|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:However, in this instance, a Georgia conviction would arguably disqualify Trump from holding federal office anyway under Section 3 of the 14th amendment. That...that's not what that says. It says Trump is already disqualified due to Jan 6. A state conviction for conspiracy and racketeering is not a conviction for treason or insurrection (which I'm pretty sure must necessarily be federal anyway); it wouldn't affect his qualification one way or the other. Nitrousoxide posted:SCOTUS is always technically a wildcard since they decide their own limits of their jurisdiction and the only out for anyone else is just refusing to abide by their rulings. So they could theoretically decide that, yes the SCOTUS does have primacy over state supreme courts and furthermore gently caress you. Nah, any time Congress feels like it, they can pass a law and say SCOTUS can't review it because it's out of their jurisdiction. The only laws they can't do that with are the very few cases the Constitution explicitly assigns SCOTUS original jurisdiction over, like ambassadors and interstate disputes.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Nah, any time Congress feels like it, they can pass a law and say SCOTUS can't review it because it's out of their jurisdiction. The only laws they can't do that with are the very few cases the Constitution explicitly assigns SCOTUS original jurisdiction over, like ambassadors and interstate disputes. Is there historical evidence of this actually working? What's stopping the court from taking a challenge to such a law up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Is there historical evidence of this actually working? What's stopping the court from taking a challenge to such a law up? Basically nothing. The challenge is whether SCOTUS feels that the federal government is willing to enforce the law or not. Going back to Worcester v. Georgia, they knew that Andrew Jackson would likely be unwilling to order the federal marshals to enforce the ruling that the SCOTUS handed down - so Marshall just didn't ask.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 05:02
|
|
|
“There’s a good chance that whatever document he produces ends up as evidence against him. It could even end up as the basis for an obstruction count against the author because it’s likely to be fiction and solely for the purpose of contaminating the jury pool.” https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1691646901177679962
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 05:40
|
|
|
The only thing better is if he does just have blank prop paper for a speech, and the DoJ confiscates that. Just evidence #205-DJ-689 is a stack of a blank printer paper Donnie publicly said exonerated him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 05:49
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:The only thing better is if he does just have blank prop paper for a speech, and the DoJ confiscates that. Just evidence #205-DJ-689 is a stack of a blank printer paper Donnie publicly said exonerated him. If they confiscate is he'll say that he had evidence that TOTALLY EXONERATED HIM and would PUT THE BIDEN CRIME FAMILY IN JAIL but THE FAILING DOJ ILLEGALLY CONFISCATED IT so now he can't show it to you. He's going to claim that anyway ofc
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
But what if someone bumps into him in the lobby before he's set to reveal the truth? He'd have to postpone the stunning revelation!
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
Pylons posted:Basically nothing. The challenge is whether SCOTUS feels that the federal government is willing to enforce the law or not. Going back to Worcester v. Georgia, they knew that Andrew Jackson would likely be unwilling to order the federal marshals to enforce the ruling that the SCOTUS handed down - so Marshall just didn't ask. Well, no, they didn't order Andrew Jackson to send the federal marshals because the case never reached the point where federal intervention would have been necessary. The Court generally does not directly order the enforcement of its decisions; rather, it remands the case back down to the lower courts, which are supposed to comply with the decision and order whatever relief is necessary. Theoretically, if the lower court refused to do so, the Supreme Court might order federal marshals to get involved, but Worcester v Georgia never really got to that point. Although the Georgia court and government did refuse to comply with the Supreme Court's decision, South Carolina went and kicked off the Nullification Crisis before that could make its way back up to the Supreme Court, and the Georgia government started having second thoughts about whether that was really the right time to be having a states' rights showdown with the federal government. raminasi posted:Is there historical evidence of this actually working? What's stopping the court from taking a challenge to such a law up? Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution explicitly grants Congress the ability to regulate and limit the scope of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. It's been used a handful of times, and although the Court doesn't always play along, it has a few times - especially if Congress looks particularly pissed. The most prominent example is Ex Parte McCardle in 1868, where McCardle made a habeas corpus petition to the Supreme Court, the case was argued in front of the Court, and then Congress passed a bill revoking the Supreme Court's ability to hear habeas corpus cases. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress had the power to withdraw that jurisdiction, and therefore they no longer had jurisdiction to hear the case. That said, it's not an absolute power, either. When the Bush administration was trying to set up military commissions to keep Guantanamo detainees out of civilian courts, one of the laws passed stated that no US court (including the Supreme Court) could hear habeas corpus petitions from "enemy combatants". The Supreme Court overturned it, finding that there was a constitutional right to habeas corpus and that Congress couldn't completely close it off like that. So it's not like Congress write a massive, blatantly unconstitutional law and then tack on "oh by the way the Supreme Court isn't allowed to overturn this law". Of course, I'm sure it also helped that the Senate had been retaken by Democrats by the time the Supreme Court got around to ruling on that case. While the Supreme Court may seem all-powerful these days, there's actually quite a lot that a sufficiently annoyed Congress can do to gently caress with the Supreme Court, while there's not really much the Supreme Court can do to directly gently caress with Congress. So as a general rule of thumb, the Court tends to avoid sustained confrontations with a sufficiently pissed-off Congress. If the legislature is determined enough to push back against the judiciary, things can actually get fairly unpleasant for the Supreme Court, so it's not a fight they really want to pick. It's just that usually, Congress doesn't have the political will for that kind of showdown, since it's quite heavily divided and prone to frequent changes in its partisan balance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 06:12
|
|
|
Are these indictments going to add up to any real results? Because until the story ends in either Trump dying in prison or someone finally shot him in the fuckin head, I don't get why the indictments matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 06:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Article 3 Section 2 of the US Constitution explicitly grants Congress the ability to regulate and limit the scope of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. From what I gather, an important point (and part of the Guantanamo Bay case) is that there still has to be a court with jurisdiction so that Congress can't simply place fundamental rights outside the place of the courts to rule on. Jurisdiction stripping McCardle was upheld because he'd only appealed to SCOTUS because a district court with jurisdiction rejected the case and SCOTUS was willing to take it up before Congress passed a law to strip their ability to hear appeals. Politics of the time were important too: this was in the middle of Reconstruction, and McCardle was a Southern newspaper publisher advocating resistance to Reconstruction who was jailed by a military commander while the South was formally occupied under the Military Reconstruction Act. Star Man posted:Are these indictments going to add up to any real results? Because until the story ends in either Trump dying in prison or someone finally shot him in the fuckin head, I don't get why the indictments matter. If the new standard for The Mattering is "Trump dead," why does it matter how or where he dies? Though it seems likely he will die in prison from one or the other of these at this point. Not certain, of course, but it's never seemed more likely. All of the worries when this started that no one was seriously going to investigate, that the investigations would be dropped for "decorum" or sabotaged before charges were filed, that the cases would target low-level functionaries while leaving the ringleaders untouched, or that they'd be nothing charges with little bite to them....those turned out to be unfounded. Again, there are still ways it can go wrong, but a lot of the initial ones have closed off. Killer robot fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Aug 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 06:42
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:So the GEORGIA case mentions other states he was trying to do the same thing in. The likely explanation is that Georgia and Arizona have single patty consent and Michigan and Pennsylvania don't. Arizona's previous AG was a pro Trump shithead and their current one is investigating it, but for political reasons they likely won't do anything until Trump is already cooked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 07:00
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Are these indictments going to add up to any real results? Because until the story ends in either Trump dying in prison or someone finally shot him in the fuckin head, I don't get why the indictments matter. Any of the indictments leading to conviction would probably lead to him dying in prison, but particularly the Georgia indictment. All three indictments seem pretty drat airtight factswise even if we ignore the presumption that federal prosecutors don't bring cases they don't have an extremely high chance of winning. The Georgia RICO charge specifically carries a minimum five year sentence, no exceptions, functionally no opportunity for pardon, certainly no opportunity for self-pardon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 07:19
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:Any of the indictments leading to conviction would probably lead to him dying in prison, but particularly the Georgia indictment. All three indictments seem pretty drat airtight factswise even if we ignore the presumption that federal prosecutors don't bring cases they don't have an extremely high chance of winning. The Georgia RICO charge specifically carries a minimum five year sentence, no exceptions, functionally no opportunity for pardon, certainly no opportunity for self-pardon. Also it's goddamn hilarious that we have people swooping in to "Nothing Matters" over ONE HUNDRED FELONIES (and possibly more) considering none of the trials have even started yet, and AFAIK more charges could easily be coming. Trump is three years younger than Biden and is clearly, visibly, in loving terrible health, by the way. It wouldn't shock me if some sort of naturally occurring thing accelerated/exacerbated by the stress of all this poo poo takes Trump out before the trials even finish. Just saying. SamuraiFoochs fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Aug 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 07:25
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:Also it's goddamn hilarious that we have people swooping in to "Nothing Matters" over ONE HUNDRED FELONIES (and possibly more) considering none of the trials have even started yet, and AFAIK more charges could easily be coming. Oh that's just because I'm broken and physiologically incapable of hope.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 07:27
|
|
|
If you get sentenced to prison for both state and federal crimes, how does that work? Do you do both concurrently in a federal prison? Do you go to a federal prison and then get released directly into a state prison when that sentence is up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 07:33
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If you get sentenced to prison for both state and federal crimes, how does that work? Do you do both concurrently in a federal prison? Do you go to a federal prison and then get released directly into a state prison when that sentence is up? to my understanding: state prison usually takes priority, state sentence usually runs concurrently how does this interact with georgia law? big shrug, i spent four days in atlanta for a conference once and that's most of my georgia experience
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 07:38
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:Any of the indictments leading to conviction would probably lead to him dying in prison, but particularly the Georgia indictment. All three indictments seem pretty drat airtight factswise even if we ignore the presumption that federal prosecutors don't bring cases they don't have an extremely high chance of winning. The Georgia RICO charge specifically carries a minimum five year sentence, no exceptions, functionally no opportunity for pardon, certainly no opportunity for self-pardon. fwiw I've reviewed the GA criminal code and it looks like a five year minimum or a fine. O.C.G.A. § 16-14-5 quote:(a) Any person convicted of the offense of engaging in activity in violation of Code Section 16-14-4 shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by not less than five nor more than 20 years’ imprisonment or the fine specified in subsection (b) of this Code section, or both.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 07:45
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Oh that's just because I'm broken and physiologically incapable of hope. I wrote out a long response to this, but instead I'll settle for as long as you acknowledge that's what's going on here, then  Discendo Vox posted:fwiw I've reviewed the GA criminal code and it looks like a five year minimum or a fine. I could've absolutely sworn people who'd know have reported that, if convicted on this, there is zero way he escapes the jail time. Also even IF he escaped prison, he's loving broke forever. THREE TIMES the amount of money he gained from the RICO activities isn't just a fine. That's him getting absolutely buried. SamuraiFoochs fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Aug 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 07:52
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If you get sentenced to prison for both state and federal crimes, how does that work? Do you do both concurrently in a federal prison? Do you go to a federal prison and then get released directly into a state prison when that sentence is up? You do not automatically get federal credit for state time served but you usually do get state credit for federal time. Pending state charges limit privileges while in federal detention. Typically state charges are dropped when there is a federal conviction but that's usually because the state and the feds are both pursuing charges from the same incident and/or because the length of federal sentencing renders thebstate sentence functionally moot. Trump's situation is atypical. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Aug 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 08:06
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:I could've absolutely sworn people who'd know have reported that, if convicted on this, there is zero way he escapes the jail time. Likewise, I don't know what to make of it. idk how the fine would be evaluated.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 08:18
|
|
|
Seph posted:The added cherry on top is that SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over Georgia state crimes. The defense can still argue that the Georgia prosecution violates the federal constitution, which SCOTUS can review. See e.g. Cohens v. Virginia. I'll be very surprised if they don't include a First Amendment claim, for example. Belteshazzar fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Aug 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 08:23
|
|
|
Belteshazzar posted:The defense can still argue that the Georgia prosecution violates the federal constitution, which SCOTUS can review. See e.g. Cohens v. Virginia. I can easily see Roberts telling Brott Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney Barrett that they're not touching this with a 10 foot pole
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 08:42
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:I wrote out a long response to this, but instead I'll settle for as long as you acknowledge that's what's going on here, then I haven't read the criminal code, but someone asked Willis about this during her press conference and she claimed that "the RICO charges have time that you have to serve". Maybe there was some confusion though because the reporter specifically asked if this charge had a minimum prison time or if it's servable with probation, so it's possible she was just making that distinction? I dunno, sure seemed like she was saying it had a minimum lock up time. timestamped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ul6BVALWAJs&t=435s
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 08:46
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:That didn’t work out so well last time but I guess as long as we don’t use St. Helena… We don’t own that St. Helena, and there’s a ton of people on our St. Helenas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 11:34
|
|
|
Arizona could be up next as number 5 https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/will-arizona-be-the-next-state-to-indict-former-president-donald-trump quote:Arizona’s Attorney General is currently investigating, and Governor Katie Hobbs says she hopes to see Arizona’s fake electors face criminal charges. Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Aug 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 12:01
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:“There’s a good chance that whatever document he produces ends up as evidence against him. It could even end up as the basis for an obstruction count against the author because it’s likely to be fiction and solely for the purpose of contaminating the jury pool.” Trump's been trying to argue "why did they wait 2.5 years to indict me?" as a legal defense. Why did he wait 2.5 years to present the long, detailed, definitive, irrefutable document of voter fraud?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 12:26
|
|
|
Trump promised to turn around the very large detailed complex and irrefutable report within one week instead of the usual two, that’s how you know this is serious
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 12:41
|
|
|
So we'll get it one week before his health care plan and right after infrastructure week. Glad we got the timing down for this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 12:43
|
|
|
The actual report doesn’t even matter. Just wants to get this headline in the NYTimes next to his indictment news: “Trump Plans to Release 100-Page Report on Georgia Election Fraud Claims”. Which worked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1691780358407073966
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 12:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:fwiw I've reviewed the GA criminal code and it looks like a five year minimum or a fine. Maybe the issue is there's no other fine authorized by law for that fine to be in lieu of
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 12:58
|
|
|
"Elite group".
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 13:18
|
|
|
Randalor posted:"Elite group". Elite Strike Task Force™️
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 13:20
|
|
|
What's the most interesting information that could plausibly be in those messages? The identity of the pipe bomb maker?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 14:09
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:What's the most interesting information that could plausibly be in those messages? The identity of the pipe bomb maker? I feel like a lot of the high-profile J6 folk have been convicted by now if not sentenced. I wouldn't mind if we have a few that were really desperately relying on a defense of "No premeditated plans to attack anything, I was just there for a peaceful protest and the crowd physically swept me into the building your honor".
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 14:12
|
|
|
This is curious to me. It seems clear that they got this info from Twitter's servers and not from DJT's phone or other personal device. It's clear that multiple people used Trump's Twitter account; how do they prove it was DJT himself typing all those things?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:What's the most interesting information that could plausibly be in those messages? The identity of the pipe bomb maker? I mean, plausibly not much. The most interesting would be messages from Trump to Roger Stone to pass onto the Proud Boys. But I'm not sure how dumb Trump is to put that kind of stuff in writing on his own Twitter account. That's the kind of thing he'd just use someone else's phone to call Stone and say it in the typical ambiguous way that could be interpreted a few ways, but only one way to reasonable people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 14:49
|
|
|
SamuraiFoochs posted:I could've absolutely sworn people who'd know have reported that, if convicted on this, there is zero way he escapes the jail time. Politico lays it out explicitly: the judge has discretion whether to apply the fine, prison term, or both, for a RICO conviction. But if anyone gets prison time, the minimum sentence is five years. quote:Although prison time is not automatic for a conviction under the state’s RICO Act (a judge can decide to dole out only a fine), if the judge does decide to impose a prison sentence, it must be at least five years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
New thread title "I feel special to be in such a elite group!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:57 |
|
|
saintonan posted:This is curious to me. It seems clear that they got this info from Twitter's servers and not from DJT's phone or other personal device. It's clear that multiple people used Trump's Twitter account; how do they prove it was DJT himself typing all those things? They would almost certainly have information about the device used for each transaction as well as timestamps, which when correlated with the President's highly documented schedule would make it pretty easy to know what device was used at what point in time and in who had possession of the device at that time
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2023 15:14
|
|
