|
projecthalaxy posted:Can someone tell me if the truly bizarre situation of the President being taken to trial with a public defender is possible or is that not a thing for federal cases? The only experience I have is with county level "here is your PD, they will literally never talk to you, say guilty and pay the fine [gavel]" which is I know very different than federal espionage court My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that a PD is only going to step in if someone can’t afford an attorney. They won’t be granted if someone just doesn’t want to hire one, or if (and this would be unprecedented I’m sure) they can’t find one who will take the case.
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2023 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I don't know but it seems possible, bizarrely. That’s what would happen if he were just a normal person, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:A normal person this wouldn't happen because you'd either have a pd appointed or you'd hire someone. But if a normal person refused to hire a lawyer and made too much money for a PD they would just be detained until they hired a lawyer, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:They're only true believers until consequences seem imminent. That's why his former lawyers keep bailing. "Surely I will be the one to defend Trump successfully!", they crow. Then their client does something which breaches attorney-client privilege and which would land them in federal prison for decades. Then they nope out. There’s also the very real possibility that the mob will turn on a lawyer who failed to get Trump acquitted and it could be a legitimate danger to their safety.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
ryde posted:LOL, this loving lawyer. I mean the DOJ only brings charges when they’re very, very sure they’ll get a conviction. Probably add a dozen or so “very”s for bringing charges against a former President.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
ryde posted:This would be the maximum hilarity scenario. Imagine if they found *more* documents. Doesn’t it seem very improbable that there aren’t more documents?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 20:52
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The next R governor can, though. Even if Kemp did define himself in opposition to Trump's election scheme, and hence Trump (at least in Trump's mind), he couldn't run next cycle due to term limits anyway. In GA the governor cannot pardon, and the board that can can only do it after a sentence is served.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
cr0y posted:In a 5-4 (Georgia) decision... I mean they could amend their constitution to do it but holy political suicide in a purple state.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
Oxyclean posted:I don't think he can deny he had the boxes at this point, so isn't the legal battle more about if he was allowed to have them / what he was allowed to do with them? Wasn’t he posting pictures claiming it was the feds setting up the boxes to frame him at one point or was that a fever dream?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
greatBigJerk posted:I wonder if they didn't want to set conditions because Trump will inevitably say and do dumb poo poo that helps their case. That’s my read. They’re just handing him rope.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:that's because typically federal defendants are hosed, To put this in perspective, if the DOJ brings charges, 90% of the time the defendant pleads guilty. When they don’t, 8% of the time charges are dropped (unthinkable here.) In the 2% of cases that go to trial, 83% of the time there is a conviction. So yeah, about 92% of the time if the DOJ brings charges, either there’s a guilty plea or conviction at trial. They do not mess around.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Part of the reason is that the DOJ generally only brings slam dunk cases. It's not that they are incredibly aggressive. That’s what I meant by them not messing around. If they aren’t very, very sure of a conviction they don’t bring charges. Insert another dozen “very”s for bringing charges against someone as high profile as Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Levitate posted:I think they very clearly have all the evidence and facts they need to show Trump is guilty of what he's being accused of. Even from just what's public record it seems incredibly clear there's no legitimate argument that he didn't break these laws. That selection process is going to be a poo poo-show.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 21:49
|
|
|
Travic posted:Oh. What? I’m not sure how that could be the conclusion you draw from this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2023 20:10
|
|
The case is still dead though. I guess I was just hoping there was some way of salvaging this.
|
Is the statement an actual accusation though? It seems to tread the line by saying “does anyone think it’s anyone other…” where yes it’s clear what is being implicated but does that rise to the level of libel? Edit: it’s irrelevant because Biden wouldn’t sue anyway but I was just curious if this is one of those things where phrasing it that way changes the status.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2023 22:19
|
|
|
If you’re a witness then you’re required.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:I'm not sure Trump needs further self-incrimination beyond what he does as a normal course of his business. But his lawyers are really freakin good at stalling, and "inviting" him to appear before then GJ would I'd think give him yet another opportunity to delay things further as he fights and appeals it up the chain. Smith seems to really know what he’s doing and I trust that whatever they sent Trump, which we should definitely stop assuming was accurately represented by Trump in his post, wasn’t a mistake. I’m holding off on forming any other sort of opinion until we at least get confirmation from someone else as to what he actually received.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Lamech posted:NV, and theyre going for some immunity deal I would bet these indictments serve as motivation for any other fake electors to scramble for any immunity deal they can get.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2023 22:12
|
|
|
Could the invitation have been a strategic thing where, even though they knew he wouldn’t go, the invite took away a talking point about the GJ being some secret thing that got together to mail him without a chance to defend himself? We all know it’s normal for a GJ to not hear testimony from a potential defendant but most people don’t, and given the nature of this case a good bit of it is being influenced by public opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
The witness tampering gives me the most hope. You can muddy the water about a lot of the other things but witness tampering is something that seems more direct and understandable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:You can muddy the waters about anything you want. The stolen documents case is an obvious undeniable objective crime and it's still muddied. Yes but I think the tampering (and also the documents) case is something that is more easily understandable to most people. That isn’t to say he shouldn’t get every charge he’s facing. They’re all important. But I think if they have solid evidence of tampering it’s going to hurt him more than the rest because people can grok that better than interference in an electoral process that a lot of people don’t understand in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:Listen, how is Trump supposed to coordinate an effective legal defense against the big boogyman Biden if he's not even allowed to talk to the witnesses?!? This whole thing is a sham. Witness tampering? That's just his communication style, and it was carried out by underlings who had no direct contact with Trump anyway. That’s where like 30% of people are at for sure. I do believe that more people are swayable (at least to stay home) than most people do though. Maybe I’m a hopeless optimist.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
I mean I agree that in the vastness of the universe I think there is other life, but I don’t think that means they’ve ever been here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I’m just a little old atheist, but isn’t that intensely sacrilegious? Made in god’s image, sent his own son down to take our sins, big cornerstones of the whole system, yadda yadda? Also atheist but from what I’ve gathered from my religious friends nothing in their religion precludes alien life, or even intelligent alien life.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:What are the actual punishments/consequences for Trump being indicted so far? By design you aren’t supposed to get punished until you’re found guilty. When you’re rich and can make or aren’t asked to make bail then it actually works that way. When you’re poor not so much.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Literally everyone knows Trump did crimes. Yeah I agree 30% are unreachable. He won’t win with 30% though, and I think (again maybe naively) that witness intimidation is so easy to understand that a few of the other percentage he needs are going to decide he isn’t worth voting for anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
neurobasalmedium posted:Let's hope they haven't because finding intelligent alien life would increase the chance that life on Earth has not yet encountered the Great Filter. Humanity is either first, fortunate, or hosed. If we're not first, then the probability of "hosed" goes up. Or c really is a hard cap, and the universe could well be teeming with life that’ll never be able to interact in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:There was a poll out yesterday that showed that 50% of Republicans don't even believe there ever were classified documents at Mar-a-Lago (despite Trump repeatedly admitting it and saying he was allowed to have them). I have to remind myself sometimes that a lot of people just do not pay any attention to politics. I’m married to one of them. She can’t name the vice president (who is from our state.) She can’t name the governor. I doubt she has any idea about the documents or even indictments. It just doesn’t register on her radar. Her family is all MAGA so I consider this to be a positive given the most likely alternative. And I talk about politics enough on the internet it’s nice to know I won’t have to at home.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:What does it mean for an indictment to last a long time/why would the prosecutors want that? Wouldn't you want to quickly move on to the trial, and from there to sentencing? It’s a figure of speech. He means it is extremely strong. It’s a clumsy metaphor.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
Was it ever determined if a president can pardon themselves?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
I would bet at least even money that it’s Stone. The only reason I wouldn’t think it’s stone is #6 doesn’t seem involved in the worst of it and Stone probably would be.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2023 06:10
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah, there is no mechanism for the rest of the supreme court to force someone to sit a case out That’s kind of what they can do. Tell Thomas “recuse or X number of us have agreed to decide against you no matter what.” I think you could get two conservative justices to sign on to that in this situation.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:If he's pardoned, it will be posthumous by the next Republican POTUS, and only if it's recent enough that Trump still has some level of popular support. If Trump is still alive and not running in 2028, it will be a common campaign promise among Republicans running in that election - whether or not it comes to fruition is a different question. I don’t think a plea deal could actually bar him from office. I think he ends up convicted in at least the documents case and probably the Jan 6 case but I think they do house arrest due to the nightmare security concerns surrounding imprisoning him.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:If I heard this right, Trump's lawyers want to move the trial to West Virginia to ensure a fair and unbiased trial because they can never get a fair shake in DC. 2016: Donald Trump won West Virginia with 68.5% of the vote, his largest share of the vote in any state. Hillary Clinton received just over a quarter of the vote, with 26.4%. Trump's performance in the state made it his strongest state in the 2016 election by total vote share. Not any geographically closer states like NC, VA, PAor OH. Surely, we can receive a fair and impartial trial in The Meth Capital of the World, WV? So like I said upthread, to your average Republican, any fair and impartial trial must consist of an entire jury box wearing red MAGA hats, holding bibles and carrying concealed firearms. [/quote] There’s absolutely no precedent for something like that, right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
I knew you could motion to move to another court but I had no idea you could push for a whole different state. Wild.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2023 03:27
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:SCOTUS is always technically a wildcard since they decide their own limits of their jurisdiction and the only out for anyone else is just refusing to abide by their rulings. So they could theoretically decide that, yes the SCOTUS does have primacy over state supreme courts and furthermore gently caress you. The crises would be if, say, GA convicted him and then Florida (or whatever state) refused to extradite.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Obviously we have to Typhoid Mary his rear end onto an island. It's the only way. That didn’t work out so well last time but I guess as long as we don’t use St. Helena…
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2023 04:30
|
|
|
darkspider42 posted:New thread title "I feel special to be in such a elite group (of co-defendants)!" Fixed
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2023 15:14
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Logs, mostly. They'll record IP address, time, device type (including OS) or browser type (if connecting that way) and in PMs I would not be surprised if he did the old man thing and signed his messages so they'd know it was him. Watch him have been using face unlock on the device he was tweeting from. Edit: but his defense doesn’t seem to be the Shaggy “wasn’t me” thing, more “that’s not illegal.” So I don’t even know if they’ll bother to put up the defense that he didn’t send the totally not illegal anyway DMs.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
He’s got to be 275
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2023 17:56
|
|