|
The Bible posted:So are the judges just not aware Trump is stalling for time and hoping to drag this out until election time, during which, for some reason, this can't continue, or do they just not care that they are being played? As a general rule of thumb, judges going out of their way to rush a case for political reasons is a bad thing.
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Gyges posted:...all the judges are carefully following all procedures to ensure guilty verdicts stick through the appeals process. I get this, except due to allowing him all this time to stall, we will reach the election period during which they almost certainly won't continue these cases because decorum. Main Paineframe posted:As a general rule of thumb, judges going out of their way to rush a case for political reasons is a bad thing. Is there some legal reason they couldn't keep up with these cases during the election? Edit: I guess it's also worth asking, can he actually pardon himself if he wins? Because if he can, allowing him to stall is far worse than risking an appeal. They would just be allowing him to get away with his crimes unchallenged. The Bible fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Nov 16, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
The Bible posted:I get this, except due to allowing him all this time to stall, we will reach the election period during which they almost certainly won't continue these cases because decorum. The only one of the judges so far who might suspend their trial for the election is the one who's been in the tank for him from the start. Also, all the trials so far should be over by November anyway. Nobody gives a poo poo about maybe impacting a primary he's essentially already won. The Bible posted:Edit: I guess it's also worth asking, can he actually pardon himself if he wins? Because if he can, allowing him to stall is far worse than risking an appeal. They would just be allowing him to get away with his crimes unchallenged. He can't pardon either the New York or Georgia cases, because those aren't Federal. As for his lengthy Federal indictments, no President has ever pardoned themselves before, so it would be headed for the Supreme Court to rule on whether he can or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The only one of the judges so far who might suspend their trial for the election is the one who's been in the tank for him from the start. Also, all the trials so far should be over by November anyway. Nobody gives a poo poo about maybe impacting a primary he's essentially already won. If true, that's a relief, at least. From the news/this thread, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that if November arrives and we still have no verdict, all this legal machinery will automatically stop for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The only one of the judges so far who might suspend their trial for the election is the one who's been in the tank for him from the start. Also, all the trials so far should be over by November anyway. Nobody gives a poo poo about maybe impacting a primary he's essentially already won. Why do you think all these trials will be done by November 2024? Even the judge in the GA case says she thinks it's going to last well into 2025.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
The Bible posted:If true, that's a relief, at least. From the news/this thread, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that if November arrives and we still have no verdict, all this legal machinery will automatically stop for some reason. There are some pretty decent arguments that a state can’t interfere with the federal government by convicting or imprisoning a sitting President, so they probably would stop if he took office. And presumably in that scenario Trump would not leave office willingly. What would happen if a person were convicted, imprisoned, and THEN elected President I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
The Bible posted:If true, that's a relief, at least. From the news/this thread, it seems to be a foregone conclusion that if November arrives and we still have no verdict, all this legal machinery will automatically stop for some reason. No, what Trump is trying to do is to drag everything out as long as possible, and then drag out his appeals as long as possible. The trial will be long over, but exhausting the appeals process can take a while. As much as Trump would love the machinery to stop, his goal is just to delay actually implementing any punishments until he is elected God Emperor of the United States. It's important to remember that he's a delusional idiot surrounded by delusional idiots. What their strategy is, and what is actually possible within the courts aren't necessarily in agreement. Legally he's pretty hosed, but his entire play is to turn it into a political fight that takes him to the White House where all the big strong men, straight out of Hollywood casting, come up with tears in their eyes and say, "We're so sorry, Sir. We were just all so jealous of how smart and handsome your are and how much bigger your hands are than ours." He's not counting on winning a legal battle in the courtroom. He's trying to pull a Fascism, and that's tangential to his 91 counts of being the most innocent martyr you've ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Why do you think all these trials will be done by November 2024? Even the judge in the GA case says she thinks it's going to last well into 2025. I thought the January date for Georgia was the start of the trial, so that one depends on when it starts. All his other cases are scheduled to start by May, and once they start going the trial themselves shouldn't take 5 or more months.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:52
|
|
|
Gyges posted:...once they start going the trial themselves shouldn't take 5 or more months.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Why do you think all these trials will be done by November 2024? Even the judge in the GA case says she thinks it's going to last well into 2025. What female judge is involved in Georgia? Do you mean the GA DA?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 00:12
|
|
|
The Bible posted:Edit: I guess it's also worth asking, can he actually pardon himself if he wins? I don't understand why this is a matter of practical concern to anyone. It might be an interesting theoretical question, but if he's elected, he will only appoint an AG who will conclude that he can, and nobody who disagrees will be in a position to do anything about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
raminasi posted:I don't understand why this is a matter of practical concern to anyone. It might be an interesting theoretical question, but if he's elected, he will only appoint an AG who will conclude that he can, and nobody who disagrees will be in a position to do anything about it. I think you could make a pretty compelling case that the people who were aggrieved in the cases he's being charged for have standing to challenge a self-pardon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think you could make a pretty compelling case that the people who were aggrieved in the cases he's being charged for have standing to challenge a self-pardon. They can challenge it but the text is pretty clear about when a president can't use a pardon quote:The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think you could make a pretty compelling case that the people who were aggrieved in the cases he's being charged for have standing to challenge a self-pardon. They could but but then that becomes a constitutional question (I think) at which point it dies to a 6-3 decision, which would maybe get followed by an impeachment that goes nowhere because of the thin house/senate margins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
I mean, okay? But I was responding to the post saying he'd appoint an AG who would refuse to press the matter and there'd be no one who could do anything about it. That's clearly wrong since citizens could challenge it. And I'm really not sure that it would come down to a 6-3 decision.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 00:57
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Why do you think all these trials will be done by November 2024? Even the judge in the GA case says she thinks it's going to last well into 2025. I think Chutkan’s case will be done by summer 2024. She will start within a month of the current date and the case won’t take that long with 1 defendant. Unless SCOTUS decides to examine the immunity question (I don’t think they will, but lol) in which case then it won’t be done by the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
The Engoron gag order was lifted by an appellate judge. https://apnews.com/article/trump-letitia-james-fraud-trial-gag-order-c25e51a094dbcdeffbf67589b1c07f37 quote:Ruling at an emergency hearing Thursday, Friedman questioned Engoron’s authority to police Trump’s speech outside the courtroom — such as his frequent gripes about the case on social media and in comments to TV cameras in the courthouse hallway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 01:03
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean, okay? But I was responding to the post saying he'd appoint an AG who would refuse to press the matter and there'd be no one who could do anything about it. That's clearly wrong since citizens could challenge it. I was taking "and nobody who disagrees is in a position to stop it" in a much broader sense than just limiting to the theoretical AG appointment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Based on what? Trials themselves rarely last that long. Average Federal trial is like a week. Even if Donny's big days are 10 times more bigly, that's less than half the time between his last start date and Election day. What makes a case so long is the components that happen before and after the trial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean, okay? But I was responding to the post saying he'd appoint an AG who would refuse to press the matter and there'd be no one who could do anything about it. That's clearly wrong since citizens could challenge it. It wouldn't come down to a 6-3 decision because the SC wouldn't even need to take up the question, the limits on the pardon power are very clear and they don't include anything about 'except in cases involving the president". It's not a murky legal issue at all. E: the legal remedy the Constitution provides for this obvious injustice is impeachment
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Trials themselves rarely last that long. Average Federal trial is like a week. Even if Donny's big days are 10 times more bigly, that's less than half the time between his last start date and Election day. What makes a case so long is the components that happen before and after the trial. This is by no means a normal case. His civil case is on track to take a monthbor soband i would expect his federal cases to take about a month each similarly. His Georgia case could take several months due to the large number of codefendants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 01:15
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is by no means a normal case. His civil case is on track to take a monthbor soband i would expect his federal cases to take about a month each similarly. His Georgia case could take several months due to the large number of codefendants. 12 months is still plenty of time to contain 1 month + 1 month + 1 month + a few more months, even if they can't run concurrently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 01:53
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is by no means a normal case. His civil case is on track to take a monthbor soband i would expect his federal cases to take about a month each similarly. His Georgia case could take several months due to the large number of codefendants. Yeah, the Georgia case could take a while. I just thought it started in January. This is the rest of his trials' start dates though: January 16, 2024 – Next Carroll Defamation March 4, 2024 – DC Election Interference Case March 25, 2024 – NY Criminal Documents Case May 20, 2024 – Classified Documents Case Cannon might be able to keep his May date from not happening until after November, but the rest of those are not going to have trials that last from March through November. Even if those dates get pushed back a couple months via stalling, you're still looking at multiple months of time before the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:The Engoron gag order was lifted by an appellate judge. Apparently it's a temporary lift? I don't know, Engeron's order seemed pretty narrow to me, wasn't it just "You can't talk poo poo about my staff"? But then I'm no lawyer or judge so this could be a legally sound finding no matter how much I disagree or dislike it. e; Assuming guilty verdicts how long would it take to get from the end of a trial to the sentencing? Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 02:00
|
|
|
Papercut posted:It wouldn't come down to a 6-3 decision because the SC wouldn't even need to take up the question, the limits on the pardon power are very clear and they don't include anything about 'except in cases involving the president". It's not a murky legal issue at all. This isn't remotely true. I've read a bunch of legal opinions on this and most seem to think no, but the only thing that all agree on is that it's extremely murky.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:The Engoron gag order was lifted by an appellate judge. (I feel like only 1 in 3 chance it comes to anything past threats, which seem practically guaranteed)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
They did next to nothing about the hundreds of instances of election workers getting death threats and harassment except for the two ladies who took it to court. Mostly because the police are either Trump followers or laughably inept.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:His Georgia case could take several months due to the large number of codefendants. Edit: To be fair, the upside is that Fani Willis was the lead prosecutor on that trial. AtraMorS fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 03:36
|
|
|
Technically, Trump could arrange to not be present for his criminal trial in Georgia.He has the right to waive his presence and the prosecution might consent to it. Be real funny if he couldn't do any campaigning because he was on trial the whole time tho.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 03:51
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This isn't remotely true. I've read a bunch of legal opinions on this and most seem to think no, but the only thing that all agree on is that it's extremely murky. Yes. Many of the arguments against self pardon are based on the concept that “You can’t be the Judge in your own case” which was one of the problems with kings and corrupt judiciary and was a well understood and established theory that the founders absolutely would have expected to hold. I seem to recall some analysis showing that there was some very prominent cases at the time in England based on this exact concept and it would have been how the founders understood the law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1725308779049156870
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 05:48
|
|
|
Shocking that Trump is working with Antifa Super Soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 06:03
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Yes. Many of the arguments against self pardon are based on the concept that “You can’t be the Judge in your own case” which was one of the problems with kings and corrupt judiciary and was a well understood and established theory that the founders absolutely would have expected to hold. The common three I see are this, structural arguments about various ways that it utterly breaks the constitution so it couldn't have been intended, and arguments that a pardon is definitionally something you give to someone else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 06:28
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This isn't remotely true. I've read a bunch of legal opinions on this and most seem to think no, but the only thing that all agree on is that it's extremely murky. "Murky" isn't really what I'd call it; there's the clear text of the Constitution, and then there's a bunch of lawyers desperately for a reason why the clear text of the Constitution can't be all there is to it here. I think there's a solid case to be made that the Founders didn't intend for self-pardoning to be a thing...but I also think it's pretty fair to say that they didn't think it was a serious possibility, because if a president was committed of serious crimes, surely Congress would immediately impeach him and take pardons off the table. It's murky because no one really thought about the possibility till 2021 rolled around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 07:53
|
|
This made me vaguely remember something from the constitutional convention, which I found in volume 2 of the records (Sorry for the libertarian group link, it's the first result I found). Note this appears to be using a broader notion of "treason" than the final one, reflecting cases where the President is trying to overthrow the government.quote:Art: II. sect. 2. “he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the U. S. &c” In volume 3 there is similar record of discussion of the dangers of the pardon power, from antifederalist Luther Martin, in a couple of different subsequent documents where he discusses his various objections to the constitution: quote:As to the Vice President, the larger States have a manifest influence and will always have him of their choice. The power given to these persons over the Army, and Navy, is in truth formidable, but the power of Pardon is still more dangerous, as in all acts of Treason, the very offence on which the prosecution would possibly arise, would most likely be in favour of the Presidents own power. — quote:The power given to the President, of granting reprieves and pardons, was also thought extremely dangerous, and as such opposed. The President thereby has the power of pardoning those who are guilty of treason, as well as of other offences; it was said, that no treason was so likely to take place as that in which the President himself might be engaged, — the attempt to assume to himself powers not given by the constitution, and establish himself in regal authority; in which attempt a provision is made for him to secure from punishment the creatures of his ambition, the associates and abettors of his treasonable practices, by granting them pardons, should they be defeated in their attempts to subvert the Constitution. Martin was basically fundamentally opposed to the Constitution as written, so these should probably be read as part of a broader effort to attack the final document from every possible angle, but it does suggest the problem was at least visible to those involved. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
Haven't there been US governors that have pardoned themselves historically? That would seem to be the exact same principle that certainly state courts haven't had an issue with, so I'd think from a common law perspective in the US, it's got a tradition of being acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 10:23
|
|
MrNemo posted:Haven't there been US governors that have pardoned themselves historically? That would seem to be the exact same principle that certainly state courts haven't had an issue with, so I'd think from a common law perspective in the US, it's got a tradition of being acceptable. It's not really clear how it would make sense to analogize governors to the presidency; you're functionally dealing with wholly different bodies of law. A brief googling suggests there was basically one non-trump advocate for presidential self-pardon being cited in the press during his term, and he's not likely to weigh in this time- he performed a murder-suicide in 2018. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 10:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:"Murky" isn't really what I'd call it; there's the clear text of the Constitution, and then there's a bunch of lawyers desperately for a reason why the clear text of the Constitution can't be all there is to it here. Scalia is that you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 12:59
|
|
|
quote:Mr Randolph could not admit the Senate into a share of the Power. the great danger to liberty lay in a combination between the President & that body — They didn't think this one out to it's logical conclusion. If the Senate has combined with the President to protect him as he engages in subversion of the constitution then not only is pardon too great a power but so is reliance on impeachment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
End of the day there's no constitutional order that can survive a complicit desire to overthrow that order shared among all those who control all branches of government. If the president desires to pardon himself and congress and the courts allow it and the people do not revolt, what were words on paper supposed to do? All the founders had just spent like a decade literally firing cannon at people over this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 14:06
|
|