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

[TwiceHorn 31,449]

5 hours ago, Tuco said:

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. 

Whether he was really waving around the document is secondary to him acknowledging that he is knowingly in possession of information concerning the national defense and knows he shouldn't have it and shouldn't be showing it to people.

And, I don't know that they would defend it that way, precisely, but it might be something closely related.

First, let's acknowledge that putting people on the jury that are like most of us is almost as wrong as putting q-magats on the jury.  So, there are going to be jurors that are more neutral than either of those groups of people, or, in any case willing to decide the case on the evidence before them and not their pre-existing knowledge or beliefs about Trump.

Most people know that you can't take anything Trump says at literally face value.  Most of us believe, probably rightly, that the real, intended meaning is far worse than what he actually says.  Others are going to be less easily convinced that it's something insidious, certainly when applying a reasonable doubt standard.

With some defendants, it's probably less risky to go to trial basically on their words alone.  But Trump is such a bloviating, double-talking, lying-ass, word salad motherfucker that you really need some extra evidence corroborating that worst possible meaning.

And, in contemplating where and how Smith got this recording, something occurred to me.  In some cases, you want to talk to every conceivable witness to find out what they might say, even if you don't believe they have valuable evidence.  And you can put them in front of a grand jury to make their testimony more truthful and have an actual record of it in case they change their story.

With Trump and his propensity for influencing/tampering with witnesses, this is probably doubly important so that one of those people doesn't pop up at trial with some kind of exculpatory evidence.  So I think Smith has been talking to "err'body" before the grand jury to reduce that likelihood and stumbled on this gem.

[TwiceHorn 31,449]

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

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

 

Well, the obvious answer of course is Florida, just like the answer for Mason is Texas.  But the way that statute is written, "willfully submits" could provide an out for someone who negligently or mistakenly provides an incorrect or the wrong address in voter registration information.

If you're a federal prosecutor indicting on that statute, you probably want some extra information as to why the defendant put the wrong information down and why it was willful and not negligent.

In the Mason case, unfortunately for her, you do have her signing the provisional application affidavit falsely, which is a bad look in and of itself, and the affidavit itself basically informs her that she is ineligible to vote.  And this is a woman who was a tax preparer that was convicted of filing false tax returns on behalf of her clients, so she's not exactly an ignoramus about paperwork and seems to have a morally casual attitude about filing false papers.

I'm not supporting her conviction, certainly not her sentence.  But if you're talking about the kind of evidence prosecutors need and want to secure a conviction, it's mostly there for Mason and takes a lot of digging for Trump.

ETA:  Oof, according to Wikipedia, and to my surprise, Tarrant DA Sharen Wilson, a standartenfuhrer if there ever was one, offered Mason probation if she'd plead guilty.  What a clusterfuck.

Edited June 1, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Pato del Muerto 52,489]

Is a provisional ballot the same as a regular ballot?  Doesn’t it get extra vetting before being allowed to be tabulated, for various eligibility checks? Didn’t those checks work in that case?

[DDD Dad 14,332]

9 hours ago, Rimbo said:

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

Yes. That’s why we keep saying this. I’ll believe he faces consequences if/when it happens. 

[YGIFS 19,450]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

So what do we call this hairstyle?  It's not a mullet because of the generous front combover.  It's not blonde, nor red.  Kinda orange.  Definitely party out back.  But overall, it's altogether different.  It needs a name.  

[DigglerontheHoof 21,186]

Even if the DOJ has the balls to charge him (not a sure thing, at all), you'll never sit a jury w/out one magat on there to at least hang the jury.  

[TwiceHorn 31,449]

12 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is a provisional ballot the same as a regular ballot?  Doesn’t it get extra vetting before being allowed to be tabulated, for various eligibility checks? Didn’t those checks work in that case?

Yes, but the statute covers an "attempt to vote."

Again, I'm not defending the Mason conviction, and particularly not the sentence.  I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of trying a criminal case.  The Mason case was easy-peasy with a little bit of wiggle room on the issue of "knew she was ineligible to vote."  That's an easily triable criminal case with one witness and about a day's preparation.

These Trump cases are nothing like that.

[TwiceHorn 31,449]

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes. That’s why we keep saying this. I’ll believe he faces consequences if/when it happens. 

Again, I maintain that Trump's slipperiness with respect to the civil law is a different kettle of fish than what he's facing now.  And, even the civil things like Carroll have a different flavor than the bullshit he's pulled off in the past.  Is the Carroll case the first time Trump has been to trial on anything?  If not, it's one of a very few.

The Bragg case is a bit fraught, though.  We'll see on Fulton County.  The Mar A Lago thing seems to be shaping up to about as close to a slam dunk as one could hope for, at least on the obstruction charge.  One huge problem there is that it seems it would be tried in Florida, not DC or NY.

[Captainant 27,653]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, but the statute covers an "attempt to vote."

Again, I'm not defending the Mason conviction, and particularly not the sentence.  I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of trying a criminal case.  The Mason case was easy-peasy with a little bit of wiggle room on the issue of "knew she was ineligible to vote."  That's an easily triable criminal case with one witness and about a day's preparation.

These Trump cases are nothing like that.

Wow so weird that our justice system is ricky fuckin tick fast when it comes to imprisoning a black woman with the temerity to attempt to vote, and how much a fascist has to do before the lawyers can muster enough cognitive power to connect the fucking dots and lift a goddamn finger TWO YEARS AFTER INCITING THOUSANDS TO ATTEMPT TO INSTALL A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP

[TwiceHorn 31,449]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Wow so weird that our justice system is ricky fuckin tick fast when it comes to imprisoning a black woman with the temerity to attempt to vote, and how much a fascist has to do before the lawyers can muster enough cognitive power to connect the fucking dots and lift a goddamn finger TWO YEARS AFTER INCITING THOUSANDS TO ATTEMPT TO INSTALL A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP

Again, nuts and bolts.

Mason case easy, Trump cases hard.

It's not really that difficult to understand.

[Captainant 27,653]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Again, nuts and bolts.

Mason case easy, Trump cases hard.

It's not really that difficult to understand.

So weird how it's always cut and dry when it's NOT a fascist, huh? 

[Biff Tannen 45,673]

2 hours ago, TexArcher said:

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.

And there it is.  He'll get a slap on the wrist and be our next president.  THIS IS OUR CONCERN DUDE.

[TwiceHorn 31,449]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

And there it is.  He'll get a slap on the wrist and be our next president.  THIS IS OUR CONCERN DUDE.

The feds, as a general proposition, don't offer too many sweetheart pleas, as outlined above.

And I don't think Trump's ego permits him to plead guilty.

The other thing is that no criminal consequences, however severe, necessarily prevent him from being President.  Short of execution before he can take office.

Edited June 1, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27,546]

9 hours ago, Tuco said:

He could have been looking at a Denny's menu and claiming it was secret war plans.  

[Pescado_Rojo 19,416]

2 hours ago, YGIFS said:

So what do we call this hairstyle?  It's not a mullet because of the generous front combover.  It's not blonde, nor red.  Kinda orange.  Definitely party out back.  But overall, it's altogether different.  It needs a name.  

The Ratfucker? 

[The Dog 44,020]

 

[Rimbo 25,919]

3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes. That’s why we keep saying this. I’ll believe he faces consequences if/when it happens. 

"That's why we keep saying this" doesn't follow from your "yes."

If y'all were paying attention, reading between the lines of what eg TwiceHorn is saying:

Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction. Federal investigators who are very, very thorough, and have a 90% conviction rate. Against a guy who is struggling to keep good lawyers and often hires inexperienced ones for their looks.

At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted looks less like "don't give me hope" and more like parroting Kremlin propaganda. Because believe it or not, Moscow's social media agents work both sides. They want you to feel hopeless, so you won't act when needed.

Of course, it could also just be that y'all are dumb as a bag of hammers.

[Js1 85,310]

5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Of course, it could also just be that y'all are dumb as a bag of hammers.

Motto worthy 

[Captainant 27,653]

9 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction. Federal investigators who are very, very thorough, and have a 90% conviction rate. Against a guy who is struggling to keep good lawyers and often hires inexperienced ones for their looks.

[WhatTheBuck 28,776]

18 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction.

You’ve heard this tape? The one CNN is reporting on? The one they haven’t heard themselves but which “sources say” that “Trump’s comments suggest” the slam dunk we-got-him-this-time evidence to convict? That tape?

[atomheartbevo 89,648]

4 hours ago, TexArcher said:

  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.

Armybrat knew him when he was an asshole baseball player.

[atomheartbevo 89,648]

Just now, atomheartbevo said:

an asshole baseball player.

[Sawbonz 27,546]

37 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted

I’m no lawyer but doesn’t DOJ have to indict him before we can talk about a conviction? Did I somehow miss that nugget?

[jimmyjazz 45,898]

40 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

"That's why we keep saying this" doesn't follow from your "yes."

If y'all were paying attention, reading between the lines of what eg TwiceHorn is saying:

Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction. Federal investigators who are very, very thorough, and have a 90% conviction rate. Against a guy who is struggling to keep good lawyers and often hires inexperienced ones for their looks.

At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted looks less like "don't give me hope" and more like parroting Kremlin propaganda. Because believe it or not, Moscow's social media agents work both sides. They want you to feel hopeless, so you won't act when needed.

Of course, it could also just be that y'all are dumb as a bag of hammers.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect this to wither and die just like most other attempts to punish Trump or limit his behavior.  At this point half of America has PTSD/combat fatigue.

[jimmyjazz 45,898]

Just a refresher:  3 years ago today

[Rimbo 25,919]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect this to wither and die just like most other attempts to punish Trump or limit his behavior.  At this point half of America has PTSD/combat fatigue.

It is unreasonable. It's completely irrational. It requires ignoring certain basic facts that we've been repeatedly exposed to just in this thread alone.

I'll buy that y'all have PTSD, if only because that's an admission of irrationality. Admit that it's irrational, though. Don't sell me PTSD-derived insanity as if it's reasonable.

[jimmyjazz 45,898]

Dude.  I have a voice and a vote.  I use both.  It's still not unreasonable to gird one's self against the possibility he'll skate AGAIN.

I'm not undercutting my ability to effect as much change as I can, being just one progressive Texas resident.  I do what I can.  Not getting my hopes up is self-defense, not irrational behavior.

[Foosters 17,850]

12 hours ago, dcbc said:

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.

There's also differences within the state. Going up against a prosecutor on a drug possession case that was handed over to the prosecutor an hour before trial, vs. multi-strike case, or homicide, where gov has multiple expert wits prepped, forensic analysis, etc. 

 

[Sawbonz 27,546]

If I see an indictment under the espionage act I will be shocked. If I see any felony count I will be pleasantly surprised and leaning towards a hung jury if/when he goes to trial. 
 

If it’s a bunch of misdemeanors 

[Brisketexan 105,095]

4 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes. That’s why we keep saying this. I’ll believe he faces consequences if/when it happens. 

This.  I will believe it when I see Trump walk into a prison and hear the barred door lock shut behind him.  Not one second before.

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

And there it is.  He'll get a slap on the wrist and be our next president.  THIS IS OUR CONCERN DUDE.

Because this.  This is what will happen.  In fact, his conviction (with minimal/no prison time) will INCREASE HIS SUPPORT AND TURNOUT OF GQP VOTERS.  Some of y'all haven't been paying attention.  Breaking the law and getting away with it is the ULTIMATE way to induce "sweet libtard tears," which is the only thing that matters to GQP voters.  They will turn out at a 98% turnout rate, and he has a damned good chance of waltzing back into the White House.  Yes, I'm saying it: a convicted Trump has a BETTER chance of winning a POTUS race than the current Trump does.

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect this to wither and die just like most other attempts to punish Trump or limit his behavior.  At this point half of America has PTSD/combat fatigue.

Indeed we do.  And the Rule of Law has taken a beating.  Many of us -- including people who literally depend on it for a living -- have justifiably lost a shitload of faith in it.  Don't tell me what the law is, or what it says.  That doesn't matter.  Only the outcome matters.  And we don't trust the people with their hands on the levers, because we've been given ample evidence telling us not to do so.

[TwiceHorn 31,449]

46 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just a refresher:  3 years ago today

Certainly a bad act.  What crime involved, though?

That's one of the problems.  Anti-Trumpers see crimes where there are none, just bad acts.

[TwiceHorn 31,449]

29 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

If I see an indictment under the espionage act I will be shocked. If I see any felony count I will be pleasantly surprised and leaning towards a hung jury if/when he goes to trial. 
 

If it’s a bunch of misdemeanors 

Mar A Lago doesn't seem to involve any misdemeanors.  Whether they bring the espionage act count is a good question.

Obstruction of justice comes in a couple of different flavors, both of which they could charge, but it's a 10 year felony.  That's maximum, though, and I probably wouldn't count on that, of course.  

[Born to Run 6,569]

"That's why we keep saying this" doesn't follow from your "yes."
If y'all were paying attention, reading between the lines of what eg TwiceHorn is saying:
Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction. Federal investigators who are very, very thorough, and have a 90% conviction rate. Against a guy who is struggling to keep good lawyers and often hires inexperienced ones for their looks.
At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted looks less like "don't give me hope" and more like parroting Kremlin propaganda. Because believe it or not, Moscow's social media agents work both sides. They want you to feel hopeless, so you won't act when needed.
Of course, it could also just be that y'all are dumb as a bag of hammers.

I'd believe that Trump would eventually face conviction in 3-4 years If he wasn't the frontrunner to be elected Potus. All it takes is a dip in the economy or a spike in gas prices and he likely wins, and then hes not getting convicted-ever. The slow ass justice system coupled with Trump's usual stall tactics makes the likelihood of conviction pretty small within the window we have. Then you have the GOP blatantly stealing elections, suppressing votes and Bragging about. Then you have Ken Paxton who was indicted in 2015 and still has not gone to trial.

It's a razor thin margin here. The Republic may endure only because the Supreme Court went full 4 Loco with Roe, and women are pissed and will turn out in 24 to keep fat boy pussy grabber out of office despite the GOPs efforts to steal the election.

I may be dumber than a bag of hammers, but I'm a UT grad. Consider how much dumber all the aggies and non college grads out there voting must be, especially compared to this board.

[jimmyjazz 45,898]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Certainly a bad act.  What crime involved, though?

Crime?  Not sure.  He used the military to clear a peaceful protest, though.  Seems like there might have been a little 1A violation there.  You tell us if it's criminal.

[The Dog 44,020]

the concern trolling is getting out of hand.

[miguelito 11,262]

"Let's see ol' Donny wriggle out of this."

That tweet is like 30 years old.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,663]

A few points about the Crystal Mason case, maybe no one cares but:

There  was no jury. The trial was a bench trial. The judge was explicit that no knowledge of ineligibility was required. So the issue was never fully litigated and was not ruled upon. Court of Appeals said same -- knowledge not required. Court of Crim. Appeals said nah-- read the damn statute. 

So now it's back in the Court of Appeals to consider the issue of her knowledge. But how that's going to work, I don't understand. What is the standard of review for judging sufficiency when there was a conviction but the issue was never litigated-- de novo? And yes she signed the written oath but that's not dispositive. If she claims she didn't read or understand it (which by the way she had been released from prison AND from a halfway house), that's a credibility issue, no? Which is a matter the original fact-finder gets to assess, not an appellate court from a cold record. It would seem to me that a new trial is the proper remedy, which I guess the CoA could still say. DA's office should really drop this shit though --filled out a provisional ballot that was never counted SMDH.

[Brisketexan 105,095]

19 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

A few points about the Crystal Mason case, maybe no one cares but:

There  was no jury. The trial was a bench trial. The judge was explicit that no knowledge of ineligibility was required. So the issue was never fully litigated and was not ruled upon. Court of Appeals said same -- knowledge not required. Court of Crim. Appeals said nah-- read the damn statute. 

So now it's back in the Court of Appeals to consider the issue of her knowledge. But how that's going to work, I don't understand. What is the standard of review for judging sufficiency when there was a conviction but the issue was never litigated-- de novo? And yes she signed the written oath but that's not dispositive. If she claims she didn't read or understand it (which by the way she had been released from prison AND from a halfway house), that's a credibility issue, no? Which is a matter the original fact-finder gets to assess, not an appellate court from a cold record. It would seem to me that a new trial is the proper remedy, which I guess the CoA could still say. DA's office should really drop this shit though --filled out a provisional ballot that was never counted SMDH.

Perhaps you missed the parts where 1) she was black and 2) she tried to vote.

Open and shut case, she'll get more than any Jan 6th defendant when all is said and done.

[DDD Dad 14,332]

37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

she'll get more than any Jan 6th defendant when all is said and done.

Well, I'm not so sure about that.  Stewart Rhodes got 18 years.  That's pretty significant.

[DDD Dad 14,332]

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Of course, it could also just be that y'all are dumb as a bag of hammers.

[DDD Dad 14,332]

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted looks less like "don't give me hope" and more like parroting Kremlin propaganda. Because believe it or not, Moscow's social media agents work both sides. They want you to feel hopeless, so you won't act when needed.

[Rimbo 25,919]

I'm definitely leaning towards the Bag of Hammers Theory because literally every defense y'all have made of this asinine hand-wringing and pointless despair have been addressed, multiple times.

stop being whiny pussies and look at the facts here already

[Gatorubet 30,209]

6 hours ago, Captainant said:

Wow so weird that our justice system is ricky fuckin tick fast when it comes to imprisoning a black woman with the temerity to attempt to vote, and how much a fascist has to do before the lawyers can muster enough cognitive power to connect the fucking dots and lift a goddamn finger TWO YEARS AFTER INCITING THOUSANDS TO ATTEMPT TO INSTALL A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP

I’d complain. 

[Sawbonz 27,546]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

I’d complain. 

But who would listen right?

[SydneyCarton 48,075]

9 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I'm definitely leaning towards the Bag of Hammers Theory because literally every defense y'all have made of this asinine hand-wringing and pointless despair have been addressed, multiple times.

stop being whiny pussies and look at the facts here already

Listen man, I think this might actually have legs for once, but you can't blame people here for being skeptical considering 1) History  2) How Timing Works Out 3) There is a Human Element involved here in the form of Juries, etc. Plus politics. Plus Democrats who might not prosecute because "we'll divide the country." We don't know. 

Remember when you used to call those of us hammering Mack Brown and Greg Davis and later Charlie Strong Handwringers? Pepperidge Farm remembers. 

[DDD Dad 14,332]

8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I'm definitely leaning towards the Bag of Hammers Theory because literally every defense y'all have made of this asinine hand-wringing and pointless despair have been addressed, multiple times.

stop being whiny pussies and look at the facts here already

I don't often neg, but my trigger finger is getting itchy.

Calling other posters stupid and whiny pussies (in addition to being misogynistic) is classic ad hominem and intellectually lazy.

There has been a considerable history of lack of accountability on Trump for what has appeared to be a consistent pattern of illegal behavior throughout his lifetime.  I'm not saying he'll never face consequences, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm pessimistic and will not be getting my hopes up unless and until it happens.  

If that makes me a whiny pussy then I guess I'm a whiny pussy.

 

[nbmishoid 949]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Again, nuts and bolts.

Mason case easy, Trump cases hard.

It's not really that difficult to understand.

Yes, but it is difficult understanding the justice of it.

[The Dog 44,020]

YEEAAARRRGGGHHH

 

[Red Five 40,852]

1 hour ago, miguelito said:

"Let's see ol' Donny wriggle out of this."

That tweet is like 30 years old.

It was prior to the 2016 election. He still is a free man almost seven years later. 

[CTC2 2,795]

26 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I don't often neg, but my trigger finger is getting itchy.

Calling other posters stupid and whiny pussies (in addition to being misogynistic) is classic ad hominem and intellectually lazy.

There has been a considerable history of lack of accountability on Trump for what has appeared to be a consistent pattern of illegal behavior throughout his lifetime.  I'm not saying he'll never face consequences, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm pessimistic and will not be getting my hopes up unless and until it happens.  

If that makes me a whiny pussy then I guess I'm a whiny pussy.

 

I think he will be held accountable but death will prevent him from serving one day in jail. He will go four corners and stretch all the legal proceedings out and never serve a day because he’s dead or loses his mind like his father.