|
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. My understanding of the concerns out there isn’t that Cannon will let the trial play out “normally” and then direct acquittal, it’s that either she’ll interfere so egregiously that she lets all the air out of the airtight case or that Trump will waive his right to a jury and be acquitted after Cannon spends two weeks playing Candy Crush during a farce of a bench trial. I’m not trying to JAQ off here, and I have no relevant knowledge myself: Are there procedural obstacles to either of those? Same question, I guess. I’m certainly sympathetic to “they wouldn’t have brought the charges if they were worried about this” but I’m still wondering if there are any obvious cards to play.
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:06 |
|
|
raminasi posted:it’s that either she’ll interfere so egregiously that she lets all the air out of the airtight case or that Trump will waive his right to a jury and be acquitted after Cannon spends two weeks playing Candy Crush during a farce of a bench trial. Even if Trump requests a jury trial she can just immediately acquit. She doesn't have to let the whole trial proceed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
At least in state court, the prosecution can request a jury trial just like the defense. Technically they refuse to give consent to a non jury trial but the result is the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Even if Trump requests a jury trial she can just immediately acquit. She doesn't have to let the whole trial proceed. I don't mean to be all cite please but has this literally ever happened in a federal case because I just looked and couldn't find an instance where it has. I mean I'm just on my phone now so maybe I just ain't lookin right
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Easily if they're his private pilots. I'm pretty sure the pilots would be guilty of some sort of combination of aiding a suspected felon evade bond, falsifying a flight plan and kidnapping if the rest of the crew wasn't told in advance "hey we're going to Russia today instead," unless someone held a gun to the pilots' head and told them to redirect to Moscow. And someone on the ground would have to know that the plane's being filled with waaaay more Jet-A than it takes to get from NJ to Florida. I really don't think trying to escape on his own plane without being found out would be all that easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Even if Trump requests a jury trial she can just immediately acquit. She doesn't have to let the whole trial proceed. Again this doesn't sound correct. Not in the "that's not what I imagine justice to be like" sort of way. But in a procedural way. Like Cannon playing Candy Crush for 2 weeks, ignoring everything that is said and then saying "not enough evidence to put it to the jury" is farcical, but at least follows a bit of court procedures. Cannon immediately starting the trial with "this is obviously a witch hunt against the one true President, Donald "Emperor of Mankind" Trump, I acquit" has to be such a breach of protocol as to be actionable at some level, since it wouldn't be a legitimate trial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Is everyone really in favor of having him go to Russia? It sure seems like a good chance for Biden to say, "You know, it's time we had a chat with Putin because he's lost, and hey he'll listen to his own spy", then T can just say "he's sending me to Russia to stop a nuclear war" and then just never come back. Or less sketchy, there's a lot of opportunity to escape from a nearby country, and there's a lot of destinations in Europe he's previously visited. Heck, a boat to Mexico (which he'd probably go to Texas and walk south to show "how easy it is to cross the unguarded border!") seems a good start.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Cannon immediately starting the trial with "this is obviously a witch hunt against the one true President, Donald "Emperor of Mankind" Trump, I acquit" has to be such a breach of protocol as to be actionable at some level, since it wouldn't be a legitimate trial. In particular, the judge dismisses on the grounds that the evidence was gathered without a warrant, noting that the prosecution screwed up everything and wasted everyone's time. It is reasonable for a judge to dismiss pointless trials, but I suspect there's a difference between dismissal and acquittal, since the latter has double jeopardy rules. ps First web search says, indeed, dismissal without a trial is possible; acquittal requires a trial. PhantomOfTheCopier fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Jun 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
Right, exactly, a Judicial dismissal is appealable by the prosecution. A judicial acquittal after the jury has been sworn is a different thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
What if Trump requests trial by combat?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
Maybe this is just foolish optimism, but I feel like that level of naked calvinball gets us close enough to constitutional crisis territory that it puts the potential for new case law on the table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Maybe this is just foolish optimism, but I feel like that level of naked calvinball gets us close enough to constitutional crisis territory that it puts the potential for new case law on the table. Would a criminal federal case like this be put to the Supreme Court? I'm not sure how the appeal system works, but it being put before this specific Supreme Court would be... bad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:15
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Would a criminal federal case like this be put to the Supreme Court? I'm not sure how the appeal system works, but it being put before this specific Supreme Court would be... bad? I meant more along the lines of things that case law says are unappealable get appealed and judges find a way to justify why this is a special exception. Edit: this goes beyond partisan politics. Judges know their power resides in the belief in the legitimacy of the judicial system. That level of fuckery is a threat to that power. Preservation of one's own power is a political interest that crosses party lines. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jun 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:
This is the point where the scenario became unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:28
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I meant more along the lines of things that case law says are unappealable get appealed and judges find a way to justify why this is a special exception. This is the US. Every case is appealed. Sigh. And then appealed again. Nevertheless, a procedural appeal for "failure to acknowledge the existence of evidence" seems very possible. If a judge is ill, distracted, or just nopes out, it seems legal for the court of appeals to say that evidence was not properly considered, ergo do it over, do it right, or next time we censure you. But I'm just reading stuff online... but at least they're law sites instead of Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:This is the point where the scenario became unbelievable.  I concede!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:30
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Again this doesn't sound correct. Not in the "that's not what I imagine justice to be like" sort of way. But in a procedural way. Like Cannon playing Candy Crush for 2 weeks, ignoring everything that is said and then saying "not enough evidence to put it to the jury" is farcical, but at least follows a bit of court procedures. I was wrong, but like South Park mandates, the truth is in the middle. https://www.federalrulesofcriminalp...a%20conviction. A motion for acquittal can be ruled on after the prosecution provides their evidence and before the defense makes their case. The judge does not need such a motion to acquit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:I was wrong, but like South Park mandates, the truth is in the middle. The language in that seems to imply it is very appealable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The language in that seems to imply it is very appealable. Only if the Judicial acquittal occurs after a jury renders a guilty verdict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
Trump running to Russia would be an even greater security failure than his leaving nuclear weapons secrets in a publicly accessible hall was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Two things impress me about this (more boring) stuff. We seem to know so little about juries, except I suppose in a statistical sense. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-most-see-security-risk-after-trump-indictment/ notes only 38% of conservatives think there was a national security risk, versus 80% of the general population. What happens when these people get on a jury? Do they actually make use of the evidence, or do they just tow the line? Second, that they have no shame (I cannot mentally grasp). The GOP has had dozens of opportunities to detach themselves from T but they just downright refuse to see anything whatsoever. This morning was Lindsey Graham going all in on the defense, and after the 2.3sec of content, going right back to Hillary and Biden and laptops. Even the Catholic church started to acknowledge their faults after the first 2000 years and most recent 500 child cases. What name is given to millions of people who aggressively exhibit the mental health patterns of a child? It's more than a simple cult at this point. (I guess they call it a "religion"?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
My sense is that juries get asked specific factual questions and the evidence addresses those specific facts. So it’s harder to be a chud since you would have to argue the facts are wrong which is harder than just believing that what Fox News is saying is right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 19:03
|
|
|
smackfu posted:My sense is that juries get asked specific factual questions and the evidence addresses those specific facts. So it’s harder to be a chud since you would have to argue the facts are wrong which is harder than just believing that what Fox News is saying is right. Also, trials are long. A hypothetical chud doesn't just show up and scream, "TRUMP INNOCENT!" and the trial ends, they need to sit through weeks-to-months of evidence of exactly what Trump did and how it violates the law. Then they need to spend weeks more arguing with the other jurors about their decision. And if during this time they break and go, "Well, I'll just never convict Trump of anything", that'll almost certainly be reported to the judge who then has to figure out if they can just dismiss the chud or have to get a brand new jury. So in order for a single chud to screw things up, they need to be so committed to Trump that they'll vote not guilty regardless of the evidence while also being able to spend months hiding this fact from the dozen other people they'll be forced to explain themself to. And then it's a hung jury so they just redo the trial. That'd definitely suck and give the right wing a bunch of ammunition, but it's not an acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
And jury instructions can be really specific, to the point where people can reach a legal conclusion they know they disagree with in principle but feel required to reach based on what they were instructed to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Only if the Judicial acquittal occurs after a jury renders a guilty verdict. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but browsing through the rules for appellate courts, I see this in rule 4 about when appeals can be placed: Rule 4. Appeal as of RIght - When Taken posted:(b) Appeal in a Criminal Case. with Rule 4(b)(3)(A) including a judgement of acquittal under rule 29. That seems to suggest that there has to be a way to appeal that ruling. Edit: I might be reading this wrong and instead this refers to the defendant's ability to appeal in order to request an acquittal? Edit 2: I'm unable to find a good explanation of what can be appealed. There are some specific situations mentioned about death sentences, incarcerated defendants, etc. but beyond that I can only find references to things like, "when the government is entitled to appeal" and no explanation of what those situations are. Lord Harbor fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jun 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Two things impress me about this (more boring) stuff. We seem to know so little about juries, except I suppose in a statistical sense. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-most-see-security-risk-after-trump-indictment/ notes only 38% of conservatives think there was a national security risk, versus 80% of the general population. What happens when these people get on a jury? Do they actually make use of the evidence, or do they just tow the line? While this borders on the conspiracy side of things, I personally don't think it's impossible that Trump used the powers that he had while president to get dirt on 15-20 top Republicans. The lengths these people will go to break their backs for him is hard to justify in normal context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
I realize this thread is 200+ pages so apologies if I missed it but I look forward to the discussion about Trump pardoning himself when he inevitably storms to the GOP nomination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
Zotix posted:While this borders on the conspiracy side of things, I personally don't think it's impossible that Trump used the powers that he had while president to get dirt on 15-20 top Republicans. The lengths these people will go to break their backs for him is hard to justify in normal context. I think the simpler explanation is that an elected Republican, with a few specific exceptions (e.g. Romney), is ending their career if they come out against Trump. They will no longer be able to win a primary. So they go along with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Two things impress me about this (more boring) stuff. We seem to know so little about juries, except I suppose in a statistical sense. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-most-see-security-risk-after-trump-indictment/ notes only 38% of conservatives think there was a national security risk, versus 80% of the general population. What happens when these people get on a jury? Do they actually make use of the evidence, or do they just tow the line? The first one leads to the second. As long as the GOP base enthusiastically supports Trump, GOP politicians who openly go against him are likely to face electoral defeat. Most of them aren't really inclined to sacrifice their own political careers. Maybe if all of them went against him at once, it'd be a different story. But the GOP ranks are increasingly filled with people who realized that embracing Trump early and eagerly was the way to oust incumbents and get a big boost up the political ladder, so there's really no hope of them unifying against Trump. If his hold on the base loosened, a good chunk of the party would happily throw him under the bus in an instant, but they can't shake the base's love for him and they aren't sure when or if the base will ever give up on him. That's why all his presidential candidates are loudly praising him while very obviously positioning themselves to be a convenient alternative if the base stops liking Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 20:28
|
|
|
An article posted elsewhere from the Daily Kos of all places had an interesting observation - why did they have a ruler in the photo of the docs on the floor? Speculation that they had actually made multiples copies of confidential documents lol https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/5/27/2171698/-I-have-been-waiting-for-someone-to-point-out-the-obvious-tell-in-this-photo
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
This Is the Zodiac posted:I mean, be honest: Doomerism is all we have, because anything less than "death by firing squad" is going to feel like a disappointment. This should be the thread title. Anything less than "death by firing squad" is a disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
The longer this goes on, the more I'd like to have some vetted legal information on two separate types of things: 1. What judge Cannon could hypothetically do to the utmost extent of her ability to help trump, regardless of consequences to the legitimacy of law and no matter how clear the fuckery 2. What judge Cannon is more likely to do to help trump that 'dresses up' her fuckery with the veneer of legitimacy, avoiding absolute outrage but still clearly biasing the end product away from accountability to trump
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
Kavros posted:The longer this goes on, the more I'd like to have some vetted legal information on two separate types of things:
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 21:19
|
|
sticksy posted:An article posted elsewhere from the Daily Kos of all places had an interesting observation - why did they have a ruler in the photo of the docs on the floor? Speculation that they had actually made multiples copies of confidential documents lol The ruler is to establish scale. It's normal for evidence documentation.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
if Donnie trys to flee, i hope it ends up like those jokes where the devil/satan begs the husband to take back the wife. or they just do The Terminal movie but with Donnie. oh and no happy ending.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 21:52
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:if Donnie trys to flee, i hope it ends up like those jokes where the devil/satan begs the husband to take back the wife. I guess I'd be pretty okay with Donnie getting stalked by a maniacal Stanley Tucci.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AdamParkhomenko/status/1667616931598270473?s=20 I didn't notice this about the pictures initially. Fuckaroni and Cheese.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:He's also one of the most recognizable people on the planet. It's not like he could just "disappear". If he got rid of that ridiculous thing on his head and lost the oversized suit he would be just another old man in the crowd. Not that he ever would of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The ruler is to establish scale. It's normal for evidence documentation. Why would you need scale on a standard piece of 8.5”x11” paper?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:06 |
|
Oracle posted:Why would you need scale on a standard piece of 8.5”x11” paper? Because the standard practice would be to put the scale-establishing ruler on every photo of a piece of evidence.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2023 22:13
|
|