|
Nah, he was gonna have some hench-chuds jump her but he can't if she's been offered the protective hospitality of Guest Right.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1753518613762392477
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
Annoying as poo poo, but we have no excuse to not have seen this coming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 21:41
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Even if it doesn't it's going to provide enough cover/doubt for some people to dismiss it and let the RWM machine spin it into proof of conspiracy that will infect other cases too. Oh darn it, if only she didn’t gently caress that guy and give the RWM that legitimate toehold without which they would have honourably refused to spin things violently in Trump’s favour.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:I'm really struggling to understand the problem here. I'm just not seeing how anyone involved would be caused, or tempted, to act differently because they're loving? Wade and Willis are both interested in seeing a successful prosecution. That doesn't change because they are knocking boots, surely? It does nothing directly to the case. Under GA law it simply disqualifies (potentially) the DA office. If that happens then the new DA office may drop the charges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 21:48
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:It does nothing directly to the case. Under GA law it simply disqualifies (potentially) the DA office. If that happens then the new DA office may drop the charges. I *once* managed to get a prosecutor removed from a case and a new prosecutor assigned (who gave us a much better offer). The first prosecutor had put "I hate this fucker and he just needs to plead" in an email. Technically it was not a violation of anything. She was allowed to hate defendants, she's the prosecutor, her only limitation is she's not supposed to file frivolous cases with no basis. But her boss and my boss agreed it looked bad so the case was reassigned.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
gregday posted:The "scandal" would be that the entire case is a fiction she cooked up in order to make sure her lover could bill the state $860,000 in billable hours. They dig into something shady she seemed to pull with discovery (If I undestood it right, she cited a case where somebody messed up with handing over discovery as a reason she doesn't have to do it). Interestingly the guy also brings up her hiring Wade and says that he doesn't seem to have the RICO experience  E: the latest episode of the new Law & Chaos podcast without the sex pest host, also has Andrew Fleischman as a guest: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/p/ep-2-the-trump-ga-rico-debacle-how and there's a transcript. He's really pretty hard on Fani but this is before this latest filing obviously. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Feb 2, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 21:56
|
|
|
Yeah, Fleischman is a defense attorney and is very critical of the Georgia RICO law.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 22:06
|
|
|
If only judge Chutkan would do something genuinely reprehensible, like having a romantic relationship, then maybe we’d be taking about recusal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 22:10
|
|
|
Pakistani Brad Pitt posted:lol at Fani Wills trying a Friday news drop in a 24/7 always online world Today was the cutoff day for this motion to be filed. Seems like she just followed instructions? You drop a Friday news bury in the late afternoon or evening, not during lunch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 22:12
|
|
|
Caros posted:Today was the cutoff day for this motion to be filed. Seems like she just followed instructions? She can't even bury the story properly and we trust her to prosecute Trump 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 22:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1753527983254507920
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 22:23
|
|
|
same with judges: we spent decades giving prosecutors more and more power and less and less accountability, it wasn't until a rich shithead ran up against it that it is cause for concern
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 22:31
|
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Oh darn it, if only she didn’t gently caress that guy and give the RWM that legitimate toehold without which they would have honourably refused to spin things violently in Trump’s favour. In spirit I agree with you but this is especially digestible to the common person as really weird and sketchy, so this toehold is extremely generous rather than the ones they have to usually dig out with a toothpick. There's the RWM machine and then there's a thing hitting the front page of established media sites that adds a sour note to the entire trial.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 23:20
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:Just to be clear, I was semi-joking. I know it didn't help the case get dismissed, but it also didn't materially harm him- and that's why Trump is the way he is. If it doesn't cause any splashback, why not be an rear end in a top hat? Sure, people are assholes in depositions all the time. People don't like being sat in front of a camera under oath and interrogated in detail about their crimes. That said, it hasn't materially harmed him yet. The main downside to being an rear end in a top hat during a deposition is that there's a good chance the deposition transcript or recording will be shown in court during the trial, and then the judge and/or jury will see what a huge pissbaby you are. There's a lot of stuff in the judicial system where being an rear end in a top hat isn't explicitly against the rules, but when someone is going to be deciding your fate you don't want them to remember you as "that rear end in a top hat", so being an rear end in a top hat is a very much at-your-own-risk kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure, people are assholes in depositions all the time. People don't like being sat in front of a camera under oath and interrogated in detail about their crimes. I don't mean to be flippant since I know you're more knowledgeable about this, but wasn't the case dismissed? By definition the consequences you enumerate here won't happen and he got away clean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 00:07
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:I don't mean to be flippant since I know you're more knowledgeable about this, but wasn't the case dismissed? By definition the consequences you enumerate here won't happen and he got away clean. In the E. Jean Carroll case? You serious bro
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
mdemone posted:In the E. Jean Carroll case? You serious bro https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/roberta-kaplan-donald-trump-deposition-maralago/index.html quote:Kaplan was deposing Trump at Mar-Lago in a lawsuit alleging the former president was involved with a fraudulent marketing company. A federal judge dismissed the suit last month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 01:11
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/roberta-kaplan-donald-trump-deposition-maralago/index.html Ohhhh poo poo I totally forgot she was involved in another Trump case. My bad. Whew that is a lot of crimes
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 01:21
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion › Trump Legal Troubles: Whew that is a lot of crimes
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 01:26
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Ohhhh poo poo I totally forgot she was involved in another Trump case. My bad. Naw you're cool. I think my overall point was going sideways anyway so this is what I'm saying: Trump went crybully during the deposition and it was dismissed anyway so it ratified to like the millionth time that doing what he wants doesn't really invite many consequences, which has shaped his being for decades. Main Painframe's point is valid in the context of standard legal theory, but in a legal thread about Trump it turns into total Calvinball with him always making the rules and is always the victor. I'm not even really burnt about it, we've been dealing with this standard for a while now. This is one of infinite cases but I'll hang my hat on an LOL about the sandwich thing which has followed me all day. If you take away all of the awful poo poo (which is saying something), a very shameful part of me gets the appeal of a president that pulls a move like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 01:27
|
|
|
Oh and she's involved in both Trump cases so the conflation is a super easy mistake.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 01:28
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/roberta-kaplan-donald-trump-deposition-maralago/index.html Assuming that group refiles in state court with the correct jurisdiction would Kaplan be able to use the depositions from the previous effort in the new case? Or would they have to do them over? I know Trump has no shame so being embarrassed isn’t going to happen but god drat would he fume 10x worse if she does the same questions again after losing 83 million to her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 01:30
|
|
|
Such a shame that "Teflon Don" is already taken
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Ohhhh poo poo I totally forgot she was involved in another Trump case. My bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Assuming that group refiles in state court with the correct jurisdiction would Kaplan be able to use the depositions from the previous effort in the new case? Apologies but that question punches above my weight class. I'm more of a commentary poster and not one of the hilariously replete JD posters we somehow have in this thread. Given history my guess is that no, a deposition from one trial wouldn't be admissable in another trial on a fully different subject.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 02:00
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:I don't mean to be flippant since I know you're more knowledgeable about this, but wasn't the case dismissed? By definition the consequences you enumerate here won't happen and he got away clean. It was dismissed, but that doesn't mean it's gone. The federal judge dismissed the case because she thought it was better suited for state court than federal court. It can be refiled in state court. I don't actually know whether the depositions can be carried over, but I don't really see why not. If it's just the same case being refiled in a different court, then the judge probably isn't going to make them regather the evidence that's already been gathered and redo the discovery that's already been done - that's just a waste of everyone's time. It's entirely possible that he won't face any particular consequences from being an rear end in a top hat in the deposition, sure. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's not illegal to be a giant pissbaby, it's just mildly annoying (as long as you're not actively disrupting the courtroom, anyway).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 02:07
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Whew that is a lot of crimes 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 03:16
|
|
|
Levitate posted:it could be 100% above board and trump could be on video looking into the camera saying "I have committed voter fraud, treason, and taken bribes for the specific reason of them being bribes in order to return political favors and I'm a russian operative and piss tape is real and I'd do it all again gently caress america" and the RWM would say it's a witch hunt and call it freedom of speech “He tells it like it is.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 03:48
|
|
|
"which is why he's been indicted 91-times"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 03:49
|
|
|
IIRC the defamation/sexual assault cases were civil suits, so they should be "found liable" not "convicted"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 04:10
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:IIRC the defamation/sexual assault cases were civil suits, so they should be "found liable" not "convicted" As is the NY civil fraud case
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 04:48
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:IIRC the defamation/sexual assault cases were civil suits, so they should be "found liable" not "convicted"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 05:06
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:IIRC the defamation/sexual assault cases were civil suits, so they should be "found liable" not "convicted" i kinda knew that even as i was doing it but i hate the distinction like i know why there's the distinction and why i'll have to change it anyway but the verdict is He Done Did It, He Is Now New York's Biggest Lick
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 05:18
|
|
|
The Islamic Shock posted:Force the meme into right-wing spaces so they hate-click it and see how long it takes anyone to figure that out Tried it and doesn't work, they don't think that hard. It's an immediate jump to "DEEP STATE WITCH HUNT FBI CONSPIRACY"
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 05:18
|
|
|
Total exoneration!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 05:44
|
|
|
Jack Smith filed some stuff yesterday apparently: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.277.0.pdf I didn't go through everything. This seems to be the summary, nothing new but as far as I can tell, but puts everything to date clearly on one page:  Someone dug up this stuff. One of the defense attorneys doesn't have a computer, the feds gave him one and provided tech support:   Waiting until the last day to do the homework seems like a classic move though
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 12:10
|
|
|
It’s great that our legal system just lets people with money delay things infinitely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 12:57
|
|
|
Ah, the issues with how almost every CCTV system uses a different type of program to store and play files. Now that's a legal issue I'm very familiar with. Also if I had a dollar for everytime I've seen CCTV been downloaded and then months later, people discover it doesn't work, I'd have a fair chunk of change. The twist on this one being the Government literally being able to say "we monitored your logs, we know you sat on this for months."
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 13:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:20 |
|
|
Milosh posted:It’s great that our legal system just lets people with money delay things infinitely. Yeah
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2024 14:15
|
|