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

[Brisketexan 105309]

5 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Every day I'm struck more and more by how one of Trump/MAGA or the United States as we have known it is going to cease to be.  There's no way for them to co-exist.  If the prevailing view is that Trump is a criminal that tried to steal the 2020 election through criminal conspiracy and failed coup attempt, then he will be in jail for a long time, the GOP will be a smoldering ruin and MAGAs compelled to act will be viewed and treated as domestic terrorists.  The exploitable hate, misogyny, racism, nationalism and xenophobia will still be there amongst the population, but the movement it all coalesced into as a political force within the Republican party won't be.  It will go back into hiding to rise again in another generation or two.

If the prevailing view is that Trump was defrauded of an election and wrongfully persecuted on trumped (pun intended) up charges by agencies of the US government, then the US government will be purged and reconstituted to align with the MAGA view of the world.  The domestic terrorists would be in charge of reshaping the government and society in general.  The David Koresh's, Timothy McVeigh's, Terry Nichols, Ron Weavers & Cliven Bundy's of the world will have won and get to write the new rules by which we all must abide by.  It will be an American Apartheid if not Taliban.

I just don't see how one of those two outcomes doesn't come to pass.

Goredho gets it.  I hate using the MAGAts silly words, like "this is an existential fight for the soul of the country!".....but it's a fight THEY chose.  The rest of America was just standing at the bar, trying to order a drink and figure out if we could have one more before going home, or will we get in trouble with the wife....when MAGA showed up, and just fucking started punching people.  I was just out for a beer, trying to get through my fucking day.  But now I'm in a fight that I didn't choose or want.

But now that we're in it.....we best go full Dalton on those motherfuckers.

[dcbc 14508]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, looking at their pardon and parole board site, it appears that Georgia is heavily dependent on parole.  They don't pardon and commute sentences, because you can't get a pardon until you have completed your sentence, plus five.

Neither, apparently, will they commute a sentence without a pardon, as the feds can do.  They just grant parole, that's it.

 

Under their community supervision statute, they specifically reference split-sentences, i.e., serve 5, c/s for 7.  So it's not parole.  We don't see that quite as much in Texas outside of "shock probation."  Here, you're more likely to get deferred, straight c/s with suspended sentence, or prison.

In the GA statute, see Section 42, Ch. 3. et seq.

Edited August 15, 2023 by dcbc

[Js1 85560]

9 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

They’ve been saying it since September 2016….

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Chris Christie appears to be gaining some traction

I think that’s just people getting stuck in his gravitational orbit 

[Red Five 40885]

Trump said the 2016 election was rigged, after he had won it. The point is to make everyone think that elections are worthless. 

[Pancho 44984]

So CNN is saying the trump team is going to try to get this moved to Federal, and they have a good shot of that happening. 

@TwiceHorn and others? 

[locodos 5393]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Chris Christie appears to be gaining some traction (of course it helps that Meatball sucks).

If there's one thing Chris Christie should have, it's traction

[Brisketexan 105309]

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Trump said the 2016 election was rigged, after he had won it. The point is to make everyone think that elections are worthless. 

This.  The ultimate goal of Trumpism is to live unfettered by the Rule of Law.  In order to accomplish that goal, they first have to destroy the Rule of Law and all faith in it.  They've made some real fucking headway in that regard, too -- let's not kid ourselves.

But yes, the ultimate goal is to make elections into "elections" - the version in quotes is the version that saw people like Saddam Hussein win every "election" with anywhere from 99.96% to 100% of the vote.  

Trump and the MAGAts have tried -- using multiple criminal acts -- to undermine nearly every element of a law and rules-based constitutional republic.  In any other time, in any other country, our gallows-builders would be super-busy.

[jimmyjazz 46116]

17 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Serving 2 of the mandatory 5 is probation, in the general sense of not serving detention.   Not sure what you mean. 

I'm no lawyer, but I thought probation was a non-jail sentence of a certain term, whereas serving 2 years of 5 would be considered "parole"?

[StassneyHorn 6635]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That's a bug, not a feature. I don't like spouses acting as unofficial #2. This isn't Argentina or Texas under the Fergusons. I don't want Chasten Buttigieg acting as shadow secretary of Transportation or assistant President in the event that Pete becomes our second openly gay President, and I was likewise never comfortable with the idea of a former president sitting over in the East Wing with the ability to lobby the current head of the executive branch from the other side of the bed. It also demeaned the significance of a woman being elected President. 

What’s Edith Wilson gotta do to get some credit?

[Red Five 40885]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  The ultimate goal of Trumpism is to live unfettered by the Rule of Law.  In order to accomplish that goal, they first have to destroy the Rule of Law and all faith in it.  They've made some real fucking headway in that regard, too -- let's not kid ourselves.

But yes, the ultimate goal is to make elections into "elections" - the version in quotes is the version that saw people like Saddam Hussein win every "election" with anywhere from 99.96% to 100% of the vote.  

Trump and the MAGAts have tried -- using multiple criminal acts -- to undermine nearly every element of a law and rules-based constitutional republic.  In any other time, in any other country, our gallows-builders would be super-busy.

He also started in very early with the whole "fake news" and "enemy of the people" stuff. Followed shortly by "Don't believe what you see and hear, believe what I tell you" or whatever that was. I wonder who gave him this playbook because he didn't come up with all of that himself naturally. 

[Gatorubet 30300]

10 minutes ago, Pancho said:

So CNN is saying the trump team is going to try to get this moved to Federal, and they have a good shot of that happening. 

@TwiceHorn and others? 

I do not practice in criminal law, but I do understand that there is a federal removal statute that is implicated when the state criminal charging event concerns matters when the defendant was a federal employee or elected federal official.  

Fine.  DC is a solid venue.  

Edited August 15, 2023 by Gatorubet
venue is WAG. I don’t really know

[dcbc 14508]

16 minutes ago, Pancho said:

So CNN is saying the trump team is going to try to get this moved to Federal, and they have a good shot of that happening. 

@TwiceHorn and others? 

28 USC S1443.

"Removal is permitted of state criminal prosecuations against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof."

The Supreme Court has held that it "confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights.” 

 

This is not my area of expertise, but I don't see anything in the allegations here that suggest that they were executing duties under any federal law whatsoever.  They'll argue they were trying to prevent election fraud, but even that ultimately is an issue of GA State law. 

 

As the Zen Master said, "We'll see."

Edited August 15, 2023 by dcbc

[Pancho 44984]

Just now, dcbc said:

28 USC S1443.

"Removal is permitted of state criminal prosecuations against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof."

The Supreme Court has held that it ‘confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights.” 

[Biff Tannen 45724]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

He also started in very early with the whole "fake news" and "enemy of the people" stuff. Followed shortly by "Don't believe what you see and hear, believe what I tell you" or whatever that was. I wonder who gave him this playbook because he didn't come up with all of that himself naturally. 

“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening,” Trump said.

For some, the quote immediately recalled a line from Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

[Gatorubet 30300]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm no lawyer, but I thought probation was a non-jail sentence of a certain term, whereas serving 2 years of 5 would be considered "parole"?

In Georgia, Probation instead of imprisonment may be ordered by a court for all or part of a person's sentence. Probation is not parole. Parole may be granted only by the Parole Board after a person has served part of his sentence in prison.

[dcbc 14508]

3 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Where a Federal Officer is prosecuted in state court, he my move to remove the case from state to federal court if he committed the alleged conduct while executing his duties under a Federal law, which provides for equal civil rights.

[Biff Tannen 45724]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

notwithstanding the foregoing, heretofore, etc, etc

[TwiceHorn 31534]

14 minutes ago, Pancho said:

So CNN is saying the trump team is going to try to get this moved to Federal, and they have a good shot of that happening. 

@TwiceHorn and others? 

Eh.  Maybe.

I don't doubt they'll try it.  To remove successfully, you have to allege and prove that the criminal conduct at issue was committed by a federal officer in furtherance of his duties as a federal officer.  And one of the more important aspects of that is that federal law provides a defense, like immunity or some such.

He tried it with the Manhattan case and failed at the trial court level but is appealing.  

This one is slightly better positioned because almost all of the conduct complained of occurred while he was in office, as opposed to the Manhattan case, where most of it didn't.

But there's also this concept of the "outer perimeter" of presidential duties, and the judge found that "paying porn stars hush money," however you want to characterize it, fell outside of that outer perimeter.

It is a little bit closer question whether "talking about an election" falls within or without that outer perimeter.

 

[Brisketexan 105309]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Where a Federal Officer is prosecuted in state court, he my move to remove the case from state to federal court if he committed the alleged conduct while executing his duties under a Federal law, which provides for equal civil rights.

We saw this happen in Austin some years ago when a local APD officer went after a suspect and killed him.  The officer, at that time, was also on a "Federal task force" of some sort.  The court found that he was thus executing duties pursuant to federal law, and the case belonged in federal court (and based on the application of other federal law, the case against the cop was dismissed).

It's not an utterly irrational argument here.  We'll see.  It may also fall in the "be careful what you ask for" bucket, because the evidence (you know, the stuff the prosecution has a lot of, and Trump has none of) is gonna be pretty tough.

[dcbc 14508]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh.  Maybe.

I don't doubt they'll try it.  To remove successfully, you have to allege and prove that the criminal conduct at issue was committed by a federal officer in furtherance of his duties as a federal officer.  And one of the more important aspects of that is that federal law provides a defense, like immunity or some such.

He tried it with the Manhattan case and failed at the trial court level but is appealing.  

This one is slightly better positioned because almost all of the conduct complained of occurred while he was in office, as opposed to the Manhattan case, where most of it didn't.

But there's also this concept of the "outer perimeter" of presidential duties, and the judge found that "paying porn stars hush money," however you want to characterize it, fell outside of that outer perimeter.

It is a little bit closer question whether "talking about an election" falls within or without that outer perimeter.

 

Also, we're talking about his alleged attempt to manipulate, er seek enforcement of, Georgia election laws.  What federal law is he supposedly acting under?

Edited August 15, 2023 by dcbc

[jimmyjazz 46116]

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

In Georgia, Probation instead of imprisonment may be ordered by a court for all or part of a person's sentence. Probation is not parole. Parole may be granted only by the Parole Board after a person has served part of his sentence in prison.

I swear to God we're talking right past each other.  I was trying to ask if serving a 2 year term of a 5 year sentence would imply that the person was paroled at two years.  I never, ever said it was probation -- you did.

I give up.

[Js1 85560]

Just now, dcbc said:

Also, we're talking about his alleged attempt to manipulate Georgia election laws.  What federal law is he supposedly acting under?

There’s gotta be some murky gray area between him as a candidate and him as president, right? Yes he was president, but most of this was done is his campaign as a candidate for federal office.  If the shoe was on the other foot, would candidate Joe Biden be considered a federal officer? Is this more “preferential treatment” bc Trump was both and he’s going to hide behind the resolute desk yet again?

[Pancho 44984]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh.  Maybe.

I don't doubt they'll try it.  To remove successfully, you have to allege and prove that the criminal conduct at issue was committed by a federal officer in furtherance of his duties as a federal officer.  And one of the more important aspects of that is that federal law provides a defense, like immunity or some such.

He tried it with the Manhattan case and failed at the trial court level but is appealing.  

This one is slightly better positioned because almost all of the conduct complained of occurred while he was in office, as opposed to the Manhattan case, where most of it didn't.

But there's also this concept of the "outer perimeter" of presidential duties, and the judge found that "paying porn stars hush money," however you want to characterize it, fell outside of that outer perimeter.

It is a little bit closer question whether "talking about an election" falls within or without that outer perimeter.

 

Thanks! Shan Wu just said on CNN that it's a great move to try by his team but it's unlikely to happen (or something like that). 

[Gatorubet 30300]

So does Jack Smith get assigned if removed, this being his federal bailiwick and all?   That would take care of the scheduling problems. 

[dcbc 14508]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I swear to God we're talking right past each other.  I was trying to ask if serving a 2 year term of a 5 year sentence would imply that the person was paroled at two years.  I never, ever said it was probation -- you did.

I give up.

I mentioned it above, but Georgia law provides for a "split sentence" where the person serves prison time for part of the sentence and then, is placed on probation for the remainder.  This all is part of sentencing.  It's different from where a person is sentenced to a straight prison term and is, later, granted parole by the board of paroles and pardons.  

Edited August 15, 2023 by dcbc

[Red Five 40885]

So, if that is successful and he's convicted he can pardon himself?

[jimmyjazz 46116]

Just now, dcbc said:

I mentioned it above, but Georgia law provides for a "split sentence where the person serves prison time for part of the sentence and then, is placed on probation.  It's different from where a person is sentenced to a straight prison term and is, later, granted parole.  

OK, thank you. 

[C-Man 27257]

Eh.  Maybe.
I don't doubt they'll try it.  To remove successfully, you have to allege and prove that the criminal conduct at issue was committed by a federal officer in furtherance of his duties as a federal officer.  And one of the more important aspects of that is that federal law provides a defense, like immunity or some such.
He tried it with the Manhattan case and failed at the trial court level but is appealing.  
This one is slightly better positioned because almost all of the conduct complained of occurred while he was in office, as opposed to the Manhattan case, where most of it didn't.
But there's also this concept of the "outer perimeter" of presidential duties, and the judge found that "paying porn stars hush money," however you want to characterize it, fell outside of that outer perimeter.
It is a little bit closer question whether "talking about an election" falls within or without that outer perimeter.
 

Yeah, Trump’s attorney from his second impeachment floated this idea last night, saying that if he thinks he was acting “under the color” of something or other, basically as part of his federal duties as the POTUS, he could try. He also then admitted that none of the other 19 would be able to do that probably. But another attorney on the panel later said — and cited case laws — saying that it could not happen that way. We will see.

[dcbc 14508]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

So, if that is successful and he's convicted he can pardon himself?

It is an untested legal theory, but if it is transferred, and he is convicted, and he is elected, and if pigs fly out of me arse, he certainly will try.

[conVINCEd 21469]

This whole surrender in 2 weeks thing is bullshit.  We need some mf’ers in cuffs being perp walked.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

So does Jack Smith get assigned if removed, this being his federal bailiwick and all?   That would take care of the scheduling problems. 

Yeah, that's the weird thing.  It would be tried in federal court with a federal judge, but presumably by the state prosecutors.

It would remain a violation and conviction under Georgia law, but entered by a federal court.

Pardonable by the President under federal law?  Who fucking knows, doesn't seem like it.

[dcbc 14508]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that's the weird thing.  It would be tried in federal court with a federal judge, but presumably by the state prosecutors.

It would remain a violation and conviction under Georgia law, but entered by a federal court.

Pardonable by the President under federal law?  Who fucking knows, doesn't seem like it.

I'm more curious about what federal statute they're going to say covers his actions.  It's going to be some general presidential shit.  Because how Georgia runs its elections is a matter of state law.  And let's not forget that 2021 letter sent long after he was out of office when he no longer was a federal official.  I don't see a clear path to success with this motion.  But they'll try, if only to delay and perpetuate the notion that he's not being treated fairly.

Edited August 15, 2023 by dcbc

[Gatorubet 30300]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I swear to God we're talking right past each other.  I was trying to ask if serving a 2 year term of a 5 year sentence would imply that the person was paroled at two years.  I never, ever said it was probation -- you did.

I give up.

We aren’t talking past each other. You are just not understanding what I’m saying. If the sentencing judge says, you have to serve two of five years, you would be on probation for those three years.

If the sentencing judge sentenced you to five years - and two years later you requested the Georgia parole board to let you out, and the parole board agreed after a hearing,  then you would not have to serve your complete sentence, as you would be paroled. 

Both circumstances involve not serving the entire five year sentence. Technically, in the first example you would be on probation for three years, and then the second example you would be out on parole after they granted your parole request. 

[G650 14276]

Dude stahp

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

1 minute ago, G650 said:

Dude stahp

You might have missed where I preemptively addressed your concerns. 

[Red Five 40885]

That was a great interview. That version of Hillary wins in 2016.

*Dotard stuff

Edited August 15, 2023 by Red Five

[tx 3 putt 77378]

Enough bs, let’s move on the next real topic ….

 

does the judge deny bail ?

[F250 28817]

Just start a new thread ffs.

 

[David Dennison 18946]

NM

Edited August 15, 2023 by David Dennison

[Biff Tannen 45724]

There's a Hillary thread somewhere around here, FIND IT

[dcbc 14508]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

Enough bs, let’s move on the next real topic ….

 

does the judge deny bail ?

Let's see if he surrenders first.  I think that's going to be a big IF.

[tx 3 putt 77378]

Just now, dcbc said:

Let's see if he surrenders first.  I think that's going to be a big IF.

can he zoom meeting this from Russia or North Korea ?

[Goredho 17419]

There's gonna be a white van on the freeway, isn't there?

[conVINCEd 21469]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Let's see if he surrenders first.  I think that's going to be a big IF.

Then go get him.

[The Dog 44138]

3 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Let's see if he surrenders first.  I think that's going to be a big IF.

He's surrendered  in all the other cases. Why wouldn't he now?

[Beau Vine 54412]

2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Let's see if he surrenders first.  I think that's going to be a big IF.

 

1 minute ago, Goredho said:

There's gonna be a white van on the freeway, isn't there?

[tx 3 putt 77378]

1 minute ago, Goredho said:

There's gonna be a white van on the freeway, isn't there?

he’ll take a small boat out into the Atlantic and get on a bigger boat, in the middle of the night. Members of his ss detail are loyal to him and him alone 

[Js1 85560]

1 minute ago, The Dog said:

He's surrendered  in all the other cases. Why wouldn't he now?

Bc he doesn’t want his true height and weight out there 😂

[Pig Bellmont 8736]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also notable that in their defamation suit, Giuliani has admitted "for purposes of this litigation only"** that he made those statements, they are false, and they are defamatory.

**I don't think you can actually do that.  But then again, I'm not sure his admission there is going to be binding in a criminal case.  It probably would be in another civil case and is a prior inconsistent statement/admission of party opponent in any case.

Not sure what you mean by binding, but his admission in the civil case can absolutely be used against him as evidence in a criminal case. 

[Pig Bellmont 8736]

Just now, Js1 said:

Bc he doesn’t want his true height and weight out there 😂

I hope we also see his tiny fingerprints