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

[Underdog 29210]

9 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It’ll end up with restraining orders, just like Hall and Oates.

Nah… I can’t go for that. 

[Biff Tannen 46190]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This was done on the motion of Matthew Seligman and a group of government officials supporting the government.

The reason for two in support of Trump is that Blackman and Schaerr take opposing positions for why the appointment is invalid, and both of them differ from Trump.

This is one of those arguments over the Appointments Clause, and who is a principal officer of the United States, appointable only by the President with confirmation by the Senate, and who is an inferior officer and can be appointed by someone else.

The Schaerr group argues that the AG lacks power to appoint a special Counsel because he is a principal Officer. The Blackman group argues that the Special Counsel is merely an employee and can't exercise the powers of a Special Counsel.

Seligman says that what those other two guys said is bullshit.

Here is Seligman's brief.

So basically the argument is, that guy was appointed wrongly so he can’t prosecute me?  Nevermind the actual alleged crimes. Technicality!

[Js1 87223]

18 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So basically the argument is, that guy was appointed wrongly so he can’t prosecute me?  Nevermind the actual alleged crimes. Technicality!

I’m quite sure Cannon will totally nail this one 

[DigglerontheHoof 21561]

I obviously have little legal knowledge but I predict this documents case never, ever goes to trial as long as this stupid cunt is the judge.

[BamaATL 16593]

2 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I obviously have little legal knowledge but I predict this documents case never, ever goes to trial as long as this stupid cunt is the judge.

Eventually, she will do something so egregious a removal will happen, but until then it's stuck.  I suppose Smith is having to wait for that.  

[TwiceHorn 32092]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

Eventually, she will do something so egregious a removal will happen, but until then it's stuck.  I suppose Smith is having to wait for that.  

This particular thing was going to have to happen (a hearing on Trump's motion to dismiss**) regardless.  Letting amicus argue isn't really a big deal in terms of time-wastage.  And actually probably increases the likelihood she gets it right.

**In federal civil cases, hearings on motions are relatively uncommon.  The judge usually decides on the briefs.  Hearings seem to be more common in criminal cases.

If she fucks this up, the government will undoubtedly appeal and the weight of authority such as it is seems to favor the government on this, as set out in Seligman's brief.  That may be the golden opportunity for the 11th Circuit to remand it to another judge.  Thousands of complaints have been leveled against her to the 11th Circuit Judicial Council, but most of them are not actionable. https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/03/politics/cannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17175189455410&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F06%2F03%2Fpolitics%2Fcannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump%2Findex.html It has become clear, if it wasn't before, that there is a public perception of her that undermines the judiciary.

[chainsaw 10300]

Delay delay delay and he consistently gets what he wants

[Ten Bears 2500]

nvm

Edited June 5 by Ten Bears

[C-Man 27802]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Delay delay delay and he consistently gets what he wants

Trump's Legal Team's PK appears to be more effective than Edmonton's!

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

16 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Trump's Legal Team's PK appears to be more effective than Edmonton's!

[Nice Guy Eddie 13741]

If other lawyers want to weigh in on the case, they should speak directly with Trump's lawyers or the special counsel, depending on their view. I don't see how a court can operate by  randomly choosing 3rd parties to address the judge.

If the 3rd party lawyers want to join the Trump team, then do so officially. Or be called as an expert witness from the Trump side, and be allowed to be cross examined.

[South Austin 53235]

I don’t practice in the area of former President crimes, but in my experience amicus parties frequently submit briefs in cases on appeal, and rarely are allowed to participate in argument. I don’t see amicus briefing at the trial court level, but I suspect it’s more common in federal district courts on constitutional issues regarding abortion, immigration, and similar hot-button issues.

[Brisketexan 106977]

7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If other lawyers want to weigh in on the case, they should speak directly with Trump's lawyers or the special counsel, depending on their view. I don't see how a court can operate by  randomly choosing 3rd parties to address the judge.

If the 3rd party lawyers want to join the Trump team, then do so officially. Or be called as an expert witness from the Trump side, and be allowed to be cross examined.

 

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

I don’t practice in the area of former President crimes, but in my experience amicus parties frequently submit briefs in cases on appeal, and rarely are allowed to participate in argument. I don’t see amicus briefing at the trial court level, but I suspect it’s more common in federal district courts on constitutional issues regarding abortion, immigration, and similar hot-button issues.

See South Austin's point above.  It is not unusual at all to allow amicus briefing even in the trial courts.  It's also not uncommon in federal courts on specialized/high profile issues.  Many moons ago, I represented a party as an "active amicus" in a federal trial (Yeakel didn't allow us to intervene, but granted us that status).  I didn't get to examine witnesses, but I sat at counsel table, was able to argue on a variety of motions, including opening and closing arguments.

Oh, and lawyers don't appear as "expert witnesses" on the law.  The old saying is that the only expert on the law in a courtroom is the judge.  Lawyers argue the law -- what they say has the weight of argument only, not testimony.

Is fuckery afoot with Cannon?  Surely.  But the fact that amicus parties are allowed to argue a particular point of law isn't, in and of itself, fuckery.

[TwiceHorn 32092]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

See South Austin's point above.  It is not unusual at all to allow amicus briefing even in the trial courts.  It's also not uncommon in federal courts on specialized/high profile issues.  Many moons ago, I represented a party as an "active amicus" in a federal trial (Yeakel didn't alleenow us to intervene, but granted us that status).  I didn't get to examine witnesses, but I sat at counsel table, was able to argue on a variety of motions, including opening and closing arguments.

Oh, and lawyers don't appear as "expert witnesses" on the law.  The old saying is that the only expert on the law in a courtroom is the judge.  Lawyers argue the law -- what they say has the weight of argument only, not testimony.

Is fuckery afoot with Cannon?  Surely.  But the fact that amicus parties are allowed to argue a particular point of law isn't, in and of itself, fuckery.

Yeah, this isn't simply a matter of advocacy for one party or another.

We've had Special Counsels or something like them since Nixon and before.  Thereafter, Congress actually passed a statute providing for "Independent Counsel," but it was unpopular among certain types (probably Ed Meese for one) and allowed to lapse.

There have been roughly a dozen Special/Independent/Counsel/Prosecutors appointed since then under various legal regimes.

Under the current one, which is just internal rules promulgated by the DOJ known as the Reno Rules, there have been at least five:  Mueller, Durham, Smith, Hur and Weiss.

If the current scheme is unconstitutional, that has ramifications beyond Trump.  It is an important issue worthy of amicus consideration.

[Pancho 46356]

 

[jimmyjazz 47256]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This was done on the motion of Matthew Seligman and a group of government officials supporting the government.

The reason for two in support of Trump is that Blackman and Schaerr take opposing positions for why the appointment is invalid, and both of them differ from Trump.

This is one of those arguments over the Appointments Clause, and who is a principal officer of the United States, appointable only by the President with confirmation by the Senate, and who is an inferior officer and can be appointed by someone else.

The Schaerr group argues that the AG lacks power to appoint a special Counsel because he is a principal Officer. The Blackman group argues that the Special Counsel is merely an employee and can't exercise the powers of a Special Counsel.

Seligman says that what those other two guys said is bullshit.

Here is Seligman's brief.

Do most law schools offer courses in how to throw shit against the wall to see what sticks?

[TwiceHorn 32092]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Do most law schools offer courses in how to throw shit against the wall to see what sticks?

It's actually a fairly serious dispute, not some shit Trump made up.  Thankfully, it does appear that the arguments that Special Counsel are unconstitutional are pretty flawed.

[Brisketexan 106977]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Do most law schools offer courses in how to throw shit against the wall to see what sticks?

I mean....how do you think I boosted my GPA?

[Thrawn 540]

State case in federal court? But . . But . . . I have it on good authority from one of the finest legal minds our country has ever known, that the place to decide highly disputed matters of individual liberty is with the states. Surely that fucking guy can't be wrong. Ever. Just ask him.

[mdmost 44095]

10 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

The States Rights Party!

[Pato del Muerto 53566]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's actually a fairly serious dispute, not some shit Trump made up.  Thankfully, it does appear that the arguments that Special Counsel are unconstitutional are pretty flawed.

Shouldn’t that argument have been adjudicated prior to the use of any of them?

[TwiceHorn 32092]

Just now, Thrawn said:

State case in federal court? But . . But . . . I have it on good authority from one of the finest legal minds our country has ever known, that the place to decide highly disputed matters of individual liberty is with the states. Surely that fucking guy can't be wrong. Ever. Just ask him.

And one of the most bedrock principles of federalism is that it is the states that have plenary power to prosecute crimes.

But this goes back to the notion that Congress controls the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and therefore can do stuff.

It appears from the article that it may not have enough votes to pass even the House and is DOA at the Senate.

[TwiceHorn 32092]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Shouldn’t that argument have been adjudicated prior to the use of any of them?

You might think, but the only person that can validly raise the issue is someone being prosecuted by one of those Special Counsel.

The argument was raised in connection with the Mueller investigation and decided in favor of the government by the DC Circuit.

[tx 3 putt 78730]

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19307]

6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Everytime he talks about her, her lawyer should just automatically file.  Fuck him.  He is an idiot.

[TexasEd 8267]

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You might think, but the only person that can validly raise the issue is someone being prosecuted by one of those Special Counsel.

The argument was raised in connection with the Mueller investigation and decided in favor of the government by the DC Circuit.

So why is there a question if already answered?

[C-Man 27802]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This particular thing was going to have to happen (a hearing on Trump's motion to dismiss**) regardless.  Letting amicus argue isn't really a big deal in terms of time-wastage.  And actually probably increases the likelihood she gets it right.

**In federal civil cases, hearings on motions are relatively uncommon.  The judge usually decides on the briefs.  Hearings seem to be more common in criminal cases.

If she fucks this up, the government will undoubtedly appeal and the weight of authority such as it is seems to favor the government on this, as set out in Seligman's brief.  That may be the golden opportunity for the 11th Circuit to remand it to another judge.  Thousands of complaints have been leveled against her to the 11th Circuit Judicial Council, but most of them are not actionable. https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/03/politics/cannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17175189455410&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F06%2F03%2Fpolitics%2Fcannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump%2Findex.html It has become clear, if it wasn't before, that there is a public perception of her that undermines the judiciary.

I don't know who Bradley Moss but he said letting third parties opine in this particular instance is ridiculous: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/politics/cannon-trump-special-counsel-hearing/index.html

"“The fact these motions are even being entertained with a hearing is itself ridiculous. That third parties are being allowed to opine at the hearing is absurd,” Bradley Moss, a national security law expert based in Washington, DC, told CNN.

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

See South Austin's point above.  It is not unusual at all to allow amicus briefing even in the trial courts.  It's also not uncommon in federal courts on specialized/high profile issues.  Many moons ago, I represented a party as an "active amicus" in a federal trial (Yeakel didn't allow us to intervene, but granted us that status).  I didn't get to examine witnesses, but I sat at counsel table, was able to argue on a variety of motions, including opening and closing arguments.

Oh, and lawyers don't appear as "expert witnesses" on the law.  The old saying is that the only expert on the law in a courtroom is the judge.  Lawyers argue the law -- what they say has the weight of argument only, not testimony.

Is fuckery afoot with Cannon?  Surely.  But the fact that amicus parties are allowed to argue a particular point of law isn't, in and of itself, fuckery.

[Horndog 2301]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

If the current scheme is unconstitutional, that has ramifications beyond Trump.  It is an important issue worthy of amicus consideration.

Such as the Hunter Biden case? 

[Dahobbs 18348]

26 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Man, being the lawyer representing Carroll must be amazing. Trump is helping build up a perpetual future revenue stream. 

[Horndog 2301]

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

It appears from the article that it may not have enough votes to pass even the House and is DOA at the Senate.

Not to mention a Biden veto.

[Dahobbs 18348]

17 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

So why is there a question if already answered?

It was answered by the DC Circuit. It doesn't mean other circuits can't rule differently. And ultimately SCOTUS would have final say if it got that far. 

[TwiceHorn 32092]

7 minutes ago, Horndog said:

Such as the Hunter Biden case? 

Among others, yes. Weiss/Biden I think is the only active Special Counsel currently.  

But, at the rate we're going, there may be more.  And, if the appointments are invalid, anyone prosecuted/convicted by a Special Counsel may have some kind of redress.

[tx 3 putt 78730]

24 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I don't know who Bradley Moss but he said letting third parties opine in this particular instance is ridiculous: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/politics/cannon-trump-special-counsel-hearing/index.html

"“The fact these motions are even being entertained with a hearing is itself ridiculous. That third parties are being allowed to opine at the hearing is absurd,” Bradley Moss, a national security law expert based in Washington, DC, told CNN.

 

if Trump wins, next Supreme Court justice. If the R’s control the Senate

[Bozo_Casanova 26897]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This particular thing was going to have to happen (a hearing on Trump's motion to dismiss**) regardless.  Letting amicus argue isn't really a big deal in terms of time-wastage.  And actually probably increases the likelihood she gets it right.

**In federal civil cases, hearings on motions are relatively uncommon.  The judge usually decides on the briefs.  Hearings seem to be more common in criminal cases.

If she fucks this up, the government will undoubtedly appeal and the weight of authority such as it is seems to favor the government on this, as set out in Seligman's brief.  That may be the golden opportunity for the 11th Circuit to remand it to another judge.  Thousands of complaints have been leveled against her to the 11th Circuit Judicial Council, but most of them are not actionable. https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/03/politics/cannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17175189455410&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F06%2F03%2Fpolitics%2Fcannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump%2Findex.html It has become clear, if it wasn't before, that there is a public perception of her that undermines the judiciary.

I would also like to appear on this motion as a non-party how do I do that? I am happy to submit a brief provided that the court accepts MS-Paint

[Red Five 41766]

 

I think it’s funny that he’s not even bothering to change the tense, so that it might remotely make sense. I’m reasonably sure that at this point he knows who she is.

[TwiceHorn 32092]

7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It was answered by the DC Circuit. It doesn't mean other circuits can't rule differently. And ultimately SCOTUS would have final say if it got that far.

To elaborate, we have 12 regional circuit courts of appeal that hear appeals from district courts in groups of states, First through Eleventh and DC.  The DC Circuit only hears things out of DC District Court.  The Fifth Circuit hears things out of Texas. Louisiana, and Mississippi. And so on and so forth.

A precedent from one regional circuit is not binding on another one, but is influential, at least.  The DC Circuit is highly influential on matters politico-government-constitutional because it hears more of them than any other court.

At times, the various circuits come up with pretty different interpretations and applications of the same law.  If/when that happens, a case raising that law or issue may be prime for review by the Supreme Court, "to resolve a circuit conflict."  It's one of the best reasons for the Supreme Court to take a case.

Because this is in Florida, the 11th Circuit will have to decide it.  They are pretty conservative, but it didn't help Trump in the special master case.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

10 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I think it’s funny that he’s not even bothering to change the tense, so that it might remotely make sense. I’m reasonably sure that at this point he knows who she is.

I think it's entirely possible Dementia Don has completely lost all memory of EJC. That doesn't mean he didn't rape her.

[locodos 5593]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I would also like to appear on this motion as a non-party how do I do that? I am happy to submit a brief provided that the court accepts MS-Paint

That might be the only file format Cannon's court accepts

[YGIFS 19458]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

 

When it comes to E. Jean Carroll and this bill proposal............

There's a "Remainder?  Rejoinder?  I don't even know her!" joke in here somewhere if Brisket has the courage to do what's right.  

[tx 3 putt 78730]

Surly posters : 😲😲😲😲😲

Surly Lawdogs : totally normal

 

 

[Brisketexan 106977]

Abramson is full of shit.  She did not "let third parties into a criminal case."  They are not parties.  They are amici curiae, and yes, those are allowed to brief, and sometimes argue, in ALL KINDS OF CASES, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CASES - there is an actual ABA article on this from a few years ago (as in, pre-dating this case) noting that yes, amici curiae appear in criminal cases, including in trial courts.  And the family relationship of a lawyer to another lawyer is also not something courts take into account absent other circumstances - it's not a conflict of interest, per se.

Not excusing Cannon at all here - I think the fix is in, and I think she'll fuck this up.  But Abramson is flat-out wrong, and it does us all a fucking disservice when dissenting voices are so fucking wrong that I can only conclude they're being purposefully dishonest.

[Underdog 29210]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean....how do you think I boosted my GPA?

Like the rest of us, knee pads and KY jelly… or was that just me? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26897]

1 hour ago, locodos said:

That might be the only file format Cannon's court accepts

Cannon‘s inbox right now 

O

[Brisketexan 106977]

2 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Like the rest of us, knee pads and KY jelly… or was that just me? 

They let you use KY?  Gunner.

[jimmyjazz 47256]

5 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Like the rest of us, knee pads and KY jelly… or was that just me? 

Same time?  Kinky.

[Dahobbs 18348]

33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Abramson is full of shit.  She did not "let third parties into a criminal case."  They are not parties.  They are amici curiae, and yes, those are allowed to brief, and sometimes argue, in ALL KINDS OF CASES, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CASES - there is an actual ABA article on this from a few years ago (as in, pre-dating this case) noting that yes, amici curiae appear in criminal cases, including in trial courts.  And the family relationship of a lawyer to another lawyer is also not something courts take into account absent other circumstances - it's not a conflict of interest, per se.

Not excusing Cannon at all here - I think the fix is in, and I think she'll fuck this up.  But Abramson is flat-out wrong, and it does us all a fucking disservice when dissenting voices are so fucking wrong that I can only conclude they're being purposefully dishonest.

Probably should refer Abramson to many of entities like the ALCU doing the same. 

[TwiceHorn 32092]

34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Abramson is full of shit. 

He usually is.  Quite hysterical, at least.  Definitely in need of pelvic manipulation.

[Gatorubet 30764]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

They are amici curiae, and yes, those are allowed to brief, and sometimes argue, in ALL KINDS OF CASES, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CASES - there is an actual ABA article on this from a few years ago (as in, pre-dating this case) noting that yes, amici curiae appear in criminal cases, including in trial courts. 

 

That sounds Dutch-ish.  Not sure if Dutch, but can we risk it? 

[4th&Five 42017]

[wildcat09 29597]

Seth Abramson is a dogshit source and nobody should be relying on him for anything.