Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[TwiceHorn 31463]

So, one interesting thing about the gag order.  Chutkan lifted her stay of it right about the time Trump made the Barr tweet, which could be construed as violating it.

If the stay hadn't been lifted, then the order couldn't have been violated.  

Also, now the fight over staying the gag order moves to the DC Circuit, where there will be basically two issues under consideration:  a) how likely is the gag order to be affirmed or upheld, and b) is the harm resulting from it so grave as to merit being stayed pending the appeal.  So, the DC Circuit ruling on the stay may be a good preview of the outcome.

[C-Man 27223]

I'm admittedly no law dog but why is a gag order lifted at all in this case. It's made and he's not supposed to be discussing Endogoron (sp?)'s staff or making statements about potential witnesses. Why isn't just left in place until the trial concludes?

[dcbc 14482]

6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I'm admittedly no law dog but why is a gag order lifted at all in this case. It's made and he's not supposed to be discussing Endogoron (sp?)'s staff or making statements about potential witnesses. Why isn't just left in place until the trial concludes?

 

Sometimes orders are stayed pending appeal.  Ordinarily, I presume, the appellate court issues such a stay order.  In this case, the trial court apparently stayed its own order and, therefore, was able to lift the stay.  I found that scenario to be a bit unusual, but I'm not a fed-type lawyer.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

26 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

Sometimes orders are stayed pending appeal.  Ordinarily, I presume, the appellate court issues such a stay order.  In this case, the trial court apparently stayed its own order and, therefore, was able to lift the stay.  I found that scenario to be a bit unusual, but I'm not a fed-type lawyer.

Yeah and we need to remember that there are two:  one in NY Superior Court by Engoron forbidding statements about court staff, but not about Engoron or others.  Trump has now been tagged on that one twice.  It has not been stayed and any appeal status is unclear.  It's probably so narrow as to be pretty unassailable.

The other is Chutkan's in DC, which is broader.  Under the Federal Rules, you have to first ask the trial court to stay an order in the nature of an injunction (which is what a gag order is), before you can ask the court of appeals to stay it.  It's a bit bizarre, because why would a trial court stay an order it just saw fit to grant, but there it is.

Nevertheless, Chutkan did stay her gag order while they briefed the issue of the stay and, as soon as briefing was complete, or maybe before Trumpco replied (usual order of briefing is motion, followed by response, followed by reply, but replies are usually optional and may not be considered), Chutkan lifted the stay and denied the motion for a more formal stay.

Now it's teed up for the DC Circuit for a stay pending appeal.

[C-Man 27223]

Sidney Powell backtracking on guilty plea?

[Goredho 17405]

Can we just fast forward to the finding out?  All this fucking around is getting a bit stale.

[Native Horn 3504]

1 hour ago, Walser said:

All I know is I woke up the morning after the election and literally laughed in my truck that we managed to elect Trump. That's when I knew the sim didn't care about appearances any more.

Not trying to shame a perfectly nice looking duck, but you sleep in a truck?

#drsuess

[Bullneck 19087]

10 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sidney Powell backtracking on guilty plea?
 

She saw that interview where some woman said she shouldn't have pled out and thought "Yeah, what she said!"  

Once the Kraken has awakened it's hard to keep it under control.  Powell looks like a Kraken might be inside her skin suit.  Or a bunch of cockroaches.  

[TwiceHorn 31463]

16 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sidney Powell backtracking on guilty plea?
 

Haven't been able to find anything stating the terms of her probation/deferred arrangement.  It is possible this kind of crap violates it, but unsure.

Other than that, the only real possibility here is that the judge or Willis hauls her back in to question the voluntariness of her plea.  Legally speaking, she's probably stuck with what she said in open court under oath:  that is that she's guilty of the offense pled to and the fact are as she stated under oath.  But it is conceivable that if she's noisy enough the plea is revoked as coerced or involuntary.

It's certainly not uncommon for pleading defendants to continue to protest their innocence, but most of the time they lack the platform to do it so publicly and nothing comes of it:  guilty as charged.

Obviously, she's still running the grift and maybe setting herself up to try to avoid disbarment or suspension on the ground that her plea wasn't voluntary, which probably won't work.  As outlined above, the only thing the bar has to prove is her conviction, and her only wiggle room is that this isn't the kind of offense for which automatic or "compulsory" disbarment is the remedy.  And that ain't gonna work.

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 45926]

I would think a defendant could backtrack on a plea if they asserted they weren't in the right frame of mind at the time (or were being coerced, etc., as already said).

I wouldn't think it would go over real well with the judge.  Oh well.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I would think a defendant could backtrack on a plea if they asserted they weren't in the right frame of mind at the time (or were being coerced, etc., as already said).

I wouldn't think it would go over real well with the judge.  Oh well.

Well, there is a legit possibility of recanting a plea, yes.  But, I think you'd have to offer some real evidence of either impairment at the time of the plea. or what lawdogs call a "mistake of fact," which is an underlying fact about something material that the defendant is mistaken about and the prosecution knows they are mistaken about.  Would be a tall order, usually.

So, given that context, Powell's bleating probably does not provide grounds for revoking the plea.

[RomaVicta 29907]

The judge went through a number of questions directed at Powell having to do with competence, coercion, and full understanding of what she was doing. It was thorough. 

If she's backing off on that and undermining her own value as a witness, she should serve her consecutive sentences and be damned. 

[Red Five 40857]

This is all very shocking. I asked a few pages back what the result would be when she started doing exactly this. These people are fucking nuts and aren't capable of abiding by those terms.

[RomaVicta 29907]

If she were a black man, she'd already be in the slammer. Some of this is the usual pussy-footing with affluent white defendents. I think there is reluctance humiliate persons of Trump and Powell's stature. That hesitation doesn't exist for others. 

It must come down to the visual pictures they have in their heads. It's easy to imagine a black man in jail. It's tragic to imagine Powell deprived of her wardrobe and subject to the commands of prison guards.

We need to get over that. Powell and other traitors are dangers to the country. Trump, of course, is the worst. They need to be in cells.

[Foosters 17856]

Just now, RomaVicta said:

If she were a black man, she'd already be in the slammer. Some of this is the usual pussy-footing with affluent white defendents. I think there is reluctance humiliate persons of Trump and Powell's stature. That hesitation doesn't exist for others. 

It must come down to the visual pictures they have in their heads. It's easy to imagine a black man in jail. It's tragic to imagine Powell deprived of her wardrobe and subject to the commands of prison guards.

We need to get over that. Powell and other traitors are dangers to the country. Trump, of course, is the worst. They need to be in cells.

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

[Red Five 40857]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

It's tragic to imagine Powell deprived of her wardrobe and subject to the commands of prison guards.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

14 minutes ago, Foosters said:

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

There are plenty of biases in the justice system, but they tend to be more subtle and subjective than post-plea treatment.

As a general proposition, a plea leads to a sentence, which may just be straight up imprisonment, or some form of probation, or a mixture.

If there's a violation of any probationary part, that leads to the consequences of violating probation, usually imprisonment, but has no effect on the plea.

ETA:  obviously not trying to tell Foosters anything, but elaborating on the point.

Edited October 30, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TexasEd 8067]

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

If I'm using plurality wrong, which I'm still not convinced that I am, thanks for calling it out. I still think I'm supported by common usage. I see in the definition that the word is inappropriate outside of an election where the winner has the plurality. The first definition pulls the meaning to a slightly more general meaning, but you're techinically correct.

If it turns out I'm using if fine, I use it to connote a large portion less than half in the context of the body of voters, I do appreciate the discussion. I'm sure everybody else is rapt as well.

The problem is that Trump won the Electoral College in 2016.  He did not win a plurality of the popular vote.  Hillary Clinton did.

 

In 2020 Joe Biden won an outright majority in the popular vote.

So:

2016 Trump won EC Majority and Clinton won Popular vote plurality

2020 Biden won both EC and PV majority

Trump never won a plurality of anything unless you're talking about the Republican primary

Edited October 30, 2023 by TexasEd

[YGIFS 19450]

I've often thought the percentage of EC votes was a curiously overlooked statistic.  Obviously it means nothing in the Constitutional sense.  But it's been a curious tracking device for quite awhile now. 

s.  

 

[dcbc 14482]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

I've often thought the percentage of EC votes was a curiously overlooked statistic.  Obviously it means nothing in the Constitutional sense.  But it's been a curious tracking device for quite awhile now. 

s.  

 

[Macanudo 12977]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

Ken Paxton has been under indictment since 2015.  Explain that, smart guy.

[Walser 1109]

2 hours ago, Native Horn said:

Not trying to shame a perfectly nice looking duck, but you sleep in a truck?

#drsuess

I know I shouldn't post drunk, especially in my truck. But here we are.

Edited October 30, 2023 by Walser
No

[Burt 4080]

5 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I beg to differ.

 

 

Could you guys please upload it to her OnlyFans then so I could get paid?

[RomaVicta 29907]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

[Foosters 17856]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

My statement was not a sweeping defense of the fairness found in the criminal justice system, nor was it to mean that Black men receive equal treatment under the law. 

My statement was in response to your post about Powell's public statements that she was coerced into a plea, but I had been seeing similar positions by other posters that this type of conduct would lead similarly situated defendants straight to the slammer.

In my experience, that is not the case. Defendants yelling at judges. Calling them "motherfuckers," "bitches," "spics" etc. I have seen defendants with social media accounts posting daily trial updates accusing judges and DAs of all sorts of illegal and untechnical behavior. DAs will bring this up to the courts, and it rarely results in more than a stern verbal admonition. I have seen protective orders, stay away orders, and other judicial orders ignored or marginally complied with. I could go downstairs this afternoon and probably see each of these in real time. They happen all the time, and they rarely, if ever, lead to someone getting locked up, unless the prosecutors file additional charges based on that conduct. 

 

 

 

 

[YGIFS 19450]

^
Good points and my limited experience in the law can confirm.  I think a curious issue here though is this is somebody making veiled threats who used to be able to follow through with them with far more power than anyone else, and may be in a position to do it again.  But in the interim, they can call upon an army of millions to do their bidding with nothing more than a few dog whistle phrases online or at a rally.  

 

[Foosters 17856]

3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

^
Good points and my limited experience in the law can confirm.  I think a curious issue here though is this is somebody making veiled threats who used to be able to follow through with them with far more power than anyone else, and may be in a position to do it again.  But in the interim, they can call upon an army of millions to do their bidding with nothing more than a few dog whistle phrases online or at a rally.  

 

I will agree that the defendant's influence and reach make this a far more compelling argument. 

[The Dog 44044]

 

[Gil Bang 25954]

7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Who's going to examine Don for the state?   I hope it's a minority woman.  That will drive him nuts. 

[locodos 5387]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Who's going to examine Don for the state?   I hope it's a minority woman.  That will drive him nuts. 

Are drug dogs allowed to be in the court room?  Asking for a twitchy friend I want to say person?

[SydneyCarton 48099]

15 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

That's weird. I saw that the case intended to make Trump the last witness, but now it's going to be Ivanka?

[locodos 5387]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's weird. I saw that the case intended to make Trump the last witness, but now it's going to be Ivanka?

[The Dog 44044]

25 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's weird. I saw that the case intended to make Trump the last witness, but now it's going to be Ivanka?

take everything Bill Palmer says with a grain of salt, but this is his take/guess:

Quote

if Donald Trump was planning to just wait to see how Ivanka addressed certain matters and then parrot those same answers himself, now he won’t be able to do that. Donald will have to commit himself to certain answers under oath, without knowing what Ivanka will then say during her testimony.

 

[Macanudo 12977]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

take everything Bill Palmer says with a grain of salt, but this is his take/guess:

 

Why wouldn't Ivanka just parrot him then?

[locodos 5387]

4 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Why wouldn't Ivanka just parrot him then?

so he goes to jail and she doesn't have to slurp mushroom soup once a week.

[TwiceHorn 31463]

Well, that's one of the hazards of having to subpoena a non-party witness that lives out of state.  Unlike Vanky's arguments, she will have to testify even if she is no longer a party and no longer lives in NY, but the trial schedule will have to reasonably accommodate her travel.

[Hermanator 7043]

The last few pages insist upon themselves 

[The Dog 44044]

12 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Why wouldn't Ivanka just parrot him then?

she's not on trial but the other Trump family members are. 

[Texaus 377]

34 minutes ago, locodos said:

so he goes to jail and she doesn't have to slurp mushroom soup once a week.

Is mushroom soup a euphemism for Jared’s cock?

[Macanudo 12977]

20 minutes ago, Texaus said:

Is mushroom soup a euphemism for Jared’s cock?

Wouldn't that be mushroom lentil soup?

[RDCanecutter 26434]

8 hours ago, C-Man said:

Sidney Powell backtracking on guilty plea?
 

Well, the first time that I plea-dealed my qualifying was a shame
I started out way in the back and came back 'bout the same
Pulled her in the pit, couldn't look my daddy in the eye
He said, "If you quit now, Sydney, it's gonna haunt you all your life"

See, it ain't about the money or even being number one
You gotta know when it's all over, you did the best you could've done
And knowing that crazy's in you and you never let it out
Is worse than blowing any Trumpkin or any wreck you'll ever have

[aggie08 21504]

9 hours ago, Red Five said:

This is all very shocking. I asked a few pages back what the result would be when she started doing exactly this. These people are fucking nuts and aren't capable of abiding by those terms.

Yep, this was always going to happen. Take a plea deal, mail in an apology, tell MAGA that you tricked the librul judges, then continue the grift, knowing that the court is virtually powerless to do anything at that point.

And they'll never, ever, ever hurt Trump in any truly meaningful way by testifying against him--if it ever comes to that--because they aren't remotely credible and have shown that they'll say anything in the moment for self preservation.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20397]

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20397]

4 hours ago, locodos said:

so he goes to jail and she doesn't have to slurp mushroom soup once a week.

And she would be protected by saying "Daddy, I was under oath. You can't lie under oath. It's a crime."  

Oh that would chap his hide.

[Biff Tannen 45683]

25 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Eric really should be zero or in the negatives 

[Slacks 6819]

On 10/29/2023 at 9:31 PM, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Sounds like married life to me 

[Slacks 6819]

16 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

 

[Macanudo 12977]

On 10/29/2023 at 4:39 PM, Macanudo said:

The sooner Americans wake up to the fact that corporations don't give a shit about them and have bought/paid for every member of Congress, the better. 

I had never heard of the Powell Memo before watching this.   50 years later, we're in deep shit.

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

36 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

I had never heard of the Powell Memo before watching this.   50 years later, we're in deep shit.

 

This plus the Southern Strategy is the holy grail of modern day conservatism 

[Bozo_Casanova 26452]

15 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Wouldn't that be mushroom lentil soup?

You mean Iowa-style chili?