentencing hearings, often a few weeks or months after plea or conviction. I would expect Cannon to delay sentencing in such a situation until after the inauguration. Theoretically, Trump could be sent to jail and be incarcerated in federal custody and also be president, although he'd have to be inaugurated and swear the oath. edit: hilariously, if Trump is incarcerated on his Georgia or New York state charges, he will not get federal time credit on his pending federal charges. The feds do not give credit for state level time. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Feb 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 14:51
|
|
|
What New York State case is a criminal case? E. Jean Carrol and the property fraud cases are civil, and I thought the Stormy Daniels campaign finance case was civil too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:18
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:What New York State case is a criminal case? E. Jean Carrol and the property fraud cases are civil, and I thought the Stormy Daniels campaign finance case was civil too. Nah, the Stormy Daniels case is criminal. It’s the one starting in late March.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:22
|
|
|
The Stormy Daniels one is criminal but controversially so, as I understand it, in that the state civil charge becomes a criminal charge if in service of a different crime, but Alvin Bragg is using a federal charge to upgrade the state charge. It makes sense that can happen, but I think some non-terrible lawyers have said that it could be knocked back down to civil as you can't merge federal and state affairs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:39
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Nah, the Stormy Daniels case is criminal. It’s the one starting in late March. Yeah everyone had basically forgotten about it. Tbf the maximum realistic penalty is a fine; jail time is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
Caros posted:If it goes all the way to a guilty conviction, not m And that math is fuzzy because one of his big mitigating factors (first time offender) might not actually be true by the timr his sentence comes down here. I could be wrong depending on how the feds do things but I believe he would still be a "first time offender" on all pending charges as what matters is status at the time the offense was committed, not status at time of sentencing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:44
|
|
|
Do all your crimes in one giant spree, one weird trick to minimize jail time!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 15:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The Stormy Daniels one is criminal but controversially so, as I understand it, in that the state civil charge becomes a criminal charge if in service of a different crime, but Alvin Bragg is using a federal charge to upgrade the state charge. Are you sure you don't meant that the crimes were misdemeanors that have been upgraded to felonies via campaign-finance laws? At least one of our memories is garbled. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah everyone had basically forgotten about it. Tbf the maximum realistic penalty is a fine; jail time is theoretically possible but extremely unlikely. Maybe it knocks away that first-time offender status.  Since the feds and Georgia are taking so long, it's gotta be The Empire State picking up the slack. (This is why you need a good state flag that you can proudly fly at times like this. The New York state flag is just some neo-classical figures in a seal on a blue background and not really good for anything. C'mon, give me a stylized Headless Horsemen or even Pizza Rat.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 16:04
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I could be wrong depending on how the feds do things but I believe he would still be a "first time offender" on all pending charges as what matters is status at the time the offense was committed, not status at time of sentencing. Would there not be legal-speak saying "first time offender" doesn't count if you're lying to the FBI for years, acting specifically to continue the crime, hide the evidence, and continuing to lie about it further to cover it all up? For normal people handling sensitive documents you can have fuckups, and if you come clean you're generally treated pretty well as incentive to let the document holders know the realistic status of their information. Normal people don't get that treatment if they're lying, covering it up, and taking actions to keep even more documents hidden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 16:06
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Are you sure you don't meant that the crimes were misdemeanors that have been upgraded to felonies via campaign-finance laws? At least one of our memories is garbled. That sounds better; I am not a lawyer nor a very good law breaker so I just think of them as charges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 16:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I could be wrong depending on how the feds do things but I believe he would still be a "first time offender" on all pending charges as what matters is status at the time the offense was committed, not status at time of sentencing. You'd think it would just matter the chronology of when the crimes were committed, not if the sentence was past before another change is laid, but I guess just for keeping paper work in order that could make things easier. Now days you would think that wouldn't be that hard to keep track of though. Actually I would of thought it was more just a too the discretion of the judge type thing, as they do seem to have quite a bit of discretion on sentencing, but they do have sentencing guidelines. dr_rat fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Feb 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:You'd think it would just matter the chronology of when the crimes were committed, not if the sentence was past before another change is laid, but I guess just for keeping paper work in order that could make things easier. The argument is that, e.g., you can't have a "second offense" DUI if you haven't been convicted of a first offense, because having that first conviction is an element of the "2nd offense" charge, and you weren't guilty of that element at the time of the offense. At the time you drove drunk, you couldn't have known you were committing a second offense after a prior conviction. You might have thought you were innocent, not realized your actions were criminal, not had a chance to talk to a lawyer, etc. Once you have a conviction, those lines of defense evaporate. If you do it again after a judge has already punished you once, you've made a choice. That said that's how state level charges work in terms of 1st, 2nd, 3rd offense. Having prior offenses are the time of sentencing is a slightly different calculation. I've never practiced federal criminal defense and I don't know how federal sentencing guidelines take account of that distinction, or don't. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Feb 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 16:59
|
|
|
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=oor8_PLUS_SyilUVorLgVywrDfQ==quote:cnn said: lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 17:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:At the time you drove drunk, you couldn't have known you were committing a second offense after a prior conviction. You might have thought you were innocent, not realized your actions were criminal, not had a chance to talk to a lawyer, etc. Once you have a conviction, those lines of defense evaporate. Okay so it's just about your state of mind when you committed the crime, that does make sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=oor8_PLUS_SyilUVorLgVywrDfQ== This is basically "ignore the fact that we were found guilty of fraud and the law states these remedies are legal, we're just saying "nuh uh doesn't count" and you should let us have our way" isn't it
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Very much so, yes. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 17:08
|
|
|
When does Trump get labeled as a vexatious litigant?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:When does Trump get labeled as a vexatious litigant? Preferably with a branding iron
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Guys. I think trump might actually just be too broke to pay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:when you got that many questions number them man Thanks. I actually see numbering as rude for some reason, kind like I feel entitled to an answer to each question. 1. Does granting the special master per the request of Trump's team not constitute "extraordinarily stupid"? 2. If the case is delayed past the election and Trump wins, does Trump have to stand trial while president if he doesn't stop the case? How can a president stop the case, least of which one that he's a defendant in? That seems like an extraordinary level of power, like a king. 3. If the sentencing is delayed until after the election and Trump wins, can he stop anything then (since he's already been found guilty)? small butter fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Feb 28, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
small butter posted:2. If the case is delayed past the election and Trump wins, does Trump have to stand trial while president if he doesn't stop the case? How can a president stop the case, least of which one that he's a defendant in? That seems like an extraordinary level of power, like a king. Being charged with a massive number of crimes was supposed to implicitly disqualify you from the presidency by a) making you unappealing to the electors of the college and b) making you unappealing to the culture of the country so you couldn't attract the popular vote There is no way for a democracy to defend against the will of the majority of the voters, there has to be something else in place to make those voters not want to vote themselves over the cliff but all those things are weakened or co-opted now
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
small butter posted:Thanks. I actually see numbering as rude for some reason, kind like I feel entitled to an answer to each question. 1: when I say "extraordinarily stupid" I mean something like announcing in open court "I'm just gonna rule for my big orange boy because he appointed me and I want to pay him back for that." Disqualifying a judge is hard, you have to have real evidence of bias not just some rulings that went against you a few times. 2) presidents are really powerful yes. Like a king. There was a big push to make George Washington a king but they decided on this instead. Limited kingship was basically the model they were working from. 3) theoretically he could pardon himself even then. This may be unconstitutional but it may not be; it's never been tested or litigated before.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Lol. Looks like our boy is even saying he doesn't have the money. Pulling a full gladly-pay-you-Tuesday-for-a-hamburger-today schtick : https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4494342-trump-plans-to-post-100m-bond-in-appeal-of-new-york-civil-fraud-judgement/
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:12 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1762899285480251528
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 19:02
|
|
