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

[Pato del Muerto 52,337]

28 minutes ago, Bookman said:

What if you were in the process of murdering someone while crossing state lines?

I streamed a series a few years ago where a murdered person was found in the chunnel half on the English side and half on the French side, and the first few minutes of the show was them discussing whose case it was. 
 

hope that helps. 

[TwiceHorn 31,241]

20 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Is profiting off a crime a separate crime (writing a book, posting a video, making a movie, bragging about it in PAC solicitations)?

 

It would be interesting to see if they are investigating Jan 6 stuff and people have testified that Nauta was present during meetings and could be called as a witness in that trial.

They are, apparently, investigating whether any of the PACs committed wire fraud or something similar in soliciting donations based on false information, either as to election fraud or where the proceeds would go.

Once indicted for this financial crime, the defendants would be subject to asset forfeiture.

The "profiting from a crime" thing, as either a civil or criminal law (Son of Sam law) is mostly unconstitutional.  But, courts are free to order all profit from a book to be directed to restitution or satisfaction of a civil judgment.  And they can be and are included in plea bargains.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Chopper 17,150]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I streamed a series a few years ago where a murdered person was found in the chunnel half on the English side and half on the French side, and the first few minutes of the show was them discussing whose case it was. 
 

hope that helps. 

The Tunnel. That was pretty good.

[atomheartbevo 89,400]

Normal things you say about the DA in Georgia that is about to prosecute you:

'They say there's a young woman, a young racist, in Atlanta, and they say, I guess, they say she was after a certain gang, she ended up having an affair with the head of the gang or a gang member,' Trump claimed, referring to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. 

'This is a person who wants to indict me. She's got a lot of problems but she wants to indict me to try and run for some other office,' the former president went on at a campaign event in New Hampshire, 'wants to indict me for a perfect phone call. This is even better than my perfect phone call with Ukraine,' he added, referring to his call with Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger. 

[jimmyjazz 45,540]

So is Trump's insane sweating in that clip a sign of addiction or withdrawal?

[Rimbo 25,766]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So is Trump's insane sweating in that clip a sign of addiction or withdrawal?

[Pato del Muerto 52,337]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So is Trump's insane sweating in that clip a sign of addiction or withdrawal?

New England summer just claiming victims

[atomheartbevo 89,400]

8 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

New England summer just claiming victims

[Hookah Horns 3,072]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I haven't really yet seen evidence of her fucking it up.  Protests to the contrary, I don't think May 2024 is a wildly unreasonable trial date and that October was pretty wildly ambitious by the government.  We'll see where this latest thing leads, but I'm not convinced it's a fuckup or will hurt the government, unless they actually have been doing something shady.

I'm not sure OSC can make a credible case of "bias" sufficient to recuse.  And I don't think that's immediately appealable, either, maybe by mandamus.  There does seem like there might be a need to appeal one of her CIPA rulings and that might get them another judge from the 11th Circuit.

To anyone sentient and possessing even a passing familiarity with human beings, merely pointing to the fact that the defendant gave her the fucking gavel should be sufficient proof of bias in his favor. Add in the overwhelming "I wanna suck a little orange dick" energy from her rulings last year and I don't know how you make a credible argument that she isn't biased. 

[TwiceHorn 31,241]

3 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

To anyone sentient and possessing even a passing familiarity with human beings, merely pointing to the fact that the defendant gave her the fucking gavel should be sufficient proof of bias in his favor. Add in the overwhelming "I wanna suck a little orange dick" energy from her rulings last year and I don't know how you make a credible argument that she isn't biased. 

Well, it seems like such a recusal rule would allow every subsequent administration (if different party) to disqualify a judge appointed by the previous administration.  Or, similarly, an opponent to the DOJ or any agency of the current administration to recuse any judge appointed by the current administration.

Maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing.

As I have said several times, I don't think the Special Master case necessarily proves bias.  It's a data point.  We may be getting more data points.  Just depends on where this goes.

As it stands, it's maybe a couple hundred words and a couple of additional pdfs from the government.  It's currently no big deal.

This is not, as yet, "siding with Trump."  To some extent, better raised now and the air cleared than on a motion to dismiss the indictment for grand jury misconduct.  One nice thing, although the cases cited in the Justice Manual above do condemn those grand jury shenanigans, in neither case was the indictment dismissed.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[cactusflinthead 27,594]

 

[Js1 85,085]

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Normal things you say about the DA in Georgia that is about to prosecute you:

'They say there's a young woman, a young racist, in Atlanta, and they say, I guess, they say she was after a certain gang, she ended up having an affair with the head of the gang or a gang member,' Trump claimed, referring to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis. 

'This is a person who wants to indict me. She's got a lot of problems but she wants to indict me to try and run for some other office,' the former president went on at a campaign event in New Hampshire, 'wants to indict me for a perfect phone call. This is even better than my perfect phone call with Ukraine,' he added, referring to his call with Sec. of State Brad Raffensperger. 

“They” say. It’s always they 

[Bookman 4,610]

The 45-page indictment really gives you context for the hour-long phone call between Trump and Brad Raffensperger. If you haven't listened to it, I'd suggest doing so.

[Hookah Horns 3,072]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it seems like such a recusal rule would allow every subsequent administration (if different party) to disqualify a judge appointed by the previous administration.  Or, similarly, an opponent to the DOJ or any agency of the current administration to recuse any judge appointed by the current administration.

Maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing.

As I have said several times, I don't think the Special Master case necessarily proves bias.  It's a data point.  We may be getting more data points.  Just depends on where this goes.

As it stands, it's maybe a couple hundred words and a couple of additional pdfs from the government.  It's currently no big deal.

This is not, as yet, "siding with Trump."  To some extent, better raised now and the air cleared than on a motion to dismiss the indictment for grand jury misconduct.  One nice thing, although the cases cited in the Justice Manual above do condemn those grand jury shenanigans, in neither case was the indictment dismissed.

I think an administration as a party to a suit is a totally different animal than the appointer being a criminal defendant in a case in front of the appointee. Especially when the appointer is looking at the rest of his worthless life in prison. Even if that weren't the case, it's obvious that Trump is a different animal than every other potus in that he's worshiped by a cult in which Cannon and the Federalist Society are high priests. Don't really think that an appellate court could or would fashion an objective test for determining a politician is the head of a cult, though. 

The Special Master snafu probably wouldn't justify recusal in a vacuum, but in context I think it's damning. Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on that. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Hookah Horns

[TheStoicPaisano 9,904]

10 hours ago, Bookman said:

What if you were in the process of murdering someone while crossing state lines?

An organizational goat rodeo.

 

[Red Five 40,627]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

The 45-page indictment really gives you context for the hour-long phone call between Trump and Brad Raffensperger. If you haven't listened to it, I'd suggest doing so.

My favorite part was when Trump said he'd be in "big trouble" if he didn't find a bunch of fake votes and make Trump the winner.

All part of a perfect phone call.

[YGIFS 19,449]

Julie Green speaks for God?  And God apparently used the word "Boomerang" in that prophetic message? Boomerang. That's what we're going with.  That's just accepted by tens of millions of MAGA idiots.  Boomerang?  You know...that word that totally existed in Nazareth 2000 years ago?

[scottsins 1,953]

I think an administration as a party to a suit is a totally different animal than the appointer being a criminal defendant in a case in front of the appointee. Especially when the appointer is looking at the rest of his worthless life in prison. Even if that weren't the case, it's obvious that Trump is a different animal than every other potus in that he's worshiped by a cult in which Cannon and the Federalist Society are high priests. Don't really think that an appellate court could or would fashion an objective test for determining a politician is the head of a cult, though. 
The Special Master snafu probably wouldn't justify recusal in a vacuum, but in context I think it's damning. Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on that. 

“Appointer”? How much involvement do you think Trump, or any POTUS, actually, has in the appointment of a DISTRICT judge?

[Hookah Horns 3,072]

21 minutes ago, scottsins said:

“Appointer”? How much involvement do you think Trump, or any POTUS, actually, has in the appointment of a DISTRICT judge?

What an odd question. You're saying Cannon is unlikely to feel beholden to him because he didn't come up with her on his own? Ok. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Hookah Horns

[chainsaw 9,836]

11 hours ago, Chopper said:

If judge aileen gets one over on Jack I'll be extremely shocked.

 

Central Casting

[conVINCEd 21,468]

29 minutes ago, scottsins said:

“Appointer”? How much involvement do you think Trump, or any POTUS, actually, has in the appointment of a DISTRICT judge?

In a district where he lives and routinely does criminal shit?  Probably more involved than the appointment of a judge in Boise, ID.

[TwiceHorn 31,241]

2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I think an administration as a party to a suit is a totally different animal than the appointer being a criminal defendant in a case in front of the appointee. Especially when the appointer is looking at the rest of his worthless life in prison. Even if that weren't the case, it's obvious that Trump is a different animal than every other potus in that he's worshiped by a cult in which Cannon and the Federalist Society are high priests. Don't really think that an appellate court could or would fashion an objective test for determining a politician is the head of a cult, though. 

The Special Master snafu probably wouldn't justify recusal in a vacuum, but in context I think it's damning. Sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree on that. 

I don't necessarily disagree.  The "data points" could well mount that she's being unduly harsh on the prosecution/favorable to Trump and maybe form the basis for recusal.

[TwiceHorn 31,241]

38 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

What an odd question. You're saying Cannon is unlikely to feel beholden to him because he didn't come up with her on his own? Ok. 

Well, I think scottsins point is that this was mostly a lil Marco project, moreso than anything Trump knowingly did.

There is a bit of a contrast between her and the Brantley Starrs and Kacsmaryks, Hos, Duncans etc. that are the product of a machine.  And also not really fairly attributable to Trump, either.

The most alarming coincidence is that she is located right in his back yard.  But, again, contrast to the Texas appointments where Kacsmaryk volunteers to go to Amarillo, to which he has little or no connection, just to ease forum-shopping.

She apparently already lived there and filled a senior status seat.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[hayden_horn 11,360]

12 hours ago, Bookman said:

What if you were in the process of murdering someone while crossing state lines?

well then clearly to get away with it, you gotta raise your feet as you cross those state lines.

[dcbc 14,398]

34 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

In a district where he lives and routinely does criminal shit?  Probably more involved than the appointment of a judge in Boise, ID.

I'd wager he had no idea who she was until the special master case.  As for beholden, maybe she is and maybe she isn't.  But the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of other people not named Trump who had a lot more to do with her having this lifetime appointment, which Trump cannot now take away, than Trump did.  Getting a federal judicial appointment is a pretty involved process.  She owes a debt more to the people on the ground than she does to Trump, who likely signed that appointment like Ricky Bobby in autograph mode.

 

I've had the opportunity over my career to see a lot of well-meaning judges make decisions that make no sense, especially the new ones.  Most of the time, they're just mistakes made for a variety of reasons.  While bias could be a reason for something she does, a ruling against the DOJ or seemingly beneficial to Trump isn't always going to be a result of bias or evidence of it.  Or she could be completely in the tank for him and cuddling him on Friday nights.  We'll see.

 

Twicehorn's explanation of the request for explanation of the DC GJ testimony above should be indicative of the fact that the hand-wringing that has gone on in this thread for the last couple of days over that story may have been much ado about nothing.  How she responds to the DOJ's explanation will be telling though.  He has demonstrated enough knowledge about this sort of thing and is giving some pretty balanced analysis.  And like he has said, and I agree, she may be biased.  But so far, the indications of it have not been overwhelming.  It may be just as much that she is inexperienced or erring on the side of caution toward a former President as a criminal defendant.  I don't know.  But I'm going to remain on the side of deep breaths and watching this unfold before I break shine the spotlight on Futureman's fist and anoose.  

Edited August 9, 2023 by dcbc

[Hermanator 6,930]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it seems like such a recusal rule would allow every subsequent administration (if different party) to disqualify a judge appointed by the previous administration.  Or, similarly, an opponent to the DOJ or any agency of the current administration to recuse any judge appointed by the current administration.

Maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing.

As I have said several times, I don't think the Special Master case necessarily proves bias.  It's a data point.  We may be getting more data points.  Just depends on where this goes.

As it stands, it's maybe a couple hundred words and a couple of additional pdfs from the government.  It's currently no big deal.

This is not, as yet, "siding with Trump."  To some extent, better raised now and the air cleared than on a motion to dismiss the indictment for grand jury misconduct.  One nice thing, although the cases cited in the Justice Manual above do condemn those grand jury shenanigans, in neither case was the indictment dismissed.

It's literally only an issue in this specific case where this is as of now the only time it's happened in the history of the country. There were no safeguards for this because no one ever thought a president would be a criminal defendant. Well, time to put in safeguards. Who oversees Cannon? Who makes the call on whether she does her job correctly? Is it up to the attorneys to claim instances of bias then she gets judged by an appellate court?

Given the obvious conflict of interest why would a legitimate judge ever want this case? An actual impartial judge would most likely want to duck out of it as soon as possible so as not to risk ruining their reputation for impartiality given the nature of these circumstances. The only reason I can think of why a judge with obvious conflict of interest would want this case is if they are biased and want to influence it. 

[SilasCoade 2,620]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You have to read between the lines a little bit.  The government filed a motion for a Garcia hearing, alleging that there are three witnesses represented by Woodward that they intend to call as trial witnesses against Nauta in Florida.

That motion, which is not of record, was accompanied by two sealed grand jury "documents," presumably transcripts of these witnesses' testimony implicating Nauta.

Judging by what Cannon wrote, these witnesses gave their testimony before a DC Grand Jury after Nauta was indicted:

"address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district [DC] grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district."

That seems to indicate that the testimony in question was taken before an out-of-district DC grand jury after Nauta's indictment, raising the issue of possible violation of DOJ policies posted immediately upthread.  Maybe she is utterly full of shit in interpreting the government's evidence that way, but I think you can see a reason for concern.  Hopefully the government has an adequate explanation.

The key word in the policies pertaining to use of grand juries is "solely."  As long as there was some other purpose for interrogating these witnesses in DC about things Nauta did relative to the crimes for which he is already indicted, they should be ok.  Hopefully it's a little stronger than that.  Smith has been aggressive as hell with grand juries, and I like it.  I just hope he didn't cross a line.

Like this Yuscil Taveras (sp?) guy that apparently fired Woodward and then ratted on Nauta.  Apparently he was the supervisor of the surveillance tapes that Nauta and the other guy tried to get to erase them.  He apparently testified to the Florida grand jury, which then issued the superseding indictment, for a new defendant and an existing one for a new crime.  They apparently did that one right.

As a layperson I just have to say this is the stupidest fucking argument of all time. You're telling me that the Feds have some mafioso in their sights, and separately have a NJ garbage truck company exec on the hook for tax evasion and the garbage man lets slip that he saw mafioso dump a body into his truck and paid him to keep quiet about it that that testimony is null b/c it occurred in the context of a different investigation? That's dumb as hell.

[atomheartbevo 89,400]

12 hours ago, Bookman said:

What if you were in the process of murdering someone while crossing state lines?

Why, what the fuck did somebody tell you? They’re fucking lying, whoever it is.

edit, apologies, sorry, didn’t realize you were asking a rhetorical question.

Edited August 9, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[dcbc 14,398]

6 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

As a layperson I just have to say this is the stupidest fucking argument of all time. You're telling me that the Feds have some mafioso in their sights, and separately have a NJ garbage truck company exec on the hook for tax evasion and the garbage man lets slip that he saw mafioso dump a body into his truck and paid him to keep quiet about it that that testimony is null b/c it occurred in the context of a different investigation? That's dumb as hell.

That's not what he's saying at all.

[TwiceHorn 31,241]

4 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

As a layperson I just have to say this is the stupidest fucking argument of all time. You're telling me that the Feds have some mafioso in their sights, and separately have a NJ garbage truck company exec on the hook for tax evasion and the garbage man lets slip that he saw mafioso dump a body into his truck and paid him to keep quiet about it that that testimony is null b/c it occurred in the context of a different investigation? That's dumb as hell.

I posted the DOJ guidelines above.  Grand juries should only sit where the case can be venued (i.e. Florida), and you can't use them to investigate already indicted people (i.e. Nauta).

So, those two guidelines raise a couple of questions about what the fuck the government was doing here.

No one has yet predicted any outcome like, "you can't talk to those witnesses" or "the indictment must be dismissed."  It's just questions.

[wildcat09 29,213]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it seems like such a recusal rule would allow every subsequent administration (if different party) to disqualify a judge appointed by the previous administration.  Or, similarly, an opponent to the DOJ or any agency of the current administration to recuse any judge appointed by the current administration.

Maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing.

As I have said several times, I don't think the Special Master case necessarily proves bias.  It's a data point.  We may be getting more data points.  Just depends on where this goes.

As it stands, it's maybe a couple hundred words and a couple of additional pdfs from the government.  It's currently no big deal.

This is not, as yet, "siding with Trump."  To some extent, better raised now and the air cleared than on a motion to dismiss the indictment for grand jury misconduct.  One nice thing, although the cases cited in the Justice Manual above do condemn those grand jury shenanigans, in neither case was the indictment dismissed.

This is kind of like saying that if she were currently involved in a sexual relationship with Trump that wouldn't necessarily prove bias, but just be one data point.

I'm no historian, but the special master case has to have been one of if not the most clearly abusive overreaches of judicial power in our nation's history. Not only did she interfere and attempt to block a criminal investigation she should have had no involvement in, she said that she specifically did so because of Trump's status as an ex-president. She ignored that she had no jurisdiction in the matter and threw out pretty much every fundamental principal of American law and decided that Donald Trump was a very special boy who was entitled to special protections against criminal investigation. 

You keep behaving as if that was really just a silly, naïve, minor mistake but it just wasn't.

[TwiceHorn 31,241]

26 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I'd wager he had no idea who she was until the special master case.  As for beholden, maybe she is and maybe she isn't.  But the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of other people not named Trump who had a lot more to do with her having this lifetime appointment, which Trump cannot now take away, than Trump did.  Getting a federal judicial appointment is a pretty involved process.  

 

I've had the opportunity over my career to see a lot of well-meaning judges make decisions that make no sense, especially the new ones.  Most of the time, they're just mistakes made for a variety of reasons.  While bias could be a reason for something she does, a ruling against the DOJ or seemingly beneficial to Trump isn't always going to be a result of bias or evidence of it.  Or she could be completely in the tank for him and cuddling him on Friday nights.  We'll see.

 

Twicehorn's explanation of the request for explanation of the DC GJ testimony above should be indicative of the fact that the hand-wringing that has gone on in this thread for the last couple of days may have been much ado about nothing.  He has a lot of experience in this sort of thing and is giving some pretty balanced analysis.  And like he has said, and I agree, she may be biased.  But so far, the indications of it have not been overwhelming.  It may be just as much that she is inexperienced or erring on the side of caution toward a former President as a criminal defendant.  I don't know.  But I'm going to remain on the side of deep breaths and watching this unfold before I break shine the spotlight on Futureman's fist and anoose.  

Thanks.  Point of clarity, I don't have any experience with federal criminal matters.  I have an abiding interest in criminal stuff, spent 30 years in and out of federal courts on civil matters.  And once had an office mate that was a federal criminal practitioner that clued me in on a lot of federal shit.

Also, fun thing, she got involved representing a "Common Law Trust" Ponzi schemer that was being pursued simultaneously by USAO WD Tex and the SEC in a civil case.  I wound up helping her with the civil case and picked up a lot of criminal shit.  And super-weird thing, the SEC attorney was a guy named Phil Offill that later was indicted, convicted, and disbarred for running/advising a Ponzi scheme.

But, yes, deep breaths.  All is not lost.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29,213]

1 hour ago, scottsins said:

“Appointer”? How much involvement do you think Trump, or any POTUS, actually, has in the appointment of a DISTRICT judge?

Typically not much, but:

44 minutes ago, conVINCEd said:

In a district where he lives and routinely does criminal shit?  Probably more involved than the appointment of a judge in Boise, ID.

And he nominated her after he lost the election. I don't think he had some grand plan to do this shit or anything, I think it was simpler than that. I think he wanted someone in that courthouse who he thought he could rely on and he received assurances, either from her or through someone else, that she was a team player. 

[dcbc 14,398]

Thanks.  Point of clarity, I don't have any experience with federal criminal matters.  I have an abiding interest in criminal stuff, spent 30 years in and out of federal courts on civil matters.  And once had an office mate that was a federal criminal practitioner that clued me in on a lot of federal shit.
But, yes, deep breaths.  All is not lost.

I'm pretty well-versed on the state side in criminal law from an appellate perspective. Extensive federal court experience is where I fall a bit short. But in over two decades of practice, I've learned not to read too much into every trial court judge's ruling and to understand that with all that goes into getting a judicial appointment, I'll forego whatever dreams I ever had of being a judge.

[TwiceHorn 31,241]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is kind of like saying that if she were currently involved in a sexual relationship with Trump that wouldn't necessarily prove bias, but just be one data point.

I'm no historian, but the special master case has to have been one of if not the most clearly abusive overreaches of judicial power in our nation's history. Not only did she interfere and attempt to block a criminal investigation she should have had no involvement in, she said that she specifically did so because of Trump's status as an ex-president. She ignored that she had no jurisdiction in the matter and threw out pretty much every fundamental principal of American law and decided that Donald Trump was a very special boy who was entitled to special protections against criminal investigation. 

You keep behaving as if that was really just a silly, naïve, minor mistake but it just wasn't.

Never said it was minor.  I do disagree that it was the most clear abuse evar.  I'll take the mefistoprone case for $500.

Edited August 9, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[SilasCoade 2,620]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

you can't use them to investigate already indicted people

So you just have to ignore any damning evidence that comes out if it pertains to a different case involving an individual already under indictment? That's the part that seems stupid.

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by SilasCoade

[TwiceHorn 31,241]

10 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

So you just have to ignore any damning evidence that comes out if it pertains to a different case involving an individual already under indictment? That's the part that seems stupid.

 

We don't know whether it was a "different case" or not.  Hence the questions. I think the questions are legit.  Where it goes from here is the bigger question.

['stache 21,745]

16 hours ago, Chopper said:

In theory, it's due to the burden of defending criminal and civil claims that are old -- witnesses die, memories fade, records are lost. Some are longer than others because it's whatever the legislature or congress decided as a matter of law.

 

There is a theory that she's working to get taken off the case asap because she knows she's way out of her depth. I don't know if I believe it but it sure seems like yesterday's ruling was a strong opening gambit toward that end.

 

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

All she has to do is ask that the case be transferred to another judge.  Happens with some frequency with patent cases when judges don't like them and others in the district do.  It is never revealed why it happens.

If true, it has nothing to do with her belief in her own abilities, it would be because she knows that he's guilty and she doesn't want to be labelled a RINO and have her house burned down by a bunch of maga fucks when the inevitable happens in her own courtroom. She also can't voluntarily ask to be taken off because she'll be labelled as "deep state" or whatnot. Her current path is to go full MAGA and if the case is taken from her, she can claim to be a victim of the "witchhunt." It's all optics. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by 'stache

[Dahobbs 17,420]

18 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

So you just have to ignore any damning evidence that comes out if it pertains to a different case involving an individual already under indictment? That's the part that seems stupid.

 

No, you just can't use them solely for that purpose. If that grand jury is legitimately investigating other crimes and happens to come across information, that is fine as far as I know. But, if that grand jury is doing nothing but looking at the Florida matter, then that would be a problem. I also think it would be a problem if the questioning of the witness was entirely unrelated to the separate investigation. I assume there had to have been other matters addressed by that witness. 

[C-Man 27,029]

In case this hasn't been posted before: https://dnyuz.com/2023/08/08/previously-secret-memo-laid-out-strategy-for-trump-to-overturn-bidens-win/

Previously secret memo written by Chesebro discussing using alternate (read: fake) electors in states won by Biden.

Quote

A lawyer allied with President Donald J. Trump first laid out a plot to use false slates of electors to subvert the 2020 election in a previously unknown internal campaign memo that prosecutors are portraying as a crucial link in how the Trump team’s efforts evolved into a criminal conspiracy.

The existence of the Dec. 6, 2020, memo came to light in last week’s indictment of Mr. Trump, though its details remained unclear. But a copy obtained by The New York Times shows for the first time that the lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, acknowledged from the start that he was proposing “a bold, controversial strategy” that the Supreme Court “likely” would reject in the end.

But even if the plan did not ultimately pass legal muster at the highest level, Mr. Chesebro argued that it would achieve two goals. It would focus attention on claims of voter fraud and “buy the Trump campaign more time to win litigation that would deprive Biden of electoral votes and/or add to Trump’s column.”

The memo had been a missing link in the public record of how Mr. Trump’s allies developed their strategy to overturn Mr. Biden’s victory. In mid-December, the false Trump electors could go through the motions of voting as if they had the authority to do so. Then, on Jan. 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence could unilaterally count those slates of votes, rather than the official and certified ones for Joseph R. Biden Jr.

While that basic plan itself was already known, the memo provides new details about how it originated and was discussed behind the scenes. Among those details is Mr. Chesebro’s proposed “messaging” strategy to explain why pro-Trump electors were meeting in states where Mr. Biden was declared the winner. The campaign would present that step as “a routine measure that is necessary to ensure” that the correct electoral slate could be counted by Congress if courts or legislatures later concluded that Mr. Trump had actually won the states.

It was not the first time Mr. Chesebro had raised the notion of creating alternate electors. In November, he had suggested doing so in Wisconsin, although for a different reason: to safeguard Mr. Trump’s rights in case he later won a court battle and was declared that state’s certified winner by Jan. 6, as had happened with Hawaii in 1960.

But the indictment portrayed the Dec. 6 memo as a “sharp departure” from that proposal, becoming what prosecutors say was a criminal plot to engineer “a fake controversy that would derail the proper certification of Biden as president-elect.”

“I recognize that what I suggest is a bold, controversial strategy, and that there are many reasons why it might not end up being executed on Jan. 6,” Mr. Chesebro wrote. “But as long as it is one possible option, to preserve it as a possibility it is important that the Trump-Pence electors cast their electoral votes on Dec. 14.”

Three days later, Mr. Chesebro drew up specific instructions to create fraudulent electors in multiple states — in another memo whose existence, along with the one in November, was first reported by The Times last year. The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot also cited them in its December report, but it apparently did not learn of the Dec. 6 memo.

“I believe that what can be achieved on Jan. 6 is not simply to keep Biden below 270 electoral votes,” Mr. Chesebro wrote in the newly disclosed memo. “It seems feasible that the vote count can be conducted so that at no point will Trump be behind in the electoral vote count unless and until Biden can obtain a favorable decision from the Supreme Court upholding the Electoral Count Act as constitutional, or otherwise recognizing the power of Congress (and not the president of the Senate) to count the votes.”

Mr. Chesebro and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment. A Trump spokesman did not respond to an email seeking comment.

The false electors’ scheme was perhaps the most sprawling of Mr. Trump’s various efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. It involved lawyers working on his campaign’s behalf across seven states, dozens of electors willing to claim that Mr. Trump — not Mr. Biden — had won their states, and open resistance from some of those potential electors that the plan could be illegal or even “appear treasonous.” In the end, it became the cornerstone of the indictment against Mr. Trump.

While another lawyer — John Eastman, described as Co-Conspirator 2 in the indictment — became a key figure who championed the plan and worked more directly with Mr. Trump on it, Mr. Chesebro was an architect of it. He was first enlisted by the Trump campaign in Wisconsin to help with a legal challenge to the results there.

Prosecutors are still hearing evidence related to the investigation, even after charges were leveled against Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter. The House committee last year released emails its investigators obtained showing that Mr. Chesebro had sent copies of the two previously reported memos, one from Nov. 18 and another from Dec. 9, to allies in the states working on the fake electors’ plan.

But he did not attach his Dec. 6 memo to those messages, which laid out a more audacious idea: having Mr. Pence take “the position that it is his constitutional power and duty, alone, as president of the Senate, to both open and count the votes.” That is, he could resolve the dispute over which slate was valid by counting the alternate electors for Mr. Trump even if Mr. Biden remained the certified winner of their states.

Mr. Chesebro, who is described as Co-Conspirator 5 in the indictment but has not been charged by the special counsel, addressed the second memo to James R. Troupis, a lawyer who was assisting the Trump campaign’s efforts to challenge Mr. Biden’s victory in Wisconsin.

By the next day, the indictment said, Mr. Chesebro’s memo had reached Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer.

According to the indictment, Mr. Giuliani, who is referred to as Co-Conspirator 1, spoke with someone identified only as Co-Conspirator 6 about finding lawyers to help with the effort in seven states. An email reviewed by The Times suggests that particular conspirator could be Boris Epshteyn, a campaign strategic adviser for the Trump campaign who was paid for political consulting. That day, Mr. Epshteyn sent Mr. Giuliani an email recommending lawyers in those seven states.

As he had done in the earlier memo, Mr. Chesebro cited writings by a Harvard Law School professor, Laurence H. Tribe, to bolster his argument that the deadlines and procedures in the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional and that state electoral votes need not be finalized until Congress’s certification on Jan. 6. Mr. Chesebro had worked as Mr. Tribe’s research assistant as a law student and later helped him in his representation of Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 election.

Calling his former mentor “a key Biden supporter and fervent Trump critic,” Mr. Chesebro cited what he described as Mr. Tribe’s legal views, along with writings by several other liberals as potential fodder for a messaging strategy. It would be “the height of hypocrisy for Democrats to resist Jan. 6 as the real deadline, or to suggest that Trump and Pence would be doing anything particularly controversial,” he wrote.

But in an essay published on Tuesday on the legal website Just Security, Mr. Tribe said Mr. Chesebro’s Nov. 18 memo “relied on a gross misrepresentation of my scholarship.”

For one, Mr. Chesebro quoted a clause from a law review article by Mr. Tribe about Bush v. Gore as support for the idea that the only real legal deadline is Jan. 6. That was taken out of context, Mr. Tribe wrote, saying he was only narrowly “discussing the specifics of Florida state law.” Mr. Chesebro, by contrast, made it sound as if he was putting forward “a general proposition about the power of states to do what they wish regardless of the Electoral Count Act and independent of the deadlines set by Congress,” he added.

For another, Mr. Chesebro cited a constitutional treatise in which Mr. Tribe wrote that a past Congress cannot bind the actions of a later Congress, which Mr. Chesebro used to buttress his proposal that parts of the Electoral Count Act are unconstitutional. But Mr. Tribe wrote that what he meant was Congress can pass new legislation changing such a law.

The indictment also accuses Mr. Trump and his unindicted co-conspirators of acting with deception in recruiting some of the fraudulent electors. That included telling some of them that their votes for Mr. Trump would be used only if a court ruling handed victory in their state to Mr. Trump.

The Dec. 6 memo dovetails with that approach. Mr. Chesebro wrote that Mr. Pence could count purported Trump electors from a state as long as there was a lawsuit pending challenging Mr. Biden’s declared victory there. But he also proposed telling the public that the Trump electors were meeting on Dec. 14 merely as a precaution in case “the courts (or state legislatures) were to later conclude that Trump actually won the state.”

Mr. Chesebro also suggested he knew that even that part of the strategy would draw blowback.

“There is no requirement that they meet in public. It might be preferable for them to meet in private, to thwart the ability of protesters to disrupt the event,” he wrote, adding: “Even if held in private, perhaps print and even TV journalists would be invited to attend to cover the event.”

The post Previously Secret Memo Laid Out Strategy for Trump to Overturn Biden’s Win appeared first on New York Times.

 

[Chopper 17,150]

Here's the explanation for what aileen is up to
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/it-begins?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

Quote

 

The Justice Department isn’t doing anything wrong by disclosing the fact of a separate grand jury proceeding. Remember that Trump was indicted in the D.D.C. on August 1—prior to the Justice Department’s filing of the Garcia motion—so the cat is out of the bag on that. However, the Justice Department doesn’t want to disclose the identity of the witnesses, because that would tend to reveal the fact that those witnesses testified before the D.C. grand jury, in violation of the Justice Department’s duty of secrecy. Also, the Justice Department might have to disclose details of their testimony in order to explain why there’s a conflict, which it can’t do because of grand jury secrecy rules.

Therefore, the Justice Department decides to do a completely normal thing—file the secret information under seal. As a general matter, court proceedings are supposed to be public, so litigants need permission to file under seal. So, the Justice Department files a motion for leave to file the secret information under seal (which is itself under seal), and it separately files, under seal, the secret information.

The Justice Department’s motion notes: “The Government has advised Mr. Woodward of its intent to file this motion requesting a Garcia hearing and its reasons for doing so. Mr. Woodward has indicated that as a general matter he does not oppose the Court informing his client of the client’s rights or inquiring into potential waivers, but that he will not consent to this motion without seeing it in advance, and he requests the opportunity to respond.” This is a reasonable position for Woodward to take—he can’t possibly object to a hearing intended to safeguard his own client’s constitutional rights, but he wants to see the motion before taking a position.

So, this motion is a hanging curveball for Judge Cannon. It’s obvious how Judge Cannon should respond to this motion. She should wait to hear Woodward’s position on it!

If Woodward agrees a Garcia hearing is warranted, Judge Cannon should hold the hearing to ensure that Nauta’s rights are protected. Maybe there’s some discretionary reason to deny the hearing even if everyone agrees it’s warranted? I can’t think of one, but maybe. But clearly, Judge Cannon should wait until she hears from Woodward before deciding what to do.

Welcome to bizarro world

Instead, Judge Cannon does something intensely weird. Two things, actually.

First, she denies the Justice Department’s motion to seal.

Second, she requests that Nauta file a response brief to the Justice Department’s motion addressing, among other things, “the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district.” She also says Trump and De Oliveira “may, but are not required to” file a brief addressing this issue.

Let’s go through those one by one.

Secret things should be secret

First, the court denies the Justice Department’s motion to seal, and strikes the motion for leave to file under seal, as well as the secret information itself, from the docket.

Here’s the court’s rationale: “The Special Counsel states in conclusory terms that the supplement should be sealed from public view ‘to comport with grand jury secrecy,’ but the motion for leave and the supplement plainly fail to satisfy the burden of establishing a sufficient legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement.”

Seriously?

Grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret, and the Justice Department is disclosing the identity of grand jury witnesses and the substance of their testimony, so it wants to keep that information secret. That’s not a “legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement”?

I haven’t seen the motion for leave to file under seal, so I guess it’s possible that Jack Smith’s team is completely inept and failed to inform Judge Cannon that grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret. I doubt it, though.

Maybe Judge Cannon thinks that the filings didn’t have to be sealed in their entirety? But if she thought that, she could have directed the Justice Department to file heavily redacted versions of the sealed filings, in addition to the sealed filings. She doesn’t do that. She just strikes the filings.

One clue as to why she’s doing this may come from her request for additional briefing (which I’ll get to below) on “the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district.”

But this makes no sense. If she thinks there might be something wrong with the Justice Department relying on the D.C. grand jury proceeding, why is she immediately striking the sealed filings? Why doesn’t she wait for the response, and then strike the filing if she agrees with the response?

As of right now, she’s asking for a response regarding “the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding”—even though she has stricken the filing that makes reference to the out-of-district grand jury proceeding! Why is she doing this?

Why should we care that she struck the sealed filings? Because, by striking the sealed filings, she is disabling the parties and the court from identifying the witnesses and explaining the nature of the conflict! The Justice Department can’t provide this information to the court publicly (it’s supposed to be secret) and it’s been prevented from providing it under seal. The defendants aren’t going to reveal secret information either. So how on Earth can the court make an informed decision on whether to conduct a Garcia hearing?

Do you remember the Saturday Night Live Celebrity Final Jeopardy skit where the celebrities are so inept that Alex Trebek asks the Final Jeopardy question “Just write any question down and answer it,” and all three celebrities still get it wrong? E.g., Robin Williams doesn’t write anything because he accidentally stabs himself with his pen? That is what this order is like. The Justice Department files a motion for a hearing designed to protect the defendant’s rights. The defendant’s lawyer says he’s probably fine with it but just wants to see the motion first. It’s almost impossible for the judge to mess this up. She literally has to do nothing! Just wait to see the defendant’s response! Instead she randomly denies the motion to seal and makes it impossible to identify the witnesses. I couldn’t have come up with this if I tried.

 

 

Quote

 

Welcome to bizarro world, part deux

In the second part of Judge Cannon’s order, as noted above, she directs Nauta to “file a response to the Motion for a Garcia hearing.” “Among other topics as raised in the Motion, the response shall address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district.” With regard to Trump and de Oliveira, she says: “The remaining Defendants may, but are not required to, file briefs of their own related to the grand jury issue referenced herein.”

Seriously?

The judge hasn’t actually done anything yet, she’s Just Asking Questions, as they say on the Internet. Still, one might make a few observations about this request.

First, Judge Cannon has already started litigating from the bench. Nauta is free to make any argument he wishes regarding the Justice Department’s humdrum motion to file under seal. Why is she making suggestions for him?

Second, in the motion for a Garcia hearing, the Justice Department notes that Trump did not take a position on the motion—no surprise, because it has to do with Nauta’s representation, not Trump’s. Yet here, Judge Cannon is explicitly inviting Trump to respond to a motion Trump has already said he does not care about and has no reason to care about: “The remaining Defendants may, but are not required to, file briefs of their own related to the grand jury issue referenced herein.” Why?

Third, the argument that Judge Cannon proposes doesn’t make any sense. What “propriety” problem is she talking about?

Judge Cannon seems concerned that the Justice Department is “using” the D.D.C. grand jury proceeding to seek “post-indictment hearings” in the Southern District of Florida. The post-indictment hearing the Justice Department is seeking is one to safeguard the defendant’s right to conflict-free counsel. Is she suggesting that the Justice Department is supposed to keep secret from the court an impending violation of Nauta’s constitutional rights?

Fourth, as alluded to above, where’s the “propriety” problem if Judge Cannon has just stricken the sealed filings? Or is the mere utterance of the words “grand jury” in the Justice Department’s motion a basis to … I dunno … deny the motion for a Garcia hearing? Dismiss the indictment against Nauta? Put the Justice Department into receivership?

Again, right now, Judge Cannon is merely requesting briefing. No biggie. But well … she’s inviting briefing on a frivolous argument from not only Nauta but also Trump, who has already said he doesn’t care about this motion, while simultaneously striking the filing with the information necessary to decide the motion intelligently.

I’m stoked for what comes next.

 

by Adam Unikowsky

[C-Man 27,029]

9 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Here's the explanation for what aileen is up to
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/it-begins?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

 

by Adam Unikowsky

So the absolute best-case scenario is that Cannon is woefully under-qualified for a case of this magnitude?

[dcbc 14,398]

18 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Here's the explanation for what aileen is up to
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/it-begins?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

 

by Adam Unikowsky

This is pretty well-summarized, and by a member of the Federalist Society, no less.

7 minutes ago, C-Man said:

So the absolute best-case scenario is that Cannon is woefully under-qualified for a case of this magnitude?

That's about right.

Edited August 9, 2023 by dcbc

[TwiceHorn 31,241]

6 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Here's the explanation for what aileen is up to
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/it-begins?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

 

by Adam Unikowsky

Eh, I find that fairly unconvincing.  He starts from the premise that she's doing something wrong, and fills in from there.

I admit I am confused somewhat by refusing to accept the presumably grand jury testimony under seal.  But the whole bit about Woodward responding is stupid.  The Garcia motion/hearing concerns Nauta's rights as a jointly represented defendant.  Woodward, as his counsel, will respond on Nauta's behalf and presumably his own, but it's not really about Woodward.  He doesn't get to respond in his own name.

Again, it may be because the nature of the Garcia hearing is that grand jury secrecy must be waived as to the identity and substance of the testimony of the witnesses.  Courts are really reluctant to hold "sealed hearings," but they do it from time to time.  I assume the motion itself both identifies the witnesses and the substance of their testimony and grand jury transcripts were offered under seal to verify that.  

No idea what has happened to the motion itself.  It doesn't appear on the docket even as sealed.

[Pig Bellmont 8,691]

16 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Here's the explanation for what aileen is up to
https://adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/it-begins?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

 

by Adam Unikowsky

Good write up and that author put more thought into the order than Cannon did. I fully believe that post up thread that says Cannon saw a TV lawyer on Fox, got indignant, and started demanding answers. This FL case will be a shit show 

[dcbc 14,398]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Courts are really reluctant to hold "sealed hearings,"

Good reminder that open courts is the default position.  Also, since there has been a fair amount of talk about recusal, I'd add that in my observation, self-recusal for bias that isn't patently obvious (just being appointed by Trump isn't going to get us there) doesn't usually happen.  I also think the notion that she's just going to act a fool so she gets kicked off the case instead of just requesting that it be transferred to another court is an unrealistic notion.

[Captainant 27,408]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

No one has yet predicted any outcome like, "you can't talk to those witnesses" or "the indictment must be dismissed."  It's just questions.

Oh good. Just asking questions is what serious and good faith participants do.

[henrygandorf 29,174]

7 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

And he nominated her after he lost the election. I don't think he had some grand plan to do this shit or anything, I think it was simpler than that. I think he wanted someone in that courthouse who he thought he could rely on and he received assurances, either from her or through someone else, that she was a team player. 

we're dealing with a knucklehead who feels like everybody owes him from the start.  if he helped make her a judge, even if he had no idea who she was, he will 100% feel like she owes him, her family owes him, and everybody she's ever passed on the street owes him.  and much like a mob boss, one day, and that day may never come, he will ask a favor.  this fuckstick still thinks the state of texas owes him because of how much money everybody "made" after hurricane harvey.

even if she is completely objective and unbiased, he doesn't see things that way, and i'm sure this has been communicated to her in one way or another.  either that, or she knows how he operates, and is preemptively doing whatever she needs to.

the circular argument of "who actually is responsible for her getting this gig" goes out the window when you're dealing with trump, and the fact that so much time and energy has already been wasted on it is vintage surly.

Edited August 9, 2023 by henrygandorf

[henrygandorf 29,174]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I had to go back and read the availability notice.  Trumpco said "since we lost Friday as an option."  Wtf does that mean?

I hope this is severely inconvenient for them.  Otherwise, not really a holy shit moment.  She said pick one of Weds, Thurs, Fri and gave them Friday.  Downright lenient.  I was hoping for tomorrow, but she probably didn't want to get up to speed that fast.

yeah, they said wed, thurs, or friday, and trump lawyers were like, we were thinking more like next monday or tuesday.  i guess every day matters when delaying is the goal.

reminded me of the old joke about the guy dating a pornstar trying to plan a date.  she's like, "well, i'm working tuesday and wednesday, how about thursday?" and he's like, "yeah, how about monday?"

[The Dog 43,785]