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

[Captainant 27772]

8 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I have another perspective. After Trump destroys the Republican party, maybe he should destroy the Church?

Honestly he already has destroyed "the church". There's been so many schisms in the last few years over trumpian culture war grievances, not to mention the outright campaigning that happens regularly from the pulpit. 

[The Dog 44140]

 

[dcbc 14509]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If she gave really bad/wrong jury instructions that force the jury to acquit on the classified information counts, we're looking at acquittal with no remedy. 

However, that would not affect the obstruction counts, where the evidence is maybe even stronger. 

The problem is that the government indicted on the section of 793 that requires that the defendant lack authority to possess the classified information in the first place, while they could have alleged the section that doesn't require that. 

She appears to want to instruct the jury that the PRA may initially have made his possession of these documents rightful, even after they had left the white house.  And they have to make a finding on that. 

The PRA does no such thing. 

My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

So is the only option for the Government to seek mandamus relief?  The judge has no discretion to misstate the law to the jury, and you've just made a good case for inadequate appellate remedy.  It would mean more delay, but that beats the alternative.  I know they aren't actually jury instructions at this point, but just looking down the road.

[chainsaw 9873]

pretty funny that he thinks he has ever done hard work

[TwiceHorn 31536]

Which I intended to use in my campaign... 

[AnTiM 1669]

What do we think when a pathological liar says he has only one fault?

[dcbc 14509]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

There's been so many schisms in the last few years

Those schisms always were there.  He just made them feel more at home in the light of day.  Aside: we left our UMC church after twenty years when it split off to the Global Methodist Church in 2022.  

[dcbc 14509]

8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

 

Smiles Sovietly

[TwiceHorn 31536]

19 minutes ago, dcbc said:

So is the only option for the Government to seek mandamus relief?  The judge has no discretion to misstate the law to the jury, and you've just made a good case for inadequate appellate remedy.  It would mean more delay, but that beats the alternative.  I know they aren't actually jury instructions at this point, but just looking down the road.

Yeah I don't know what interlocutory appeal options the government may have. 

Because she denied the vagueness motion to dismiss, but not the PRA, I initially thought this was some gambit to paint the government into a corner on it, making it easier to dismiss the indictment.

But the "extended" idea of her giving really bad/wrong jury instructions didn't initially occur to me. 

One thing I believe I have seen is that despite the federal civil practice of lengthy and detailed jury questions, federal criminal questions are short and singular, generally. 

Here is an example of the questions in an espionage act case.  https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/5c5cdc7f03

And here's what the instructions look like in a different case.  https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/2f9194cd67

 

 

Edited March 22 by TwiceHorn

[SaucyJack 3504]

33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

So you believe she is not only stupid, but also corrupt?

[Captainant 27772]

1 minute ago, SaucyJack said:

So you believe she is not only stupid, but also corrupt?

Member when that would get you labeled as hysterical? I member. 

[dcbc 14509]

5 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

So you believe she is not only stupid, but also corrupt?

It's either one, the other, or both.  I don't think neither is an option.

 

Optimistically, I tend to think that she was appointed for her loyalty as opposed to her potential as a skilled jurist and that she's in way over her head in this case, i.e., doesn't know what the hell she's doing.

Edited March 22 by dcbc

[TwiceHorn 31536]

17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Member when that would get you labeled as hysterical? I member. 

I have never not contended she is apparently stupid af.  So stupid in fact that it camouflages any corruption and makes it damn near impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Edited March 22 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31536]

8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

It's either one, the other, or both.  I don't think neither is an option.

 

Optimistically, I tend to think that she was appointed for her loyalty as opposed to her potential as a skilled jurist and that she's in way over her head in this case, i.e., doesn't know what the hell she's doing.

She has most of the right creds, except judicial experience.  I think I noticed she spent substantial time in the appellate section of the US Attorneys office, so she may be taking what my first mentor called a "law review" approach to trial issues that really aren't that juicy or complex.

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If she gave really bad/wrong jury instructions that force the jury to acquit on the classified information counts, we're looking at acquittal with no remedy. 

However, that would not affect the obstruction counts, where the evidence is maybe even stronger. 

The problem is that the government indicted on the section of 793 that requires that the defendant lack authority to possess the classified information in the first place, while they could have alleged the section that doesn't require that. 

She appears to want to instruct the jury that the PRA may initially have made his possession of these documents rightful, even after they had left the white house.  And they have to make a finding on that. 

The PRA does no such thing. 

My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

 

Bring it again and get a different judge? 

 

 

[chainsaw 9873]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She has most of the right creds, except judicial experience.  I think I noticed she spent substantial time in the appellate section of the US Attorneys office, so she may be taking what my first mentor called a "law review" approach to trial issues that really aren't that juicy or complex.

She should take a "review the law" approach

[TwiceHorn 31536]

Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Bring it again and get a different judge? 

 

 

Who fucking knows.  Smith played the venue choice straight as an arrow to begin with:  he went to the closest division within the SD Fla to Trump with a virtual certainty that she would get the case.  I don't think he had to go by division, he could have filed anywhere in SD Fla and let Trump try to contest it.

Obviously, he wouldn't want anything to do with Cannon again.

Then again, he may be able to straighten her out on this and minimize any harm.

[Brisketexan 105337]

Those schisms always were there.  He just made them feel more at home in the light of day.  Aside: we left our UMC church after twenty years when it split off to the Global Methodist Church in 2022.  

Yep. I’ve made real money litigating church property fights over schismatic splits/departures.
America has a long history of “conservative” wings of churches pitching a fit and breaking off…and being on the wrong side of history.
They broke off over slavery (pro slavery southern churches broke off).
They broke off over ordaining women (anti-women conservative churches broke off).
They’re breaking off over acknowledging gay people are not the devil (anti-gay conservative churches are about done breaking off).
The Trumpism schism, to the extent it hasn’t already happened, is happening.
Wrong side of history. Every time.

[dcbc 14509]

 

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She has most of the right creds, except judicial experience.  I think I noticed she spent substantial time in the appellate section of the US Attorneys office, so she may be taking what my first mentor called a "law review" approach to trial issues that really aren't that juicy or complex.

I'd be in over my head too.  But in that circumstance, I'd fall back on "no reason to reinvent the wheel" and K.I.S.S.

 

And, at least in my realm, I'd be willing to posit that appellate experience does not wholly prepare someone to excel in a trial setting, nor does trial experience wholly prepare someone to excel in an appellate setting, particularly at the judge level.  There are people who do both well at the practice level.  See, e.g., BrisketTexan, et al.  But they are distinct skill sets.

Edited March 22 by dcbc

[TexasEd 8077]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

 

Full picture: 

I don't think admitting that you have the cash helps you in your case to have the bond waived, not that he had much of a chance anyway.  Whatever cash he does have is probably for operating expenses and paying the outstanding loans.  He can't use that or he'll default, he can't lose a property to seizure because it is the collateral for another loan.

Edited March 22 by TexasEd

[TwiceHorn 31536]

4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

I'd be in over my head too.  But in that circumstance, I'd fall back on "no reason to reinvent the wheel" and K.I.S.S.

 

And, at least in my realm, I'd be willing to posit that appellate experience does not wholly prepare someone to excel in a trial setting, nor does trial experience wholly prepare someone to excel in an appellate setting, particularly at the judge level.  There are people who do both well at the practice level.  See, e.g., BrisketTexan, et al.  But they are distinct skill sets.

Agreed on reinventing the wheel.  But, in this particular case, the wheel was never really invented in the first place because, again, we are looking at some novel legal questions.  There's not much law on the interplay between the PRA and the courts and zero on the interplay between the PRA and Espionage Act.  Not that either of these pose particularly difficult questions.

She definitely seems overawed by the fact that this is the first presidential prosecution in history and seems to be wanting to find differences in this case and others that preceded it that don't really exist.

[dcbc 14509]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Who fucking knows.  Smith played the venue choice straight as an arrow to begin with:  he went to the closest division within the SD Fla to Trump with a virtual certainty that she would get the case.  I don't think he had to go by division, he could have filed anywhere in SD Fla and let Trump try to contest it.

Obviously, he wouldn't want anything to do with Cannon again.

Then again, he may be able to straighten her out on this and minimize any harm.

Let the first Surly Lawyer who hasn't had to deal with a high level of trial court fuckery during his/her career step forward.  I've spent my career observing the good, the bad, and the ugly, and Cannon's decision-making hasn't approached a level of weirdness or what-the-fuck that I've seen on the ugly end of the spectrum when considered in a vacuum.  The difference is that this case is important for our country and I'd like to think we deserve way better (some might argue we are getting what we deserve).  But as someone pointed out, there is a reason for judicial review.  We are in an awful hurry here, and the anxiety we who are concerned citizens feel is real.  Her fuck-ups are magnified.  Hopefully, they will be corrected, either by her or someone above her pay-grade.  But those of us in the business have seen it all.  If the stakes weren't so damned high, it would be a bit more laughable.

[TwiceHorn 31536]

Just now, dcbc said:

Let the first Surly Lawyer who hasn't had to deal with a high level of trial court fuckery during his/her career step forward.  I've spent my career observing the good, the bad, and the ugly, and Cannon's decision-making hasn't approached a level of weirdness or what-the-fuck that I've seen on the ugly end of the spectrum when considered in a vacuum.  The difference is that this case is important for our country and I'd like to think we deserve way better (some might argue we are getting what we deserve).  But as someone pointed out, there is a reason for judicial review.  We are in an awful hurry here, and the anxiety we who are concerned citizens feel is real.  Her fuck-ups are magnified.  Hopefully, they will be corrected, either by her or someone above her pay-grade.  But those of us in the business have seen it all.  If the stakes weren't so damned high, it would be a bit more laughable.

That is some valuable perspective, right there.

[dcbc 14509]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is some valuable perspective, right there.

Let's chalk it up to a lucid interval on my part.

[Francisco 2.0 32428]

Crossposting, because reasons:

 

 

 

 

[The Dog 44140]

13 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Full picture: 

Does, I don't think admitting that you have the cash helps you in your case to have the bind waived, not that he had much of a chance anyway.  Whatever cash he does have is probably for operating expenses and paying the outstanding loans.  He can't use that or he'll default, he can't lose a property because it is the collateral for another loan.

Yup and I believe DA James has pointed this out in her brief that was just filed. 

His lawyers claim he doesn't have the money then later in the week he brags about how he does. 

Stupid.

[dcbc 14509]

7 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Crossposting, because reasons:

 

 

 

 

What could possibly go wrong.  The irony is that Trump may inadvertently save the country from Gilead.

Edited March 22 by dcbc

[Guest]

I dunno man, I just get the feeling that Trump is going to end up being bad for the Republican party.

[TexasEd 8077]

oh and I decided to edit to remove the "misrepresentations"

[jimmyjazz 46131]

31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. I’ve made real money litigating church property fights over schismatic splits/departures.
America has a long history of “conservative” wings of churches pitching a fit and breaking off…and being on the wrong side of history.
They broke off over slavery (pro slavery southern churches broke off).
They broke off over ordaining women (anti-women conservative churches broke off).
They’re breaking off over acknowledging gay people are not the devil (anti-gay conservative churches are about done breaking off).
The Trumpism schism, to the extent it hasn’t already happened, is happening.
Wrong side of history. Every time.

It's almost as if Jesus was a liberal.

[Macanudo 13012]

17 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Let the first Surly Lawyer who hasn't had to deal with a high level of trial court fuckery during his/her career step forward.  I've spent my career observing the good, the bad, and the ugly, and Cannon's decision-making hasn't approached a level of weirdness or what-the-fuck that I've seen on the ugly end of the spectrum when considered in a vacuum.  The difference is that this case is important for our country and I'd like to think we deserve way better (some might argue we are getting what we deserve).  But as someone pointed out, there is a reason for judicial review.  We are in an awful hurry here, and the anxiety we who are concerned citizens feel is real.  Her fuck-ups are magnified.  Hopefully, they will be corrected, either by her or someone above her pay-grade.  But those of us in the business have seen it all.  If the stakes weren't so damned high, it would be a bit more laughable.

Careful, lots of Surly lawyers aren't really lawyers.  And most of the actual lawyers here post way to much to be good lawyers.

[The Dog 44140]

 

[C-Man 27262]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

If she gave really bad/wrong jury instructions that force the jury to acquit on the classified information counts, we're looking at acquittal with no remedy. 

However, that would not affect the obstruction counts, where the evidence is maybe even stronger. 

The problem is that the government indicted on the section of 793 that requires that the defendant lack authority to possess the classified information in the first place, while they could have alleged the section that doesn't require that. 

She appears to want to instruct the jury that the PRA may initially have made his possession of these documents rightful, even after they had left the white house.  And they have to make a finding on that. 

The PRA does no such thing. 

My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

Thanks -- I saw somebody else mention "double jeopardy" which you acknowledged. I guess what I'm asking is that if the case is dismissed due to some colossal fuckup by Cannon herself, could he be re-charged and the process starts all over again? In other words, is she simply trying to kill a power play or could she completely fuck up the entire game? Maybe she's the one playing chess, not checkers. LOL

[tbone_ 14162]

How is losing the second time by 6 million votes doing better than the first time again?

[dcbc 14509]

58 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

And most of the actual lawyers here post way to much to be good lawyers.

Some of us are just exceptional multi-taskers.

[SydneyCarton 48170]

12 hours ago, TexasEd said:

 

 

Can we rename Calvinball 

to Cannonball?

  Hide contents

 

 

Please don't besmirch this fine movie. I fucking loved this movie as a kid. 

[TexasEd 8077]

6 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

How is losing the second time by 6 million votes doing better than the first time again?

It was a personal best!  Also best outing ever by a loser!

[dcbc 14509]

31 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Thanks -- I saw somebody else mention "double jeopardy" which you acknowledged. I guess what I'm asking is that if the case is dismissed due to some colossal fuckup by Cannon herself, could he be re-charged and the process starts all over again? In other words, is she simply trying to kill a power play or could she completely fuck up the entire game? Maybe she's the one playing chess, not checkers. LOL

Part of the answer is that jeopardy doesn't "attach" until the jury is empaneled and sworn.  So anything she does now does not prevent charges from being refiled.  The concern is if she puts a bunch of confusing stuff in the charge that results in his acquittal, retrying him for such crimes may result in double jeopardy.

[C-Man 27262]

20 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Please don't besmirch this fine movie. I fucking loved this movie as a kid. 

[TwiceHorn 31536]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Thanks -- I saw somebody else mention "double jeopardy" which you acknowledged. I guess what I'm asking is that if the case is dismissed due to some colossal fuckup by Cannon herself, could he be re-charged and the process starts all over again? In other words, is she simply trying to kill a power play or could she completely fuck up the entire game? Maybe she's the one playing chess, not checkers. LOL

Well, in the scenario I envision, the government dismisses voluntarily to avoid going to trial on wrong jury instructions.  The government doesn't have unfettered discretion to do that, it needs court permission.  And, in some cases, the dismissal might be with prejudice (meaning can't be re-indicted).  So this would be a last ditch strategery.  Classically, "jeopardy" does not attach until the jury is sworn, meaning up until then, usually, any dismissal can be re-indicted.

There's all kinds of dismissal types and outcomes, mistrials, voluntary, prosecutor misconduct, blah blah blah.  

The other possibility in the event of terrible instructions is a mandamus appeal, which is a kind of rare deal that I'm not even sure is available.

Bad jury instructions, usually in a subtle way, are common in civil cases and a fruitful area for appeal.  When you get stuck with shitty ones and you're the government in a criminal case, I'm not sure what you do.

[Rimbo 26112]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. I’ve made real money litigating church property fights over schismatic splits/departures.
America has a long history of “conservative” wings of churches pitching a fit and breaking off…and being on the wrong side of history.
They broke off over slavery (pro slavery southern churches broke off).
They broke off over ordaining women (anti-women conservative churches broke off).
They’re breaking off over acknowledging gay people are not the devil (anti-gay conservative churches are about done breaking off).
The Trumpism schism, to the extent it hasn’t already happened, is happening.
Wrong side of history. Every time.

wrong side of God, too, while we're at it

Jesus is woke

[tbone_ 14162]

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Trump's Truth Social set to go public after winning merger vote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/22/donald-trump-truth-social-merger-public/73066699007/

[Pato del Muerto 52600]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in the scenario I envision, the government dismisses voluntarily to avoid going to trial on wrong jury instructions

And then Trump et al scream that it’s proof they had nothing and it was a witch hunt the entire time. 
 

maybe her play is to get them to withdraw, so that it’s not her dismissing anything. 

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

32 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Trump's Truth Social set to go public after winning merger vote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/22/donald-trump-truth-social-merger-public/73066699007/

“Digital World's former CEO Patrick Orlando and former Trump business associates Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss have separately sued to block the merger, arguing they are entitled to more shares for their previous work on the deal.”

Lulz. What? You thought you were going to do business with Trump and not get screwed over? Suckers. 

[The Dog 44140]

This is good news.

FWIW I think Cannon is trying to make this as long as possible. Keep in mind that her trial date is in May.

[The Dog 44140]

 

[Biff Tannen 45741]

49 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Trump's Truth Social set to go public after winning merger vote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/22/donald-trump-truth-social-merger-public/73066699007/

This came across my NYT feed earlier this morning and made it sound like this would allow him access to the funds he needs to pay the bond.  The merger was with a shell company.  Hmm, I wonder who could possibly be behind a shell company that would want to help the dotard?  Surely not the Saudis or the Rooskies.  I'm sure I misunderstood it, but can someone elaborate? 

[Neonmoon 38130]

I really don't get how a shell company acquires a failing media company and somehow Trump gets a billion dollars. 

Explain this to me like I'm a golden retriever

[dcbc 14509]

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I really don't get how a shell company acquires a failing media company and somehow Trump gets a billion dollars. 

Explain this to me like I'm a golden retriever

Who's a good boy?  You're a good boy!  Yes you are!  Want to go for a walk?  Outside?  Car ride?  Squirrel!!!

 

That make sense?

 

In all seriousness, I believe it's called "money laundering."  And I hope the SEC is watching this go down with great interest.

Edited March 22 by dcbc

[High Plains Drifter 11052]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

This came across my NYT feed earlier this morning and made it sound like this would allow him access to the funds he needs to pay the bond.  The merger was with a shell company.  Hmm, I wonder who could possibly be behind a shell company that would want to help the dotard?  Surely not the Saudis or the Rooskies.  I'm sure I misunderstood it, but can someone elaborate? 

 

 

China come on down!