|
KillHour posted:I'm not a lawyer so maybe one of them can jump in but I'm pretty sure I've seen this kind of thing in the context of "I didn't do x but even if I did do x (which I didn't), I would have been completely within my rights to do so" so later when they prove you did do it, you have something to fall back on. I have no idea what happens if the evidence you put forward saying you didn't do x also damages your argument saying you were allowed to do x, but I'd presume you'd try not to do that. again: i have no idea why people are caught up on the abstract question about whether you can argue in the alternative. you can do a lot of things and we are not arguing about what theoretical good motions practice looks like but rather a specific series of filings in response, the district attorney said "woah that's totally hosed, your argument admitted to crimes" and he made no meaningful response to this claim, just "no we didn't" and "even if we did, the court shouldn't consider it now." perhaps this method will work out for him in the end, but it's obviously fair game, the district attorney's office treated it as fair game, and his response was bad. eke out fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Aug 26, 2023 |
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
eke out posted:again: i have no idea why people are caught up on the abstract question about whether you can argue in the alternative. you can and he did, we are not arguing about what theoretical good motions practice looks like I missed this context. Yeah if you said "I couldn't have shoplifted because I was busy murdering this guy [shows judge picture of corpse on phone]" you hosed up. Where specifically was that because going back I don't see it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I missed this context. Yeah if you said "I couldn't have shoplifted because I was busy murdering this guy [shows judge picture of corpse on phone]" you hosed up. Where specifically was that because going back I don't see it. Willis quotes his motion to dismiss in the filing linked here. https://twitter.com/AWeissmann_/status/1694508865692315806 Meadows replies, linked here https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1695106979625161161 anyways, people like Andrew Weissmann (currently an MSNBC commentator after a lengthy DOJ career culminating in running the Mueller prosecutions) are off base in thinking that this is a good line of attack from Willis. but Meadows engaged with the argument (badly) and so should other people discussing it, it's not a question about pleading standards eke out fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 17:40
|
|
|
relatedly, i found this helpful general explainer from a UT fed crim law guy who wrote a full piece at lawfare about it: https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1695074850551857512 after this initial explainer, he has a subsequent thread about Meadows' reply, growing increasingly skeptical, that i thought explained it fairly well: https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1695112100023083480 https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1695162556438978758 https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1695162558875853221 https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1695162561254080888 https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1695162563690914232 eke out fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
Cimber posted:That's his only option. No, he can in fact get convicted—both state and federal—even felonies—but continue to run for office, win the primary, and win the general election. Unlike some states, the US Constitution has no disqualification for felony convictions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:No, he can in fact get convicted—both state and federal—even felonies—but continue to run for office, win the primary, and win the general election. Unlike some states, the US Constitution has no disqualification for felony convictions. 14th Amendment Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:14th Amendment I guess one more time for the people catching up in the back: None of these people are charged with insurrection or rebellion or treason. Election interference, conspiracy to defraud the United States, infringing people's constitutional rights, and mishandling classified documents don't suddenly add up to insurrection because you want it to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I guess one more time for the people catching up in the back: I wasn't claiming otherwise but to say there's no DQ in the constitution when it's.. right there in the text, is dumb too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:I wasn't claiming otherwise but to say there's no DQ in the constitution when it's.. right there in the text, is dumb too. That isn't a disqualification for felony convictions. That's a disqualification for specific activities.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 19:52
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:That isn't a disqualification for felony convictions. That's a disqualification for specific activities. Okay cool so he doesn't need to be convicted at all, even better. Also if some states have felony DQs how does he get on their ballot?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:Okay cool so he doesn't need to be convicted at all, even better. Also if some states have felony DQs how does he get on their ballot? No, the way you prove someone committed some specific illegal activities is via conviction in court. The US presidency is not a state office so state constitutional provisions or laws barring convicted felons from running for or assuming state office do not apply to it
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 20:09
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:No, the way you prove someone committed some specific illegal activities is via conviction in court. So it's not a universal felony disqualification but it requires you being convicted of one of those specific felonies to be called into use?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:Okay cool so he doesn't need to be convicted at all, even better. Also if some states have felony DQs how does he get on their ballot? Fuschia tude posted:Unlike some states, the US Constitution has no disqualification for felony convictions. Finally, even if you were somehow correct about how state and federal laws interact, being off, say, Georgia's ballot still does not prevent him from running for President and still winning. It would just prevent him from being able to win Georgia's electoral college votes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not making an argument against any of it, I'm just ignorant and asking stupid questions. And for some reason thought he probably ticked enough insurrection boxes for that to matter. It's pretty "cool" how none of this may matter still, thanks for the clarification. Also could a state try to do any of that using 10th amendment arguments or is it explicitly laid out that "you will have a felon on your ballot if we say so and that's that?" Tenkaris fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:Yeah I'm not making an argument against any of it, I'm just ignorant and asking stupid questions. And for some reason thought he probably ticked enough insurrection boxes for that to matter. e: very wrong, see below And you would think that he could and should be charged for insurrection. There is probably a case to be made for it, but sadly, he has not been charged with it or any of the other disqualifying crimes. Someone who is actually a lawyer can probably say why, or at least say "political reasons" and move on. From a lay outsider perspective, I agree that what he did probably is insurrection. Idk. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:The felon would only be able to be on the ballot for federal office. Essentially, even though the state is administering the ballot it is still the federal government's requirements that matter. The state is just acting on behalf of the federal government. Basically, for president, the requirements to be allowed to win are spelled out in the Constitution, but each state is free to select their electors in any way they see fit. It's not even a requirement that citizens get to directly vote for a particular person to be president.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:So it's not a universal felony disqualification but it requires you being convicted of one of those specific felonies to be called into use? Well, no. It doesn't actually specifically set out any requirements at all for being called into use. Which, practically speaking, means it requires a Congressional vote or a Supreme Court ruling to be implemented. Which means it's not happening in today's political environment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, no. It doesn't actually specifically set out any requirements at all for being called into use. Ah right so Congress could totally do it but won't 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 21:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Well, no. It doesn't actually specifically set out any requirements at all for being called into use. What mechanism would allow Congress to declare someone an insurrectionist and thereby disqualify them from the presidency? Tenkaris posted:Ah right so Congress could totally do it but won't The best (easiest to survive legal challenges) way for Congress to do it was via impeachment, but too many Republican senators voted to acquit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:What mechanism would allow Congress to declare someone an insurrectionist and thereby disqualify them from the presidency? Basically, the 14th Amendment Section 3 gives Congress the authority to pass laws they think might be necessary to achieve the goal of that clause, limited only by the Supreme Court's ability to use judicial review to say they're going too far or overstepping the bounds of what that clause authorizes. The Reconstruction Amendments aren't self-enforcing clauses that do anything on their own. Instead, they're statements of principle and intent, granting Congress the authority to pass laws that are needed to enforce them while depriving Congress of the authority to pass laws that go against them. Historically, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment has been enforced through two major mechanisms: 1) Congress passed laws which clarified the conditions to be covered by the clause, imposed criminal penalties on people who held office despite meeting those conditions, and instructed federal prosecutors to actively seek out and prosecute these cases A classic example of this is the Enforcement Act of 1870, which explicitly defined "knowingly accept[ing] or hold[ing] any office under the United States, or any State to which he is ineligible under the third section of the fourteenth article of amendment of the Constitution of the United States" as a federal crime, punishable by removal from office along with one year in prison or a $1000 fine. It also created special, privileged legal procedures for federal prosecutors to pursue these removals. However, those particular clauses of the Enforcement Acts have since been repealed. It was also used as justification for various other laws limiting the civil rights of ex-Confederates. 2) Congress refused to seat people who had been elected to Congress despite being perceived as traitors One example was Zebulon Vance, who had fought in the Confederate Army and been the governor of Confederate North Carolina. In 1870, the North Carolina legislature appointed him to the US Senate, but the Senate simply refused to accept it and utilized their preexisting power to refuse to seat a member, and the seat remained empty for two years before he gave up and resigned so that the legislature could appoint someone else. Note, however, that the political will for this did not last. Just a few years later, Congress voted to grant mass amnesty to most ex-Confederates, and Zebulon entered the Senate in 1878 and remained there until his death in 1894, becoming a champion of the Democratic Party and one of the leaders of the effort to repeal the remaining restrictions imposed on ex-Confederates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 22:26
|
|
|
DeathChicken posted:I mean given his entire plan seems to be to stall criminal proceedings until being elected and then argue the president is immune to prosecution, uh True, but probably for the best that we don't discuss anything like that. Because...? whydirt posted:Yeah if you want to talk about how Trump used our election system in his plot, that’s fine. What we don’t need is yet another thread about how the EC is undemocratic and polls about 2024 voting, etc. God drat, man. This poo poo is totally intertwined. I started this thread as a serious look at 1/6 and now we're into the legal end of all that and the thread title got changed. But how do we talk about Trump's 91 indictments, his almost certain nomination against Biden and the fact that roughly 1/3 of the population wants this idiot to be president again without discussing poo poo related to a loving election and how that actually works? The very real possibility that Trump could, in fact, win again and still lose the popular vote? That last part that you don't want us to discuss is precisely the only road towards Trump being elected again and was the only way he was elected in the first place where Hillary Clinton beat the living christ out of him in the popular vote. How are we supposed to post about this without acknowledging the way we elect our presidents and talking about that? I'm being totally serious here and am not trying to pick a fight but "Election Talk", to me, is very much what this whole thread is all about. I promise you that this discussion will affect these trials in some way. What should we talk about? How funny the mug shot is or the very real path towards a second term for this fascist and how that's actually possible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 22:29
|
|
|
you end up having to talk about the electoral college because the electoral college is the only loving reason why the election is so accessible to fraud and tactical disenfranchisement, allowing us to have republican presidents anymore ever
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 22:34
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:you end up having to talk about the electoral college because the electoral college is the only loving reason why the election is so accessible to fraud and tactical disenfranchisement, allowing us to have republican presidents anymore ever Talking about it in context of Trump's attempt to manipulate it is fine. Fives pages of bitching about it is just white noise. It's the system we've got and it's not going to change any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:True, but probably for the best that we don't discuss anything like that. Because...? Just because something is important doesn't make it okay to spam up every thread with it. We know already that he's going to be nominated and has a chance of winning. The minutiae of this are well known and there are other threads for that. What's not so well known and interesting to discuss because it isn't spammed to every other thread are the legal details of how he may be convicted or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Talking about it in context of Trump's attempt to manipulate it is fine. Fives pages of bitching about it is just white noise. It's the system we've got and it's not going to change any time soon. true, it bust completely out of most immediately relevant discussion
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
I don’t think the 14th amendment is as hard to put into effect as some people keep saying. Why does there need to be a criminal conviction of a few specific statutes? Or any congressional action? Civil courts make determinations like this daily. Trump applies to be on the ballot. Sec state puts him on the ballot. Another candidate moves to have him struck (mandamus the sec state to remove?) from the ballot per the 14th amendment forbidding his candidacy. It goes to a civil court, the plaintiff puts up a bunch of evidence about how what Trump did was actually meets the clear text of the article. Trump says no, it’s that’s lies and the jury decides who they believe. Then there’s an appeal and it goes to scotus. It’s an entirely reasonable progression and doesn’t require a criminal conviction or congress. civil cases decide what is or is not constitutional and what it means every day. It’s one of their chief functions. Edit: would it be easier if he had been convicted of insurrection? Probably. Would it be easier if congress laid out a clear set of criteria on how to interpret and put into effect the 14th? Absolutely. Is it necessary? I doubt it and we will find out because it’s going to happen. Murgos fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:Ah right so Congress could totally do it but won't
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I don’t think the 14th amendment is as hard to put into effect as some people keep saying. Why does there need to be a criminal conviction of a few specific statutes? Or any congressional action? https://youtu.be/zLrKJ1JTXvc?si=THe-4RkBrp2_38_n
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
Mr. Smile Face Hat posted:Just because something is important doesn't make it okay to spam up every thread with it. Ok, I'll dial it down and wasn't trying to spam anything. The conversation just went that way and, IMO, for very logical reasons. But I'm cool with talking about other poo poo if everyone is tired of that stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
I don’t think the court cases and the politics are separable. I mean that’s ultimately the only real card they have that nets a W that isn’t luck based.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Can a belt and suspenders argument be valid when the first prong requires admission of facts that invalidate the second prong and also the second prong requires admission of facts that invalidate the first prong? A lawyer doesn’t make things fact by saying them in an argument, do they? You can offer two opposing interpretations of the facts and say “whichever one you pick my client has a defence”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I don’t think the 14th amendment is as hard to put into effect as some people keep saying. Why does there need to be a criminal conviction of a few specific statutes? Or any congressional action? The simple answer is "because SCOTUS said so". In 1869, SCOTUS ruled that Amendment 14 Section 3 isn't "self-executing". That means it can't be enforced unless Congress passes a law specifically laying out how to enforce it. The ruling is old, controversial, and thoroughly mired in the complex political situation of early Reconstruction, but as far as I can tell it's never been overruled. So courts can't just look at the text and roll their own interpretation on it - they're required to defer to whatever Congress has in place, and if Congress doesn't have anything relevant on the books, the courts are powerless. Of course, the current SCOTUS could overrule that, if they really wanted to. But I seriously doubt that this conservative-dominated Court would. Even if they're not all Trump loyalists, I think Roberts would deeply appreciate a solid excuse to say that the courts can't unilaterally disqualify a guy who won 74 million votes nationwide last election. He'd much rather kick this hot potato over to Congress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Come now, if you wish to engage in serious legal debate kindly dispense with the obviously false names. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 02:34
|
|
|
Taft + Mark Twain
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Come now, if you wish to engage in serious legal debate kindly dispense with the obviously false names. Let me cite this opinion by Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun on that...
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 02:54
|
|
|
Warren Burger… mmm… burger… 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 03:15
|
|
|
Presto posted:Taft + Mark Twain Ahem. “Twaft”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Ahem. Mark Taint
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
100% what I pictured when I read that name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 03:35
|
|
