|
Fart Amplifier posted:You literally said that he was actively admitting the president told him to commit a crime. He is not admitting that. No, Clark is saying he followed Trump’s orders, and the prosecution is arguing those orders were illegal. It will be up to the judge to decide the law.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 15:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Kaal posted:No, Clark is saying he followed Trump’s orders, and the prosecution is arguing those orders were illegal. It will be up to the judge to decide the law. Yes, you literally said he is saying Trump told him to do a crime. This hearing is not about whether he's guilty of a crime. It's about whether there is a colorable argument that the actions fell under the scope of his duties. Since the prosecution proves the elements of the crime at trial there is always going to be a colorable argument that his actions were not criminal at this removal hearing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
You are misunderstanding the situation pretty fundamentally, but I suppose we’ll just see what the judge makes of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
You're all forgetting this critical piece of precedent: Case Name: Nixon v Demon Rats Citation: 1977 U.S. Controversial Statements 45 (Supreme Court) Quote: "When the President does it, it's not a crime." - Richard Nixon
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
I love how none of these arguments are ever that they didn't do the thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I love how none of these arguments are ever that they didn't do the thing. I mean, there's probably substantial evidence that they did the thing, in many cases previous statements saying "Yes, I did this thing," or their signatures on paperwork, or in some cases audio or video recordings. So, "I did the thing, but the thing was legal to do," is probably a better attempt at a defense than one that will be immediately contradicted by evidence. Not a good attempt, mind you, just a better one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
I'm not even all that mad at the Nixon argument. Say what you will about the unitary executive, at least it's an ethos.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
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. It doesn't matter that nobody was convicted yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:This hearing is not about whether he's guilty of a crime. It's about whether there is a colorable argument that the actions fell under the scope of his duties. It's worth reading in its entirety. Most relevant here is that the federalist purpose behind removal is not met when the charges are not "state interference with constitutionally protected federal activities" but "federal interference with constitutionally protected state actions". Jones' ruling is that there's no colorable federal defense when the actions cannot possibly have been committed under the color of office. How would you distinguish Clark in a way that gives him the removal that Meadows was denied?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 19:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I love how none of these arguments are ever that they didn't do the thing. It's an unusual combination of doing it all on live TV, believing they are right to do whatever they want because they're super important people that the world revolves around, and desperately jumping on the only plausible legal plays for all the crimes they did. So they did a very cool and awesome thing that is technically a crime(like jaywalking on an empty road), which is why they must file every possible motion and throw sand into any possible gear. Because the only way out is for Papa Trump to regain power and crime like never before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 19:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I love how none of these arguments are ever that they didn't do the thing. It's just the stage they're at in the Narcissist's Prayer at this point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Plus hasn't Trump been *deafeningly* silent about Clark's claim Trump ordered him to do the stuff? He gave others some sort of support, iirc. But Clark? Nada.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1706767627723681850
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
That’s exactly how MSNBC is presenting it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
APNews on it https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-letitia-james-fraud-lawsuit-1569245a9284427117b8d3ba5da74249 "Trump’s lawyers had asked the judge to throw out the case, which he denied. They contend that James wasn’t legally allowed to file the lawsuit because there isn’t any evidence that the public was harmed by Trump’s actions." "Among the allegations were that Trump claimed his Trump Tower apartment in Manhattan — a three-story penthouse replete with gold-plated fixtures — was nearly three times its actual size and valued the property at $327 million. No apartment in New York City has ever sold for close to that amount, James said." "Engoron ordered that some of Trump’s business licenses be rescinded as punishment, making it difficult or impossible for them to do business in New York, and said he would continue to have an independent monitor oversee the Trump Organization’s operations."
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 22:06
|
|
|
My sources say the death penalty being enacted for the Trump Organization et al. I take great pleasure in reporting this. How far can it be appealed?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:My sources say the death penalty being enacted for the Trump Organization et al. I take great pleasure in reporting this. I think it would be able to be appealed to the NY Supreme court, but since it was an action of the state of NY and not federal, that is as far as it could be appealed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 22:46
|
|
Skuzal posted:I think it would be able to be appealed to the NY Supreme court, but since it was an action of the state of NY and not federal, that is as far as it could be appealed. New York's courts are named in a way that's basically the opposite of everywhere else. The Supreme Court is the trial court and is where this decision was made. The Appellate Division 1st Department is initial appeals, and the final, highest court is the Court of Appeals. I can't speak to the specifics of their appeal structure.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
small thing, but the order also sanctions the trump legal team for 7.5k each. judge seems pissed about sloppiness on their part/ generally wasting the courts time
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:My sources say the death penalty being enacted for the Trump Organization et al. I take great pleasure in reporting this. It will probably take some time and the effects of the order will probably be stayed during the review but this seems like the sort of thing that will just wreck a highly leveraged business that lives and dies based on loans. I think banks all over the world will have to take notice and move to protect their assets or their insurance is going to give them the middle finger on the way out the door. So, who shows up with a bucket of money to save Trump first? The Saudis or the Russians? Comedy option is that North Korea buys up all Trump orgs outstanding debt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
Murgos posted:It will probably take some time and the effects of the order will probably be stayed during the review but this seems like the sort of thing that will just wreck a highly leveraged business that lives and dies based on loans. I'm actually skeptical, particularly if he loses the election or any of the federal charges stick. The whole reason for the 'investments' in trump for decades seems to be money laundering. You can't really do that when the government has their hand so far up your rear end that you are singing 'it ain't easy being green' on your off time. Which means the only real reason to spot trump the cash is if you think you can buy him. But if he loses the election and goes to jail, dude is literally worthless. It really is wild to see a guy with obscene wealth who could have spent his golden years with family and all the drugs money can buy may have instead obliterated his entire legacy and spend the last few years at some special new trump brand prison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 07:52
|
|
|
Murgos posted:this seems like the sort of thing that will just wreck a highly leveraged business that lives and dies based on loans. Correct, yes. Organizations (and especially dynastic ones managed by a handful of people or a single scion) rarely end up considered "A Highly Leveraged Company" for reasons that don't ultimately tell a story of desperation, overextention, impulsive fiduciary recklessness, or something similar. It's not usually where you end up by choice. But it's still something you can bank into a survivable condition, especially if you can repeatedly leverage influence on the government to socialize all your liabilities when you fall up short (a well documented process in both the neocolonist and the neocolonized world, and supposedly socialist countries as well, making it a delightfully worldwide story) This, though, is the end. I furthermore think you're right to assume the only real out you can guess he has at this point is some ... wild play where you have a government somewhere making the call that he's worth valuing as an entirely captured asset, and pulling a larger scale repeat of Mohammed bin Salman overruling objections and paying out Affinity Partners from the sovereign wealth fund. Just ... more thoroughly direct and blatant. Much more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 08:06
|
|
|
This seems like, while it does not by word destroy the dreaded TRUMP ORGANIZATION, it effectively removes the real estate holdings in NY to an extent that the rest of the org might be forced to dissolve, leaving little more than the grievance campaign apparatus. That is itself at this point an over-extended legal fund.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 10:21
|
|
|
I’m a simple man: Trump is impotently screeching into his Twitter-rip-off, I laugh. I might even lmao.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 10:41
|
|
|
I'm also a simple man who did not see this coming. Am I correct in that while everyone have been laser focused on all those other legal troubles, Trump's financial rug (through the Trump Org) was just pulled out under him? And why is this not a much bigger story?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 11:17
|
|
|
I don't know why, but I'm genuinely surprised by this. This effectively means he's done as a businessman outside of Mar-a-Lago, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 11:54
|
|
|
I mean he's got money and property elsewhere but it's such a house of cards that this probably destroys much of it even if the banks and creditors don't come a callin'. And you bet the banks, even the ones that were in on the take (heck especially those), are going to want their money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 12:09
|
|
|
Are massively-inflated-to-the-point-where-a-judge-can-call-it-obvious-and-throw-it-out property values a common problem in the USA?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 13:41
|
|
|
Gort posted:Are massively-inflated-to-the-point-where-a-judge-can-call-it-obvious-and-throw-it-out property values a common problem in the USA? Yes, except for the judge bit. It takes something drastic to get the legal system to slap the hand of a billionaire.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 13:45
|
|
|
Gort posted:Are massively-inflated-to-the-point-where-a-judge-can-call-it-obvious-and-throw-it-out property values a common problem in the USA? Inflated, likely. Massively inflated to where a judge can say as a matter of law this is fraudulent and we don’t even need a trial, that’s still quite an achievement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 13:48
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:I'm also a simple man who did not see this coming. Am I correct in that while everyone have been laser focused on all those other legal troubles, Trump's financial rug (through the Trump Org) was just pulled out under him? And why is this not a much bigger story? It's front-page news everywhere. Except Fox News, obviously - and their current top headline as I post this is a particularly hilarious attempt at diversion, even by their usual standards. Apparently it's their editorial standard to state "Dem City" in the headlines for all their CITIES BAD stories now, since it's up there twice at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 13:57
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:It's front-page news everywhere. Except Fox News, obviously - and their current top headline as I post this is a particularly hilarious attempt at diversion, even by their usual standards. https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1707014794371297495 (For the quoted tweet atop the thread, Musk leads the replies with "bizarre" which... not technically inaccurate)
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 14:00
|
|
|
Seems like the value of a property where you have to live with an orange squatter would in fact be negative $300 million.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 14:03
|
|
|
Eric made multiple posts along the lines of 'Other peoples homes are worth more than that!'. Even though he knows how the pricing was obtained. Trump has since made multiple all caps rage posts, one he posted twice. It makes me so happy when he rage posts, though I know he's just inciting others to target the people he rages against. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 14:18
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Yes, you literally said he is saying Trump told him to do a crime. Let's flip this argument around. The defendant says "I want this case moved to the federal court" The prosecution says "that would only apply if you were being prosecuted for something that was part of your duties under the federal executive" The defendant says "It was part of my federal job, because the ACTUAL PRESIDENT asked me to do it!!!" Fart amplifier says "you've described the actions you've done and that Trump asked you to do them, but how can we know that this makes them part of your job as part of the executive? Has a court tried that question and found that it WAS part of your job? I put it to you, sir, that your case will not be removed to federal court because it is a..." etc. To which the answer, of course, is that the court gets to decide. That is part of the awesome and terrifying power of the judiciary. They can make something literally true in the eyes of the law. In some places, in some circumstances, they can kill you in cold blood. And they can certainly decide whether something is part of your job or not for procedural purposes. Who else will decide? There is no objective truth. There is no book in which we can look up whether something is part of someone's job or not and get a universally accepted answer. There are only human beings who have sought and achieved the position of judge, deciding for the rest of us (and sometimes with the rest of us) what the truth of the matter is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 14:22
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:It's front-page news everywhere. Except Fox News, obviously - and their current top headline as I post this is a particularly hilarious attempt at diversion, even by their usual standards. Apparently it's their editorial standard to state "Dem City" in the headlines for all their CITIES BAD stories now, since it's up there twice at the moment. They did have a headline yesterday:  Judge announces decision! We won't tell you what it is until you click here! (It's fraud.) Edit: posted image small butter fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Sep 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:(For the quoted tweet atop the thread, Musk leads the replies with "bizarre" which... not technically inaccurate) Strange, how the billionaire owner always seems to get the first post. He must be very fast!
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
OgNar posted:Eric made multiple posts along the lines of 'Other peoples homes are worth more than that!'. He's right - all these homes should be burned to the ground
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
Caros posted:... That's what the mental illness of (at least) malignant narcissism coupled with a lifetime of wealth-supported enabling will do. He really can't help himself. What continues to amaze me are the number of people drawn to the aura of imagined wealth like flies to PainterofCrap fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Sep 27, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:What continues to amaze me are the number of people drawn to the aura of imagined wealth like flies to I've also pointed this out repeatedly (as has countless others) - but it's like the ultimate case study in the flawed human condition of "I'm not a statistic, it'll be different for me!".
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2023 19:39
|
|
