|
Devor posted:I'm interested to hear the new jurisprudence where you can invoke the 5th amendment without showing up when subpoenaed You are trying to make the argument fit a context that was deliberately excluded for pedantic jokery. Of course it doesn't.
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
Devor posted:I'm interested to hear the new jurisprudence where you can invoke the 5th amendment without showing up when subpoenaed If you think big-dick was being serious then you need to turn in your posting permit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I think everybody is a little frustrated at this point, having watched the committee spell out clear and public crimes all summer and fall, only to have Trump declare his candidacy for president again. Even if they threw him in jail, whether for contempt or for crimes, he'd still be able to run for president. It is, by design, extremely difficult to revoke a person's ability to run for president. The very few clauses that could potentially do it are very narrowly defined, and extremely resistant to being stretched to anything beyond the exact set of circumstances they were written for. I don't know what you were hoping for, but the J6 committee was never going to disqualify Trump from office. He'll remain an eligible candidate until the day he dies or wins a second term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Cranappleberry posted:a bunch of white conservatives did see consequences for Jan 6. Just not the wealthy or powerful ones. Some, sure, but if it was a BLM protest that somehow decided to storm congress they'd have opened machine gun batteries on them, instead of just killing one crazy woman. I've seen people get similar charges to what these guys are facing from accidentally shoving a cop a street protest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
Let me be clear, I'm big mad at the DOJ and, by extension, Biden for not pushing them hard enough. I know Jan 6 Committee can't actually do anything besides recommend a law against encouraging political violence. But the volume of evidence they've collected and shared with the DOJ seems to be more than plenty to have made these moves months ago. Stolen documents? Oh that's a 12 month ordeal minimum! But hey we got the docs back and that's what really matters right?!?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Some, sure, but if it was a BLM protest that somehow decided to storm congress they'd have opened machine gun batteries on them, instead of just killing one crazy woman. I've seen people get similar charges to what these guys are facing from accidentally shoving a cop a street protest. Oh god yes. Forget about it. They'd still be scrubbing and bleaching blood off the Capitol steps if it went down like that. And talk radio would be stark raving mad about the BLM Soros Paid Antifa hordes who tried to overthrow the government and they all need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, along with any and all democrats, and hung for treason like the constitution says.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Aren't they capable of making criminal referrals, they've just decided not to? A criminal referral just asks the DOJ to please start an investigation. The DOJ by several different sources is already investigating Trump in multiple areas. The fake electors, the documents, the DOJ IG stuff. So, yeah, J06 will wrap up with a nice data package and a recommendation to refer Trump for charges. But that’s not actually going to impact what DOJ is already doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 01:16
|
|
|
Today the unclassified materials were "given back" to DOJ by the Special Master process. Any of the MAL document charges would have had to wait at least for that. It's possible something happens tomorrow or next week after 11C Appeals hears the arguments on 11/22, much more likely the latter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
So now we can get ready for two years of "The Deep State is trying to take me down because I'm running for President to MAGAGAgain" bullshit where everyone is paying attention to ME, Donald Trump, which is all he really wants but now if I pay attention to the news at all, this all I'm gonna loving hear and read about. God I hate him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 03:40
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Today the unclassified materials were "given back" to DOJ by the Special Master process. Any of the MAL document charges would have had to wait at least for that. It's possible something happens tomorrow or next week after 11C Appeals hears the arguments on 11/22, much more likely the latter. Dearie didn’t buy the “when I steal things they’re mine” defense? Well, Not surprising but I also won’t be surprised when Cannon stays that order. The DOJ actually wrote, “To state Trumps argument is to refute it” in their brief because it’s inherently self contradictory. Edit: A group of former prosecutors and defense lawyers (including at least one former US District Attorney) wrote a model prosecution memo laying out the public information for a case against Trump for the mar-a-lago documents. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/just-security-mar-a-lago-model-prosecution-memorandum-november-2022.pdf Murgos fucked around with this message at 13:23 on Nov 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 13:07
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Let me be clear, I'm big mad at the DOJ and, by extension, Biden for not pushing them hard enough. I know Jan 6 Committee can't actually do anything besides recommend a law against encouraging political violence. But the volume of evidence they've collected and shared with the DOJ seems to be more than plenty to have made these moves months ago. Everyone’s just hoping that Trump can drag things out until a president pardons him or he dies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 14:53
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:They’re not ever going to convict a president for anything they do within the presidency. They will never open that Pandora’s box. You cannot have the most powerful leader in all of capitalism have their decisions be hindered by the potentially of their actions leading to that sort of consequence. That’s why Nixon resigned. That’s why Nixon got pardoned. That’s why they didn’t investigate Bush and Cheney. I'm trying to imagine any future president pardoning Trump. Desantis maybe, but I think the greater GOP just wants to memory hole Trump, and pardoning him just brings him back into the spotlight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I'm trying to imagine any future president pardoning Trump. Desantis maybe, but I think the greater GOP just wants to memory hole Trump, and pardoning him just brings him back into the spotlight. Probably depends pretty strongly on what type of charges he catches. If it's just obstruction I could see an eventual pardon, if they get him on the espionage stuff it'll make him too radioactive to pardon. Maybe, who knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I'm trying to imagine any future president pardoning Trump. Desantis maybe, but I think the greater GOP just wants to memory hole Trump, and pardoning him just brings him back into the spotlight. DeSantis and Trump may not be getting along right now but in a future hell scenario of DeSantis being president I can totally see him pardoning Trump because it would be the most scumbag thing to do which is always DeSantis default position on anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 19:30
|
|
|
At the very least, we should expect ANY future Republican president to commute whatever sentence Trump might ever get. Keep the bad thing on his record especially if it prevents him from running again, but let him out of prison. Maybe after privately meeting with him to say "if you want out of prison, you need to publicly praise me from your cell and beg me for it first" to pre-emptively address any "but why no full pardon" complaints.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1593677077827522567 Profiles in Courage
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Well, that is irritating. Better than nothing, I suppose. The idea that Trump would never be criminally charged (which is not as popular of an opinion on this board than it once was, but some people still cling to it) was always stupid. It has been clear for a very long time that the DOJ was going to go after him, he was obviously going to be criminally charged at some point, the only question is finding a completely MAGA-less jury to convict him. But using a special counsel is probably going to make this slower than we'd want. Garland is a coward who doesn't want to be accused of acting on a partisan grudge because the GOP denied him a supreme court seat, so he's washing his hands of it and letting someone else do it. Who knows, maybe the special counsel will move fast, but this might delay indictments for a while. Rigel fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Nov 18, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
Pretty solid evidence absolutely nothing will ever come of any of this, lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1593677077827522567 Special Counsels are for when the DOJ prosecuting someone may be a conflict of interest or seen as politically motivated. That's why Ken Starr prosecuted Clinton instead of the AG. Even if Trump never announced he was running for President again, they probably would have done it. But. once Trump announced he was running it was basically inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 19:58
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Pretty solid evidence absolutely nothing will ever come of any of this, lol No it isn't, not at all. There's a pretty obvious reason why Garland wouldn't want to be the one to make the decision, after the GOP blocked him from the supreme court. If they weren't going to charge, they'd just simply say so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
It's being reported everywhere right now. Special Prosecutor for both the documents and the Coup. NYT, WSJ, Politico, CNBC, USA Today, very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1593677077827522567
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Automata 10 Pack posted:Lol, is that how they're going to scoot responsibility for not charging Trump? It doesn't necessarily mean one thing or another. It was triggered by Trump announcing his campaign and not any specific evidence or desire to prosecute. Whether Garland desperately wanted to avoid prosecuting Trump or absolutely wanted to nail him at any cost, this would have happened anyway once Trump declared. It's "good" in the sense that it means that Garland doesn't want to just throw the whole case. But, it's not that significant on its own. If the likelihood of prosecution was a 50 on a 100-point scale before, then it is a 51 today. It isn't really something you should be excited or worried about in terms of the likelihood of actual prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Announced on a Friday, which means the AG thinks it's bad news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Announced on a Friday, which means the AG thinks it's bad news. That's because yesterday was the day they got back the docs from the SM process. Garland couldn't have done this until that was giving him cover.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 21:05
|
|
|
mdemone posted:That's because yesterday was the day they got back the docs from the SM process. Garland couldn't have done this until that was giving him cover. Ah, fair enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Ah, fair enough. Obv it's still frustrating because they have to move so slowly, and no matter how much we know that intellectually, it still loving sucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 21:08
|
|
|
I just don’t see how a guy who used to work in a court that was under threat of military invasion if it ever tried to prosecute a U.S. service member has credibility to say they can prosecute a former president. Like my man you spent many years laboring under an explicit understanding that fair and equal justice was off the table at the threat of violence from your employer. And you are here to prosecute a rich guy? In this economy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 21:19
|
|
|
It’s the correct way to do it even if it is irritating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
selec posted:I just don’t see how a guy who used to work in a court that was under threat of military invasion if it ever tried to prosecute a U.S. service member has credibility to say they can prosecute a former president. Well he was also an AUSA before that, and the head of DOJ Public Integrity. Dude has got a hell of a résumé.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Well he was also an AUSA before that, and the head of DOJ Public Integrity. Dude has got a hell of a résumé. For some values of “hell of a” sure. I am not impressed, but I’ve always felt prosecutors in the US are playing tee ball and pretending it’s the big leagues. Prosecuting rich people for crimes that didn’t victimize the rich is where you can impress me, and that’s a startlingly small roster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
selec posted:For some values of “hell of a” sure. I am not impressed, but I’ve always felt prosecutors in the US are playing tee ball and pretending it’s the big leagues. Prosecuting rich people for crimes that didn’t victimize the rich is where you can impress me, and that’s a startlingly small roster. Can't argue with that. At least this guy is young enough he won't pull a Mueller and age visibly in a Congressional hearing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
brugroffil posted:Pretty solid evidence absolutely nothing will ever come of any of this, lol This is literally the next step in prosecuting him. In as much as it means anything, it means it's more likely that he'll be prosecuted. But obviously a thing happened and that's somehow clear evidence that nothing is going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 22:18
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:This is literally the next step in prosecuting him. This was also the point at which, if they were going to decline charges on either J6 or MAL, it would have happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 22:22
|
|
|
selec posted:For some values of “hell of a” sure. I am not impressed, but I’ve always felt prosecutors in the US are playing tee ball and pretending it’s the big leagues. Prosecuting rich people for crimes that didn’t victimize the rich is where you can impress me, and that’s a startlingly small roster. He literally has experience with prosecuting and securing convictions against American politicians, including a former governor. I'm.... kinda shocked. This dude might be one of the most qualified men in America to prosecute Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
Rigel posted:He literally has experience with prosecuting and securing convictions against American politicians, including a former governor. I'm.... kinda shocked. This dude might be one of the most qualified men in America to prosecute Trump. Also he convicted a CIA agent of the same 18.793 charges Trump potentially faces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2022 22:24
|
|
|
selec posted:I just don’t see how a guy who used to work in a court that was under threat of military invasion if it ever tried to prosecute a U.S. service member has credibility to say they can prosecute a former president. Is this supposed to be logical or intelligible somehow? Its a total non-sequitur.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
I know that in many ways it's forbidden to be optimistic around here (which I continue to find ironic given my general sensibilities), but this is not the person you pick if you want to slow-play or quash or bury in a public report. This guy has convicted a CIA agent of 18.793, and a sitting Governor. Oh and he's been AUSA for the ICC during Obama, now a special prosecutor in Kosovo, which means he's good at jumping into something ongoing and massive. This is Garland calling in a big hitter and it'll give the executive branch political cover. It doesn't happen if they're planning to decline charges, they'd have done it today if that was the case, since they got back the documents yesterday. It's going to happen but it'll stretch out through the beginning of the next Congress. But the special Counsel can tell Gym Jordan to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
Rigel posted:He literally has experience with prosecuting and securing convictions against American politicians, including a former governor. I'm.... kinda shocked. This dude might be one of the most qualified men in America to prosecute Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Which governor? For what? Governor McDonnell of Virginia, for corruption and bribery. He was convicted and sentenced to 2 years, but the Supreme Court later overturned it in that stupid case where they basically said it has to be absurdly blatant and obvious to convict a politician of bribery. (So now its hard to convict politicians for bribery unless they are as dumb as Blagojevich and plainly spell it out on tape)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2022 01:00
|
|