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

[dcbc 14,486]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep. Ironic that she chides Smith for asking for an early resolution on the jury instructions THAT SHE FUCKING ORDERED THEM TO SUBMIT. 

Also the denial of the motion to dismiss is somewhat inconsistent with the jury instructions ruling. 

Right.  Isn't that the subject of the dumb jury instruction submitted by Donald?

[TwiceHorn 31,486]

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Right.  Isn't that the subject of the dumb jury instruction submitted by Donald?

Well she actually ordered both sides to prepare jury instructions modifying 18 USC 793 with the PRA, which Smith contends is a grievous error of law. And Trumpco loves. 

It's fucking nuts. 

[dcbc 14,486]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well she actually ordered both sides to prepare jury instructions modifying 18 USC 793 with the PRA, which Smith contends is a grievous error of law. And Trumpco loves. 

It's fucking nuts. 

Okay, so she denied the motion to dismiss, but that doesn't foreclose her sending the issue to the jury on the PRA.  

 

Asking them to submit jury questions is just dumb.  Just ask for a trial brief on the issue of the interplay between the PRA and Section 793 if you want to learn something.  Or, I don't know, research it yourself, your Honor.

 

But as a generalization:  Did facts happen = fact question (jury).  Does law apply to certain set of facts = legal question (court).  What is the law = also a legal question, but cannot be misapplied.

 

To the ELEVENTH!  No stay.

Edited April 4 by dcbc

[Brisketexan 105,151]

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

Nothing will come of this other than continued delays.  But the good news is being 'betrayed' by an allied judge will press the rodent farther into the corner.  And while his arrogance shields him from any self-reflection or doubt, his cardiovascular system will ramp up its concern about his fate.  The plan was never for him to do jail time.  The plan was for his obese, ragged ass to perish given his carnival of errors.  It would appear there's been another huge step towards that goal today.  He'll stay up late tonight to post truth social/trump socialist shit about these 'outlandish' rulings.  And if fake subscriber bots will reply and engage him to keep him awake and angry........his already obvious demise will accelerate.  And then the next one.  And the one after that.  And so on.  This is how to end false gods.  

[TwiceHorn 31,486]

11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

Cannon was given this case for a reason -- loyalty, inexperience or stupidity all aid Trump's efforts to delay this past the 11/5 election. His only way to "win" is to win back POTUS and he can snap his fingers and make the legal shit go away. Delaying past 11/5 is winning in a sense because there's no way he beats the rap in all these trials if they're legitimately tried.

She was "given" this case mostly because she's the sole judge in the Fort Pierce Division. There's another judge from another division that takes some cases there, but apparently not many because he has to travel to that courthouse. 

The Chief Judge can reassign, but usually needs a reason to do so. 

[safe sex 11,735]

Seems like a judge that doesn't have a good support staff around her and has made several really questionable decisions would be a great candidate for reassignment

[Captainant 27,677]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Chief Judge can reassign, but usually needs a reason to do so. 

Well it's a good thing that Aileen hasn't done anything questionable in her handling of this case then

[atomheartbevo 89,675]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Looks like a desperation bid to get the 11th circuit to think she is not favoring Trump due to Jack’s latest filing. She probably thinks the pain is coming and wants to get ahead of it.

 

Judge Cannon just rejected Trump's bogus Presidential Records Act defense, but only for now. She has (weirdly and pointedly) refused to actually decide the issue, despite Jack Smith's warning that double jeopardy would then apply. I think Smith has no choice but to go to the 11th Circuit on mandamus. It's a tough standard, but it is met here.
 

 

[DigglerontheHoof 21,200]

This crazy bitch is going to somehow get dotard off the hook.  And it will all be perfectly legal, I assume. 

[C-Man 27,230]

33 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She was "given" this case mostly because she's the sole judge in the Fort Pierce Division. There's another judge from another division that takes some cases there, but apparently not many because he has to travel to that courthouse. 

The Chief Judge can reassign, but usually needs a reason to do so. 

And didn't Smith file the case there to eliminate any semblance that he was seeking a sympathetic/partisan Dem judge? I wonder if he's rethinking that strategy yet.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,200]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

And didn't Smith file the case there to eliminate any semblance that he was seeking a sympathetic/partisan Dem judge? I wonder if he's rethinking that strategy yet.

It seems like I recall something like that.  God knows we should give dotard every fucking benefit there is. 

[Surly Bevo 24,932]

Man you gotta feel for Smith.  I know most here think about Dotard in some form or fashion every day.  Can you imagine having to WORK on the motherfucker every day?

[tx 3 putt 76,975]

4 corner offense until election day 

if he goes to the 11th, that takes time

new judge means this whole trial starts over ?

[dcbc 14,486]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

4 corner offense until election day 

if he goes to the 11th, that takes time

new judge means this whole trial starts over ?

I think new judge steps in where old judge left off.  Doesn't mean previous rulings couldn't be reheard.

 

But I don't think Cannot, er Cannon, is going to be replaced, if I were called upon to predict the future.

Edited April 4 by dcbc

[Rimbo 25,941]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

i guess even a blind squirrel writes Shakespeare twice a day

[Rimbo 25,941]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

[C-Man 27,230]

13 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

4 corner offense until election day 

if he goes to the 11th, that takes time

new judge means this whole trial starts over ?

[Art Vandelay 1,712]

3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

this is all yet another delaying tactic. Post some bullshit that's supposed to be a legit bond. It isn't, everybody knows it isn't, but here we go again with the delay delay delay

 

Next time they'll just "forget" to sign it

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/7a30b7cc-20a3-46ab-9858-12efbe9dec06

[TwiceHorn 31,486]

43 minutes ago, C-Man said:

And didn't Smith file the case there to eliminate any semblance that he was seeking a sympathetic/partisan Dem judge? I wonder if he's rethinking that strategy yet.

We don't know what he was thinking. However, I believe venue would have been proper anywhere within the Southern District of Florida, although Trump could have asked to move it closest to his residence and where the acts occurred, which is her court. So educated speculation is that Smith filed it in the most "proper" venue to avoid all that.

[The Dog 44,058]

(I googled for us non-lawyers -  the purpose of a "motion in limine" is to prevent the jury from being exposed to potentially prejudicial information before a ruling on admissibility can be obtained.)

Edited April 4 by The Dog

[TwiceHorn 31,486]

1 hour ago, safe sex said:

Seems like a judge that doesn't have a good support staff around her and has made several really questionable decisions would be a great candidate for reassignment

Maybe. But when I said reason, I meant also that the judge is recused on motion by a party or requests that the case be reassigned. It's highly unusual for a chief judge to just reassign based on her own evaluation. Sometimes it happens based on redistributing case load. 

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals could conceivably remand after appeal to another judge. They are not really constrained by much. 

Edited April 4 by TwiceHorn

[Gatorubet 30,241]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Well it's a good thing that Aileen hasn't done anything questionable in her handling of this case then

I’m a bit disappointed that nowhere in his filing does Jack Smith say, “Come on, Aileen!…”

[Gatorubet 30,241]

33 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I googled for us non-lawyers -  the purpose of a "motion in limine" is to prevent the jury from being exposed to potentially prejudicial information before a ruling on admissibility can be obtained.)

That’s all we let the public think. The sacrifice to the All Seeing Eye and the examination of the pigeon entrails - we keep that off wiki. 

[Foosters 17,858]

37 minutes ago, The Dog said:

(I googled for us non-lawyers -  the purpose of a "motion in limine" is to prevent the jury from being exposed to potentially prejudicial information before a ruling on admissibility can be obtained.)

I agree with the MIL tactic, but given what we've seen from Cannon thus far, she won't rule on it and just say that the jury instructions will be given to the jury when the time comes. Can you get to the 11th when a judge continues to say "I haven't made any ruling yet."

[TwiceHorn 31,486]

Just now, Foosters said:

I agree with the MIL tactic, but given what we've seen from Cannon thus far, she won't rule on it and just say that the jury instructions will be given to the jury when the time comes. Can you get to the 11th when a judge continues to say "I haven't made any ruling yet."

The latter is the rub. There needs to be some sort of ruling to appeal. Currently, there isn't one.

A motion in limine is usually filed on the eve of trial but there is nothing that says it has to be. They are also usually evidentiary in nature, while this one would be more to resolve something as a matter of law (PRA does not apply here). 

But I think her denial of one would give Smith the ruling he needs. 

 

[Brisketexan 105,151]

40 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

Naaah.  There's nobody around who can capture what he has, yet be a greater threat, as the two things are mutually exclusive.

To capture the mood like Trump, you have to be a true "idiot whisperer," and speak fluent idiot.  Which Trump does.  Brilliantly.  Perfectly.  It's his native tongue, and he's better at it than anyone in the past century.  But you really can only do it if you ARE an idiot.  Which he is.  Nobody else can come close.  We watched people like DeSantis flame out trying.

But to be a greater threat, you have to be smarter and more cunning.  Plenty of people out there who match up with that....but it comes with an IQ, which means they can't speak fluent idiot. They'll come across as fake if they try, and the masses can smell that sort of fakeness a mile away.

So, in summary: please have him choke on a hamberder tonight.  The world will be a much better place because of it.

[TwiceHorn 31,486]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

I agree with the MIL tactic, but given what we've seen from Cannon thus far, she won't rule on it and just say that the jury instructions will be given to the jury when the time comes. Can you get to the 11th when a judge continues to say "I haven't made any ruling yet."

Interesting question. I think you can mandamus the failure to rule, but that is a less severe error than making the wrong ruling and less likely to be overturned. However given the stakes and the potential for her refusing to rule on jury instructions and MIL before jeopardy attaches, there might be some traction there. 

[dcbc 14,486]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The latter is the rub. There needs to be some sort of ruling to appeal. Currently, there isn't one.

A motion in limine is usually filed on the eve of trial but there is nothing that says it has to be. They are also usually evidentiary in nature, while this one would be more to resolve something as a matter of law (PRA does not apply here). 

But I think her denial of one would give Smith the ruling he needs. 

 

But if she grants it, they come to the bench, offer to admit it at that point, and she agrees to admit it at that point. the jury has already been empaneled and jeopardy has attached.  Granting a motion in limine is just another way for her to kick the can down the road past the non-jeopardy barrier.

Edited April 5 by dcbc

[TwiceHorn 31,486]

59 minutes ago, dcbc said:

But if she grants it, they come to the bench, offer to admit it at that point, and she grants the admission, the jury has already been empaneled and jeopardy has attached. 

Fuuuuck.  

Edit to add that that is somewhat common with evidentiary MIL, maybe not so much with the question of law type. But it would be a helluva yoink. 

Edited April 5 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27,677]

I swear to God, this is like that steam roller scene in Austin Powers. It's been happening in slow motion and nobody has lifted a finger to stop the inevitable and completely foreseeable terrible outcome 

[TexasEd 8,067]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I swear to God, this is like that steam roller scene in Austin Powers. It's been happening in slow motion and nobody has lifted a finger to stop the inevitable and completely foreseeable terrible outcome 

I like the one in a fish called Wanda better 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I swear to God, this is like that steam roller scene in Austin Powers. It's been happening in slow motion and nobody has lifted a finger to stop the inevitable and completely foreseeable terrible outcome 

This is the legal system working 

[Bullneck 19,100]

 

 

[Captainant 27,677]

30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is the legal system working 

Live view of the justice system stopping trump

Edited April 5 by Captainant

[Gatorubet 30,241]

2 hours ago, TexasEd said:

I like the one in a fish called Wanda better 

K-K-K-K-Ken?

[Macanudo 12,979]

9 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

This is the legal system working 

For Trump.   Not for everyone else.  

[dcbc 14,486]

8 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

K-K-K-K-Ken?

is c-c-c-coming to k-k-k-kill me!  How are you gonna c-c-c-catch me, K-K-K-Ken?

[locodos 5,387]

" the smallest fucking German speaking province in the Russian Empire! "

[Gatorubet 30,241]

1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

For Trump.   Not for everyone else.  

That’s why he has 91 indictments and is struggling to pay his second multi-million dollar bond…after losing yet another trial.  

 

[HenryJames 66,075]

21 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Can't believe that a subprime car loan guy would try to pull something shady with paperwork.

[locodos 5,387]

At what point (deadline) can NY go after their money?   I mean the clock is still ticking right?

[WhatTheBuck 28,783]

26 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

That’s why he has 91 indictments and is struggling to pay his second multi-million dollar bond…after losing yet another trial.  

Still walking free, still contending for the presidency, still hasn’t suffered any real consequences. Still grifting, still conning the rubes, still getting away with everything the justice system is supposed to be stopping him from doing like defaming his rape victim. Oh, he lost that trial? Twice? Let him lose it a third time. It won’t stop him. So what do we have to celebrate?

If he manages to seize presidential power again, it all goes away. Even state charges. He’ll throw his Justice Dept. and IRS and DHS and ICE (in unidentified “little green men” fashion like he did in Portland) and potentially even CIA at any perceived enemy. 

[dcbc 14,486]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Edit to add that that is somewhat common with evidentiary MIL, maybe not so much with the question of law type. But it would be a helluva yoink.

I still think styling it as a motion in limine is the wrong move because a such is not a final determination on admissibility (be it of a legal theory or evidence to support it) and it doesn't get decided until the argument gets reurged at trial.  I'd probably style it as a pretrial motion to exclude any and all evidence offered in support of the PRA defensive theory because the PRA has no applicability here.  Sure, maybe some evidence could be offered for another purpose, but you try to get her to rule on the question of law and if she doesn't you can file your petition for writ of mandamus pretrial.  If that doesn't work, you could file a motion in limine as to the defense's mentioning PRA defensive theory itself.  If she's already dodged that by saying any underlying evidence could be offered for another purpose, you've at least got her backed into a corner.

 

Honestly, I think the current refusal to rule may be enough to take it up, but it's certainly not a lock. 

 

It's a sticky wicket, as they say.

Edited April 5 by dcbc

[Captainant 27,677]

11 minutes ago, locodos said:

At what point (deadline) can NY go after their money?   I mean the clock is still ticking right?

The US justice system seems to have an asymptotic relationship with trump. It's always ever closing in, but never actually intercepting him. 

[TwiceHorn 31,486]

2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I still think styling it as a motion in limine is the wrong move because a such is not a final determination on admissibility (be it of a legal theory or evidence to support it) and it doesn't get decided until the argument gets reurged at trial.  I'd probably style it as a pretrial motion to exclude any and all evidence offered in support of the PRA defensive theory because the PRA has no applicability here.  Sure, maybe some evidence could be offered for another purpose, but you try to get her to rule on the question of law and if she doesn't you can file your petition for writ of mandamus pretrial.  After that, you could file a motion in limine as to the defenses mentioning PRA defensive theory itself.  If she's already dodged that by saying any underlying evidence could be offered for another purpose, you've at least got her backed into a corner.

 

Honestly, I think the current refusal to rule may be enough to take it up, but it's certainly not a lock. 

 

It's a sticky wicket, as they say.

In his response thing to the jury instructions order, he did note that there is case law supporting the idea that the judge must rule on jury instructions with sufficient time to take appeal/mandamus if the instructions are flawed, before jeopardy attaches.  I didn't read the cases, but it was somewhat heartening to see that the judge can't seem to push everything off until after the jury is sworn, effectively insulating it from review.

In a civil case, this would be perfect for summary judgment.  There is no summary judgment in criminal cases.  I don't know what the substitute vehicle for this kind of issue is.

[dcbc 14,486]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In his response thing to the jury instructions order, he did note that there is case law supporting the idea that the judge must rule on jury instructions with sufficient time to take appeal/mandamus if the instructions are flawed, before jeopardy attaches.  I didn't read the cases, but it was somewhat heartening to see that the judge can't seem to push everything off until after the jury is sworn, effectively insulating it from review.

In a civil case, this would be perfect for summary judgment.  There is no summary judgment in criminal cases.  I don't know what the substitute vehicle for this kind of issue is.

I was thinking the same thing about summary judgment in civil cases.  I'm not up to speed on federal, criminal practice, but as far as objecting pre-trial to jury questions, it seems like you'd still have to have a charge conference after the presentation of evidence so that you could object at that point based on lack of evidentiary support.

 

As alternatives, I guess you could try to make a pretrial motion for directed verdict on a defensive theory unsupported in the law, which clearly has been raised at this point.

 

Or, you could seek mandamus relief after the charge conference, but that's far from ideal with the jury cooling its heels after the presentation of evidence with it's collective memory of what it heard fading.

 

I'm rarely surprised when civil cases get procedurally FUBAR as time goes on.  Criminal cases usually have other weirdness, but are procedurally normalized.

Edited April 5 by dcbc

[Captainant 27,677]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't know what the substitute vehicle for this kind of issue is.

Well the first step is admitting that your judiciary has been co-opted, at least in part, by the fascists who want to end democracy. Once we have internalized that, we can start to actually consider remedies to this cancer. 

Problem is, cancers will always grow back unless you completely excise or kill every last bit of it. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

15 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

Next time they'll just "forget" to sign it

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/7a30b7cc-20a3-46ab-9858-12efbe9dec06

 

[TwiceHorn 31,486]

9 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I was thinking the same thing about summary judgment in civil cases.  I'm not up to speed on federal, criminal practice, but as far as objecting pre-trial to jury questions, it seems like you'd still have to have a charge conference after the presentation of evidence so that you could object at that point based on lack of evidentiary support.

 

As alternatives, I guess you could try to make a pretrial motion for directed verdict on a defensive theory unsupported in the law, which clearly has been raised at this point.

 

Or, you could seek mandamus relief after the charge conference, but that's far from ideal with the jury cooling its heels after the presentation of evidence with it's collective memory of what it heard fading.

 

I'm rarely surprised when civil cases get procedurally FUBAR as time goes on.  Criminal cases usually have other weirdness, but are procedurally normalized.

I went and skimmed some of the cases cited by the government.  In the main one, the government asked the judge to declare the applicable law, which he did, erroneously and they sought mandamus, which was granted and the judge ordered to vacate the erroneous order and issue one consistent with the law that the appeals court determined.

If she simply denied such a motion as premature, that would be grounds for mandamus, I'd think, but whether the 11th Circuit would reach the issue of actual applicability of the PRA seems uncertain at best.  They might rule that she has to rule, necessitating another appeal/mandamus.  The 11th Circuit has  shown a willingness to expedite those appeals, however, so that's nice.

Edited April 5 by TwiceHorn

[Born to Run 6,569]

Naaah.  There's nobody around who can capture what he has, yet be a greater threat, as the two things are mutually exclusive.
To capture the mood like Trump, you have to be a true "idiot whisperer," and speak fluent idiot.  Which Trump does.  Brilliantly.  Perfectly.  It's his native tongue, and he's better at it than anyone in the past century.  But you really can only do it if you ARE an idiot.  Which he is.  Nobody else can come close.  We watched people like DeSantis flame out trying.
But to be a greater threat, you have to be smarter and more cunning.  Plenty of people out there who match up with that....but it comes with an IQ, which means they can't speak fluent idiot. They'll come across as fake if they try, and the masses can smell that sort of fakeness a mile away.
So, in summary: please have him choke on a hamberder tonight.  The world will be a much better place because of it.

Have you seen his billowy neck? He ain't choking on anything. The berder is going to have to do its magic through his bloodstream.

Come on, massive stroke!