|
Manafort found guilty on 8 counts (6x tax fraud, 2x bank fraud), jury hung on 10 other counts.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Manafort found guilty on 8 counts (6x tax fraud, 2x bank fraud), jury hung on 10 other counts. Don't forget Cohen! Pleaded guilty on a bunch of tax fraud stuff and also election violations and is stating he was directed to do so by Trump, lol It does seem crazy to me that a business in DC apparently has a business model of accepting undeclared income and no one seems to care or have a reporting requirement or anything mastershakeman fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Aug 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
Here's cohen's information if you wanna read it: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4779531-Information-Felony.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
If you take as granted a sitting President can’t be indicted, does his term toll the SOL? If not he has to win re-election as the only way to avoid indictment, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
poo poo’s about to get gooooooood... And yes. I believe the clock doesn’t start until he’s actually indictable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Here's cohen's information if you wanna read it: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4779531-Information-Felony.html also just in case you're curious about who Individual-1 is: https://twitter.com/pwnallthethings/status/1032024440475922432
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Habeas petitioner grieves and fires 3 lawyers. This is his third petition btw. All claims involve ineffectiveness of previous counsel for “maliciously colluding with the state not to raise his valid claims. We arrive for day three of trial. He’s been given standby counsel (wtf???) he likes standby counsel. He wants to be represented by her. We declare mistrial and proceed to scheduling conference. I spend rest of afternoon shopping. Go to law school!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 00:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Habeas petitioner grieves and fires 3 lawyers. This is his third petition btw. All claims involve ineffectiveness of previous counsel for “maliciously colluding with the state not to raise his valid claims. We arrive for day three of trial. He’s been given standby counsel (wtf???) he likes standby counsel. He wants to be represented by her. We declare mistrial and proceed to scheduling conference. I swear you guys have the craziest habeas procedures. Why in the world is there a mistrial for standby counsel subbing in on a Habeas petition? It would seem to defeat the purpose of standby counsel if a pro se litigant can just get a mistrial whenever they want simply by asking for standby counsel to represent him. Couldn’t a pro se petitioner just keep the habeas writ open forever by repeatedly firing his attorney and requesting to be represented by the standby counsel?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Aahahahaha that's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
I assume they remanded Manafort to the marshals after the verdict, right? He’s been incarcerated this whole time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 03:27
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I assume they remanded Manafort to the marshals after the verdict, right? He’s been incarcerated this whole time? Yeah his bail was revoked for witness tampering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 03:40
|
|
|
Yep, right back to jail from whence he came. I have to say the mistrial portion of this is a double win for the prosecution. Somebody on NPR said prosecutors won’t bother retrying him since they likely have him for life under the sentencing guidelines. But having a possible retrial hanging over Manafort is the perfect hedge on a pardon, right? If Trump pardons him for the convictions, welp back to those 10 other counts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 03:43
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Yep, right back to jail from whence he came. Can't Trump pardon him preemptively on the mistrial counts as well? Not that that would stop the immediately incoming state counts, just saying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Adar posted:Can't Trump pardon him preemptively on the mistrial counts as well? yeah he can preemptively pardon whatever. the SCO told the court they'd have a decision about retrial within a week though, so if they're going to use it as a way to pressure Manafort they'd have to move quick
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I assume they remanded Manafort to the marshals after the verdict, right? He’s been incarcerated this whole time? yeah, remember he had a cushy jail cell with his own phone and crazy privileges, then his lawyers filed a dumb motion whining about dumb poo poo and the judge transferred him to a worse facility
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 05:36
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Take that back, you jackass. Frankly, it fits your profile. Who would you actually root for, the Nats?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 06:41
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:I swear you guys have the craziest habeas procedures. This one was a little wonky. First two days of evidence are before a judge who retired from the bench in a ball of drama. Parties now have option of requesting a mistrial so all evidence can be heard before the factfinder. He didn’t want that Bc it would push his date 2 yrs down the road and agreed to rely on transcripts. Now he changed his mind. But yeah. Our rules are ridiculous. Actual quote from judge in different case. “I want to deny this. I find it really inappropriate to allow you to do this. But since if I deny your motion we’re just going to be back in two years on a second habeas I’m granting it.” (Added new substantive and facially frivolous claims the day of trial. ) Discendo Vox posted:Frankly, it fits your profile. Who would you actually root for, the Nats? Red Sox or gtfo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
Adar posted:Can't Trump pardon him preemptively on the mistrial counts as well? Ah poo poo. I thought only convictions could be pardoned.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 12:20
|
|
|
Nah. Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon for “any crimes he may have committed” without charges ever being filed. Ford also believed he secured himself a place in hell for doing so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 12:22
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Nah. Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon for “any crimes he may have committed” without charges ever being filed. lmao how the gently caress does this even work
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:lmao how the gently caress does this even work Presidential pardon power is basically unlimited and no one challenged it. The only challenges to the pardon power historically just say that a pardon has to be publicly accepted and that it cannot be forced on someone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 12:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Presidential pardon power is basically unlimited and no one challenged it. The only challenges to the pardon power historically just say that a pardon has to be publicly accepted and that it cannot be forced on someone. Well sure, but it's not really that crazy per se. If you accept a pardon you also declare your guilt, do you not? In which case a presidential pardon is judge, jury and executioner for that particular criminal act only the punishment is... nothing. So long as the pardon itself is limited in scope to only potential crimes in this particular period, within the president's authority window as it were, I don't see that it's particularly problematic in and of itself. lol I'm just loving kidding what kind of a mickey loving mouse constitution allows past and future blanket pardons the idiot could be pardoning murder and rape for all he knows
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 12:43
|
|
|
This breaks laws or legal physics or whatever drat How do I word this better It violates my sense of judicial propriety There
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 12:47
|
|
|
The presidential pardon power is absolutely nuts and you’re completely right. The US constitution was designed with some crazy powers because the founders never fathomed that we could have all three branches controlled by a group acting in deliberate bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 12:51
|
|
|
Jack Ryan signed blank proactive pardons so his son and Ding Chavez could go around assassinating people in the name of liberty. The constitution works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:If you accept a pardon you also declare your guilt, do you not? Mr. Nice! posted:Presidential pardon power is basically unlimited and no one challenged it. The only challenges to the pardon power historically just say that a pardon has to be publicly accepted and that it cannot be forced on someone. The commonsense idea that you can't force a pardon on someone is the wellspring from which the idea that a pardon has to be accepted flows. Burdick, the case that the 'no involuntary pardons' rule came out was a case where the pardon was not being used as a pardon, but as a tool to try to force a person to testify. This also implicated the 5th Amendment right not to incriminate oneself, and so in dicta that court also speculated that accepting a pardon carried an implicit acceptance of guilt. It's only in the that limited context of misusing a pardon to force someone to testify against one's 5th amendment rights that that bit of woolgathering comes into the broader discussion about pardons. What gets lost in the myopic "BUT TRUUUUUMP" moaning and blackly ironic twisting of the law is that pardons can and are used in cases of actual innocence, which pretty clearly puts the lie to the fiction that they are findings of guilt. (implicit or otherwise) joat mon fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 13:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1032247043992023040 Cooley grad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 14:48
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:This breaks laws or legal physics or whatever a surprising amount of the american legal system, and the constitution in particular, derives from english law that assumed of course you have a monarch the pardon power is copied from the king's absolute power over the judiciary, the american concept of sovereign immunity is copied from the idea that it would be absurd for the king to need to stand trial in his own courts
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Courts in my circuit are closed the rest of the week for threat of hurricane. Five day weekend!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:a surprising amount of the american legal system, and the constitution in particular, derives from english law that assumed of course you have a monarch Please don't tell me that American sovereign immunity is absolute
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:Please don't tell me that American sovereign immunity is absolute Short answer: it is unless the sovereign waives immunity, which they (federal, state, local) have mostly done in various specific ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 18:22
|
|
|
Learning about sovereign immunity in law school was a real eye-opener.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Short answer: it is unless the sovereign waives immunity, which they (federal, state, local) have mostly done in various specific ways. And it only prevents you from punching up - the feds can sue the states without any concerns about sovereign immunity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And it only prevents you from punching up - the feds can sue the states without any concerns about sovereign immunity. Fed is a higher sovereign, yes. And states can sue one another, though if I recall correctly the constitution states that only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such suits.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:And it only prevents you from punching up - the feds can sue the states without any concerns about sovereign immunity. Well. Some concern as to if Congress has made its intention to cancel the state's sovereign immunity clear enough for the Supreme Court not to gently caress over the feds. Phil Moscowitz posted:Fed is a higher sovereign, yes. And states can sue one another, though if I recall correctly the constitution states that only the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such suits. Also a citizen of one state can sue another state in their first state's courts, at least sometimes. quote:In this tort action arising out of an automobile collision in California, a California court has entered a judgment against the State of Nevada that Nevada's own courts could not have entered. We granted certiorari to decide whether federal law prohibits the California courts from entering such a judgment or, indeed, from asserting any jurisdiction over another sovereign State. The Supreme Court was equally divided on the point in April 2016. quote:In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410 (1979), this Court held that one State (here, Nevada) can open the doors of its courts to a private citizen’s lawsuit against another State (here, California) without the other State’s consent. In this case, a private citizen, a resident of Nevada, has brought a suit in Nevada’s courts against the Franchise Tax Board of California, an agency of the State of California. The board has asked us to overrule Hall and hold that the Nevada courts lack jurisdiction to hear this lawsuit. The Court is equally divided on this question, and we consequently affirm the Nevada courts’ exercise of jurisdiction over California. See, e.g., Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U. S. 471, 484 (2008) (citing Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107, 112 (1869)). ...there are often serious personal jurisdiction questions in how one state gets to try and claim another state should be drug into their courts, of course. ulmont fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Well. Some concern as to if Congress has made its intention to cancel the state's sovereign immunity clear enough for the Supreme Court not to gently caress over the feds. Nah. Feds can always sue a state; there used to be an issue about whether Congress had made a cancellation of state sovereign immunity clear enough for a federal statute to strip state sovereign immunity from private suits, but that doctrine is basically meaningless after Florida Prepaid and Seminole Tribe. Kalman fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
also p hosed up that Republicans buy the theory that POTUS can’t be indicted. Scalia voice: “Show me in the constitution where Mueller can’t charge a sitting president with obstruction. Which article or amendment is that?” (drops mike)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:also p hosed up that Republicans buy the theory that POTUS can’t be indicted. Scalia voice: Hold my beer
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
A final follow up to my ethics issue. The attorney has been let go due to failure to disclose a conflict. Im glad I reported. I was given his agency issued fan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2018 00:46
|
|
