|
Paracaidas posted:It's breathtaking to argue that the supreme court case ruling that states cannot add additional qualifications beyond the constitution also means that states cannot enforce the qualifications within the constitution. That's not what was said though. It's your demonstrably false interpretation of what he said. How is it demonstrable? A state could enforce the qualifications within the constitution following a trial or equivalent proceeding. It's entirely appropriate for SCOTUS to determine the level of due process required for proving that someone was involved in an insurrection for the purposes of disqualification from running for President. I have no idea why I'd care what he thinks, but you can't even properly read what he said.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:That's not what was said though. It's your demonstrably false interpretation of what he said. How is it demonstrable? A state could enforce the qualifications within the constitution following a trial or equivalent proceeding. It's entirely appropriate for SCOTUS to determine the level of due process required for proving that someone was involved in an insurrection for the purposes of disqualification from running for President. What I see is an argument about how unwieldy it'd be to leave this in the hands of local officials, the broader risks it runs, and a Marshall quote from McCullough v. Maryland about the balance of state and federal power to indicate why the Court would frown upon city, county, or state officials having it in their unguided discretion to disqualify federal candidates from the ballot. I don't find any of that objectionable or even necessarily incorrect (outside of its use to support a conclusion that disqualification under the 14th amendment can't or shouldn't apply to Trump). Then he gets to Term Limits. If I'm being charitable to a Yoo blogpost for the Federalist, I could take his Stevens quote about electoral uniformity on its face as linking the prior arguments to recentish SCOTUS election decisions. But then I arrive at the last sentence, that enforcing the 14th absent a "meaningful trial or equivalent proceeding" would grant states the power Term Limits sought to deny them. The distinguishing factor, as I noted in my post, is that Term Limits was rejecting the state's power to add qualifications for federal office beyond those in the Constitution. This matter is about enforcing the Constitution’s qualifications for federal office. I don't think it's out of line to note it's misleading to shoehorn in similarities while discarding such a key distinction. To your point: I completely agree that the federal courts could set a national standard for determining if a prospective candidate is disqualified by the 14th amendment. Also that the standard could be requiring a criminal conviction or something providing similar due process protections. As above, I don't even necessarily disagree that it should or that doing so is appropriate. Best as I can tell, where we disagree is on if something like Georgia's process is as constitutional for the 14th as it is for the qualifications in Article II. My sole objection to your posts on the subject ITT (and I appreciate your perspective and the effort you've put in!) is the claim that Georgia's process is "absurd" or "unworkable" for the purpose and that it's unrealistic to believe it'd survive a legal challenge (especially as it already has). Fart Amplifier posted:I have no idea why I'd care what he thinks, but you can't even properly read what he said. "You can't disqualify a Trump for insurrection without a conviction" isn't inherently conservative, dishonest, or risible- On the other hand, arguing that he can't be disqualified because the senate didn't convict and Smith hasn't charged him with insurrection is  ... but I do see now how my post could have been read as looping everyone who holds the former position with those arguing it disingenuously like Yoo. Apologies for the ambiguity, I meant solely the latter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
Judge Jump Cannon has ruled against Trump regarding turning MAL into a SCIF.quote:Former U.S. President Donald Trump and his lawyers may only review classified evidence in a secure place as he prepares for a criminal trial over his handling of secret documents after he left office in 2021, a judge ruled on Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 17:38
|
|
|
imo that feels very significant symbolically
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
What spicy nickname for Cannon can we expect tonight I wonder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:What spicy nickname for Cannon can we expect tonight I wonder. Judge “Loose” Cannon
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Whoops, turns out Cannon was a complete hack who begged trump to be nominated! We'll get more facts from Donald Trump in his next trooth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Judge “Loose” Cannon "And I'm not talking about her morals either, people. I've heard many people, great people, say to me that she didn't get her judgeship the normal way, she did favors, if you know what I mean. She's a terrible judge and Biden should never have appointed her." 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 18:01
|
|
|
Cannon not being a total lunatic is legit surprising
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Next up is Trump team asking for Cannon to be removed for prejudice against Trump, because by ruling that MAL is an inappropriate place for a SCIF she is tacitly saying that MAL should never have held classified documents in the first place. Thereby rendering a verdict on Trump before a trial could occur, a violation of Trump's civil rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Cannon not being a total lunatic is legit surprising She's 100% going to delay it past the election which is the main thing he cares about. If she makes a really stupid pro-Trump ruling that is clearly in error, there's a chance she'll get the case yanked from her docket which is bad for Trump. If she really slowly makes pro-Trump decisions that are within her discretion, it's to his benefit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 18:07
|
|
|
Devor posted:She's 100% going to delay it past the election which is the main thing he cares about. If she makes a really stupid pro-Trump ruling that is clearly in error, there's a chance she'll get the case yanked from her docket which is bad for Trump. Yeah how’s that Garcia hearing coming along anyway? 5 weeks now without a peep?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
gregday posted:Yeah how’s that Garcia hearing coming along anyway? 5 weeks now without a peep? Honestly this probably the most egregious thing she's done to protect Trump
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 19:26
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:Next up is Trump team asking for Cannon to be removed for prejudice against Trump, because by ruling that MAL is an inappropriate place for a SCIF she is tacitly saying that MAL should never have held classified documents in the first place. Thereby rendering a verdict on Trump before a trial could occur, a violation of Trump's civil rights. I like the cut of your jib. You're hired!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
I skimmed through it and it looks like Cannon ruled that, “hey there are laws governing this and I can’t just throw them out”. Not sure why it took this long. From the PoV of the joke post about this ruling being prejudicial to Trumps case it kind of is. This is how you handle this material and Trump clearly wasn’t doing that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Trump's team isn't filing motions for the sake of right-wing media. He's perfectly capable of just going on Truth Social and posting a rant about how the judge should totally recuse, and his base will eat that up just fine. No real reason to involve his lawyers in the propaganda. You really aren’t paying attention? You really think Trumps main defense against these accusations is to avail himself of sound legal theory? His goal is delay and to get his voters out to defend him in the 24 election. That’s it, that’s the plan and his lawyers are all aware of it. Every motion and every argument is based on how it will play on RWM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 02:09
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You really aren’t paying attention? You really think Trumps main defense against these accusations is to avail himself of sound legal theory? Donald Trump's main defense against these accusations is obviously to win the election and pardon himself. The role that Donald Trump's lawyers play is to do everything they can to delay the court cases, create avenues for appeals to drag them out further even after rulings, and gamble on laying whatever desperate groundwork they can for reducing the consequences or maybe even getting acquittals. The Trump campaign has lots of people who can write bullshit fodder for the right-wing media to run amok with. They don't need to pay actual lawyers big $lawyerbucks to do it. If Trump wants his base to be screaming that the judge should recuse, he can just tweet about how the totally biased judge should absolutely recuse. He doesn't need someone with an actual law degree to make an actual court filing for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 02:32
|
|
|
What? Why don’t you go refresh yourself on the frivolous Trump suits filed by real lawyers from the last 3 years? Trump uses legal filings to get media attention all the time. Murgos fucked around with this message at 11:48 on Sep 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I skimmed through it and it looks like Cannon ruled that, “hey there are laws governing this and I can’t just throw them out”. Not sure why it took this long. Just against the slight possibility that this was a rhetorical statement - because she's an inexperienced complete hack and the delay is the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 03:16
|
|
|
Looks like it'll just be Cheesebro and Powell for trial in October https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...eba39a770&ei=27
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:Looks like it'll just be Cheesebro and Powell for trial in October is this a good or bad thing
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
arbybaconator posted:is this a good or bad thing it's an interesting thing. If I were trump I would want everyone tried at once at the same time as me, for a bigger circus where i'd be the star. Now there's gonna be a First Trial where Trump won't be the center of attention, and everything will come out into the open, anybody not named Trump is probably a dead lock for conviction. That said it also means Trump's team will get a free preview of what's coming.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
I'd always suspected you were trump, HA. It explains your strange golden color.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:it's an interesting thing. If I were trump I would want everyone tried at once at the same time as me, for a bigger circus where i'd be the star. i certainly wonder if several less-important people in the Second Trial might suddenly find themselves much, much more interested in cooperation after the guilty convictions come in from the first
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
eke out posted:i certainly wonder if several less-important people in the Second Trial might suddenly find themselves much, much more interested in cooperation after the guilty convictions come in from the first Yea, I think if I was Trump, this is the biggest thing to worry about. If they're found guilty, now you already have a precedent that people in your inner circle were guilty, which makes it just that much easier to prove that Trump was guilty, or a whole bunch of people flip. The gamble is that one or both are found not guilty and then the odds swing heavily in Trump's favor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
eke out posted:i certainly wonder if several less-important people in the Second Trial might suddenly find themselves much, much more interested in cooperation after the guilty convictions come in from the first Is this part of the GA RICO trial?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 19:22
|
|
|
The other thing is while it acts as a preview to some of the States case for Trump, that also swings the other way. It means that the Prosecution get a practice run for the trial against Trump. That and should they get any convictions, suddenly a lot more people might consider flipping than did before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:it's an interesting thing. If I were trump I would want everyone tried at once at the same time as me, for a bigger circus where i'd be the star. Trump wants to be tried alone because it's easier to prove RICO charges when everyone is tried at once. He literally filed a motion to sever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Trump wants to be tried alone because it's easier to prove RICO charges when everyone is tried at once. He literally filed a motion to sever. On paper sure but Trump's main defense is "chud juror creates mistrial" and that's a lot lot lot more likely if Trump is in the room. Chuds are a lot less likely to just TROMP OUT if it's not trump himself in the defense stand. It's not like any of this is hard to prove. Nobodys' arguing he didn't do it. There's no factual issue here. Trump will tell you he did it, and it was perfect, the best ever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:On paper sure but Trump's main defense is "chud juror creates mistrial" and that's a lot lot lot more likely if Trump is in the room. Chuds are a lot less likely to just TROMP OUT if it's not trump himself in the defense stand. Trump never did a RICO, but if he ever did, it would be the grandest, most perfect RICO you've ever seen. Way better than any RICO Joe Biden and his son Hunter could dream up. It really just proves how inept and corrupt Joe Biden is that he can't even RICO properly like me, a beautiful minded genius.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 19:49
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Trump wants to be tried alone because it's easier to prove RICO charges when everyone is tried at once. He literally filed a motion to sever. they can still use everyone else's crimes and overt acts against him, regardless of how the trials are split up. it doesn't affect how easy or hard it is to prove the charges in any direct sense (though of course there are outside factors at play that will result in the trials being different, like different juries, etc)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2023 20:19
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They don't need to pay actual lawyers big $lawyerbucks to do it. I just had to laugh at the suggestion that these lawyers are getting paid in anything but MAL gift certificates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
Skex posted:I just had to laugh at the suggestion that these lawyers are getting paid in anything but MAL gift certificates. They’re getting paid from chud political donations
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 00:24
|
|
|
Murgos posted:What? Why don’t you go refresh yourself on the frivolous Trump suits filed by real lawyers from the last 3 years? I'd say the strategy isn't one or the other, it's both. They file every motion possible to appeal and to delay as long as possible until he can get elected and pardon himself. On top of that he's tweeting and rambling about everything he can to keep media attention so he can keep his idiot base donating money and riled up about how unfairly he's being treated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 06:51
|
|
|
Skex posted:I just had to laugh at the suggestion that these lawyers are getting paid in anything but MAL gift certificates. They're all being paid by Trump's PAC iirc. It's why his PAC is burning through money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 08:41
|
|
|
aventari posted:I'd say the strategy isn't one or the other, it's both. They file every motion possible to appeal and to delay as long as possible until he can get elected and pardon himself. If he had a good legal argument I assume he would avail himself of it. The point I’m making is that he uses court filings as a narrative tool. How many filings (or claiming he will file) have been made by him or on his behalf over the last 10 years that had no real chance of success but he used to message his base that he was strong in an area or correct on something that just got dismissed a little later after the media cycle moved on? Dozens? Over and over again he does the media circuit on some false grievances backed only by some nebulous legal action. Right now he’s using the court system to attack the judges in his cases not because he can be successful in court but because it helps the narrative that the deep state is after him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 12:43
|
|
|
V-Men posted:They're all being paid by Trump's PAC iirc. It's why his PAC is burning through money. Its amazing because Trump's PAC is sucking up all of the donor money, not to win the 2024 election but to not go to jail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 14:00
|
|
|
Murgos posted:If he had a good legal argument I assume he would avail himself of it. It does help him be successful in court, though. It doesn't help much, but that's just the nature of his situation. Even if the judge rejects it (as usually happens), filing this motion now is necessary to bring it up in appeals. I know this because it actually pops up quite a bit as a hail mary legal tactic from people who are almost certainly going to lose the initial trial on the merits. Even if their case is some obscure poo poo the press is not going to care about. It's not just some wacky Trump stunt for the media, it's a part of the standard legal playbook for extremely long-shot cases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 14:16
|
|
|
Devor posted:They’re getting paid ...in exposure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 14:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 10:21 |
|
|
quote:NOTICE OF HEARING as to ETHAN NORDEAN (1): Corrected Sentencing set for 9/15/2023 at 12:30 PM in Courtroom 11 before Judge Timothy J. Kelly. (zkh) Nordean is back in front of Kelly today (in a couple hours) RE sentencing
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 15:37
|
|