Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[RomaVicta 30033]

From the Cheney tweet about the request to meet Garland:

 

 

 

[Bullneck 19222]

 

 

[Captainant 27853]

6 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

I'm sure trump will start getting consequences for disobeying court orders annnnnny minute now.... I hear things "are supposed to be different" this go-round

[Red Five 40910]

31 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

From the comments. 

 

 

[Hermanator 7182]

Missy Stew 31411? The Russian bot programmers are getting really lazy and stagnant. 

[Pig Bellmont 8742]

That letter was purely a publicity stunt 

[HornOnTheBayou 8951]

5 hours ago, Red Five said:

From the comments. 

 

 

Trump and OJ are working together to find out who took the top secret documents to Mara Lago.

[Pato del Muerto 52625]

3 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

Trump and OJ are working together to find out who took the top secret documents to Mara Lago.

And they will turn over every leaf and kick every ball on the golf course until they do. 

[BamaATL 16593]

4 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

Trump and OJ are working together to find out who took the top secret documents to Mara Lago.

OJ always had good instincts, either running the ball or being suspicious of Ron Goldman and his secret document laundering ability.  I'm glad he's on the case.  If OJ teams up with that Kevin Sorbo dude, watch the fuck out, it's all getting solved.  

[Foosters 17889]

5 hours ago, Captainant said:

I'm sure trump will start getting consequences for disobeying court orders annnnnny minute now.... I hear things "are supposed to be different" this go-round

Can you explain to me how his post violates the court order? 

[tbone_ 14192]

Then gets term limits and elections suspended in the interests of national security so he can become Putin.

[TwiceHorn 31585]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

Can you explain to me how his post violates the court order? 

Yeah, a nonsense tweet.  The only court order I'm aware of is in NY Superior Court and forbids him from disclosing any of the state's evidence.

[joe dirt 285]

21 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

lol @ the but hunter defense. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by joe dirt
rare double post in the same post

[Foosters 17889]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, a nonsense tweet. 

So weird that this keeps happening.

[jimmyjazz 46266]

4 minutes ago, joe dirt said:

lol @ the but hunter defense. 

I'd call dibs on "Butt Hunter" for a thrash band, but on second thought, nah, y'all can have it.

[Gil Bang 26052]

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31585]

9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

That's not really anything harsh, it's a pretty standard thing under these circumstances where they have to figure out what to do with the case that just came back from appeal.

I'd wager Carroll gets to amend that suit to add the recent defamatory comment more or less as a matter of course.  And they'll have some discovery over damages for a month or two and a brief trial on it.

The interesting thing is item 3, which deals with the Westfall Act.  I think if I was Carroll/her attorneys, I'd drop that as a claim for relief.  That became a convoluted deal where the question whether Trump was "acting in the course of his employment" as a federal employee got nasty.  The Second Circuit sent it to the DC Circuit (not the federal one, but the state one), to clarify their law of agency/course/scope of employment.  The DC Circuit ruled in a manner favorable to Carroll, but leaving some fact questions open for resolution.  I wouldn't want to fuck with that anymore and risk a bad decision and lengthy appeals.  I'm kind of surprised the Westfall Act defers to state law to determine that issue.  I'd think there's a good chance that's reversed and a special "federal" course of employment law created.

[Born to Run 6569]

Then gets term limits and elections suspended in the interests of national security so he can become Putin.

And Ukraine and Nato are fucked....

[Pato del Muerto 52625]

If we get a petition that enough people believe he is the actual president right now, can we claim term limit and not let him on the ballot next year?

[tbone_ 14192]

If we get a petition that enough people believe he is the actual president right now, can we claim term limit and not let him on the ballot next year?

Seems like a trap

[conVINCEd 21472]

27 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Seems like a trap

[TheStoicPaisano 9939]

4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

And they will turn over every leaf and kick every ball on the golf course until they do. 

Trump plays by winter rules 24/7/365.

 

[Gatorubet 30324]

4 hours ago, Foosters said:

Can you explain to me how his post violates the court order? 

Quit harshing Captainant’s mellow.  

[TwiceHorn 31585]

5 hours ago, Foosters said:

So weird that this keeps happening.

Legal reporting from legit outlets is bad enough, the amateurs on Twitter are terribad.

[Hermanator 7182]

14 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If we get a petition that enough people believe he is the actual president right now, can we claim term limit and not let him on the ballot next year?

He's already secretly running the country in a shadow government along with reanimated zombie JFK Jr, RFK Jr, and Frederick Douglas's bastard great great grandson. He can just keep doing that he doesn't need to be on any ballot. 

[Red Five 40910]

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/prosecutors-investigating-whether-trump-staff-had-dress-rehearsal-to-hide-boxes-of-mar-a-lago-documents-from-feds/

I don't know how he doesn't go to jail for this. 

[kevwun 15936]

I hope who he sold or traded documents to eventually comes out.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/prosecutors-investigating-whether-trump-staff-had-dress-rehearsal-to-hide-boxes-of-mar-a-lago-documents-from-feds/

I don't know how he doesn't go to jail for this. 

narrator: it's because he will be dead

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

32 minutes ago, Red Five said:

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/prosecutors-investigating-whether-trump-staff-had-dress-rehearsal-to-hide-boxes-of-mar-a-lago-documents-from-feds/

I don't know how he doesn't go to jail for this. 

Well you see since it isn't explicitly stated that a president cannot steal, hide, and repeatedly move classified documents so we'll just have to let him go on this one too.

[Pato del Muerto 52625]

53 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

narrator: it's because he will be dead

Compromise acceptable 

[TwiceHorn 31585]

33 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Well you see since it isn't explicitly stated that a president cannot steal, hide, and repeatedly move classified documents so we'll just have to let him go on this one too.

Whoop here it is.  18 USC 1503 seems to be the relevant obstruction statute, and provides, in relevant part:

Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). 

Damn Congress loves that term "corruptly" in criminal statutes.  Here's a blurb, pretty authoritative, on what corruptly means: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1723-protection-government-processes-state-mind-requirement-18-usc

The weight of authority, however, requires the government prove that the defendant had a specific intent to obstruct or impede a pending judicial proceeding. United States v. Littleton, 76 F.3d 614, 619 (4th Cir. 1996) (false statements must have obstructed or been intended to obstruct the due administration of justice); United States v. Maloney, 71 F.3d 645, 656 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Jespersen, 65 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365 (6th Cir. 1994) (government must prove that there was a judicial proceeding underway that defendant's actions were intended to obstruct); United States v. Wood, 6 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1993) (defendant must have acted corruptly with the specific intent to obstruct or impede the proceeding in its due administration of justice); United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d 630 (5th Cir. 1992) (essential element that defendant acted with the specific intent to obstruct or impede the proceeding); United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 852 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1157 (1982); United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 114-15 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 (1977).

Note that one of the cases is Haldeman's.

But, big but here, the 11th Circuit where this would presumably be tried and initially appealed: 

Some courts have required only that the defendant "knowingly and intentionally undertook an action from which an obstruction of justice was a reasonably foreseeable result." United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Saget, 991 F.2d 702, 713 (11th Cir.) (government not required to prove defendant had the specific purpose of obstructing justice), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 950 (1993); 

There seems to be ample evidence of Trump's specific intention under either standard.  Let's hope to God the trial judge instructs the jury according to the weight of authority and not the 11th Circuit view, only to have the Supremes adopt the great weight view, which would actually be great for defendants generally.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Whoop here it is.  18 USC 1503 seems to be the relevant obstruction statute, and provides, in relevant part:

Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). 

Damn Congress loves that term "corruptly" in criminal statutes.  Here's a blurb, pretty authoritative, on what corruptly means: https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1723-protection-government-processes-state-mind-requirement-18-usc

The weight of authority, however, requires the government prove that the defendant had a specific intent to obstruct or impede a pending judicial proceeding. United States v. Littleton, 76 F.3d 614, 619 (4th Cir. 1996) (false statements must have obstructed or been intended to obstruct the due administration of justice); United States v. Maloney, 71 F.3d 645, 656 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Jespersen, 65 F.3d 993 (2d Cir. 1995); United States v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365 (6th Cir. 1994) (government must prove that there was a judicial proceeding underway that defendant's actions were intended to obstruct); United States v. Wood, 6 F.3d 692 (10th Cir. 1993) (defendant must have acted corruptly with the specific intent to obstruct or impede the proceeding in its due administration of justice); United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d 630 (5th Cir. 1992) (essential element that defendant acted with the specific intent to obstruct or impede the proceeding); United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 852 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1157 (1982); United States v. Haldeman, 559 F.2d 31, 114-15 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (per curiam), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 933 (1977).

Note that one of the cases is Haldeman's.

But, big but here, the 11th Circuit where this would presumably be tried and initially appealed: 

Some courts have required only that the defendant "knowingly and intentionally undertook an action from which an obstruction of justice was a reasonably foreseeable result." United States v. Thomas, 916 F.2d 647, 651 (11th Cir. 1990). See also United States v. Saget, 991 F.2d 702, 713 (11th Cir.) (government not required to prove defendant had the specific purpose of obstructing justice), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 950 (1993); 

There seems to be ample evidence of Trump's specific intention under either standard.  Let's hope to God the trial judge instructs the jury according to the weight of authority and not the 11th Circuit view, only to have the Supremes adopt the great weight view, which would actually be great for defendants generally.

You think the supreme court that just got through gutting the clean water act by changing a word, isn't going to pull some shit with the term corruptly?

[The Dog 44168]

 

[Gil Bang 26052]

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31585]

1 hour ago, Grade of D as in David said:

You think the supreme court that just got through gutting the clean water act by changing a word, isn't going to pull some shit with the term corruptly?

They haven't done a damn thing for Trump, specifically.  Such a ruling would favor defendants overall, and they have actually done quite a few of those lately.  

So, no, I really have no idea what they're going to do.  And neither do you.

[Foosters 17889]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They haven't done a damn thing for Trump, specifically.  Such a ruling would favor defendants overall, and they have actually done quite a few of those lately.  

So, no, I really have no idea what they're going to do.  And neither do you.

Ok, fine. But can we still get angry at you for what we think might could happen in the future?

[TwiceHorn 31585]

9 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Ok, fine. But can we still get angry at you for what we think might could happen in the future?

Ever seen something like that where there's a "circuit conflict" in the elements of proof?

You'd think a prosecution with an eye on appeal might ask for the tougher instruction, even though not required, if they think they have the horses to prove it.  And the defense certainly wouldn't object?

The 11th Circuit pattern jury instructions seem to have the tougher intent.

And, maybe they don't charge omnibus obstruction, as indicated by the memo above.

[Foosters 17889]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ever seen something like that where there's a "circuit conflict" in the elements of proof?

You'd think a prosecution with an eye on appeal might ask for the tougher instruction, even though not required, if they think they have the horses to prove it.  And the defense certainly wouldn't object?

The 11th Circuit pattern jury instructions seem to have the tougher intent.

And, maybe they don't charge omnibus obstruction, as indicated by the memo above.

I have not. Not with elements of proof anyway. Not sure I've ever encountered a prosecutor with the balls or foresight to do so, but then again, these are local DAs. And you've got to remember that these are simple lawyers. People of the land. The common clay of the criminal justice system. You know, morons. 

[tx 3 putt 77569]

nothing to see here ....

 

[BamaATL 16593]

33 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

nothing to see here ....

 

It's about to come out that he did a test run of obstruction of justice at Margo a Lago.  Like, no, they fucking really practiced.  Unreal, and hilarious at the same time.  How the hell can a career criminal be so bad at it.  

[Pato del Muerto 52625]

9 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

How the hell can a career criminal be so bad at it.  

Normally you have to be good or get good fast in order to avoid serious consequences. He never had that impetus to get good, being a bad criminal kept working for him. 

[conVINCEd 21472]

16 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

It's about to come out that he did a test run of obstruction of justice at Margo a Lago.  Like, no, they fucking really practiced.  Unreal, and hilarious at the same time.  How the hell can a career criminal be so bad at it.  

Stringer Bell would be disappointed.

[TwiceHorn 31585]

26 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Normally you have to be good or get good fast in order to avoid serious consequences. He never had that impetus to get good, being a bad criminal kept working for him. 

And, let's face it, the Southern DIstrict of New York and Manhattan DA haven't been exactly tough on white collar criminals over the years for various reasons, some legit** and some less so.

And, a lot of the shit Trump routinely does, or did, is unethical, stinky as shit, and crooked as hell, but just below the criminal threshold.  Mos of the legal "success" he has enjoyed has been in the civil arena, where things are settled confidentially and you never really know what happened.

And that same "success" means he hasn't really learned anything about avoiding criminal or even civil liability.

**A lot of these white collar cases are harder to prove than anyone wants to admit, and tagging the "CEO" of a corporate-type organization with criminal liability for the misdeeds of the organization can be very difficult, even if you know or believe that the CEO was intimately involved.

Edited May 26, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27853]

54 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

**A lot of these white collar cases are harder to prove than anyone wants to admit, and tagging the "CEO" of a corporate-type organization with criminal liability for the misdeeds of the organization can be very difficult, even if you know or believe that the CEO was intimately involved.

Ya know most people would call this a bug, and not a feature of the legal system. 

[TwiceHorn 31585]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Ya know most people would call this a bug, and not a feature of the legal system. 

It really has more to do with the laws themselves than the legal system.  

[safe sex 11798]

And I think we know how well trying to legislate tougher penalties for white collar crimes would go

[pyrohornIII 4823]

Trump isn't an adept crook or mastermind.  He simply does whatever he wants and if he gets caught he denies and deflects.  Then he uses the court system to drag things out counting on those coming after him run out of patience or money.  And if he does lose, he claims it a victory.  Roy Cohn taught him all this and he's used it to his benefit from his early days.  Several of the Trump documentaries go into depth on that.  Seems Cohn and Norman Vincent Peale were two yuge influences on young Trump.

What pisses me off is what safe sex and TwiceHorn alluded to, that people much brighter than Trump get away with these white collar crimes all over the place and no one catches them.   But they catch the poor kid who swipes a loaf of bread.  

And when they try to add the muscle to catch more of these type it gets blocked.   We know the IRS doesn't have the staff to go up against the big money and their phalanx of tax lawyers, so they get their quota on smaller citizens.  And Biden tried to add muscle into the IRS and it got watered down.  So infuriating.  

[Hermanator 7182]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It really has more to do with the laws themselves than the legal system.  

[Born to Run 6569]

Well you see since it isn't explicitly stated that a president cannot steal, hide, and repeatedly move classified documents so we'll just have to let him go on this one too.

Susan Collin's furrowed eyebrows agree.

[Constant 6755]

Interesting.