|
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? Yeah sure, where I am going to define weaponizing the DOJ as treating donald trump like he was a black drug dealer. That exact level of unempathetic cruelty is exactly what I think the insurrectionist rapist deserves.
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
I wish we could have a poll in this thread of who thinks he'll be convicted of anything before the election. I am very curious!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:I wish we could have a poll in this thread of who thinks he'll be convicted of anything before the election. I am very curious! I think he's gonna get convicted of something in the Stormy Daniel's case.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:I wish we could have a poll in this thread of who thinks he'll be convicted of anything before the election. I am very curious! The current case will likely result in a guilty verdict, but the punishment will be a fine, not jail. Trump will then appeal it and it will remain unresolved for several years.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Do you really, genuinely think Cannon is not in the tank for Trump? I think she doesn't know the law, is out of her depth, and is excessively concerned with the various claims and objections and demands the Trump team has raised. None of those necessarily mean she's in the tank for Trump - they could be just as easily explained by incompetence. After all, as federal judges go, she's relatively lacking in legal experience. What I do know is that the worst-case predictions of doomers have yet to come true. A couple of months ago, the talk of the thread wasn't that she was going to delay the trial - it was that she was going to start the trial and then dismiss the case after the jury was called in, in order to invoke double jeopardy and immunize Trump from ever being tried on this particular set of charges. So far, no sign of that. Sir Kodiak posted:Polling from ABC News/Ispos released May 5th: That's what people are telling pollsters, but to be honest, I don't believe them. When it comes to these "how would your behavior change in this hypothetical different situation?" kinds of questions, I think there's a tendency for people's hypothetical answers to not line up with what they actually end up doing if the situation actually ends up changing. For example, while COVID vaccines were under emergency use approval, polls suggested that a substantial portion of the unvaccinated population would be comfortable getting vaccinated if the vaccines had full approval rather than just emergency approval. But when the COVID vaccines did get a full FDA approval, there was only a small increase in vaccination rates, well short of what had been predicted by pollsters and researchers. In practice, most of the antivaxxers who'd been using the emergency authorization as their excuse for not vaccinating just replaced it with some other excuse; if pressed on it, they'd come up with some conspiracy-laden reason for claiming that these particular full approvals didn't count as real full approvals for some reason. I fully expect the same thing to happen here. The people who claim they're not sure if the crimes were real or trumped-up will smoothly transition to not being sure if the convictions were real or trumped-up. No matter how many times they told pollsters they'd accept the court's verdict, they'll hook right onto GOP misinformation about supposed irregularities in the trials, and they'll end up being just as unsure and undecided as they were before the convictions. Maybe a handful of them will accept the convictions, but that'll be canceled out by the handful who'll take pre-election convictions as proof that it's all just faked stuff for political effect. Tatsuta Age posted:I wish we could have a poll in this thread of who thinks he'll be convicted of anything before the election. I am very curious! I never expected convictions before the election. I've been warning for a long time that the court proceedings would be slow, and that judges wouldn't consider Nov 2024 to be an important deadline.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 21:00
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted: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. An appeal isn't a whole new trial. In an appeal, the appealing party points out errors in the trial process that they think changed the outcome. If the judge agrees that errors in the first trial affected the outcome, the original verdict is overturned.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 21:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think she doesn't know the law, is out of her depth, and is excessively concerned with the various claims and objections and demands the Trump team has raised. None of those necessarily mean she's in the tank for Trump - they could be just as easily explained by incompetence. After all, as federal judges go, she's relatively lacking in legal experience. How do you reconcile this with every substantive error being made in Trump's direct favor? If she were just loving up at random surely she'd have randomly screwed up in the state's favor, no? As opposed to observable reality where she continually 'screws up' in ways that are contrary to black letter law but just so happen to massively favor the man who hand picked her on the eve of his presidency to preside over his home jurisdiction. These aren't even nuanced errors either. Canon's error in appointing a special master wasn't merely wrong, it was obviously wrong. Her recent errors involved her using the wrong legal standard, something a first year law student wouldn't mess up, much less a federal judge. Her proposed jury instructions worked under the assumption that the presidential records act applied in this case where even a layman reading tells you it does not. Is she just the stupidest person alive? At what point do you believe that malice is more likely than stupidity? As to your latter point people said that she would slow walk the case past November by endless delays. They were saying that in 2023, and here we are. You say there is no sign of her dismissing the trial after jeapordy attaches, but as we live in linear time, so no, she has not yet done the thing that people fear she will do once the trial she is delaying finally starts.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 21:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's what people are telling pollsters, but to be honest, I don't believe them. When it comes to these "how would your behavior change in this hypothetical different situation?" kinds of questions, I think there's a tendency for people's hypothetical answers to not line up with what they actually end up doing if the situation actually ends up changing. Yeah, I agree people will change their stated reasoning as soon as the old reason becomes inconvenient. For instance, people will claim that "nobody's really out there saying" this or that and when provided with evidence that people are out there saying this or that, switch to the claim that while people might say it, they don't believe it  Joking aside, I agree that people are both terrible at predicting how they'll behave in a hypothetical and also fully willing to lie about reasons X, Y, and Z being their motivation because those reasons sound reasonable, not because it's their real motivation. But some of that also applies to the people who say it won't matter. And even if it didn't, if even a quarter of the people who say a conviction matter drop their support, that could be enough to swing the election. Remember, as you say, the vaccination rate didn't go up as much as experts thought and hoped, but it did go up. Whereas the notion that there are people who will take a conviction but not an indictment as an actual reason to affirmatively vote for Trump—not merely claim they're doing so as a gently caress-you to the system, but actually have that as their reason—I would need some evidence for it to take it seriously. I think you are taking the reality that a conviction will only move the vote a little bit and trying to stretch it into being totally irrelevant. There being as many people who think a conviction is proof of a corrupt system without having thought so for an indictment as there are people who find a convicted felon unacceptable is the sort of extraordinary claim that should really come with some sort of evidence. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
There's no way Trump can reach the election without a conviction, unless of course his four criminal trials fall victim to four separate misfortunes. One misfortune, that's possible. Two misfortunes, there's an outside chance. But four misfortunes? I'd like to see that!
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 21:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think she doesn't know the law, is out of her depth, and is excessively concerned with the various claims and objections and demands the Trump team has raised. None of those necessarily mean she's in the tank for Trump - they could be just as easily explained by incompetence. After all, as federal judges go, she's relatively lacking in legal experience. https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...=20240408172425 She was already rebuked by an upper court over the handling of the special master nonsense, the idea that she's neutral but incompetent is just nowhere near this plane of reality. She's incompetent, of course, but completely in the tank.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:There's no way Trump can reach the election without a conviction, unless of course his four criminal trials fall victim to four separate misfortunes. None of them except the stormy case is gonna get to a verdict by the time of the election.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 22:28
|
|
|
cr0y posted:None of them except the stormy case is gonna get to a verdict by the time of the election. it's a Simpsons quote sir
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 22:30
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:it's a Simpsons quote sir I'm an idiot
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2024 22:41
|
|
|
DarkHorse posted:Cannon is either incompetent or blatantly in the bag for Trump, but probably both. And our legal system has absolutely no way to respond to or remedy this. It just has to allow it. They can slap her hand and tell her to stop, but she can just ignore them and keep loving things up and there are no consequences for doing so. FLIPADELPHIA posted:lol 2 trials dead within 24 hours Haha, yeah, probe him for being right. I'm waiting on mine for pointing it out again. The legal system is toothless and corrupt and we've been telling you this the whole loving time. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) The Bible fucked around with this message at 00:35 on May 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think she doesn't know the law, is out of her depth, and is excessively concerned with the various claims and objections and demands the Trump team has raised. None of those necessarily mean she's in the tank for Trump - they could be just as easily explained by incompetence. After all, as federal judges go, she's relatively lacking in legal experience. I think it's important to note here what did cause vaccinations to rise: a bunch of people getting vaccinated, with no ill effect. There were still a hard 20% or something that refused to get vaccinated for any reason whatsoever, but a bunch of people eventually capitulated when they saw friends and family get vaxxed. I don't know what the equivalent for Trump world is; maybe once a critical mass abandons him the squishy members of the GOP will finally abandon him
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 00:31
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:Happy birthday to me, get the gently caress out Fan-ni The only poll I've seen had Willis leading 79% to 9%, so, while I don't really know the quality of pollster . . . seems like it would be a bit of an upset. https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/poll-shows-first-look-at-key-fulton-county-races
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 01:01
|
|
|
I do wish appellate courts were in the habits of explaining their orders, because I seem to have missed the first time how Fani Willis having an affair with whatsisname prejudiced Trump in any way.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 01:07
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:The only poll I've seen had Willis leading 79% to 9%, so, while I don't really know the quality of pollster . . . seems like it would be a bit of an upset. Well I'm glad it's not so much of a foregone conclusion then, I suppose. I don't really think she did anything terrible, I just loathe her timing, and how much ammunition it handed Trump's defense. But the coincidence of the primary election falling on my birthday made me think of the song cadence, and once I have a dumb jingle in my head, try and stop me from posting that poo poo, I dare you. We shall see if Fulton County feels as forgiving. Hobologist posted:I do wish appellate courts were in the habits of explaining their orders, because I seem to have missed the first time how Fani Willis having an affair with whatsisname prejudiced Trump in any way. It really didn't and a judge decided it didn't merit removing her from the case, and he's successfully appealed that judge's decision. I dunno how many times he can do that, but I assume he will try to appeal every single thing that isn't found in his favor. So for those more knowledgeable, this question is now passed to a different judge to make a ruling on, and if that judge agrees with the first one, do we then wait again to see if this one passes muster too? And if it doesn't, how many judges can you run through saying no that one doesn't count? It's like asking for a second opinion over and over, just hoping to hit the right doctor Tenkaris fucked around with this message at 01:15 on May 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 01:10
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:I do wish appellate courts were in the habits of explaining their orders, because I seem to have missed the first time how Fani Willis having an affair with whatsisname prejudiced Trump in any way. See if Democrats aren't perfect saints who never make mistakes then all Trump crimes are legal. That seems to be the criteria as best I can tell.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 01:13
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:It really didn't and a judge decided it didn't merit removing her from the case, and he's successfully appealed that judge's decision. I dunno how many times he can do that, but I assume he will try to appeal every single thing that isn't found in his favor. Georgia has an appeals court, which is an intermediate level court that reviews decisions by lower courts. It will be assigned to one of five panels of three judges (there's five panels with the same consistent three members, and the random selection is biased to ensure they don't end up with an imbalanced case load). I'm not familiar with the specific rules for this kind of appeal. If the appeals court rejects it, he can then appeal to the state supreme court, which is a group of nine judges. The chief justice is a Democrat, oddly, but all of them were appointed by Republican governors.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 01:26
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:Well I'm glad it's not so much of a foregone conclusion then, I suppose. I don't really think she did anything terrible, I just loathe her timing, and how much ammunition it handed Trump's defense. At a glance (I am not a lawyer) Georgia follows a pretty standard model. McAfee had to give leave to appeal (because typically most appeals are direct appeals that occur after the final verdict, while this one is interlocutory or during the the process) which he did. It goes up to Georgia Court of Appeals who decided whether or not to grant permission to appeal, which they did. If they'd told him to pound sand, that would have been the end of it, but sadly no go. So now there is the usual 2-3 months of back and forth motions. A three judge panel is selected. If all three decide one way or another, then we're settled. If there is a dissent then the matter is escalated (another delay) to a nine judge panel which finalize the issue. If Trump loses in either of these, then he can make an appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. This would normally be a fairly hail mary appeal, but I do feel compelled to mention that eight of the nine judges on that court were initially appointed by republican governors before running and winning nonpartisan elections (in most cases unopposed). Take that for what it is worth. I'm not sure if he can appeal it to the Supreme Court given it is a matter of state criminal law without a lot of federal overlap, but I'm sure a clever lawyer could find a way. However I suspect this would largely be moot. The above process already gets us into 2025 at which point the crux of the matter is largely already decided.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 01:39
|
|
|
What behaviour would a judge who was firmly in the tank for Trump be likely to take that Cannon hasnt, given her assumed level of incompetence (which you seem to agree with) and an assumption that plausible deniability is desired?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 02:49
|
|
|
So the only case that's going to stand trial before it doesn't matter one way or another is the most minor and hardest to prove of the charges, which might not result in jail time even if they somehow stick? Am I missing anything here because yikes
CapnAndy fucked around with this message at 08:16 on May 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 07:40
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:So the only case that's going to stand trial before it doesn't matter one way or another is the most minor and hardest to prove of the charges, which might not result in jail time even if they somehow stick? Am I missing anything here because yikes So my understanding is that it was a difficult charge to prove. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-stormy-daniels-payoff-trial-hinges-his-intent-2024-04-19/ ....Then Trunp went and admitted certain elements of the offense on the steps outside the court. So it might be easier to prove, but it's not a guaranteed thing. I think the question is, what are you expecting out of this. The biggest, most likely consequence if convicted is Trump will just be referred to as a convicted criminal, and any future sentences he gets will be harder hitting? Will this have an impact on his electablity or will his supporters just double down on him? That's been debated here. If people were expecting a conviction here to result in some procedure where Trump was prevented from becoming President, I don't think that was ever on the cards. And I think those people need to make peace with that. The only way Trump was not going to be President in 2025 is if he loses the election. Maybe a conviction makes that more likely to happen, maybe not. But that's the reality of matters.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 10:18
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:
If he is a convicted felon, does that affect his other trials?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 11:54
|
|
|
Independence posted:If he is a convicted felon, does that affect his other trials? If he is convicted for the Hush Money trial and then is later convicted for another case (say the Rico case), when it comes to sentencing in the Rico case he won't be treated as a person coming before the court as a person of "good character " or either "an unblemished record." (I know that under any actual reading of those words, Trump stopped being a person of good character a long time ago.) Basically he will lose his status as a first time offender.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 12:13
|
|
|
How the hell is Trump not beyond 'first time offender' status after all these years. 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 12:21
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:If he is convicted for the Hush Money trial and then is later convicted for another case (say the Rico case), when it comes to sentencing in the Rico case he won't be treated as a person coming before the court as a person of "good character " or either "an unblemished record." I feel like if you're CEO of a bunch of companies that have had such sorted legal history as trumps for so long a time, after a certain point you should meet some criteria of not being a person of good character any more.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 12:24
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:How the hell is Trump not beyond 'first time offender' status after all these years. White billionaire. Takes a lot to get one nailed down.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 12:58
|
|
|
He's already a convicted rapist?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 13:21
|
|
|
cr0y posted:He's already a convicted rapist? "Found liable for" is not "convicted" but I mean....yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 13:23
|
|
|
cr0y posted:He's already a convicted rapist? A civilly liable rapist. The Carroll case was a civil suit not a criminal one.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 13:23
|
|
|
Sadly no, he was found civilly liable for defamation for claiming he didn't rape E Jean Carroll. To my knowledge you can't take civil suits into account, and he's lost hundreds of those over the years.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 13:24
|
|
|
cr0y posted:He's already a convicted rapist? Not a criminal trial.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 13:26
|
|
|
cr0y posted:He's already a convicted rapist? A common mistake in this thread, but alas no.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 13:26
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:An appeal isn't a whole new trial. In an appeal, the appealing party points out errors in the trial process that they think changed the outcome. If the judge agrees that errors in the first trial affected the outcome, the original verdict is overturned. Does the title "Convicted Felon" go away while the appeal plays out?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 13:42
|
|
|
Noted brain genius Michael Cohen was on Tiktok live last night wearing a T-shirt with a caracature of Trump in jail on it. You know, as a smart witness does. Dude was a loving lawyer. He should know better.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 13:48
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Noted brain genius Michael Cohen was on Tiktok live last night wearing a T-shirt with a caracature of Trump in jail on it. You know, as a smart witness does. Remember he got his law degree from like Westchester Law and Dental Hygienist Academy.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 13:53
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Remember he got his law degree from like Westchester Law and Dental Hygienist Academy. Wow you're not kidding he went to what seems to be literally the worst law school in the country. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooley_Law_School
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/HowardMortman/status/1788562242457240041 Surely you can't just bring vampires with you to court, that's jury intimidation
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2024 15:14
|
|
