Trump Legal Troubles: White Power Nap

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Trump Legal Troubles: White Power Nap

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

Yes, no poo poo that civil courts decide damages. That's not relevant.

The whole reason that civil trials can find guilt where criminal trials don't is that in a criminal trial you actually have to prove that someone actually broke the law. In a civil case you're just proving that someone probably did.

There is no realistic way this survives challenge.

Technically, in a criminal trial you just have to prove that it's VERY likely someone did. If you had to actually prove it then guilty verdicts would be a lot more rare.

# ¿ Sep 7, 2023 01:11

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 15:56

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

GlyphGryph posted:

... you do realize that this is exactly the sort of factual question that would be answered by a case in civil court, right, if anyone did have sufficient evidence he wasn't born in the US? Just like the insurrection question for Trump. You're acting like "what if Obama had to play by the same rules" as a reason for Trump being allowed to play by different rules, it makes no sense.

I should note that Obama did have to play by the same rules. Republicans filed lots of challenges and litigation to throw Obama off ballots due to the birther conspiracies, and they failed. And it was where the question is suppose to be answered, and it was.

# ¿ Sep 12, 2023 18:31

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

Please post evidence that the courts can presume guilt for these purposes.

Doing a crime is not part of your job.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2023 00:04

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

You're confused. None of these arguments are being presented to defend against the crime. They are to determine if there is a colorable argument to be made that the facts involved in the case revolve around his federal duties. He is likely to argue that he did not commit a crime and that the actions he did take fell under his federal duties.

I mean, of course it's a hard hill to climb if he just admits to the crime. Presumably his lawyers will attempt the removal hearing without confessing? This is one of the reasons that we want these removal hearings. The stronger case they try to put on for federal removal, the more they are likely going to have to testify on their own behalf (asserting your fifth amendment rights can be held against you) and the more they are likely to self incriminate.

The thing you don't get is, if you're claiming that you should be tried in federal court for the crime you are being acccused of because the president told you to do it... you are still actively saying that the president told you to do a crime which is never in your purview of duty. He can't attempt this without this, so it's a literally impossible hill.

# ¿ Sep 26, 2023 06:54

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

News happened while people were too busy posting about jizz.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/29/politics/jeffrey-clark-fulton-county-removal/index.html

Long story short: None of the trials are being removed to federal court. Clark simply didn't have any evidence that what he did was part of his job, so the fact that it was a crime didn't even get to enter into it. Pretty much the same for the fake electors.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2023 23:40

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

BiggerBoat posted:

Serious question here and something I've heard kicked around in RWM circles but:

Isn't it the bank's responsibility to appraise and inspect poo poo when you're going for a loan?

I'm just a regular peon who's never run for president or been rich but even when I borrowed $60,000 against my home, the lender sent their own appraiser and inspectors out and made ME prove my property taxes, steady income, insurance, my debts and just about everything else short of a blood and hair sample along with my first born child as collateral to secure the loving thing and it was a months long hassle that I never want to experience again.

Is it as simple as "when you're rich you just get to value your assets at whatever amount you want" and the bank says "OK"? I don't get to tell the state what my home is worth when my property tax bill comes or the insurance company looks at it. And I sure as poo poo wasn't able to tell the mortgage company that my house was worth $900,000 either. They didn't take my work for it that the roof was sound.

Seems to me that an argument can be made that Trump's lenders didn't do their due diligence but I don't pretend to know how this poo poo works either, especially for rich and powerful people.

Donald Trump gave fake documents to the bank's appraiser and had the money to make them convincingly fake. That's why it was fraud.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2023 03:35

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

RoboChrist 9000 posted:

Because there is a ticking clock before the case potentially goes away and takes democracy with it?
Like the core issue is that ultimately the question is "is the United States a functional democracy, nay, a functional state, that is able and willing to punish traitors who seek to seize power through violence?" This is arguably the barest minimum requirement for a viable polity - the ability to back up its legitimacy through force - and one even the Weimar Republic could clear. Hitler was in jail within a year of the Putsch if I recall.

Like I get why you'd normally want to take your time, but nothing about this case is normal. Not the stakes, not the timeline considerations, not the client, not the jury selection, nothing. Yeah, cult leaders have been prosecuted before, but usually not cult leaders who's cult compromises roughly half the nation.

Like it seems to me that it's like a lot of the institutions in this nation and they are refusing to accept the actual game they are playing and insisting on playing the older, safer, game we had all been playing until fairly recently. But you can't. That genie can't be put back in the bottle.

They want a 100% chance of victory purely because what you said. The more airtight the case is, the harder it will be for all but his most devoted followers to listen to him and decide he's right when he screams prosecution. This is not a case you half-rear end because you're cocky that you got him.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2023 13:40

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Gyges posted:

Nobody is leaning Trump, but just can't get past his lack of convictions.

It's okay, soon Trump will have plenty of convictions.

# ¿ Dec 8, 2023 22:33

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Zapp Brannigan posted:

Absolutely it was assembled by hand from multiple sources, each on their own less damaging/classified, than when they are all together. That's the definition of SCI information. No other gears in the clock know what all the others are doing, just that when they do their job, the clock works. It makes perfect sense for a small number of people to have put the binder together by hand.

Right. Probably because there was no digital copy of it since it was likely assembled by hand. Also, given how much the IC poo poo their pants after the Snowden leaks poo poo. If it contains sources and methods, that poo poo is guarded like nuclear secrets and don't want some traitor to put that poo poo on a thumb drive and smuggle it out in their rear end.

None of this makes sense. Everything is effectively put together by hand in the intelligence business. Everything is pulled together from multiple sources. It still get digitized anyways.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2023 03:23

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Nervous posted:

What? It exists in the US as well.

https://www.foia.gov/

It even predates the UK one by like 30 years!

# ¿ Jan 28, 2024 18:33

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

It's not a nothingburger. There are serious problems with Fani Willis's potential misconduct here that, if true, should get her disqualified. Liz Dye's new Law and Chaos podcast has Andrew Fleischman on to break it down if you're at all interested in why there is a huge problem.

I mean, it's not like Andrew Fleischman is a neutral party in all of this, as he has a specific grudge against Fani. Considering the other lawyers I've seen who go "This is literally a 0% issue for Fani in the court." I'd be more inclined to believe them than the guy who has posted 50 articles called "The Case Against Fani Willis?" in the past six months, long before anything ever came up.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2024 22:28

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

By precedent and standard procedure, it should not matter; as has been pointed out, there have been cases with married attorneys representing counterparties in cases and it was deemed a non-issue.

It's possible that Trump's Insanity Field makes it an issue, but for literally anyone else's case, it wouldn't be.

Fleischman�s going for the �she was intentionally extending the investigation as long as possible to pay her husband more� which is why I think he�s kind of not being particularly neutral here.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2024 22:43

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

You're being dishonest.

He didn't make the argument that she was intentionally extending the investigation. He explained the reason that conflict of interest violations are important is because a conflict of interest makes it impossible to trust that a person will act in the best interest of their client (the public in this case).

The “she was intentionally extending the investigation as long as possible to pay Wade more” AAs given as a possible example

He was the one who created that example out of nothing. I can�t find anyone else saying that. And if that�s the best you got, then you got nothing. He was arguing that if you could come up with ANY possible conflict of interest then the trial must be redone.

Also it�s just weird that it�s a conflict of interest for the prosecutor and an investigator working for the prosecutor to be married. They�re on the same side! Where is the conflict?

Kchama fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Feb 4, 2024

# ¿ Feb 3, 2024 23:57

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

mobby_6kl posted:

Oh hey my sixer just expired.

Fleischman�s been critical of making it a RICO case in the first place, even before any of these allegations came out. I think in terms of public trust, the DA is assumed to make decisions in the
best interest of the public. I don't know Georgia law, but in his opinion the case is very strong and a conviction could've been achieved much faster and easier without making an enormous RICO mess.

Also I don't recall him saying anything about requiring a mistrial.

�Just as here, the guilt or innocence of those accused was irrelevant. The conflict of interest required a new trial.�

Direct quote from an article he wrote, suggesting that the idea of a conflict of interest being possible meant that it required a new trial in this case here too.

Fart Amplifier posted:

The conflict of Willis's interest is between Wade and the public.

That doesn�t really seem the kind to require a new trial entirely, since it doesn�t seem to be actually negatively affecting the case or Trump, even if there was anything. There�s a reason why prosecutors being married or lawyers in general doesn�t auto-cause a case retrial.

mobby_6kl posted:

Forum cops

Also I accidentally hit post while in the middle of typing poo poo and you caught me before I fxied it

E: I think nobody here, or even Fleischman, wants to see Trump wiggle out of this one. But I find it helpful to consider some of the worse possible outcomes rather than just pretend there's nothing there. Like I'm pretty sure if she was going after Bernie, suddenly all of this would be suddenly grossly inappropriate behavior.

I saw it, too.

Also he was drooling at the prospect of the case being thrown out, hoping that his preferred prosecutor would get the case as a �best case� result.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2024 00:11

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

I�ll note that in his article his example of a conflict of interest that got the trial restarted was of a judge and a prosecutor who were having a secret, illicit relationship. But that�s different from this situation.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2024 00:25

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

mobby_6kl posted:

The DA is, obviously, supposed to want to lock him up, so there's no issue there of course.

But what about 3) "why is she doing this as an extremely expensive and time-consuming RICO case with like 20 defendants as opposed to a another, more effective way of locking him up".

Again, IANAL so I don't know if the defense can bring this up (as it doesn't hurt them), and if a disqualification from the case is a possible or likely outcome. But, I can see how this situation is problematic at least, and some actual lawyers think it might be a problem. Others see to disagree though

If I remember the last episode of Law & Chaos, her position is elected too () so I think that might introduce even more complications.

Thanks for the quote, found the article.

It is a different situation. But looking at that in context, it doesn't seem to say that this case would require a new trial:

My interpretation is that he's saying:
a. Like in the Trump case, the innocence or guilt of the accused is not a factor
b. The judge and public defender loving outside the courthouse [lol] required a new trial

Having listened to several of his guest appearances as well as the other lawyers, I don't think a new trial ever came up as a possible remedy. The worst case always seem to be that it gets assigned to a different prosecutor.

Uh let me apologize. I misread that quote because I was sick as hell yesterday and my brain was working at a much lower level than I realize. I am sorry.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2024 13:21

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

The Question IRL posted:

In fairness "the appearance of conflict" is a legitimate reason for judges to recuse themselves in trials. (The classic example being that one of the parties is related to the judge. You don't have to prove that the judge is conflicted, just that to a 3rd party there I'd the appearance of a conflict of interest.)

The reality is in any case, when you started hearing or seeing this type of relationship between one of the parties and one of the investigators come out (regardless of if it had an effect on the investigation or not.) the safe legal decision should have been "one or both of these parties needs to be replaced with someone else.)

Just to keep everything above board.
That's before you get to the fact that with a former president involved, that all the I's should be dotted and T's crossed.

The fact that people don't want that done seems to come down to one of two reasons.

1) A fear that another person coming and taking over the case would just decide to kot prosecute Trump.

Or

2) You have a connection to the case. In which case, hello Ms. Willis.

Uh, you do realize that the investigator is literally someone who works for the prosecutor and is working on their behalf, right? This isn't like the prosecutor is boning a police investigator or something. This is exactly like two prosecutors working on the same case boning. Would that be a conflict of interest? No, of course not. That is what unbiased lawyers and prosecutors have been saying, because it'd stupid to say that would somehow affect the case in a way that matters.

That's why the only example of it being a conflict of interest that the guy could come up was "well she could have sabotaged the trial so it takes longer so her husband gets paid more" which would be pretty hard to argue unless you already had a grudge against her and wanted her off the case.

Scags McDouglas posted:

I think you might be misconstruing my first point, which was fundamentally "worst case scenario, not that bad". I was proposing the literal, hypothetical worst, not something that happens often in practice.

So let me amend my argument. In a private company, the worst case scenario is absolutely nothing. In this particular instance, given the stakes, if there's even a 1% chance of it affecting the case 1%, it was a selfish move.

I believe the quote was that the evidence Willis provided made it clear that there was a 0.00001% chance of there was any wrong-doing, and only that high because you can never know for sure.

Kchama fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Feb 4, 2024

# ¿ Feb 4, 2024 16:02

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Scags McDouglas posted:

I'm completely with you on the point that there was no wrong-doing from a legal perspective, I'm talking about a practical perspective if it impacts the case, period.

If this issue gradually disappears with no material impact, then absolutely my concerns didn't come to fruition and I'm wrong. Hell, feel free to hold me to that in a future argument.

If the issue isn't legal then it doesn't matter as far as the trial is concerned, therefore the case is unaffected.

Otherwise it just seems like you're arguing for doing nothing since even crossing your Ts and dotting your is perfectly can potentially effect the case some minute amount. Since hell, according to the evidence Fani provided, that is exactly what was done with regards to the relationship.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2024 16:25

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Scags McDouglas posted:

Sir there actually is a gap between "nothing" and "sex with a coworker / subordinate".

You're totally fine, I make mistakes like that constantly. I'm too old to keep aliases and avatars accurately in my head anymore.

Not to dig in further but I would like to point out that I directly disagreed with that person.

As long as you do what you're supposed to with regards to reporting and following procedures, then there is actually no gap in the eyes of the law and the rules. And according to experts, she did that.

Again, the only scenario that even the guy crusading against her could come up with that it would matter was laughably far-fetched when you look at reality.

Kchama fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Feb 4, 2024

# ¿ Feb 4, 2024 17:24

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

The Question IRL posted:

Yes but this is something that isn't unique to the Trump case alone. Whomever Willis boss was, as soon as they knew about the relationship should have basically said "you both can't be on the same cases together as the optics looks bad and we need to appear professional. "

And if their boss didn't know about the relationship because it was kept a secret, than that makes the whole thing worse. Because the question becomes "well why did you hide this relationship from your co-workers, if you didn't think you were doing anything wrong?"

This is absolutely an example of very bad personal judgment that allowed a situation to develop that should never have gotten this far.

Just off the top of my head, you are opening the door to "did you properly scrutinise your investigators work and make sure it was above board?
Given that you have a personal relationship with him, is it not possible that you did not scrutinies their work in the way you would another colleges work?
And furthermore, given that you have already been secretive and duplicitous about your relationship, how can we trust that you aren't being duplicitous now?"

I'm not saying that Wilis is any of these things. But this was a situation that should have been dealt with before hand, and the Judge may find their hands tied in how they will have to deal with it.

Does it? Like, not even the anti-Fani guy or the Trump team is alleging any of that. Because it doesn't really make any sense as a "conflict of interest". If they were such easy questions that could tie a judge's hands, then surely the people who want to see Fani gone would be posing them.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2024 20:50

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Gyges posted:

I don't think even Alito and Thomas want to touch this idiocy. It's impossible to craft a ruling that wouldn't also apply to any Democratic President, and most of the poo poo that Donny is on trial for is things they don't want Democrats doing. Maybe they've got some sort of weird trick lined up to get Trump and only Trump out of this pickle, but they're 100% not going to rule that Presidents can't be punished for any crimes outside a successful Impeachment.

Even if we would all love to see the movie version of Dark Brandon two fistedly fixing the nation's problems as our 2 term God King.

I mean they could just pull a Bush V Gore and have the ruling say that the ruling only applies to this case and not to any other.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2024 01:33

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Yep, there's literally nothing to it if they have to pivot to this.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2024 21:00

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Paracaidas posted:

Bower and Lawfare generally are usually a bit better than this tweet, as despite being accurate it leads to this misconception. Trump already adopted the relationship motion and the Feb 2 reply to the state's opposition - this filing covers what Roman's reply left untouched, that something said in the speech merited disqualification.

So, the document linked in the tweet is arguing that In addition to the relationship the speech should disqualify her too.

Also, reiterating from the opposite end this time: That the court may (will, far as I can tell) rule that the relationship is not grounds for disqualification does not mean "there's no substance" or "literally nothing to it". Rejecting disqualification isn't even an indication that it 'wasn't that bad', as that decision would be made based on category than severity. Professional, legal, and ethical questions and consequences aren't dismissed just because it isn't disqualifying.

We�re talking about it with regards to Trump�s case. If something else comes out of it, okay, but if it doesn�t disqualify her or anything with regards to the case, then it�s a nothingburger.

But again, if they have to jump to obvious BS, then they can�t be terribly confident in the relationship accusation.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2024 05:59

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fuschia tude posted:

Does it? The court's already held that states can force their states' electors to vote for their state's winner. If Trump's disqualified those states can just throw out his invalid electors and go with the next highest slate.

I think his point is that if Trump wins and it is challenged then the SC is just gonna go "Well it happened, can't stop it now Trump is President by default by the way this decision is not allowed to be used as precedent for Democratic candidates."

# ¿ Feb 8, 2024 16:43

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

dr_rat posted:

Can the high court just outright say "this decision is not allowed to be used as precedent" or do they have to be tricky about the word of the ruling.

Seems a bit weird if one of the points of the high court seeming to be to actually set precedents on issues where the law is a bit vague.

Technically it's complete bullshit, but the SC can do whatever it wants.

# ¿ Feb 8, 2024 17:16

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

This does not bode well for Willis.

It literally didn't matter. As he said, the big issue was going to be the 'close friend', but the close friend literally had zero evidence and admitted that it was just "Yeah I heard a rumor about something, maybe." which is not convincing.

Kchama fucked around with this message at 20:56 on Feb 15, 2024

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 20:53

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Caros posted:

The dodge doesn't really work because the specific wording is 'between the date of your marriage and present', to which he was absolutely lying.

It hurts his credibility, but ultimately I don't think it is damning.

The accusation here is that she gave him the job because they were loving and she could profit as a result. The fact that he lied in a contentious divorce is bad, but the could can absolutely consider the reasons why, such as that he thought the implicit question of the document was 'did you cheat', which he didn't thin he did since the marriage was over in everything but law.

The only evidence so far showing that they were together before his appointment is the one lady who got poo poo canned by Willis for poor performance who nebulously says she was told. They only evidence for financial gain is credit statements he says he was paid back for.

This judge doesn't seem dumb as hell, so I'd like to assume he tisk tsiks and let's the case go on. The alternative is that he throws out Willis out of concerns for Decorum in which case, clown world.

He explained that he answered as if "since your marriage ended" even if they hadn't officially separated before then, and the judge went "Yeah, makes sense" and moved on.

Also I think the wording was "between your marriage ending and your separation to present." so there's a gap in between those, since he didn't get officially separated until much later for various reasons.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 21:10

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

rkd_ posted:

Can anyone explain the conflict of interest?

I understand her hiring a lover to do a big case isn�t kosher because she�d be sending money to someone that would benefit her too, but I don�t see how that would affect the case against Trump.

Prosecutors aren�t meant to be impartial, so as long as the evidence is there it shouldn�t matter?

There wasn't really anything to begin. The Trump lawyer argument is that the entire case was a scam to funnel money to Wade and wouldn't have been prosecuted in the first place if it wasn't for the relationship.

The non-Trump guy's argument was that Willis sabotaged the case and artificially lengthened it to pay Wade more, which is pretty laughable due to my reply to volts5000.

volts5000 posted:

Do public prosecutors get money per case or are they salaried? If he wasn't working the Trump case, he'd be working a different case so the only thing he'd be earning is "clout".

He's private, so former. According to his receipts he actually lost potential money because he did a lot more work than he could legally bill for.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 21:46

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

No? Please be clear about what you're responding to and why you think it means what you're saying.

You should probably read what you posted to find out why it could be different.

Hint: It was because Willis had ran a fund-raiser for the Democratic that the person charged decided to run against.

That's actually substantial.

# ¿ Feb 15, 2024 23:57

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

I'm not sure what point you think you're trying to make but it very clearly was distinguished in my original comment on the topic.

When I referred to the current allegation of conflict of interest: "The conflict of Willis's interest is between Wade, and her client, the public."

When I referred to her previous disqualification: "Willis has already been disqualified once for being conflicted against a defendant in this case"

You will note in those quotes that when talking about the previous one and this one, I describe and distinguished them differently and equate them nowhere since they are separate things.

Her client isn't the public. Her client is the government. As long as she crosses her ts and dots her is with regards to their requirements, she can basically does what she want to. And to all accounts she has done just that.

You confused people because you replied to someone talking about how prosecutors are allowed to be biased against defendants with the time she was DQ'd over having a conflict of interest versus the defendant, which is something else entirely. One could reasonably infer that she could have brought her cast against that defendant based on a conflict of interest against her because she had donated to his opponent.

There's nothing like that in this case.

Ms Adequate posted:

In all fairness, it is fairly trivial to argue "Wade may have taken a pay cut but being part of a team that, he expected, would successfully prosecute Trump would grant him enough cachet to ensure his position as one of the most sought-after prosectors in the country, and secure potentially an entire career of high paying cases, more than making up for the haircut he took here."

Indeed, but then in that case literally all lawyers would be DQ'd for any important case.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2024 01:45

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

The Ol Spicy Keychain posted:

Why is the prosecutor for this case on the stand and being grilled about possible legal wrongdoings she may or may not have done? Seems like this whole case is already turbo hosed if the prosecutor is the one in the headlines

Because judges have to evaluate claims as long as there's the slightest possibility they could be up to snuff, and that's a very low bar. Otherwise, it could be the basis of an appeal. So stupid poo poo like this has to be entertained so the case doesn't get thrown out.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2024 02:29

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Fart Amplifier posted:

I didn't say there was anything like that in this case.

The original commenter asked what the conflict in this case was. I explained it.

The original commenter then said that prosecutors aren't required to be impartial. I responded with Willis already being disqualified from prosecuting someone in this very case because she wasn't impartial. I broke up the two quotes and responses and only the fact that they were contained in the same comment connected them in any way.

I was explaining that there's a difference between "don't need to be impartial" and "conflict of interest against the defendant".

They do not need to be impartial. That is not what the DQ you posted was about!

However, with the prior work she did for his opponent, there could easily be a Conflict Of Interest against him. Which is why she was DQ'd from the case.

In short, prosecutors are allowed to not like someone. This is what is meant by "They do not need to be impartial".

They aren't allowed to materially benefit in some way outside of the normal job benefits from prosecuting someone. That is what happened in that case.

# ¿ Feb 16, 2024 05:52

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Hasn't it been stated before that the judgement is nonappealable?

# ¿ Feb 17, 2024 19:20

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Anything is appealable but both recent judgements against Trump require large "appeal bonds" -- in effect, you you have to pay down enough money into the Court's bank to cover the judgment in order to appeal it. If you win you get your money back.

Someone was talking about that the Appeals Court already ruled that the verdict wouldn't be appealable in this case, but I didn't pay much attention to it. Something about how part of the case had already basically been declared 'proven'.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2024 19:35

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

May have been referring to the E. Jean Carroll defamation case. The procedural history there is a bit tangled but basically it's too late for him to dispute that she was telling the truth.

Actually what's the appeal filing deadline on that one, the judgement was last month

Ah, that makes a lot of sense, thanks.

The deadline is one month from the judgement.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2024 19:48

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Main Paineframe posted:

She runs the office. All the other prosecutors in the office are her employees and subordinates, and therefore highly vulnerable to potentially being influenced by her.

�She can influence the prosuectors� isn�t actually a thing that can DQ her.

The thing that is suppose to be DQing her is the idea that she was sabotaging the trial and making it take sooooo long because she was trying to pay her boyfriend extra. Or something like that. They never really had a good theory, but the judge still has to hear it out.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2024 03:20

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Paracaidas posted:

MPF's comment

was in response to

It is the correct description of why Willis' whole office is DQ'd if she is.

e:Added MPF quote for context on new page

Oh, yes, that�s correct. Sorry.

# ¿ Feb 28, 2024 03:48

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

small butter posted:

Is there any charitable reading of why the Supreme Court would take up the Trump immunity case?

They can both delay the cases some (good for Trump) and tell Trump he does not have presidential immunity (good for them).

# ¿ Feb 29, 2024 02:48

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

If they're hearing this in April then that IS lightning fast for the Supreme Court.

I don't think anyone is really hoping for the courts to defeat Trump for us, though. This is just literally the thread to talk about his legal issues so of course we are focused on his court cases.

# ¿ Feb 29, 2024 18:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 15:56

Kchama: Jul 25, 2007

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Ah, ok..

Well, I hope wade and fani don't gently caress things up any further, either literally or figuratively

They didn't seem to have in the first place, considering the defense had to rely on a sexual assaulter who lied and then said "please don't put my lies on the record".

Oxyclean posted:

Someone responding to "Trump squeaked by despite a majority not voting for him" with "American politics has always required an electoral college victory" feels nearly like a non-sequitur then "describing reality" with regards to someone's concern about Trump gaining power again because the courts were not able to punish his criminal behavior in time.

"it would be good if we could beat Trump democratically rather then relying on the courts" > "yeah but our system sucks and is flawed, which is how we got him into power in the first place" > "yeah but the system has always sucked and been flawed"

That is indeed known as 'describing' not 'endorsing', despite you trying to reframe it.

# ¿ Feb 29, 2024 23:37

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Trump Legal Troubles: White Power Nap

«‹›3 »