|
Randalor posted:Wasn't he not her first choice? And then there's the whole "This case is actually paying below average" thing, even if it's a high-profile case, I can't see... well, okay, let's be honest, any lawyers involved with this are going to be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their lives because they dared to challenge the glorious god-emperor Trump, who's loyal and devoted followers are not at all batshit crazy loons who would gladly get revenge on someone for toppelling their I believe others turned it down before she chose Wade.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:personal chemistry pushed it over the edge. The "personal chemistry" should've instantly negated it. You don't hire a person with whom you have a personal romantic relationship.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 14:50
|
|
|
zoux posted:Then why the gently caress did she hire him? It just shows such insanely poor judgement that I'm concerned at her competence in prosecuting the case going forward. IIRC, according to testimony, it was because he was the first person on her list of potential candidates who didn't go "a case against trump in Georgia? gently caress no, some chud'll murder my entire family" which seems reasonable all around to me. e: beaten
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 14:51
|
|
|
Can’t wait for demands from the defense to come out
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
Would she be able to keep Wade on as a behind the scenes consultant? He's supposed to specialize in RICO, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:14
|
|
|
BDawg posted:Would she be able to keep Wade on as a behind the scenes consultant? He's supposed to specialize in RICO, IIRC. Steal a page from Trump and do not officially give him a position but keep briefing him on confidential stuff and asking him to do things for you and directing government funds his way anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Steal a page from Trump and do not officially give him a position but keep briefing him on confidential stuff and asking him to do things for you and directing government funds his way anyway Wade is just a coffee guy
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:21
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:I mean, search this thread for "jeopardy" and you'll find many posts theorizing that Cannon will wait to dismiss until a jury is seated to protect him from being tried again. It seems wild that judge could just wait until the jury was seated and then chant magic words, "I dismiss this case" and poof it goes away forever without appeal and can never be tried again so I doubt that's the whole story. My understanding is that to dismiss the case at that point there must be no facts left in question that could affect the outcome (I.e. the jury is unnecessary) so presumably the prosecution can appeal the judge's assertion of fact as erroneous? Cannon seems to be saying that she doesn't understand what 'authorized' means in this context so the jury is going to have to hear both sides arguments and determine if Trump was or was not authorized to have those documents at Mar-a-lago. Which I just don't understand at all. Authorized to have access or hold and store classified documents is massively documented. There's so much definition of what it means to be authorized to have and store these documents that she seems to be fishing for a constitutional argument that supersedes the laws and E.O.s that define it. This also seems to be settled in that the current executive does the authorizing and the previous executive's access is really only at the current executives discretion and it seems pretty clear that a subpoena from the current executive to the previous executive to return the documents is clearly a revocation of that authorization. "I could see them yesterday so I can see them today" is nonsense. Much less the storage problems and the active failure to protect the information thrown on top the whole obstruction part of the indictment which even if you were authorized to see the information are still on their own violations of law. Trump was probably constitutionally authorized to move those documents to Mar-a-lago but I don't see how that authorization could possible last beyond January 20th 2020 at 12:00 pm. Murgos fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
Murgos posted:It seems wild that judge could just wait until the jury was seated and then chant magic words, "I dismiss this case" and poof it goes away forever without appeal and can never be tried again so I doubt that's the whole story. My understanding is that to dismiss the case at that point there must be no facts left in question that could affect the outcome (I.e. the jury is unnecessary) so presumably the prosecution can appeal the judge's assertion of fact as erroneous? This feels like one of those "One weird trick!" things where, no, there HAS to be a step in the process where her dismissing it at that point can be challenged if she refused to dismiss it previously. Unless Trumps lawyers pull some sort of "Day 1 of the trial, announce there's 'new evidence' to submit, Judge Cannon calls for recess to 'review' the evidence, goes to the bathroom for 5 minutes, comes back in and announces that the new evidence changed everything, case dismissed, no you can't see it sorryforwastingthejury'stimebyeeeeeeee" shenanigans, but at that point I would think that would be suspicious enough on the face of the matter to... I unno... charge Judge Cannon with collusion? Is that a thing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:30
|
|
|
Randalor posted:This feels like one of those "One weird trick!" things where, no, there HAS to be a step in the process where her dismissing it at that point can be challenged if she refused to dismiss it previously. I think the solution to that would be to not have a judge so obviously on the side of the defendant, but it's a bit late for that Can a dismissal at that point be appealed and removed to the higher court to restart the proceedings?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:36
|
|
|
If Trump has a heart attack or something and dies during a civil appeal, is he back to legally "not guilty" like in a criminal case? Would the government still start selling off assets for Caroll and NYS to collect?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
BDawg posted:Would she be able to keep Wade on as a behind the scenes consultant? He's supposed to specialize in RICO, IIRC. Wasn't bringing in Wade as a "behind the scenes specialist" what started this problem in the first place? Murgos posted:It seems wild that judge could just wait until the jury was seated and then chant magic words, "I dismiss this case" and poof it goes away forever without appeal and can never be tried again so I doubt that's the whole story. A lot of speculation can be drawn from Cannon's actions. And you can go down any number of rabbit holes. I think the fairest assessment for her is that she has phrased her order in such a way that she has the option of ruling on this case in front of a jury without binding her hands. On that basis, I think (and I admit, I have personal insight to her) she is copying Trump's position and just delaying everything until after the Election. At that point, she will know which way to proceed. Trump wins the election? She can crumple the case, even if it's in the most obvious, heavy handed manner. Sure her career as a judge should be cooked at that point, but she can get President Trump to personally protect her. Maybe even nominate her as a Supreme Court judge. But Trump loses the election? She can turn on him, and run his case, then jail him on conviction. She can sort of salvage her reputation afterwards by jailing loser Trump. That would be my guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:If Trump has a heart attack or something and dies during a civil appeal, is he back to legally "not guilty" like in a criminal case? Would the government still start selling off assets for Caroll and NYS to collect? No, the case is simply continued by his estate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:46
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:I mean, search this thread for "jeopardy" and you'll find many posts theorizing that Cannon will wait to dismiss until a jury is seated to protect him from being tried again. My question, "Is there any reason to think that guy actually has any idea what he's talking about?", applies just as well to that too. "Random people posting on the internet" are not a reliable source, especially when it comes to legal discourse. To be clear, I'm pretty sure there is nothing inherently suspicious about "I'm not dismissing the case for unconstitutional vagueness now, but I'm leaving the possibility open to do so later". That's not a judge hinting that they're prepping for One Weird Trick, it's a judge hinting that the prosecution should think very hard about how to make things less vague. That's why we're only seeing random semi-anonymous nobodies with 400 followers poo poo their pants about it, not reputable lawyers. In the first place, there's absolutely no reason for Judge Cannon to leave hints for this One Weird Trick in the first place. If she's found a super special method to unilaterally end the case while immunizing that decision from appeal, then there's absolutely no need for her to leave a paper trail for that months in advance. That tweet reminds me quite a bit of conspiracy theory thinking, where someone has already come to a conclusion about how things are going to turn out, and then digs through every word of every single thing happening looking for "hints" they can use to convince other people that their predetermined conclusion will happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
jesus they weren't banging on the desk during recess, they had a situationship a year ago for a short bit. this will "avoid the appearance of impropriety" in the same way energon getting rid of his racist and biased trump hating clerk would have. they'll just find something else. gently caress trump wouldn't stop bitching about the new york ag who's drinking starbucks with her shoes off!!!!! no more starbucks for her, i'm sure that will stop trump from pointing to a random thing and...oh...her racist hair is scaring trump. can we get her to cut it? also she was standing agressively can we get her a wheelchair? trump is scared by her facial expressions now can we get a hood?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:04
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Wasn't he not her first choice? And then there's the whole "This case is actually paying below average" thing, even if it's a high-profile case, I can't see... well, okay, let's be honest, any lawyers involved with this are going to be looking over their shoulder for the rest of their lives because they dared to challenge the glorious god-emperor Trump, who's loyal and devoted followers are not at all batshit crazy loons who would gladly get revenge on someone for toppelling their People are making a lot of noise about how much (or little) he's getting paid here. But, like, the there's an incredible amount of prestige he'd have obtained by being involved in the (successful) prosecution of a former president in the legal profession. That translates into dramatically improved future job prospects. That's a compensation in itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I think Wade was probably fine from a skill set point of view and the personal chemistry pushed it over the edge. (Maybe I'm too beaten down by US workplace culture, but that doesn't seem that different from any other industry.) He's an experienced litigator and former municipal court judge. I guess I should have worded that better. I'm sure he's a fine prosecutor, and competent, but when you're prosecuting arguably the biggest case in US history, you don't pick a B student to be on your legal team. edit: she picked him because she's loving him
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:28
|
|
|
There is no profession in which it is ethical to be romantically involved with a subordinate, much less hire a romantic partner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:29
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:People are making a lot of noise about how much (or little) he's getting paid here. But, like, the there's an incredible amount of prestige he'd have obtained by being involved in the (successful) prosecution of a former president in the legal profession. That translates into dramatically improved future job prospects. That's a compensation in itself. It's not a compensation that directly benefits Willis though? Like yeah, all the lawyers on the prosecution team are going to start demanding top $$$ if they can say they put Trump into a jail cell, it's not unique to Wade. Seems ancillary to the whole discussion to wander off into Wade's motives to taking the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:30
|
|
|
zoux posted:There is no profession in which it is ethical to be romantically involved with a subordinate, much less hire a romantic partner. Sex work, specifically dom/sub arrangements, checkmate, prudish lib 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:31
|
|
|
Augh my entire argument, destroyed
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
zoux posted:Augh my entire argument, destroyed I dunno, paying your spouse for sex work doesn't seem great from an ethics pov
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
Murgos posted:It seems wild that judge could just wait until the jury was seated and then chant magic words, "I dismiss this case" and poof it goes away forever without appeal and can never be tried again so I doubt that's the whole story. My understanding is that to dismiss the case at that point there must be no facts left in question that could affect the outcome (I.e. the jury is unnecessary) so presumably the prosecution can appeal the judge's assertion of fact as erroneous? She's not saying that. She's saying it's a jury question. I.e. a question of fact, not law, and questions of fact are for the jury. "Did Trump declassify this document" sure seems like a fact that it would be perfectly reasonable for a jury to decide in this case. What she meant when she's saying that she'll reserve further rulings until jury instructions is that she is going to tell the jury the law to which they apply the facts. Judges decide what law applies to the case. The judge reads the jury the law at the end of the case and gives them a packet of jury instructions. She is going read to the jury an instruction that says "In order to declassify this document, Trump needs to have done xyz." Trump will propose his definition of what xyz is, and Smith will propose his definition. The judge will then decide which of those proposed things she will read to the jury. This happens all the time. Other instructions might be "you need to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find Trump guilty" or "In order to find Trump guilty, you need to find that (1) he retained classified documents and (2) he retained them after the government asked for them back, and (3) he did not knowingly."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
zoux posted:There is no profession in which it is ethical to be romantically involved with a subordinate, much less hire a romantic partner. It is absurdly unprofessional and demonstrates unacceptably poor judgment and I'm shocked that anybody tries to argue otherwise, even if it's only about the degree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
Caros posted:I dunno, paying your spouse for sex work doesn't seem great from an ethics pov BDSM: Only within the bounds of marriage, just as the Lord intended.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:23
|
|
|
zoux posted:There is no profession in which it is ethical to be romantically involved with a subordinate, much less hire a romantic partner. Prosecutors, man. Qualified ethical immunity. They don't have to be ethical; they only have to be unethical in ways that don't prejudice the defendant. Only question I have is how much hiring a new lead will delay the prosecution of the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Wasn't bringing in Wade as a "behind the scenes specialist" what started this problem in the first place? If anything, her actions are opposite of what you're saying. If Trump wins, Cannon doesn't have to do anything. Trump will control the Justice Dept., he'll be able to instruct them to drop the case, Smith will either resign or be terminated at best and potentially charged himself for daring to bring a case against the GodKing at worst. If Trump loses, he's still in charge of the entire party and will be until he's in the ground. Keep kicking the can down the road, let someone else be the actual bearer of bad news. And if Trump does pass, well you can't lock up a dead man, case dismissed. The only chance this case has is with Trump losing in November and Cannon removed from it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
*throws dart* Biden nominates Cannon to the Supreme Court, leaving her case to be taken by a non-chudge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:I dunno, paying your spouse for sex work doesn't seem great from an ethics pov Don't kinkshame
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Seems like McAfee did Willis a huge favor by requiring a change she couldn’t make herself without at least implicitly admitting poor judgment.Hieronymous Alloy posted:Prosecutors, man. Qualified ethical immunity. They don't have to be ethical; they only have to be unethical in ways that don't prejudice the defendant. Hopefully none at all. Aren’t that position’s underlings doing all the work anyway? yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:09
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Seems like McAfee did Willis a huge favor by requiring a change she couldn’t make herself without at least implicitly admitting poor judgment. I dont think he did her any favors. quote:“This finding is by no means an indication that the court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing,” he wrote, noting that “Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices—even repeatedly.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
SlurredSpeech609 posted:I dont think he did her any favors. That stuff was pretty obvious from the testimony tbh. And there was a secret relationship and he is getting paid by Willis’s office. So yeah, him no longer being on the case removes a whole lot of headache that could otherwise continue. Willis no longer has the option to keep digging down. Basically he didn’t make her look good, nor should he, but what he’s actually ordering probably helps her in the long run. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Mar 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
Randalor posted:This feels like one of those "One weird trick!" things where, no, there HAS to be a step in the process where her dismissing it at that point can be challenged if she refused to dismiss it previously. Unless Trumps lawyers pull some sort of "Day 1 of the trial, announce there's 'new evidence' to submit, Judge Cannon calls for recess to 'review' the evidence, goes to the bathroom for 5 minutes, comes back in and announces that the new evidence changed everything, case dismissed, no you can't see it sorryforwastingthejury'stimebyeeeeeeee" shenanigans, but at that point I would think that would be suspicious enough on the face of the matter to... I unno... charge Judge Cannon with collusion? Is that a thing? Even if there's a process to appeal this it would just mean more delay which is exactly what he wants. If he wins the presidency then it all becomes moot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:Don't kinkshame Being judgemental about ethics is my kink, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
I doubt I agree with a lot of McAfee's politics, but he seems like a pretty good judge in that he is judging impartially and based on the law as it is written, rather than trying to be a tyrant from the bench.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I doubt I agree with a lot of McAfee's politics, but he seems like a pretty good judge in that he is judging impartially and based on the law as it is written, rather than trying to be a tyrant from the bench. This decision very much felt like a thread the baby moment. Given all the comments about how Wade and Willis were unprofessional and unconvincing, he seems to recognize that this shouldn't be disqualifying and that there is value in not blowing up this case. Getting Wade out of there to eliminate the appearance is definitely the right move. Id been saying he should resign after the decision regardless, so making it a requirement is a good decision Imho.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:07
|
|
|
Loving the responses from the freep/adjacent people: "That Dem judge is throwing the case for Trump!!" "Actually he's a Republican." "Well I doubt it matters much these days!!!" (Whatever that's supposed to mean now)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:"Well I doubt it matters much these days!!!" (Whatever that means) Anyone who is not full-throatedly praising Trump at this exact moment is anti-Trump. Even if they just stopped or intend to start soon
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Loving the responses from the freep/adjacent people: "BOTH SIDES!!!" 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:07 |
|
|
Judge RINO
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2024 19:20
|
|
