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

[C-Man 27234]

No, he wanted after the convention.

You sure? I’d heard initially his team requested that date.

Gonna be a weird convention when he's in jail. 

He’s not going to jail for this.

[Neonmoon 38129]

Even if sentenced to prison, appeals will take a couple years. (He will make sure to drag it out). He still has the other cases. While Cannon will likely torpedo the documents case somehow, the DC one will eventually go to trial. 

[immamac 42870]

Just now, C-Man said:

 

You sure? I’d heard initially his team requested that date.



He’s not going to jail for this.

 

He will if he fucks around too much like he is untouchable and refuses to do shit that is required from a felony conviction leading up to the sentencing. 

[Satchel 6938]

20 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Even if sentenced to prison, appeals will take a couple years. (He will make sure to drag it out). He still has the other cases. While Cannon will likely torpedo the documents case somehow, the DC one will eventually go to trial. 

It will be a damn shame if she tanks what is to me the second most critical of all of his cases. The fact that it is a very real possibility is beyond words.

[scottsins 1968]

He will if he fucks around too much like he is untouchable and refuses to do shit that is required from a felony conviction leading up to the sentencing. 

Right, but they will file their notice of appeal and post an appeal bond to keep him from being locked up for at least a year or two.

[tx 3 putt 77126]

7 hours ago, DixonHur said:

What's the goal of eliminating the Dept. of the Interior?

Unfettered oil drilling in the National Parks?  Eliminating Indian Affairs?  Both?

 

AZ - the tribes, almost 100% voted Biden 

[C-Man 27234]

[jimmyjazz 45989]

57 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Right, but they will file their notice of appeal and post an appeal bond to keep him from being locked up for at least a year or two.

At what point does the crime become significant enough for the appeal to happen while the defendant is behind bars?  What creates the tipping point beyond which the guilty has to sit in prison while appealing?

This whole thing seems nuts.

[Gil Bang 25980]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does the crime become significant enough for the appeal to happen while the defendant is behind bars?  What creates the tipping point beyond which the guilty has to sit in prison while appealing?

This whole thing seems nuts.

Steve Bannon is still out.

[YGIFS 19452]

Well yeah, he kept oozing that weird shit on his face all over the prison cafeteria.  It was for everyone else's safety.  At least he got a talk show out of it.  

Serious question for you law dogs (I studied but I'm clearly a dumbass).........SCOTUS can obviously break in his favor.  And lawyers hate the cliche of "slippery slope", but if his contention is that this ruling must be overturned because it inhibits his ability to run for office:

1.  Does that set case precedence for anyone running for federal office?  POTUS, Senate (this is the one I think could come up the most), or even U.S. House?  

2.  Since it overturns a New York STATE ruling, would that mean anybody running for anything outta New York (Congress, State AG, Gracie Mansion, Buffalo ISD Board of Trustee) can just have their conviction thrown out as long as they are actively campaigning?  I know politically, the SCOTOS wouldn't grant any of this down the road, but these people aren't stupid.  They know the groundwork they're laying by even considering this.  

[TwiceHorn 31509]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does the crime become significant enough for the appeal to happen while the defendant is behind bars?  What creates the tipping point beyond which the guilty has to sit in prison while appealing?

This whole thing seems nuts.

People who are denied bail/detained pretrial generally remain in custody pending appeal.  People who are not generally remain free.  Very generally.  In the federal system, the general rule is that err'body goes to prison after sentencing, but a motion can be made to continue bail conditions pending appeal.

So, it has less to do with the seriousness of the crime than the personal characteristics of the defendant:  likelihood to appear or flea and danger to the community, the usual bail/pretrial detention considerations.  

The federal motion additionally requires that there be a likelihood of success of the appeal.

Edited June 3 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31509]

55 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Well yeah, he kept oozing that weird shit on his face all over the prison cafeteria.  It was for everyone else's safety.  At least he got a talk show out of it.  

Serious question for you law dogs (I studied but I'm clearly a dumbass).........SCOTUS can obviously break in his favor.  And lawyers hate the cliche of "slippery slope", but if his contention is that this ruling must be overturned because it inhibits his ability to run for office:

1.  Does that set case precedence for anyone running for federal office?  POTUS, Senate (this is the one I think could come up the most), or even U.S. House?  

2.  Since it overturns a New York STATE ruling, would that mean anybody running for anything outta New York (Congress, State AG, Gracie Mansion, Buffalo ISD Board of Trustee) can just have their conviction thrown out as long as they are actively campaigning?  I know politically, the SCOTOS wouldn't grant any of this down the road, but these people aren't stupid.  They know the groundwork they're laying by even considering this.  

That argument is bullshit of the purest ray serene.  There's no right to campaign for office.  The First Amendment yields to facially valid criminal proceedings at every turn.

[YGIFS 19452]

Yeah, we know it's bullshit.  But they're gonna make it anyway.  I'm just curious how you think they're gonna justify it and what kind of precedent it will set down the road at the federal level (and even state level, at least for New York).  

About 35 independent/smaller party tickets appeared on at least 1 state ballot for POTUS in 2020.  Not Libertarian or Jon Anderson or Ross Perot, but just a few hundred to few thousand voters.  35.  Most with running mates.  For a low 6-figure expense, you astro-turf a signature turnout in at least 1 state for POTUS in an already established party.  And then go commit massive crimes and claim you're campaigning for President, which you actually are.  

Unity Party Presidential Candidate Francis Psycho, "Alls I know is I finally get to kill somebody..."  

[Willfully Horn 8038]

Bullshit will reign supreme when SCOTUS takes some action on the NY conviction before it gives a decision on immunity. /s?

[TwiceHorn 31509]

7 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Yeah, we know it's bullshit.  But they're gonna make it anyway.  I'm just curious how you think they're gonna justify it and what kind of precedent it will set down the road at the federal level (and even state level, at least for New York).  

About 35 independent/smaller party tickets appeared on at least 1 state ballot for POTUS in 2020.  Not Libertarian or Jon Anderson or Ross Perot, but just a few hundred to few thousand voters.  35.  Most with running mates.  For a low 6-figure expense, you astro-turf a signature turnout in at least 1 state for POTUS in an already established party.  And then go commit massive crimes and claim you're campaigning for President, which you actually are.  

Unity Party Presidential Candidate Francis Psycho, "Alls I know is I finally get to kill somebody..."  

But, in answer to your question.  SCOTUS will only review questions raised in the trial court or validly on appeal in the NY state appellate courts.  

AFAIK, Trump never raised any such issue before the trial court. I suppose there's an argument that it isn't "ripe" until sentencing, so maybe it can be raised for the first time there.  But I don't think the NY state courts are going to do Trump any favors on that ground when/if raised.  Nor do I think SCOTUS would, and then only after NY appeals are exhausted.

As willfully implies, its a sort of "candidate immunity" that is completely without precedent or grounding in anything and as you note would open a can of worms in relation to any criminally corrupt candidate for office.

Edited June 3 by TwiceHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19208]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

SCOTUS will only review questions raised in the trial court or validly on appeal in the NY state appellate courts.  

Adorable.  SCOTUS has ruled on questions raised in trial courts for incidents that never even happened.

[Gatorubet 30254]

10 hours ago, C-Man said:

He’s not going to jail for this.

 

If you were looking for judicial cover, don’t forget that Trump’s‘s department of Justice gave Michael Cohen a couple of years for following Trump’s instructions.   IOW, we have an example of a first time white collar criminal who did time for the exact same facts in the exact same scheme. The difference is, Michael Cohen pled guilty and did not put the government through the effort and expense of a multi week trial with an essentially nonexistent defense. 

And if he violated the gag order for the 10th time, he needs to get 30 days for that regardless of his time for the charges.  I think that jail time could only be reversed on abuse of discretion.  Trump has provided the court with a huge dump of valid reasons why jail time, in some form, is appropriate.

C-man, I will bet you a C-note Trump gets some jail time, the loser donating to Surly.   

[TwiceHorn 31509]

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

If you were looking for judicial cover, don’t forget that Trump’s‘s department of Justice gave Michael Cohen a couple of years for following Trump’s instructions.   IOW, we have an example of a first time white collar criminal who did time for the exact same facts in the exact same scheme. The difference is, Michael Cohen pled guilty and did not put the government through the effort and expense of a multi week trial with an essentially nonexistent defense. 

And if he violated the gag order for the 10th time, he needs to get 30 days for that regardless of his time for the charges.  I think that jail time could only be reversed on abuse of discretion.  Trump has provided the court with a huge dump of valid reasons why jail time, in some form, is appropriate.

C-man, I will bet you a C-note Trump gets some jail time, the loser donating to Surly.   

I think you may be right on jail time.  However, using Cohen, out of the federal system, as an analog would be a grave mistake by Merchan, I think.

Cohen was convicted and sentenced on two other crimes, bank fraud and tax evasion, that are broadly considered more serious and grave offenses than election law violations.  The sentence didn't differentiate among his various crimes. And the federal sentencing scheme is broadly considered more draconian than any state scheme.

[Captainant 27682]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As willfully implies, its a sort of "candidate immunity" that is completely without precedent or grounding in anything and as you note would open a can of worms in relation to any criminally corrupt candidate for office

I mean, you're broadly describing most of the trump presidency with that sentence. 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Cohen was convicted and sentenced on two other crimes, bank fraud and tax evasion, that are broadly considered more serious and grave offenses than election law violations.

That's kind of crazy, considering the broad damage that this election law violation has enabled and fueled. 

[tokamak 6432]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

People who are denied bail/detained pretrial generally remain in custody pending appeal.  People who are not generally remain free.  Very generally.  In the federal system, the general rule is that err'body goes to prison after sentencing, but a motion can be made to continue bail conditions pending appeal.

So, it has less to do with the seriousness of the crime than the personal characteristics of the defendant:  likelihood to appear or flea and danger to the community, the usual bail/pretrial detention considerations.  

The federal motion additionally requires that there be a likelihood of success of the appeal.

Kinda crazy that there's a special rule just for this guy

 

Edited June 3 by tokamak

[HenryJames 66133]

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

Multiple Trump Witnesses Have Received Significant Financial Benefits From His Businesses, Campaign

by Robert Faturechi, Justin Elliott and Alex MierjeskiJune 3, 6 a.m. EDT

[deech 2291]

I am 100% overly cynical, but I think SCOTUS in making its ruling on immunity may take some completely fucked position in that case where it could potentially be argued that it would apply to the NY case.  

 

 

[locodos 5387]

4 minutes ago, deech said:

I am 100% overly cynical, but I think SCOTUS in making its ruling on immunity may take some completely fucked position in that case where it could potentially be argued that it would apply to the NY case.  

 

 

maybe, but the crime in question happened before Trump was elected.  Not sure how that would logically work.

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

7 minutes ago, deech said:

I am 100% overly cynical, but I think SCOTUS in making its ruling on immunity may take some completely fucked position in that case where it could potentially be argued that it would apply to the NY case.  

I think they’re faced with the conundrum of how do they give Trump immunity without giving Biden immunity. 

[jimmyjazz 45989]

4 minutes ago, locodos said:

maybe, but the crime in question happened before Trump was elected.  Not sure how that would logically work.

Easy.  Once elected POTUS, all previous crimes are automatically exonerated.  Unless you're a Democrat.

[Biff Tannen 45692]

20 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

He’s was on a roll this am …..

 

Yeah go ahead and “cut the department of the interior”. He has no clue how anything works. 

[jimmyjazz 45989]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yeah go ahead and “cut the department of the interior”. He has no clue how anything works. 

Well, the Interior Department is not doing a very good job.  One obvious example -- they've dedicated no funds towards raking the forest floors, which would help curb forest fires.

[YGIFS 19452]

But under Trump’s vision, we could hit golf balls off Half Dome.  

[DigglerontheHoof 21204]

12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I think they’re faced with the conundrum of how do they give Trump immunity without giving Biden immunity. 

Which is why I think they delay the decision until after the election.  If dotard wins, Presidents get immunity, if Biden wins, not so much. 

[Chuckie Finster 22702]

All this "SCOTUS will overturn talk" is primarily to provide cover for sitting congressmen to endorse a convicted felon.  I was wondering why so many of them made some kind of "I fully anticipate it being overturned on appeal" remark immediately after the ruling, and then realized it's the fool-proof response to "why are you supporting a felon?"  

They know the appeals process will last past the election, so there's no downside regardless of whether or not they really believe it will be appealed.  And bonus points for them: this Calvinball SCOTUS might figure out some way to make them correct.

[Gatorubet 30254]

11 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Steve Bannon is still out.

The DC court of appeal unanimously appealed his conviction.  He was out because the trial court found he had a likelihood of success on appeal - and could stay out of jail pending appeal.

Having lost that appeal, all he has left is his en banc request, which is really no reason to keep him from reporting to jail.   May 15 the feds asked that he be ordered to jail.    Bannon responded May 20, and it is before the court, although no decision has been made because that particular court has an extremely full docket for a week or so.

In sum, Bannon’s excuse for not going to jail is now gone.    We will see if the trial court, having been told it was wrong, will still insist on an en banc decision before pulling the string.  I would guess we are less than 10 days away from Bannon going to jail.

[RPM 26326]

22 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

American Journalists in 2024 are ill equipped to deal with fascism 

[RPM 26326]

Let me add one that has been shut out. Shep is a, no pun intended, straight shooter. He would call out FOX bullshit live on the air.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

30 minutes ago, RPM said:

 

 

Is this Nick Tortelli, Carla’s husband from Cheers?

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20450]

Multiple witnesses in criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have reportedly received significant financial benefits from his businesses and campaign, including large raises, severance packages, new jobs, and shares and cash from Trump's media company. The timing of these benefits often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings, raising concerns about potential witness tampering. Trump's legal team attempted to suppress the story with a cease-and-desist letter to ProPublica, which published the report despite the threat.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

[RPM 26326]

2 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Is this Nick Tortelli, Carla’s husband from Cheers?

Nick could only dream of delivering a cross-body check like Ed.

[immamac 42870]

Just now, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Multiple witnesses in criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have reportedly received significant financial benefits from his businesses and campaign, including large raises, severance packages, new jobs, and shares and cash from Trump's media company. The timing of these benefits often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings, raising concerns about potential witness tampering. Trump's legal team attempted to suppress the story with a cease-and-desist letter to ProPublica, which published the report despite the threat.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

Super normal. 

[Chuckie Finster 22702]

4 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Multiple witnesses in criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have reportedly received significant financial benefits from his businesses and campaign, including large raises, severance packages, new jobs, and shares and cash from Trump's media company. The timing of these benefits often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings, raising concerns about potential witness tampering. Trump's legal team attempted to suppress the story with a cease-and-desist letter to ProPublica, which published the report despite the threat.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

Meanwhile, 42% of America firmly believes that the Democrats are the ones corrupting the legal process, and will claim unfairness or overreach if there is any attempt to investigate/prosecute these obviously illegal dealings.

Edited June 3 by Chuckie Finster

[RPM 26326]

3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Meanwhile, 42% of America firmly believes that the Democrats are the ones corrupting the legal process, and will claim unfairness or overreach if there is any attempt to investigate/prosecute these obviously illegal dealings.

Well, duh. Have you listened to FOX News or AM radio?

 

[tx 3 putt 77126]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Which is why I think they delay the decision until after the election.  If dotard wins, Presidents get immunity, if Biden wins, not so much. 

Maga justices aren’t going to let it slip that far 

[wildcat09 29355]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, in answer to your question.  SCOTUS will only review questions raised in the trial court or validly on appeal in the NY state appellate courts.  

AFAIK, Trump never raised any such issue before the trial court. I suppose there's an argument that it isn't "ripe" until sentencing, so maybe it can be raised for the first time there.  But I don't think the NY state courts are going to do Trump any favors on that ground when/if raised.  Nor do I think SCOTUS would, and then only after NY appeals are exhausted.

As willfully implies, its a sort of "candidate immunity" that is completely without precedent or grounding in anything and as you note would open a can of worms in relation to any criminally corrupt candidate for office.

C'mon man. SCOTUS will do whatever 5 justices want to do.  

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Which is why I think they delay the decision until after the election.  If dotard wins, Presidents get immunity, if Biden wins, not so much. 

Yep. 

[C-Man 27234]

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

If you were looking for judicial cover, don’t forget that Trump’s‘s department of Justice gave Michael Cohen a couple of years for following Trump’s instructions.   IOW, we have an example of a first time white collar criminal who did time for the exact same facts in the exact same scheme. The difference is, Michael Cohen pled guilty and did not put the government through the effort and expense of a multi week trial with an essentially nonexistent defense. 

And if he violated the gag order for the 10th time, he needs to get 30 days for that regardless of his time for the charges.  I think that jail time could only be reversed on abuse of discretion.  Trump has provided the court with a huge dump of valid reasons why jail time, in some form, is appropriate.

C-man, I will bet you a C-note Trump gets some jail time, the loser donating to Surly.   

I'm in. What are the parameters? I don't think he'll get jail/prison for any of the 34 counts he's been convicted of -- is that the bet? He's going to appeal this shit for years no matter what anyways. Or are we lumping in even a single hour or day in the event he's given that punishment for violating the gag order or contempt of court? That wasn't necessarily my thought but we can throw that in there if you want. I was disagreeing with @immamac and don't think he'll get time behind bars for the 34 felonies.

[Horndog 2228]

Questions for those with criminal or constitutional law expertise:

I assume that SCOTUS would have jurisdiction in a state criminal case only if a constitutional issue is raised, e.g Miranda. 

1. Can a defendant appeal directly to SCOTUS, or does the appeal have to run its course through the state appellate courts first? 

2. Is the alleged constitutional defect waived if it not raised in the trial court and preserved?

3. Were any such claims made by Trump in the trial court? 

[softlynow 1816]

13 hours ago, scottsins said:

Right, but they will file their notice of appeal and post an appeal bond to keep him from being locked up for at least a year or two.

 

14 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Even if sentenced to prison, appeals will take a couple years. (He will make sure to drag it out). He still has the other cases. While Cannon will likely torpedo the documents case somehow, the DC one will eventually go to trial. 

 

12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does the crime become significant enough for the appeal to happen while the defendant is behind bars?  What creates the tipping point beyond which the guilty has to sit in prison while appealing?

This whole thing seems nuts.

Imagine for a moment that everything about this is reversed. Biden is the corrupt, narcissistic, racist, facsist shitgibbon from New York, Trump is president. Biden is now 34 times convicted of these crimes, and let's also say it's in Texas.

The solution to all our problems would be a sentence of 10 years on each count to be served consecutively (let's pretend the analogue offense is a 3rd Degree felony in Texas, to be honest I haven't cared to look). There would be no appellate bond, because, being a sentence of 10 years or more, he would be inelligible for one.

You all know that if the shoe were on the GOP foot, that would be the result.

I don't know if that kind of result is possible here, under New York law, but if it is, I hope Merchan at least consideres it.

[Horndog 2228]

15 hours ago, SizzleChest said:

No, he wanted after the convention.

The Judge thought he said "after the conviction."

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

46 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Multiple witnesses in criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have reportedly received significant financial benefits from his businesses and campaign, including large raises, severance packages, new jobs, and shares and cash from Trump's media company. The timing of these benefits often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings, raising concerns about potential witness tampering. Trump's legal team attempted to suppress the story with a cease-and-desist letter to ProPublica, which published the report despite the threat.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

Trump has a lifetime of getting people financially beholden to him while they're useful. As soon as they're not useful, the money is cut off. 

[wildcat09 29355]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I think they’re faced with the conundrum of how do they give Trump immunity without giving Biden immunity. 

It's simple. They'll say Presidents get immunity for "official acts" and they don't for acts that aren't official acts. Well what qualifies as an official act? That'll be for them to decide.

[TwiceHorn 31509]

Just now, Horndog said:

Questions for those with criminal or constitutional law expertise:

I assume that SCOTUS would have jurisdiction in a state criminal case only if a constitutional issue is raised, e.g Miranda. 

1. Can a defendant appeal directly to SCOTUS, or does the appeal have to run its course through the state appellate courts first? 

2. Is the alleged constitutional defect waived if it not raised in the trial court and preserved?

3. Were any such claims made by Trump in the trial court? 

Your initial assumption is correct, a Constitutional or otherwise federal question.

1. No (yes to the rest)

2.  Presumably

3.  I think they made some half-ass argument that acts occurring while in office could not be the subject of prosecution (e.g. checks signed in office).  I suppose some arguments might not be ripe until sentencing (like the bullshit that imprisonment would interfere with his campaign).

[RomaVicta 29938]

On 5/31/2024 at 9:34 PM, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the next Attorney General of the United States of America.