|
raminasi posted:What on earth does Coinbase have to do with any of this? Coinbase doesn't have any relevance, just the ruling:  Full document: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-105_5536.pdf He's arguing that the same halting of proceedings applies here too.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
I wish him the best of luck with his argument that a civil case involving whether an arbitration clause applied or not has any value whatsoever on his criminal case that has fuckall to do with arbitration clauses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:I wish him the best of luck with his argument that a civil case involving whether an arbitration clause applied or not has any value whatsoever on his criminal case that has fuckall to do with arbitration clauses. (Trump looks at his pocket which contains a crumpled note on headed paper that says if Trump is tried for crimes, it must go to arbitration. ) Trump: Now I play my trap card!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Coinbase doesn't have any relevance, just the ruling: Seems like a big reach to say that determining that if an arbitration agreement is valid allows for stay for an interlocutory appeal if denied so therefore this criminal case interlocutory appeal requires a mandatory stay when there is certainly clear law over the last 240 years to guide you. If you move forward to try the arbitration case and then later the arbitration requirement was found to have been valid then you have injured that party in costs and time and maybe even irreparably in discovery or motions that wouldn’t have been available in arbitration. In the criminal case all you are doing is spending money on lawyers and SCOTUS has long established, for better or worse, that the cost of your defense isn’t their concern. It’s also likely potential time savings could be of great value to the fairness of justice and the interests of the people and that’s also a compelling reason to not require a stay which is not true in civil cases. Edit: obviously the appeals court can issue a stay if it’s warranted. Murgos fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Dec 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:(Trump looks at his pocket which contains a crumpled note on headed paper that says if Trump is tried for crimes, it must go to arbitration. ) And then his reverse card of 'I pardoned myself before I left office, just didn't tell anyone about it or file anything with the DoJ. But I totally did it and you have to prove that I didn't look in the mirror and say 'I pardon you'!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Georgia prosecutors predict jail sentences in Trump 2020 election casequote:Fulton county prosecutors have signaled they want prison sentences in the Georgia criminal case against Donald Trump and his top allies for allegedly violating the racketeering statute as part of efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, according to exchanges in private emails. Remainder of article at link. Willis certainly intends for her prosecution of Trump to end with him in jail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2023 05:00
|
|
|
Cimber posted:And then his reverse card of 'I pardoned myself before I left office, just didn't tell anyone about it or file anything with the DoJ. But I totally did it and you have to prove that I didn't look in the mirror and say 'I pardon you'! I'm actually kind of surprised he hasn't tried to run this up the flag pole in the Chutkan case already since if SCOTUS accepts his argument then the whole thing goes away. Maybe his lawyers are just waiting until closer to the trial date to force maximum delay? It's still a 'the president is king' argument at the logical end of it though so it can't be the intent of the constitution. If the president could pardon themselves of any federal offense then they could just interfere in elections, arrest and detain congress and SCOTUS and wink at themselves in the mirror as they whisper to themselves, "You're pardoned!" while getting fit for their new crown.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
Is there no physical element to a pardon? I thought that while the instigation can begin with a verbal statement it has to be formalised with a letter bearing the presidential seal? Or is it literally magic words?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Is there no physical element to a pardon? I thought that while the instigation can begin with a verbal statement it has to be formalised with a letter bearing the presidential seal? Or is it literally magic words? As far as I know the only times the Supreme Court has clarified pardons are: 1: ex parte Garland (presidential pardons cover all crimes, but not future ones) 2: Burdick (pardons have to be accepted by the grantee to be valid) Outside of that I don’t think the limits have been clarified at all - certainly ‘do you need documentation to prove that a pardon was actually issued’ is a brand new Constitutional question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
I figure that if they try it then Obama should just say he already pardoned Hunter Biden in 2016 he just kept it quiet until now and join Trump's suit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:37
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I figure that if they try it then Obama should just say he already pardoned Hunter Biden in 2016 he just kept it quiet until now and join Trump's suit. God that would be loving funny. A complete poo poo show, but also hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Can you imagine the circus if it was televised.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I figure that if they try it then Obama should just say he already pardoned Hunter Biden in 2016 he just kept it quiet until now and join Trump's suit. Bill could do it at the same time, too, just to illustrate how absurd the whole concept is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Bill could do it at the same time, too, just to illustrate how absurd the whole concept is. Dems aren't nearly cool enough to troll like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
cr0y posted:Dems aren't nearly cool enough to troll like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
Trump going around selling pardons* to drum up funds for his legal defense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Jack Smith is apparently not waiting for this go go through appeals after the trial and is asking the Supreme Court to rule on certain matters now to make them clear: https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/politics/special-counsel-trump-jack-smith/index.html The CNN Article posted:Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president. Sounds like Smith is taking a gamble to avoid having Trump delay the trial by dragging these questions through appeals first and is instead asking the Supremes to give a final ruling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
Kammat posted:Jack Smith is apparently not waiting for this go go through appeals after the trial and is asking the Supreme Court to rule on certain matters now to make them clear: Is it a gamble if it was going to come down to it anyway? It's just moving it forward. You know Trump was going to push this at the moment that it was most advantageous to delay the proceedings further. It needs to happen imo, the Supreme Court needs to rule on whether the President is actually immune to most/ all laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Kammat posted:Jack Smith is apparently not waiting for this go go through appeals after the trial and is asking the Supreme Court to rule on certain matters now to make them clear: I think scotus rules in smiths favor. they havent protected trump so far and i dont think they will now. sure thomas and alito would want to but the others have a mostly longer view of hosed up horror poo poo and realize trumps a dead end with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:I think scotus rules in smiths favor. they havent protected trump so far and i dont think they will now. sure thomas and alito would want to but the others have a mostly longer view of hosed up horror poo poo and realize trumps a dead end with it. Which very well make Judge Cannon realize that flogging it for Trump in Florida is going to be less and less likely to earn her a SC seat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
If I'm remembering correctly, qualified immunity for the President as far as actions taken in office is baked into the Constitution, is it not? This is at least as far as actions taken as part of his actual duties and not everything. Now whether his election antics get covered is going to be the big question, and if it is written in the Constitution the interpretation by the court is gonna be mighty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Didnt alot of this get decided with nixon? like with the tapes and such.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
Look, if the president does it, that means it's legal Ultimately that's the issue being decided in these cases so might as well get a ruling on it now, yeah If it turns out crime is legal when Trump does it I hope Smith just dump trucks his evidence out to the public anyway before trial
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
If Scotus rules that a President is King, welcome to Dark Brandon. Because while Trump crimed while he was in office, a Dem is currently in office, and well by the looks of it has another year and literally do whatever the gently caress he wants to do to get re-elected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:37
|
|
|
Kammat posted:If I'm remembering correctly, qualified immunity for the President as far as actions taken in office is baked into the Constitution, is it not? This is at least as far as actions taken as part of his actual duties and not everything. Now whether his election antics get covered is going to be the big question, and if it is written in the Constitution the interpretation by the court is gonna be mighty interesting. Well sure it would be interesting if it mattered, but these are Republicans. The whole game with them is 'Rules for thee but not for me.' If given the opportunity of another term of Trump in office with enough flunkies given power and control nothing they decide will have any sort of precedential weight when it comes time to decide against their God-emperor. They'll kick Trump while he's down and has nothing to offer them, make sane rulings that happen to constrain Biden when he's in office, and try to hide their own asses behind "decorum", "civility" and whatever other bullshit word vomit they spew but never for one second forget that Roe was "settled case law" during their confirmation hearings when specifically asked about it multiple, direct times. If the winds of power shift and Trump is on top again this pack of assholes won't be standing athwart history yelling "Stop!" at a fascist takeover.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
Watch SCO rule that the President's authority is absolute, and then Dark Brandon takes Trump off the ballot in 50 states by invoking the 14th Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
Zotix posted:If Scotus rules that a President is King, welcome to Dark Brandon. Because while Trump crimed while he was in office, a Dem is currently in office, and well by the looks of it has another year and literally do whatever the gently caress he wants to do to get re-elected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Zotix posted:If Scotus rules that a President is King, welcome to Dark Brandon. Because while Trump crimed while he was in office, a Dem is currently in office, and well by the looks of it has another year and literally do whatever the gently caress he wants to do to get re-elected. What universe is this post from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
Probly the one where Obama spent all his built-up 'political capital' on implementing his amazing 5D-chess strategies and fulfilled campaign promises.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Watch SCO rule that the President's authority is absolute, and then Dark Brandon takes Trump off the ballot in 50 states by invoking the 14th Amendment. He'd never actually be willing to even try but eh
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 21:06
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:Biden trying to do all manner of poo poo he obviously doesn't have the power to do and getting shut down hard might not be a terrible insurance policy to make sure there's precedent in the future Again, Roe v Wade was "settled law" multiple times on live national television right up until they got the opportunity to change it then all the supposedly precious "precedent" didn't mean gently caress or poo poo to the justices that were put in place by McConnel pulling brand new Supreme Court nomination procedures for the Senate out of his rear end that he then bald-faced lied about and ignored less than a year later. Expecting "precedent" to restrain fascist regimes is wildly misunderstanding the situation. They delight in the exercise of power that is forcing hypocrisy on others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Didnt alot of this get decided with nixon? like with the tapes and such. Some but not all. Ford's pardon made a lot of it moot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:Didnt alot of this get decided with nixon? like with the tapes and such. More to the point of Trump's cases (given he's failed on nearly every attempt to invoke any privilege at all) is the civil Nixon v Fitzgerald, which is where the "outer perimeter" language around official duties comes from. The ways in which "if the president does it, it's not illegal" applies and its limits haven't really been tested before - not unlike the ability to gag a criminal defendant during a political campaign on topics likely to be a main focus of the campaign. The irony of Trump's insistence on extended delays to prepare for all the novel issues of his prosecution is that he's mostly been focused on the already-litigated losses and insisting that this is different somehow while he's only given mostly perfunctory nods, if that, to the actually novel bits. Thanks for posting this, I was away most of the weekend. I appreciated that the court went out of their way to give a thoughtful and mostly digestible ruling that filled in a lot of blank spaces that poor stances from both sides would have left open - and crediting Chutkan's effort despite their modifications. I'll try to effort post a little more this week, but my first blush was being happy that many of the tests and concepts they discuss wouldn't have been new to folks reading this thread (not a huge achievement, much of that was very predictable). Ms Adequate posted: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? quote:The Order is also affirmed to the extent it prohibits all parties and their counsel from making or directing others to make public statements about—(1) counsel in the case other than the Special Counsel, (2) members of the court’s staff and counsel’s staffs, or (3) the family members of any counsel or staff member—if those statements are made with the intent to materially interfere with, or to cause others to materially interfere with, counsel’s or staff’s work in this criminal case, or with the knowledge that such interference is highly likely to result. As a rule when I read something like this where there's an "or" that renders everything preceeding it irrelevant, I take the step back to remember that the ruling is not about the specific case in a vacuum. Here, everything before the "or" doesn't matter because what is "highly likely to result" has been established so well in the record that Trump's knowledge of it cannot be contested. But the intent and knowlege requirements are more meaningful in the cases that will follow. One of the reasons I appreciate the ruling (regardless of its conclusion) is that much of the logic and balancing thought is explained well enough for a lot of laypeople to follow if they read the whole thing. Ms Adequate posted: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. Ms Adequate posted: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 think you hit on a very important point here and it's one that I think may be tripping up a number of folks: Trump is prominent and has unprecedented sway over and reach to tens of millions of Americans. His past and current candidacy is both part cause of that prominence and partly caused by it. They are inextricably linked. As it comes to gag orders and ensuring a fair trial though, Trump's proven ability to cause disruption is in no way linked to his candidacy: the fact of being a candidate or presumptive nominee does not by itself make him more disruptive, it's his prominence (and the fact that his candidacy leads the media to cover him more/differently, etc). Meanwhile, his prominence doesn't change the weight/"cost" given to restrictions against him, but his candidacy does. I'm not sure I'm getting the distinction I'm aiming for across (let me know and I'll take a better stab in an effort post), but the court seems to have split the two while many in the thread still see them as one. Hopefully the court rulings make more sense when folks understand the split!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:The ruling actually does anticipate this and shuts it down more or less in its entirety (emphasis mine) These are fair points, I was probably reading too much into the novelty aspect of this whole business and overlooking that a hefty dose of it does refer to/stand on established law that doesn't (At least for the courts and any competent attorney) need further elaboration! quote:I'm going to leave it here before I slip deeper in to an effort post. Hopefully you don't mind that I have (and will likely continue) to use parts of your posts as a jumping off point: You have intelligent concerns and phrase them really well and (I hope) addressing them should be very enlightening to lurkers/rhread readers. Appreciate the kind words on the quality of my posts! I think I do see the distinction you are getting at here, and where it comes from/why it matters to the court. I'm not completely convinced that they can be split in the way the court apparently likes (As a purely pragmatic matter, that is) but fortunately I'm just a girl in the peanut gallery, not the girl who has to actually figure that out and then set out my reasoning in legal documents! e; SCOTUS just said they'll respond to Jack Smith's request on taking up the immunity question in short order. No indication which way they'll go but at least it suggests they appreciate this is a pretty pressing concern. Ms Adequate fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Dec 12, 2023 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 01:20
|
|
|
Kammat posted:Jack Smith is apparently not waiting for this go go through appeals after the trial and is asking the Supreme Court to rule on certain matters now to make them clear: Seems like we'll get an answer pretty soon https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1734355161194111118
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Seems like we'll get an answer pretty soon Yeah, I can't think the USSC would screw around with this sort of thing. This is one of those epic cases that will resonate through the Republic for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 02:13
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Yeah, I can't think the USSC would screw around with this sort of thing. This is one of those epic cases that will resonate through the Republic for centuries. Or whatever short time it has left, depending on how it goes
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 02:30
|
|
|
Oh, good, we needed a new short-term doom countdown.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 04:41
|
|
|
Some more on that filing https://twitter.com/MacFarlaneNews/status/1734378563355255137?t=OzsejJVaWidI17u3BONYzg&s=19
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
time for trump to switch from "they're going to slow!! election interference!!" to "they're going too fast! election interference!!" and for all the chuds to take both just as seriously
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2023 05:43
|
|
