|
This more likely is just more poo poo to keep things tied up and appealed to delay, delay, delay.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
This is a meidas touch tweet. Does anyone have a link to the actual filing?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:00
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This is a meidas touch tweet. Does anyone have a link to the actual filing? It's in the Courtlistener docket. I think this is a direct link. Those are some good billable hours for them attorneys today, yessiree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
Oh heck yeah dude, you should definitely ignore any motions or deadlines. I'm sure that won't come back to bite you in the rear end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:11
|
|
|
nerox posted:They are not Electors unless they are from the Electorč region of France, otherwise they are just sparkling voters. Perhaps we call them “illegal electors”? Could just shorten that to “illegals.” Nitrousoxide posted:Because the compact would likely create a permanent Democrat presidency (at least for the forseeable future) since they have only lost the popular vote one time since 1988. I’m not saying you’re wrong but a thing to keep in mind is that voting totals and electoral energy will go very different places under a nationwide vote. Right now nobody has a reason to really campaign in a deep red or blue state, or really work up the GOTV machine unless there are local elections someone cares enough to push for. Now, it’s a good argument that that might help Democrats even more, as GOTV is more effective in urban areas which also tend to be blue. But it’s just a caution that you can’t take total votes from an election run with an EC and say who would’ve won a nationwide vote any more than you can, say, watch a 14-6 football game then afterward say “if field goals were worth 10 points then Team B would’ve won”
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:21
|
|
|
cr0y posted:https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1732846174137426266?t=qSPZrbmXhfA1MWTTLVE5HQ&s=19 He isn't wrong, though. They'll threaten him and fine him inconsequential amounts of money, but there's no reason to believe the court will hit him with any real penalties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:26
|
|
|
Cimber posted:If they were from South Florida would they be fabulous voters? The correct term is fabulist electors, a small but key difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
The Bible posted:He isn't wrong, though. They'll threaten him and fine him inconsequential amounts of money, but there's no reason to believe the court will hit him with any real penalties. The truth is he's on new legal ground. These cases will set a precedent til the end of the American Empire and possibly beyond. This might seem bad to people like us that dislike him and know what he really represents, but it might be helpful to a future Democratic president that gets tangled up in these same problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
Lpzie posted:The truth is he's on new legal ground. These cases will set a precedent til the end of the American Empire and possibly beyond. This might seem bad to people like us that dislike him and know what he really represents, but it might be helpful to a future Democratic president that gets tangled up in these same problems. In any future scenario in which any former or current president faces this many separate criminal indictments, such that they are "tangled up in these same problems," either they deserve what's coming to them OR democracy is already over and America has become a post-judicial dictatorship anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
me, walking into the boxing ring to square up against a brick shithouse with trains for fists: ahem, absent further punches from my opponent, heh, i am clearly the winner of this match
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
the gently caress is up with your av
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:43
|
|
|
Lpzie posted:The truth is he's on new legal ground. These cases will set a precedent til the end of the American Empire and possibly beyond. This might seem bad to people like us that dislike him and know what he really represents, but it might be helpful to a future Democratic president that gets tangled up in these same problems. He is not on new legal ground
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
The Bible posted:He isn't wrong, though. They'll threaten him and fine him inconsequential amounts of money, but there's no reason to believe the court will hit him with any real penalties. What? He will absolutely suffer in real and tangible ways if he just blows past discovery deadlines or doesn't file motions in opposition to stuff the prosecution is doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
Karia posted:The correct term is fabulist electors, a small but key difference. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 00:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1732905571593126090
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:There's some polls that show about about 10% of voters are open to supporting Trump, but wouldn't if he was convicted of a felony. Whether those people are telling the truth, how reliable the polling is, and if they still feel that way a year later are all open questions. There are people like this but no loving way it's 10% of voters. 2% maybe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 06:27
|
|
|
I'm pretty confident being convicted would be more beneficial for him than acquittal, as it would really ratchet up that persecution complex and need to drain the swamp! I'm personally really excited to see the motion to dismiss on the grounds of ELECTION INTERFERENCE! because it is absolutely going to be a real motion filed in a federal united States of America court on behalf of Donald J Trump. Asproigerosis fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Dec 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 11:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:democracy is already over and America has become a post-judicial dictatorship anyway. Accurate
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 12:15
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:I'm pretty confident being convicted would be more beneficial for him than acquittal, as it would really ratchet up that persecution complex and need to drain the swamp! For his base, it would only help to solidify their wildest conspiracy theories. Elsewhere it would further narrow the eye of the needle he needs to thread in order to actually win. Convicted Felon Trump isn't picking up any votes, but the conviction will certainly lose him some that he can't afford to lose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 12:53
|
|
|
cr0y posted:https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1732846174137426266?t=qSPZrbmXhfA1MWTTLVE5HQ&s=19 I guarantee you that Trump's lawyers are still working on that case exactly as if this filing had never been made. You're missing the really important part, "absent further order of the Court". The Court is obviously going to issue a further order consisting of "yeah, no, that's bullshit, we're continuing", and Trump's lawyers will return to the case with one more long-shot argument to raise at appeal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 14:54
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:I'm pretty confident being convicted would be more beneficial for him than acquittal, as it would really ratchet up that persecution complex and need to drain the swamp! I doubt this strongly. It would rally his stupidest supporters but would erode the more middle-of-the-road R voters who would otherwise go along for the ride.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 18:21
|
|
|
The main issue is turnout and I don't think anyone can accurately guess whether a conviction would dampen or increase turnout for an overt fascist like Trump. I would hope it's the former but I also thought it would be nearly impossible for an avowed rapist game show host to become President of the United States.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
Exclusive: Pro-Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro cooperating in multiple state probes into 2020 fake electors plotquote:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I guarantee you that Trump's lawyers are still working on that case exactly as if this filing had never been made. You're missing the really important part, "absent further order of the Court". The Court is obviously going to issue a further order consisting of "yeah, no, that's bullshit, we're continuing", and Trump's lawyers will return to the case with one more long-shot argument to raise at appeal. I know Chutkan has already issued orders to have this matter briefed but I'm curious on if she actually had to? Does every motion require a response? How timely does it have to be? Could Chutkan just have ignored Trumps assertion that all schedules were stayed and continued on with DoJ meeting the scheduled deliverables and Trump not and then just before trial deny this motion and let DoJ move to have Chutkan offer summary Judgement as Trump has not disputed any of DoJs factual assertions or legal arguments?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
I really doubt the judge will respond directly to the final line in Trump's motion to stay proceedings pending appeal in any way. It's not the court's responsibility to tell the defendant how to run their defense except once they are in violation of something. They'll just listen to opposing arguments and make a holding (presumably to not stay the proceeding since I've not seen any compelling argument for why Trump's motion should be granted by any legal commenter). If Trump still wants to just ignore the case then the judge will only respond when he fails to do something he's required to. Truthfully, unless there's some ongoing discovery requests from the prosecution against him, there's probably, strictly speaking, nothing Trump would have to technically do in that case. He could just sit on his hands, not file any proposed schedules or witness lists or anything and not show up for trial. That wouldn't violate any rules of procedure probably. It'd just really hurt his chances of success though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 19:07
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:
So the legal equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and going 'blah blah blah I can't hear you!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
cr0y posted:https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1732846174137426266?t=qSPZrbmXhfA1MWTTLVE5HQ&s=19 Hes not wrong. They won't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:
I'm not sure whether he has to show up or not. Technically it's his trial and he can waive his own presence and consent to be tried in absentia. In practice however failing to attend your criminal trial typically results in a revocation of bond. Not sure what the specific rules applying here would be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not sure whether he has to show up or not. Technically it's his trial and he can waive his own presence and consent to be tried in absentia. In practice however failing to attend your criminal trial typically results in a revocation of bond. Not sure what the specific rules applying here would be. Perhaps I guess. There could be a local rule for this court or his bond agreement could require him to show up for the trial. That is possible since the court would want to be able to detain him if he's found guilty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:The main issue is turnout and I don't think anyone can accurately guess whether a conviction would dampen or increase turnout for an overt fascist like Trump. I would hope it's the former but I also thought it would be nearly impossible for an avowed rapist game show host to become President of the United States. Nobody is leaning Trump, but just can't get past his lack of convictions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Yeah, the problem is that those 3:1 Democrat-tilting young voters all move to the same six blue high-population states. If Dems were more tactically shrewd they'd start a gofundme campaign to get 200,000 dem voting Californians to move to each swing state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Nobody is leaning Trump, but just can't get past his lack of convictions. It's okay, soon Trump will have plenty of convictions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2023 22:33
|
|
|
Trump gag order reinstated but narrowed in Jan. 6 casequote:A federal appeals court narrowed an order limiting what former president Donald Trump can say about people involved in the criminal case alleging that he tried to subvert the 2020 election results, saying he cannot talk about witnesses’ involvement or single out other individuals in ways likely to interfere with the case. Full document here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
I don't know how you actually divine where the line is on something like "intent to materially interfere with". Yeah obviously if he says "John Q. Witness should have his legs broken if he testifies" that's cut-and-dried, but Trump is very fond of the indirect, 'won't someone rid me of this turbulent law clerk?' kind of spiel and my very ill-informed read is that this doesn't really prepare for that possibility? I know that the First Amendment requires a very high bar before the courts will slap limits on someone as white and rich as Trump but it's essentially impossible for statements he makes not to carry a serious chance of inciting material interference. Anything beyond the most anodyne and boilerplate "Mr Trump denies all charges and looks forward to contesting them at trial" is going to risk his supporters getting amped up enough to think some kind of Action Must Be Taken, it's the inevitable consequence of the way he campaigns, governs, and speaks to his base. Would you want to be a witness when Trump might still feel comfortable mentioning you by name? Even if he doesn't say anything specific that's putting crosshairs on you. Frankly I feel like the fact he is a presumptive Presidential candidate is reason to increase the strength and scope of the restrictions on him. The prominence grants power. I appreciate that's never going to happen and that the courts have an extremely high bar before they'll take action to prevent speech, but at the very least I feel like it would be completely reasonable to say he may not make any public statements about any individuals involved in the trial, other than himself and his own defense team. He could still attack it as baseless, he could still say it's politically motivated and that Biden is directing the DoJ to go after him, he could still insist on his innocence and offer any number of justifications or defenses. And of course it has no bearing on any policy positions he might care to bring up. Almost none of the substantive speech at stake would actually be curtailed, he just couldn't as easily get his base even more fired up about specific individuals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 09:35
|
|
|
The inability to do anything about a cult leader that directs his followers implicitly rather than explicitly is why American democracy* is so good, op.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 11:19
|
|
|
cr0y posted:https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1732846174137426266?t=qSPZrbmXhfA1MWTTLVE5HQ&s=19 What on earth does Coinbase have to do with any of this?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 12:22
|
|
|
That's where the coins are stationed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
What else could they be referring to when they keep talking about their "base"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
It’s where you press the end of the ruler when measuring, op.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:58 |
|
|
raminasi posted:What on earth does Coinbase have to do with any of this? Lol I just noticed that and I have no idea. Here's some details on that particular case    cr0y fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Dec 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 16:44
|
|
