|
Paracaidas posted:Nordean is back in front of Kelly today (in a couple hours) RE sentencing Is he one of those Proud Boys that swore in court that they were super duper sorry and would never do it again and then immediately went out and started rabbling "Get out there and do it again!"? A revised sentence should be in order.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
SpeakSlow posted:...in exposure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
TheKub posted:Is he one of those Proud Boys that swore in court that they were super duper sorry and would never do it again and then immediately went out and started rabbling "Get out there and do it again!"? A revised sentence should be in order. The other guy, Pezolla,'s first words outside the courtroom were "Trump Won" after claiming that he had given up politics during his sentencing. I honestly hope they can adjust for this kind of bullshit behavior. They clearly knew they were playing the court and the court shouldn't be stuck with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
A "corrected sentence" occurs only in the case of a serious technical or mathematical error, it can't be used to re-sentence a defendant because of their post-sentencing conduct. They probably messed up the guidelines calculation somehow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
It was a technicality. No substantive change to the sentence. https://twitter.com/rparloff/status/1702723910318395589?s=20
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
mdemone posted:It was a technicality. No substantive change to the sentence.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
If they're concurrent sentences then it doesn't actually matter in terms of when he gets out of prison, I believe
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
karthun posted: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. What about all that sweet NFT money or whatever those stupid trading cards were?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 00:31
|
|
|
Justice has asked for a narrow gag on Trump and his counsel, citing both a history of attempts to influence proceedings and the resulting intimidation/harassment.quote:The Government seeks a narrow, well-defined restriction that is targeted at extrajudicial statements that present a serious and substantial danger of materially prejudicing this case. The Government’s proposed order specifies that such statements would include (a) statements regarding the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses; and (b) statements about any party, witness, attorney, court personnel, or potential jurors that are disparaging and inflammatory, or intimidating. See Exhibit 2. The Government’s order also specifies that, consistent with other clarifications in Local Criminal Rule 57.7, the order is not intended to prohibit quotation or reference to public court records of the case or the defendant’s proclamations of innocence. It'd appear that what tipped Justice over the edge here was Trump's posts about a trip by special counsel to the White House to take direction from Biden prior to indictment: quote:In his posts on this topic, the defendant repeatedly makes the knowingly false claim that Special Counsel’s Office prosecutors went to the White House in advance of the defendant’s June 2023 indictment for improper reasons. I'm curious to see where Chutkan will land on this and how narrowly she'll tailor the restriction. Chutkan also issued an order RE jury pool surveys Paracaidas fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Sep 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:So the law kicks in and goes "homie can only serve ten of that", right? So Federal stuff roughly goes: you look at all the crimes and guideline tables and enhancements and come up with a guideline range, the judge chooses a number in that range - here, 18 years, and then the underlying crimes have to have punishments that can add up consecutively to that time in order for the judge to craft the sentence so that it sticks. If you only had one 5-year maximum crime, you could not give someone 18 years total regardless of what the guidelines said. This case has tons of 'extra' time in all the other charges, so one of the charges getting reduced does not limit the judges ability to reach the guideline sentence that he determined was appropriate. Lots of the assigned time was running concurrent. Judges like to run them concurrently and assign them on the high end so that in the event one or two counts get struck down, the overall total doesn't go down, you just have fewer counts running concurrent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 01:21
|
|
|
In short, there are redundant crimes so it doesn't matter if one of them gets shortened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 03:17
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Justice has asked for a narrow gag on Trump and his counsel Assuming the gag order is granted, so what? He's going to violate it so fast he will break the laws of causality and the effect will take place before the cause. So, again, so what? What will be the actual consequence from violating the order? Unless they're actually going to lock him up for it, it's a fart in a hurricane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
Yeah, placing the order is one thing. We’ll see if something finally has teeth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Assuming the gag order is granted, so what? He's going to violate it so fast he will break the laws of causality and the effect will take place before the cause. So, again, so what? What will be the actual consequence from violating the order? Unless they're actually going to lock him up for it, it's a fart in a hurricane. If the judge doesn't feel like enforcing a gag order against Trump*, they just won't impose a gag order in the first place. Note that the judge's idea of what violates a narrowly tailored gag order will be far more limited than what us politics-addicted spectators think should qualify as a gag order violation! The actual consequences for violating a gag order vary based on the relevant jurisdiction's laws, but are typically light - a small to medium fine and/or a short stint in jail. Also, judges are typically discouraged from imposing the max penalties. As the Supreme Court once put it, "summary punishment always, and rightly, is regarded with disfavor, and, if imposed in passion or pettiness, brings discredit to a court as certainly as the conduct it penalizes".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
Oh no wouldn’t want to do anything the Supreme Court thinks discredits the institution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 04:34
|
|
|
What? Trump is engaging in witness intimidation and urging stochastic terrorism against the judges and prosecutors in this case (all his cases)? How terribly unforeseen! There was, literally, no way to know because each court room is an island unto itself blind to anything beyond its walls and forgetful of any time prior to the case in front it and no agency, official or process is allowed to notice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2023 13:16
|
|
|
Murgos posted:What? Trump is engaging in witness intimidation and urging stochastic terrorism against the judges and prosecutors in this case (all his cases)? You’re right, Texas judges should be allowed to halt the Biden effort to suspend student loans solely because of what that judge thinks about Biden from watching Fox News or maybe it’s an incredibly important part of our legal system that you can only consider the evidence presented within the court
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:You’re right, Texas judges should be allowed to halt the Biden effort to suspend student loans solely because of what that judge thinks about Biden from watching Fox News It would be trivial to present well documented evidence that Trump is a serial offender of witness tampering. For some reason though the well documented evidence of it (Mueller, Jan 06 committee, impeachment hearings, etc…) is forbidden to be presented in the current cases to show his practice. We must simply ignore it while he corrupts the process and endangers people lives until some vague and undefined threshold is reached. Maybe. Edit: The thing is that the courts can and do deal with this sort of behavior all the time. They just don’t offer bail or if the defendant is out on bond they revoke it. Any other person in the world with Trumps documented record would have been gagged at minute one. We’re just playing silly games here. There is no slippery slope to random judges randomly enforcing gag orders on non-defendants or even moderately mouthy defendants. The system is perfectly capable of differentiating between these behaviors. Murgos fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Sep 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 03:07
|
|
|
Republican judges do not give a single fig about what other people do or think. They are fig-less.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 03:09
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Republican judges do not give a single fig about what other people do or think. They are fig-less. They care very much what the Federalist Society thinks. They certainly don't care what those icky liberals think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
Murgos posted:What? Trump is engaging in witness intimidation and urging stochastic terrorism against the judges and prosecutors in this case (all his cases)? I don't think any of the cases he's in have sanctioned him for witness intimidation, let alone for "urging stochastic terrorism". Maybe the problem isn't that the courts aren't checking each other's notes, but rather that actual real-life judges draw the legal line for "stochastic terrorism" differently from where you do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 03:44
|
|
|
I think as a general rule our protections against stuff like witness intimidation, destruction of evidence, and other crimes against the justice system itself are far too qeaky, and they are weak in ways that mostly benefit people like Trump
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 04:23
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I think as a general rule our protections against stuff like witness intimidation, destruction of evidence, and other crimes against the justice system itself are far too qeaky, and they are weak in ways that mostly benefit people like Trump If Trump were either brown or not immensely wealthy he'd have been in jail since like the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 06:12
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I think as a general rule our protections against stuff like witness intimidation, destruction of evidence, and other crimes against the justice system itself are far too qeaky, and they are weak in ways that mostly benefit people like Trump lol qeaky
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 12:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If Trump were either brown or not immensely wealthy he'd have been in jail since like the 90s. If any of the people involved here weren't of the social class and ingroup the laws are explicitly written to serve best, they'd be serving indefinite sentences for terrorism in a federal pen somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2023 23:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jonkarl/status/1703866736208977959 After multiple reads, it's unclear to me whether this behavior was solely while in the white house, solely at Mar a Lago, or both. Still, I think the bigger piece of Molly Michael's testimony is: quote:Sources said that after Trump heard the FBI wanted to interview Michael last year, Trump allegedly told her, "You don't know anything about the boxes." quote:But then, according to what she told investigators, around the same time that the National Archives found nearly 200 classified documents in the 15 boxes and referred the matter to the FBI, Trump began to seem more reluctant to cooperate with the agency, and he asked Michael to help spread a message that no more boxes existed, sources said she recounted. Also, bonus Trump lawyers pretending they don't know the source is Michael/her lawyer and trying to get in on the narrative from Hunter's just-filed federal leaking suit: quote:A Trump spokesperson said that what ABC News was told -- through what the spokesperson called "illegal leaks" -- lacks "proper context and relevant information," and that "President Trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and transparency, and acted in a proper manner, according to the law."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2023 21:48
|
|
|
Well thats hilarious and completely believable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 01:06
|
|
|
At this point I just feel insulted by how sloppy everything is. I know the Nazis were less jack-booted and more clown-shoed in implementation, so it’s not like this is a drop in quality. But is it so much to ask for minimal competence from your political apocalypse? Also no news from Chutkan in D.C.? Trump’s deadline to reply was yesterday, and I figured this was the kind of thing that would be ruled on super quickly. Was I wrong in that estimation, or am I again underestimating how slow the legal definition of “quick” is?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 02:26
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:At this point I just feel insulted by how sloppy everything is. I know the Nazis were less jack-booted and more clown-shoed in implementation, so it’s not like this is a drop in quality. But is it so much to ask for minimal competence from your political apocalypse? This reply? https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-files-reply-to-the-special-counsel-arguing-judge-chutkan-should-recuse-herself quote:Hours before a deadline set by Judge Tanya Chutkan, Donald Trump's attorneys have filed a reply in response to Special Counsel Jack Smith's response to Trump's request to have Judge Chutkan recuse herself from the January 6th indictment. Like the initial request, this reply is not founded on any legal precedent that would require recusal by Judge Chutkan. Edit: Oh, you meant ruling on it? I don't think anything is stayed pending its resolution, so having it hanging out there is nbd since everyone knows it's garbage
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 02:34
|
|
|
O I thought it was about the gag order, but I’m probably just mixed up. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
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. Catching up with this thread but the term you're looking for is Grisham-chat. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 08:40
|
|
|
Yeah, Clancy-chat would be Canada and India suddenly becoming embroiled in a diplomatic brouhaha.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 13:55
|
|
|
Clancy-chat would be Jack Ryan's grandson, Tom Clancy Ryan, being a US senator who's a member of the Armed Forces Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence but also a solo-infiltrator operator sent on black ops missions to disrupt Russian and Chinese military operations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
It's funny seeing the progression of "There's guys in suits in office and guys in balaclavas in helicopters, they're both a part of wetwork and the line is not as clean as they like to think" to "The president's son leads seal team six" in Clancy's writing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:It's funny seeing the progression of "There's guys in suits in office and guys in balaclavas in helicopters, they're both a part of wetwork and the line is not as clean as they like to think" to "The president's son leads seal team six" in Clancy's writing. To be fair that poo poo was being ghostwritten before Clancy was even in the ground.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:To be fair that poo poo was being ghostwritten before Clancy was even in the ground. He peaked at Sum of all Fears, everything after that was a slow decent into suck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
Any time I've been tempted to read a Clancy book, I just re-read the first 2 Bourne books again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Cimber posted:He peaked at Sum of all Fears, everything after that was a slow decent into suck. He never got over the collapse of the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Cimber posted:He peaked at Sum of all Fears, everything after that was a slow decent into suck. I wouldn't even say it was a slow decent into suck - Debt of Honor was only 2-3 years after Sum of all Fears, in which Japanese nationalists invade Guam, attack the US Pacific Fleet, somehow crash the US stock market/banking system (I don't remember the story here), and a Japan Air pilot flies a 747 into the US Capitol. Captain_Maclaine posted:He never got over the collapse of the USSR. Whatever the China vs. Russia book he wrote was called, it was utterly hilarious. All of a sudden the same characters he'd been writing about for the past 10-15 years were suddenly saying "Y'know, those Russians aren't so bad! Now the Chinese on the other hand, those folks are Martians." Pretty rapid about-face.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:He never got over the collapse of the USSR. As with all Republicans
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2023 19:08
|
|