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

[atomheartbevo 89766]

2 hours ago, TexasHooch said:

Ruh Roh

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's not new information.  That happened before and is the raison d'etre for the superseding indictment.

We knew he changed his testimony to implicate Trump and De Oliveira, which would avoid prosecution for perjury.  What we didn't know was that the government gave him a Non-Prosecution Agreement to enable that.

IT workers at Mar-a-Lago

[GenXer 2897]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

So Trump's first calls to 'Lock Her Up' regarding Hillary were about her private server in her NY home bathroom?  Now he's being flipped on by an IT guy who set up equipment and document storage in his Mar-a-Lago villa's bathroom after acquiring a penchant for supposedly flushing other classified documents down myriad White House bathroom toilets.  And the co-conspirator about to turn state's evidence shares the same name as the band that sang the song Trump danced with Ivanka to at her wedding reception "Heaven Must be Missing an Angel"-Tavares.  

You people of reasoned logic and letters---regale me again with lore of how we think, therefore we are.  Because we are 0's and 1's inside a simulation.  

We are merely God’s reality show. The set ups are just getting lazier now. The show is jumping the shark.

[YGIFS 19452]

Yeah, I dunno if the showrunner is Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammed, or Moses, or Vishnu.  But whoever it is, better get their shit together because we're about to get moved to Paramount Minus.   

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

6 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

 

As for how classified documents ended up in boxes, Trump "had a lot of boxes" in his bedroom, and when he was done reading a newspaper article or a classified document, he'd "throw them" into one of the boxes, according to Corcoran.

 

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit.

[Rimbo 26028]

6 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

Lying to your own attorney strikes me as being the sort of thing that only the dumbest criminals try to do.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

On 9/5/2023 at 11:04 AM, YGIFS said:

axiom of

please, God, no

[The Dog 44073]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

@TwiceHorn, can you give a primer on how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment factors into all of this, if at all?

While perhaps implied, I didn't see the word "convicted" in the Amendment, so I was wondering if he could already be legally be barred from running.  I'm particularly interested in the "giving aid or comfort" aspect since he is actively working in the interests of those already convicted for Jan. 6th.

Thanks

I'm not Twice or a lawyer, but what I've seen regarding this is that two things will occur:

1. A Secretary of State (of most likely a blue state) will disqualify Trump based on the 14th and refuse to put him on the ballot. Then that Secretary of State will be sued.

2. Someone will sue the Secretary of State (of most likely a red state) of a state that allows Trump to be on the ballot. 

Then this will go all the way up to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not the amendment applies to Trump. IMHO having a conviction helps this tremendously because even though it's not stated in the amendment it presents a much more "cut and dried" case for disqualification. 

And this is where it gets incredibly dicey for the GOP. Let's say that the Jan 6th trial concludes and Trump is found guilty. Then the Supreme Court agrees that he is ineligible based on that conviction. This will most likely occur after several GOP primaries have occurred and Trump has a big pile of delegates. In fact, he may even have clinched the nomination by this point. 

Now the GOP will have to figure out how to handle the situation or else not have a candidate on the ballot for president in 2024.

And that would be a disaster for the GOP as nobody would show up to vote for them as they would lack a top of the ballot candidate. 

[YGIFS 19452]

Your scenario sounds plausible and a reason for optimism.  But I prefer mine.  Everything you posted comes to fruition but his followers are encouraged to attend a "brokered convention" in Milwaukee, despite the legalities.  They are led to believe they can still "fight like hell" to keep him on the ballot/get him the nomination by any means necessary.  They are fed propaganda that the other leading nominee and his/her supporters are there to steal the election from Trump/MAGA nation just like the Democrats.  Only this time, it's even worse because they are doing it from the inside.  And those who are not with the leading delegate holder or Trump are ANTIFA/FBI plants.  So they are to show up, en force/en masse, armed to the teeth.  And when Trump is declared ineligible and his delegates released to the other primary leaders...they open fire on the whole lot.  You'd have to try really, really hard to not have hundreds and hundreds of deaths among this shitheap of humanity.  I mean, you don't even really have to try, they'll murder one another for hours without even being riled up.  FFL dealers can sponsor booths for re-ups.  Put this shitstain chapter of humanity on full display so we can then euthanize it once and for all.  1968 Chicago, but this time with AR-15's instead of beer bottles and middle fingers.  

[G650 14272]

36 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Lying to your own attorney strikes me as being the sort of thing that only the dumbest criminals try to do.

 

 

[chainsaw 9873]

Does it need to "go all the way" if states can just directly sue other states in SCOTUS? That's what that Nate Paul subsidiary tried doing in 2020 on behalf of our state, right?

[TwiceHorn 31516]

4 hours ago, The Dog said:

I'm not Twice or a lawyer, but what I've seen regarding this is that two things will occur:

1. A Secretary of State (of most likely a blue state) will disqualify Trump based on the 14th and refuse to put him on the ballot. Then that Secretary of State will be sued.

2. Someone will sue the Secretary of State (of most likely a red state) of a state that allows Trump to be on the ballot. 

Then this will go all the way up to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not the amendment applies to Trump. IMHO having a conviction helps this tremendously because even though it's not stated in the amendment it presents a much more "cut and dried" case for disqualification. 

And this is where it gets incredibly dicey for the GOP. Let's say that the Jan 6th trial concludes and Trump is found guilty. Then the Supreme Court agrees that he is ineligible based on that conviction. This will most likely occur after several GOP primaries have occurred and Trump has a big pile of delegates. In fact, he may even have clinched the nomination by this point. 

Now the GOP will have to figure out how to handle the situation or else not have a candidate on the ballot for president in 2024.

And that would be a disaster for the GOP as nobody would show up to vote for them as they would lack a top of the ballot candidate. 

Sounds about right.  However, I'm not sure how helpful a criminal conviction is of obstruction of an official proceeding.  We do have a criminal offense entitled insurrection, but I don't think anyone's ever been convicted.

The language  given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof comes pretty directly from the definition of treason in Article III.  And that then may well mean enemies in a declared war, not some vague enemies of the state.

The 14th Amendment could be the worst example of legislative drafting in all of our documents. RIght up there with the Second Amendment. Fucking horribly imprecise.

Edited September 7, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31516]

So, don't think it caught any play here, but the Georgia judge severed Powell and Chesebro from the other defendants and has them set for trial October 23.  He declined to sever them from each other.

https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%3A//www.nytimes.com/2023/09/06/us/trump-georgia-trial-powell-chesebro.html%3Futm_source%3Dnewsshowcase%26utm_medium%3Dgnews%26utm_campaign%3DCDAQ_oHh7aawzPfRARjTufefmd7OrbkBKg8IACoHCAowjuuKAzCWrzw%26utm_content%3Drundown%26gaa_at%3Dg%26gaa_n%3DAfHvTEuqwFEN9Ve_0w2akPiijPIpY6Z_WDOYGflumByzxG3lMskqe126FEL3XTZ0g47UpZhbR9Zap5BCbwGRvkBQZkmq%26gaa_ts%3D64f92f7f%26gaa_sig%3DO8rkJuWBVx6iFZTjkm9SJKFWgUYqFoyKWFDgrnstJMRnajZjuoz5moHYyuZQ0KM4H31dCFYoF1LFwZvjVCNMVA%3D%3D#site-content

Willis maintains that the case is the case and all 120 some odd witnesses will need to testify in this one.  

I'm just not sure the RICO game is worth the candle here.  I dunno man.

Edited September 7, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31516]

Also, Navarro's trial is over except for closing.  https://apnews.com/article/jan-6-committee-contempt-congress-peter-navarro-6cde11fcaf515e59fa60e47f359177fd

Because his and Bannon's trials involved pretty much exactly the same issues, I reviewed Bannon's appeal.

The main issue there is whether advice of counsel providing a legitimate excuse for non-compliance with a subpoena is a defense to contempt.  The statute provides:

Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.

The government's position and that adopted by the trial courts against Bannon and Navarro is based on Licavoli v. US, which raised the exact same issue and held:

It was established by the Bryan⁴  and Fleischman⁵  cases that he who deliberately and intentionally fails to respond to a subpoena "willfully makes default".⁶  Evil motive is not a necessary ingredient of willfulness under this clause of the statute. A deliberate intention not to appear is sufficient. It was established by the Quinn case⁷  that a deliberate, intentional refusal is an element of the offense of refusing to answer a pertinent question under the other clause of the statute. We discussed this in United States v. Deutch.⁸  So it is established that the intent essential to constitute an offense under these two clauses is the same in nature — a deliberate, intentional failure, without more, in each case.

Usually, that is what is meant by "knowing" in a statute:  basically, were you conscious of what you were doing and was it not a mistake.  Also usually, use of "willfully" does add a bit extra to "knowing" or "knowingly," something akin to did you know what you were doing and have an idea it was wrong, Licavoli's "evil motive."  And, thus, usually, good-faith reliance on advice of counsel will take something from "willful" down to "knowing" and maybe require acquittal.

 

So, Bannon is asking the DC Circuit to reverse Licavoli. Licavoli is a little odd in that the second clause. "refuses to answer any question" does not say willfully, and thus must be just knowingly, but the Licavoli court says the standard is the same.  Weird.  Bannon's judge noted that Licavoli don't make no sense, but it's the law and he had to follow it.

 

So, we'll see how this shakes out. In any event, a demonstration of how that pesky ol intent can fuck up a prosecution or defense and you can't just indict a case without due regard for the intent standard of the statute.

 

One thing that may help secure their convictions is that neither of them bothered to show up and try to assert any privileges and neither produced any documents, unlike Meadows and some of the others.  That might take their "default" from knowing to willful even if the DC Circuit reconsiders Licavoli (Licavoli did that too).

Edited September 7, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Gatorubet 30275]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

As far as I know, with the exception of CIPA, there's no statute equivalent to 28 USC 1292 authorizing interlocutory appeals or certification of issues for appeal in criminal cases. 

The collateral order doctrine in criminal cases is limited to  orders denying a Double Jeopardy Clause challenge, orders denying a Speech or Debate Clause challenge, orders denying a motion to reduce bail, and orders allowing for the forced medication of criminal defendants. 

The only thing the government might have is a writ of mandamus.

Quote

18 USC 3731

In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information or granting a new trial after verdict or judgment, as to any one or more counts, or any part thereof, except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.

An appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision or order of a district court suppressing or excluding evidence or requiring the return of seized property in a criminal proceeding, not made after the defendant has been put in jeopardy and before the verdict or finding on an indictment or information, if the United States attorney certifies to the district court that the appeal is not taken for purpose of delay and that the evidence is a substantial proof of a fact material in the proceeding.

An appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision or order, entered by a district court of the United States, granting the release of a person charged with or convicted of an offense, or denying a motion for revocation of, or modification of the conditions of, a decision or order granting release.

The appeal in all such cases shall be taken within thirty days after the decision, judgment or order has been rendered and shall be diligently prosecuted.

The provisions of this section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.

I just woke up an hour ago after five days of fever and suckiness.  I have not Westlaw’d the thing, but if “excluding evidence” can be read as excluding testimony, maybe there is a path left if Cannon stupids her way to a Trump favorable decision.

We have a ton of civil practice law dawgs on Surly.  We have to have at least ONE fed criminal practitioner within this hive of scum and villainy.   Holla!!

[TwiceHorn 31516]

15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I just woke up an hour ago after five days of fever and suckiness.  I have not Westlaw’d the thing, but if “excluding evidence” can be read as excluding testimony, maybe there is a path left if Cannon stupids her way to a Trump favorable decision.

We have a ton of civil practice law dawgs on Surly.  We have to have at least ONE fed criminal practitioner within this hive of scum and villainy.   Holla!!

Good find, looks like you're right.  We have quite a few able state court defense lawyers here, but not very many that can speak to federal practice, it seems.  And like civil cases, it's pretty different.

So, if she fucks this up, I think it would be regarded as a pretty big fuck up, maybe sufficient to show bias or other unsuitability to try this case and on remand might possibly get sent to a different judge.  She'll probably fuck up some CIPA stuff too.

Edited September 7, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Pato del Muerto 52543]

31 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I just woke up an hour ago after five days of fever and suckiness.  I have not Westlaw’d the thing, but if “excluding evidence” can be read as excluding testimony, maybe there is a path left if Cannon stupids her way to a Trump favorable decision.

We have a ton of civil practice law dawgs on Surly.  We have to have at least ONE fed criminal practitioner within this hive of scum and villainy.   Holla!!

And we have one who has felt the sting of a federal criminal prosecutor. Yin and Yang. Balance. 

[RomaVicta 29953]

On 9/5/2023 at 6:03 PM, YGIFS said:

Smith knew he'd walk into the trap.  Trump knew he'd walk into the trap.  Trump knew Smith knew he'd walk into the trap.  And Smith knew Trump knew that Smith knew he'd walk into the trap.  

Trump is Inception for Morons.  

One of my favorite movies. So very smart and witty.

I see @Rimbo beat me to it. Alas.

Edited September 7, 2023 by RomaVicta

[TwiceHorn 31516]

7 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

And we have one who has felt the sting of a federal criminal prosecutor. Yin and Yang. Balance. 

Actually, come to think of it, we have a federal prosecutor here, or maybe a US Attorney from the civil side.   Not sure he feels safe offering this kind of opinion or analysis.

It does seem like a lot of federal civil servants of various stripes keep a pretty low profile online and on "social media."

[TwiceHorn 31516]

From time to time, I think it may be worthwhile to point out that the feds are not always or maybe even usually all sweetness and light and righteousness.  Which explains why the system has a lot of outs for defendants if they have the wherewithal to take advantage.

A couple of recent doozers:

https://apnews.com/article/navy-officers-convictions-vacated-bribery-scandal-4091c6696072221cfe3d38f91318d571

Defense attorney Todd Burns, who represented Dolan, said his client was relieved to have this behind him. He and defense attorneys for the three other men had filed hundreds of pages outlining how the monthslong trial was rife with misconduct from prosecutors hiding evidence, ignoring false testimony and concealing facts that questioned the credibility of key witnesses.

Recent and local https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/jury-finds-80-year-old-veteran-not-guilty-of-trying-to-smuggle-meth-through-dfw-airport/

Like cops, and the FBI, federal prosecutors can get ate up with a desire to get their man and confirmation bias can cause them to lose their fucking minds.

Please baby Jesus let Smith and his compadres stay on the right side of this kind of shit.

[The Dog 44073]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

The language  given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof comes pretty directly from the definition of treason in Article III.  And that then may well mean enemies in a declared war, not some vague enemies of the state.

 

the language of the amendment:

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I think that the key is that what you say is one of the things that can disqualify. There are two - engaged in insurrection or rebellion OR given aid or comfort to enemies of the constitution. 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

the language of the amendment:

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I think that the key is that what you say is one of the things that can disqualify. There are two - engaged in insurrection or rebellion OR given aid or comfort to enemies of the constitution. 

No argument there, but it doesn't state how that is ascertained.  And does it require some sort of enabling statute in addition to any criminal statutes that define those things?

[Beau Vine 54331]

 

[NAVY 6747]

6 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

Well, go on and die then 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

So, the briefing has taken place on some of the non-federal officials' (the fake electors) improbable attempts to remove their cases to federal court.

https://news.yahoo.com/fani-willis-blasts-fake-georgia-163732858.html

The link contains links to the briefing.  Looks like a decisive victory for Willis on this shit.

[4th&Five 41572]

Not a cult though. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by 4th&Five

[Rimbo 26028]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, the briefing has taken place on some of the non-federal officials' (the fake electors) improbable attempts to remove their cases to federal court.

https://news.yahoo.com/fani-willis-blasts-fake-georgia-163732858.html

The link contains links to the briefing.  Looks like a decisive victory for Willis on this shit.

"Fiction is not entitled to recognition" is pretty good. 🤣

[Chewbacca 7780]

19 hours ago, The Dog said:

I'm not Twice or a lawyer, but what I've seen regarding this is that two things will occur:

1. A Secretary of State (of most likely a blue state) will disqualify Trump based on the 14th and refuse to put him on the ballot. Then that Secretary of State will be sued.

2. Someone will sue the Secretary of State (of most likely a red state) of a state that allows Trump to be on the ballot. 

Then this will go all the way up to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not the amendment applies to Trump. IMHO having a conviction helps this tremendously because even though it's not stated in the amendment it presents a much more "cut and dried" case for disqualification. 

And this is where it gets incredibly dicey for the GOP. Let's say that the Jan 6th trial concludes and Trump is found guilty. Then the Supreme Court agrees that he is ineligible based on that conviction. This will most likely occur after several GOP primaries have occurred and Trump has a big pile of delegates. In fact, he may even have clinched the nomination by this point. 

Now the GOP will have to figure out how to handle the situation or else not have a candidate on the ballot for president in 2024.

And that would be a disaster for the GOP as nobody would show up to vote for them as they would lack a top of the ballot candidate. 

This is happening right now in CO.  I'm sure it ends up at the SC, as you say.  I have little faith they will do the right thing.

[Pato del Muerto 52543]

1 minute ago, Chewbacca said:

This is happening right now in CO.  I'm sure it ends up at the SC, as you say.  I have little faith they will do the right thing.

And small gvt republicans everywhere will once again cheer loudly at the federal government overriding a state. 

[tx 3 putt 77258]

19 hours ago, The Dog said:

I'm not Twice or a lawyer, but what I've seen regarding this is that two things will occur:

1. A Secretary of State (of most likely a blue state) will disqualify Trump based on the 14th and refuse to put him on the ballot. Then that Secretary of State will be sued.

2. Someone will sue the Secretary of State (of most likely a red state) of a state that allows Trump to be on the ballot. 

Then this will go all the way up to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not the amendment applies to Trump. IMHO having a conviction helps this tremendously because even though it's not stated in the amendment it presents a much more "cut and dried" case for disqualification. 

And this is where it gets incredibly dicey for the GOP. Let's say that the Jan 6th trial concludes and Trump is found guilty. Then the Supreme Court agrees that he is ineligible based on that conviction. This will most likely occur after several GOP primaries have occurred and Trump has a big pile of delegates. In fact, he may even have clinched the nomination by this point. 

Now the GOP will have to figure out how to handle the situation or else not have a candidate on the ballot for president in 2024.

And that would be a disaster for the GOP as nobody would show up to vote for them as they would lack a top of the ballot candidate. 

I think it’s pretty obvious…..

Trump will expect a huge pile of cash for those delegates, an even bigger pardon, and being recognized as winning the 2020 election

 

[4th&Five 41572]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

[TexasHooch 5122]

What he wants is to be in a position to be presidentially pardoned for it- preferably by himself.

[washparkhorn 9939]

Good legal advice for Chesboro from criminal defense attorneys at Big Law Jenner and Block. 

https://www.justsecurity.org/88068/a-letter-to-kenneth-chesebro-on-pleading-guilty/

As an appellate lawyer, you have probably not spent much time, or any time at all, inside a prison.  But as seasoned defense counsel and former prosecutors, we have.  Believe us when we tell you that prison is not where you want to spend any amount of time, much less a minimum of five years or the rest of your life. 

. . . 

Quote

Now, you and your counsel may be thinking that we are underestimating what appears to be your current strategy:  exercising your speedy trial rights in Georgia (hoping to put the prosecutors back on their heels) and picking a jury with at least one sympathizer, all with the aim of an acquittal or a mistrial. Next, according to your apparent strategy, is hoping for a Republican victory in the 2024 presidential election — even better if it is Trump. That Republican president thencould appoint an Attorney General who would shut down Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal prosecutions and investigations. Or that the president could issue pardons to anyone charged or convicted by that point.  

While this strategy is ambitious and might hew to your political preferences, as lawyers it feels more like magical thinking.  There are too many contingencies here for our comfort level, especially when confronted with something as paramount as your liberty. Call us cowards, but when focusingonly on your liberty interest, unclouded by the blush of your political indignation or any concern with the future ambitions of Trump, we would chart a more conservative path. And remember, if only one of these things goes against plan, you will likely find yourself in prison:  If you are convicted in Georgia or another state, neither Trump nor any other president can pardon you for astate conviction. Indeed, if Trump were elected, the Georgia case and any other state criminal procedures might pause for him for four years while you and other defendants are left holding the bag. If you are acquitted in Georgia, but convicted in the federal case and a Democrat is elected, you will likely land in prison. A future DOJ might well reopen what it considers a righteous case shut down for political reasons, especially since the Special Counsel obviously believes you engaged in myriad crimes.

 

[BamaATL 16593]

11 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

 

https://www.justsecurity.org/88068/a-letter-to-kenneth-chesebro-on-pleading-guilty/

As an appellate lawyer, you have probably not spent much time, or any time at all, inside a prison.  But as seasoned defense counsel and former prosecutors, we have.  Believe us when we tell you that prison is not where you want to spend any amount of time, much less a minimum of five years or the rest of your life. 

. . . 

 

Just on a whim, and based on nothing more than a google search, I'm told your chance at a case being overturned on appeal is somewhere between 7% and 20% on a Federal conviction.  Top result in Georgia indicates that it is between 4% and 5%.  

Obviously that is in no way comprehensive, and all this is very case specific, but gee darn, it would appear the odds are against anyone catching too much of a break on appeal.  Seems to me, based on this information, that convictions generally stick.  

 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

42 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Just on a whim, and based on nothing more than a google search, I'm told your chance at a case being overturned on appeal is somewhere between 7% and 20% on a Federal conviction.  Top result in Georgia indicates that it is between 4% and 5%.  

Obviously that is in no way comprehensive, and all this is very case specific, but gee darn, it would appear the odds are against anyone catching too much of a break on appeal.  Seems to me, based on this information, that convictions generally stick.  

 

There's an old saying.  "Those who try cases planning to appeal usually do."

And, many federal appellate courts, let alone right-leaning ones (I mean before the insanity kicked in), would find most errors in criminal trials either "harmless" or insufficient to reverse or vacate the verdict.

Edited September 8, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 77258]

9 hours ago, 4th&Five said:

 

does potato head know he cant just wish this and it happens 

[BamaATL 16593]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's an old saying.  "Those who try cases planning to appeal usually do."

And, many federal appellate courts, let alone right-leaning ones (I mean before the insanity kicked in), would find most errors in criminal trials either "harmless" or insufficient to reverse or vacate the verdict.

So the arrested development gif of them saying it, "but it could work for us" seems very applicable.  Which is the part that makes this even more absurd, so many of the people wrapped up in all this are lawyers, people that in theory should know all this.  But despite this, they persist.  

The other thing that is just so remarkable is that lots of these folks over the years have started more or less boasting of their criminal acts to sources like the news media, radio, print etc.  It's almost as if their general collective thought is that if its out in broad daylight it brings a sense of normalcy to it, and therefore there won't be any real repercussions for any of it; again often times by lawyers.  Of course all this becomes a matter of record and ultimately evidence against them, but just wow.  I'm glad that many of them are seemingly just brazenly idiotic, but I can't help but think if they had all just shut up how much more difficult all of this would have been to prove. 

I suppose at the end of the day, pretty much all these folks saw how Trump would just break the law in broad daylight, seemingly get away with it, and they viewed it as the new normal.  Getting all the co-conspirators convicted and sent to prison is nice, but this is precisely why Trump has to be convicted on as much as possible, to the fullest extent of the law, even if it is either in-absentia due to death or otherwise.    Of course none of this will make a damn bit of difference to rank and file Maga types, but the message really needs to be for enablers and other wannabe trump types.  This is all just so full blown whackaloonish, but now precedents have to be set.     

[TwiceHorn 31516]

Interesting piece on lawfare about how Meadows' potential removal to federal court is not the end of the world.  Or maybe even a bad thing. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/in-fulton-county-fear-not-removal

[TwiceHorn 31516]

44 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

does potato head know he cant just wish this and it happens 

My first thought on this was do, or do not, there is no try.  But, on reflection, I think he did this to deter the judge from setting an October 23 trial date for the whole case.  Trump has until 9/30 or 10/1 to file to remove, and that would pretty surely upset that trial schedule.  I think he also wants to get a preview of the Meadows removal before filing.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

43 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So the arrested development gif of them saying it, "but it could work for us" seems very applicable.  Which is the part that makes this even more absurd, so many of the people wrapped up in all this are lawyers, people that in theory should know all this.  But despite this, they persist.  

The other thing that is just so remarkable is that lots of these folks over the years have started more or less boasting of their criminal acts to sources like the news media, radio, print etc.  It's almost as if their general collective thought is that if its out in broad daylight it brings a sense of normalcy to it, and therefore there won't be any real repercussions for any of it; again often times by lawyers.  Of course all this becomes a matter of record and ultimately evidence against them, but just wow.  I'm glad that many of them are seemingly just brazenly idiotic, but I can't help but think if they had all just shut up how much more difficult all of this would have been to prove. 

I suppose at the end of the day, pretty much all these folks saw how Trump would just break the law in broad daylight, seemingly get away with it, and they viewed it as the new normal.  Getting all the co-conspirators convicted and sent to prison is nice, but this is precisely why Trump has to be convicted on as much as possible, to the fullest extent of the law, even if it is either in-absentia due to death or otherwise.    Of course none of this will make a damn bit of difference to rank and file Maga types, but the message really needs to be for enablers and other wannabe trump types.  This is all just so full blown whackaloonish, but now precedents have to be set.     

The only thing that takes this out of that usual scenario is that Trump does have some somewhat unique defenses in the January 6 and Georgia cases in that he was still in office and could conceivably have "Supremacy Clause Immunity."   Like most of these immunity things, that's going to depend on whether his activities were legitimately within the scope of his office.  Those are unsettled questions that give him maybe a puncher's chance at winning an appeal.

[jimmyjazz 46004]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The only thing that takes this out of that usual scenario is that Trump does have some somewhat unique defenses in the January 6 and Georgia cases in that he was still in office and could conceivably have "Supremacy Clause Immunity."   Like most of these immunity things, that's going to depend on whether his activities were legitimately within the scope of his office.  Those are unsettled questions that give him maybe a puncher's chance at winning an appeal.

I won't repeat my usual disclaimers, but I don't see how "overturning an election" is in any way related to POTUS' official duties.  Running for a second term is simply not official business.

[CTC2 2798]

On 9/6/2023 at 3:51 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Ironically, I think she is more lil Marco's appointment than Trump's.  She checks many of the boxes academically and ABA rated her qualified, which seems something of a stretch.

But most importantly, she's a lil brown Colombiana/Cubana with a few right wing creds.  She's a pequena Tia Tomasa, or Tia Ruckus if you will.

There is no doubt in my mind that she was put there as a judge for the district where Trump would reside deliberately.  If memory serves, she was put up or confirmed late in his term. 
I know I sure would have put someone there who was in the tank for me. 

[C-Man 27239]

I won't repeat my usual disclaimers, but I don't see how "overturning an election" is in any way related to POTUS' official duties.  Running for a second term is simply not official business.

Seems pretty simple to me too but, you know, this timeline.

[TwiceHorn 31516]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I won't repeat my usual disclaimers, but I don't see how "overturning an election" is in any way related to POTUS' official duties.  Running for a second term is simply not official business.

The last sentence is the key.  But what we think ought to happen and what will happen can be two different things.  The Lawfare article suggests/predicts that a final criterion on the immunity question may be the chilling or deterrent effect denying immunity would have on future presidencies:  not only is pursuing campaign/election matters not within the "presidential ambit," but denying immunity for such actions won't materially chill future executives from carrying out the duties of the office for fear of subsequent criminal prosecution.  I think that makes good sense.

What we're really concerned with on immunity questions is whether government officials can do their jobs without fear of civil or criminal prosecution.  The "chilling effect" analysis focuses on that aspect of it nicely:  there's plenty of other officials tasked with "election integrity," it's not vital to the nation that the president take up that mantle.  Unlike, say, national security or foreign relations questions.

Edited September 8, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 77258]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I won't repeat my usual disclaimers, but I don't see how "overturning an election" is in any way related to POTUS' official duties.  Running for a second term is simply not official business.

we’re dealing with a broken court system. Judges can make decisions based on their federalist society beliefs, not actual law 

[TwiceHorn 31516]

20 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

we’re dealing with a broken court system. Judges can make decisions based on their federalist society beliefs, not actual law 

Well, this has always been true.  There is no "actual law" at the Supreme Court, or very little.

Edited September 8, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Rimbo 26028]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I won't repeat my usual disclaimers, but I don't see how "overturning an election" is in any way related to POTUS' official duties.  Running for a second term is simply not official business.

Not to mention the actual election procedure itself.

The president is not involved.

[locodos 5388]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

we’re dealing with a broken court system. Judges can make decisions based on their federalist society beliefs, not actual law 

"No shit"

- Alexis de Tocqueville

Edited September 8, 2023 by locodos

[TwiceHorn 31516]

11 minutes ago, locodos said:

"No shit"

- Alexis de Tocqueville

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

John Marshall 1803.

 

[Captainant 27706]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But what we think ought to happen and what will happen can be two different things.

Well duh. That's been the strategy of republicans for decades. Ignore jurisprudence, rule arbitrarily, and then laugh as all the lawyers scramble to post-hoc justify an indefensible ruling or decision by the court.

Throw in a "well there's always appeal" for good measure, and baby you've got a surly thread going