|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Supposedly around end of June going by this reuters article. IF SCOTUS decides to be responsible and issue their findings before June 1 and it doesn't set off a new round of fact finding and appeals then theoretically the DC case can finish before November. But just barely. Doesn't seem likely. edit: Apparently Bove lied to the jury yesterday and was forced to apologize this morning: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-everything-you-need-to-know-heading-into-the-trump-trial-in-new-york quote:But that document appears to have been more of a prop than a piece of evidence. After jurors left the room Thursday, and following objections from the prosecution, Judge Juan Merchan accused Bove of leaving the jury with a false impression. So, you've got one Trump lawyer asserting legal statements without basis in law and the other deliberately lying to the Jury? When do sanctions start? edit2: and then now Bove just said a redacted witness name in open court and then said, "I didn't mean to say that" as the prosecution is shouting at him. Murgos fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Apr 26, 2024 |
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
Better get used to those bars, kid. (If only).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 21:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1783905169672990851 https://twitter.com/Tarquin_Helmet/status/1783881987360542831
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 23:00
|
|
|
So Trump appoints three SCOTUS judges and gets his way where anything that's an "official act" is totes legal but, darn, he just can't get a fair trial in NYC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
I worry the SC is going to hold that official acts are immune, private acts are not, and the test of private/public is open enough that when Jack Smith comes back and says, “ok all these acts were private” trumps lawyers can argue “no they were public, if you look at them this way,” setting off endless rounds of further rulings with appeals with counter rulings with counter appeals ad infinitum. It’s definitely one of the two outcomes Trump’s lawyers want. It seems more likely than a blanket “he’s immune” ruling. I did personally get eh feeling from listening to the entire hearing that Alito and Thomas were the only ones that, even a little bit, agree with Trump’s position. Even Kavaghana had moments where he was asking questions about how to navigate presidential immunity and would be like, “oh not for this case, no way, but for any future questions on immunity..” everyone seemed extremely skeptical and put on by Trump’s lawyer. Trump’s lawyer also had an explanation for everything and my god was it obvious sometimes the explanations were entirely circular or factually dubious and they didn’t buy them for a second.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 00:34
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:I worry the SC is going to hold that official acts are immune, private acts are not, and the test of private/public is open enough that when Jack Smith comes back and says, “ok all these acts were private” trumps lawyers can argue “no they were public, if you look at them this way,” setting off endless rounds of further rulings with appeals with counter rulings with counter appeals ad infinitum. It’s definitely one of the two outcomes Trump’s lawyers want. It seems more likely than a blanket “he’s immune” ruling. It took two years for the SC to finally order Nixon to turn over his tapes to Congress. This stuff is never fast - which Trump was correctly banking on. There was no real chance ever of this trial getting in before the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:23
|
|
|
No trial was ever going to save anyone from Trump, least of all the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:35
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:I worry the SC is going to hold that official acts are immune, private acts are not, and the test of private/public is open enough that when Jack Smith comes back and says, “ok all these acts were private” trumps lawyers can argue “no they were public, if you look at them this way,” setting off endless rounds of further rulings with appeals with counter rulings with counter appeals ad infinitum. It’s definitely one of the two outcomes Trump’s lawyers want. It seems more likely than a blanket “he’s immune” ruling. One reason I think the SC might not split it into official/personal acts like this is that the supposed deterrent effect on presidential decisions (Alito's scare mongering about a president paralyzed by fear of being prosecuted) would still be there under that scenario. We can't have a president constantly trying to discern whether their actions are personal or not! I feel like they're more likely to just declare total immunity for the presidential term unless impeached+convicted rather than take the half measure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 02:48
|
|
|
The United States presidency is just monarchy with more steps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 03:35
|
|
|
mutata posted:No trial was ever going to save anyone from Trump, least of all the country. Incorrect. Both a Trial by Stone and a Trial by Combat almost certainly would have saved us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 04:10
|
|
|
i am mentally preparing myself for a RIDICULOUSLY horseshit split ruling where certain lawbreaking is not ok, but the kind of lawbreaking the fedsoc shitholes want a future conservative president to do ... are actually super ok! so here's an even more horseshit delineation of what lawbreaking is actually illegal and what is ok. ORIGINALISM
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 05:33
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Incorrect. Both a Trial by Stone and a Trial by Combat almost certainly would have saved us. I also rather doubt he floats
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 07:28
|
|
|
Fat is buoyant, muscle sinks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 07:30
|
|
|
gregday posted:The United States presidency is just monarchy with more steps. More like the SCOTUS is, unlike the president, they’re there for however long they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 11:22
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:More like the SCOTUS is, unlike the president, they’re there for however long they want. At least they can't name their own successors. Yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:At least they can't name their own successors. Might want to read up on how Kennedy retired.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 14:56
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Might want to read up on how Kennedy retired. Yeah they've been de facto picking their successors for a while. A strong congress unified in telling SCOTUS to shove it can buck that of course but realistically with today's weak fragmented congress that isn't happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 15:35
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Yeah they've been de facto picking their successors for a while. Unless their name is Ruth Bader Ginsburg then they don't even wait a week to ignore her wishes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2024 15:39
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It took two years for the SC to finally order Nixon to turn over his tapes to Congress. This stuff is never fast - which Trump was correctly banking on. There was no real chance ever of this trial getting in before the election. I mean it would have been more possible if the Biden DOJ hadn't dragged it's feet for a year on even investigating Trump's various crimes. That stupid move might literally cost us our democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 19:37
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I mean it would have been more possible if the Biden DOJ hadn't dragged it's feet for a year on even investigating Trump's various crimes. That stupid move might literally cost us our democracy. Specifically Merrick Garland, the limpest wrist in law. Dude could've ridden the post-J6 high and clapped the fucker in chains but no he wanted to just let poo poo play out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 19:42
|
|
|
I don't think that's true? Is there any reputable law scholar that agrees the DOJ/FBI could have arrested Trump immediately and not after an extensive investigation? I see conservatives arguing instead that its the DOJ/Dems who delayed and that the USSC is doing everything correctly, so just from that sort of association I'm not inclined to think its true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 19:49
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I mean it would have been more possible if the Biden DOJ hadn't dragged it's feet for a year on even investigating Trump's various crimes. That stupid move might literally cost us our democracy. The country electing Trump might have cost you your democracy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:01
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I mean it would have been more possible if the Biden DOJ hadn't dragged it's feet for a year on even investigating Trump's various crimes. That stupid move might literally cost us our democracy. You don't bring charges until you're sure you've got a provable case. It took a long time to gather the evidence necessary to make any charges stick. I don't think there was much heel-dragging involved, just caution. They only got one shot and didn't dare miss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
If DOJ weren't peppered with chuds dragging their feet and "failing" to take notice of lawlessness all around them and actually enforce the law, it wouldn't have taken 18 months for Garland to appoint Jack Smith
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
duodenum posted:If DOJ weren't peppered with chuds dragging their feet and "failing" to take notice of lawlessness all around them and actually enforce the law, it wouldn't have taken 18 months for Garland to appoint Jack Smith Really? What is your evidence to support this claim?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure they waited until after Congress issues its recommendations? You have the Jan 6 committee which needed time to do its job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
the delay was mostly decorum and partly trump himself asking for extensions. "can you do this?" "not yet, check back next month" "ok, it's been a month, can you please do this?" "WHY NOW?? WHY NOT LAST MONTH??"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:34
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:the delay was mostly decorum and partly trump himself asking for extensions. I think you're confusing Jan 6 crimes with the classified documents crimes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I mean it would have been more possible if the Biden DOJ hadn't dragged it's feet for a year on even investigating Trump's various crimes. That stupid move might literally cost us our democracy. NYS could have nailed Trump to the wall for fraud a decade ago but didn't do that either
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:40
|
|
|
Everyone on the Jan 6th committee was really surprised DOJ was doing nothing, though. DOJ should have been on this from the jump and they really underestimated what the J6 cmte was going to be able to show. In part just because Mark Meadows cooperated until he realized what a huge mistake he had made giving up his cell phone. All those texts to Meadows from FOX News hosts and GOP legislators really shocked people and they still do today. I understand Bill Barr put enormous pressure on the NY and DC federal prosecutors, leading to standoffs, resignations, and sham investigations into Obama appointees that went literally nowhere. That is why Alvin Bragg brought charges over the hush money crimes instead of the Feds. But Garland had an opportunity to restore faith in the system after J6 and he failed utterly. Honestly, if Pelosi had given in to McCarthy and let Jim Jordan and the other MAGA bomb-throwers onto the J6 Cmte who knows if we'd have even gotten a special prosecutor at all. Turmp absolutely has to be defeated in November. It is imperative. Because it looks like SCOTUS is going to send the DC case back to Chutkan to litigate which acts are official versus which acts are personal and that is going to take a very long time.The documents case is going nowhere. The GA Rico case appears to be totally stalled. Since the GA judge will allow his ruling on Willis to be appealed, I guess we have to wait for that? If Trump somehow manages to win in November I have no idea how I will deal with it. I honestly can't guess how I could live with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Everyone on the Jan 6th committee was really surprised DOJ was doing nothing, though. But specifically, where is the evidence for this? By "everyone" on the Jan 6 committee, were they legitimately according to the law surprised, or just posturing for politics? There's a difference between someone on the committee being actually surprised and just saying they're surprised and without context I don't think its true at a glance. How do we know that the DOJ/FBI weren't doing their own investigation? How did Barr and when did he put pressure on people in the justice system? This is the first time I've heard of Barr being involved at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 20:57
|
|
|
There were also significant delays in the state level prosecutions. The current NY state case could have been indicted years previously.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 22:27
|
|
|
Yeah, but Trump and his defenders are all "if they had such a good case, why didn't they bring it earlier" and they think that the DoJ intentionally sandbagged it to time it with the election. But if they'd brought charges immediately it'd be "they have no case"
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Merchan might be delaying giving Trump a custodial punishment because there's nowhere to put an ex-President in the klink. Leavenworth is set up for it, but if that's not secure enough we still have prisoners in Guantanamo Bay...
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 00:59
|
|
|
I dont think a NY judge can send him to a federal prison, otherwise Florence ADX has plenty of room.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:A lot of these links are similarly confusing, I'm not sure what they have to do with the original claim. I said, "I understand Bill Barr put enormous pressure on the NY and DC federal prosecutors, leading to standoffs, resignations, and sham investigations into Obama appointees that went literally nowhere. That is why Alvin Bragg brought charges over the hush money crimes instead of the Feds." BiggerBoat got what you didn't. The Feds at SDNY were pursuing the hush-money/campaign-violation crimes up until Barr finally got his way, by making it known Trump wanted Berman fired. Did you figure out who Geoffrey Berman was, his job title, where he worked, or who was trying to force him to resign? Or why? Do you yet understand why Alvin Bragg and the NY state DAs held off pursuing the case until much later? You never "heard of Barr being involved at all." Never?? It is not surprising, then, that you are confused. You are confused as to why over 2000 former DOJ prosecutors signed onto a call for Barr to resign. The article didn't help, I see. But you "never heard of Barr being involved at all" in shutting down the NY hush money investigation, or trying to overturn Michael Cohen's conviction... or of interfering in Roger Stone's investigations... or forcing DC prosecutors, who didn't stand up to him as firmly as Berman, into bringing meritless investigations into Obama officials that never brought any charges. I took the time to lay all of this out for you. And now you expect me to what, find you quotations from every member of the House Select Committee saying what Lofgren said? Why? So you can ignore them too while complaining about how confusing it all is?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 05:01 |
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:Do you think you understood the original claim? I mean BiggerBoat can elaborate on what they meant, but I didn't see their post as agreeing with a particular argument but more speaking generally in relation to hypothetical Trump defenders and not specifically to what's being said here. In any case you're still not making any sense to me, the context of the original discussion, was the claim "The DOJ should have charged Trump sooner, but didn't for (bad reasons)". In your first post contributing to this discussion you bring up Barr, why? What does Barr have to do with January 6th or the DOJ allegedly not investigating Trump for Jan 6 in a timely manner? Your links, and what assertion in your original post, do not seem to have a clear connection. The point isn't for you to bring up an article for every person on the committee saying the words "I was surprised, shocked, bamboozled" its to find concrete evidence, or at least a solid argument that the DOJ and specifically Merrick Garland should have simply arrested Trump then and there but didn't when they could have. I don't think this is true, and additionally your original claim is that they were doing nothing but the article you brought up, was about subpoena'ing a particular witness, and didn't say anything at all about the idea that the DOJ was doing nothing at all. Like does: quote:Everyone on the Jan 6th committee was really surprised DOJ was doing nothing, though. Have to do with?: quote:I understand Bill Barr put enormous pressure on the NY and DC federal prosecutors, leading to standoffs, resignations, and sham investigations into Obama appointees that went literally nowhere. That is why Alvin Bragg brought charges over the hush money crimes instead of the Feds. Is it just to make say that "The DOJ under Trump was corrupt, to make a show of not being corrupt, Merrick could've Done Something"? Okay, I feel like you could've easily clarified that, if so, but what though? It's still very vague and I'm still not seeing what substantively speaking they should've been doing that they allegedly weren't. You seem to be listing a series of unconnected facts but I'm not sure what point its supposed to be making, maybe you could just clarify your point? Like your post is legitimately confusing, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make and how it connects to the idea that the DOJ, under Biden (who appointed Merrick) could've legitimately done something regarding Trump but simply choose not to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 02:05
|
|