|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Now I'm more convinced he's going to unequivocally blab. This is a guy who is also on the hook for taking classified information and then flaunting it all over the place. The dude just can't shut up about that stuff. So he'll find something out and he won't be able to resist. i just want more deposition video to come out of this of trump but i never get good things
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I think the more interesting question is :
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 06:56
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:we already saw this during the alex jones case. the prosecution will show pictures of the judge burning in hell that he made, he'll shrug and say it was metaphorical, and the judge will wag their finger gently again ad again. and, if you complain about this blatant glad handing, you'll be accused of being a bloodthirsty monster wanting nothing less than execution and 'round and 'round we'll go until i say something that gets labeled "doomer" and i get a probe while trump judge gently shakes their fist and politely asks trump to put down the gun or else they'll be forced to politely ask again. The Alex Jones case that awarded $49,300,000 to the plaintiffs? Or the Alex Jones case that awarded $1,438,000,000 to the plaintiffs in one of the largest damages awards in US history?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 07:20
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The Alex Jones case that awarded $49,300,000 to the plaintiffs? Or the Alex Jones case that awarded $1,438,000,000 to the plaintiffs in one of the largest damages awards in US history? How much of that has he paid, btw? I stopped checking the Alex Jones thread too long ago and I haven't heard any updates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 07:21
|
|
|
The Bible posted:How much of that has he paid, btw? I stopped checking the Alex Jones thread too long ago and I haven't heard any updates. The bankruptcy court got so tired of his poo poo they assigned a trustee to basically own and run all of Alex Jones' finances, as well as that of his companies, as they dig through everything to find every single penny he owns down to marking every couch he's lost pocket change in. Of course these things take time so it's been long, dull and slow other than a few moments of "Alex Jones declares he needs $15 bajillion dollars annual salary to maintain his cost of living, judge told him to gently caress off." Jones and Infowars is basically owned by the court, but because these things take time it looks like nothing's happened. Basically it's a lot like the "walking ghost" phase severe radiation poisoning where he looks like he's fine, he walks and talks like he's fine, heck he probably feels fine and imagines he got away with no real consequences, but inside he's slowly being ripped apart. So expect to continue to hear nothing, then a lot of screaming several months down the line. Legal stuff like this is slow Alkydere fucked around with this message at 08:00 on Aug 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 07:58
|
|
|
Keep in mind that revoking bail slows down trials significantly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 11:57
|
|
|
Trump wants a change of venue to a state that has more MAGA votes. But I thought that the election was rigged and he won every state anyway so what's the point there? Having the trial in a state he lost should PROVE he won the election in his mind. "See? They say I lost the vote in ______________ but this verdict proves I really won and it was fixed"
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 13:00
|
|
|
Man, if only chuds gave this much deference to all defendants in criminal cases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 13:17
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Trump wants a change of venue to a state that has more MAGA votes. But I thought that the election was rigged and he won every state anyway so what's the point there? Having the trial in a state he lost should PROVE he won the election in his mind. If his argument is that the states conspired against him to give Biden the votes it would be consistent that those same states would conspire against him in a criminal case to ensure a guilty verdict.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 13:22
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The Alex Jones case that awarded $49,300,000 to the plaintiffs? Or the Alex Jones case that awarded $1,438,000,000 to the plaintiffs in one of the largest damages awards in US history?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 13:40
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:both of those are the same alex jones. the one that continually called the court and the judge in particular corrupt and owned by evil satanists. both of whom got a finger waved, repeatedly, at their face but that's it It's a part of the two tier justice system we have in this country. Presumably, neither you nor I are billionaires that can spend [$INFINITE] on lawyers. Under that assumption, if you or I said even one thing like Alex Jones did at his peak in the trial we would have suffered immediate consequences, and would have flat out lost the case because of it, it would have been ruled our fault and the results would have been the same level of disastrous that Jones is finally suffering. Compare that instead to being given years upon years UPON YEARS of kid glove treatment and mild scolding and second, third, fourth...........................N-teenth chances to participate in the trial and not directly, personally, and specifically threaten and insult the judge presiding over his trial until he forced the court to enter a default ruling against him because of his refusal to participate in the process at all, in any fashion. An option to the trial we could not have afforded to purchase.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 14:16
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You’re arguing the general case when what’s clearly at issue is a specific actor with a long established past history. It’s disingenuous. Just because he fomented a riot one time doesn't automatically mean that his every word can be presumed to be a potential threat of violence. And I very much would prefer to not establish such a precedent here, because plenty of anti-establishment agitators have faced similar accusations historically and that trend is likely to continue. Xiahou Dun posted:I think the more interesting question is : Bail typically comes with conditions, yes, and typically one of those commissions is that the defendant not commit additional crimes while out on bail. So if the defendant is arrested or indicted for new crimes committed while out on bail, or if the prosecution can show probable cause* that such a crime may have been committed, then bail may be revoked. *Note that "probable cause" is a specific legal construct with a bunch of caselaw around defining it, so it is likely to be significantly more rigorous than your personal "I'm pretty sure this suggests he did a crime" standard is. InsertPotPun posted:we already saw this during the alex jones case. the prosecution will show pictures of the judge burning in hell that he made, he'll shrug and say it was metaphorical, and the judge will wag their finger gently again ad again. and, if you complain about this blatant glad handing, you'll be accused of being a bloodthirsty monster wanting nothing less than execution and 'round and 'round we'll go until i say something that gets labeled "doomer" and i get a probe while trump judge gently shakes their fist and politely asks trump to put down the gun or else they'll be forced to politely ask again. The judge sure as hell didn't "glad hand" him in the verdict. While the actual amount came from the jury, let's not forget that the judge was so convinced Jones needed to be bankrupted by the case that she literally overturned a cap on punitive damages in state law, which would have otherwise substantially reduced the jury reward. That's something that really, really doesn't come through in this breathless Twitter TV/IVing of legal cases: judges can afford to be very patient, and in fact have some rather strong incentives to be, but you will always eventually regret loving with the judge. They typically won't immediately flip their poo poo or throw a tantrum in the courtroom or call down immediate harsh sanctions, but they will remember it and they will inevitably gently caress you over for it. They run the courtroom and they run the case, and if someone openly fucks with them, they can very much take their time and work out the best way to make that person suffer for it in a way that can't easily be overturned on appeal. Alex Jones is literally more than a billion dollars in debt - a number that he is never going to pay, because he literally doesn't have that much money. Which is why it's going to take a while for him to pay - given that there's no way he's going to be able to fully pay off the amount of debt he's in, the courts have to work out how best to divide up and distribute the money he does have among his various debtors. Even his lawyer owes six figgies in sanctions for ethics violations, complete with an "this sanctions amount will more than double if you appeal it and lose" rider tacked onto it. That's the sort of poo poo that basically never happens - unless you piss off a judge!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 14:40
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:If his argument is that the states conspired against him to give Biden the votes it would be consistent that those same states would conspire against him in a criminal case to ensure a guilty verdict. True, but now he finally sort of gets a judge to hear his argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
In practice, being poor and black and getting arrested again is sufficient probable cause to revoke bond for criminal defendants. Revocation of bond based on a new arrest alone, with no other violations, is a fairly routine occurrence if the prosecutor files a motion to revoke bond on that ground. Notably bond is almost entirely discretionary with the trial court judge in practice and judges frequently set bonds they know to be unconstitutional, secure in the knowledge that even if they get appealed it won't matter because they can just set an arbitrarily high bond again at the next hearing. What sets Trump apart is 1) he's white and republican and a member of the "non criminal" class 2) He's rich and well connected enough that he could pay virtually any cash bond that was set 3) he's powerful enough that judges and prosecutors are generally afraid to deny or revoke his bond, for fear of what might happen if they treated him like they treat everyone else. Trump's ability to flout the legal system is largely a function of prosecutorial and judicial cowardice. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Aug 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:True, but now he finally sort of gets a judge to hear his argument. There were at least 32 court cases at the time that heard whatever arguments he had, and he was 0-32.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
Trump’s lawyer Lauro says the request of pence to overturn the results was “aspirational” and thus covered under free speech. Not a lawyer here but that doesn’t seem like a good defense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
saintonan posted:There were at least 32 court cases at the time that heard whatever arguments he had, and he was 0-32. See what I mean? Now that he's the defendant, it puts a whole new spin on it! Regarding bail for Trump, a big part of it is to ensure that the defendant actually comes back for their court date so, to me, it's weird he gets bail since Trump is the practical, walking definition of a flight risk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
Vino posted:Trump’s lawyer Lauro says the request of pence to overturn the results was “aspirational” and thus covered under free speech. Not a lawyer here but that doesn’t seem like a good defense. no no you misunderstood me I told him I hope nothing bad happens to his business. It would be terrible if it caught on fire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Regarding bail for Trump, a big part of it is to ensure that the defendant actually comes back for their court date so, to me, it's weird he gets bail since Trump is the practical, walking definition of a flight risk. Conviction in absentia while he hides out in Russia is a great result tho.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
People keep arguing about this but he owns his own plane and has multiple lavish properties in other nations! Yes, he has a secret service detail but people evade their own details all the time! He's not wearing an ankle monitor or anything!
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
Trump's attorneys are floating two strategies: 1) Trump is actually delusional and had no idea what he was doing. 2) Trump was engaging in "The Secret" style aspirational thinking as therapy for himself and everyone else just took it literally and ran with it. https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1688313522155892736
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Trump's attorneys are floating two strategies: Isn’t that first one equivalent to a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1688552253525786624?s=46&t=CBKJcBX0BD3U5HgUdsqBtw
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:See what I mean? Now that he's the defendant, it puts a whole new spin on it! One major factor in flight risk determination is whether the defendant has ties to the area that they're unlikely to abandon. So while having a lot of cash obviously makes for a higher flight risk, having a good job or a powerful position or a lot of property tends to reduce perceived flight risk, because they usually can't take those things with them, and they presumably aren't eager to abandon those things and leave them behind. If Trump flees to Russia, he leaves behind Mar-a-Lago and all his other buildings and golf courses, as well as his crowds of sycophants and his entire political career. On top of that, Russia is heavily sanctioned these days, so he can't even get his beloved Big Macs there, and moving large amounts of money there might not be so easy either. Yeah, if he really wants to, I'm sure he could leave all that poo poo behind, giving up his entire lifestyle and everything he's worked for and built up, and live out his remaining years comfortably enough in Russia. But it'd still be a huge sacrifice, and I don't think it's super unreasonable for the courts to assume that he doesn't want to make that sacrifice if he can help it, especially when he's surrounded himself with sycophants who're blowing optimistic smoke up his rear end, and when he still has a real shot at winning the presidency and pardoning himself. gregday posted:Isn’t that first one equivalent to a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity? No, because Leon summarized it very poorly. What Trump's attorneys are actually arguing is that his lawyers told him all that poo poo was okay to do, and he trusted the lawyers because he thought they knew more about the law than he did. Which isn't entirely unreasonable, except that there's plenty of evidence showing that plenty of people on his team were telling him that the likes of Powell and Giuliani were full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
gregday posted:Isn’t that first one equivalent to a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity? No. Insanity defense requires you to genuinely be so far gone that you couldn't tell what you were doing is right or wrong. You can be delusional, but still know that the thing you are doing is illegal or wrong. If you murder someone because you think they are CIA agents stalking you to harvest your brainwaves, then you still know that murder is wrong. His attorneys are saying he may have technically violated the spirit of the constitution, but he didn't do anything criminal because he just asked for some stuff to happen (exercising his first amendment right to free speech and was advised was okay by his legal counsel) and the people he asked didn't do it, so he dropped it. But, then he was airing his grievances in a therapeutic way and the crowd just happened to take it and run with it, but he never instructed anyone in the crowd or ordered anyone in the crowd to do it. He knew storming the capitol and killing a capitol police officer was wrong, which is why he never took any direct action to command anyone in the crowd to do it. The other stuff he thought was okay because his attorney advised him it was fine. He was just delusional and thought he really did win and was arguing it in public as he is legally allowed to do because of the first amendment. Main Paineframe posted:No, because Leon summarized it very poorly. What Trump's attorneys are actually arguing is that his lawyers told him all that poo poo was okay to do, and he trusted the lawyers because he thought they knew more about the law than he did. Which isn't entirely unreasonable, except that there's plenty of evidence showing that plenty of people on his team were telling him that the likes of Powell and Giuliani were full of poo poo. The delusional part is specifically what his attorneys were arguing with the special counsel and floated in an interview with Newsmax. They are arguing that to try and shoot down the claim that he "lied" or "knowingly defrauded" the government because he couldn't be lying or knowingly attempted to defraud if he really believed he was speaking the truth. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Aug 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
He looks trustworthy. And unpaid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
bobjr posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1688552253525786624?s=46&t=CBKJcBX0BD3U5HgUdsqBtw Getting some clickbaity feelings here, especially given that Kyle Cheney was the same one who made that misleading tweet about the protective order a couple days ago, so let's dig into this: quote:ORDER STRIKING SEALED FILINGS AND ORDERING BRIEFING So let's break down these four items one by one:
I'll reserve final judgment on this until actual lawyers weigh in (despite calling himself a "legal affairs reporter", Kyle Cheney doesn't actually appear to be a lawyer), but this doesn't look especially outrageous when looking at what the order actually says rather than Cheney's provocative paraphrasing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
The "will noone rid me of this troublesome priest" defense?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 16:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Getting some clickbaity feelings here, especially given that Kyle Cheney was the same one who made that misleading tweet about the protective order a couple days ago, so let's dig into this: It seems to be in line with her other rulings. She's making rulings that aren't especially outrageous in and of themselves, but she is basically constantly asking the Special Counsel to show their work in ways that would not typically be asked. But, this isn't a typical case and you could make an argument that being as thorough as possible (even if it is above and beyond the scrutiny that would normally be required) is a reasonable thing. The grand jury request really depends on what she intends to do with an explanation. There isn't any info on that, so it could be the same thing (being required to constantly show their work) or it could be for something more extreme like not allowing any evidence that isn't procured from a grand jury in the Southern District of Florida.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
One thing that is legitimately weird, although not necessarily malicious, is that she struck the entirety of the motion from the record. That should generally be appealable and is kind of weird. I can't think of a really good reason to do so. Most of her procedural rulings are quite strange (which, I guess, could be attributed to being inexperienced) and uneven. She isn't doing anything explicitly out of bounds, but she is applying extremely strict scrutiny to the special counsel, a normal to less than normal level of scrutiny to the defense, and making a lot of weird decisions. Striking your own denial, requiring the special counsel to re-file everything she wants clarification on instead of just asking for a verbal on the record clarification, hashing out certain filings in public when they are filed under seal, and some of her other decisions aren't really giving an advantage to Trump in the legal sense, but are just weird decisions. It's sort of the equivalent of a teacher enforcing the rules incredibly literally to only one person to annoy them - but not actually punishing them. I think you could make a really good case that she is not being totally impartial by being harder on the special counsel, but not really in a way that will necessarily legally benefit Trump (so far) or a way that you could justify kicking her off the case. It's more like she is putting her hand right in front of your face and saying, "I'm not touching you." But, in her defense, this is an extremely unusual (literally unprecedented) case and you could make an argument that applying over-the-top scrutiny to the government is a reasonable thing that a person could decide was necessary without any personal biases. The multiple weird decisions that don't seem to serve any purpose or are time-wasters are the more confusing decisions in a super high-profile case like this. Forgetting to do something could be explained by being new or just forgetting. But, going out of your way to make some of these decisions is strange. They are all technically okay things to do in a vacuum, but pretty weird that they are all happening together on a case like this. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Aug 7, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
Striking stuff from the record does make appealing things up harder since that's what they have to rely on up there (unless it's specifically an appeal about the striking).
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Striking stuff from the record does make appealing things up harder since that's what they have to rely on up there (unless it's specifically an appeal about the striking). There isn't technically anything to appeal yet. She's just asking them for a new explanation because she thinks there are deficiencies in the order... but doesn't really say why or what they are. She's basically saying, "Do better. I'm not saying what you need to improve, but improve it and try again." It's not a magical "one weird trick" to abolish appeals, but it is very weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
Eh, assume that the DoJ is actually intending to show grand jury material as evidence that Woodward has a conflict of interest. The grand jury material is potentially something as banal that Woodward is representing X person who is a witness in this case. On its face grand jury material and all grand jury material is secret. “Show your homework” isn’t a good answer if the attribution of the material is from a grand jury proceeding. She’s a judge she has a duty to protect people rights. Main Paineframe posted:Just because he fomented a riot one time doesn't automatically mean that his every word can be presumed to be a potential threat of violence. And I very much would prefer to not establish such a precedent here, because plenty of anti-establishment agitators have faced similar accusations historically and that trend is likely to continue. There are literally hundreds of convicted felons who have claimed that Trumps tweets sent them to do violence in a court of law. A person loaded up with an assault rifle and ammo and went off to hunt president because Trump posted an address to social media just a few weeks ago. It’s a clear and persistent danger that is ongoing. Trump being unable to make social media posts about witnesses or officials in his case is not an unconscionable harm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
For those who want the full firehose, here is a CourtListener search for the J6 trial, with documents where available. Note that docs are only available if some kind soul donates the PACER pdf first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Most of her procedural rulings are quite strange (which, I guess, could be attributed to being inexperienced) and uneven. She isn't doing anything explicitly out of bounds, but she is applying extremely strict scrutiny to the special counsel, a normal to less than normal level of scrutiny to the defense, and making a lot of weird decisions. When you remind yourself that she's such a bad trial judge that she didn't realize she was creating a mistrial by keeping out the public from jury selection, over the objections of both the prosecution and the defense on another case, a lot of these sorts of things make more sense. She doesn't want to do something verbally on the record because she can't have her law clerk (or herself? does she have a law clerk?) to check on the internet that she isn't loving it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
“Yay! I got selected to clerk for a federal judge!” “Oh, it’s Judge Cannon… I’m just going to pretend this got lost in the mail.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:01
|
|
|
It's kind of wild how federal courts work. Apparently a judge is just picked for a case at random? As opposed to a system where a case has to be tried by a judge with a certain amount of experience? Like I'm sure there's a good reason it doesn't work that way but I can't think of one. Like a minor offense, ok it gets assigned to a judge with less experience. A former president stealing and potentially disseminating highly classified documents and refusing to give them back? Yeah that one can only be assigned to a highly experienced judge. Someone tell me there's a good reason we don't have a system like that. Having one of the most important cases in American history assigned to a greenhorn is insane.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:It's kind of wild how federal courts work. Apparently a judge is just picked for a case at random? As opposed to a system where a case has to be tried by a judge with a certain amount of experience? Like I'm sure there's a good reason it doesn't work that way but I can't think of one. Like a minor offense, ok it gets assigned to a judge with less experience. A former president stealing and potentially disseminating highly classified documents and refusing to give them back? Yeah that one can only be assigned to a highly experienced judge. Someone tell me there's a good reason we don't have a system like that. Having one of the most important cases in American history assigned to a greenhorn is insane. How would a new federal judge get experience if cases were restricted only to judges who had a certain amount of experience with "real" cases as a federal judge? Even if they just handled minor cases, there would still be someone's first/second/third "real" case they would have to do. The lottery is supposed to exist to prevent judge shopping or giving any one judge too much influence over policy. I can see an argument for why you might not want it in an unprecedented case like this one, but at the same time, there is also a very good argument for why you shouldn't be changing the rules for big cases or specific individuals either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
Experience has to come from somewhere but https://www.salon.com/2023/06/15/ex-doj-official-sounds-the-alarm-cannons-lack-of-experience-is-reason-enough-to-remove-her/multiple posted:Times analysis found that only four of the 224 criminal cases assigned to Cannon had gone to trial. The four cases, largely comprised of routine matters including assaulting a prosecutor, amounted to just 14 total days of trial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:21 |
|
|
I mean, federal criminal cases never go to trial, as a rough approximation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 19:59
|
|