|
AvesPKS posted:I mean, you can still buy their seminal, insightful collaboration with ODB, "Bitches". They're still able to make money from it. Calling that a collaboration is... generous. It's good that they get paid for the song because they're likely still in the red given how hard ODB fleeced them.
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Speaking of the jury, is "are you part of the 48% of the jury pool that the defendant has literal psychic control over" a valid voir dire question because it seems material to the trial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I'm going to assume Jack Smith knows and understands the law a lot better than any of us. He clearly does, but that doesn't mean he can do anything about Cannon
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
I don't think doomering is very productive to this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Okay I am a lawyer (albeit from outside the US so I'm very much open to correction on this) but while not great, there are some silver linings to all this. Firstly, Cannon is now not the cavalry in this case. She can't be kept in reserve to be used as some side court spoiler that Trump runs to. He has played her as a trump card, but that means she is now out in the open to all forms of attack. Arguments that she has to be recused etc.... Secondly, the best way an (in theory) partisan judge would work would be to make suitble but one-sided rulings. Cannon couldn't do that in Trump's previous civil suit. Now, what I'm less clear on is how all encompassing her authority here is. Like, I assume she had to abide by most of the courts accepted precident. Like if she tries something real Calvinball esq like "Tuesday is get out of crimes free day" she would be open to Judicial Review. Or an argument that the ruling was so far from actual law so as not to be a trial. Like I know Trump probably thinks all he has to do is snap his fingers and his appointees will make all his problems go away, buy he thought the same thing about the last election going to the Supreme Court and we saw how that worked out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I don't think doomering is very productive to this thread. The judge assigned to the trial clearly wants to exonerate Trump and likely has unreviewable avenues to do so. This is not doomerism. If you've got actual arguments against the preceding, share them, but this thread is not for constructing a happy fantasy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
It's likely that this isn't going to be the only indictment. There's still conduct being investigated in Georgia and I believe also NY / NJ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:He clearly does, but that doesn't mean he can do anything about Cannon I'm also going to assume that the DoJ has a lot of arcane and seldom-used tricks up their sleeve to deal with it. They've been around the block a few times and aren't likely to be stymied by the antics of a rookie, partisan judge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I'm also going to assume that the DoJ has a lot of arcane and seldom-used tricks up their sleeve to deal with it. They've been around the block a few times and aren't likely to be stymied by the antics of a rookie, partisan judge. You got some specifics or is this just the opposite of doomerism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
The opposite of doomerism is boomerism
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:He's surrounded by the Secret Service at all times. He's not a flight risk. they should make sure though. super glue Donnie to a giant person sized Osmium plate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
The counterpoint is mainly “there are lots of possibilities, you have no way to determine the likelihood of them happening, focusing on the worst case is silly.”
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You got some specifics or is this just the opposite of doomerism? Just assuming that they're competent at their jobs and would have all this stupid doomer poo poo thought through before they brought any charges. I have my doubts that one of the most important criminal prosecution in the history of the country would allowed to be swatted away without recourse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:29
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The judge assigned to the trial clearly wants to exonerate Trump and likely has unreviewable avenues to do so. This is not doomerism. I dunno, I feel like I'm watching a real life "We're so back/It's so over" meme here between Friday's indictments and today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:Is there a legal reason to suppose he'll be released after booking? Or is it just assumed because he's thought to be powerful? He'll be released unless the government can prove to a judge's satisfaction that he's a flight risk or poses a substantial risk of committing more Espionage Act violations if allowed to go free. Both are an uphill battle for prosecutors at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
quote:SAVE AMERICA
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I'm going to assume Jack Smith knows and understands the law a lot better than any of us. For sure, but this isn’t my take; I’m relaying what Ken White and Josh Barro, two practicing lawyers, are saying. Of course they could be wrong but I’ve generally found them to be pretty accurate. They spent about 20 minutes going basically all the arguments people are making in this thread. While they didn’t say “Cannon is almost certainly going to tank this” they laid out a pretty convincing that she has the capability to do so in a way that leaves Jack Smith toothless and that it doesn’t seem beyond her scruples to do so. I know that’s “doomerism” but I’m not inclined to dismiss their argument. In the past when I’ve done so (like with the Elon Musk defamation case) they’ve been right and I’ve been wrong I’ll just hope for the best; that deliberately tanking the case is a step too far even for Cannon and that this will work out. But I’ll “prepare” for the worst and not get my expectations too high. Edit: FWIW they seemed to think that Trumps side would try to drag out the trial until the election since that’s his usual tactic rather than try to get a bench trial. From what I understand Cannon can still rule from the bench even if it’s not a bench trial, but if they go for a jury trial (in order to drag things out) it makes it more obvious that there shenanigans if she overrides the jury and so she’s less likely to do so (if she still has shame). ryde fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jun 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He'll be released unless the government can prove to a judge's satisfaction that he's a flight risk or poses a substantial risk of committing more Espionage Act violations if allowed to go free. Both are an uphill battle for prosecutors at this point. Texiera, Winner, and Manning were all denied bond. I'm not sure when the last time was that someone charged under the Espionage Act was granted bond. Trump will be granted bond but it'll be another case of him getting special treatment. ryde posted:I’m relaying what Ken White and Josh Barro, two practicing lawyers, are saying. Of course they could be wrong but I’ve generally found them to be pretty accurate. They spent about 20 minutes going basically all the arguments people are making in this thread. While they didn’t say “Cannon is almost certainly going to tank this” they laid out a pretty convincing that she has the capability to do so in a way that leaves Jack Smith toothless and that it doesn’t seem beyond her scruples to do so. The best counterargument I've seen to this is that this current indictment is likely not the only forthcoming indictment; it seems designed to pressure Trump's bodyman / valet, Walt Nauta. It's not clear that the case against Trump under this indictment even *can* be prosecuted to trial given the scope of the classified documents involved, but Nauta can be prosecuted without revealing further classified details. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Jun 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:He'll be released unless the government can prove to a judge's satisfaction that he's a flight risk or poses a substantial risk of committing more Espionage Act violations if allowed to go free. Both are an uphill battle for prosecutors at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
There’s also the New York charges and the (likely) Jan 6 charges. I’ll have to dig up if Popehat or LegalEagle said anything about the New York charges (I’m guessing they did).
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Crossposting from the cool thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:He clearly does, but that doesn't mean he can do anything about Cannon By the 11th's rules she should voluntarily recuse herself and if she refuses then the doj can file to have the 11th force her to recuse. Given the absolute turbofucking the 11th gave her prior ruling it seems really likely a new judge will be assigned. The only real question is if she will have to be forced to or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:He's surrounded by the Secret Service at all times. He's not a flight risk. Recall that the Biden administration changed out a lot of White House Secret Service guys on the suspicion that they were chuds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 21:19
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:Crossposting from the cool thread leaning tower of pizza
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Just listened to Popehat’s podcast and it’s definitely got the doomer take if you are interested: I genuinely don't understand this argument. She didn't handle the previous case, she came in from out of nowhere and declared herself involved.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:And we're living in the worst case universe. Cannon can exonerate trump and has already shown she'd like to do so. If you're basing this on the special master stuff, keep in mind that she didn't declare all the evidence inadmissible or throw the whole case out or any of this other stuff people are floating. She appointed a special master. That would draw out the case and had the potential to somewhat weaken the government's position, but even if the appeals court hadn't overturned it, it would have just delayed things. It wasn't going to totally defang the prosecution or make an exoneration near-inevitable. If Judge Cannon is overseeing the case, it's likely to drag out, I think. But I wouldn't get your hopes up for him being in jail by November in any case. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Texiera, Winner, and Manning were all denied bond. They were all flight risks. Trump can't take most of his wealth and status with him, and he's also surrounded by the Secret Service at all times, both of which reduce the possibility of him being considered a flight risk. He's likely to be treated differently, yes, but this is also because his situation and the facts of his case actually are different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
Theoretically everyone is a flight risk. You could just as easily point out that Trump's wealth means it is much easier for him to flee internationally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
Interesting link digging into the particulars of the documents named in the indictment: https://www.pwnallthethings.com/p/donald-trump-indictment-whats-in
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you're basing this on the special master stuff, keep in mind that she didn't declare all the evidence inadmissible or throw the whole case out or any of this other stuff people are floating. She appointed a special master. That would draw out the case and had the potential to somewhat weaken the government's position, but even if the appeals court hadn't overturned it, it would have just delayed things. It wasn't going to totally defang the prosecution or make an exoneration near-inevitable... A civil trial (that should never have happened) and a criminal trial are completely different things though. They beat they could hope for with a civil trial was delay. Cannon can acquit Trump in a criminal trial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
We're living in the dumbest timeline. There's a non-zero chance that Trump/his lawyers resort to chat GPT to generate friendly case citations for him. Remember he's been scraping the bottom of the barrel for so long he's basically presenting wood splinters as his legal team.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 22:51
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Now, what I'm less clear on is how all encompassing her authority here is. Like, I assume she had to abide by most of the courts accepted precident. I’m not a lawyer but I’ve never heard of an acquittal (in the United States) being subject to any kind of appellate review.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 22:54
|
|
|
The 'whataboutism' I am seeing from people on the right just makes me shake my head. "What about Hillary and her emails? What about Hunter Biden? What about Joe Biden getting all this money from China? What about this..what about that? Guys, it doesn't matter what the other person did. Did Trump do those things? Yes? No? That's all that matters. Maybe Hunter Biden is corrupt as all gently caress. Who cares? If he is, bring him to trial. But Trump has been indicted already, and the mountains of evidence is really bad for that guy. Turns out the smoke covering NYC this past week wasn't from Canadian forest fires, it was from the right wing pundits burning out their brains trying to figure how to spin this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 23:14
|
|
|
raminasi posted:I’m not a lawyer but I’ve never heard of an acquittal (in the United States) being subject to any kind of appellate review. From doing a very brief research into the topic, it is in theory possible in certain rare circumstances. If the jury acquit someone than a Judge would not be able to overturn that verdict. But if a Jury convicted and the Judge acquited without there being a specific reason (like an essential element of the case was missing) then it seems like there is a method for it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_notwithstanding_verdict Like I'm just imagining a hypothetical scenario where the Mob has a Judge in their pocket who just flat out aquits a mob boss without any form of legal argument. It seems to me that there would have to be some sort of safeguard or procedure for something like that occurring.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If you're basing this on the special master stuff, keep in mind that she didn't declare all the evidence inadmissible or throw the whole case out or any of this other stuff people are floating. She appointed a special master. That would draw out the case and had the potential to somewhat weaken the government's position, but even if the appeals court hadn't overturned it, it would have just delayed things. It wasn't going to totally defang the prosecution or make an exoneration near-inevitable. She declared a special master yes, but then she also just decided to ignore him when she didn't like what he had to say. https://web.archive.org/web/20220929235153/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/us/trump-special-master-documents.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:i think you're absolutely dead on about Donald Trump's thought process smackfu posted:Looking up the Nixon thing:
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
I mean, it's not up to me, and yeah, secret service is a complication, but i fully expect him to flee. Maybe not yet, but long before he pleas or serves time. He should be considered a flight risk. I get that the prosecutor would have to make their case and it's a lot of work for little gain and may be a gamble. But Trump is absolutely a flight risk.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:By the 11th's rules she should voluntarily recuse herself and if she refuses then the doj can file to have the 11th force her to recuse. Given the absolute turbofucking the 11th gave her prior ruling it seems really likely a new judge will be assigned. The only real question is if she will have to be forced to or not. Cannon having to be overturned by the appeals court is apparently evidence of bias by the rules and precedents of the 11th circuit according to uh, Lawfare I think? Maybe it was Preet. There was a lot of emergency pods yesterday. But anyway, could be sufficient grounds to force a recusal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
Also issue of first impression, can a judge ethically hear a case concerning the president who appointed them
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Also issue of first impression, can a judge ethically hear a case concerning the president who appointed them The answer is easily yes. This was the biggest problem with electing Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:38 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Also issue of first impression, can a judge ethically hear a case concerning the president who appointed them Ethics has little to do with modern, politically appointed, judges. *vaguely waves at the US supreme court*
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 03:27
|
|
