|
What the gently caress is she doing
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
mdemone posted:What the gently caress is she doing trying to save his rear end by making stuff easier for him to various degrees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 01:41
|
|
|
"So why would Cannon go through the effort to order both sides to submit proposed jury instructions and verdict forms if she's just going to dismiss the indictment under the Presidential Records Act?" Does Katie Phang go on the answer this, or...?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:trying to save his rear end by making stuff easier for him to various degrees. In that case she's half-assing it. Seat the jury and dismiss the charges, problem solved. She's trying to look decorous while obviously spiking the case, and it's going to end poorly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 01:44
|
|
|
mdemone posted:In that case she's half-assing it. Seat the jury and dismiss the charges, problem solved. yeah. i think she gets removed if she tries it. I think trumps probably hosed in the other cases though thankfully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
mdemone posted:People always just kind of naturally forget about the single most crucial factor in every election since FDR, because they want the horse race. If you had mandatory voting where every American legally able to vote must vote? Aaron Rodgers would win with 40% of the vote. Edit: To be less snarky about it - turnout in 2020 was 66%, the highest since 1900. And the result was a Biden squeaker, winning the popular vote by margins equivalent to Obama vs. Romney but only winning the electoral college because of states he took by 0.5% or less. The group for whom turnout most increased was non-college educated white voters, which trended towards Trump (though less than in 2016). skeleton warrior fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Mar 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 02:14
|
|
|
This ruling is wild. Basically the options are: 1. We will let the jury decide whether or not the state proved that the records were personal or presidential. 2. If the president takes it, it is personal under the PRA. Which is just bonkers because the actual answer is : 3. The PRA clearly lays out what documents are personal (documents of a purely personal nature) and us warplans and nuclear secrets are not those so trump cannot raise this defense. I don't even understand how #2 could be a jury instruction, because if they are classified as personal then he is allowed to have them. If you believe that then the case should be dismissed as requested (and then she should be filet'd by the 11th) Caros fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Mar 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 03:38
|
|
|
Nixon wishes he had judges this willing to simp for him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 03:54
|
|
|
Are Jury instructions appealable? It seems unreasonable that a jury can decide the ‘fact’ of what the law is. A jury can decide if all the elements are met but not which elements are to be considered.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 04:00
|
|
|
A paradox: Donald Trump has complained that the size of the New York penalty against him is unconstitutional because it's so ridiculously large, presumably implicating the 8th and 14th amendments. But in order to make that argument on appeal, he has to cough up the money in the form of an appellate bond. And if he does manage to cough up the money, that would be evidence that it's not excessively large at all since he was able to find it easily within a month. But couldn't he make the constitutional argument by suing New York in federal court seeking an injunction against enforcement until the constitutional argument is settled? Surely his brilliant team of lawyers has come up with this idea by now. And if not, Donald, I'd be willing to bring the case myself, but I must insist on being paid in advance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 04:48
|
|
|
Caros posted:This ruling is wild. Basically the options are: It's wilder than that. Option 1 is the jury actually gets to see all the classified documents in order to make that decision. Which is of course an impossible ask. https://www.thedailybeast.com/mar-a-lago-judge-rules-jury-sees-top-secret-files-or-trump-wins\ quote:Cannon’s evening order alerted federal prosecutors and Trump’s legal team that they “must engage with the following competing scenarios” when considering whether Trump can be charged with “unauthorized possession”: Either “a jury is permitted to examine” every record a former president swipes and claims as “personal” to determine whether it is, or jurors must be told that “a president has sole authority… to categorize records as personal or presidential during his/her presidency.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 04:56
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:A paradox: Donald Trump has complained that the size of the New York penalty against him is unconstitutional because it's so ridiculously large, presumably implicating the 8th and 14th amendments. But in order to make that argument on appeal, he has to cough up the money in the form of an appellate bond. And if he does manage to cough up the money, that would be evidence that it's not excessively large at all since he was able to find it easily within a month. It’s not stopping him from appealing. The bond is so they don’t take all his poo poo while it’s getting appealed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 04:58
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:It's wilder than that. Option 1 is the jury actually gets to see all the classified documents in order to make that decision. Which is of course an impossible ask. Prosecution is going to have to appeal this to the 11th if they can't persuade her to reverse. A delay is better than a dismissal based on whatever Cannon decides is the law on any given day, especially a law spelled out as clearly as the PRA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 05:16
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:A paradox: Donald Trump has complained that the size of the New York penalty against him is unconstitutional because it's so ridiculously large, presumably implicating the 8th and 14th amendments. But in order to make that argument on appeal, he has to cough up the money in the form of an appellate bond. And if he does manage to cough up the money, that would be evidence that it's not excessively large at all since he was able to find it easily within a month. It isn't a paradox because the bond isn't a prerequisite for an appeal, only a prerequisite for the stay of enforcement. He can appeal and win (ha) a few years down the line at which point the state has to return the money. It just sucks for him since most of what he owns is real property, and getting the value out of that is going to be a pain in the rear end since it involves liquidating assets that can't really be bought back and probably are going to sell for less than they are worth. If he wasn't such a gently caress stick I'd actually feel a bit bad for him, since this particular quirk of the legal system is ruinous to him in particular. But tehy I just think, why can't the dude just get a home equity loan on Mar a Lago and I laugh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 05:23
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Oh, me, too. My point is that the right-wing evangelicals have latched onto Trump as chosen of God, even though he very obviously hasn't paid any attention to the Bible. He's not a Christian by their standards, but that's okay because... They aren't Christians by their standards, either. Most don't even know or care what those standards are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 06:21
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:It's wilder than that. Option 1 is the jury actually gets to see all the classified documents in order to make that decision. Which is of course an impossible ask. Wouldn't they just redact everything leaving you with some black striped paper and a big Secret Stamp on it that's all you can see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 06:44
|
|
|
small butter posted:Even if Trump manages to delay the cases past the election, you're severely underestimating just how bad it is for a candidate to be under 4 felony indictments. This means that he also has no chance to claim "exoneration," while the Democrats can claim "he's a loving criminal with 4 cases against him." I think the more telling part is the number of GOP House members quitting early or announcing they're not going to run. Comstar posted:Wouldn't they just redact everything leaving you with some black striped paper and a big Secret Stamp on it that's all you can see. Well, yes, but isn't that rather obvious as to what's up under the PRA? Classified intel can't, after all, be purely personal documents, and if Trump magically declassified them then there's no reason to redact or keep them out of the public record. 
Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Mar 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 06:57
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:A paradox: Donald Trump has complained that the size of the New York penalty against him is unconstitutional because it's so ridiculously large, presumably implicating the 8th and 14th amendments. But in order to make that argument on appeal, he has to cough up the money in the form of an appellate bond. And if he does manage to cough up the money, that would be evidence that it's not excessively large at all since he was able to find it easily within a month. He doesn't need to bond for appeal, he needs to bond to stay collection pending appeal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 11:34
|
|
|
The Bible posted:They aren't Christians by their standards, either. Most don't even know or care what those standards are. Most of them think "Christian" and "White" are synonyms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 12:16
|
|
|
Also, in the NY case, it’s not punitive damages, it’s the actual damages from illicit profits. So I can’t imagine any kind of excessive punishments arguments apply. If you spent all the profits already, that’s not the court’s problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 13:27
|
|
|
Caros posted:It isn't a paradox because the bond isn't a prerequisite for an appeal, only a prerequisite for the stay of enforcement. e: Ah, get it kicked down the road in the hopes a successful appeal will render it void, at which point you get that escrow bond money back (less the lender's fees)? Good luck with that! Hirayuki fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Mar 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
Fox has turned against him now. https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1770109385727205537
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
Habba is in the proverbial https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-new-jersey-golf-club-settlement-hangs-lawyer-alina-habba-out-to-dry Trump Golf Club Settlement Hangs Alina Habba Out to Dry quote:The four-page settlement, which Bianco signed on March 4, reads like a total win for the angered ex-employee. She gets to keep the measly $15,000 hush money payment she received in 2021 for keeping quiet about the way a supervisor repeatedly intimidated her and pressured her to sleep with him. Her attorney gets $82,500 for briefly litigating the case. Both sides can rip up the one-sided NDA. And the club doesn’t admit it “committed fraud to induce” her into a shady deal. Looking forward to the future fireworks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
Caros posted:It isn't a paradox because the bond isn't a prerequisite for an appeal, only a prerequisite for the stay of enforcement. He can appeal and win (ha) a few years down the line at which point the state has to return the money. But even so, if he can come up with the bond it sort of takes the wind out of the argument that the fine is excessive, since he could clearly come up with the amount of the fine. So if he had a better lawyer I might suspect that all this complaining might be strategic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:But even so, if he can come up with the bond it sort of takes the wind out of the argument that the fine is excessive, since he could clearly come up with the amount of the fine. So if he had a better lawyer I might suspect that all this complaining might be strategic. Eh, to play Trump's advocate a bit, couldn't a fine be excessive even if you're able to pay it? Those are two separate questions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Wouldn't they just redact everything leaving you with some black striped paper and a big Secret Stamp on it that's all you can see. That's the issue. My understanding is the judge is saying they have to be able to peruse the documents without redactions so they can decide for themselves if they count as personal. Obviously the government would never allow random jurors to do that so option 2 is the only actual option and Trump wins easy peasy. It's the most blatant partisan bullshit and the judge isn't even trying to hide it. I would assume the appeals court would step in again and say no that's bullshit but I don't know how all this works so 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 17:56
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:That's the issue. My understanding is the judge is saying they have to be able to peruse the documents without redactions so they can decide for themselves if they count as personal. Obviously the government would never allow random jurors to do that so option 2 is the only actual option and Trump wins easy peasy. It's the most blatant partisan bullshit and the judge isn't even trying to hide it. I would assume the appeals court would step in again and say no that's bullshit but I don't know how all this works so I think I know the answer, but ... What if we picked a jury of people that have clearance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 18:15
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I think I know the answer, but ... That would be one of the most prejudiced jury ever because they all know how hosed they are if they did 1/1000th of what Trump did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Yeah, all of them would be struck because they all have prexisting very strong opinions on the handling of classified material Obviously we need to pick 12 random civilians, show them the documents, and then sequester them for the rest of their lives
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
But she was convinced that she was special and Trump would protect her. She was special! SPECIAL!! These people are so goddamn stupid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Eh, to play Trump's advocate a bit, couldn't a fine be excessive even if you're able to pay it? Those are two separate questions. Well in this case the fine is his own ill-begotten gains, plus the interest accrued on them. Necessarily any argument that the value is unfair means it was wrong of him to defraud the state of New York of that fiscal amount. He'd have to basically argue that what he himself did was unreasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
This is dumb because there are plenty of fines courts are content to deal out that ruin the lives of ordinary people. This is just a rich person complaining that they have to face actual consequences.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 18:55
|
|
|
And as has been mentioned this fine is directly related to the profit gained from the crimes. This isn’t a punitive thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Supreme Court denies former Trump aide Peter Navarro's final bid to stay out of prison It's good that Navarro's going to jail, but why didn't Bannon? Is it just because Bannon had a more sympathetic judge?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Slight correction on "going" to jail: he's in it https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1770123156948201621
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
Ither posted:It's good that Navarro's going to jail, but why didn't Bannon? He's still appealing. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/steve-bannon-seeks-overturn-conviction-defying-jan-6-committee-rcna124364 I don't know why Navarro's was settled so much faster.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:It's wilder than that. Option 1 is the jury actually gets to see all the classified documents in order to make that decision. Which is of course an impossible ask. I think option 2 is worse at its just “No crime, Trump gets the docs back. Shame on DOJ for wasting his time.”. It’s a favorable ruling on Trumps motion to dismiss hidden as the jury getting to decide what the law means. It seems to be as much CalvinBall as her attempting to allow a civil action to halt a criminal search warrant. It’s going to be interesting to read DOJs reply to this where they try and untwist it into something less nonsensical. I’m not sure DOJ can request appellate relief on something Cannon hasn’t even ruled on though? She’s being careful not to actually order or find anything that isn’t just ‘maybe later’. Edit: given that this appears to be a very stupid persons idea of something really clever I’m going to guess that there’s probably actually a very clear way to frame what she’s done here once you strip out the misdirection. Cannon, if she stays true to form, is going to take the reply’s and not rule on them. They will just disappear into the stack of pending motions she’s piled up giving nothing to appeal. Presumably she then rules on all of them in a big head scratching mess right before trial leaving DOJ scrambling to understand what the hell she just did. Murgos fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Mar 19, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 20:45
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Most of them think "Christian" and "White" are synonyms. Someone hasn't met John Watters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 20:59
|
|
|
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-939/303418/20240319150454815_23-939%20-%20Brief%20for%20Petitioner.pdf Trump SCOTUS brief on why he should have ABSOLUTE PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY. curious to see how insane it is when law nerds dig into it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Slight correction on "going" to jail: he's in it https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1770123156948201621 That fact that enough rich people go to jail that "prison consultant" is a job gives me some hope for humanity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2024 21:11
|
|