|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Also issue of first impression, can a judge ethically hear a case concerning the president who appointed them Yes.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Clips from Trumps speech today repeating the same lies to his followers. https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1667603180077690882 According to page 21,22 Trump repeatedly tells a story that he was the one who deleted Hillarys 30,000 emails. Or is he saying the attorney did it? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 04:43
|
|
|
OgNar posted:Clips from Trumps speech today repeating the same lies to his followers. He's saying the attorney did it. It's his coded Mob Boss talk. He's implying to his subordinates that they can do illegal things and not get in trouble for it. Or specifically that he won't get in trouble for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 04:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Also issue of first impression, can a judge ethically hear a case concerning the president who appointed them Numerous Trump appointees already have overseen election cases
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 05:11
|
|
|
OgNar posted:
"You should do illegal things to protect me. Hillary's lawyers did and they didn't get into trouble!" He's trying to get his lawyers to act as his fixers like Cohen did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:He's saying the attorney did it. It's his coded Mob Boss talk. He's implying to his subordinates that they can do illegal things and not get in trouble for it. Or specifically that he won't get in trouble for it. It always reminds me more of a whiney kid bringing up how the other kids’ dads let them watch PG-13 movies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
Uglycat posted: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. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Also issue of first impression, can a judge ethically hear a case concerning the president who appointed them
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 08:40
|
|
|
My step-dad thinks if Trump tries to skip town it'd be to Russia, and yeah tbf I bet Putin would have a great time thumbing his nose at DC about it, but I guess I don't think Putin cares enough or would want the bother. If Trump bails it's either going to be to somewhere he presumes will gladly welcome him and be honored, before discovering that idk Scotland thinks he's a oval office and extradites him at lightspeed, or it'll end with him getting on the wrong plane and flying to Wichita instead of Andorra or something. It'll be clownshoes regardless. I don't think he'd go though, he's got too much certainty that his apotheosis is at hand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 09:44
|
|
|
Would he even be able to find two pilots and crew who would literally sacrifice their lives to to him skip the country? Shuttling him to Scotland or wherever the hell is one thing, just more overtime pay but you aren’t coming back from this trip.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 10:07
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:I don't think Putin cares enough or would want the bother. He still hangs on to Snowden and Segal of all people remember. Tayter Swift posted:Would he even be able to find two pilots and crew who would literally sacrifice their lives to to him skip the country? The pilots themselves would probably be fine. They're just pilots. No reason for them to be detained or charged with anything in Russia. Unless its on tape that they'd knowingly helped Trump evade the law they would've just been doing their jobs even when they came back to the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 10:27
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:My step-dad thinks if Trump tries to skip town it'd be to Russia, and yeah tbf I bet Putin would have a great time thumbing his nose at DC about it, but I guess I don't think Putin cares enough or would want the bother. If Trump bails it's either going to be to somewhere he presumes will gladly welcome him and be honored, before discovering that idk Scotland thinks he's a oval office and extradites him at lightspeed, or it'll end with him getting on the wrong plane and flying to Wichita instead of Andorra or something. It'll be clownshoes regardless. I hear he's in good with the leader of the US Virgin Islands, maybe he'll go there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 10:37
|
|
|
Never going to happen. Trump won't give up his stuff that he will leave behind. And country X won't put him up in a Trump Tower/Mar a lago in their country. And as its Trump, they will get sick of his constant requests for free poo poo by the second week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 13:38
|
|
|
Trump seems like the practical definition of a flight risk to me. He's got plenty of money, his own planes and connections all over the world. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jun 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 13:58
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:Never going to happen. I could see him running to Dubai or similar in the UAE or Saudi Arabia.They’ve sheltered fleeing former heads of state before, have no extradition treaty with the U.S. (neither does UAE or Qatar) there are several Trump properties in the area and another currently under construction and the Saudis basically own his rear end, and the U.S. can’t afford to alienate them by imposing sanctions or invading. Oracle fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Jun 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 14:15
|
|
|
I would think the number of countries who would be willing to harbor a fugitive ex-US President is vanishingly small: way too much headache, both logistically and diplomatically, for not enough reward. Just because there’s no extradition treaty on the books doesn’t mean a country wouldn’t want to cram trump into the cargo hold of the next flight back out of the country to the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
Running implies guilt, and Trump can never overly admit to doing anything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:He's saying the attorney did it. Well - the attorney in this case separated “personal” and “work” emails and unrecoverably nuked the former. This case is obviously so much worse than the Clinton case, but imagine if the FBI showed up to get the docs back and there was a shredder and a smoking trash can full of ash. His lawyers just sticking their hands in their pockets and saying they were getting rid of some personal documents, heh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:From doing a very brief research into the topic, it is in theory possible in certain rare circumstances. There is. JNOV's (for some reason law peeps use he abbreviation for the Latin instead of the English) are appealable (unlike a jury verdict - you can appeal on the basis that the evidence was so fundamentally flawed that the judge should have not let the jury deliberate, but you can't appeal on the ground "the jury should have decided the other way). The standard is a hard one to reach, but it's not true that there's no recourse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
I mean would any of us really complain if he ran and hosed off to Russia or wherever? Then he’d never be able to come back and he can just tweet on his new Russian ultraflush toilet all day for all I care. I assume that his assets would be frozen and/or seized as well. Whatever life he has left would be objectively worse than his current life in the US. E: Don’t get me wrong, ideally I’d love for him to be turbofucked by the court and spend the rest of his days going from prison to court to prison but if we can’t have that I’d be ok with him loving off to Moscow forever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:There is. JNOV's (for some reason law peeps use he abbreviation for the Latin instead of the English) are appealable (unlike a jury verdict - you can appeal on the basis that the evidence was so fundamentally flawed that the judge should have not let the jury deliberate, but you can't appeal on the ground "the jury should have decided the other way). The standard is a hard one to reach, but it's not true that there's no recourse. Thanks for this. The idea that judges have 'one weird trick that prosecutors hate!!!' where they can just declare any defendant not guilty and that's it, no way to reverse or overturn or appeal that decision, seemed absolutely insane. Some questions from a non-lawyer browsing this Wikipedia entry. The article says the JNOV applies to civil trials. Does that mean it wouldn't apply here? Also, it mentions the concept of a directed verdict, whereby the judge orders a jury to find the defendant not guilty. Would that also be appealable or is there some loophole that, since its the jury making the finding of not guilty (even though the judge told them to), the appeal wouldn't work or at least be different?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
Lord Harbor posted:Thanks for this. The idea that judges have 'one weird trick that prosecutors hate!!!' where they can just declare any defendant not guilty and that's it, no way to reverse or overturn or appeal that decision, seemed absolutely insane. Same thing, different name, and apologies for being imprecise. In a federal criminal trial it's actually a Rule 29 motion, for an entered judgment of acquittal. In a civil trial, either party can move for a directed verdict (pre-jury-deliberation) or JNOV (post). In a criminal trial, only the defense can, since the prosecutors being able to move for one would violate your right to a jury trial. It's often used in the context where there's not evidence about a specific element of the crime introduced, the argument being basically "hey, there's no evidence going to [X], and the jury would need to find [X] beyond a reasonable doubt, and since no reasonable jury could do so without evidence, let's all go home." And yes, R.29's are appealable. It's most often the defense appealing when they weren't granted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
Yeah I think it’s worth remembering there is not super robust case law on the results of federal justices going rogue and ignoring the law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
I know its a different situation and thank God nothing significant happened but it feels a little "they got Capone on his taxes" that the thing the feds made stick was the "putting file boxes in the restroom for clout" and not the whole "sending his private army to coup the Republic" thing but hey we take those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Jnovs also require basically a "literally no evidence" standard. The last time I saw one granted in my county court was a few years ago after the prosecutors just forgot to introduce any evidence at all to show the alleged crime happened inside county jurisdiction. The prosecutors on that case both left that office within the month, not officially fired but *everyone* knew why. Idea being they only are an issue if the prosecutor is grossly incompetent, either by bringing a case to trial where no evidence existed, or by just forgetting to put things in evidence like an absolute moron Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jun 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Lord Harbor posted:Thanks for this. The idea that judges have 'one weird trick that prosecutors hate!!!' where they can just declare any defendant not guilty and that's it, no way to reverse or overturn or appeal that decision, seemed absolutely insane. They're only appealable if they overturn a jury verdict. She can just acquit him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Trump seems like the parctical definition of a flight risk to me. He's also one of the most recognizable people on the planet. It's not like he could just "disappear".
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
I think it's more likely he offs himself than flees the country. If it's actually looking like he's going to prison for the rest of his life.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
Red posted:Numerous Trump appointees already have overseen election cases Yeah, but there's a big big big difference between a civil trial and being a criminal defendant. I've seem judges excuse themselves from handling noncontroversial, consensual guilty pleas just because they'd met the alleged victim or because their clerk happened to know the defendant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:I know its a different situation and thank God nothing significant happened but it feels a little "they got Capone on his taxes" that the thing the feds made stick was the "putting file boxes in the restroom for clout" and not the whole "sending his private army to coup the Republic" thing but hey we take those. Why are you assuming there will be no charges related to Jan 6? There has been an ongoing investigation related to Jan 6 with publicly known actions as recent as last week. E.g. see Newt Gingrich's testimony to a grand jury on June 8th.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
Oracle posted:I could see him running to Dubai or similar in the UAE or Saudi Arabia.They’ve sheltered fleeing former heads of state before, have no extradition treaty with the U.S. (neither does UAE or Qatar) there are several Trump properties in the area and another currently under construction and the Saudis basically own his rear end, and the U.S. can’t afford to alienate them by imposing sanctions or invading. Wow. Trying to picture this reality where all the flag sucking performative patriots in this country want to sucede to Saudi loving Arabia or Russia of all places and form a new Freedom Country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:There is. JNOV's (for some reason law peeps use he abbreviation for the Latin instead of the English) are appealable (unlike a jury verdict - you can appeal on the basis that the evidence was so fundamentally flawed that the judge should have not let the jury deliberate, but you can't appeal on the ground "the jury should have decided the other way). The standard is a hard one to reach, but it's not true that there's no recourse. Is this ever done to remedy improper acquittals? Everything you've described (in this and your other post) seems like it's a way to overturn a conviction, or is only relevant for civil trials.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
I mean, be honest: Doomerism is all we have, because anything less than "death by firing squad" is going to feel like a disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 16:22
|
|
|
Seph posted:Why are you assuming there will be no charges related to Jan 6? There has been an ongoing investigation related to Jan 6 with publicly known actions as recent as last week. E.g. see Newt Gingrich's testimony to a grand jury on June 8th. I didn't hear about that, thanks. I guess I was just assuming, especially given how fast the documents got to indictment, that if it were going to happen it, you know, would have? I'm happy to be wrong but from my developmentally-limited brain it seems like this should be pretty easy, especially since they have arrested and charged multiple people for following his instructions? idk
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Trump has literally never had to face genuinely meaningful consequences for anything in his entire adult life. Even putting aside that he's obviously declined in cognitive function with age, and that he's a clinical narcissist who has been brain-broken by the presidency and is forever going to spend the rest of his life desperately trying to regain that high, the simple fact is that none of us can really make too informed of a prediction on how he will react to the possibility of meaningful consequences because "Trump might face meaningful consequence" is legit an unprecedented event. This indictment is as unprecedented for the man as it is for the nation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Is this ever done to remedy improper acquittals? Everything you've described (in this and your other post) seems like it's a way to overturn a conviction, or is only relevant for civil trials. quote:A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, the action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution Someone should hunt down a cite for the last time a judge issued a directed verdict for acquittal in a federal trial. It might not have ever happened.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
I think the notion of Trump becoming a fugitive from Justice is all a little silly but also in some ways into him living the rest of his life out in Russia forever branded a guilty coward kind of a best case scenario?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Is this ever done to remedy improper acquittals? Everything you've described (in this and your other post) seems like it's a way to overturn a conviction, or is only relevant for civil trials. No. Nothing at all can ever overturn a jury acquittal. But an acquittal requires a unanimous jury in the exact same way a guilty verdict does. Sneaking one obstinate chud on the jury can create a mistrial, where everyone would have to start over again, but not an acquittal. So if all twelve jurors vote for Trump, yeah, it's over. But I don't think that's very likely given that the evidence was enough to make the most cautious, slow, careerist prosecutors in the world, DoJ employees, indict a former POTUS before a known-friendly judge. They've got a case here. And yeah, you're right about this all going one way. In the criminal context a judge can only overturn a conviction and make it a directed acquittal which, again, is appealable. You have a sixth amendment right to be convicted by a jury, which is why this can only go that way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Someone should hunt down a cite for the last time a judge issued a directed verdict for acquittal in a federal trial. It might not have ever happened. Happened a few months ago, in April: https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news...nt-of-acquittal They're not incredibly uncommon in a couple of contexts, like securities law or antitrust, where it's quite technical. You're not going to ever see one for something like drug trafficking unless there's a career ending gently caress-up by a prosecutor. (Sorry for the double post, but it's a lot easier when phone posting to reply on multiple subjects this way)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
tldr: Trump gotta Trump. Doesn't it seem likely that T would request a jury trial. I'm not an undiagnosed psycho/sociopath (or maybe I am!), but his MO would be: We're in Florida. FL loves me. FL hates DeSantis. Even the illegal immigrants love me. Everyone loves me! I'm gonna show them, and the entire jury will all find me innocent in this witch hunt. Give me 20 jurors and they'll ALL KNOW IT'S A WITCH HUNT!!! It also seems unlikely he'll listen to his lawyers this time, especially if they were all telling him he'd never be indicted. In fact, he'd probably represent himself but he doesn't want to deal with saying anything structured so he pays others to deal with that poo poo. It just seems like he's gonna care more about the message than the sentence, and attacking the planet is better than attacking a single person: Cannon, bench trial, good chance of guilt on a few counts (obstruction), $100k fine, but The Headlines Said GUILTY! No! Lies! Liberal activist judge! Jury trial, UNANIMOUS NOT GUILTY!! See see witch hunt all along! Perfect document security! Go kill the weaponized Democrats and traitur RHINOS! FBI and DOJ must disband immediately!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Trump seems like the practical definition of a flight risk to me. He can't take Mar-A-Lago or his army of sycophants with him. And more importantly, running for president while in Russia is probably even harder than running while in jail. RoboChrist 9000 posted:Trump has literally never had to face genuinely meaningful consequences for anything in his entire adult life. Even putting aside that he's obviously declined in cognitive function with age, and that he's a clinical narcissist who has been brain-broken by the presidency and is forever going to spend the rest of his life desperately trying to regain that high, the simple fact is that none of us can really make too informed of a prediction on how he will react to the possibility of meaningful consequences because "Trump might face meaningful consequence" is legit an unprecedented event. He's definitely had to face meaningful consequences before. I realize this is a no-win line of argument because it usually seems to end up in semantic quibbles about what each individual poster considers to be "meaningful", but he's definitely had constraints imposed on his behavior and freedom in ways that actually impacted him in some way. The one that comes to mind is when bankers forced him to cut his personal monthly spending by 20% as a condition for loans to salvage his failing businesses. His debts were so bad that he had to sell off his personal luxury yacht. It's not exactly in the same league as not being able to afford three meals a day, but it was certainly meaningful to him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:19
|
|