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

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,825]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Trump’s insistence that he is being arrested for his people has ridiculous religious undertones. And religious overtones. And religious tones. It’s a wall of “I’m your new Jesus”

Again a cult is a an organization whose figurehead is alive. This applies. It'll be a religion when he's dead. And don't think it won't happen. 

[BamaATL 16,592]

6 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Again a cult is a an organization whose figurehead is alive. This applies. It'll be a religion when he's dead. And don't think it won't happen. 

Oh he will die at some point, I promise you that.  

[C-Man 26,998]

9 hours ago, Rimbo said:

 

That's great, but Trump's attorneys aren't wrong: Proving to a jury Trump knew he'd lost the election is gonna be ... not easy.

 

 

See, Brisket, you're getting awful close to crossing that line again.

You and I concur, but you're not seeing the big picture.

You think he won't go to jail. Which is just silly.

The problem is that putting him in jail doesn't end the threat to democracy he represents. See also: Beer Hall Putsch linked above.

Trump is a lot closer to the end of his life than Hitler was at the time — ‘cept for the whole bullet in the brain thing.

 

8 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Don't you know a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich? /Tahoehorn

Anybody else catch Meatball Ron’s clunky restating of that old axiom? Cringe-worthy.

 

7 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

 

Would (ducks). (But would hate myself later.)

 

6 hours ago, longhornmatt said:

Even if he truly thought he won, his legal remedies for addressing that don’t include conspiring with and/or blackmailing the Vice President, Congress, the various states, etc. to overturn the election without due process.  He had legal avenues to challenge the election.  He in fact tried those, and he lost repeatedly.  He doesn’t get to do illegal vigilantism just because he thinks he was wronged.

It’s like saying you really thought your neighbor stole something from your yard, so it’s ok that you murdered him and took all the stuff you thought was yours instead of getting the police involved.  It doesn’t matter if you believed he had it coming.  There are still rules.

His defense is going to boil down to mostly irrelevant word salad nonsense, and ultimately when pressed his real argument is just going to be the defense Saddam Hussein used in his trial, i.e., it’s impossible for me to commit crimes because I’m the ruler and anything I do is the law.

It’s not going to work.  Hoping a MAGA fanatic or two gets onto the jury and refuses to convict is his only real play.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,825]

5 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Oh he will die at some point, I promise you that.  

Of course. The only question is it going to interfere with us trying to save this democracy and planet for future generations. Time will tell. Unfortunately we don't have a lot of that to waste at this point

[tx 3 putt 76,170]

[shnsajax 3,589]

55 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Dumbass should really hire better lawyers ….

 

[Gatorubet 30,072]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

We already knew this.  Traitor Ted was asking for a 10-day pause to investigate in the chamber on 1/6.  

I know this is pure wishcasting, but maybe Ted is not out of the woods yet.

[StassneyHorn 6,534]

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

I've blocked the Occupy Democrats account because it's so shitty with wish-casting, and that tweet is another example.  MSNBC and CBS had multiple people in the courtroom and neither network reported that; in fact, both said he seemed more at ease today than the previous indictment.

Plus it was just lame on what they’re grilling him about. 77 vs 7-7 and telling everyone J means John

[atomheartbevo 89,365]

4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Well, what else would you call this?

An HOA meeting?

[tx 3 putt 76,170]

[atomheartbevo 89,365]

17 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. And if you tell them otherwise, they will not accept your facts.

 

17 hours ago, hpslugga said:

The exact verbiage of such an exchange reads as follows:

”I believe what I believe because that’s what I believe. I believe that, and I’m not gonna believe what you believe because it’s not what I believe.”

 

 

 

[Burt 4,062]

12 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

My only worry is a major recession leading into the election. I fear that would be enough to sway enough independents over for a slim victory. 

My worry is Biden not waking up one morning and throwing the entire Democrat party into even more disarray heading into the primary with no candidate.

[Underdog 28,437]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

[dcbc 14,388]

6 hours ago, BamaATL said:

You're my lawyer, stop saying I stole.

Your honor, I believe we have a mistrial.  

I'll mistrial a foot in your ass.  

What are you objectifying on?!?

[GopherRock 1,765]

9 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

Ever since Trump got elected, the dictionary has demonstrated a very strong game.

[SubliminalHorn 6,648]

4 hours ago, Burt said:

My worry is Biden not waking up one morning and throwing the entire Democrat party into even more disarray heading into the primary with no candidate.

Yeah that too

[AnTiM 1,657]

7 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

The middle finger was the only thing my brain could come up with for this.  

"Cocksucker trump" would have been the proper manner of address, no doubt.

[hpslugga 4,039]

18 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

1) If everything was normal, I agree.

2) Everything is not normal.  GQP states are already well underway with their frantic efforts to disenfranchise any voters/voter groups/entire geographic areas that might vote against Cheeto Benito.  They don't have to get more votes for Trump.  They just have to exclude enough Biden votes.

They started doing that immediately after Trump uttered the words "this is a fraud on the American public" and we got a good look into how effective those efforts really were in 2022. Remember that "red wave" that was supposed to happen last year? How'd that go?

And that axiom I mentioned? It was established before said efforts and survived them. That's how toxic Trump is, and it's why other GQP candidates are currently talking about raising the voting age to 21. That will never fly because it requires a consitutional amendment, and that shit ain't happening between now and next November.

But that's not even the point. The point is that all this chatter about "raise the voting age" is an acknowledgement that at the state level, they didn't do near enough to suppress D votes and that they need to do more to accomplish that. They don't know how to do that in a way that would survive court challenges.

Regarding the age issue, it can only get worse for the R's as we must consider that 1) there were a bunch of people ages 14-17 in 2020 who could not vote then and will be able to in 2024 and 2) the Gen Z demographic was as lopsided as could be against the GQP before Dobbs, and after Dobbs, they swung away from them even harder. In 2016, they accounted for 2% of the election. In 2020 it was 7.5% and next year, they look to figure in for about 13%. Combine them with the millennials, that looks to be more than one-third (37%) of the electorate. Trump does very poorly with that demo in the swing states.  

18 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

You are still thinking like a person who plays by the rules and the Rule of Law.  The GQP doesn't think that way.  

The GQP certainly doesn't think that way, but their problem is that they're stupid criminals. Where as you might see them as Lex Luthor and Skeletor, what they really are amount to Harry and Marv from Home Alone. This is going to remain true as long as that "party" remains a collection of social media personalities who think clicks/views/subscriptions translate to electoral victories. The MAGA faction has been believing in that belief since 2018, and they've been knocked on their asses over and over for it.

18 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

He lost Wisconsin and Georgia by like a combined 50k votes.  All it takes is a slight bit of apathy among D voters to swing those back.  Arizona feels pretty safe with Maricopa county basically controlling it.

We already got a preview of both states in the last two years. The GQP in Georgia couldn't even propel a Heisman Trophy-winning football hero into the Senate. Now you might say that the GQP voters in GA are racist, and I'm not gonna fight you on that...but still, Walker was running against a black dude that hates Trump. Their choice was "black dude that loves Trump vs. uppity negro that hates Trump," and the latter still won. And again, this was all pre-indictments.

As to Wisconsin, we got a good look at where they are with the Protasiewicz win against that MAGA loser Daniel Kelly just 4 months ago. That was nothing to sneeze at, and it was literally done on the same day Trump was indicted in NY (aka the first of the three), so it's safe to say the indictment played no role in this particular election.

If anything, Trump's legal entanglements plus the gaggle of absolutely loathsome Supreme Court decisions, due entirely to Trump's packing of the court, likely expand that margin. This apathy you speak of would be most pronounced in mid-term election years. It would also be most pronounced under the flurry of the aforementioned legislations at the state level. All that was supposed to happen at once last year, and yet here we sit with a slightly blue senate, only a nominally red house, Trump is indicted in multiple states, and his competitors in his own party are already yelling about raising the voting age with the deliberate intent to disenfranchise a very large demographic precisely because they know they'll go overwhelmingly against that stupid party the first chance they get. Seriously I don't think some of you quite appreciate how transparently pathetic that whole "raise the voting age" thing makes them look even to independents. It looks like...well, this.

In closing, what this shit really comes down to is two categories of people: independent voters and unlikely voters. It's not about making the base so mad that they press the button harder next time. That's just feelings and emotions. Trump is just playing to his base, not branching out to reconnect himself with the independent voters that he did win in 2016. I won't say much about unlikely voters because I think most of you know that those have been overwhelmingly in rejection of the President-reject. That said, if you want to get a good idea of where independent voters are heading, just check out this excerpt from a New Yorker article:

"Among self-identified independents who don’t lean toward either party, the survey yielded more ambiguous results. Fewer than half of these respondents—between thirty-seven per cent and forty-six per cent, depending on the specific cases—said they believed that Trump had committed a crime. And about half of these respondents said that the charges were politically motivated. But, although these findings seem encouraging for Trump and his supporters, the survey also found that the number of independents who believe that Trump has done something criminal is growing, especially in relation to the classified-documents case. In a Bright Line Watch survey carried out last October, thirty-four per cent of independents said that a crime had been committed in that case. In the latest poll, that number had grown to forty-six per cent."

And it's not just independent voters:

"This suggests that, as prosecutors release more details of the charges and evidence against Trump, opinion is slowly shifting against him among less partisan voters. The survey even showed evidence of movement among Republicans. Since last October, the percentage of Republicans who said they believed that Trump had committed a crime in handling classified documents rose from nine to twenty-five. “We have to keep two things in mind at the same time,” Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth who co-founded Bright Line Watch, told me on Monday. “On the one hand, the public is incredibly polarized on these cases. On the other hand, the new evidence does seem to be moving the needle.”

So in 2018, he started to lose support in electoral form and lost the House
In 2020, he lost more support in electoral form, lost the Senate, and was voted out
In 2022, he lost even more support in electoral form, the GQP barely gained the House because of gerrymandering fuckery, and the D's gained a Senate seat
In 2023 he is losing even more support due to the indictments
So he's gonna...what...gain all that support back and win the general? 

Edited August 4, 2023 by hpslugga

[South Austin 52,039]

19 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

They started doing that immediately after Trump uttered the words "this is a fraud on the American public" and we got a good look into how effective those efforts really were in 2022. Remember that "red wave" that was supposed to happen last year? How'd that go?

And that axiom I mentioned? It was established before said efforts and survived them. That's how toxic Trump is, and it's why other GQP candidates are currently talking about raising the voting age to 21. That will never fly because it requires a consitutional amendment, and that shit ain't happening between now and next November.

But that's not even the point. The point is that all this chatter about "raise the voting age" is an acknowledgement that at the state level, they didn't do near enough to suppress D votes and that they need to do more to accomplish that. They don't know how to do that in a way that would survive court challenges.

Regarding the age issue, it can only get worse for the R's as we must consider that 1) there were a bunch of people ages 14-17 in 2020 who could not vote then and will be able to in 2024 and 2) the Gen Z demographic was as lopsided as could be against the GQP before Dobbs, and after Dobbs, they swung away from them even harder. In 2016, they accounted for 2% of the election. In 2020 it was 7.5% and next year, they look to figure in for about 13%. Combine them with the millennials, that looks to be more than one-third (37%) of the electorate. Trump does very poorly with that demo in the swing states.  

The GQP certainly doesn't think that way, but their problem is that they're stupid criminals. Where as you might see them as Lex Luthor and Skeletor, what they really are amount to Harry and Marv from Home Alone. This is going to remain true as long as that "party" remains a collection of social media personalities who think clicks/views/subscriptions translate to electoral victories. The MAGA faction has been believing in that belief since 2018, and they've been knocked on their asses over and over for it.

We already got a preview of both states in the last two years. The GQP in Georgia couldn't even propel a Heisman Trophy-winning football hero into the Senate. Now you might say that the GQP voters in GA are racist, and I'm not gonna fight you on that...but still, Walker was running against a black dude that hates Trump. Their choice was "black dude that loves Trump vs. uppity negro that hates Trump," and the latter still won. And again, this was all pre-indictments.

As to Wisconsin, we got a good look at where they are with the Protasiewicz win against that MAGA loser Daniel Kelly just 4 months ago. That was nothing to sneeze at, and it was literally done on the same day Trump was indicted in NY (aka the first of the three), so it's safe to say the indictment played no role in this particular election.

If anything, Trump's legal entanglements plus the gaggle of absolutely loathsome Supreme Court decisions, due entirely to Trump's packing of the court, likely expand that margin. This apathy you speak of would be most pronounced in mid-term election years. It would also be most pronounced under the flurry of the aforementioned legislations at the state level. All that was supposed to happen at once last year, and yet here we sit with a slightly blue senate, only a nominally red house, Trump is indicted in multiple states, and his competitors in his own party are already yelling about raising the voting age with the deliberate intent to disenfranchise a very large demographic precisely because they know they'll go overwhelmingly against that stupid party the first chance they get. Seriously I don't think some of you quite appreciate how transparently pathetic that whole "raise the voting age" thing makes them look even to independents. It looks like...well, this.

In closing, what this shit really comes down to is two categories of people: independent voters and unlikely voters. It's not about making the base so mad that they press the button harder next time. That's just feelings and emotions. Trump is just playing to his base, not branching out to reconnect himself with the independent voters that he did win in 2016. I won't say much about unlikely voters because I think most of you know that those have been overwhelmingly in rejection of the President-reject. That said, if you want to get a good idea of where independent voters are heading, just check out this excerpt from a New Yorker article:

"Among self-identified independents who don’t lean toward either party, the survey yielded more ambiguous results. Fewer than half of these respondents—between thirty-seven per cent and forty-six per cent, depending on the specific cases—said they believed that Trump had committed a crime. And about half of these respondents said that the charges were politically motivated. But, although these findings seem encouraging for Trump and his supporters, the survey also found that the number of independents who believe that Trump has done something criminal is growing, especially in relation to the classified-documents case. In a Bright Line Watch survey carried out last October, thirty-four per cent of independents said that a crime had been committed in that case. In the latest poll, that number had grown to forty-six per cent."

And it's not just independent voters:

"This suggests that, as prosecutors release more details of the charges and evidence against Trump, opinion is slowly shifting against him among less partisan voters. The survey even showed evidence of movement among Republicans. Since last October, the percentage of Republicans who said they believed that Trump had committed a crime in handling classified documents rose from nine to twenty-five. “We have to keep two things in mind at the same time,” Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth who co-founded Bright Line Watch, told me on Monday. “On the one hand, the public is incredibly polarized on these cases. On the other hand, the new evidence does seem to be moving the needle.”

So in 2018, he started to lose support in electoral form and lost the House
In 2020, he lost more support in electoral form, lost the Senate, and was voted out
In 2022, he lost even more support in electoral form, the GQP barely gained the House because of gerrymandering fuckery, and the D's gained a Senate seat
In 2023 he is losing even more support due to the indictments
So he's gonna...what...gain all that support back and win the general? 

tl;dr - My ass will still be puckered through Election Day.

[Pancho 44,360]

5 hours ago, Burt said:

My worry is Biden not waking up one morning and throwing the entire Democrat party into even more disarray heading into the primary with no candidate.

They have a backup plan. I think that’s been pretty clear.

[Js1 85,056]

8 hours ago, BamaATL said:

You're my lawyer, stop saying I stolle  

Your honor, I believe we have a mistrial.  

I'll mistrial a foot in your ass.  

Fify 

[Neonmoon 38,127]

This trial is going to break so many dumb people. 

Trump Defense: a lawyer told me I could get Pence to send electors back to states. That’s just Free Speech. One kook lawyer told me so! I chose to believe him because he was telling me what I wanted to hear. 

Rest of Lawyers: Nowhere in Constitution says that. You have 8 other lawyers saying you couldn’t do that. 

Public Dumb: he just used words. That’s not his fists. We live in Banana Republic 

 

[Js1 85,056]

27 minutes ago, South Austin said:

tl;dr - My ass will still be puckered through Election Day.

Fair 

a reminder that Dems continue to be fired up 

 

[South Austin 52,039]

Just now, Js1 said:

a reminder that Dems continue to be fired up 

I think those particular districts were especially motivated to get their state reps back into the legislature given the bullshit the Tennessee R’s pulled. I don’t know if you can extrapolate that to an indication of national turnout, but one can hope.

[Js1 85,056]

Just now, South Austin said:

I think those particular districts were especially motivated to get their state reps back into the legislature given the bullshit the Tennessee R’s pulled. I don’t know if you can extrapolate that to an indication of national turnout, but one can hope.

HD-3 was not one of those. That was a Trump + 62 race and Dems knocked it 13 points left. 

[South Austin 52,039]

Just now, Js1 said:

HD-3 was not one of those. That was a Trump + 62 race and Dems knocked it 13 points left. 

Okay, mildly less puckered.

[TwiceHorn 31,187]

15 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This trial is going to break so many dumb people. 

Trump Defense: a lawyer told me I could get Pence to send electors back to states. That’s just Free Speech. One kook lawyer told me so! I chose to believe him because he was telling me what I wanted to hear. 

Rest of Lawyers: Nowhere in Constitution says that. You have 8 other lawyers saying you couldn’t do that. 

Public Dumb: he just used words. That’s not his fists. We live in Banana Republic 

 

What Eisen said toward the end there is where there be dragons, and tygers, for Chutkan and for us.

A couple of the "defenses" raised so far, First Amendment (and the subsidiary re-litigation of election fraud) and advice-of-counsel, are so flimsy that I think Chutkan will be sorely tempted not to let Trumpco even raise them before the jury, or only in a very cursory fashion.  And that might lead to a successful appeal. 

I don't think any appellate court in the country is going to be particularly friendly to Trump the criminal defendant, even the demagogued Fifth Circuit, because any ruling in his favor will inevitably create a pro-defendant precedent.  I do rather like the odds before the DC Circuit, though.  Lots of favorably precedent created by the other 1/6 defendants.

[Biff Tannen 45,482]

2 hours ago, hpslugga said:

They started doing that immediately after Trump uttered the words "this is a fraud on the American public" and we got a good look into how effective those efforts really were in 2022. Remember that "red wave" that was supposed to happen last year? How'd that go?

And that axiom I mentioned? It was established before said efforts and survived them. That's how toxic Trump is, and it's why other GQP candidates are currently talking about raising the voting age to 21. That will never fly because it requires a consitutional amendment, and that shit ain't happening between now and next November.

But that's not even the point. The point is that all this chatter about "raise the voting age" is an acknowledgement that at the state level, they didn't do near enough to suppress D votes and that they need to do more to accomplish that. They don't know how to do that in a way that would survive court challenges.

Regarding the age issue, it can only get worse for the R's as we must consider that 1) there were a bunch of people ages 14-17 in 2020 who could not vote then and will be able to in 2024 and 2) the Gen Z demographic was as lopsided as could be against the GQP before Dobbs, and after Dobbs, they swung away from them even harder. In 2016, they accounted for 2% of the election. In 2020 it was 7.5% and next year, they look to figure in for about 13%. Combine them with the millennials, that looks to be more than one-third (37%) of the electorate. Trump does very poorly with that demo in the swing states.  

The GQP certainly doesn't think that way, but their problem is that they're stupid criminals. Where as you might see them as Lex Luthor and Skeletor, what they really are amount to Harry and Marv from Home Alone. This is going to remain true as long as that "party" remains a collection of social media personalities who think clicks/views/subscriptions translate to electoral victories. The MAGA faction has been believing in that belief since 2018, and they've been knocked on their asses over and over for it.

We already got a preview of both states in the last two years. The GQP in Georgia couldn't even propel a Heisman Trophy-winning football hero into the Senate. Now you might say that the GQP voters in GA are racist, and I'm not gonna fight you on that...but still, Walker was running against a black dude that hates Trump. Their choice was "black dude that loves Trump vs. uppity negro that hates Trump," and the latter still won. And again, this was all pre-indictments.

As to Wisconsin, we got a good look at where they are with the Protasiewicz win against that MAGA loser Daniel Kelly just 4 months ago. That was nothing to sneeze at, and it was literally done on the same day Trump was indicted in NY (aka the first of the three), so it's safe to say the indictment played no role in this particular election.

If anything, Trump's legal entanglements plus the gaggle of absolutely loathsome Supreme Court decisions, due entirely to Trump's packing of the court, likely expand that margin. This apathy you speak of would be most pronounced in mid-term election years. It would also be most pronounced under the flurry of the aforementioned legislations at the state level. All that was supposed to happen at once last year, and yet here we sit with a slightly blue senate, only a nominally red house, Trump is indicted in multiple states, and his competitors in his own party are already yelling about raising the voting age with the deliberate intent to disenfranchise a very large demographic precisely because they know they'll go overwhelmingly against that stupid party the first chance they get. Seriously I don't think some of you quite appreciate how transparently pathetic that whole "raise the voting age" thing makes them look even to independents. It looks like...well, this.

In closing, what this shit really comes down to is two categories of people: independent voters and unlikely voters. It's not about making the base so mad that they press the button harder next time. That's just feelings and emotions. Trump is just playing to his base, not branching out to reconnect himself with the independent voters that he did win in 2016. I won't say much about unlikely voters because I think most of you know that those have been overwhelmingly in rejection of the President-reject. That said, if you want to get a good idea of where independent voters are heading, just check out this excerpt from a New Yorker article:

"Among self-identified independents who don’t lean toward either party, the survey yielded more ambiguous results. Fewer than half of these respondents—between thirty-seven per cent and forty-six per cent, depending on the specific cases—said they believed that Trump had committed a crime. And about half of these respondents said that the charges were politically motivated. But, although these findings seem encouraging for Trump and his supporters, the survey also found that the number of independents who believe that Trump has done something criminal is growing, especially in relation to the classified-documents case. In a Bright Line Watch survey carried out last October, thirty-four per cent of independents said that a crime had been committed in that case. In the latest poll, that number had grown to forty-six per cent."

And it's not just independent voters:

"This suggests that, as prosecutors release more details of the charges and evidence against Trump, opinion is slowly shifting against him among less partisan voters. The survey even showed evidence of movement among Republicans. Since last October, the percentage of Republicans who said they believed that Trump had committed a crime in handling classified documents rose from nine to twenty-five. “We have to keep two things in mind at the same time,” Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth who co-founded Bright Line Watch, told me on Monday. “On the one hand, the public is incredibly polarized on these cases. On the other hand, the new evidence does seem to be moving the needle.”

So in 2018, he started to lose support in electoral form and lost the House
In 2020, he lost more support in electoral form, lost the Senate, and was voted out
In 2022, he lost even more support in electoral form, the GQP barely gained the House because of gerrymandering fuckery, and the D's gained a Senate seat
In 2023 he is losing even more support due to the indictments
So he's gonna...what...gain all that support back and win the general? 

Neat.  None of this is any reason to not push every single sane person we know to the polls in 2024.  I will not be satisfied until he and others like him are dead and buried.  Literally.

Edited August 4, 2023 by Biff Tannen

[Pancho 44,360]

[locodos 5,329]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

What Eisen said toward the end there is where there be dragons, and tygers, for Chutkan and for us.

A couple of the "defenses" raised so far, First Amendment (and the subsidiary re-litigation of election fraud) and advice-of-counsel, are so flimsy that I think Chutkan will be sorely tempted not to let Trumpco even raise them before the jury, or only in a very cursory fashion.  And that might lead to a successful appeal. 

I don't think any appellate court in the country is going to be particularly friendly to Trump the criminal defendant, even the demagogued Fifth Circuit, because any ruling in his favor will inevitably create a pro-defendant precedent.  I do rather like the odds before the DC Circuit, though.  Lots of favorably precedent created by the other 1/6 defendants.

How likely is it that this case will remain in the DC Circuit?

[Biff Tannen 45,482]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

Biggest.  Snowflake.  Ever.

[South Austin 52,039]

22 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

Ginni Thomas, please pick up the red courtesy phone.

[BamaATL 16,592]

43 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Neat.  None of this is any reason to not push every single sane person we know to the polls in 2024.  I will not be satisfied until he and others like him are dead and buried.  Literally.

The wife and I have decided to volunteer to help with Georgia 55, a program dedicated to helping people get to vote.  We are going to take off work during early voting to help people get to polls, drop boxes and etc by doing the ride program.  I don't know if such a thing exists in other states, but I believe there are opportunities out there along these lines.  My goal is to personally get 100 voters to vote that otherwise wouldn't have been able to.  How they vote is obviously their business, but I know any increase in participation is good and generally favors us.  Even if you can't volunteer that sort of time, there are other ways to contribute, such as coordination, vote curing, etc.  Bottom line, I'll be damned if I am going to watch these fucksticks win simply because someone like myself who had the ability to help didn't.  

[Red Five 40,594]

29 minutes ago, Pancho said:

In.... all of them? 78 felony counts in three separate cases. With more on the way. 

Alpha male. "Help!"

[conVINCEd 21,468]

2 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

My goal is to personally get 100 voters to vote that otherwise wouldn't have been able to.  How they vote is obviously their business, but I know any increase in participation is good and generally favors us.

Just pick the right neighborhoods.

[TwiceHorn 31,187]

30 minutes ago, locodos said:

How likely is it that this case will remain in the DC Circuit?

One hundred percent.  The crimes alleged occurred in DC.

Even if there was a change of venue to Maryland or Virgitina, the DC Circuit retains appellate jurisdiction.

[Biff Tannen 45,482]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

The wife and I have decided to volunteer to help with Georgia 55, a program dedicated to helping people get to vote.  We are going to take off work during early voting to help people get to polls, drop boxes and etc by doing the ride program.  I don't know if such a thing exists in other states, but I believe there are opportunities out there along these lines.  My goal is to personally get 100 voters to vote that otherwise wouldn't have been able to.  How they vote is obviously their business, but I know any increase in participation is good and generally favors us.  Even if you can't volunteer that sort of time, there are other ways to contribute, such as coordination, vote curing, etc.  Bottom line, I'll be damned if I am going to watch these fucksticks win simply because someone like myself who had the ability to help didn't.  

This is awesome.  Living in Texas, specifically Austin, it feels like a lost cause, but I should look into this as well.

[Pancho 44,360]

Anyone else seeing where dotards lawyer is saying they want the trial televised? I saw it on Threads but can’t embed.

[Celery Man 20,874]

7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

[South Austin 52,039]

I see titties.

[Francisco 2.0 32,290]

The best people.  

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-documents-case-judge-made-multiple-errors-earlier-trial-2023-08-04/

 

Quote

The judge in former U.S. President Donald Trump's upcoming trial over his handling of classified documents made two key errors in a June trial, one of which violated a fundamental constitutional right of the defendant and could have invalidated the proceedings, according to legal experts and a court transcript.

Florida-based U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon closed jury selection for the trial of an Alabama man - accused by federal prosecutors of running a website with images of child sex abuse - to the defendant's family and the general public, a trial transcript obtained by Reuters showed. A defendant's right to a public trial is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment.

 

Quote

Cannon, a 42-year-old former federal prosecutor appointed by Trump to the bench in 2020 late in his presidency, also neglected to swear in the prospective jury pool - an obligatory procedure in which people who may serve on the panel pledge to tell the truth during the selection process. This error forced Cannon to re-start jury selection before the trial ended abruptly with defendant William Spearman pleading guilty as part of an agreement with prosecutors.

Cannon's decision to close the courtroom represents "a fundamental constitutional error," said Stephen Smith, a professor at the Santa Clara School of Law in California. "She ignored the public trial right entirely. It's as though she didn't know it existed."

In Cannon's decision to close jury selection, the judge cited space restrictions in her small courtroom at the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida.

 

Quote

Legal experts said closing a courtroom to the public has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as a "structural error" - a mistake so significant that it can invalidate a criminal trial because it strikes at the heart of the entire process. A public trial also has been found to implicate First Amendment rights of freedom of assembly, speech and press.

Cannon's decision raises questions about how she will handle the intense public interest at Trump's trial, which is scheduled to begin on May 20, 2024, in the same courtroom.

 

Spoiler

The unprecedented prosecution of a former president as he campaigns seeking a return to the White House promises to bring enormous public scrutiny. The trial also will represent the first time that Cannon handles a case involving classified evidence and the arcane rules surrounding it.

Cannon's trial errors also illustrate her judicial inexperience, five former federal judges - Democratic and Republican appointees - said in interviews.

"A lack of experience can be really hard in a big case, especially when there's all this media attention and everything you do is being watched and commented on and second-guessed," said Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who leads the Berkeley Judicial Institute in California.

Fogel said Cannon made "two fairly significant mistakes" during jury selection in the June trial.

"It looms larger because of who the judge is," Fogel added.

Mark Bennett, the former Chief U.S. District Judge of the Northern District of Iowa, said, "She should have figured ahead of time a way to accommodate a small number of family members in a very small courtroom, in my opinion. It's just the right thing to do, and not run the risk of there being reversible error."

Cannon did not respond to a request for comment. Scott Berry, a federal public defender representing Spearman, declined to comment, as did a Justice Department spokesperson.

LIMITED EXPERIENCE
As a judge, Cannon so far has presided over four criminal trials that resulted in jury verdicts. She previously also worked on four criminal trials that resulted in jury verdicts when she served a federal prosecutor from 2013 to 2020, according to a questionnaire she filled out before the Senate confirmed her as a judge.

Cannon faced a rebuke from the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when it reversed her 2022 order appointing a third party to review documents seized by the FBI from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort home in Florida in the classified records investigation.

"We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so," the 11th Circuit panel of three judges - all Republican appointees - wrote in reversing Cannon's ruling and ordering the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Trump that sought to shield documents from federal investigators.

Trump's upcoming trial on 40 criminal counts of retaining classified records, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and concealment will present a new level of complexity. Trump faces separate trials on two other sets of federal and state criminal charges.

Paul Grimm, a former federal judge in Maryland who now leads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School in North Carolina, said it is not unusual for a new judge to have to deal with a high-profile matter, as case assignments are random.

"You get the case on the draw of it," Grimm said. "You can ask for help - but if you choose not to ask for help, then no one's going to make you" seek guidance.

 

'YOUR OBJECTION IS OVERRULED'
Cannon began jury selection on June 12 in the trial of Spearman, who was charged with conspiring to advertise and distribute images of child sexual abuse and with engaging in a child exploitation enterprise.

That day, the court transcript showed, Cannon failed to swear in the jury pool. Cannon also declined to open the courtroom to the public despite repeated requests from both prosecutors and defense attorneys, the transcript showed.

Some of the former federal judges interviewed by Reuters said their courtroom deputies sometimes would remind them of procedural steps like swearing in prospective jurors, as they may be focused on other aspects of running a trial.

Berry, the federal defender, argued in the courtroom that Cannon's refusal to let his client's mother and sister be present during jury selection was a Sixth Amendment violation.

"All right, thank you. Your objection is overruled," Cannon replied, according to the transcript.

A federal prosecutor in the case, Greg Schiller, later pressed Cannon to let in Spearman's mother. Schiller raised a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that held that judges must weigh less restrictive alternatives prior to closing a courtroom to the public, including during the jury selection process.

When Berry later pointed to two open chairs in the room, Cannon resisted his request again, saying the chairs were reserved for law enforcement.

"Mr. Spearman's mother is free to join us once the jury selection process has concluded and/or there is truly enough room in the courtroom," Cannon said, according to the transcript.

Cannon later offered to let in Spearman's family after the judge realized she also had failed to swear in the jury pool. She said there would be room in the courtroom after certain jurors who both sides in the case agreed should be dismissed had left.

The jury selection process never re-started because Spearman and the prosecutors entered into a "conditional" plea deal, an uncommon arrangement that preserves a defendant's right to appeal certain rulings by the trial judge. In most plea deals, defendants waive the bulk of their appellate rights.

The decision by Spearman, who is due to be sentenced by Cannon on Aug. 31, to enter a plea deal averted the problem with the court closure. But legal experts said it raises questions about how Cannon will handle public access for Trump's trial.

"She is going to have to make some accommodations," Santa Clara's Smith said.

 

[tx 3 putt 76,170]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

This trial is going to break so many dumb people. 

Trump Defense: a lawyer told me I could get Pence to send electors back to states. That’s just Free Speech. One kook lawyer told me so! I chose to believe him because he was telling me what I wanted to hear. 

Rest of Lawyers: Nowhere in Constitution says that. You have 8 other lawyers saying you couldn’t do that. 

Public Dumb: he just used words. That’s not his fists. We live in Banana Republic 

 

if only people read the first 5 words of the 1st amendment 

[hpslugga 4,039]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Neat.  None of this is any reason to not push every single sane person we know to the polls in 2024.

Which is exactly what I do and what I encourage everyone else to do, but that’s independent of two things:

1. My whole point was that I expect that to happen (high turnout against Trump) and have no reason not to expect it.

2. For Trump to use his expectation of the exact opposite of that as any part of his criminal defense strategy is absolutely crazy.

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

  I will not be satisfied until he and others like him are dead and buried.  Literally.

Well hopefully they won’t be buried. Hopefully we will be able to cremate them and urinate upon the ashes a la Shooter McGavin.

[The Dog 43,771]

10 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

The best people.  

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-documents-case-judge-made-multiple-errors-earlier-trial-2023-08-04/

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The unprecedented prosecution of a former president as he campaigns seeking a return to the White House promises to bring enormous public scrutiny. The trial also will represent the first time that Cannon handles a case involving classified evidence and the arcane rules surrounding it.

Cannon's trial errors also illustrate her judicial inexperience, five former federal judges - Democratic and Republican appointees - said in interviews.

"A lack of experience can be really hard in a big case, especially when there's all this media attention and everything you do is being watched and commented on and second-guessed," said Jeremy Fogel, a former federal judge who leads the Berkeley Judicial Institute in California.

Fogel said Cannon made "two fairly significant mistakes" during jury selection in the June trial.

"It looms larger because of who the judge is," Fogel added.

Mark Bennett, the former Chief U.S. District Judge of the Northern District of Iowa, said, "She should have figured ahead of time a way to accommodate a small number of family members in a very small courtroom, in my opinion. It's just the right thing to do, and not run the risk of there being reversible error."

Cannon did not respond to a request for comment. Scott Berry, a federal public defender representing Spearman, declined to comment, as did a Justice Department spokesperson.

LIMITED EXPERIENCE
As a judge, Cannon so far has presided over four criminal trials that resulted in jury verdicts. She previously also worked on four criminal trials that resulted in jury verdicts when she served a federal prosecutor from 2013 to 2020, according to a questionnaire she filled out before the Senate confirmed her as a judge.

Cannon faced a rebuke from the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals when it reversed her 2022 order appointing a third party to review documents seized by the FBI from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort home in Florida in the classified records investigation.

"We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so," the 11th Circuit panel of three judges - all Republican appointees - wrote in reversing Cannon's ruling and ordering the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Trump that sought to shield documents from federal investigators.

Trump's upcoming trial on 40 criminal counts of retaining classified records, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and concealment will present a new level of complexity. Trump faces separate trials on two other sets of federal and state criminal charges.

Paul Grimm, a former federal judge in Maryland who now leads the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School in North Carolina, said it is not unusual for a new judge to have to deal with a high-profile matter, as case assignments are random.

"You get the case on the draw of it," Grimm said. "You can ask for help - but if you choose not to ask for help, then no one's going to make you" seek guidance.

 

'YOUR OBJECTION IS OVERRULED'
Cannon began jury selection on June 12 in the trial of Spearman, who was charged with conspiring to advertise and distribute images of child sexual abuse and with engaging in a child exploitation enterprise.

That day, the court transcript showed, Cannon failed to swear in the jury pool. Cannon also declined to open the courtroom to the public despite repeated requests from both prosecutors and defense attorneys, the transcript showed.

Some of the former federal judges interviewed by Reuters said their courtroom deputies sometimes would remind them of procedural steps like swearing in prospective jurors, as they may be focused on other aspects of running a trial.

Berry, the federal defender, argued in the courtroom that Cannon's refusal to let his client's mother and sister be present during jury selection was a Sixth Amendment violation.

"All right, thank you. Your objection is overruled," Cannon replied, according to the transcript.

A federal prosecutor in the case, Greg Schiller, later pressed Cannon to let in Spearman's mother. Schiller raised a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court precedent that held that judges must weigh less restrictive alternatives prior to closing a courtroom to the public, including during the jury selection process.

When Berry later pointed to two open chairs in the room, Cannon resisted his request again, saying the chairs were reserved for law enforcement.

"Mr. Spearman's mother is free to join us once the jury selection process has concluded and/or there is truly enough room in the courtroom," Cannon said, according to the transcript.

Cannon later offered to let in Spearman's family after the judge realized she also had failed to swear in the jury pool. She said there would be room in the courtroom after certain jurors who both sides in the case agreed should be dismissed had left.

The jury selection process never re-started because Spearman and the prosecutors entered into a "conditional" plea deal, an uncommon arrangement that preserves a defendant's right to appeal certain rulings by the trial judge. In most plea deals, defendants waive the bulk of their appellate rights.

The decision by Spearman, who is due to be sentenced by Cannon on Aug. 31, to enter a plea deal averted the problem with the court closure. But legal experts said it raises questions about how Cannon will handle public access for Trump's trial.

"She is going to have to make some accommodations," Santa Clara's Smith said.

 

was about to post this.

it's looking more like she's just really bad at her job rather than "in the tank" for Trump (or anyone else for that matter).

Hanlon's Razor on the bench. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." 

[Stilicho 1,397]

1 minute ago, hpslugga said:

Well hopefully they won’t be buried. Hopefully we will be able to cremate them and urinate upon the ashes a la Shooter McGavin.

I cannot be the only one planning a Great American Grave Shitting Tour for the 2030s.

[Horn Dog 9,646]

[tx 3 putt 76,170]

 

 

[locodos 5,329]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One hundred percent.  The crimes alleged occurred in DC.

Even if there was a change of venue to Maryland or Virgitina, the DC Circuit retains appellate jurisdiction.

My question was not properly phrased.   The reason I asked was that Trump's legal team would like to change venues to West Virgitina.   And I see from this map that WV is still in the 4 appellate district.

My question should have been, what are the chances the trial is moved from DC?

[Js1 85,056]

If Trump wants it moved, that means it won’t be moved because there’s no legal reason except to get a jury of WV meth head MAGAs

[Beau Vine 53,967]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Fair 

a reminder that Dems continue to be fired up 

 

I'm sitting here staring at this table thinking, "That column averages out to more than 5.7%, doesn't it?"

And yes, it averages to 8.14%.  How the hell does someone screw up the =average function?