|
Fart Amplifier posted:The problem is that procedure is more often used against marginalized people and more often used for rich people. "The law" is not applied fairly. It's more that rich people can hire good lawyers who do a better job of negotiating procedure. Overworked public defenders do what they can.
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's more that rich people can hire good lawyers who do a better job of negotiating procedure. Overworked public defenders do what they can. That's just saying what I said differently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 23:12
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:You can't assume a crime was committed before it's proven Federal provisions against criminal activity aren't circular; they don't only come into play after a conviction. The indictment alleges that Clark urged Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to sign a document that falsely stated that the Justice Department had identified “significant concerns” that could impact the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and multiple other states. Clark then asked Rosen and Donoghue to send the document to several Georgia state officials, including Gov. Brian Kemp. If Clark's defense is that Trump ordered him to do that, and a reasonable person would see this as an order to commit a crime, Clark has the positive duty to refuse that order, and so following that order cannot be part of his official duties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
saintonan posted:If Clark's defense is that Trump ordered him to do that, and a reasonable person would see this as an order to commit a crime, Clark has the positive duty to refuse that order, and so following that order cannot be part of his official duties. Please post evidence that the courts can presume guilt for these purposes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Please post evidence that the courts can presume guilt for these purposes. I didn't say anything about guilt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
saintonan posted:I didn't say anything about guilt. Oh ok then please provide evidence showing a court will consider that actions taken were criminal and thus not official duties before a criminal trial about those actions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 00:05
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Oh ok then please provide evidence showing a court will consider that actions taken were criminal and thus not official duties before a criminal trial about those actions. The Scooter Libby trial is probably a decent analog given he also claimed he was just following orders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
saintonan posted:Federal provisions against criminal activity aren't circular; they don't only come into play after a conviction. The indictment alleges that Clark urged Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to sign a document that falsely stated that the Justice Department had identified “significant concerns” that could impact the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia and multiple other states. Clark then asked Rosen and Donoghue to send the document to several Georgia state officials, including Gov. Brian Kemp. If Clark's defense is that Trump ordered him to do that, then that invites the prosecution to probe into how the President ended up personally giving orders to the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Justice Department, especially when Clark's superiors at the DoJ had already rejected the measures in question, and especially since DoJ policy is that the president should not be communicating with lower-level officials without first clearing it with top DoJ leadership. Moreover, Clark has yet to produce any evidence that Trump ordered him to do it, nor has he presented a coherent legal theory for how the president would have the authority to order him to do that. Remember, the president doesn't have unlimited authority to tell federal officials to do anything he wants - his power comes from federal law. The list of things the president is allowed to order someone to do is, while expansive, still clearly limited.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 00:43
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:You can't assume a crime was committed before it's proven If it works like UCMJ that doesn't matter. '"I didn't know it was illegal because my boss told me to do it" is not a defense. It is still illegal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Similarly, I don't think the President can just order the DoJ to investigate things he doesn't like. He definitely shouldn't be able to tell the DoJ to say they found things they didn't find.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Oh ok then please provide evidence showing a court will consider that actions taken were criminal and thus not official duties before a criminal trial about those actions. Let's say I'm a federal government official under Trump. Trump orders me to go to Georgia and murder Brad Raffensperger. Is that part of my job as a federal official?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:The problem is that procedure is more often used against marginalized people and more often used for rich people. "The law" is not applied fairly. Sure, but you don't hear about people being convicted on a technicality remotely as much as being let off "on a technicality" and using that in a perjorative sense. I think it's great if someone gets let off on a technicality - the law functioned there as it should.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Let's say I'm a federal government official under Trump. Trump orders me to go to Georgia and murder Brad Raffensperger. Is that part of my job as a federal official? No, but not because it's a crime (hell, I don't think murder is even a federal crime). It's because the executive branch doesn't have the legal authority to commit a premeditated summary execution of an American citizen without any due process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:Similarly, I don't think the President can just order the DoJ to investigate things he doesn't like. He definitely shouldn't be able to tell the DoJ to say they found things they didn't find. Most of our system is based on handshake agreements. They can do whatever they want if nobody chooses to stop them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
IANAL but I thought "a crime" means "something that is against the law; in other words: illegal."
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, but not because it's a crime (hell, I don't think murder is even a federal crime). It's because the executive branch doesn't have the legal authority to commit a premeditated summary execution of an American citizen without any due process. Killing Americans related to muslim terrorists is a common enough occurrence recently... has Biden had an American executed overseas yet, or just allies in Kabul?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
Based on the past several pages "IANAL" should be the new thread title.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:If it works like UCMJ that doesn't matter. '"I didn't know it was illegal because my boss told me to do it" is not a defense. It is still illegal. The navy dealt with this by teaching us their procedure for not following illegal or immoral orders, and the navy procedure for civil disobedience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 01:48
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:This is a particular peeve of mine (lawyer, although not remotely involved in criminal law in any way) - you'll very often see people saying, or even reporting, that someone "got off on a technicality". If it's being used in regard to a court proceeding, "technicality" means "the law." It's annoying because it's intended to make it sound like procedure isn't important. Related: when people were dismissive of Trump's underling's prosecutions because "those are just process crimes"
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
mutata posted:Based on the past several pages "IANAL" should be the new thread title. We ANAL
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 09:55
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The navy dealt with this by teaching us their procedure for not following illegal or immoral orders, and the navy procedure for civil disobedience. yeah idk how on earth someone gets the idea that an unlawful order vs a lawful order is some hitherto unknown legal concept. it's a pretty bedrock legal concept
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 11:15
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:This is a particular peeve of mine (lawyer, although not remotely involved in criminal law in any way) - you'll very often see people saying, or even reporting, that someone "got off on a technicality". If it's being used in regard to a court proceeding, "technicality" means "the law." It's annoying because it's intended to make it sound like procedure isn't important. How about when that technicality is; the prosecution hosed up, like in the Bill Cosby case?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 13:00
|
|
|
What date does Chutkin have to respond to Jack Smiths request for a limited gag order?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 15:03
|
|
|
Zotix posted:What date does Chutkin have to respond to Jack Smiths request for a limited gag order? Not sure if this has an answer or not but generally speaking judges set deadlines for other people, not themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
Zotix posted:What date does Chutkin have to respond to Jack Smiths request for a limited gag order? Trump gets 14 days to file a response (which is up later this week, I think), and the government gets 7 days to file a reply to the response unless otherwise ordered. The judge rules when she feels like it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, but not because it's a crime (hell, I don't think murder is even a federal crime). It's because the executive branch doesn't have the legal authority to commit a premeditated summary execution of an American citizen without any due process. Actually if the victim of a murder is a federal officer, agent, or judge (or the murder violates a federal law) there are provisions for charging the accused at the federal level for said murder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
Cannon finally set a Garcia hearing date for October 12.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:20
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Actually if the victim of a murder is a federal officer, agent, or judge (or the murder violates a federal law) there are provisions for charging the accused at the federal level for said murder. I also believe there is funky things to do with the jurisdiction of murder as a Federal crime. Some Law Professor theorised about some kind of gaming you could do between the jurisdiction of murder at a State and Federal level and then turned it into a Thriller novel. https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/01/16/is-yellowstones-zone-of-death-the-ideal-place-to-get-away-with-murder/
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 18:37
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Please post evidence that the courts can presume guilt for these purposes. If I order you to murder a guy “Deuce hasn’t been convicted of hiring me as a hit man yet” is not a defense for you carrying that order out, the gently caress are you on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 23:41
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Please post evidence that the courts can presume guilt for these purposes. Doing a crime is not part of your job.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 00:04
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Please post evidence that the courts can presume guilt for these purposes. if I am charged with doing X and my argument is "the president told me to do X" the court is permitted to say "x is a crime and the president isn't permitted to order you to do it" you may have confessed, but the court hasn't presumed guilt. they've read what you said.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
PortobelloPirate posted:How about when that technicality is; the prosecution hosed up, like in the Bill Cosby case? That's still the law operating as it's supposed to as well, so see prior answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:if I am charged with doing X and my argument is "the president told me to do X" the court is permitted to say "x is a crime and the president isn't permitted to order you to do it" That he continued to go forward once Trump dangled the AG position and knowing he was full of poo poo and was only stymied when the acting AG and the rest of the senior staff of DoJ threatened to resign en mass is not going to look good for him at trial.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
Deuce posted:If I order you to murder a guy “Deuce hasn’t been convicted of hiring me as a hit man yet” is not a defense for you carrying that order out, the gently caress are you on? You're confused. None of these arguments are being presented to defend against the crime. They are to determine if there is a colorable argument to be made that the facts involved in the case revolve around his federal duties. He is likely to argue that he did not commit a crime and that the actions he did take fell under his federal duties. evilweasel posted:if I am charged with doing X and my argument is "the president told me to do X" the court is permitted to say "x is a crime and the president isn't permitted to order you to do it" I mean, of course it's a hard hill to climb if he just admits to the crime. Presumably his lawyers will attempt the removal hearing without confessing? This is one of the reasons that we want these removal hearings. The stronger case they try to put on for federal removal, the more they are likely going to have to testify on their own behalf (asserting your fifth amendment rights can be held against you) and the more they are likely to self incriminate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
Clark already made his arguments for removal to federal court, and they were essentially based on the idea that any request by Trump was automatically valid regardless of legality, policy, or authority. He also offered little in the way of evidence substantiating himself. The prosecution argued that racketeering and fraud are not part of his official duties, and in fact his role in the DOJ civil division precluded any authority over electoral crimes in the first place. In short, even if he believed that creating fake documents was a legal order, he had no authority to be acting in that role to begin with.quote:Clark is charged with two counts in the DA's indictment: the overall racketeering charge, and an attempt to commit false statements and writings. That charge relates to the letter Clark sought to send to Georgia state officials, which claimed that the Justice Department had "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election" in multiple states including Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 06:26
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:You're confused. None of these arguments are being presented to defend against the crime. They are to determine if there is a colorable argument to be made that the facts involved in the case revolve around his federal duties. He is likely to argue that he did not commit a crime and that the actions he did take fell under his federal duties. The thing you don't get is, if you're claiming that you should be tried in federal court for the crime you are being acccused of because the president told you to do it... you are still actively saying that the president told you to do a crime which is never in your purview of duty. He can't attempt this without this, so it's a literally impossible hill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 06:54
|
|
|
To give a refresher on Jeffrey Clark: Former DOJ officials detail threatening to resign en masse in meeting with Trump https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107217243/former-doj-officials-detail-threatening-resign-en-masse-trump-meeting quote:"I said, 'Well, Mr. President, you're right that I'm not going to allow the Justice Department to do anything to try to overturn the election. That's true," Rosen recalled. "'But the reason for that is because that's what's consistent with the facts and the law, and that's what's required under the Constitution.'" New details emerge of Oval Office confrontation three days before Jan. 6 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/14/inside-explosive-oval-office-confrontation-three-days-before-jan-6/ quote:“Well, I’ve done a lot of very complicated appeals and civil litigation, environmental litigation, and things like that,” Clark said, according to Donoghue’s deposition. Clark maintaining that he was performing official duties as they pertain to the attempted overthrow of the Republic is outrageous backwards and forwards--"I just followed orders that I suggested giving" isn't a legal defense, and crafting a legal justification for any of it wasn't his job. Clark discovered that if he enthusiastically supported whatever the president wanted, the president would elevate him as far as he could get away with, until everyone else told him that the DOJ would collapse under Clark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 07:12
|
|
|
Kchama posted:The thing you don't get is, if you're claiming that you should be tried in federal court for the crime you are being acccused of because the president told you to do it... you are still actively saying that the president told you to do a crime which is never in your purview of duty. He can't attempt this without this, so it's a literally impossible hill. No, I do get that you're saying that. However, it's not true. He is not actively admitting to a crime because his defense is that what he did is not a crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 14:35
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:No, I do get that you're saying that. However, it's not true. He is not actively admitting to a crime because his defense is that what he did is not a crime. You’re misconstruing the issue. It’s not based on anyone admitting to a crime - it’s that in order to argue for removal Clark needed to make a valid case that his actions were a necessary part of his role as a federal official. His argument was that Trump ordered him to do a variety of specific things. The prosecution’s argument is that the order was invalid (because those things were clearly illegal) and outside of his role in any case (because he had an unrelated job). The judge’s role here will be to determine whether Clark’s argument is reasonable under the law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:25 |
|
|
Kaal posted:You’re misconstruing the issue. It’s not based on anyone admitting to a crime You literally said that he was actively admitting the president told him to commit a crime. He is not admitting that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 14:56
|
|