Convicted Felon Donald Trump Legal Troubles: Trump Wins Unanimous Vote

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Convicted Felon Donald Trump Legal Troubles: Trump Wins Unanimous Vote

«‹›644 »

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

John Yossarian posted:

Realistically speaking, when do you think the supreme court will decide on that presidential immunity thing?

No one here knows except Kagan and she never reregged (or if she did she's using an alt).

# ? Dec 23, 2023 04:05

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 03:27

mutata: Mar 1, 2003

single-mode fiber posted:

Gotta say I was not expecting a DDR song jacket to appear in this particular thread

Haha, I knew there would be one or two.

# ? Dec 23, 2023 04:51

C. Everett Koop: Aug 18, 2008

Cimber posted:

Is there anyone who hasn't hitched their wagon to Trump who hasn't gotten screwed massively? Jesus, Rudy used to be on top of the world, now look how far he's fallen.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Shucks is governor of Arkansas, and while she probably would have gotten there via family connections alone she escaped Trumpworld with a promotion to actual office.

# ? Dec 23, 2023 08:27

Desumaytah: Apr 23, 2005; Intensity, .mpeg gritty, Intelligence

Cimber posted:

Is there anyone who hasn't hitched their wagon to Trump who hasn't gotten screwed massively? Jesus, Rudy used to be on top of the world, now look how far he's fallen.

Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Stephen Miller still lurks in the shadows, and I haven't heard of anything bad happening to him, which he deserves, because gently caress that guy.

# ? Dec 23, 2023 10:01

Lammasu: May 8, 2019; lawful Good Monster

Desumaytah posted:

Stephen Miller still lurks in the shadows, and I haven't heard of anything bad happening to him, which he deserves, because gently caress that guy.

I am almost positive that Trump's latest Hitler quoting is from Miller, which makes him an especially vile type of slime.

# ? Dec 23, 2023 11:29

SpeakSlow: May 17, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

""My Perfectly Legal, Totally Above-The-Books Order." Great book by the most important man, Donald Drumph. You should look him up in the Yellow Pages as I'm told from the tippy top level sources that he's a good guy. Speeches that will CHANGE your life..."

I mean, how do we keep letting Trump re-Fog Of War all of our political and legal maps? Symbolically.

SpeakSlow fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Dec 23, 2023

# ? Dec 23, 2023 12:33

The Islamic Shock: Apr 8, 2021

Edit: unnecessarily antagonistic, will be more clever when sober

The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Dec 23, 2023

# ? Dec 23, 2023 12:40

Charlz Guybon: Nov 16, 2010

This should be laughed out of the court.
https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1738774282212389119

https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1739033549619990790

# ? Dec 25, 2023 01:57

KillHour: Oct 28, 2007

For those of us who don't use x

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1739033549619990790.html

quote:

I READ THE TRUMP IMMUNITY BRIEF SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO!

Sometimes the client leaves the lawyer with nothing besides bad arguments, and that’s mostly the case here.

1/
The primary issue here is whether DJT has “presidential immunity” from criminal prosecution in the DC case, and he’ll lose that before the DC Circuit (“CADC”) – and probably before SCOTUS. There’s a secondary Impeachment Clause argument that is a LITTLE closer,

2/
but only a little, and DJT will lose that before CADC as well.

DJT has to win two separate planks to win the immunity argument, and it’s exceedingly unlikely that he’s going to win both of them.

3/
First, he’s gotta show that presidential immunity, which is at present only an immunity against civil claims for damages, extends to criminal prosecutions.

4/
Second, he must meet the pertinent standard for the immunity, if indeed it applies – that the charged conduct is within the “outer perimeter” of official POTUS responsibilities.

5/
The short version is that the 1st plank is a heavy lift and I’m not sure the briefing gets there – and the argument on the 2nd plank is DOA at the CADC. The briefing is transparently written w/ SCOTUS in mind, calling attention to auxiliary opinions written by R justices.

6/
The first plank, whether presidential immunity extends to after-term prosecution, is at least arguable. The issue hasn’t been formally decided, but Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1974) is the leading case and it’s pretty bad for DJT.

7/
Fitzgerald sued for damages following what he claimed was a wrongful termination, eventually naming Tricky Dick as a defendant. SCOTUS recognized a presidential immunity for civil damages.

8/
But a crucial issue in the case was the majority’s ability to distinguish that civil-damages immunity from criminal-prosecution immunity.

For, example, this language from Fitzgerald is bad for DJT:

9/
“When ... the Court acts … to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution[,] the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, we hold it is not.”

10/
And footnote 37: “The Court has recognized before that there is a lesser public interest in actions for civil damages than, for example, in criminal prosecutions.”

Yikes.

11/
And Chief Justice Burger, author of the leading decision rejecting a criminal-prosecution immunity (US v. Nixon), concurred separately in Fitzegerald to further emphasize that nothing about Fitzgerald could be construed as an immunity from criminal prosecution.

12/
DJT’s brief tries to suggest that Fitzgerald supports criminal immunity, but good luck with that. If the Court rules for DJT on this plank, it won’t be because of Fitzgerald.

DJT offers some policy arguments for the existence of a criminal-prosecution immunity.

13/
But there are going to be opposing policy positions, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel has long treated an ex POTUS as a permissible subject of prosecution, and CADC isn’t going to spit in the face of the Fitzgerald opinion.

14/
On the second plank, which assumes for the sake of argument the existence of criminal-prosecution immunity, DJT is toast. Whether a former POTUS could invoke the immunity is whether the charged conduct was within the “outer perimeter” of official POTUS responsibility.

15/
These arguments are the arguments that one of America’s most conservative circuit judges, CJ Pryor (CA11), flamed last week – arguments about how DJT was actually pursuing election integrity rather than his private interests as a candidate.

16/
When Pryor wrote last week, it was formally about whether Mark Meadows was acting within the scope of his office, but DJT’s legal team has been unable to persuade even the most conservative R-appointed judges to take these arguments seriously.

17/
These are the “come on dude” arguments. DJT was trying to work the refs, not acting as neutral steward of American democracy.

18/
The Brief winds down with a textualist argument that criminal-prosecution immunity springs from the Impeachment Clause: “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

19/
According to DJT, because it says “convicted,” there can be no criminal trial following an impeachment acquittal before the Senate.

20/
OLC, the district court here, and a district court that addressed Agnew’s tax evasion, have rejected this position. So did Joseph Story. Both House and the Senate have rejected the mirror image argument that a criminal acquittal bars impeachment. So did a federal court.

21/
CADC isn’t going to buy DJT’s Impeachment Clause argument, and I don’t think SCOTUS will.

The orthodox thinking on the Clause is roughly as follows. The Impeachment Clause limits the penalties that would accompany a Senate Conviction, to removal and disqualification.

22/
The language at issue simply clarifies a question that would have arisen at the founding – whether other NON-LEGISLATIVE punishments were still available after a Senate conviction.

23/
The Clause makes clear that the answer is yes. But there was no need to answer this question w/r/t a Senate acquittal, so the Clause doesn’t answer it.

24/
The Clause makes clear that the answer is yes. But there was no need to answer this question w/r/t a Senate acquittal, so the Clause doesn’t answer it.

In the end, the Impeachment Clause argument is an attempt to treat a Senate trial as a form of criminal jeopardy,

25/
and argue that a subsequent criminal prosecution violates what we now call a double jeopardy rule. But this framing – with a Senate trial a form of criminal jeopardy – isn’t an understanding shared by Framers or the founding generation.

26/
If anything, the founding generation saw the new American impeachment proceeding as a decisive break with a tradition in which the House of Lords could impose criminal punishment.

/e

# ? Dec 25, 2023 02:19

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

Charlz Guybon posted:

This should be laughed out of the court.
https://twitter.com/meiselasb/status/1738774282212389119

https://twitter.com/lee_kovarsky/status/1739033549619990790

Dumb as it is, It might be enough to get the trial pushed back beyond the election.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 02:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

Could someone link the brief itself?

# ? Dec 25, 2023 02:31

Dull Fork: Mar 22, 2009

Wait did I read that right? Kagan was a goon at one point?

# ? Dec 25, 2023 05:54

C. Everett Koop: Aug 18, 2008

Dull Fork posted:

Wait did I read that right? Kagan was a goon at one point?

Posted here under the name "Eggplant Wizard".

# ? Dec 25, 2023 06:17

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

Dull Fork posted:

Wait did I read that right? Kagan was a goon at one point?

For the avoidance of doubt, I was joking. One of Scalia's clerks was active back during LF though.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 06:47

The Islamic Shock: Apr 8, 2021

Fart Amplifier posted:

Dumb as it is, It might be enough to get the trial pushed back beyond the election.

I know things like words and the rule of law don't mean much to a fascist, and I know I'm far from the first person to point this out, but how are they seemingly this unconcerned over potentially giving Biden any amount of time at all to cash the blank check they're writing if this bullshit actually works

Wait a minute
I just realized how much fearmongering they could do over the Biden crime family if Biden was actually allowed to do one-tenth of the poo poo they wish he has

Never mind

The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Dec 25, 2023

# ? Dec 25, 2023 12:00

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Fart Amplifier posted:

Dumb as it is, It might be enough to get the trial pushed back beyond the election.

Seems odd that Chutkan, who to this point has pretty meticulously laid out a schedule to avoid that outcome, would be caught unaware by Trump trying the defense he's been publicly trotting out since last summer and more or less necessitates (as it should!) everything freeze in her trial until it's resolved :shrug:

# ? Dec 25, 2023 17:00

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

Paracaidas posted:

Seems odd that Chutkan, who to this point has pretty meticulously laid out a schedule to avoid that outcome, would be caught unaware by Trump trying the defense he's been publicly trotting out since last summer and more or less necessitates (as it should!) everything freeze in her trial until it's resolved

Chutkan has nothing to do with it. The appeal deadline for this ruling alone outs us past the trial date. If they rule against Trump now he has 45 days to appeal en banc and 90 days to appeal to SCOTUS.

Chutkan has also already said that these appeals could affect the trial date.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 17:09

Paracaidas: Sep 24, 2016; Consistently Tedious!

Yup! And there's a wide gap between "affecting the trial date" and "trial pushed back beyond the election".

# ? Dec 25, 2023 17:12

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

Paracaidas posted:

Yup! And there's a wide gap between "affecting the trial date" and "trial pushed back beyond the election".

Not that wide. The appeal deadline for Trump puts us into April. There are like 2.5 months before scotus goes on holidays. They could easily put it off that long and there is no reason to think they wouldn't.

# ? Dec 25, 2023 17:25

Ynglaur: Oct 9, 2013; The Malta Conference, anyone?

Does an appeal window automatically move a trial start date?

# ? Dec 26, 2023 00:58

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

Ynglaur posted:

Does an appeal window automatically move a trial start date?

The trial is not going to happen until they have resolved whether he can be tried.

# ? Dec 26, 2023 03:20

Dull Fork: Mar 22, 2009

So with the trial start date likely moved back, how many ways can things be delayed DURING the trial? I guess I'm just trying to figure the odds on if its even over before the election.

Discendo Vox posted:

For the avoidance of doubt, I was joking. One of Scalia's clerks was active back during LF though.

And here I was thinking that goon supremacy was right around the corner.

# ? Dec 26, 2023 03:37

Lammasu: May 8, 2019; lawful Good Monster

When did Dershowitz become such a shitbag?

# ? Dec 27, 2023 07:21

Billy Gnosis: May 18, 2006; Now is the time for us to gather together and celebrate those things that we like and think are fun.

Lammasu posted:

When did Dershowitz become such a shitbag?

When he killed his wife? Before then?

# ? Dec 27, 2023 07:52

Lammasu: May 8, 2019; lawful Good Monster

Billy Gnosis posted:

When he killed his wife? Before then?

Wait, what?

# ? Dec 27, 2023 09:04

SpeakSlow: May 17, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Just post the rabbit hole article, general search comes-up scrubbed-looking.

# ? Dec 27, 2023 14:16

Scratch Monkey: Oct 25, 2010; 👰Proč bychom se netě�ili🥰kdy� n�m P�n Bůh🙌🏻zdrav� d�💪?

Billy Gnosis posted:

When he killed his wife? Before then?

I think you're confusing him with his famous client Claus von Bulow.

He probably lost a lot of his credit with the OJ trial

# ? Dec 27, 2023 15:34

smackfu: Jun 7, 2004

Retiring from Harvard was probably a bad idea all things considered.

�He anticipates doing even more writing and spending much more time with his family while winding down his other activities, but he still thinks more of beginnings than of endings.�

Or instead he could just go on TV all the time.

# ? Dec 27, 2023 15:38

Cimber: Feb 3, 2014

Scratch Monkey posted:

I think you're confusing him with his famous client Claus von Bulow.

He probably lost a lot of his credit with the OJ trial

Naah, for a defense attorney he was fantastic in the OJ trial and earned a bunch of credit as a super lawyer. It was after he started working for Trump that he really went off the rails. I even remember Andrew from Opening Arguments saying that Dersh was fantastic until abut 2017 when he suddenly went insane.

# ? Dec 27, 2023 16:26

Failed Imagineer: Sep 22, 2018

Cimber posted:

I even remember Andrew from Opening Arguments saying that Dersh was fantastic until abut 2017 when he suddenly went insane.

You would expect one sexual predator to show this kind of solidarity for a fellow diddler alright

# ? Dec 27, 2023 16:41

Xiahou Dun: Jul 16, 2009; We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.

If you want to know about the Dersh, the ALAB podcast has a good two-parter on him called The Bully.

He�s been the worst waaaaaaaay before he started working for Trump.

# ? Dec 27, 2023 16:42

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Vroom vroom, BEEP BEEP!; Nap Ghost

Xiahou Dun posted:

If you want to know about the Dersh, the ALAB podcast has a good two-parter on him called The Bully.

He�s been the worst waaaaaaaay before he started working for Trump.

He was a defender and associate of Epstein too, right?

# ? Dec 27, 2023 16:49

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Cimber posted:

Naah, for a defense attorney he was fantastic in the OJ trial and earned a bunch of credit as a super lawyer. It was after he started working for Trump that he really went off the rails. I even remember Andrew from Opening Arguments saying that Dersh was fantastic until abut 2017 when he suddenly went insane.

"I managed to win one unwinnable case clearly I can make it happen twice." :v:

# ? Dec 27, 2023 17:06

Xiahou Dun: Jul 16, 2009; We shall dive down through black abysses... and in that lair of the Deep Ones we shall dwell amidst wonder and glory forever.

DarkHorse posted:

He was a defender and associate of Epstein too, right?

Yyyyuuuuuup. Mostly in the form of character-assassinating victims and sending moonlighting cops to harass them.

And he absolutely ruined the life of a dude because he pointed out that Dersh was a lying shill for Israel�s genocidal intentions.

He�s a complete piece of poo poo.

# ? Dec 27, 2023 17:10

Skex: Feb 22, 2012; The great thing about the thousands of slaughtered Palestinian children is that they can't pull away when you fondle them or sniff their hair.

That's a Biden success story.

Lammasu posted:

When did Dershowitz become such a shitbag?

When was he not?
Bobby Seale is convinced that he was a NARC working for Hoover when they were going after the Panthers.

# ? Dec 27, 2023 18:21

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Vroom vroom, BEEP BEEP!; Nap Ghost

Xiahou Dun posted:

Yyyyuuuuuup. Mostly in the form of character-assassinating victims and sending moonlighting cops to harass them.

And he absolutely ruined the life of a dude because he pointed out that Dersh was a lying shill for Israel�s genocidal intentions.

He�s a complete piece of poo poo.

I do know Dersh is very, very concerned with age of consent laws in a curiously specific way

# ? Dec 27, 2023 18:52

Bronze Fonz: Feb 14, 2019

Dersh swore he always kept his boxers on, what more do you want? :mad:

# ? Dec 27, 2023 19:00

smackfu: Jun 7, 2004

In actual Trump news, he gets to be on the primary ballot in Michigan.

Decision in the lower courts was that the state doesn�t have any power to control who is on the primary ballot, and the general election ballot isn�t decided yet so that case isn�t ripe. Supreme Court of Michigan just let that stand without any discussion.

# ? Dec 27, 2023 19:07

The Islamic Shock: Apr 8, 2021

smackfu posted:

In actual Trump news, he gets to be on the primary ballot in Michigan.

Decision in the lower courts was that the state doesn�t have any power to control who is on the primary ballot, and the general election ballot isn�t decided yet so that case isn�t ripe. Supreme Court of Michigan just let that stand without any discussion.

A fair but incredibly annoying reminder of how the DNC and RNC can pretty much do whatever the gently caress they want before the general

# ? Dec 27, 2023 21:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 03:27

Billy Gnosis: May 18, 2006; Now is the time for us to gather together and celebrate those things that we like and think are fun.

Scratch Monkey posted:

I think you're confusing him with his famous client Claus von Bulow.

He probably lost a lot of his credit with the OJ trial

The Dersh's first wife died under mysterious circumstances after she alleged she was being abused by him.

# ? Dec 27, 2023 22:46

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Convicted Felon Donald Trump Legal Troubles: Trump Wins Unanimous Vote

«‹›644 »