|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's a civil trial only. He can't go to jail on this. Worst case is he has to pay money to Carroll for calling her a liar. He's under criminal indictment in New York. Maybe everyone is hoping he'll just gently caress off to Russia.
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
Meanwhile, in Atlanta: At least eight Trump electors have accepted immunity in Georgia investigation quote:At least eight of the 16 Georgia Republicans who convened in December 2020 to declare Donald Trump the winner of the presidential contest despite his loss in the state have accepted immunity deals from Atlanta-area prosecutors investigating alleged election interference, according to a lawyer for the electors.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 04:22
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:trial$ pardon my Aliens reference but it applies.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 06:38
|
|
|
Skex posted:He's under criminal indictment in New York. Maybe everyone is hoping he'll just gently caress off to Russia. I mean let’s be real here. Trump isn’t really a flight risk.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 11:48
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean let’s be real here. Trump isn’t really a flight risk. Annointed posted:Because rich people
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 12:57
|
|
|
quote:The electors who accepted immunity did so without any promise that they would offer incriminating evidence in return, and they all have stated that they remain unified in their innocence and are not aware of any criminal activity among any of the electors, Debrow said. Just want to point out that the person saying this needs it to be true to avoid censure and potentially sanctions and disbarment with a credible chance at Obstruction of Justice charges. We’ll see what happens when they get in front of the grand jury and are cross examined without being able to rely on taking the fifth. “I signed the (false) affidavit because *ring leader* said Trump was the true winner” fits the I didn’t witness any crimes statement while still being evidence of a conspiracy to commit fraud.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 14:30
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Federal sentencing guidelines are going to recommend less than half the maximum sentence for something like that with limited previous criminal history. It is likely to be between 5 and 7 years. DOJ recommended 25 years for Rhodes. So, 15ish is definitely in play.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean let’s be real here. Trump isn’t really a flight risk. Agreed, as long as the secret service are still around him, he's not exactly going to vanish, they will happily guard his body inside a very nicely furnished prison cell.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 02:19
|
|
|
Murgos posted:DOJ recommended 25 years for Rhodes. So, 15ish is definitely in play. The DOJ prosecutors ask isn't the same as federal sentencing guidelines for the judge. The prosecution generally asks for as high as they can reasonably get if there is no plea deal. The DOJ asked for 15 years in a couple of the other more serious January 6th cases that ended up only getting sentenced for 3.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 03:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The DOJ prosecutors ask isn't the same as federal sentencing guidelines for the judge. The prosecution generally asks for as high as they can reasonably get if there is no plea deal. It looks like the DoJ is applying the standard as written. The question will be if the judge agrees with their reading. That, for example, an upward departure for terrorism applies based on the wording of that section. So, it technically is the same sentencing guidelines, at least in this case.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
Murgos posted:It looks like the DoJ is applying the standard as written. The question will be if the judge agrees with their reading. That, for example, an upward departure for terrorism applies based on the wording of that section. 25 years is way above the federal sentencing guidelines. They are most likely asking for a terrorism enhancement for the sentencing.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
I double checked the DOJ filing and they are asking for a terrorism enhancement. This is what they say in their filing where they specifically ask the judge to go above the sentencing guidelines:quote:These defendants were prepared to fight. Not for their country, but against it. In their own words, they were 'willing to die' in a 'guerilla war' to achieve their goal of halting the transfer of power after the 2020 Presidential Election. These defendants stand out among January 6 defendants because they not only joined in this horrific attack on our democracy as it unfolded, but they all took steps, in advance of January 6, to call for and prepare for such an attack. Edit: And here's a CBS News article stating it in less lawyer-y language: quote:Prosecutors asked the judge to go above the standard sentencing guidelines, arguing the crimes deserve a longer sentence for terrorism because the goal was to influence the government through intimidation or coercion. They also argued Rhodes has not accepted responsibility for his actions, "still presents a threat to American democracy and lives and does not believe he has done anything wrong." https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-trial-verdict/
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
So, “if the judge agrees with their reading” then? My point is, they aren’t just asking for a random number. They are saying the text can be read such that 25 is the correct sentence and they believe that is appropriate. I specifically called out the upward departure for the terrorism enhancement so not sure why you think that’s some gotcha. So, when you said, “it’s not the same sentencing guidelines for the judge” this was incorrect because it is the exact same text and instructions. Including the terrorism enhancement. The judge may not agree and may shift the sentence down or even up based on their own interpretation however if it’s grossly different in a way that seems unreasonable or unsupportable then it could be appealed by either party.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
Murgos posted:So, “if the judge agrees with their reading” then? I'm not saying it is some kind of gotcha. I'm just saying that there is an actual sentencing mathematical calculation. The DOJ filing is specifically asking for the judge to depart from the guidelines a "normal" person would get due to their sentencing score because of the uniqueness of the case. Seditious conspiracy does not have an official offense level. Generally, the agreement has been to consider "equivalent" sentencing and make an agreement with the defense over the charge. Seditious conspiracy is very rare, but they have generally prosecuted it under treason offense levels. That puts it at a base level of 14. There would be additions for violence, planning, etc. Those would bring it up to a 27 or 29. Assuming they go with the higher 29, then someone with minimal criminal history would be recommended a sentence between 7.25 years and 9 years. Invoking the terrorism enhancement is basically asking the judge to throw out the sentencing guidelines calculations and criminal history adjustments because the offense was so uniquely bad that it qualifies as terrorism and can't be judged on the normal scale. Normally, the equivalent crime would not earn more than a recommended 9 years maximum for someone without a major previous criminal history. But, the DOJ is asking them to throw out the criminal history adjustment calculation because it is a unique situation. You can check a plea agreement the DOJ filed with a member of the Oath keepers from last year where they lay out the sentencing guidelines and agree that they won't seek "a departure from the guideline range" by invoking the terrorism enhancement because of the plea deal. The sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence between 7.25 years and 9 years. But, he eventually got 5.25 years and 6.5 years for seditious conspiracy because he agreed to cooperate. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/case-multi-defendant/file/1497916/download Ultimately, the sentencing guidelines are 100% optional. The Supreme Court struck down mandatory sentencing guidelines back in the early 2000's. It's slightly pedantic, but the point of the DOJ's filing is that they want to impose a sentence that would be out of the "normal" guideline range because the crime is so unique that it does not have an official offense level and so especially heinous that they are asking for a sentence near the statutory maximum because it isn't an offense you want to allow even the possibility of having the defendant "re-offend." They call the sentence a "departure" from the guidelines and make the argument why a departure due to the terrorism enhancement is justified even though he wasn't technically convicted of any terrorism laws spelled out in the statute for the terrorism exemption (but, they are asking the judge to consider the conspiracy charge as an "attempt to influence the conduct of the government" and be considered terrorism). Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 21:01 on May 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
I mean, if you actually believed in a "terrorism enhancement" to sentencing as a good thing (which I do not), isn't attacking a legislative body to make them keep your dictator in charge the exact situation you'd want to use it the most? Could you ever make a cogent definition of terrorism that didn't include that?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 21:02
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I mean, if you actually believed in a "terrorism enhancement" to sentencing as a good thing (which I do not), isn't attacking a legislative body to make them keep your dictator in charge the exact situation you'd want to use it the most? That is basically what the DOJ is arguing. They are saying that seditious conspiracy doesn't technically fall under the terrorism enhancement under a strict reading, but they should basically consider what they did terrorism for those exact reasons. They are arguing that it meets the qualification because it was "an attempt to influence the conduct of government," which is one of the qualifications for a federal terrorism charge. The federal terrorism statute includes a bunch of wildly specific things other than the "attempt to influence" portion: quote:the term “Federal crime of terrorism” means an offense that— (A) is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and (B) is a violation of— (i) section 32 (relating to destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities), 37 (relating to violence at international airports), 81 (relating to arson within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction), 175 or 175b (relating to biological weapons), 175c (relating to variola virus), 229 (relating to chemical weapons), subsection (a), (b), (c), or (d) of section 351 (relating to congressional, cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination and kidnaping), 831 (relating to nuclear materials), 832 (relating to participation in nuclear and weapons of mass destruction threats to the United States) 842(m) or (n) (relating to plastic explosives), 844(f)(2) or (3) (relating to arson and bombing of Government property risking or causing death), 844(i) (relating to arson and bombing of property used in interstate commerce), 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a Federal facility with a dangerous weapon), 956(a)(1) (relating to conspiracy to murder, kidnap, or maim persons abroad), 1030(a)(1) (relating to protection of computers), 1030(a)(5)(A) resulting in damage as defined in 1030(c)(4)(A)(i)(II) through (VI) (relating to protection of computers), 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the United States), 1116 (relating to murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons), 1203 (relating to hostage taking), 1361 (relating to government property or contracts), 1362 (relating to destruction of communication lines, stations, or systems), 1363 (relating to injury to buildings or property within special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States), 1366(a) (relating to destruction of an energy facility), 1751(a), (b), (c), or (d) (relating to Presidential and Presidential staff assassination and kidnaping), 1992 (relating to terrorist attacks and other acts of violence against railroad carriers and against mass transportation systems on land, on water, or through the air), 2155 (relating to destruction of national defense materials, premises, or utilities), 2156 (relating to national defense material, premises, or utilities), 2280 (relating to violence against maritime navigation), 2280a (relating to maritime safety), 2281 through 2281a (relating to violence against maritime fixed platforms), 2332 (relating to certain homicides and other violence against United States nationals occurring outside of the United States), 2332a (relating to use of weapons of mass destruction), 2332b (relating to acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries), 2332f (relating to bombing of public places and facilities), 2332g (relating to missile systems designed to destroy aircraft), 2332h (relating to radiological dispersal devices), 2332i (relating to acts of nuclear terrorism), 2339 (relating to harboring terrorists), 2339A (relating to providing material support to terrorists), 2339B (relating to providing material support to terrorist organizations), 2339C (relating to financing of terrorism), 2339D (relating to military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization), or 2340A (relating to torture) of this title; (ii) sections 92 (relating to prohibitions governing atomic weapons) or 236 (relating to sabotage of nuclear facilities or fuel) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ( 42 U.S.C. 2122 or 2284); (iii) section 46502 (relating to aircraft piracy), the second sentence of section 46504 (relating to assault on a flight crew with a dangerous weapon), section 46505(b)(3) or (c) (relating to explosive or incendiary devices, or endangerment of human life by means of weapons, on aircraft), section 46506 if homicide or attempted homicide is involved (relating to application of certain criminal laws to acts on aircraft), or section 60123(b) (relating to destruction of interstate gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility) of title 49; or (iv) section 1010A of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (relating to narco-terrorism). The government is basically saying that seditious conspiracy doesn't fall under the specific laws mentioned there, but that the bolded part means they should consider it because of the specifics of the case. Also, the guidelines aren't binding, so they are trying to cover all their bases by saying: - He deserves to be sentenced close to the maximum of what the law allows and the guidelines aren't binding, so you should do that. and - But, even if you did go strictly by the guidelines, we think he would qualify for what we are asking for anyway because their conduct was undeniably "an attempt influence government conduct" and that would qualify for the enhancement, even if the specific charge isn't listed in the federal terrorism statute. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 21:14 on May 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 21:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That is basically what the DOJ is arguing. I can see it falling under several of those, namely subsection (a), (b), (c), of section 351, 930(c), 1114, 1203, 1361, 1751 (assuming Pence counts), and probably 2155-56 if you want to be nit picky, given what was in congress’s offices that they had access to and hosed with.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 22:45
|
|
|
Yeah a big ol' solid chunk of those seem like they would apply and a bunch of others are at least analogous. Just going by the law as written with how words work, I'm having a hard time imagining it not working. But I am, as always, dumb as a box of hair so, y'know.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I can see it falling under several of those, namely subsection (a), (b), (c), of section 351, 930(c), 1114, 1203, 1361, 1751 (assuming Pence counts), and probably 2155-56 if you want to be nit picky, given what was in congress’s offices that they had access to and hosed with. Xiahou Dun posted:Yeah a big ol' solid chunk of those seem like they would apply and a bunch of others are at least analogous. Because they weren't convicted of any of those specific crimes. Just seditious conspiracy, obstruction, and assault of a capitol police officer. They weren't charged or accused of kidnapping/murder/attempted murder/manslaughter.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:Agreed, as long as the secret service are still around him, he's not exactly going to vanish, they will happily guard his body inside a very nicely furnished prison cell. How does the secret service work when Trump travels overseas as a private citizen?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 09:34
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:How does the secret service work when Trump travels overseas as a private citizen? They're still there. And the american tax payers have to pay for their flights lodging and stuff like that. He probably still makes them rent rooms in his own hotel.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 11:09
|
|
|
Do they carry weapons? Do other countries allow that/have police/security services etc liaise with them?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 11:22
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Do they carry weapons? Do other countries allow that/have police/security services etc liaise with them? Part of the secret services job is to liaise with local law enforcement. Even domestically the secret service will call up the local cops to work with them to set up detail. They do the same with foreign officials. This article is from a lifetime ago but this quote was interesting: https://www.smh.com.au/national/special-exemption-us-secret-service-agents-will-be-armed-20070904-gdr0vz.html quote:Negotiations with the US included establishing rules about when and how the weapons could be used, as well as detailed talks on how Mr Bush's close protection team would interact with Australian law enforcement officials. It makes sense that other countries are welcome to disallow US agents in bringing their guns and those countries are, in turn, allowed to refuse to go if they don’t like it. It seems like Australia told Putin “no” in the same breath they told Bush “yes” at some point.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
Skex posted:He's under criminal indictment in New York. Maybe everyone is hoping he'll just gently caress off to Russia. Hopefully Georgia soon. Maybe. Possibly.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 14:27
|
|
|
Trump claimed in Ireland that he was going to come and confront the E Jean Carrol case. Judge gave him until 5pm yesterday, of course he never showed. These are the closing statements from her lawyer today. Jury verdict tomorrow. https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1655662031125598208
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Part of the secret services job is to liaise with local law enforcement. Even domestically the secret service will call up the local cops to work with them to set up detail. They do the same with foreign officials. This article is from a lifetime ago but this quote was interesting: Secret Service also probably has existing agreements/relationships with national level law enforcement in any country a current or former President is likely to visit. This is part of the "soft power" that the US spent half a century building - and that began to decline under Bush and was pretty thrashed by Trump. The leader of one nation visiting another nation is a demonstration of implicit trust by both parties - the host nation is saying "We won't gently caress with you while you're here, and we'll extend as much protection as we can." while the visiting nation is saying effectively "We won't poo poo on your carpet while we're there." This is the highest profile clash between nations during a diplomatic visit that I can think of (Erdogan in Washington). The response here included a resolution from Congress to prosecute all Turkish bodyguards involved, and a number of said guards were also forbidden from attending the 2017 G20 summit in Germany. Edit: Highest profile clash in recent memory. I'm sure someone will point out that WWI broke out during a state visit or something.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 23:08
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Secret Service also probably has existing agreements/relationships with national level law enforcement in any country a current or former President is likely to visit. This is part of the "soft power" that the US spent half a century building - and that began to decline under Bush and was pretty thrashed by Trump. I doubt that any country we have actual military bases in (literally every NATO country) is going to get their panties in a bunch of a dozen trained Secret Service officials accompanying a former head of state. I'm sure we do the same to other former heads of state where they are offered continued state protection and travel here.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
In news from his NY trial, the judge is restricting evidence from being posted online by the defense: https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/08/politics/trump-social-media-criminal-case/index.htmlCNN posted:The New York judge handling Donald Trump’s criminal case approved a protective order on Monday that limits the former president’s ability to publicize information on social media related to evidence in the investigation. I can only imagine counsel being dragged into chambers at the crack of dawn tomorrow before an irate judge who is going "WHAT DID I JUST loving SAY?" while pointing to Trump's latest ramble.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 02:14
|
|
|
Trump likes to leak damaging stuff about himself with some workshopped spin that attempts to make it seem not so bad while at the same time blaming the other side for the leaks and moaning about how corrupt it is to leak these private details. He’s probably still going to do it at least a few times before the judge does more than make pouty faces about it.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
Jury verdict reached in Trump rape trial: - Jury finds Trump did defame E. Jean Carroll. - Jury finds Trump did sexually assault/abuse E. Jean Carroll. - Jury says that Trump did not rape E. Jean Carroll. - Jury awards Carroll $5 million in damages. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-carroll-rape-trial-verdict?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:24 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
e:fb Total 5 Million https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1656013557870338048 OgNar fucked around with this message at 20:25 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
MSNBC reporting that one of the jurors was a big Tim Pool listener, and that he got all his news from him, as stated in voir dire. Did we know that before? And that guy still voted for liable here, since it was unanimous? Not a good sign.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
tecnocrat posted:MSNBC reporting that one of the jurors was a big Tim Pool listener, and that he got all his news from him, as stated in voir dire. Did we know that before? And that guy still voted for liable here, since it was unanimous? Well I mean they didn't even really have a defense lol
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Jury verdict reached in Trump rape trial: How do the elements of rape and sexual assault/abuse differ in New York? EDIT: Specifically, I'm wondering what element of the rape claim the jury must have found the evidence wanting on, since they found sexual assault/abuse by at least a preponderance.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Aegis posted:How do the elements of rape and sexual assault/abuse differ in New York? Touching/groping vs penetration I believe.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
tecnocrat posted:MSNBC reporting that one of the jurors was a big Tim Pool listener, and that he got all his news from him, as stated in voir dire. Did we know that before? And that guy still voted for liable here, since it was unanimous? I assume the NYT article is paywalled but the ABC article I'm reading doesn't mention that it was unanimous. Is unanimity required for civil trials?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:I assume the NYT article is paywalled but the ABC article I'm reading doesn't mention that it was unanimous. Is unanimity required for civil trials? Depends on the state. New York requires at least 5/6ths of a civil jury to reach a verdict in a civil trial.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
It was a federal trial though, albeit applying NY state law. So nine jurors, but they had to be unanimous.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jarjarfan69/status/1656024213050851328?s=46&t=CBKJcBX0BD3U5HgUdsqBtw
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:41 |
|
|
three hours seems like a incredibly short deliberation. i've been on open and shut misdemeanor cases that deliberated for longer
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 21:03
|
|
