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

[Bozo_Casanova 26490]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Get a rope ready …

 

EVERYONE WHO HEARD THE TAPES SAID IT WAS A "PERFECT MEETING!" WHAT ABOUT HUNTER AND THE "LAPTOP FROM HELL" WHILE YOUR FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS PERSECUTED? GREATEST WITCH HUNT IN HISTORY!

[SydneyCarton 48110]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

EVERYONE WHO HEARD THE TAPES SAID IT WAS A "PERFECT MEETING!" WHAT ABOUT HUNTER AND THE "LAPTOP FROM HELL" WHILE YOUR FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS PERSECUTED? GREATEST WITCH HUNT IN HISTORY!

That will definitely be happening. 

[Ghost of LL 15539]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Those of you who are lawyers have reasons for not wanting (or if you're a prosecutor, wanting) a defendant to take the stand.

Which of those reasons apply to Trump here, assuming competent attorneys work for him?

Literally all of them.

[BamaATL 16593]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That will definitely be happening. 

Wrong! No fundraising grift attached to the statement.  

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

Yes, I think I get the (almost night and day) standards of state and fed cases. Or maybe I don't. It does seem odd how every other semi-plausible possible explanation must be eliminated when it comes to Trump but Crystal Mason gets 5 years for acting on the advice of an election worker.

[TwiceHorn 31497]

25 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Yes, I think I get the (almost night and day) standards of state and fed cases. Or maybe I don't. It does seem odd how every other semi-plausible possible explanation must be eliminated when it comes to Trump but Crystal Mason gets 5 years for acting on the advice of an election worker.

The Crystal Mason case is a very bad analogy. 

It's a very simple statute:

A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)

votes or attempts to vote in an election in which the person knows the person is not eligible to vote;

Granted, there is a state of mind in that one must knowingly vote (it wasn't some kind of accident) and know they aren't eligible to vote.

You can question the bringing of the case under the circumstances, and the sentence in the case at the statutory maximum, and you can question the jury's conclusion that she knew she was ineligible to vote.

But it's a simple case to attempt to prove.  There's no subtlety to it at all.  The feds, however, probably would not have brought that case if they didn't have some fairly solid proof from which the jury could infer that she knew she couldn't vote and did it anyway.  The mixed state of information delivered to Mason by various players probably should have created a reasonable doubt as to her guilt and the feds would have recognized that and not brought the case.

And, in fact, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, no friend of defendants, has held that her conviction must be reexamined because the state must prove that she KNEW she was ineligible.  This is a result the feds want to avoid at all cost, so they are rooting all around for evidence of Trump's intent.

Edited June 1, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[henrygandorf 29192]

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

I fully expect the DOJ to schedule a trial for this in January of 2025

that sounds great to me.  losing an election then standing trial 8 weeks later sounds like a recipe for a heart attack.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

votes or attempts to vote in an election in which the person knows the person is not eligible to vote;

Asking an election worker for assistance when trying to vote and acting upon that election workers' advice doesn't clear Mason of the Trump Every Semi-Plausible Possible Explanation Before Prosecution bar?

Really?

[TwiceHorn 31497]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Crystal Mason case is a very bad analogy. 

It's a very simple statute:

A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)

votes or attempts to vote in an election in which the person knows the person is not eligible to vote;

Granted, there is a state of mind in that one must knowingly vote (it wasn't some kind of accident) and know they aren't eligible to vote.

You can question the bringing of the case under the circumstances, and the sentence in the case at the statutory maximum, and you can question the jury's conclusion that she knew she was ineligible to vote.

But it's a simple case to attempt to prove.  There's no subtlety to it at all.  The feds, however, probably would not have brought that case if they didn't have some fairly solid proof from which the jury could infer that she knew she couldn't vote and did it anyway.  The mixed state of information delivered to Mason by various players probably should have created a reasonable doubt as to her guilt and the feds would have recognized that and not brought the case.

And, in fact, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, no friend of defendants, has held that her conviction must be reexamined because the state must prove that she KNEW she was ineligible.  This is a result the feds want to avoid at all cost, so they are rooting all around for evidence of Trump's intent.

 

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Crystal Mason case is a very bad analogy. 

It's a very simple statute:

A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)

votes or attempts to vote in an election in which the person knows the person is not eligible to vote;

Granted, there is a state of mind in that one must knowingly vote (it wasn't some kind of accident) and know they aren't eligible to vote.

You can question the bringing of the case under the circumstances, and the sentence in the case at the statutory maximum, and you can question the jury's conclusion that she knew she was ineligible to vote.

But it's a simple case to attempt to prove.  There's no subtlety to it at all.  The feds, however, probably would not have brought that case if they didn't have some fairly solid proof from which the jury could infer that she knew she couldn't vote and did it anyway.  The mixed state of information delivered to Mason by various players probably should have created a reasonable doubt as to her guilt and the feds would have recognized that and not brought the case.

And, in fact, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, no friend of defendants, has held that her conviction must be reexamined because the state must prove that she KNEW she was ineligible.  This is a result the feds want to avoid at all cost, so they are rooting all around for evidence of Trump's intent.

Another thing you have to understand, that I alluded to on this thread or elsewhere, state court prosecutors fly by the seat of their pants a lot of the time.  In most of their cases, outside the very highest profile murders, they get a file, look it over and try the case.  There's not a lot of thought or research that goes into it.  In the Mason case, you had a Nazi DA, Sharen Wilson, who was perfectly content to follow orders from her fellow travelers and indict this poor woman and some schlub prosecutor tried the case.  Bingo bango done.

The feds aren't like that.  They're anal as all hell.  They staff cases with multiple attorneys, including one from the appellate division to help make sure they aren't creating problems on appeal and to advise on procedure questions.  They have the whole fucking FBI (and DEA and CBP and everyone else) to investigate cases and they have a 90-something percent conviction rate that they really, really want to keep.

[jimmyjazz 45978]

Some legal "expert" on Anderson Cooper just asserted that classification of the document isn't necessary for a criminal act, that merely possessing military information w/o appropriate permission or clearance is in itself a crime.  I might be misinterpreting what he said.  It's been a long time since I held a security clearance, too, and I don't recall that standard, but my clearance was about as low as could be imagined.

[TwiceHorn 31497]

14 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Asking an election worker for assistance when trying to vote and acting upon that election workers' advice doesn't clear Mason of the Trump Every Semi-Plausible Possible Explanation Before Prosecution bar?

Really?

Apparently, the election worker didn't advise her she was eligible. She advised her she could sign a provisional voting affidavit and cast a provisional ballot.

Well one of the problems is the provisional ballot affidavit she signed contained the following oath:

I am a registered voter of this political subdivision and in the precinct in which I’m attempting to vote and have not already voted in this election (either in person or by mail). I am a resident of this political subdivision, have not been finally convicted of a felony or if a felon, I have completed all of my punishment including any term of incarceration, parole, supervision, period of probation, or I have been pardoned. I have not been determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be totally mentally incapacitated or partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote. I understand that giving false information under oath is a misdemeanor, and I understand that it is a Class A Misdemeanor to vote in an election for which I know I am not eligible.

So, she says she didn't read that and just signed it.  That's really no bueno for her and goes a pretty good way to proving she knew she was ineligible.

Still, because the state didn't eliminate all of her potential defenses to knowing she was ineligible to vote, flimsy as they are given the above, her conviction is in question.

The feds ain't having that.  Especially not with Donald J. Trump as defendant.

Edited June 1, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31497]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Some legal "expert" on Anderson Cooper just asserted that classification of the document isn't necessary for a criminal act, that merely possessing military information w/o appropriate permission or clearance is in itself a crime.  I might be misinterpreting what he said.  It's been a long time since I held a security clearance, too, and I don't recall that standard, but my clearance was about as low as could be imagined.

That is correct for violation of 18 USC 793(d), it only has to be information "relating to the national defense." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

Every non-lawyer on this thread right now after reading the lawyers AGAIN explain why this motherfucker isn't immediately executed for treason and 900 other crimes:

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Apparently, the election worker didn't advise her she was eligible. She advised her she could sign a provisional voting affidavit and cast a provisional ballot.

Pretty sure no one argued eligibility and the rest you described more than covers all possible semi-plausible explanations prosecutors consider when the target of investigation is Trump before they indict.

[dcbc 14487]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another thing you have to understand, that I alluded to on this thread or elsewhere, state court prosecutors fly by the seat of their pants a lot of the time.  In most of their cases, outside the very highest profile murders, they get a file, look it over and try the case.  There's not a lot of thought or research that goes into it.  In the Mason case, you had a Nazi DA, Sharen Wilson, who was perfectly content to follow orders from her fellow travelers and indict this poor woman and some schlub prosecutor tried the case.  Bingo bango done.

The feds aren't like that.  They're anal as all hell.  They staff cases with multiple attorneys, including one from the appellate division to help make sure they aren't creating problems on appeal and to advise on procedure questions.  They have the whole fucking FBI (and DEA and CBP and everyone else) to investigate cases and they have a 90-something percent conviction rate that they really, really want to keep.

Nonetheless, it's not as if they don't have high conviction rates in state courts, which may say more about the juries on those cases and more still about the high bar for nonconstitutional, reversible error.  And while state prosecutors definitely don't work up a case like the feds do, the ones I know usually did their best to be prepared, even if they tended to wing it a lot during voir dire and jury argument.  Fact is, most of them try so many cases, they can do a lot of that stuff in their sleep.  Still, the better ones I know usually were prepared when it came to putting on their case.

[TwiceHorn 31497]

36 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Pretty sure no one argued eligibility and the rest you described more than covers all possible semi-plausible explanations prosecutors consider when the target of investigation is Trump before they indict.

Not sure what you're trying to say, but the Tarrant County DA is not nearly as meticulous as the US DOJ when it comes to indicting and trying people, especially when that person is Donald Trump.

So, they are going to gather all of the evidence they can to cut off any argument from Trump that he "[didn't know know, I mean really know, he was ineligible to vote]."

And, honestly, the facts were probably there to convict Crystal Mason.  Whether she should have been indicted in the first place or given the statutory maximum sentence are different questions entirely.  Signing that provisional affidavit oath on a solemn occasion like voting was galactically stupid.  She signed a false oath, and the oath informed her that she was not eligible.  

Edited June 1, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31497]

9 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Nonetheless, it's not as if they don't have high conviction rates in state courts, which may say more about the juries on those cases and more still about the high bar for nonconstitutional, reversible error.  And while state prosecutors definitely don't work up a case like the feds do, the ones I know usually did their best to be prepared, even if they tended to wing it a lot during voir dire and jury argument.  Fact is, most of them try so many cases, they can do a lot of that stuff in their sleep.  Still, the better ones I know usually were prepared when it came to putting on their case.

I may be being unduly harsh on state prosecutors.  But the difference in case preparation between state and federal prosecutors, I think you have to admit, is night and day.  As well as the resources applied. Especially for cases as high profile as those against Trump.

And, the crimes tend to be simpler, as well as the statutes.  It's mostly simple proof of facts, without a whole lot of intent to go along with it.  

And the defense lawyers are probably not as good/diligent as even Federal Public Defenders** or the high-dollar cats Trump will employ.

**I'm on record as having the highest respect for FPD, they're damn good.

Edited June 1, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19206]

On 5/30/2023 at 9:35 AM, Snake Diggity said:

His parents lived to 93 and 88, when medical technology was not where it is today.  We are stuck in the living world with this piece of shit for at least 10 more years.

For real.  Dick Cheney and his baboon heart are still kicking around.  That guy should have been dead at least ten years ago.

[Fudge Nuggets 19206]

On 5/28/2023 at 9:49 AM, BamaATL said:

I hope he gets to a celly with an MS13 leader in ADX Florence due to overcrowding.

I hope they make him cellmates with El Chapo.

[The Dog 44063]

 

[TwiceHorn 31497]

13 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

I think whether Trump is indicted for espionage/793 is going to depend more on whether there's evidence he did anything with the classified docs other than masturbate with them.

But that's certainly a nice piece of evidence to prove his knowledge that the declassification thing was bullshit and also that he was hoarding the classified stuff purposefully.

[Pato del Muerto 52526]

I want to believe dot bmp 

[YGIFS 19452]

Yes, but what this defense pre-supposes is Trump declassified the tape about the false declassification when he erroneously declassified the non-declassified documents in question of never being declassified.  Ex.  Post.  Facto.  Libtards! 

[Sawbonz 27578]

[Satchel 6938]

Beyond insisting that he had a right to possess the docs, has Trump ever tried to explain why he wanted them in the first place?

[Pato del Muerto 52526]

5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yes, but what this defense pre-supposes is Trump declassified the tape about the false declassification when he erroneously declassified the non-declassified documents in question of never being declassified.  Ex.  Post.  Facto.  Libtards! 

Maybe trump, as potus, thought in his mind that anything incriminating against him was henceforth classified at the highest level, and therefore isn’t eligible for presentation on court and anyone that has it or knows about it is going to jail for possessing such material. 

[Gil Bang 25975]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Beyond insisting that he had a right to possess the docs, has Trump ever tried to explain why he wanted them in the first place?

Well, he wanted a few of the docs because his wife's normally arid snatch turned into Niagara Falls when she met Macron.

 

Edited June 1, 2023 by Gil Bang

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not sure what you're trying to say, but the Tarrant County DA is not nearly as meticulous as the US DOJ when it comes to indicting and trying people, especially when that person is Donald Trump.

What I'm trying to say-

All citizens should be considered equal in the eyes of law in a system that purports that principle

What you're describing-

Not that, by far. 5 years incarceration for a citizen without resources with a shoddy fraction of the effort by the state

[TwiceHorn 31497]

7 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

What I'm trying to say-

All citizens should be considered equal in the eyes of law in a system that purports that principle

What you're describing-

Not that, by far. 5 years incarceration for a citizen without resources with a shoddy fraction of the effort by the state

What I'm describing is how some cases are complex and require vast amounts of preparation and some cases are simple and require virtually none.  Crystal Mason's case falls into the latter category.

That would be true if Crystal Mason were under investigation for Trump's crimes and Trump for Crystal Mason's crime.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

Open shut. Easy case .

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/donald-trump-felony-voter-fraud-florida.html

[Rimbo 25977]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Some legal "expert" on Anderson Cooper just asserted that classification of the document isn't necessary for a criminal act, that merely possessing military information w/o appropriate permission or clearance is in itself a crime.  I might be misinterpreting what he said.  It's been a long time since I held a security clearance, too, and I don't recall that standard, but my clearance was about as low as could be imagined.

Was that not Mark Hertling?

[TwiceHorn 31497]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Open shut. Easy case .

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/donald-trump-felony-voter-fraud-florida.html

I don't know if it is or isn't because I don't know Florida law.  

I'm not trying to make any global point about justice.  I'm explaining why some cases are quick and easy and some aren't.

If you want to confine it to Trump, the Mar A Lago case is easier than the January 6 case.  Accordingly, I would expect an indictment in MAL sooner than 1/6.

[Rimbo 25977]

51 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Those of you who keep saying this... are y'all even paying attention?

[jimmyjazz 45978]

15 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Was that not Mark Hertling?

No, Hertling was on the show at the same time, along with Andrew McCabe.  I don't remember the attorney's name.  (I guess he's an attorney.)

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't know if it is or isn't because I don't know Florida law.  

The law is linked in the article along with prosecutions arising from it.

 

[atomheartbevo 89732]

5 hours ago, Red Five said:

They have him dead to rights on this. Does it really matter what he said two years ago about whatever crazy shit he believes he can and can't do? 

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So, I think that's what might be considered in litigation a "bad fact."

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Beyond insisting that he had a right to possess the docs, has Trump ever tried to explain why he wanted them in the first place?

What I love is the fact that these documents relate to Iran, which makes no sense - I could understand if they were, say a readout of Israel's current nuclear arsenal, or something that could benefit Saudi Arabia (say a lit of people trying to undermine the Saudi Royals).

But fucking Iran?  Unless he's related to the drone strike he ordered on Qasem Soleimani, I don't get it.  He was very proud and defensive of that drone strike, so maybe it relates to the reason(s) why he ordered the strike - we know he's a sensitive snowflake. I could easily see him keeping some information around to show people.  "Remember that Iranian general I had killed in Iraq? Yeah, this is why I had him killed.  You can thank me for saving the lives of Americans."

 

[Js1 85416]

55 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

What I love is the fact that these documents relate to Iran, which makes no sense - I could understand if they were, say a readout of Israel's current nuclear arsenal, or something that could benefit Saudi Arabia (say a lit of people trying to undermine the Saudi Royals).

But fucking Iran?  Unless he's related to the drone strike he ordered on Qasem Soleimani, I don't get it.  He was very proud and defensive of that drone strike, so maybe it relates to the reason(s) why he ordered the strike - we know he's a sensitive snowflake. I could easily see him keeping some information around to show people.  "Remember that Iranian general I had killed in Iraq? Yeah, this is why I had him killed.  You can thank me for saving the lives of Americans."

 

It was the BEST MOST BEAUTIFUL ATTACK PLAN that Milley wouldn’t let him authorize against Iran 

[dcbc 14487]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I may be being unduly harsh on state prosecutors.  But the difference in case preparation between state and federal prosecutors, I think you have to admit, is night and day.  As well as the resources applied. Especially for cases as high profile as those against Trump.

And, the crimes tend to be simpler, as well as the statutes.  It's mostly simple proof of facts, without a whole lot of intent to go along with it.  

And the defense lawyers are probably not as good/diligent as even Federal Public Defenders** or the high-dollar cats Trump will employ.

**I'm on record as having the highest respect for FPD, they're damn good.

Oh, I agree with you in large part.  I was just saying that not all state prosecutors are winging it all the time.  Some do.  And I know of more than a few feds who got their start as state prosecutors.

 

But it's a different level for sure.

Edited June 1, 2023 by dcbc

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

 

 

[Hermanator 7111]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

What I love is the fact that these documents relate to Iran, which makes no sense - I could understand if they were, say a readout of Israel's current nuclear arsenal, or something that could benefit Saudi Arabia (say a lit of people trying to undermine the Saudi Royals).

But fucking Iran?  Unless he's related to the drone strike he ordered on Qasem Soleimani, I don't get it.  He was very proud and defensive of that drone strike, so maybe it relates to the reason(s) why he ordered the strike - we know he's a sensitive snowflake. I could easily see him keeping some information around to show people.  "Remember that Iranian general I had killed in Iraq? Yeah, this is why I had him killed.  You can thank me for saving the lives of Americans."

 

Saudis and Iran have had their own mini arab cold war for a long time. Intelligence on Iran could definitely be worth money to the Saudis, especially if it exposes vulnerabilities in Iran's defense. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

The goddamn mothefucking trust fund shit spent thousands of his inheritance on newspaper ads calling for the execution of Americans for crimes they didn't commit and is enabled to frame others for crimes he commits with impunity as a pretext to end America and democracy. There's no backstop behind us.

That's who we might lose to.

Orange slices all around.

 

[Tuco 5076]

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Those of you who keep saying this... are y'all even paying attention?

Yeah.  For the last 7 years or so. What channel were you watching?

I would think Trump's most solid legal defense would be to claim that he is a lying piece of shit.  His vulnerability to prosecution is based on him speaking honestly to people in a room.  He could have been looking at a Denny's menu and claiming it was secret war plans.  Would that really seem unlikely or out of place considering what we know about him?  Shit, they could bring in a couple hundred million character witnesses who would testify that he just says stupid shit all the time, and for no particular reason. 

I doubt Trump would make such a claim, which makes me smile a bit. 

[tx 3 putt 77073]

this dumb ass was born with a hell of golden spoon in his mouth and just fuuuuucked it up. how dumb is this guy ?

 

[jimmyjazz 45978]

A lot of people are saying he's the most honest politician in American history.

[tx 3 putt 77073]

does he get a day pass from prison when they unveil his presidential portrait ?

[Rimbo 25977]

54 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Yeah.  For the last 7 years or so. What channel were you watching?

I don't watch TV unless there's Longhorn football on. I read my news.

You must have tuned out the last year or so. You need to pay attention to what's happening now. What's going on now is different.

Trump is turbofucked.

[NWBuck 8571]

41 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

does he get a day pass from prison when they unveil his presidential portrait ?

No need. It'll be a mugshot 

[tx 3 putt 77073]

9 minutes ago, NWBuck said:

No need. It'll be a mugshot 

[TexArcher 37979]

8 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Those of you who keep saying this... are y'all even paying attention?

Yeah, I was in the "nothing matters" camp, because he's gotten away with so much for so long.

But this really seems like it's going to sink him.  His own former lawyer, Ty Cobb, was on tv saying that he would advise his client that it's over and he should take whatever deal he can get.

[Captainant 27680]

6 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The goddamn mothefucking trust fund shit spent thousands of his inheritance on newspaper ads calling for the execution of Americans for crimes they didn't commit and is enabled to frame others for crimes he commits with impunity as a pretext to end America and democracy. There's no backstop behind us.

That's who we might lose to.

Orange slices all around.

It scares ya to death.