A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[TwiceHorn 31017]

1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Do you not remember who we are talking about?

But you see, here's where criminal litigation is different.

In his past civil cases, Trump could talk out both sides of his mouth and not pay for it unless there was a trial.  So he'd settle and avoid trial.

There is no settlement of criminal litigation except by plea bargain and conviction, 99% of the time.  That habit of his is going to bite him in the ass in this.

[Pig Bellmont 8662]

15 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

You just went from "can't" to "could be [disallowed]." 

Which is it?

You’re quibbling over the enforcement mechanism. Rule says you can’t. If you do it anyway, typically the opposing party will have to file a motion, and then the court would issue an order striking or disallowing the inconsistent legal position with the one previously relied on by the Court in the other matter

[TwiceHorn 31017]

6 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You’re quibbling over the enforcement mechanism. Rule says you can’t. If you do it anyway, typically the opposing party will have to file a motion, and then the court would issue an order striking or disallowing the inconsistent legal position with the one previously relied on by the Court in the other matter

To quote some very sage advice I received as an engineer headed to law school:

In law school, there is no right answer, only perhaps a more correct answer.  Mulitple choice exams were hell.

[Pig Bellmont 8662]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

To quote some very sage advice I received as an engineer headed to law school:

In law school, there is no right answer, only perhaps a more correct answer.  Mulitple choice exams were hell.

That and trials are messy. Rules don’t necessarily get applied consistently, for ex. some parties fail to object or a court could get the ruling wrong. A lot of ins and outs and what have yous 

[TwiceHorn 31017]

3 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

That and trials are messy. Rules don’t necessarily get applied consistently, for ex. some parties fail to object or a court could get the ruling wrong. A lot of ins and outs and what have yous 

Yeah, that was for Beau Vine and anyone else operating under any illusions that there is some correct answer to anything here.

Edited September 9, 2022 by TwiceHorn

['stache 21726]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that was for Beau Vine and anyone else operating under any illusions that there is some correct answer to anything here.

Of course a bunch of legal stuff is up to discretion and there are tons of close calls. But some parts of law unequivocally have right and wrong answers. Treating executive privilege the same as attorney-client privilege is unequivocally a wrong analysis. Saying that a former president's claim of executive privilege can preclude review of the documents by the current members of the executive branch (i.e., DOJ) is a wrong analysis. What scares many of us to death is that if SCOTUS ever starts issuing decisions that everyone else knows is wrong, especially when it comes to the constitution, our tripartite government will have failed.

[miguelito 11151]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

But you see, here's where criminal litigation is different.

In his past civil cases, Trump could talk out both sides of his mouth and not pay for it unless there was a trial.  So he'd settle and avoid trial.

There is no settlement of criminal litigation except by plea bargain and conviction, 99% of the time.  That habit of his is going to bite him in the ass in this.

 

[The Dog 43707]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

But you see, here's where criminal litigation is different.

In his past civil cases, Trump could talk out both sides of his mouth and not pay for it unless there was a trial.  So he'd settle and avoid trial.

There is no settlement of criminal litigation except by plea bargain and conviction, 99% of the time.  That habit of his is going to bite him in the ass in this.

 

['stache 21726]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Wut? His lawyers have been lying in the courts at every turn. He's filed dozens of lawsuits all of them filled with lies. I think the bigger problem for him here is what the article I posted points out, that he has to take inconsistent positions on executive privilege vs highly classified documents vs his ability to "declassify" vs his authority to have taken them in the first place. It's not alternative pleadings in which you can prevail on one theory and the others go away. To assert these arguments he has to essentially admit that they are the type of documents that he had no right to take with him, if I understand the article correctly. 

[F250 28611]

14 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If they search the menu of “Champion’s Grill” at Trump Doral they will find it the very tasty deconstructed  “naked burger” with a half pound patty cooked to spec, heirloom tomatoes, arugula dressed with olive oil and balsamic, and burrata. Delicious!

Honestly it was the burrata that attracted me to that plate. Every time I saw that picture.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26126]

16 minutes ago, F250 said:

Honestly it was the burrata that attracted me to that plate. Every time I saw that picture.

 

Feast your eyes

[Longhorn_Fan68 33777]

in light of everything we know now and with shit going on in Ukraine, this has to be revisited, right? something went down in that meeting and we deserve to know what

[Biff Tannen 45420]

And there it is

Edited September 9, 2022 by Biff Tannen
that god damn burger pic

[Longhorn_Fan68 33777]

I'd like to point out that Trump is 6'-3" and wears lifts. Putin is purportedly 5'-6"

[Native Horn 3474]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is no settlement of criminal litigation except by plea bargain and conviction, 99% of the time.  That habit of his is going to bite him in the ass in this.

JFC, I hope you are right.

[Beau Vine 53837]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You’re quibbling over the enforcement mechanism. Rule says you can’t. If you do it anyway, typically the opposing party will have to file a motion, and then the court would issue an order striking or disallowing the inconsistent legal position with the one previously relied on by the Court in the other matter

Gee, I wonder why I'm quibbling over the enforcement mechanism when the subject is Donald Trump.  Why would I do that?  It's a real mystery...

[Gatorubet 29992]

30 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Wut? His lawyers have been lying in the courts at every turn. He's filed dozens of lawsuits all of them filled with lies. I think the bigger problem for him here is what the article I posted points out, that he has to take inconsistent positions on executive privilege vs highly classified documents vs his ability to "declassify" vs his authority to have taken them in the first place. It's not alternative pleadings in which you can prevail on one theory and the others go away. To assert these arguments he has to essentially admit that they are the type of documents that he had no right to take with him, if I understand the article correctly. 

to be fair, although they shit talk all the time on TV about what’s in the pleadings they filed after the election, when you look them up on pacer and see what they attached as exhibit it’s usually nothingburger-ish, and all of the stupid my pillow guy type “evidence” is never included in the pleadings because they damn well know it’s Rule 11 time if they include it.

[Beau Vine 53837]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that was for Beau Vine and anyone else operating under any illusions that there is some correct answer to anything here.

It was your other lawyer colleague who said "he can't..." so... maybe you could explain it to him?

[tx 3 putt 75895]

Any updates ??

[Horndog 2167]

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

You’re quibbling over the enforcement mechanism. Rule says you can’t. If you do it anyway, typically the opposing party will have to file a motion, and then the court would issue an order striking or disallowing the inconsistent legal position with the one previously relied on by the Court in the other matter

One point of clarification.  A litigant can  assert inconsistent positions in different cases -- and sometimes within the same case. The preclusion comes into play once a final ruling is made and the position taken by the litigant is essential to that ruling. When that happens the issue has been decided, either for or against that party, and should not be open to re-litigation by that party. But as pointed out, another party has to make the judge aware of the prior ruling. 

[Brisketexan 104215]

Alan's a good dude; very careful, pragmatic, and he'll bend over backwards to make sure you get a good trial.  And that motherfucker can run like the wind.  I'll occasionally go for a lunchtime run 1-2x/week down on the Brazos, and while I'm nowhere near fast, I'm not that slow.  That sumbitch will be on the same trial occasionally and just hauls ass past me.  I bet he's running 7-8 min miles easy.
we'll stop and visit occasionally, and he's as salt of the earth, unpretentious as you'd ever meet in any profession.  you'd never know he's an Art. III unless he told you. 

Gives you a good trial? Maybe if you’ve got a patent case. You damn well know that if you’ve got a “regular” case, he’ll force you to consent to the magistrate. By doing something like, I dunno, setting the trial for a date on which he knows and has been specifically informed that counsel has an irreconcilable conflict. Hypothetically, of course.
His stunt to be the national court for all patent cases caused plenty of collateral damage.

[TexasEd 8057]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's completely fair.  She mentally analogizes it too closely to attorney-client privilege, which is virtually inviolate except in very narrow circumstances, waiver and crime-fraud.

But, to also be completely fair, 99.9% of district judges outside of D. D.C, would probably struggle with it, too.  And, the two major cases, US v. Nixon and Nixon v. GSA require quite a bit of "interpretation" or "extension" to apply to this scenario, although I think the interpretation made by the government, and the Archivist, is completely fair and reasonable, and, ultimately, correct.  Trump v. Thompson showed that to be true under the PRA.

I started looking at this 30 years in that Presidential Power class and have been following it ever since.  And there hasn't been much to follow until recently, but I watched Trump v. Thompson real carefully.

Nichols, another Trump appointee, is kind of mad at the 1/6 committee for forcing him to make new law on executive privilege in Meadows' case.  He's familiar with it, though. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-rankled-by-jan-6-committee-push-for-executive-privilege-ruling-in-meadows-case/ar-AA11zFKB

Yeah, but doesn't original jurisdiction for claims of executive privilege belong to that DC District Court?  She could have ruled on the AC privilege and should have said "wrong venue" on the Exec P.  The Special Master should only be looking for ACP docs which is what the DoJ argued.

The second part about the Exec P ruling that bothers me is that the DoJ is the Executive branch.  So the ruling says hey, executive, you can't have access tothese documents because they are protected by executive privilege.  And the DoJ points at the org chart and says yeah, I report to the Chief Executive, we are the Exec.  Would love to see the follow up of, "that guy is an imposter that refuses to acknowledge he lost the election and wants to run a shadow government.  Are you aiding his act of sedition, we can investigate that too. "

[TexasEd 8057]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

in light of everything we know now and with shit going on in Ukraine, this has to be revisited, right? something went down in that meeting and we deserve to know what

Yes, He might have a legit claim that his deliberation on European policy decisions were a strait "Putin want this list" that he executed. 

Is trump arguing he wrote it on the back of the Nuclear capability SAP doc that was found at MAL while he was taking notes in that meeting with Putin?

Edited September 9, 2022 by TexasEd

[TwiceHorn 31017]

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Gives you a good trial? Maybe if you’ve got a patent case. You damn well know that if you’ve got a “regular” case, he’ll force you to consent to the magistrate. By doing something like, I dunno, setting the trial for a date on which he knows and has been specifically informed that counsel has an irreconcilable conflict. Hypothetically, of course.
His stunt to be the national court for all patent cases caused plenty of collateral damage.

I don't like that and I didn't like it when TJ Ward and err'one else in ED Tex did it, to a lesser degree.

However, I am not going to put MAGAT evil on Albright for that.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Not every judge is willing to entertain Trump’s bullshit bad faith. Always fun to read a good bench slap

“Bench slap” is an A+ pun.

Bravo!

[TwiceHorn 31017]

31 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Yeah, but doesn't original jurisdiction for claims of executive privilege belong to that DC District Court?  She could have ruled on the AC privilege and should have said "wrong venue" on the Exec P.  The Special Master should only be looking for ACP docs which is what the DoJ argued.

The second part about the Exec P ruling that bothers me is that the DoJ is the Executive branch.  So the ruling says hey, executive, you can't have access tothese documents because they are protected by executive privilege.  And the DoJ points at the org chart and says yeah, I report to the Chief Executive, we are the Exec.  Would love to see the follow up of, "that guy is an imposter that refuses to acknowledge he lost the election and wants to run a shadow government.  Are you aiding his act of sedition, we can investigate that too. "

First, remember that there is a common-law executive privilege and the variant/procedure prescribed by the Presidential Records Act.

To my mind, if it involves documents, it involves Presidential Records, and the PRA applies.  There's almost no way you can assert executive privilege as to a document without conceding that the document is a Presidential Record and governed by the PRA, see 44 USC 2201.  The PRA mandates that proper venue for a former President to contest the executive privilege decision of the incumbent President lies in the D. D.C., with appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

With regard to testimony, or things that aren't Presidential Records, an assertion of executive privilege would seem to be a federal cause of action subject to the usual rules of personal jurisdiction and venue.  So, any goddamn place, basically, with appeal to whatever Trump-infested regional court of appeals applies, like the 11th Circuit.

That's why I have been saying that it's vital to apply the PRA process to this.  And the DOJ needs to pull their head out of their ass on this issue.  Now, arguably, the DOJ speaks for the Biden Administration.  But the PRA basically requires the former President to go through the Archivist, who goes through the incumbent President for any decision, and the final decision is made by the Archivist.  The PRA is written in terms of contesting the decision of the Archivist.  

So, I think the DOJ needs to involve the Archivist and Adminstration explicitly and get a ruling from them.  Maybe even make the Archivist a party.  Otherwise, it could fall under common-law executive privilege and be decided by a bunch of Klan Katholics in Floribama.

Edited September 9, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Pig Bellmont 8662]

Judge Cannon deserves this chaos lol

[Pig Bellmont 8662]

10 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

“Bench slap” is an A+ pun.

Bravo!

Thanks but it’s not original

Edited September 9, 2022 by Pig Bellmont

[Eskimohorn 5593]

What scares many of us to death is that if SCOTUS ever starts issuing decisions that everyone else knows is wrong, especially when it comes to the constitution, our tripartite government will have failed.

If?

[henrygandorf 29169]

 

[Captainant 27239]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

in light of everything we know now and with shit going on in Ukraine, this has to be revisited, right? something went down in that meeting and we deserve to know what

I'm sure the overtures to break up NATO and to delegitimize Zelensky have nothing to do with his love affair with putin

/s

[F250 28611]

1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

 

He was knighted at a Medieval Times in Orlando.

[atomheartbevo 89295]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Any updates ??

Maybe?

long thread so click through and read his other tweets

 

[atomheartbevo 89295]

Well not that long

 

[The Dog 43707]

 

[Ted Lange 15968]

LOL   

 

 

[Bookman 4600]

37 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Maybe?

long thread so click through and read his other tweets

 

Seems like that'd be a good opinion to read in a Federal Procedure class.

[The Dog 43707]

52 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

LOL   

 

 

Biden:

[TwiceHorn 31017]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Well not that long

 

He left out the very best part.

In presenting a pleading, an attorney certifies that it is not being presented for any improper purpose; that the claims are warranted under the law; and that the factual contentions have evidentiary support. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. By filing the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s lawyers certified to the Court that, to the best of their knowledge, “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law,” and that “the factual contentions have evidentiary support[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). I have serious doubts about whether that standard is met here.

I hope to God someone made a Rule 11 motion on that.  And, I guess sanctions are available even post-dismissal under 28 USC 1927 and inherent power.  I'd love to see smug sugartits sanctioned.  Fuck, she didn't sign it.

Edited September 9, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31017]

Also notable.  Today in the Trump Special Master suit, the parties were supposed to brief the Special Master issues and submit names for consideration.  As well as address the governments arguments about classified materials.

Neither the government nor Trump has filed anything yet.  I'm going to assume that that means that Trumpco were complete assholes about everything, so the parties were unable to agree about anything.

[Bullneck 18922]

5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

to be fair, although they shit talk all the time on TV about what’s in the pleadings they filed after the election, when you look them up on pacer and see what they attached as exhibit it’s usually nothingburger-ish, and all of the stupid my pillow guy type “evidence” is never included in the pleadings because they damn well know it’s Rule 11 time if they include it.

Had to look that up:

Quote

Legal Definition of Sanctions Rule 11: What You Need to Know

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose.5 min read

1. Rule 11 in Full
2. History of Rule 11
3. Examples of Rule 11 in Court Cases
 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 provides that a district court may sanction attorneys or parties who submit pleadings for an improper purpose or that contain frivolous arguments or arguments that have no evidentiary support.

 

[Bullneck 18922]

3 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

LOL   

 

 

I'll watch the video in a moment but my first response is "WTF?"

It would serve no purpose and trivialize the matter, like it's a parlor game.  

Edited September 10, 2022 by Bullneck

[Js1 84939]

2 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

LOL   

 

 

CNN has gotten so bad. So so bad. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

CNN has gotten so bad. So so bad. 

Yes. I read some long ass thread about it. TLDR, CNN is trying to capture some of the right wing olds because the only demo that watches News. 

[TwiceHorn 31017]

And, here is the Special Master filing.  It is joint, which is a miracle. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/83/trump-v-united-states/

The government submits Barbara Jones, the Cohen/Giuliani Special Master, https://bracewell.com/people/barbara-s-jones, and a former DC Circuit judge, Thomas Griffith, https://www.huntonak.com/en/people/thomas-griffith.html

Trump proposes what appears to be a reasonable candidate, a former FISA judge, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_J._Dearie and Paul Huck, Jr. who seems to have no particular qualifications except being a Rick Scott crony.  Oh, and he's married to Barbara Lagoa, a candidate for Barrett's spot on the Supreme Court, and a Cuban American.  A Klan Katholic.

Dearie is the only one with appropriate security clearance for the classified docs.  Of course the government position is the Special Master shouldn't touch them.

Most importantly to me, however, the Government proposes that the Special Master consult with NARA/the Archivist in evaluating any executive privilege claims, which would seem to invoke the PRA procedure for challenges by Trump and set the venue in DC.  Trump is opposed.

There's some weasely-ass bullshit by Trump about the classified stuff and whether it's a Presidential Record and whether it "remains classified in perpetuity."  I think that's bringing up the declassification argument without bringing it up.

There's one fuckjob in it.  The classified documents would appear to be Presidential Records.  The former President retains access to Presidential Records.  That has nothing to do with executive privilege, but under the literal wording of the statute, Trump can noodle around in all of his Presidential Records (while in the custody of NARA, of course).  The statute is silent as to whether Trump can masturbate with/on them, however.

The government proposes completion of the review by October 17,  Trump says 90 days.

Edited September 10, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[lemonlime 5503]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Trump proposes what appears to be a reasonable candidate, a former FISA judge, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_J._Dearie and Paul Huck, Jr. who seems to have no particular qualifications except being a Rick Scott crony.

 

 

[safe sex 11627]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's one fuckjob in it.  The classified documents would appear to be Presidential Records.  The former President retains access to Presidential Records.  That has nothing to do with executive privilege, but under the literal wording of the statute, Trump can noodle around in all of his Presidential Records (while in the custody of NARA, of course).  The statute is silent as to whether Trump can masturbate with/on them, however.

The government proposes completion of the review by October 17,  Trump says 90 days.

There goes ol' Donny, startin' ta wriggle

[Biff Tannen 45420]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The government proposes completion of the review by October 17,  Trump says 90 days.

And he'll get 90 days.  And then another 90 days.  Then two more weeks.  And so on.  And so on.  And so on.

[Beau Vine 53837]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The statute is silent as to whether Trump can masturbate with/on them, however.

But there's no precedent that says he can't!

[Willfully Horn 7911]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

But there's no precedent that says he can't!

There has never been enough US citizens willing to support absolute criminal bullshittery in that office, so no case history.