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 14471]

19 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Is that not normal?

Yes.  But imagine a scale.  Only relevant evidence is admissible, and all evidence is prejudicial.  But to be admissible, the evidence's relevance cannot be outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

Edited May 7 by dcbc

[bolverk 29660]

I hope I'm not stepping on Francisco's toes, but the back-and-forth is a little spicy. I think I've got it in the right order.

 

[TexasEd 8066]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's kind of a fine line from a judicial perspective.  The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened or not.  Even if it was proven conclusively that the affair did or did not happen, that would not affect the case.

But the details are sordid and do not reflect well on the defendant, that is, are prejudicial to the defendant.  So, under Rule 4.06 of the New York Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of the gory details is limited.

However, Stormy Daniels' credibility is at issue for matters not including whether the deed occurred, so, her story and the credibility thereof is at issue, which allows the prosecution some latitude in exploring the details in order to boost her credibility.

But, the prosecution, being prosecutors, wants to get in the dirt on Trump any way they can.  

We applaud this, because Trump, but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

Isn't her story relevant to motive?  Her testimony is what she would have said in October 2016 but Trump wanted to avoid it being public because of the election.  He paid her off for campaign reasons and that's where all this goes.

[TwiceHorn 31450]

8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

That's a good point, but It might be admissible as some sort of same transaction contextual evidence?  I get that that's more of a 404(b) (in Texas) exception and it still has to be relevant.  But saying it's not relevant leads us to a story where, once upon a time, Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels to sign a nondisclosure agreement about nothing.  The idea that their having sex isn't relevant is the type of technically-accurate discussion that makes people dislike lawyers.

I think here, but am not privy to the sidebars, that whether Daniels was a blackmailer or just had a story to bury, true or not, remains an issue.  So, her credibility is at stake.  So, according to the prosecution, she should be able to discuss her dealings with Trump from beginning to end.  Probably about the same thing, but I'm not that familiar with the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence.

Edited May 7 by TwiceHorn

[Gatorubet 30211]

Hang up your scalpel, doc. I’ve decided you’re too old to practice. That should be my decision and not yours, right?

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's kind of a fine line from a judicial perspective.  The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened or not.  Even if it was proven conclusively that the affair did or did not happen, that would not affect the case.

But the details are sordid and do not reflect well on the defendant, that is, are prejudicial to the defendant.  So, under Rule 4.06 of the New York Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of the gory details is limited.

However, Stormy Daniels' credibility is at issue for matters not including whether the deed occurred, so, her story and the credibility thereof is at issue, which allows the prosecution some latitude in exploring the details in order to boost her credibility.

But, the prosecution, being prosecutors, wants to get in the dirt on Trump any way they can.  

We applaud this, because Trump, but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

Did Trump stipulate that the payment occurred and the reason for it? If not, isn't it relevant to show the transaction occurred and why it occurred? Further, isn't it relevant beyond credibility of the witness as it goes to his motive to pay her off and hide the nature of the payment? 

[TwiceHorn 31450]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

Did Trump stipulate that the payment occurred and the reason for it? If not, isn't it relevant to show the transaction occurred and why it occurred? Further, isn't it relevant beyond credibility of the witness as it goes to his motive to pay her off and hide the nature of the payment? 

Yeah could be that.  This stuff gets fairly nuanced.

But the fact that it's highly prejudicial to Trump I think is what Merchan is on edge about and doesn't want too many gory deets coming in.

[dcbc 14471]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I hope I'm not stepping on Francisco's toes, but the back-and-forth is a little spicy. I think I've got it in the right order.

 

['stache 21802]

Just browsed through some of that above, and it looks to me that Judge Merchan's primary objection is on the issue of consent, which makes sense, because the claim isn't about rape necessarily, and it could be prejudicial (set aside what we know of trump the person, in the context of trial, it makes sense). I also saw that the Judge "admonished" defense counsel for not objecting more, and their response was that they tried to exclude a bunch of the testimony pre-trial, but the judge let it in. That's about the most competent thing I've seen from his lawyer. I've been in that position as well. Judge gives you very ill defined limitations, but if you cross the line that is known only in the judge's mind, the judge gets mad and turns out you. I've experienced it mostly when it comes to expert witnesses in civil trials, very difficult to navigate. The rest looks like attacking her credibility and motives (money), all seems in bounds, but in line with having a pretty weak case on the facts. 

[dcbc 14471]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably about the same thing, but I'm not that familiar with the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence.

Same as the civil rules.  Relevance is relevance.  They're cross-examining her over whether she had sex with Trump.  So the relevance of that testimony is now cumulative and any argument of error by Trump as to the admissibility of that fact (not the remaining details) would seem to be nugatory.  

Edited May 7 by dcbc

[Sawbonz 27546]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hang up your scalpel, doc. I’ve decided you’re too old to practice. That should be my decision and not yours, right?

I hope to have the self awareness to know when to hang it up. But as mentioned above there are safeguards at the hospital and state medical board and specialty board level that prevent for the most part as several have pointed out. Two things can be true, that she had every right to continue until she dropped dead, and that it was an incredibly selfish and harmful act that will affect generations of Americans

[bolverk 29660]

While waiting for more updates, here's a Stormy-Donny timeline they've just added. I'm not sure how relevant it is to the discussion, but it's more content for you thirsty bastards.

Quote

 

A look at the history between Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump.

Nearly two decades after Stormy Daniels and Donald J. Trump met in Nevada, they met face to face again in a Lower Manhattan courtroom in the first criminal trial against a former United States president.

Here is a timeline of their history:

July 2006
Mr. Trump attended the American Century Celebrity Golf Tournament in Lake Tahoe, Nev., where Wicked Pictures, the production company whose adult films she starred in, had set up a booth.

According to Ms. Daniels, the two met at the event, had dinner and then consensual sex in a hotel room. She said that Mr. Trump told her that she could appear on his show “The Apprentice.”

Mr. Trump was married to his current wife, Melania, for about a year, and his youngest son, Barron, was born several months before. Though there are photos of Mr. Trump and Ms. Daniels at the tournament, he has denied that he had sex with Ms. Daniels.

July 2007
Ms. Daniels told “60 Minutes” on CBS News in 2018 that a year after the golf tournament, Mr. Trump invited her to his bungalow at the Beverly Hills Hotel to discuss her possible appearance on his reality television show “The Apprentice.” She never appeared on the show.

April 2011
Ms. Daniels considered selling her account of sex with Mr. Trump but ultimately did not, she told “60 Minutes.”

May 2011
She took a polygraph test, which supported her account that she had sex with Mr. Trump.

June 2016
Ms. Daniels wanted to go public with her account of the sexual encounter. A lawyer for Ms. Daniels, Keith Davidson, sent a text message to an editor of The National Enquirer, reading “I have blockbuster Trump story.”

July 2016
Mr. Trump secured the Republican Party’s presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio.

October 2016
David Pecker, then the publisher of The Enquirer, said he spoke with the tabloid’s editor, Dylan Howard, and told him that he did not want to associate the publication with a porn star, according to testimony in the 2024 criminal trial. Mr. Pecker said in the trial that he did not want to spend more money on hush-money deals involving allegations against Mr. Trump, after making two other deals in previous months.

Mr. Pecker testified that he told Mr. Howard to reach out to Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen.

Later in the month, Mr. Davidson and Mr. Cohen exchanged emails and phone calls about a possible hush-money deal to bury the story of Ms. Daniels’s alleged encounter with Mr. Trump. Mr. Howard was also part of the negotiations.

Near the end of the month, Mr. Cohen wired $130,000 from a newly formed entity, Essential Consultants, to Ms. Daniels.

November 2016
Mr. Trump won the presidential election.

February 2017
The repayment began from Mr. Trump to Mr. Cohen’s hush-money deal and continued in parts throughout the year. The total payments to Mr. Cohen were $420,000 for the hush-money deal, a bonus and additional cash for tax considerations.

The Trump Organization recorded the payments as “legal expenses,” citing a legal retainer with Mr. Cohen. Prosecutors say that no legal retainer existed and recording the payments as “legal expenses” was a falsification of business records. They underpin the criminal charges against Mr. Trump.

January 2018
The Wall Street Journal reported that Ms. Daniels received a $130,000 hush-money deal from Mr. Cohen days before the 2016 election.

Later in the month, Ms. Daniels denied having an affair with Mr. Trump in a statement. Ms. Daniels said later that the statement was worded that way because of a nondisclosure agreement and that she signed the statement because she felt like she had no choice.

April 2018
The F.B.I. executed a search warrant on Mr. Cohen.

August 2018
Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in federal court that month, admitting to making illegal campaign contributions to support Mr. Trump’s 2016 election, including his payment to Ms. Daniels.

March 2021
The Manhattan district attorney’s office opened an investigation into the hush-money deals involving Mr. Trump.

March 2023
Mr. Trump is indicted by a Manhattan grand jury on 34 felony charges of falsifying business records stemming from Ms. Daniels’s hush-money deal.

May 2024
Ms. Daniels and Mr. Trump meet again at a Lower Manhattan Courtroom in his criminal trial.

 

 

[Dahobbs 17534]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah could be that.  This stuff gets fairly nuanced.

But the fact that it's highly prejudicial to Trump I think is what Merchan is on edge about and doesn't want too many gory deets coming in.

Oh, absolutely I agree with that. I'm just saying that its relevance isn't limited to Stormy's credibility. 

[DixonHur 11296]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

 

They see Trump and go up to him, two big burly Corinthians with tears in their eyes, and tell him, “Sir, the Bible you are selling is the most spiritual copy we have ever seen…”

Trump says he’ll buy the bar a round of drinks, and then leaves without paying.

They should know.  A reliable source told me it's bound in fine Corinthian leather.  

 

[bolverk 29660]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Oh, absolutely I agree with that. I'm just saying that its relevance isn't limited to Stormy's credibility. 

Oh, they're going after her credibility.

[C-Man 27214]

15 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

 

[Sawbonz 27546]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's kind of a fine line from a judicial perspective.  The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened or not.  Even if it was proven conclusively that the affair did or did not happen, that would not affect the case.

But the details are sordid and do not reflect well on the defendant, that is, are prejudicial to the defendant.  So, under Rule 4.06 of the New York Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of the gory details is limited.

However, Stormy Daniels' credibility is at issue for matters not including whether the deed occurred, so, her story and the credibility thereof is at issue, which allows the prosecution some latitude in exploring the details in order to boost her credibility.

But, the prosecution, being prosecutors, wants to get in the dirt on Trump any way they can.  

We applaud this, because Trump, but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

Are you saying the jury will not take into account whether the 2 had sex when determining whether the payment was made for legitimate legal expenses or was actually a campaign contribution paid to silence Daniels’ sex story that was then illegally expensed as routine legal services? Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

[Gatorubet 30211]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I hope to have the self awareness to know when to hang it up. But as mentioned above there are safeguards at the hospital and state medical board and specialty board level that prevent for the most part as several have pointed out. Two things can be true, that she had every right to continue until she dropped dead, and that it was an incredibly selfish and harmful act that will affect generations of Americans

To be more accurate, our Buckeye friend’s analogy should include the fact that if Sawbonz does not step down now, there will be a great chance that the next hospital administrator will replace him with someone who treats his patients with leeches and blood letting. 

[TwiceHorn 31450]

10 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Same as the civil rules.  Relevance is relevance.  They're cross-examining her over whether she had sex with Trump.  So the relevance of that testimony is now cumulative and any argument of error by Trump as to the admissibility of that fact (not the remaining details) would seem to be nugatory.  

Well civil either for that matter.  And this may touch on prior bad acts, which is not something that comes up too much in IP litigation, so I only know the broad contours.

[TwiceHorn 31450]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you saying the jury will not take into account whether the 2 had sex when determining whether the payment was made for legitimate legal expenses or was actually a campaign contribution paid to silence Daniels’ sex story that was then illegally expensed as routine legal services? Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

Oh the jury may take that into account, for that reason and whether Trump is a general purpose dirtbag. 

But legally, whether they had sex or not is not relevant to the crime.  It may be relevant to some collateral issues.

And the judge is concerned with the jury taking that into account too much.  Thankfully, admission of evidence is typically not a fertile ground for appeal, especially when the judge is trying to "handle it," and not just make a haphazard decision, an abuse of discretion, if you will.

[SydneyCarton 48076]

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you saying the jury will not take into account whether the 2 had sex when determining whether the payment was made for legitimate legal expenses or was actually a campaign contribution paid to silence Daniels’ sex story that was then illegally expensed as routine legal services? Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

None of this makes fucking sense. The defense should literally be:
"Trump claims he never had sex with Ms. Daniels, repeatedly, although we have text messages from his employee at the time discussing Ms. Daniels and her payout, the squashing of the story in the national enquirier, the publisher of the Enquirer testifying that he bought the story to squash it before the election becuase it was damaging to Trump, we have the banking records showing Cohen drafting the payout and being repaid, and they the notoriously frugal and attentive to every financial detail Donald Trump claims complete ignorance. For a woman whom he claims he never had sex with. Either he's lying, which he has a well documented history of doing, or he paid a woman for not having sex with him. What's the most likely outcome here, jury?"

The defense rests.

 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh the jury may take that into account, for that reason and whether Trump is a general purpose dirtbag. 

But legally, whether they had sex or not is not relevant to the crime.  It may be relevant to some collateral issues.

And the judge is concerned with the jury taking that into account too much.  Thankfully, admission of evidence is typically not a fertile ground for appeal, especially when the judge is trying to "handle it," and not just make a haphazard decision, an abuse of discretion, if you will.

It's absolutely relevant becuase he claims he never had sex with her. Which also effects HIS credibility. Additionally, it goes back to "So you paid a woman to keep quiet that you didn't have sex with?"

Edited May 7 by SydneyCarton

[Gatorubet 30211]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Are you saying the jury will not take into account whether the 2 had sex when determining whether the payment was made for legitimate legal expenses or was actually a campaign contribution paid to silence Daniels’ sex story that was then illegally expensed as routine legal services? Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

I don’t think it makes any difference if they actually had sex, but it makes a huge difference that she will say that they had sex - hence the payoff. 

Because even if she didn’t have sex with him, Trump knows she can place him in a hotel room with her alone - and that she is a porn star.

[locodos 5387]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well civil either for that matter.  And this may touch on prior bad acts, which is not something that comes up too much in IP litigation, so I only know the broad contours.

We all do, she's been in tons of films...  or so I've heard.

[Sawbonz 27546]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

I don’t think it makes any difference if they actually had sex, but it makes a huge difference that she will say that they had sex - hence the payoff. 

Because even if she didn’t have sex with him, Trump knows she can place him in a hotel room with her alone - and that she is a porn star.

Maybe. But if I’m on the jury that is not going to weigh in my mind. 

[Nivek 16923]

25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Some time ago, I wrote that gamesmanship in litigation is common.  So, yeah, to an extent.  The better question is, is it right?  Situationally, here we love it.  Elsewhere, maybe not so much.

It becomes problematic when a win at all costs mentality in litigators, particularly criminal prosecutors, makes them lose sight of any notion of actual justice.

I don't think any of that anything but obvious.   I do not love that gamesmanship is part of angling for wins.  If they suddenly stopped doing this for him then it would certainly be a problem.  

[bolverk 29660]

 

The suspense for the follow-up is killing me.

 

[Gatorubet 30211]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Maybe. But if I’m on the jury that is not going to weigh in my mind. 

I agree with you.   That is more a comment about the legal elements on appeal - and not for whether or not a jury convicts Trump.   But my experience is that one of the 12 jurors will get the fact that they are there to determine whether Trump paid off people to avoid negative publicity - and then improperly wrote it off as a business expense.    Whether the mushroom got wet? I don’t think that will win or lose the case.

but if I was smart, I’d be rich.

[Nivek 16923]

So if the defense is attacking her credibility and she has described the penis, then why can we not have it shown in court?  Hunter Biden's tallywacker was shown in a higher forum with less privacy attached to it,  Michael Jackson's junk was photographed as well back in the 90s.  Let's get the dick out there and call up the ex-wives to describe the penis.   If they match Daniel's testimony, then have we not established that the serial liar is lying again?   This is the circus we want!  Where is my bread?

[Rimbo 25919]

7 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Trump would never be sent to real jail. He would still get to paint himself orange, have his three hair combover, and expensive diapers. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/nyregion/adams-trump-rikers.html?smid=url-share

nope he'd go here

[Underdog 28611]

Going to need a Ouiga board to call up Ivana. 

[YGIFS 19450]

So we're literally gonna do the Porky's police sketch artist thing then and pretend we're not stuck inside a computer program?  What in the holy fuck people?  I swear to god, the bailiff's sister's married name is Balbricker.  I just fucking can't anymore.  This is happening to the most powerful country the world has ever known.  Now.  on our watch.  This is like a thing.  For our granddhildren to read about.  

[Jatrain 288]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

The suspense for the follow-up is killing me.

 

Thanks for this and fuck Maggie Habermann.  She’s complicit in the national nightmare that is Trump

[Rimbo 25919]

4 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

My Trump friends/family have full shifted to "I vote for the policy not the man" position in public.

Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude... but at least it's an ethos.

[HenryJames 66041]

28 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

That’s because you’re not a lawyer.

[bolverk 29660]

 

 

[dcbc 14471]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well civil either for that matter.  And this may touch on prior bad acts, which is not something that comes up too much in IP litigation, so I only know the broad contours.

To be more specific, because Trump's lawyer is bringing up the matter of their sexual encounter on cross, in Texas at least, it's unlikely that any admissibility challenge would be harmful because Trump's lawyer elicited cumulative testimony about the encounter on cross.

[dcbc 14471]

36 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

becuase he claims he never had sex with her.

He has not testified and may not testify.  If his denial come into evidence in some other way, that's another story.  I still think there's an argument that it's relevant, but for the reasons mentioned above, it's in, it likely isn't harmful, and so it's a moot point.

Edited May 7 by dcbc

[BamaATL 16593]

21 minutes ago, Jatrain said:

Thanks for this and fuck Maggie Habermann.  She’s complicit in the national nightmare that is Trump

[tbone_ 14115]

Can someone remind me, did she just willingly violate the NDA or did this become public some other way?

How is it that she’s now talking freely about something that she, ostensibly, willingly signed and took consideration for agreeing to not talk about.

I’m sure this has all been covered before but I just can’t remember how it all squares.

[immamac 42839]

3 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Can someone remind me, did she just willingly violate the NDA or did this become public some other way?

How is it that she’s now talking freely about something that she, ostensibly, willingly signed and took consideration for agreeing to not talk about.

I’m sure this has all been covered before but I just can’t remember how it all squares.

never really understood that part either.

[mdmost 43001]

The least shocking news of the day.

Trump classified documents trial postponed indefinitely

PUBLISHED TUE, MAY 7 20245:02 PM EDTUPDATED 3 MIN AGO

Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

KEY POINTS

A federal judge indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures while he walks with his attorney Todd Blanche, as his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 continues, at Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S., May 6, 2024. 

Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters

A federal judge Tuesday indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

The trial on charges that Trump willfully retained classified national security records after leaving the White House and then hid them from federal authorities was scheduled to start May 20.

But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in Tuesday’s court order that it “would be imprudent” to finalize a trial date “at this juncture” when various pre-trial issues have yet to be resolved.

Cannon pointed to pending questions about how classified information will be handled in the high-profile trial of the former president, and “additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury.”

To move forward with the trial in May would be “inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider” those issues, she wrote.

“The Court therefore vacates the current May 20, 2024, trial date (and associated calendar call), to be reset by separate order following resolution of the matters before the Court, consistent with Defendants’ right to due process and the public’s interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice,” Cannon ruled.

[C-Man 27214]

44 minutes ago, Nivek said:

So if the defense is attacking her credibility and she has described the penis, then why can we not have it shown in court?  Hunter Biden's tallywacker was shown in a higher forum with less privacy attached to it,  Michael Jackson's junk was photographed as well back in the 90s.  Let's get the dick out there and call up the ex-wives to describe the penis.   If they match Daniel's testimony, then have we not established that the serial liar is lying again?   This is the circus we want!  Where is my bread?

Judge Chang says:

[TwiceHorn 31450]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

never really understood that part either.

The NDA has been dealt with previously. But judicial testimony under subpoena is almost always a valid exception to any NDA. 

[wildcat09 29349]

4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

The least shocking news of the day.

Trump classified documents trial postponed indefinitely

PUBLISHED TUE, MAY 7 20245:02 PM EDTUPDATED 3 MIN AGO

Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

KEY POINTS

A federal judge indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures while he walks with his attorney Todd Blanche, as his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 continues, at Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S., May 6, 2024. 

Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters

A federal judge Tuesday indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

The trial on charges that Trump willfully retained classified national security records after leaving the White House and then hid them from federal authorities was scheduled to start May 20.

But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in Tuesday’s court order that it “would be imprudent” to finalize a trial date “at this juncture” when various pre-trial issues have yet to be resolved.

Cannon pointed to pending questions about how classified information will be handled in the high-profile trial of the former president, and “additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury.”

To move forward with the trial in May would be “inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider” those issues, she wrote.

“The Court therefore vacates the current May 20, 2024, trial date (and associated calendar call), to be reset by separate order following resolution of the matters before the Court, consistent with Defendants’ right to due process and the public’s interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice,” Cannon ruled.

Aileen Cannon should be impeached and removed from the bench.

[WhatTheBuck 28776]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, me. Among others. Millions of others negatively affected by her stupid and selfish decision. 

I went ahead and bolded the part where you sound exactly like every single Trumpkin moron in America since you can't see it in yourself. 

I get it. Hindsight is 20/20. If she had only lived a few months longer than it wouldn’t be an issue and you wouldn’t be indirectly calling me a moron. If you want to put term limits on Supreme Court justices, I’m willing to listen to your argument. Yes, in retrospect, it would’ve been nice if Obama could’ve appointed her replacement rather than Trump. It would also be really nice if McConnell wasn’t a massive piece of shit who stole two SCOTUS seats for blatantly partisan and unconstitutional reasons. Let’s not lose sight of who the real villains are here. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

The least shocking news of the day.

Trump classified documents trial postponed indefinitely

PUBLISHED TUE, MAY 7 20245:02 PM EDTUPDATED 3 MIN AGO

Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

KEY POINTS

A federal judge indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures while he walks with his attorney Todd Blanche, as his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 continues, at Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S., May 6, 2024. 

Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters

A federal judge Tuesday indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

The trial on charges that Trump willfully retained classified national security records after leaving the White House and then hid them from federal authorities was scheduled to start May 20.

But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in Tuesday’s court order that it “would be imprudent” to finalize a trial date “at this juncture” when various pre-trial issues have yet to be resolved.

Cannon pointed to pending questions about how classified information will be handled in the high-profile trial of the former president, and “additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury.”

To move forward with the trial in May would be “inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider” those issues, she wrote.

“The Court therefore vacates the current May 20, 2024, trial date (and associated calendar call), to be reset by separate order following resolution of the matters before the Court, consistent with Defendants’ right to due process and the public’s interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice,” Cannon ruled.

Can any of the lawyers on here legitimately defend this type of action?  It sure looks like she is just protecting the guy that made her a judge no matter what crimes he may have committed.  

[YGIFS 19450]

Yeah, I think if IIRC from CivPro...it's pretty tough to crack for a civil trial (which is what most NDA's are designed for), but if a criminal trial judge orders you to speak to the issues, you can pretty much light that NDA on fire because of the weight of getting everything correct for someone's freedom.

Sidenote-that Cannon ruling was expected but I didn't think she's make it so open-ended and obvious.  I repeat myself (I know, totally unexpected for Lobo).  For $150k, I can get your name on the POTUS ballot as a third party/independent in one of a dozen different states that I know the minutiae of.  You can then commit any number of crimes and we can then claim that you are under political persecution during an election cycle and cannot be held liable/guilty/under indictment.  Now it won't carry as much water as "Presidential Immunity", but it will be an interesting precedent.  Bold strategy, Cotton.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

The least shocking news of the day.

Trump classified documents trial postponed indefinitely

PUBLISHED TUE, MAY 7 20245:02 PM EDTUPDATED 3 MIN AGO

Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

KEY POINTS

A federal judge indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures while he walks with his attorney Todd Blanche, as his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 continues, at Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S., May 6, 2024. 

Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters

A federal judge Tuesday indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

The trial on charges that Trump willfully retained classified national security records after leaving the White House and then hid them from federal authorities was scheduled to start May 20.

But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in Tuesday’s court order that it “would be imprudent” to finalize a trial date “at this juncture” when various pre-trial issues have yet to be resolved.

Cannon pointed to pending questions about how classified information will be handled in the high-profile trial of the former president, and “additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury.”

To move forward with the trial in May would be “inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider” those issues, she wrote.

“The Court therefore vacates the current May 20, 2024, trial date (and associated calendar call), to be reset by separate order following resolution of the matters before the Court, consistent with Defendants’ right to due process and the public’s interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice,” Cannon ruled.

Lolololol

[Bozo_Casanova 26444]

1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

They should know.  A reliable source told me it's bound in fine Corinthian leather.  

 

Honestly a beautiful car. 

[HenryJames 66041]

9 minutes ago, mdmost said:

But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in Tuesday’s court order that it “would be imprudent” to finalize a trial date “at this juncture” when various pre-trial issues have yet to be resolved.

So many unresolved issues because she hasn’t fucking resolved them.