|
So today is the last day for Trump to apply for cert with the Supreme Court to avoid a stay on the DC case. I'm assuming he will, because letting the election interference case go forward would make me, personally, too happy. When does the day end in terms of the deadline? Normal office-closing time in DC, midnight, what are we talking about here? I'm guessing the actual filing is digital by now like it is for state courts, but I don't know how much that actually effects issues of timing.
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:So today is the last day for Trump to apply for cert with the Supreme Court to avoid a stay on the DC case. I'm assuming he will, because letting the election interference case go forward would make me, personally, too happy. From some commentary I've seen the stay is in effect until 12:00 am tonight. However, 5 justices need to agree to extend the stay so I imagine the filing has to been in with sufficient time to allow that to happen? I don't know if the justice who supervises DC (Roberts?) can just issue an administrative stay for a few days while they consider to extend the stay? I presume so which would mean that effectively the stay could be extended without being extended? I'm not sure about this whole 5 justices need to agree to extend the stay thing since I am pretty sure that we've seen SCOTUS grant stays based on a cert petition, that only requires 4 justices to agree, that requests a stay due to a potential harm that can't be redressed? But, maybe behind the scenes there was a 5+ vote for the stay that just doesn't get reported? Maybe also the DCCA ruling is sufficient to remove the burden of the 'non-redressable harm' so that there isn't really a reason to stay this issue while the trial proceeds? It would be really funny if Trump can't even get 4 justices to consider his absolute immunity claim and grant cert so I hope that's what happens. It's even extra funny because Trump's said he's filing that he's immune due to being an ex-president in the documents case and watching Cannon tie herself up in knots to not flat out say 'no' would be really dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:26
|
|
|
I don't know anything about the DC circuit but in the very limited experience I have with federal filing it is all electronic and the deadlines are midnight. It's been roughly a decade since I filed anything in federal court, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
Funniest option is that his absolute clownshoes legal team simply fucks up somehow and doesn't get the request in in time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Funniest option is that his absolute clownshoes legal team simply fucks up somehow and doesn't get the request in in time. I guess Trump still has 45 days to file the cert petition even though the stay dissolves and Chutkan can resume trial prep? So, they could let the stay lapse and then just before start of the trial file for cert and request a stay then just to maximum delay?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Funniest option is that his absolute clownshoes legal team simply fucks up somehow and doesn't get the request in in time. We were meant to mail the documents to the DC circuit, we mailed them to the DC circus!!! *Cue benny hill music as trumps legal team try and wrestle the papers away from an elephant as literal clowns stand around laughing at them*
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
quote:The GOP had enough syncophantic votes to knock it down in the end, but the seven who voted for it represented the most Senate votes to convict any President has ever received from his own party. To be fair Nixon would have received more votes against, from his own party, if he hadn't had the good sense to resign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
And he would have been convicted in a court of law, if Ford hadn't been the piece of poo poo who pardoned him to "heal the country" thereby creating the conditions for the current shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 21:01
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:And he would have been convicted in a court of law, if Ford hadn't been the piece of poo poo who pardoned him to "heal the country" thereby creating the conditions for the current shitshow. I've always been a fan of that line in Hunter S. Thompson's Nixon obituary about how Ford once told a friend he knew he was destined for hell because he pardoned Richard Nixon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
And they said the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 21:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/big_cases/status/1757156877698506792
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
Unlikely a sign of a funny outcome but it's certainly interesting that when I clicked the courtlistener link just now the document has already been removed / produces a 404.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 23:56
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Unlikely a sign of a funny outcome but it's certainly interesting that when I clicked the courtlistener link just now the document has already been removed / produces a 404. Same as of when I checked a half hour ago. Huh. Also not saying it’s suspicious/ominous, that’s just a mildly interesting issue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2024 23:58
|
|
|
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68073028/01208595571/1/united-states-v-donald-trump/ seems to be the correct link (was missing a 0 in front of the document number) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68073028/1208595572/2/united-states-v-donald-trump/ is the more interesting stay application itself
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 07:38
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:I've always been a fan of that line in Hunter S. Thompson's Nixon obituary about how Ford once told a friend he knew he was destined for hell because he pardoned Richard Nixon. It was obscene that the Republicans gave him a state funeral.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 08:21
|
|
|
Belteshazzar posted:https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68073028/01208595571/1/united-states-v-donald-trump/ seems to be the correct link (was missing a 0 in front of the document number) Aha, thanks. While you're right it's the more interesting document it's unsurprisingly all the usual bollocks about how criminally charging a former president is unprecedented... which, yeah, because normally they don't try coups.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 10:58
|
|
|
selec posted:STRONG RECOMMENDATION for Rick Perlstein's trilogy, starting with NIXONLAND, then THE INVISIBLE BRIDGE, then REAGANLAND, for getting a good baseline for "how loving wacky and violent have American politics actually gotten on the ground in the late 20th century?" slightly off topic but id add that the right tried to have their madison square garden nazi rally twice and it blew up in their faces. charlottesville kinda blew up the alt rights shot at full open political acceptence and basicaly locked it into online fringe poo poo that feeds on parts of the GOP base. jan 6th locked the chuds in with trump in perpatuity and scared off the indies and moderates and scared the hard core nuts into thinking everything was a trap. obviously its always gonna be a fight and even an uphill fight in ceirtain areas against these ghouls but i do have some hope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
SCOTUS is giving Jack Smith 1 week to reply to Trumps motion for a stay: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4465323-supreme-court-gives-smith-one-week-to-respond-to-trump-on-immunity/ I expect that Smith will have his brief in well before the time limit although I doubt that will speed anything up. I can't imagine his reply will say much more than, "Trump is unlikely to succeed on the merits so a stay would be unwarranted at this time due to the substantial public interest in a speedy trial." and then 20 pages reiterating how bad Trumps arguments are but this time with DCCA references.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 20:48
|
|
|
Yeah I imagine Jack Smith's team already has that one 95% written up. Just gotta fill in the relevant information, add a few more references to the appendix then triple check everything is good and there's no typos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 21:40
|
|
|
The hardest part of filing a Jack Smith document is removing all of draft-era "AS WAS ALREADY loving OBVIOUS"->"as decided in X v Y et al" and "THIS COLOSSAL PIECE OF poo poo" -> "the defendant."
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2024 22:27
|
|
|
How likely do you think Trump will be found guilty for the Stormy Daniels bribe case? It seems like a pretty slam dunk case since they have proof, but I really don't know anymore. If found guilty, I doubt his followers will even care.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 02:41
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:How likely do you think Trump will be found guilty for the Stormy Daniels bribe case? It seems like a pretty slam dunk case since they have proof, but I really don't know anymore. If found guilty, I doubt his followers will even care. Honestly I'd forgotten about that case. I thought the NY AG had declined to prosecute. Edit: to answer more substantively, in any given criminal trial, even a case that should be a slam dunk, there's about a ten percent chance the prosecution fucks something up or you get lucky with a juror or something and you get either an acquittal or a mistrial. With any given Trump case that chance goes up to, oh, probably around fifty percent because of all the bullshit. All you need is one chud on the jury and it's a mistrial. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Feb 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 03:08
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:How likely do you think Trump will be found guilty for the Stormy Daniels bribe case? It seems like a pretty slam dunk case since they have proof, but I really don't know anymore. If found guilty, I doubt his followers will even care. This case was the one I thought a lot of people say was a stretch and that the prosecutor overcharged on a kind of novel use of what was normally a misdemeanor as felony charges and that many of the counts were really the same charge over and over again just separate instances so I don't know. I think people have been focusing on the other cases because they seem to be more substantive instead of getting Trump on a technicality. That being said I am fine if he goes down for this case haha I think once he is found guilty in any of his cases his image of invincibility is shattered and it will probably be easier to get him on the other stuff as I imagine people will feel more emboldened. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/nyregion/trump-indictment-bragg-strategy.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Yeah I imagine Jack Smith's team already has that one 95% written up. He filed it this afternoon so, yeah, 95% done and just mad lib in the blanks with quotes from Trumps filing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 02:49
|
|
|
Judge in New York refuses to dismiss case against Trumpquote:Judge Juan Merchan got right to the point when proceedings kicked off, informing the court that Trump’s case will move forward next month. This is the Stormy Daniels case, where Trump is attending.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 15:43
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Judge in New York refuses to dismiss case against Trump Hot drat. Let's go. What's the potential criminal penalty here? Edit: looks like class e felony or class a misdemeanor, so his theoretical maximum exposure is something like 2-5 years if convicted and sentenced concurrently? Can't find all the cites on my phone. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:01
|
|
|
Seems things are also going well in Georgia https://bsky.app/profile/nycsouthpaw.bsky.social/post/3klhnd5cigm2uNYCSouthpaw posted:Ashleigh Merchant is so far not having a great morning in court in Georgia as she tried to prove up her motion seeking the disqualification of the DA. Her first witness didn’t appear and the witness’s lawyer is in some other proceeding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Hot drat. Let's go. Not for someone with no criminal history. It'll be a fine, at most. Which reminds me of the very funny possibility that criminal history is going to be a sentencing factor in the other cases, and as they proceed, he's going to rack of a criminal history very fast, so by the time we get trial #4, the penalty could be quite severe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
gregday posted:Not for someone with no criminal history. It'll be a fine, at most. Eh, theoretically, but if I were his defense attorney I wouldn't be betting on it. Stste charges not federal -- what does NY use for sentencing guidelines? Any given judge who gets a chance to throw a hammer at Trump is going to have a lot of powerful incentives to do so. I don't think his sentencing is predictable like another defendant's would be. Maybe NY state has strict guidelines tho.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:27
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Seems things are also going well in Georgia https://bsky.app/profile/nycsouthpaw.bsky.social/post/3klhnd5cigm2u Any updates?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
https://x.com/hugolowell/status/1758152210062463387?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
I cannot access Twitter/X but it looks like Merchant produced a former colleague of Willis who says Willis and Wade were in a relationship before and not after Wade was appointed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:53
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I cannot access Twitter/X but it looks like Merchant produced a former colleague of Willis who says Willis and Wade were in a relationship before and not after Wade was appointed. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/15/us/fani-willis-trump-hearing
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:54
|
|
|
Thanks. So now Wade's on the stand under questioning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 16:59
|
|
|
Say what you will about Merchant, but there are a lot of messy fact disputes here and who knows what happens with respect to breaking down the privilege arguments that the attorney witness brought up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Say what you will about Merchant, but there are a lot of messy fact disputes here and who knows what happens with respect to breaking down the privilege arguments that the attorney witness brought up. I'd just point out that a massive amount of the messy facts are directly related to Trump-aligned parties trying to muddy this as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Say what you will about Merchant, but there are a lot of messy fact disputes here and who knows what happens with respect to breaking down the privilege arguments that the attorney witness brought up. So far merchant seems to be one of the very few competent attorneys in the entire trumposphere. Anyway looks like they have some former employee willing to testify a relationship between Willis and Wade began earlier. That person may have limited credibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:So far merchant seems to be one of the very few competent attorneys in the entire trumposphere. I'm sure there will be questions about Robin Bryant-Yeartie's motivations. She was supposedly a friend of Fani Willis. (Can't imagine that's the case anymore.) Unless she has photos (imagine!), it's going to be more about whether people want to believe her or not. Merchant was otherwise trying to question Terrence Bradley, a friend and former partner of Wade's. The judge in question seemed pretty skeptical of Bradley's privilege claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
Good thread here: https://x.com/harrylitman/status/1758155133203222992?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Merchant seems to be doing a whole lot of fishing that should end up with her catching something, but I think she's just trying to perry mason something by accident. I don't think she's actually leading him into a trap, hoping more to stumble onto one that she doesn't know. And more evidence of that she doesn't even know what of her evidence is certified, lordy, not like it's your job or anything. Also her pretending to not understand how partnerships work and how he can get paid for work that one of his other partners does but not doing it himself or even knowing exactly what it was. I'd also her constantly wandering off during his answers reflects poorly on her. She seems very ill-prepared honestly. She doesn't even have her evidence marked haha. Aw, they turned off the mic, she's trying to say she has some evidence on her phone and opposing counsel is like, well you need to send it to us, text it I guess you have my number. Typical trump attorney quality here. Scipiotik fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Feb 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 18:10
|
|
