|
Nervous posted:100% what I pictured when I read that name. We just tore down his monument!
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 06:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
WhY ARe You erAsINg History???? But seriously bring those drat things down. Congrats on the traitor removal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 12:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The simple answer is "because SCOTUS said so". Multiple legal authorities have commented on this concept and no one even mentions this 1869 ruling as even a note or aside. In fact the most serious people commenting on this Luttig, Tribe, Baude and Paulson all assert sec 3 of the 14th is self-executing. Most of the opposition to the idea just seems to be some assertion by other Federalist Society weirdos that some federal authority needs to find that Trump did an insurrection either via the impeachment mechanism in congress or as part of a criminal trial and I think that analysis is being explicitly rejected by more reasonable people. A federal civil court is a sufficient authority to make that determination without any proceeding act by some other authority equal to their own and they don’t need congress to tell them how to interpret the constitution, indeed that would likely be unconstitutional. Federal Civil courts routinely order states to comply with the constitution and federal civil courts routinely evaluate people actions to determine liability under constitutional provisions. There’s no missing authority here, no ‘whoops didn’t get the paperwork signed’ so it doesn’t apply. The idea that the federal courts aren’t a sufficient authority to interpret and apply the constitution is frivolous. Murgos fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Aug 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 13:29
|
|
|
IT BURNS posted:Did he have a stroke? The left side of his face looks droopy. He's 77 and has had a slew of cosmetic work and botox done, it's amazing he can move his face at all at this point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 14:34
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The idea that the federal courts aren’t a sufficient authority to interpret and apply the constitution is frivolous. It's annoying when people do this. Nobody is arguing that the federal courts aren't a sufficient authority to interpret and apply the constitution. The actual argument people are making is anything but frivolous and would certainly end up before the Supreme Court
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:It's annoying when people do this. Nobody is arguing that the federal courts aren't a sufficient authority to interpret and apply the constitution. The actual argument people are making is anything but frivolous and would certainly end up before the Supreme Court The real question is "will anybody get an injunction in place that disrupts his ballot status in any swing state."
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Multiple legal authorities have commented on this concept and no one even mentions this 1869 ruling as even a note or aside. In fact the most serious people commenting on this Luttig, Tribe, Baude and Paulson all assert sec 3 of the 14th is self-executing. Other legal analysts disagree. For example, Feldman describes the Baude-Paulsen paper as an example of originalists' penchant for completely ignoring precedent in their quest to reach whatever conclusion they want, and compares it to Dobbs (which Paulsen once described as "the most important, magnificent, rightly decided Supreme Court case of all time") in its blatantly motivated reasoning and open disregard for precedent. Indeed, the Baude-Paulsen paper itself acknowledges that "a small problem with our view that Section Three is self-executing and immediately operative is that the Chief Justice of the United States said the opposite, almost immediately after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted". They make no effort at all to get around that issue. Instead, they simply explain that since the Griffin ruling doesn't agree with their originalist interpretation, the Supreme Court should overturn it and establish a new precedent that matches the Baude-Paulsen reasoning. Instead of arguing that the precedent doesn't apply, they say that the precedent didn't use originalism and is therefore flawed garbage just like every other non-originalist ruling in history. I'm exaggerating here, but only slightly - their discussion of the precedent's flaws is thoroughly infused with originalist smugness and total disdain for non-originalism. Granted, they're not the only ones who say that the Griffin ruling is flawed. It's been criticized numerous times from numerous angles, as it's clearly a product of the complex political situations during Reconstruction. But from the perspective of lower courts, "this precedent sucks and SCOTUS should overturn it" is much harder for them to get involved in than "this precedent doesn't apply here", except in the eyes of hyper-conservative judges salivating at any chance to send a liberal precedent up to the current conservative majority for review. Are those hyper-conservative judges as eager to see Trump disqualified as they were to see Roe overturned? I doubt it. And of course, eventually we end up at the ultimate question of any judicial attempt to disqualify Trump: would the Roberts Court go along with it? Would two of our six conservative justices not only disqualify Trump, but overrule existing precedent in order to make the 14th Amendment Section 3 far easier for liberal prosecutors to apply against conservatives at all levels of the political system? I suspect that despite their claimed originalism, Alito, Thomas, and the three Trump-appointed justices wouldn't be interested in that right now. And I highly doubt that Roberts himself would be willing to take on the substantial political liabilities that would result from judicially disqualifying someone with a real, credible shot at winning the presidency. He loves to kick stuff to Congress, and a political hot potato like this isn't one he'd want to hold on to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
So, assuming Trump is found guilty on let's say 1/3 of this poo poo, 30 charges. What do you guys honestly think we'll be looking at regarding sentences? Because I honestly do not believe he'll go to jail. House arrest? Probation? Fines? What's considered a moderate sentence for some of the more serious charges?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So, assuming Trump is found guilty on let's say 1/3 of this poo poo, 30 charges. I don't think it's meaningfully predictable at this point. Theoretically he could be allowed out on bond pending appeal. Such is incredibly rare but so are these circumstances, and virtually everything will be appealed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 17:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So, assuming Trump is found guilty on let's say 1/3 of this poo poo, 30 charges. Reality winner got multiple years for giving one classified page to a reporter. We know Trump waved at least one war plan in front of a journalist but in addition to that he had boxes of documents and staffers finding classified docs on the floor. Those should in reality have him locked up right now (reality winner’s feet didn’t touch the ground after they identified her she awaited trial in custody). And yet. I have a hard time believing he sees more than house arrest which is an indictment of our system. He should be locked up with secret service posted outside his cell. It feels like prosecutors have the goods and yet I feel suffused with skepticism that he’s gonna be doing any time. He probably dies of natural causes mid appeal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 17:42
|
|
|
White collar + old = no prison, usually. Stealing lots of money may be an exception.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Granted, they're not the only ones who say that the Griffin ruling is flawed. It's been criticized numerous times from numerous angles, as it's clearly a product of the complex political situations during Reconstruction. But from the perspective of lower courts, "this precedent sucks and SCOTUS should overturn it" is much harder for them to get involved in than "this precedent doesn't apply here", except in the eyes of hyper-conservative judges salivating at any chance to send a liberal precedent up to the current conservative majority for review. Are those hyper-conservative judges as eager to see Trump disqualified as they were to see Roe overturned? I doubt it. I've looked into it a little more and Griffin doesn't actually seem like anything that can or should be depended on. Chase was not acting in his role as chief judge of SCOTUS when he made that ruling and he also just previously had ruled a different case in the opposite, that section 3 was self-executing. So, at best its a decision by a lower court that was mooted before it could be ruled on conclusively, is directly contradicted by the judge who authored it and if anything probably only applies in 1 district in Virginia. Let's not call it some insurmountable wall when it's not even close to that and in fact courts have ruled that section 3 is able to be used to disqualify someone from office and those actions have not been overturned. This biggest problem with section 3 from what I've read is just that by it's most strict interpretation it's likely far too broad and not only could easily be used to strip people like Boebert, Gaetz and Greene of office but also people who spoke out in favor of almost any organized demonstration again the government, even stuff like the BLM protests. But to me that seems exactly like what SCOTUS is for, balancing the 1st amendment against the others and finding out how to read them both together.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
I think house arrest is really unlikely for Trump due to the security issues of some dumbass militia trying to spring him. He'll more likely get protective custody in some appropriate prison. Which tends to be lower security but pretty isolated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I've looked into it a little more and Griffin doesn't actually seem like anything that can or should be depended on. Chase was not acting in his role as chief judge of SCOTUS when he made that ruling and he also just previously had ruled a different case in the opposite, that section 3 was self-executing. When it comes to Griffin, I'll just quote Feldman on that: quote:A circuit court decision, even one written by a sitting chief justice, doesn’t formally bind the judiciary or even the other courts of appeal. Nevertheless, the opinion is overwhelmingly the most important precedent interpreting Section 3. It has not been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court or the other courts of appeal since it was set down more than 150 years ago. Because it is still on the books, ignoring it would be an act of legal irresponsibility. Baude and Paulsen didn't seem to think that Griffin didn't matter, either. Although they disagreed with it and felt that it should be overturned, they believed it was important enough to spend more than ten pages arguing against it. They seemed to believe that it was applicable precedent, saying that "this precedent continues to cast a shadow over Section Three today" and that "Chase’s tendentious construction of Section Three has gone on to a surprisingly serious career as a precedent". The broadness of Section 3 is certainly a concern as well. After all, the last high-profile usage of Section 3 was in 1919, when the House of Representatives used it as justification to boot Socialist Party lawmaker Victor Berger for writing newspaper articles opposing US participation in the First World War (which they considered to qualify as "giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States"). Ultimately, though, you're not engaging with what is by far the most important point here: any attempt to disqualify Trump by judicial means will definitely go to the Supreme Court. The Court currently has six conservative justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump himself. Moreover, the current Court has shown a definite preference for kicking issues to Congress to address, even if it means overturning previous judicial rulings that have kept Congress away from those issues. And of course, there's the obvious political risks of disqualifying the leading presidential candidate in a party that currently holds the House and is only behind by a couple seats in the Senate. From jurisprudential, ideological, and balance-of-power perspectives, there's every reason to think the Roberts Court will prefer to embrace Griffin and say it's up to Congress to deal with Trump, rather than overturning it for the sake of blocking Trump themselves.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
I’ve said at least twice that it’s going to end up in front of SCOTUS. My entire effort here is to refute the, “tsk, tsk, shame about that griffin ruling. Guess it’s a no can do ‘ol chap. Completely shut down.” Nonsense floated earlier. To quote your source, “ A circuit court decision, even one written by a sitting chief justice, doesn’t formally bind the judiciary or even the other courts of appeal.” Not binding on the judiciary. That’s it. As far as, “well it’s been active for 150 years”, so what? When’s the last time we had a president engage in an insurrection? Oh, yeah the case where Chase ruled that section three was self-executing. Glad we are in agreement that it’s a live issue and ripe for a decision. Edit: I suppose Trump could pick up Chase’s argument that the self-executing nature of section 3 prevents other actions like trial for insurrection at the expense of giving up his president dreams. Probably doesn’t stop the documents or the business filings cases from going forward though. Murgos fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Aug 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I’ve said at least twice that it’s going to end up in front of SCOTUS. Can you dial down the smugness a bit? It's making it kind of hard to have a decent discussion through all the smarminess. The last time we've had a sitting president of the US engage in insurrection is "never". The case in which Chase ruled that Section 3 isn't self-executing is more recent than the case in which he ruled that it was, so the current precedent is "not self-executing". To repeat the rest of the quote from my source, rather than just a small piece cherrypicked out of context, Griffin is "overwhelmingly the most important precedent interpreting Section 3" which "has not been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court or the other courts of appeal since it was set down more than 150 years ago". Although it's not formally binding, judges routinely take into account precedents that aren't formally binding, especially if there aren't any binding precedents to follow. And in an area of constitutional law with so little precedent at all, Griffin can't really be ignored. Especially when you consider how reluctant the judiciary is going to be to want to involve themselves in this political mess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
This posted yet? Chesebro asks for expedited trial, Wilis agrees, offers to start ALL trials Oct 23, court agrees to start Chesebro's trial Oct 23. link
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Cheesebro is the wind beneath my wings on this one. Wrote a whole book of supervillain quotes trying to overturn the election, and now he just wants to get to it faster
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 22:36
|
|
|
I agree with the Brother-Of-Cheese. Try the lot of them starting in October.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 22:43
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Can you dial down the smugness a bit? It's making it kind of hard to have a decent discussion through all the smarminess. It’s not binding doesn’t mean it’s going to be ignored but it also doesn’t mean it suddenly becomes super precedent either. The $1000 an hour lawyers will come up with plenty of reasons why it doesn’t apply here and then how ever the judge rules it will get appealed to the Supreme Court. No matter how many times you invoke griffin it’s not going to suddenly be some insurmountable wall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 23:20
|
|
|
Can we talk about what the 2024 election looks like? If Trump wins the nomination but has to drop out for a conviction somewhere does Vice Presidential candidate tuberville become the nominee? What is the best case scenario here for after Trump convictions and prison time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
He can run from and sit as President even if he got life with no parole
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Can we talk about what the 2024 election looks like? He will never ever drop out. His future depends on him becoming president again and getting legal immunity. quote:What is the best case scenario here for after Trump convictions and prison time? The GOP purges the Trumpest elements from their tent and exiles them to the fringes rather than the flagpole. I don't see that happening however while Fox News remains an entity that draws money from peddling outrage night after night. [edit] Realistically, the boomer generation would need to be depleted a lot more before any of this is going to happen. Cimber fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Aug 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Can we talk about what the 2024 election looks like? That's only tangentially related to Trump's legal problems. Talk about the 2024 election in another thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Can we talk about what the 2024 election looks like? Trump only has to drop out if either the RNC decides to remove him as a candidate, states decide to block him from appearing on the ballot, or the Senate convicts him of impeachment and he is de-listed due to being an impeached official. All of these things require the Republicans to have the will to oppose Trump and his base, and the last eight years have made it absolutely clear that they do not and never will. Short of Trump dying before ballots are printed, he will be the nominee and the candidate in November 2024.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 00:44
|
|
|
I think that if the RNC decides to run someone other than trump as their candidate trump can still run as an independent as long as he can get on the ballot which he probably can. However, it being Trump and him having to actually do something correctly it’s probably not guaranteed that he does manage it in all 50 states.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:Trump only has to drop out if either the RNC decides to remove him as a candidate, states decide to block him from appearing on the ballot, or the Senate convicts him of impeachment and he is de-listed due to being an impeached official. He doesn't have to drop out even then. He can still run as an independent candidate, or threaten it and demand they make him the official one anyway to avoid him acting as a spoiler. I honestly expect him to burn the Republican Party down if he has to try to get that presidency and its sweet self-pardons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:He doesn't have to drop out even then. He can still run as an independent candidate, or threaten it and demand they make him the official one anyway to avoid him acting as a spoiler. Of course he'll burn the Republican Party to the ground if it serves his self interests. It's just the culmination of a lifelong pattern of behavior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
Nervous posted:Of course he'll burn the Republican Party to the ground if it serves his self interests. It's just the culmination of a lifelong pattern of behavior. https://twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/727604522156228608 Lindsay Graham, reincarnation of Cassandra.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 02:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The real question is "will anybody get an injunction in place that disrupts his ballot status in any swing state." skeleton warrior posted:Trump only has to drop out if either the RNC decides to remove him as a candidate, states decide to block him from appearing on the ballot, or the Senate convicts him of impeachment and he is de-listed due to being an impeached official.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 03:09
|
|
|
Is Trump paying for Chesebro's lawyer? I feel like he must be a sacrificial pawn so Trump can hear what Willis has, or maybe they intend to try to spread the trial over multiple juries to get a single hung or innocent, and use that to try to take apart the whole RICO case. But IANAL, so maybe that's Clancy-chat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:Is Trump paying for Chesebro's lawyer? I feel like he must be a sacrificial pawn so Trump can hear what Willis has, or maybe they intend to try to spread the trial over multiple juries to get a single hung or innocent, and use that to try to take apart the whole RICO case. Probably? Trump pays for a lot of the lawyers of the people around him so that they are dependent on him, they feel they owe him and so that he can more efficiently obstruct Justice. Chezbrah isn’t broke though, he made a lot of bit coin money so who knows. I don’t know how it works with how who is paying your legal bills gets reported. I know in some cases it does but not sure what the differentiation is. Maybe because it gets published on someones taxes as either a gift or a charitable donation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 03:32
|
|
|
I would point out that lawyers are ethically required to not allow an outside party to influence their representation if they are paying for the legal fees. I'm sure it does happen (and the represented party might be inclined to favor their benefactor of course) but it's trivially easy for Chesebro to complain to the Georgia bar if he feels like his lawyer is ultimately working for Trump and not for him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 03:37
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:He doesn't have to drop out even then. He can still run as an independent candidate, or threaten it and demand they make him the official one anyway to avoid him acting as a spoiler. Or if he can't get it he'll burn it down out of spite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:Is Trump paying for Chesebro's lawyer? I feel like he must be a sacrificial pawn so Trump can hear what Willis has, or maybe they intend to try to spread the trial over multiple juries to get a single hung or innocent, and use that to try to take apart the whole RICO case. O interesting. I hadn’t even thought about him co-operating with Trump. I’ve only been considering his strategic decisions solo. My understanding (and please correct me at length, lawspeakers out there) is that invoking the speedy trial right like that is a sort of gambit play. You’re hoping the DA can’t get a good enough case together in time and you just want it over with. But Willis has been champing at the bit to go for ages and only couldn’t for bureaucratic reasons. This seems like it would be a very obviously bad time to use that gambit. So is it a ploy or a blunder? Blunder is certainly a possibility, and a big one. Everyone involved, top to bottom, is a thorough and unabashed incompetent. There’s also not much to think about with it so I mostly wonder about possible schemes. The question of if he’s still in cahoots with Trump complicates my already wildly contingent speculation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:O interesting. I hadn’t even thought about him co-operating with Trump. I’ve only been considering his strategic decisions solo. I'm inclined to think that the DA already pretty much has their ducks in a row and invoking a speedy trial will only harm the defendant's ability to prepare their case. But it might just be the defendant is stressed the gently caress out and doesn't want the Sword of Damocles hanging over his head for a year or more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 03:49
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I would point out that lawyers are ethically required to not allow an outside party to influence their representation if they are paying for the legal fees. I'm sure it does happen (and the represented party might be inclined to favor their benefactor of course) but it's trivially easy for Chesebro to complain to the Georgia bar if he feels like his lawyer is ultimately working for Trump and not for him. I feel like Chesebro is so heavily screwed by the public info, his only out is for Trump to get elected and pardon him. Plus he's close enough to Trump that it would be tough and risky for Willis to hold back Trump related evidence. Neat to know about the ethics piece, but I feel like Team Trump is beyond that right now. E: But delaying the trial would definitely just increase costs and stress, so he may just be rolling the dice
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:I feel like Chesebro is so heavily screwed by the public info, his only out is for Trump to get elected and pardon him. Plus he's close enough to Trump that it would be tough and risky for Willis to hold back Trump related evidence. Trump has no ability to pardon state convictions if he wins And neither does the governor of Georgia
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:What about being removed from primary ballots? Primaries vary tremendously in how heavily regulated they are by state law (eg mandated open primaries, etc). Is there currently a serious attempt to remove him from any primary ballot? Again: either this would be done in states where the Democrats have full control, in which case it would not happen because they don't want to be clearly influencing how the other party chooses a candidate; or it would be done in a state where Republicans would have to agree to oppenly oppose Donald Trump, and this will never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Probably? Trump pays for a lot of the lawyers of the people around him so that they are dependent on him, they feel they owe him and so that he can more efficiently obstruct Justice. Does Trump pay for a lot of others' lawyers? I was under the impression that he's hung almost everyone out to dry - Giuliani was reportedly begging Trump to pay his legal bills just a couple weeks ago. He's stiffed drat near every lawyer who's ever worked for him, and I thought even some of his own long term employees were basically hung out to dry. It's entirely possible that this whole circus has somehow been corrupted from within, including the attorneys representing each defendant - but if that's the case, that's a hell of a lot of sanctions and potential disbarments possibly happening in Georgia. Chesebro asking for a late Oct. trial date is surprising, but if I had to put money on it - I'd bet that he has some whackadoo idea that he thinks will get him acquitted, he's feeding it to his lawyer, and is either pressuring or has convinced said attorney to follow through. By all accounts that I've read, he's well educated, intelligent - he just went off the deep end sometime around 2015/2016 and nobody understands why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 05:51
|
|
