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 27,620]

2 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Donald Trump Got Away With Everything

If his prosecutions were already on life support, Trump’s stunning election last week all but killed them—a bitter reality reflected by a report Wednesday that Smith is planning to step down from his role before the president-elect takes office in January. According to the New York Times, Smith—who has been baselessly accused by Trump and his allies of conducting “lawfare” on behalf of Democrats—is looking to wrap his work in the coming weeks, and will resign, along with members of his team. How, exactly, he will close his two cases is unclear. But what is certain is that they will not make it to trial.

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/jack-smith-reportedly-stepping-down

What a completely unforeseeable outcome, guaranteed by years of inaction before grudgingly opening cases against the fascists. 

[DDD Dad 14,324]

On 11/6/2024 at 6:55 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Trump will end the federal prosecutions against him.

That should be seen domestically and worldwide as the most corrupt political act in the history of the United States of America.

So far. 

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

15 hours ago, Captainant said:

What a completely unforeseeable outcome, guaranteed by years of inaction before grudgingly opening cases against the fascists. 

As I have said, even assuming Trump was indicted on January 22, 2021, the earliest opportunity under existing laws and policies (and not feasible for a variety of reasons except in perhaps the state cases), we'd still be right where we are today, maybe with a couple of other non-final convictions, on appeal, and terminated because he won the election. 

Hoping for any other outcome, with an election win, was foolish.  I admit that I was somewhat hopeful, but in retrospect, that was foolish.

ETA:  those with even greater understanding of the criminal justice system than I and other surl lawdogs probably more clearly recognized the difficulty/near impossibility of securing final convictions of an ex-President in a bit less than four years.  That would include the AG and various DAGs making decisions.

Edited November 14 by TwiceHorn

[DigglerontheHoof 21,168]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I have said, even assuming Trump was indicted on January 22, 2021, the earliest opportunity under existing laws and policies (and not feasible for a variety of reasons except in perhaps the state cases), we'd still be right where we are today, maybe with a couple of other non-final convictions, on appeal, and terminated because he won the election. 

Hoping for any other outcome, with an election win, was foolish.  I admit that I was somewhat hopeful, but in retrospect, that was foolish.

ETA:  those with even greater understanding of the criminal justice system than I and other surl lawdogs probably more clearly recognized the difficulty/near impossibility of securing final convictions of an ex-President in a bit less than four years.  That would include the AG and various DAGs making decisions.

Well, we'll have plenty of time to rehash it in the work camps.  That is if we get any time to kill. 

[Captainant 27,620]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I have said, even assuming Trump was indicted on January 22, 2021, the earliest opportunity under existing laws and policies (and not feasible for a variety of reasons except in perhaps the state cases), we'd still be right where we are today, maybe with a couple of other non-final convictions, on appeal, and terminated because he won the election

There would have at least been some court activity in the cases by now. The public would have gotten to see the evidence gathered. Instead, we get another bill barr flavored ratfucking. 

You're getting twisted around the axel as if a final verdict needs to be reached before there's repercussions and an actual public awareness of what he did. 

But you're right, this was a far superior approach that has resulted in an ideal outcome. How foolish of me to not trust the process. 

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

There would have at least been some court activity in the cases by now. The public would have gotten to see the evidence gathered. Instead, we get another bill barr flavored ratfucking. 

You're getting twisted around the axel as if a final verdict needs to be reached before there's repercussions and an actual public awareness of what he did. 

But you're right, this was a far superior approach that has resulted in an ideal outcome. How foolish of me to not trust the process. 

There may have been one or two more public trials.  Maybe.  Maybe.  And maybe that would have had some value, but it seems unlikely given the non-effect the NY convictions had on anything.  And the federal trials would have relied solely on reporting, no cameras in courtroom.  Turns out maybe you have more faith in that aspect of the justice system than even I do.

And now we have this whole "weaponization of the justice system" notion running around, which is dangerous as fuck, even though highly fictitious.

I have always said this wasn't going to happen on your timeframe.  Even that was hopium on my part.  It was entirely foreseeable and probable that it was going to go down this way if he was elected, even had he been indicted January 22, 2021.

And, if the shoe goes onto the other foot, and people like Fauci are unjustly prosecuted in a real weaponization of the system, we're all going to be grateful for the delays inherent to due process.

[Gap03 3,303]

Captainant and Twice together in this thread?

[Captainant 27,620]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, if the shoe goes onto the other foot, and people like Fauci are unjustly prosecuted in a real weaponization of the system, we're all going to be grateful for the delays inherent to due process.

I guess my point is, they're gearing up to weaponize DOJ anyways, under the accusation it's already happened to them. In 2022, Musk tweeted that his pronouns are "Prosecute/Fauci"

https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-prosecuted-maga-trump-1984607

You continually talk as if the fascists aren't already going a step lower, and that they aren't going to do what they've been accusing everyone else of doing. But the ol' okey doke has been working great so far, let's see where it takes us now that we're locked in on this track. 

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

I guess my point is, they're gearing up to weaponize DOJ anyways, under the accusation it's already happened to them. In 2022, Musk tweeted that his pronouns are "Prosecute/Fauci"

https://www.newsweek.com/anthony-fauci-prosecuted-maga-trump-1984607

You continually talk as if the fascists aren't already going a step lower, and that they aren't going to do what they've been accusing everyone else of doing. But the ol' okey doke has been working great so far, let's see where it takes us now that we're locked in on this track. 

Well, my point is, given that Garland and other sophisticated parties worried about the creation of the "weaponization" meme, which was significantly boosted if not entirely created based on Trump prosecutions, the counterbalance would have had to have been the likelihood of at least securing public trials of Trump, if not final convictions.  And that likelihood was slim, and they knew that better than any of us.  Turns out maybe they were onto something.

 

[Captainant 27,620]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, my point is, given that Garland and other sophisticated parties worried about the creation of the "weaponization" meme, which was significantly boosted if not entirely created based on Trump prosecutions, the counterbalance would have had to have been the likelihood of at least securing public trials of Trump, if not final convictions.  And that likelihood was slim, and they knew that better than any of us.  Turns out maybe they were onto something.

I can't agree with your framing, that prosecuting Jan 6 had to be slow rolled because of concern trolling over """weaponization""". DOJ treated this defendant uniquely and gave him special privileges granted to no other defendant. And yet, the facts plain don't matter. Trump was a VICTIM! Ask Johnny Sack. They'll make something up just for the pretense of creating an investigation. 

You know, like how Trump asked Zelensky to lie and say they were investigating Biden for fraud. 

Your framing implies a standard that DOJ should never prosecute anyone that's politically active, for fear of "weaponization" claims. Well it's a good thing thats exactly what we're fucking going to get under trumpco. I can't wait to hear the thorough explanations of how it's correct and proper to see Matt Gaetz manufacturing prosecutions of Anthony Fauci and anyone else that is an "enemy of the people".

And since DOJ didn't even get to the fucking starting line on trump, they've set the standard of running a noisy and long investigation for years, while never releasing any evidence, and having that be the norm. What a great fucking precedent to leave for our incoming fascist government. 

[wildcat09 29,338]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I have said, even assuming Trump was indicted on January 22, 2021, the earliest opportunity under existing laws and policies (and not feasible for a variety of reasons except in perhaps the state cases), we'd still be right where we are today, maybe with a couple of other non-final convictions, on appeal, and terminated because he won the election. 

Hoping for any other outcome, with an election win, was foolish.  I admit that I was somewhat hopeful, but in retrospect, that was foolish.

ETA:  those with even greater understanding of the criminal justice system than I and other surl lawdogs probably more clearly recognized the difficulty/near impossibility of securing final convictions of an ex-President in a bit less than four years.  That would include the AG and various DAGs making decisions.

They literally could've thrown him in jail pretty much immediately after he left office. All they had to do was indict him for the shit that was already in the Cohen prosecution in which Trump was an unidentified co-conspirator. They could've in short order quickly added indictments for 1/6 based solely on the publicly-known evidence and continued to gather evidence to support more charges. We can't know for sure the courts wouldn't have sabotaged the cases in that scenario as well, but it would've been a very different environment. Instead they gave him more than 2 years to reassert control over the Republican party, to reshape the public's view of 1/6, and to rehab his image. They pussyfooted around and at every crucial decision they wavered and this is what we got.

Stop fucking saying nothing else would've mattered, that's just fascist propaganda. They're not unbeatable, they're fucking losers who depend on people like you convincing enough other people that they're unbeatable. 

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

They literally could've thrown him in jail pretty much immediately after he left office. All they had to do was indict him for the shit that was already in the Cohen prosecution in which Trump was an unidentified co-conspirator. They could've in short order quickly added indictments for 1/6 based solely on the publicly-known evidence and continued to gather evidence to support more charges. We can't know for sure the courts wouldn't have sabotaged the cases in that scenario as well, but it would've been a very different environment. Instead they gave him more than 2 years to reassert control over the Republican party, to reshape the public's view of 1/6, and to rehab his image. They pussyfooted around and at every crucial decision they wavered and this is what we got.

Stop fucking saying nothing else would've mattered, that's just fascist propaganda. They're not unbeatable, they're fucking losers who depend on people like you convincing enough other people that they're unbeatable. 

The only federal crime in the "Cohen prosecution" was an election law violation.  Ain't no one getting pretrial detention for that.

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The only federal crime in the "Cohen prosecution" was an election law violation.  Ain't no one getting pretrial detention for that.

I'm as depressed about the whole thing as anyone, but the whole mess seems so fucking inevitable in hindsight. I don't care what things you want to try to alter, the result was always going to be this, provided he was reelected.

I am particularly disturbed that he won't be forced to take action to terminate the prosecutions.  

Edited November 14 by TwiceHorn

[dcbc 14,464]

On 11/14/2024 at 12:06 PM, TwiceHorn said:

I'm as depressed about the whole thing as anyone

I'll say.  You just quoted yourself.

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

2 hours ago, dcbc said:

I'll say.  You just quoted yourself.

I had a CC change and lost my treefiddy, can't edit no mo.  So yeah, everything's a shitshow.

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--in-defense-of-merrick-garland

[wildcat09 29,338]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--in-defense-of-merrick-garland

Man, you don't need to post Ben Wittes "here's why one of my best friends didn't horribly imperil American democracy" nonsense. At least post Marcy Wheeler's weird defenses, which are more substantive (even if the substance is clearly cover for some weird emotional attachment).  

[Willfully Horn 7,999]

Yeah. Our Constitution was clearly at risk in 2020. The DOJ shit the bed in the years since. No one who took the oath to defend the Constitution has met their obligation.

[C-Man 27,183]

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-situation--in-defense-of-merrick-garland

Fuck all that /mrpink

[StassneyHorn 6,573]

Your law degrees and school's bar passage rates don't mean shit. Hire marketers/AI to flood the zone and do damage control with newspaper headlines and content that nobody will read.

[StassneyHorn 6,573]

If you found a grammatical error above, you didn't, you stupid fucking pussy. You dorks are still fucking dorks.

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

6 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, you don't need to post Ben Wittes "here's why one of my best friends didn't horribly imperil American democracy" nonsense. At least post Marcy Wheeler's weird defenses, which are more substantive (even if the substance is clearly cover for some weird emotional attachment).  

I read lawfare blog often, because it's a good site.  I don't read Wheeler because it's not.

For Garland to have imperiled democracy, the outcome would have to have been different.

It wouldn't have been.

People accuse me of some kind of naivete, while maintaining that non-final convictions would have somehow convinced Trump voters that he's unfit rather than the victim of political persecution.  The irony there is rich.

Edited 3 hours ago by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

Incidentally, I don't really give a fuck about Merrick Garland.  I just think the criticism isn't quite reality-based.  Yes, the criminal cases could have been commenced earlier.  No, it wouldn't have made any difference.

[RomaVicta 29,895]

On 11/13/2024 at 3:52 PM, Captainant said:

What a completely unforeseeable outcome, guaranteed by years of inaction before grudgingly opening cases against the fascists. 

Should have gone after them for delaying a government function. Both fucking sides.

Just as the press was grinding along the business as usual coverage and analysis of the race (I don't know that doing their jobs would have mattered, but at least they could sleep at night had they done otherwise), the legal system could not find a way to expedite the most important criminal cases likely in history, possible exception for civil rights. 

Well, it just takes this long. I'm sure it usually does. Lawyers have other things to do, dockets are crowded, procedures can take time, the judge is crooked... I respect the illumination we've received on that from patient attorneys, particularly @TwiceHorn.

Fuck all that other shit. Clear the dockets. Order the attorneys. Expedite procedures. Replace the judge for conflict. Pro-ceed.

The justice department crawled. The courts crawled. Lawyers were allowed to delay the crawl. 

Just like the press and much of the electorate who should know better, we've sleep crawled to this putrid administration already allowing peaks at their fouled diaper of an agenda.

I stayed patient. I tried to trust the system. I shut out the annoying, knee-jerk reaction of "ain't nothing going to happen."

I'm waiting for my membership card to Idiot World to arrive by fax anyday now.

[RomaVicta 29,895]

On 11/14/2024 at 7:37 AM, TwiceHorn said:

ETA:  those with even greater understanding of the criminal justice system than I and other surl lawdogs probably more clearly recognized the difficulty/near impossibility of securing final convictions of an ex-President in a bit less than four years.  That would include the AG and various DAGs making decisions.

I wrote before reading this. I'm not persuaded, my friend, that someone making themselves an enemy of the republic cannot be tried and jailed (if convicted; it's a difficult case, the whole country watched the crime on TV) in an expedited fashion.

I'm sorry, Mr. Smith. You'll have to wait in line like everbody else.

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Should have gone after them for delaying a government function. Both fucking sides.

Just as the press was grinding along the business as usual coverage and analysis of the race (I don't know that doing their jobs would have mattered, but at least they could sleep at night had they done otherwise), the legal system could not find a way to expedite the most important criminal cases likely in history, possible exception for civil rights. 

Well, it just takes this long. I'm sure it usually does. Lawyers have other things to do, dockets are crowded, procedures can take time, the judge is crooked... I respect the illumination we've received on that from patient attorneys, particularly @TwiceHorn.

Fuck all that other shit. Clear the dockets. Order the attorneys. Expedite procedures. Replace the judge for conflict. Pro-ceed.

The justice department crawled. The courts crawled. Lawyers were allowed to delay the crawl. 

Just like the press and much of the electorate who should know better, we've sleep crawled to this putrid administration already allowing peaks at their fouled diaper of an agenda.

I stayed patient. I tried to trust the system. I shut out the annoying, knee-jerk reaction of "ain't nothing going to happen."

I'm waiting for my membership card to Idiot World to arrive by fax anyday now.

Unfortunately, while the justice system is mostly fact-based and thus a place where Trump doesn't usually fare well, it is quite slow and always has been.  The reasons for that have been discussed.

The January 6 case was always fraught with the immunity question, which in all likelihood, even without a kangaroo SCOTUS, would have required appeal, remand for further proceedings and another appeal.  And, of all the cases, it is the most charged with "weaponization," see the hundreds of convictions of 1/6 rioters, to this day dismissed as political.

The one case I think where Trump might have suffered by a jury trial was the Mar-A-Lago documents case.  But no one can really say that indictment there was delayed or sandbagged.  Without substantial immunity questions, it might, maybe have been tried before the election had it been assigned to a Chutkan or Middlebrooks-type judge and not Aileen Cannon.  But the base still steadfastly refuses to acknowledge any difference between that case and the classified documents "cases" against Biden and Pence.

[RomaVicta 29,895]

John Brown didn't get long. Nor did the Lincoln assassins (acting in the name of a country other than the US), abettors, and standersby.

Widely witnessed treason is a case for summary execution with vast historical precedent.

These methods are not fitting matches for how we want the law to work for average citizens. I don't care. I don't care that the law has an ineffectual definition of treason when I can see it for myself. Along with a 100 million other witnesses. If anyone is unsure, we can replay the videos on a loop. 

But they're citizens, these "alleged" traitors? Really? Persons who publicly, violently assault the seat of government with arms in hand don't forfeit citizenship the moment they do so? They get to enjoy a benefit because they weren't hosed to the ground with .50 cal as their actions invited? My, aren't we civilized following decorum on the Titanic!

Legality triumphs over the obvious. Our violent enemies remain alive and most serve only tiny percentages of their worthless lives (such is the value of someone's life who takes up arms against the United States, no?) in prison. 

But this is an emotional appeal, Roma. That is the way of the mob and not a nation of laws. No shit. I didn't change the rules; they did. 

Let's play.

It would have been easier to have acted on Jan. 7. Round the whole bunch up and put them on slow boat to Gitmo. Sink the boat. Send Trump to join them on Jan. 20. Pretence, uh, everybody saw them attacking the capitol and TV changing their status as prisoners. It's not criminal law so much as military law.

Our vibrant experiment as a free people has become hardbound. The laws established to keep that experiment on the rails now derails it through arcanity which is the new tyrant over the obvious. 

ETA: I didn't name @TwiceHorn at the beginning of the post because it's not for me to volunteer persons to engage my raving and bloviations. We seem to be leapfrogging each other as we post which gives the feel that I'm specifically directing my opinions at Twice. Twice's opinions are as nuanced as anyone's; I don't seek to encapsulate them. I've always appreciated the input from Twice. It ain't easy bringing slaps of reality.

Edited 1 hour ago by RomaVicta

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

24 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

John Brown didn't get long. Nor did the Lincoln assassins (acting in the name of a country other than the US), abettors, and standersby.

Widely witnessed treason is a case for summary execution with vast historical precedent.

These methods are not fitting matches for how we want the law to work for average citizens. I don't care. I don't care that the law has an ineffectual definition of treason when I can see it for myself. Along with a 100 million other witnesses. If anyone is unsure, we can replay the videos on a loop. 

But they're citizens, these "alleged" traitors? Really? Persons who publicly, violently assault the seat of government with arms in hand don't forfeit citizenship the moment they do so? They get to enjoy a benefit because they weren't hosed to the ground with .50 cal as their actions invited? My, aren't we civilized following decorum on the Titanic!

Legality triumphs over the obvious. Our violent enemies remain alive and most serve only tiny percentages of their worthless lives (such is the value of someone's life who takes up arms against the United States, no?) in prison. 

But this is an emotional appeal, Roma. That is the way of the mob and not a nation of laws. No shit. I didn't change the rules; they did. 

Let's play.

It would have been easier to have acted on Jan. 7. Round the whole bunch up and put them on slow boat to Gitmo. Sink the boat. Send Trump to join them on Jan. 20. Pretence, uh, everybody saw them attacking the capitol and TV changing their status as prisoners. It's not criminal law so much as military law.

Our vibrant experiment as a free people has become hardbound. The laws established to keep that experiment on the rails now derails it through arcanity which is the new tyrant over the obvious. 

ETA: I didn't name @TwiceHorn at the beginning of the post because it's not for me to volunteer persons to engage my raving and bloviations. We seem to be leapfrogging each other as we post which gives the feel that I'm specifically directing my opinions at Twice. Twice's opinions are as nuanced as anyone's; I don't seek to encapsulate them. I've always appreciated the input from Twice. It ain't easy bringing slaps of reality.

Not picking at you specifically.  I get the frustration.  I had great hopes that the justice system would work, but the timing of if was always problematic, moreso than I had hoped.

Nonetheless, reference to Guantanamo Bay and the handling of terrorists there and by military tribunal, and the Virginia trial of John Brown may not be the civil rights/rule of law examples anyone really wants to cite.

[TwiceHorn 31,435]

Something reminded me that Nauta and the other guy remain defendants in the Mar-A-Lago case, so the prohibition against prosecuting a sitting president does not apply to maintaining the case against them.

If Smith/DOJ feels compelled to dismiss Trump, the case can still go to trial against the other defendants, exposing Trump's conduct and/or forcing Trump to shut down a prosecution, which I think will matter not at all, except in the history books.