|
skeleton warrior posted:; 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. Hasn't this basically already happened in at least GA, as we saw with the GJ testimony this month?
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:So, assuming Trump is found guilty on let's say 1/3 of this poo poo, 30 charges. Does it matter? In Georgia he'll serve at least 5 years, and given he's 77 and not in great health I can't imagine he lives much more than that when denied his narcissistic fix of the spotlight.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted: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. Yes, actually. And at least twice, as soon as two of these individuals obtained their own legal counsel their stories flipped immediately (Cassidy Hutchinson during the senate hearings and the IT guy at Mara largo in Florida case). There seems to be an understanding in place that he’ll pay for your lawyer if you play ball, but that’s only ever in Trumps favor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 06:24
|
|
|
Isn't it more likely that he's promising to pay for people's lawyers?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 06:34
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think you're reading too much into what I said. Private E-discovery firms rarely deal with criminal cases with large teams. There's just not a ton of criminal cases that require enormous review teams for the defense. The vast majority of cases that require large amounts of discovery are civil suits between two corporations, mergers, or data breaches which require notification of users. This goes back a few pages (ok, a lot of pages), but I've seen a couple references to Trump's request for delay recently and wanted to follow up - assuming the ~11M documents is an accurate number, how long would it take a private e-discovery firm to go through that? I get that there are a lot of variables at play, just looking for a ballpark range. Edit: This is purely out of curiosity, nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
Murgos posted: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. If we've gone from "Multiple legal authorities have commented on this concept and no one even mentions this 1869 ruling as even a note or aside" to "The $1000 an hour lawyers will come up with plenty of reasons why it doesn’t apply here", then I think I'm done chasing those goalposts. People can file lawsuits with pretty much any legal reasoning they want, whether it makes sense or not. Doesn't mean judges are gonna give them the time of day. I wouldn't expect people in serious official positions (such as federal prosecutors or state election officials) to bother with a dubious legal reasoning that the courts are unlikely to play along with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 07:23
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:This goes back a few pages (ok, a lot of pages), but I've seen a couple references to Trump's request for delay recently and wanted to follow up - assuming the ~11M documents is an accurate number, how long would it take a private e-discovery firm to go through that? I get that there are a lot of variables at play, just looking for a ballpark range. From what I've seen, a surprising short amount of time. Major cases like big corporate acquisitions and mergers and the like frequently have far more documents than this (Imagine the amount of paperwork involved in like an American and British corporation, both at minimum decades old, both with concerns in a hundred countries or more!), and the firms that specialize in it have large numbers of lawyers they can call on to get to work on very short notice. Once you account for things like duplicated information, the estimates I've seen bounced around is that it'd probably take two to three months. Certainly I haven't seen any lawyer who isn't working for Trump that thinks the idea of it taking like a year or years is any kind of serious expectation. I have a question of my own too, about self-executing stuff. Tell me if I'm understanding the concept correctly: If Trump is found guilty of the relevant crimes, it means there is no need for any further or additional action for the self-executing eventualities to be activated. He's just removed from the ballots, there's no need for Congress to say "Yep, he's invalid" or a judge to add it as a specific part of a sentence or anything? Is that about right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 10:43
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:This goes back a few pages (ok, a lot of pages), but I've seen a couple references to Trump's request for delay recently and wanted to follow up - assuming the ~11M documents is an accurate number, how long would it take a private e-discovery firm to go through that? I get that there are a lot of variables at play, just looking for a ballpark range. Nitrousoxide posted:I AM an actual lawyer who specializes in running an e-discovery department, so this is literally my jam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 11:47
|
|
|
If you are paying your own lawyer, it makes a lot of sense to get away from the circus of a trump trial. Smaller, faster trials are cheaper, it’s probably much easier to seat a jury, and it’s easier to hire a lawyer for a smaller time commitment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 12:43
|
|
|
Hell, you might be able to get your sentence over and done with by the time the main trial starts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 13:20
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Hasn't this basically already happened in at least GA, as we saw with the GJ testimony this month? Do not take a bunch of people testifying truthfully in a court of law, or a bunch of legistlators not doing anything effective to burn down the system in favor of Trump, as the same thing as working clearly and opening to deny Trump the nomination through legal manuevering.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 13:34
|
|
|
Trump's arraignment in the Georgia case will be at 9:30 on September 6th. Initial scheduling for his next court event will happen there as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
eke out posted: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 posted:relatedly, i found this helpful general explainer from a UT fed crim law guy who wrote a full piece at lawfare about it Currently, the Chutkan is going through a hearing on the trial date in DC. I personally appreciate her clear awareness of the attention being paid, explaining things for the public that the lawyers either already know or don't care about (she did similarly about timing and prep, and volume of discovery if you look upthread): https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1696167229262324016 https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1696167543717732620 I am less appreciative of Lauro's clear awareness of attention being paid https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1696167886874718674 https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1696168053673722007
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
The Trump case is actually about Hunter Biden, of course https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1696173118010671382
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 15:50
|
|
|
"very, very unique" lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
Piell posted:The Trump case is actually about Hunter Biden, of course they're just goin whole (hunter) hog on this, huh
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
I’m starting to think that maybe Hunter shouldn’t be reelected for a second term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
Piell posted:The Trump case is actually about Hunter Biden, of course
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:This reminds me-did Trump's promised news conference at Bedminster where he was going to present tons of evidence that he won the election ever happen? Or did he actually listen to his lawyers? He listened to his lawyers and chickened out like 2 days later. Nothing happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Kaiser Schnitzel posted:This reminds me-did Trump's promised news conference at Bedminster where he was going to present tons of evidence that he won the election ever happen? No. quote:Or did he actually listen to his lawyers? Also no.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Trial is March 2024 https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1696181873083355595
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:24
|
|
|
March 4th, a win for Justice https://twitter.com/Brandi_Buchman/status/1696182008534179945 Also, https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1696176226153517260 A couple interesting notes here from Zoe. First, the government has come prepared to defend against novelty requiring a delay... though Chutkan clearly doesn't need convincing. The novelty here comes from who is raising the arguments but the few that directly relate to his former role as President and current role as candidate are largely meritless and have mostly been rejected to date (as seen above). Beyond that, it's more common arguments being made by a candidate/former president which doesn't provide much complexity. The question of pretrial gag orders would see heavy review (that I'm still skeptical of without markedly worse public behavior or undisclosed, blatant private review) and here again we see Justice using Trump's ongoing public statements in service of justifying the actions they want (protective order, quicker trial) rather than hopping to the gag some ITT are salivating over. This has the additional benefit of demonstrating the ineffectiveness of less restrictive methods should a gag need to be issued. Finally, Meadow is apparently testifying in his effort to be removed to Federal Court. This was... unexpected and represents a fairly substantial risk
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:26
|
|
|
The day before Super Tuesday. That is quite amusing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1696182014435610807
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Finally, Meadow is apparently testifying in his effort to be removed to Federal Court. This was... unexpected and represents a fairly substantial risk Can you elaborate a bit on this point? I'm assuming the risk is to his own legal prospects, as testifying will open him to cross examination, but I'm struggling to stay above water with some of the ins and outs regarding these cases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
presumably his attorneys will attempt to extremely narrowly limit his testimony to be just about his belief that he was acting in the course of his duties of the job. cross-examination isn't free ranging and will also have to stick to those general boundaries of issues they introduced, but it's fundamentally always much more of a risk than saying nothing very little info on this right now because no devices in the federal courtroom. couple atlanta reporters appear to have left the courtroom to file updates saying that meadows was testifying, but not much else yet eke out fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Aug 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:The day before Super Tuesday. That is quite amusing. That probably will do some bad stuff to his ability to grab the primary win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
MonkeyOnFire posted:Can you elaborate a bit on this point? I'm assuming the risk is to his own legal prospects, as testifying will open him to cross examination, but I'm struggling to stay above water with some of the ins and outs regarding these cases. Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. Georgia has been investigating the case for a while and is probably in a better position to attack him than his lawyers are to prep him; and the way the hearsay rules work, the government gets to use anything helpful to them later regardless of who testifies, and gets to attack him for any inconsistencies, but Meadows usually can't use statements that are helpful to him later unless he testifies (and opens himself to cross) again. Meadows will try to testify narrowly but cross is theoretically open to any relevant matter - relevant to this specific proceeding, mind - and the line is fuzzy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
Oh poo poo Chutkin is clearly eager to get this show on the road, March 4th is a lot earlier than most people I saw had expected - it was being mooted as most likely summer to around now. Instead she drat nearly gave the prosecution exactly what they asked for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
Is he rage posting yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Is he rage posting yet? Does he want it to be February 4th?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Oh poo poo Chutkin is clearly eager to get this show on the road, March 4th is a lot earlier than most people I saw had expected - it was being mooted as most likely summer to around now. Instead she drat nearly gave the prosecution exactly what they asked for. Yeah it kind of seems to me that she took the defense's proposal as a bad faith argument. Pushing it before the documents case is going to create some interesting problems for Trump I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Is he rage posting yet? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Two but who is counting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
FASCHISTS loving lol that baby Hitler is is using the German spelling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. Georgia has been investigating the case for a while and is probably in a better position to attack him than his lawyers are to prep him I found it funny that Chutkin made it a point that even with a Mar 4 date, the trial is "not moving forward with the speed of a mob", because after all, it's happening three years, two months after the Jan 6 attack. The prosecution has made good use of their time, gotten everything organized, has all their ducks in a row. Trump and his crew could also have done that; much of the evidence is either public or things that they had access to, such as statements they themselves made. The defense COULD have gotten themselves prepped so they wouldn't be blindsided with needing to suddenly get everything prepared in six months. They just chose not to out of pure arrogance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:FASCHISTS I always wondered if that copy of Mein Kampf he apparently kept in his bedroom was in the original German
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 19:35
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:FASCHISTS Way more likely that that was a typo
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
Oh wait sorry that was just random rage about the House doing an impeachment inquiry (because they are about 10 votes short), THIS is about the trial date
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
It’s obviously just him being illiterate. Still funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 19:41
|
|