|
We should not rely on the judiciary to save ourselves, but it was nice to have the option while it lasted
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:lol 2 trials dead within 24 hours You really don't understand much about the legal system, do you? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:We should not rely on the judiciary to save ourselves, but it was nice to have the option while it lasted I get the sentiment that it's up to us to save ourselves but it would have been nice to at least have them helping. The closest thing I've got to optimism about it is people seeing the judiciary sandbag multiple cases of absolutely straightforward, blatant poo poo like hiding nuclear secrets in a bathroom and deciding "poo poo's hosed, yo. I gotta do something." People absolutely should be losing faith in this system. The actions it has taken warrant that outcome by now.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 16:19
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:We should not rely on the judiciary to save ourselves, but it was nice to have the option while it lasted Ultimately Trump should have been dealt with long ago. Bolsonaro is currently banned from running for office right now due to his anti-democratic comments on the election he lost. I know American first amendment protections would make that impossible, but I'm saying what should have happened is he should be banned, not that he could. That went out the window when the bootlickers in the senate did their damage.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 16:20
|
|
|
Caros posted:The hits keep coming and they won't stop coming, huh? The silver lining to all of these postponements is that if Biden does win, Trump could be in for a few bad months in a row. Hopefully, without a potential Trump presidency threatening prosecutors and promising career upgrades for judges, he'll find himself suddenly short of friends going out of their way to do him favors. Of course, it's a coin flip at this point, so only half a chance of even the possibility of him ever seeing consequences. But it's better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 16:21
|
|
|
The only way Trump faces consequences is if Biden is elected, and even then the consequences may be limited to simply losing the election twice. If Biden is not elected, Trump and the GOP will revamp the executive branch with hard right extremists who will do what he couldn't do in his first term and they'll likely usher in an authoritarian Christian nationalist nightmare.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
If Trump wins you might actually end up with a civil war instigated by the executive branch, so that's a nice comforting thought if you regularly ingest lead.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 16:38
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:You really don't understand much about the legal system, do you? What did they fail to understand?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
That if you believe hard enough, good things will come from the American justice system, soon, any day now, but not in time for the election. But TECHNICALLY...
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 16:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What did they fail to understand? It's easy to say something like "you just don't understand X" without any additional context because you can be hostile without actually making any statements that can be corrected.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:17
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:It's easy to say something like "you just don't understand X" without any additional context because you can be hostile without actually making any statements that can be corrected. How appeals work, for starters. Or that even Trump is entitled to a fair trial. I mean seriously, do normal D&D rules not apply in this thread?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:How appeals work, for starters. Or that even Trump is entitled to a fair trial. None of that really apply to the comment you were making. They said that two trials are dead, which they are for the purposes of what actually matters. One of those trials is being choked out by a handpicked trump appointee who is dragging the case till after the election. That has nothing to do with a fair trial or with appeals. The other is getting shut down by an appeal, but the general complaint (the idea that it is dead) is that any case that drags past November doesn't really matter. Trump either wins election and uses the power of the office to make the cases go away, or Trump loses in which case he'd (hopefully) be politically irrelevant until he dies. People are upset because these cases have a huge bearing on the future of the Republic and they are getting scuttled on the grounds of: 1. A judge who is rigging the case in Trump's favor. 2. A DA hosed her employee. 3. The Supreme court deciding if Trump is God King and immune to Prosecution even after he leaves office. Which is frustrating. Caros fucked around with this message at 17:31 on May 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Plus 3) SCOTUS appearing to seriously consider the possibility that the president is actually a god-emperor untouchable by all legal constraints
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1788203013842059298 The people of Georgia have been humiliated by Fani Willis.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
Caros posted:None of that really apply to the comment you were making. They said that two trials are dead, which they are for the purposes of what actually matters. I agree that it is a catastrophically poor look for the US judiciary that the only criminal case going to trial is the least worst one. I do think, however, that it will be necessary and useful to continue the other trials even if they aren't resolved until after he loses.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:43
|
|
|
I feel like it's less that people don't understand and more that they're frustrated that these cases have a hard deadline and the courts aren't treating them any differently because of that. The delay tactics are so nakedly obvious and it's absurd that the justice system has such a gaping weakness.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
The courts ARE treating them differently because they have a hard deadline - specifically, to ensure they go over that hard deadline.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Pigbuster posted:I feel like it's less that people don't understand and more that they're frustrated that these cases have a hard deadline and the courts aren't treating them any differently because of that. The delay tactics are so nakedly obvious and it's absurd that the justice system has such a gaping weakness. The fundamental fallacy here is the the trials have not ever had a hard deadline. That is purely an invention. The courts were never going to keep Trump from the White House. It has always been up to the voters in November.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Caros posted:None of that really apply to the comment you were making. They said that two trials are dead, which they are for the purposes of what actually matters. The thing is that these cases don't have a huge bearing on the future of the republic. They're not really going to have a significant impact on the presidential election. Nobody's really out there saying "I'm fine with Trump winning and pardoning himself if he's only been indicted, but not if he's been convicted". And while info that comes out during the trial could theoretically have an impact on the election, let's be real, we all know that's not going to actually happen. If someone has managed to come this far without feeling any ethical concerns about Trump, the trial's not really going to change their minds. And even if the court disagreed with that, it would be irresponsible of the court to put political considerations above their obligation to ensure that the case before them is handled fairly and thoroughly. Their responsibility is to adjudicate the case just like any other, not to produce an October Surprise for Trump. And it's exactly because the political stakes are so high that they have to be that much slower and more careful and more thorough.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Nobody's really out there saying "I'm fine with Trump winning and pardoning himself if he's only been indicted, but not if he's been convicted". People don't have to say things for it to be true. Trump being convicted would almost certainly affect his poll numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The thing is that these cases don't have a huge bearing on the future of the republic. They're not really going to have a significant impact on the presidential election. Nobody's really out there saying "I'm fine with Trump winning and pardoning himself if he's only been indicted, but not if he's been convicted". And while info that comes out during the trial could theoretically have an impact on the election, let's be real, we all know that's not going to actually happen. If someone has managed to come this far without feeling any ethical concerns about Trump, the trial's not really going to change their minds. I hard disagree. Trump's base? Absolutely. But we are talking elections that are won by tens of thousands of votes. There is a reasonable case that 2016 was swung by James Comey talking about reopening an investigation into Clinton. I refuse to believe that Trump facing a felony conviction is something that wouldn't move the needle on the election. As to your latter point, two out of the three cases currently on hold are on hold for fundamentally illegitimate reasons. The Georgia hold is reasonable (unfortunate, but a reasonable court could believe that decision needs review) but the Supreme Court does not need a month's long delay on whether or not trump is God King, and Cannon's behavior in Florida would have subjected her to removal in any sane world where her impeachment isn't a solely political process. You can't appeal to 'oh well the courts need to kick the tires now more than ever' when fully half the courts involved in his criminal cases are sandbagging for his political benefit.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:And even if the court disagreed with that, it would be irresponsible of the court to put political considerations above their obligation to ensure that the case before them is handled fairly and thoroughly. Their responsibility is to adjudicate the case just like any other, not to produce an October Surprise for Trump. And it's exactly because the political stakes are so high that they have to be that much slower and more careful and more thorough. The thing is that normally courts will use injunction to postpone deadlines, but there's no way anyone's delaying the election. Is there a precedent for how to handle deadlines that can't be delayed? I can't imagine this is the first time its happened. Pigbuster fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:Trump has such a stranglehold on the Republican party that I doubt another loss would really change anything about that. Nikki Haley continues to get 20-30% in primaries even after she dropped out, so there's definitely a sizable minority of the Republican Party that do not like Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:13
|
|
|
Caros posted:I hard disagree. Trump's base? Absolutely. But we are talking elections that are won by tens of thousands of votes. There is a reasonable case that 2016 was swung by James Comey talking about reopening an investigation into Clinton. I refuse to believe that Trump facing a felony conviction is something that wouldn't move the needle on the election. If Trump facing felony accusations, facing felony investigations, and facing felony indictments didn't move the needle, why expect a conviction to make any more of a difference? Besides, you're making a mistake by assuming that the needle only moves one way. After all, Trump claims that he's just facing trumped-up allegations and politically-motivated persecutions to torpedo his campaign. Speeding up the trial timeline and rushing the resolution of issues, with the express intent of squeezing in convictions before November, would certainly lend some weight to that perception. I think you're making the mistake of using "fundamentally illegitimate" as a synonym for "I, personally, feel that it is unwarranted". The Supreme Court taking a bit of time to consider a novel legal question of great importance isn't particularly unusual, and while Cannon's stewardship of the trial has been somewhat embarrassing, it's hardly beyond the pale. Just because the courts are taking longer than you think they should to deal with issues you think are trivial or quickly resolvable, that doesn't mean they're in the tank for Trump.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
Pigbuster posted:The thing is that normally courts will use injunction to postpone deadlines, but there's no way anyone's delaying the election. Is there a precedent for how to handle deadlines that can't be delayed? I can't imagine this is the first time its happened. Traditionally the court expidites when there is time pressure. One of the major criticisms of the Supreme court's handling of the DC case isnt just that they took up the appeal (there is a fig leaf that they felt the need to put their stamp on it) but that they did so slowly. The court absolutely speeds up the timeline on matters of public significance particularly when there is time pressure. This isn't to say that they do so in an manner where they are rushed, but that they can just move up what are normally very long deadlines. Bush v gore was decided in weeks when a typical case takes months specifically because of the time pressure. Here they have been positively languid, delaying verbal arguments until April, then the decision until June, perhaps even July. Despite it being a case where there is a clear public interest in knowing whether or not the presumptive republican nominee conspired to overturn the election quote:If Trump facing felony accusations, facing felony investigations, and facing felony indictments didn't move the needle, why expect a conviction to make any more of a difference? Besides, you're making a mistake by assuming that the needle only moves one way. After all, Trump claims that he's just facing trumped-up allegations and politically-motivated persecutions to torpedo his campaign. Speeding up the trial timeline and rushing the resolution of issues, with the express intent of squeezing in convictions before November, would certainly lend some weight to that perception. You are making the incorrect assumption that I'm asking for these cases to be sped up. I'm not. I'm asking them to proceed at pace. Bob Menendez was indicted on multiple charges late last year and is expected to go on trial this month. Nothing about his case is particularly more complicated than Trump's Florida case, for which he was indicted last June and likely won't see trial until early 2025. The government's requests on that case have been reasonable and in keeping with standard timelines for other such classified documents cases. No one is asking for them to be rushed, they are asking for them not to be improperly delayed. With respect, the idea I am being unreasonable here is absurd. Cannon's stewardship isn't 'embarassing' it is clearly, blatantly biased. If she were merely incompetent then she would have made an error in the state's favor simply by the law of large numbers at this point. Instead every single 'mistake' she makes, from the special master, to the repeated delays, to her proposed jury instructions are laser focused toward enabling trump to either prevail or delay in the case. I cannot think of a comparable high profile case where the Court was so clearly and obviously in the tank for the defendant. I firmly reject the suggestion that her behavior is good faith or that I'm unreasonable in my complaints regarding the delays. The emperor is not wearing clothes and I'm unconvinced with your arguments that actually that is just modern fashion that I'm making a big deal over. Similarly, as I said above, had the supreme court wished to take up the case I accept that, but refusing to do so on an expidited basis despite reasonable requests from the state and a clear public interest in the trial borders on the obscene. Caros fucked around with this message at 18:47 on May 8, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
oh thank god. i was hoping we'd have a second trial to determine if the first trial was decided correctly. can't be too sure about these things. but...wait a minute...what if these two trials have been affecting the trial? we need to have a third trial to determine if the first and second trial was bad for the original trial or if the fifth trial hurt the second trial by taking a trail to the first trial all based on rumors in the second trial that might have hurt the third trial.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
So some people here are mad that Biden *isn't* doing what Trump is endlessly bleating about and weaponizing the DOJ to crush him? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:So some people here are mad that Biden *isn't* doing what Trump is endlessly bleating about and weaponizing the DOJ to crush him? This is a grossly biased read of the situation and you know it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:So some people here are mad that Biden *isn't* doing what Trump is endlessly bleating about and weaponizing the DOJ to crush him? I think it's a desire that the Dems fight fire with fire and do what the Republicans do, which is weaponize the courts and the system and gently caress the rules.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:So some people here are mad that Biden *isn't* doing what Trump is endlessly bleating about and weaponizing the DOJ to crush him? Which posts are you talking about specifically?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:29
|
|
|
Wasn't "there's a valid complaint but the deadline is constitutionally immovable" the issue behind Bush v Gore? And the solution there was that the court unilaterally resolved the complaint before the deadline
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If Trump facing felony accusations, facing felony investigations, and facing felony indictments didn't move the needle, why expect a conviction to make any more of a difference? Besides, you're making a mistake by assuming that the needle only moves one way. After all, Trump claims that he's just facing trumped-up allegations and politically-motivated persecutions to torpedo his campaign. Speeding up the trial timeline and rushing the resolution of issues, with the express intent of squeezing in convictions before November, would certainly lend some weight to that perception. Conviction vs simply being charged does matter to a small portion of the electorate. Given the nature of '16 and '20, it's likely that this election will be close enough that that small percentage of insane morons could otherwise swing the election. So actually getting a verdict before November probably would make a difference. Of course the people we're talking about are "moderate" voters who make up their minds via preposterous reasoning every cycle and may or may not show up.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:34
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1788203600646201767 Fani Willis is being primaried by Christian Wise Smith (https://wisesmithforda.com/) The election is May 21st and early voting has already started.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:39
|
|
|
Ither posted:Fani Willis is being primaried by Christian Wise Smith (https://wisesmithforda.com/) Happy birthday to me, get the gently caress out Fan-ni
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:40
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:Happy birthday to me, get the gently caress out Fan-ni Is C.W. Smith going to keep the Trump case going? Or is he going to try and bury this case if he wins? I'm less than happy with Willis' personal actions, but they shouldn't be spiking the case because of that, and if the choice is between her being embarrassing but still keeping the case running and someone more respectable who won't, I know who I'd rather have there (as a non-resident who has no say over how Georgian voters will decide).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
I wish they'd post the transcripts a little quicker. I'd like to read what Stormy said yesterday without getting it filtered through reporters. But the stuff that's come out sure don't make it sound like a consensual sexual encounter. He invited her for dinner, then was in pajamas when she showed up. Then when she went to the bathroom he got undressed. When she tried to leave he stood in front of the door to stop her.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:Is C.W. Smith going to keep the Trump case going? Or is he going to try and bury this case if he wins? He's a Democrat running against her in the primary, seems very unlikely he's just going to drop off he case if he wins.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 18:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Just because the courts are taking longer than you think they should to deal with issues you think are trivial or quickly resolvable, that doesn't mean they're in the tank for Trump. Do you really, genuinely think Cannon is not in the tank for Trump?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
Class3KillStorm posted:Is C.W. Smith going to keep the Trump case going? Or is he going to try and bury this case if he wins? https://www.gpb.org/news/2024/04/29/fulton-da-candidate-criticizes-willis-approach-in-trump-case quote:Wise Smith said Sunday he would continue to pursue the case if he’s elected district attorney, but he questioned Willis’ approach. He said Willis’ decision to hire an outside lawyer to lead the prosecution took resources away from pursuing other crimes.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The thing is that these cases don't have a huge bearing on the future of the republic. They're not really going to have a significant impact on the presidential election. Nobody's really out there saying "I'm fine with Trump winning and pardoning himself if he's only been indicted, but not if he's been convicted". And while info that comes out during the trial could theoretically have an impact on the election, let's be real, we all know that's not going to actually happen. If someone has managed to come this far without feeling any ethical concerns about Trump, the trial's not really going to change their minds. Polling from ABC News/Ispos released May 5th: quote:Another result finds a potential risk for Trump in his current trial in New York on charges of falsifying business records to hide a payoff to a pornographic actress who says they had sex, which he denies. Eighty percent of Trump's supporters say they'd stick with him even if he's convicted of a felony in this case. But that leaves 20% who say they'd either reconsider their support (16%) or withdraw it (4%) -- easily enough to matter in a close race. While, admittedly, they didn't poll the specific question you pose in regards to people being fine with Trump pardoning himself if convicted rather than merely indicted, there are absolutely people out there saying that a conviction would be relevant to their vote, in large enough numbers to be consequential in an election.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 20:19
|
|
