|
Murgos posted:
Judge Kaplan will take a dim view but I don't think he's likely to sanction her. I would definitely sanction her but I'm also not a federal judge who may just want to be rid of her presence in his courtroom.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Remember when Habba filed a motion that the Carroll case should be dismissed because she claimed Lewis Kaplan mentored Roberta Kaplan when at a law firm at the same time 30 years ago? That last sentence could be used to describe just about anything Habba tried in the courtroom tbh.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:That last sentence could be used to describe just about anything Habba tried in the courtroom tbh. Or anywhere else, for that matter given what she got up to at Mar-a-lago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
Gabba has been doing a whole lotta loving around and I'll be interested to see which bits get her found out
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 23:25
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:That last sentence could be used to describe just about anything Habba tried in the courtroom tbh. It's wild as a layman watching video's of lawyers go over her performance and how utterly terrible it was. I'm sure we've all been in situations at work where we had no clue what we were doing but generally we don't put ourselves in these positions nor have near 8 figures riding on it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 01:31
|
|
|
Scapegoat posted:It's wild as a layman watching video's of lawyers go over her performance and how utterly terrible it was. I'm sure we've all been in situations at work where we had no clue what we were doing but generally we don't put ourselves in these positions nor have near 8 figures riding on it. … put ourselves in these positions when we know there will be millions upon millions of people watching…
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
It's amusing when people think they're smart enough to fake being smart and get their rear end handed to them by actual smart people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSx0u9fn0ak&t=75s 1:15
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 02:53
|
|
|
Scapegoat posted:It's wild as a layman watching video's of lawyers go over her performance and how utterly terrible it was. I'm sure we've all been in situations at work where we had no clue what we were doing but generally we don't put ourselves in these positions nor have near 8 figures riding on it. Lawyer friends said the alina habba transcripts were beyond being something to laugh at They got stuck just reading it silently because they were having a lot of trouble even figuring out what she could have possibly intended or expected. Confusion wins out at that level of "what is she doing"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 03:39
|
|
|
Scapegoat posted:It's wild as a layman watching video's of lawyers go over her performance and how utterly terrible it was. I'm sure we've all been in situations at work where we had no clue what we were doing but generally we don't put ourselves in these positions nor have near 8 figures riding on it. Well it wasn't her money riding on it, since it's not like she was going to get paid either way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 05:50
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:Well it wasn't her money riding on it, since it's not like she was going to get paid either way. i thought that habba's been paid millions in campaign cash so far like i know her law firm managed to blow a million dollars on a frivolous lawsuit, but i thought she was still pretty in the black with trump as a client
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 07:14
|
|
|
Staluigi posted:i thought that habba's been paid millions in campaign cash so far Wait, isn’t “spending campaign money on non-campaign stuff” a crime, and the core of the Stormy Daniels hush-money case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 11:58
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Wait, isn’t “spending campaign money on non-campaign stuff” a crime, and the core of the Stormy Daniels hush-money case? Probably why Trump was so eager to get on the stand and just go off campaign speech style. Eventually he might have to make that argument. I mean not why Trump specifically wanted to do that, but certainly there are lawyers who have foreseen that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 12:31
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Probably why Trump was so eager to get on the stand and just go off campaign speech style. Eventually he might have to make that argument. So you’re saying the One Weird Trick to get around campaign finance law is to make off-topic campaign-adjacent testimony in a case ostensibly not about political campaigns?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 12:40
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Wait, isn’t “spending campaign money on non-campaign stuff” a crime, and the core of the Stormy Daniels hush-money case? Anyone donating to Trump who doesn't read the fine print and just hands over a check has their donation legally split into various accounts, many of which allow him to then spend the money on legal fees. You can freely donate to Super PACS and legal defense funds and such, a decision freely made without your knowledge when you just slam your click on the DONATE TO SAVE AMERICA link. It being Trump, he is all but certainly also illegally using campaign funds for personal poo poo, but that's on top of legally funneling money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 13:13
|
|
|
That's also assuming she's actually been paid and is not just in a long line somewhere behind Giuliani.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 14:05
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Wait, isn’t “spending campaign money on non-campaign stuff” a crime, and the core of the Stormy Daniels hush-money case? This came up a few pages back - the short answer is he isn't directly using campaign finances. Money donated to PACs can be used as desired, and he funnels the money that way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 15:14
|
|
|
Also, the premise of the Stormy Daniels case is the opposite, that it was for campaign purposes because they were paying her to be silent for the election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 15:31
|
|
|
I thought the issue wasn’t that he used campaign money to pay her off, but that the payoff constituted a material donation to the campaign as an in-kind gift and wasn’t properly disclosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 15:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1754883119717462337
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:04
|
|
|
If I'm understanding it right, this just means he'll appeal to the SC and it'll get delayed to the point where it doesn't matter because the election is so soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
smoobles posted:If I'm understanding it right, this just means he'll appeal to the SC and it'll get delayed to the point where it doesn't matter because the election is so soon. This assumes that the supreme course take up the issue (they don't have to and I'm not sure they'd grant cert) and they they don't fast track it on the very specific grounds of 'this needs to be dealt with now'. Honestly the court doesn't seem to like trump much, despite three of them being his direct appointees. Couple that with the fact that this appeal doesn't seem to have a dissent and I'd be surprised if anyone other than Thomas sticks their neck out for this. There is no way the court has enough support for 'Former presidents are immune to crime' and I can't see Roberts allowing them to be used as a delaying action when he cares so much for the appearance of legitimacy. Caros fucked around with this message at 16:30 on Feb 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1754890458478653566 I'm really hoping that the previous denial of cert wasn't just because the DC ruling was pending, but that's their actual stance on it ("We ain't touching that poo poo, go away.")
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
quote:The judges said the gravity of the charges against Trump counseled against immunity here So if he had committed less serious crimes, they would have been more open to immunity claims? Presidents can have a little crime, as a treat?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
Does this mean Biden has to tell Seal Team 6 to abort?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
haveblue posted:So if he had committed less serious crimes, they would have been more open to immunity claims? Presidents can jaywalk, download mp3s, and sneak 1 (one) snack into the movie theater
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:37
|
|
|
I was really hoping they would send it back on a finding that he didn't have the right to raise this as an interlocutory appeal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:38
|
|
|
The argument for immunity is very weak, literally saying the job of the president is to get reelected like some edgy highschooler. It would be a massive handout to incumbents, weaken the courts, and establish a VERY broad federal mandate. Those last to go hard against the general conservative legal strategy which has been to try and kneecap federal mandates and force more to go through congress and be subject to political pressure more directly, then adjust good things happening through the courts rather than federal rule making. They and their backers really hate the targeted rulemaking experts do.
Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Feb 6, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
haveblue posted:So if he had committed less serious crimes, they would have been more open to immunity claims? Nah, that isn't what they're saying. They are just pointing out that it is already hosed to suggest a president is immune to crime, but to suggest he is immune to crime with regards to stealing an election is even worse because then there would literally be no recourse. Tweet is just grandstanding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
smoobles posted:If I'm understanding it right, this just means he'll appeal to the SC and it'll get delayed to the point where it doesn't matter because the election is so soon.  territory, where there's no point in trying to understand anything because the Roberts Court letting things slide is a fait accompli.haveblue posted:So if he had committed less serious crimes, they would have been more open to immunity claims? It's one where Trump may in theory have had better luck arguing for something narrower than "total immunity unless you've been impeached and convicted", as the court has no real motive to go any further than telling him that's deeply wrong and moving on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 17:46
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Does this mean Biden has to tell Seal Team 6 to abort? They’ll just be an exhibit during the hearing if the Supreme Court decides to take up the case. They’re just awaiting orders based on your ruling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 18:11
|
|
|
Cannon back with more overruling of DOJ https://x.com/bvangrack/status/1754908901974163468?s=46&t=bfbUdXZ7wtKr5Ce8r1pCkQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
quote:It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity. Got to love it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 18:42
|
|
|
If you steal classified documents you will then get them in legal form via discovery, neat trick. This really feels like an obvious appeal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 19:40
|
|
|
cr0y posted:If you steal classified documents you will then get them in legal form via discovery, neat trick. CIPA protocols will keep the "important" info redacted, which will be almost everything on each page. the docs will be described in broad terms: "memo dated xx/xx about national security of a foreign adversary", "document dated xx/xx about sources and methods of intelligence gathering" and so on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
I know, I know, George Conway, but might this be relevant in the 14th Amendment case? https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1754901953958519022
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 19:57
|
|
|
cr0y posted:If you steal classified documents you will then get them in legal form via discovery, neat trick. The second bit of the tactic is using the fact that the government has to show the documents to the jury against it. After all, if these documents were so dangerous in the wrong hands, they wouldn't be showing this group of random citizens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
"Former presidents are immune from criminal charges" *Barack Obama opens a moonshine distillery in his backyard* "No, former white presidents"
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
Scags McDouglas posted:"Former presidents are immune from criminal charges" Uh, let me make beer
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
gregday posted:I know, I know, George Conway, but might this be relevant in the 14th Amendment case? I don't see anything in that out-of-context photograph of a couple paragraphs of printed text that explicitly says "the President is an Officer of the United States". There are parts that could potentially be read as implying it when taken out of context and interpreted expansively, but that is really not what lawyering is about. When you yourself have to admit that your source here isn't exactly reliable, you shouldn't trust their interpretation of the text either. And looking at the actual context of that snippet (page 24), I see that the opinion is very much not making the claim in question at all. It happens to quote something that happens to be talking about officers of the US, but the opinion itself repeatedly distinguishes "the president" from "officers of the United States" as if they're separate things. quote:When the President or his appointed officers exercise discretionary authority, “[t]he subjects are political” and “the decision of the executive is conclusive.” Id. at 166. Their discretionary acts, therefore, “can never be examinable by the courts.” Id. “But,” Chief Justice Marshall continued, “when the legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law; is amenable to the laws for his conduct; and cannot at his discretion sport away the vested rights of others.” quote:Finally, the practical consequences of former President Trump’s interpretation demonstrate its implausibility. The Impeachment Judgment Clause applies not just to Presidents but also to the “Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States.” U.S. CONST. art. II, § 4. Thus, his reading would prohibit the Executive Branch from prosecuting current and former civil officers for crimes committed while in office It brings up officers mainly because the legal obligations of the president and executive officers are pretty much the same on this subject (since they derive their authority from the same basic source), but that has no direct relevance to the 14th argument. Of course, I'm not saying that the DC Circuit is saying the president isn't an officer. Rather, it's avoiding the question, because the question is irrelevant to the actual case before it and it's generally seen as poor form for courts to go out of their way to try to settle legal questions that aren't relevant to the case before them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:it's generally seen as poor form for courts to go out of their way to try to settle legal questions that aren't relevant to the case before them. Somewhere in hell, Scalia smirks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2024 21:08
|
|