Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[dcbc 14247]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think someone upthread mentioned how hard it can be to deal with pro se litigants. 

Every lawyer in the thread: /raises hand

[dcbc 14247]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

All of the above is something of a generality.  But the broad strokes apply in general terms of thinking about things.

I was an English major, and not a hyper-technical one (although I've become a bit more comfortable with grammar - /checks post for grammar mistakes; probably made a lot).  But outside of the mundane, I'm writing for rhythm.  But yes, I get that my post was more about the process of communicating the thought-process than about the substance of the thought process.

[dcbc 14247]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But his lawyers horseshit is considerably more grounded in some form of reality than Trump's.

It's extremely relative to Trump's grip on reality.

 

I mean, take his money, I guess, in theory.  But I'm of the school of there's some money you don't need to make.  Representing Trump is a line you don't cross twice.  The fact that their legal arguments are more grounded than his vile spewings, while true, is still in that grey-if-I'm-being-generous area that I wouldn't go under threat. 

[Bozo_Casanova 25874]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Point of order:  not all engineers are black or white

Very racial 

[jimmyjazz 45192]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Very racial 

Spot on, though.

[TwiceHorn 30850]

12 minutes ago, dcbc said:

It's extremely relative to Trump's grip on reality.

 

I mean, take his money, I guess, in theory.  But I'm of the school of there's some money you don't need to make.  Representing Trump is a line you don't cross twice.  The fact that their legal arguments are more grounded than his vile spewings, while true, is still in that grey-if-I'm-being-generous area that I wouldn't go under threat. 

Oh completely agree.  I detest problem clients, of which Trump is exhibit A1.  And I would have a very difficult time making some of the arguments Trumpco lawyers make with a straight face.  But that also applies to a lot of criminal defense lawyers.

[C-Man 26696]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh completely agree.  I detest problem clients, of which Trump is exhibit A1.  And I would have a very difficult time making some of the arguments Trumpco lawyers make with a straight face.  But that also applies to a lot of criminal defense lawyers.

Things you do if he -- or some PAC connected to him -- is going to pay you $3M or so to represent him for a couple of months. Just know that it's a one-and-done situation and 50% of this country will never work with you again if they learn you had anything to do with that gigantic tub of shit.

[BamaATL 16209]

48 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Things you do if he -- or some PAC connected to him -- is going to pay you $3M or so to represent him for a couple of months. Just know that it's a one-and-done situation and 50% of this country will never work with you again if they learn you had anything to do with that gigantic tub of shit.

You ever watch the ID channel?  Many people will kill a loved one for less than $3 million.  

[dcbc 14247]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh completely agree.  I detest problem clients, of which Trump is exhibit A1.  And I would have a very difficult time making some of the arguments Trumpco lawyers make with a straight face.  But that also applies to a lot of criminal defense lawyers.

[TwiceHorn 30850]

Well, goddammit.  If there was the slightest deviation from the holding of the DC Circuit, there was going to be a remand, further proceedings, and likely further appeals.  And I was virtually certain that there would be deviation, although I was hoping we could avoid the remand and further proceedings.

I like that Chutkan gets it on remand.

The irony of the decision, which in the moment seems bad, is that not granting a president immunity for conclusively constitutional actions (murderous drone strikes as CinC for example), leaves prosecution for presidential acts up to the good faith of prosecutors not to bring bullshit charges, as against Biden for homicide for Afghanistan, as an example.  And it is Trump himself that has demonstrated that good faith cannot be presumed or assumed going forward.

Fucking VOTE.  And grab your do-nothing neighbors and drag their asses to the polls.

[dcbc 14247]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fucking VOTE.  And grab your do-nothing neighbors and drag their asses to the polls.

QFT

[B00M 6032]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fucking VOTE.  And grab your do-nothing neighbors and drag their asses to the polls.

It’s mind blowing to me how few people I’m running into that see Trump for what he actually is. So many are like, “I can’t vote for either of these guys! Biden is so old!”

Fuuuuuuck that! Actual republicans should vote Biden and then non-MAGA repubs down-ballot. 

[YGIFS 19445]

10 minutes ago, B00M said:

It’s mind blowing to me how few people I’m running into that see Trump for what he actually is. So many are like, “I can’t vote for either of these guys! Biden is so old!”

Fuuuuuuck that! Actual republicans should vote Biden and then non-MAGA repubs down-ballot. 

 

[troph 24024]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, goddammit.  If there was the slightest deviation from the holding of the DC Circuit, there was going to be a remand, further proceedings, and likely further appeals.  And I was virtually certain that there would be deviation, although I was hoping we could avoid the remand and further proceedings.

I like that Chutkan gets it on remand.

The irony of the decision, which in the moment seems bad, is that not granting a president immunity for conclusively constitutional actions (murderous drone strikes as CinC for example), leaves prosecution for presidential acts up to the good faith of prosecutors not to bring bullshit charges, as against Biden for homicide for Afghanistan, as an example.  And it is Trump himself that has demonstrated that good faith cannot be presumed or assumed going forward.

Fucking VOTE.  And grab your do-nothing neighbors and drag their asses to the polls.

 Not to cross post but in case some aren’t on the supremes thread, the holding isn’t benign like that. It actually allows a path to complete immunity for the abuse of power and obstruction of justice because official acts due to the statements that illegality of the act and POTUS motivations are not relevant to the determination of official or unofficial. So provided POTUS is exercising executive power, this ruling  effectively provided unqualified immunity. It shouldn’t but it does. 
 

so yes, VOTE.

[Slacks 6712]

Unfortunately, voting only delays the inevitable.The die has been cast. We have a dictatorship now. 

The laws exist, but the President is immune from prosecution. 

Chickens roosting. Thanks, Obama.

[Pods 7498]

7 minutes ago, Slacks said:

Unfortunately, voting only delays the inevitable.The die has been cast. We have a dictatorship now. 

The laws exist, but the President is immune from prosecution. 

Chickens roosting. Thanks, Obama.

From the moment we are born, everything just delays the inevitable, but we don't have to inject bleach into our veins just yet. 

Edited July 2 by Pods

[dcbc 14247]

9 hours ago, troph said:

 Not to cross post but in case some aren’t on the supremes thread, the holding isn’t benign like that. It actually allows a path to complete immunity for the abuse of power and obstruction of justice because official acts due to the statements that illegality of the act and POTUS motivations are not relevant to the determination of official or unofficial. So provided POTUS is exercising executive power, this ruling  effectively provided unqualified immunity. It shouldn’t but it does. 
 

so yes, VOTE.

That's probably the most messed up part (which says a lot).  Is cutting a hush-money check to a porn start exercising executive power because he was sitting in the Oval Office?  Seems like a really dumb question to me, but what the hell do I know?

[Red Five 40355]

27 minutes ago, dcbc said:

That's probably the most messed up part (which says a lot).  Is cutting a hush-money check to a porn start exercising executive power because he was sitting in the Oval Office?  Seems like a really dumb question to me, but what the hell do I know?

I don't think it matters where he was sitting, if he was signing personal checks to pay off an an affair he had with a porn star. 

Well, it shouldn't matter anyway. But who knows.

[TwiceHorn 30850]

1 hour ago, dcbc said:

That's probably the most messed up part (which says a lot).  Is cutting a hush-money check to a porn start exercising executive power because he was sitting in the Oval Office?  Seems like a really dumb question to me, but what the hell do I know?

Even under the ruling, I don't see how this is immune.  Cutting checks to a private citizen is not an official act or anywhere near an official act.  When the obligation for which the checks are cut in satisfaction of that obligation arose prior to taking office, no fucking way.

[troph 24024]

I agree I think the current felonies should be upheld. I also think there is a chance some of the remaining indictments will survive, but the damage is done, weaponizing the DOJ has been ruled as subject to absolute immunity.

[wildcat09 28539]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Even under the ruling, I don't see how this is immune.  Cutting checks to a private citizen is not an official act or anywhere near an official act.  When the obligation for which the checks are cut in satisfaction of that obligation arose prior to taking office, no fucking way.

Two days ago you probably thought there was no way they'd essentially rule that all of the facts of the Georgia case were official acts. You lack imagination. 

[Dutchrudder 11056]

Manhattan Prosecutors Agree to Delay Trump’s Sentencing 🙄

Quote

Donald J. Trump’s lawyers want to argue that a Supreme Court decision giving presidents immunity for official acts should void his felony conviction for covering up hush money paid to a porn star.

Manhattan prosecutors on Tuesday agreed with Donald J. Trump’s request to postpone his criminal sentencing so that the judge overseeing the case could weigh whether a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling might imperil his conviction, new court filings show.

It is up to the judge to determine whether to postpone the sentencing, though with both sides in agreement, it seems likely he would do so.

Mr. Trump, who was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to his cover-up of a sex scandal during his 2016 presidential campaign, was scheduled to be sentenced on July 11. He faces up to four years in prison, though he could receive as little as a few weeks in jail, or probation.

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted Mr. Trump broad immunity from prosecution for official actions taken as president, dealing a major setback to his federal criminal case in Washington, where he is accused of plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss.

Although the Manhattan case does not center on Mr. Trump’s presidency or official acts — but rather personal activity during his campaign — his lawyers argued on Monday that prosecutors had built their case partly on evidence from his time in the White House. And under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, prosecutors not only cannot charge a president for any official acts, but also cannot cite evidence involving official acts to bolster other accusations.

In a letter to the judge who presided over the trial, Juan M. Merchan, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that the conviction should be set aside. They also asked Justice Merchan to postpone the sentencing while he considered their request.

In response to the letter from Mr. Trump’s lawyers, the district attorney’s office wrote that prosecutors did not oppose Mr. Trump’s request to delay the sentencing.

“Although we believe defendant’s arguments to be without merit, we do not oppose his request for leave to file and his putative request to adjourn sentencing pending determination of his motion,” wrote Joshua Steinglass, one of the assistant district attorneys who tried the case against the former president.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers proposed filing their court papers on July 10, and the district attorney’s office said it would respond two weeks later.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/02/nyregion/trump-sentencing-hush-money-trial.html

[mdmost 42459]

Going to be real awkward when he has to leave the Oval Office to serve time in a New York state prison next year. Oh who am I kidding, he'll just refuse to go now that the President can do anything he pleases. 

Edited July 2 by mdmost

[4th&Five 41184]

there will never be any consequences for this bag of shit.  we just need him to die.

[dcbc 14247]

I don't think it matters where he was sitting, if he was signing personal checks to pay off an an affair he had with a porn star. 
Well, it shouldn't matter anyway. But who knows.

I agree . . . in theory. But if anything that comes out of his mouth while giving a speech (as President) is an official act, the pucker factor for me is high to quite high.

[immamac 41718]

41 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

there will never be any consequences for this bag of shit.  we just need him to die.

Fuck it. Send him to prison. Expedite the appeal on the docket not the actual process. Let's see the supreme Court fuck us out of that one. 

[Gatorubet 29665]

One of my oldest friends from high school and college notified me that his war bride mother finally passed away in her 90s.   I stayed with him for three days and had a chance to chat with his son who drove in from Texas. He is an Aggy engineer by education.   He is also a big Trump fan.  (“Trump’s awesome”)  Because of the circumstances, I did not want to get into an ugly political battle with his kid, but after him making snarky comments one night at dinner about Biden, I asked him if he was really gonna vote for a sexual predator who’s convicted of that and found to have defrauded students children’s charities, stiffed people who provided him services for decades, stole classified docs and who admits that he can grope people with impunity?
I was told he is “pure MAGA and those witch hunts are BS”
I then said enjoy your 2024 election because that’s the last election you’ll participate in, as Trump will not step down as president.    He informed me that Trump will be elected in 2028 and maybe even again after.   I asked him what the hell he was talking about; He can’t serve more than two terms.  This Aggy replied that Trump would just have the law changed.     I told him he can’t change the law absent Constitutional amendment because it’s a Constitutional requirement, so good luck with that. He pushed back and told me I was wrong.  I asked him what con law class at what law school did he attend?  To which he replied, “none of that is in the Constitution… we will kick the liberals out and Congress will change it”.    Even his conservative evangelical father asked him, “Did you not read the amendments to the Constitution when your mom taught you civics class?  Are you telling me you did not know that this change happened to prevent multiple terms down the road so no FDR type dynasty?”
He said, “I don’t think that’s right”
So there is the modern world in a nutshell. An ostensibly college educated engineer making his uninformed voting opinions without the benefit of even a high school civics education, and strongly doubling down on his ignorance when pushed on the point that he is obviously wrong. 
‘Murica!
He also informed me that crime was so rife in California that you can steal anything you want from stores and law enforcement will not bother to charge you with anything.   I told him, “ I know your father never lived in California after you were born - so where did you come up with this chestnut. My brother lives in California and he never mentioned that small thing - a whole state, ignoring criminal laws for stealing.”
He told me that he read where the immigrants were stealing so much. They just didn’t bother with the criminal laws anymore.
Broken brain homeschooled evangelicals watching Newsmax are now fully in the Trump cult - and there is nothing you can say or do to get them out of it. 
And this will shock you, but despite having a decent job he is driving a beater car, is way obese for a young man, and to his father’s knowledge has not had a girlfriend within recent memory.  I am a verbose MF, but conversations with him are usually him talking for 20 minute segments without allowing interruption while he pontificates on mostly untrue things.   There is nothing a woman wants more than to be lectured by a scruffy fat guy who is wrong - but acts like he knows everything and does not want to hear her opinion. 
IOW, “Incels for Trump!”

[Captainant 26913]

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

IOW, “Incels for Trump!”

GamerGate was literally stirred up and aimed like a weapon by steve bannon. It was his trial run for ramping up the incel outrage machine

[elfenix 34109]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

despite having a decent job he is driving a beater car

Every month I drive this thing I save $800

[TexEx15 17253]

JFC

[Gatorubet 29665]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Every month I drive this thing I save $800

He is missing side mirrors….

Plus, you may not need a nice car to get a date.  This kid needs a Lamborghini. 

[Captainant 26913]

5 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

JFC

Hey can I get another surly lawyer coming off the top rope to tell me that trump isn't gonna escape facing consequences yet again?

[Mo Horn 8716]

8 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

JFC

I haz confused. How does the SCOTUS ruling apply? He wasn't president when he committed the crime, and it has nothing to do with official presidential acts. 

[miguelito 11108]

True, but it takes several months to determine that. Oh, plus more for appeals.

['stache 21564]

3 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I haz confused. How does the SCOTUS ruling apply? He wasn't president when he committed the crime, and it has nothing to do with official presidential acts. 

It doesn't apply, but parties get to argue for and against, hence delay, which is part and parcel of what the SCOTUS politicos wanted.

[Mo Horn 8716]

1 minute ago, miguelito said:

True, but it takes several months to determine that. Oh, plus more for appeals.

How does it take several months to determine when it happened? Gawd, I'm so ready to be done with this simulation. 

[hobbes2702 12533]

13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Hey can I get another surly lawyer coming off the top rope to tell me that trump isn't gonna escape facing consequences yet again?

I’m not a lawyer but that seems really stupid. The New York case has nothing to do with the Supreme Court decision.

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It doesn't apply, but parties get to argue for and against, hence delay, which is part and parcel of what the SCOTUS politicos wanted.

Argue what? 

[Red Five 40355]

4 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

How does it take several months to determine when it happened? Gawd, I'm so ready to be done with this simulation. 

I have honestly wondered if at some point something malfunctioned in the simulation (this may or may not have been after a gummy) because everything is broken. Like, dropping smart phones into the simulation broke it.

[Gatorubet 29665]

3 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

How does it take several months to determine when it happened? Gawd, I'm so ready to be done with this simulation. 

I filed my hurricane Ida lawsuit against my homeowners insurance last August.   The federal court just informed us that mandatory mediation will take place in September. That is a year by any count boys and girls.  

Everyone needs to realize that courts have very pressing, crowded dockets, and that after your case has settled or a judgment has been rendered, the judges don’t sit around and do nothing but wait for all of the appellate issues in that case to be resolved.   Of necessity they go on to the next case. If they are trying other cases, they are not working on remand issues on your earlier case. They are working on your case again when they have time to do it. 

In the Parish I practice in most often the average length from filing to resolution of a civil case is three years.  I know that this is upsetting to everybody, but none of the time frames involved are particularly egregious when you consider all the factors.    

We all have a vested interest in seeing Trump convicted and sentenced as soon as possible because that is what we want to help in the election.  The court system is not supposed to be designed for a court to weigh-in quicker on issues that one side likes versus the other side.   SCOTUS is fucking us with no reach around.   Try gummies.  All i got. 

 

[Gatorubet 29665]

31 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Hey can I get another surly lawyer coming off the top rope to tell me that trump isn't gonna escape facing consequences yet again?

There is no reason to comment to you because you have it all figured out an advance. 

To the rest of you, the little “ if required” language is nothing more than the judge making a display that he is fair and will consider the immunity argument thoroughly.    As SCOTUS requires. Think of it as a lizard with a throat pouch inflated with a tattoo saying “MAGA- I will be fair”…… even as he writes a Magnum opus factual finding document that leaves very little doubt that Trump should have no immunity.

But before the judge goes on that quest he has to appear that he is taking immunity seriously.  All of your arguments about why immunity should not apply are valid and will be considered by the judge who will issue a ruling essentially agreeing with you. 

And then that will be appealed.  

Edited July 2 by Gatorubet

[Mo Horn 8716]

Obviously I'm not a lawyer. Our son is, so he gets it. To me the judge has the parties come on sentencing day and asks, was he president when this crime occurred? No? Then the SCOTUS ruling doesn't apply, here's your sentence. Yea I know our doesn't work that way. 

[Captainant 26913]

39 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

But before the judge goes on that quest he has to appear that he is taking immunity seriously.  All of your arguments about why immunity should not apply are valid and will be considered by the judge who will issue a ruling essentially agreeing with you. 

And then that will be appealed

You keep touting this as if it's a feature and not a bug. Trumpco is effectively DDOSing the justice system with his specious filings, and then worst of all he gets validation from the Imperial Court for his gaslit arguments on how his attempt to subvert the election is an official act. 

Or at least, we have to hear his horseshit argument and make a ruling on that before doing ANYTHING else, and he has a free hand to continue grabbing lady liberty by the pussy. 

He is an agent of malice that seeks to weaponize every mechanism extended to him, and you're too busy telling me about the features to realize that trump has everything he needs to delay any more trials indefinitely 

[Dahobbs 17227]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You keep touting this as if it's a feature and not a bug. Trumpco is effectively DDOSing the justice system with his specious filings, and then worst of all he gets validation from the Imperial Court for his gaslit arguments on how his attempt to subvert the election is an official act. 

Or at least, we have to hear his horseshit argument and make a ruling on that before doing ANYTHING else, and he has a free hand to continue grabbing lady liberty by the pussy. 

He is an agent of malice that seeks to weaponize every mechanism extended to him, and you're too busy telling me about the features to realize that trump has everything he needs to delay any more trials indefinitely 

You keep talking to the lawyers like we don't understand what is happening and that you alone are the master of this information. We've told you the system isn't designed to handle someone like Trump. It isn't designed to solve political problems. Sorry. Despite your best wishes, it isn't our fault the system isn't perfect. It isn't our fault that Trump is dick. It isn't our fault that the political process allowed the appointment of shit judges to SCOTUS. If you have a solution, go implement it. If you can't, well, fuck, neither can I. Neither can @TwiceHorn. Neither can @Gatorubet. So you're just as much to blame as the rest of us. 

[Gatorubet 29665]

1 hour ago, hobbes2702 said:

Argue what? 

i’m gonna go out on a limb here and say they will argue the immunity issue that the Supreme Court told them to argue. 

I am sitting here working on an opposition to a motion to strike jury and one of my cases.  The reason that defendant wants to do that is because this particular venue is a very, very well-known plaintiff friendly place.   The kind of place you want your tractor trailer accident to be when a jury hears it.   

I think the D’s argument will lose for several reasons, the least of which being in a joint pretrial conference the defendant agreed that we should have a jury trial.  But like making sausage, the legislature has crafted a really crappy worded civil procedure article on how to demand and keep a jury that has some wiggle room to support the motion they filed. 

If Captainant was reading about this case in the news he would be appalled that a defendant could file a motion that wasn’t 100% clear you would win, and would be incensed that a defense attorney is trying to do something to help her client that is not a 100% slam dunk.  And he would be wrong, as there is a chance the defendant will win the motion, slim tho that may be.  

And, as it makes sense not to have a jury trial when it is improper, and it also makes sense not to have a judge trial when the plaintiff should have a right to a jury, one side will probably take a writ after the trial court decides which one of us the court thinks is correct.   I have researched the heck out of this and there is no on-point case in this factual scenario. This will also make Captainant’s head explode, as he does not want defendants to file things he does not like that seemed like a waste of time to him, and he does not like the court system to take time on writs and appeals when he wants an immediate answer - one that goes the way he wants it to go

I very much enjoy Captainant as a poster generally, but when it comes to all things legal, he becomes the world’s greatest Legal Karen - demanding to see the Manager of Court delays and Appeals.  

I do not think the bullshit immunity defense will work here. I do not think the bullshit motion to strike my jury will work here.  But parties have an absolute right to file the pleadings they want to gain any advantage they want so long as it is not sanctionable. If that means you have an unfriendly judge who is nearing retirement - and by filing some speculative/creative but non-frivolous motions you can succeed in delaying proceedings until a better judge for your client takes the bench, it is literally malpractice not to do that.     

Trump’s lawyers do not owe duty to captainant to roll over and say, “please convict Trump”.  That is another way of saying that Trump’s lawyers can do the same thing that the lawyers in my case are doing, so long as the motion is not totally specious and frivolous.  The mere fact that this legal issue in trumps case has never before been litigated makes it very difficult to prevent them from making the argument, thereby requiring courts to take time to consider it. 

I have no answer for your unhappiness with this reality. 

[hobbes2702 12533]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

i’m gonna go out on a limb here and say they will argue the immunity issue that the Supreme Court told them to argue. 

I am sitting here working on an opposition to a motion to strike jury and one of my cases.  The reason that defendant wants to do that is because this particular venue is a very, very well-known plaintiff friendly place.   The kind of place you want your tractor trailer accident to be when a jury hears it.   

I think the D’s argument will lose for several reasons, the least of which being in a joint pretrial conference the defendant agreed that we should have a jury trial.  But like making sausage, the legislature has crafted a really crappy worded civil procedure article on how to demand and keep a jury that has some wiggle room to support the motion they filed. 

If Captainant was reading about this case in the news he would be appalled that a defendant could file a motion that wasn’t 100% clear you would win, and would be incensed that a defense attorney is trying to do something to help her client that is not a 100% slam dunk.  And he would be wrong, as there is a chance the defendant will win the motion, slim tho that may be.  

And, as it makes sense not to have a jury trial when it is improper, and it also makes sense not to have a judge trial when the plaintiff should have a right to a jury, one side will probably take a writ after the trial court decides which one of us the court thinks is correct.   I have researched the heck out of this and there is no on-point case in this factual scenario. This will also make Captainant’s head explode, as he does not want defendants to file things he does not like that seemed like a waste of time to him, and he does not like the court system to take time on writs and appeals when he wants an immediate answer - one that goes the way he wants it to go

I very much enjoy Captainant as a poster generally, but when it comes to all things legal, he becomes the world’s greatest Legal Karen - demanding to see the Manager of Court delays and Appeals.  

I do not think the bullshit immunity defense will work here. I do not think the bullshit motion to strike my jury will work here.  But parties have an absolute right to file the pleadings they want to gain any advantage they want so long as it is not sanctionable. If that means you have an unfriendly judge who is nearing retirement - and by filing some speculative/creative but non-frivolous motions you can succeed in delaying proceedings until a better judge for your client takes the bench, it is literally malpractice not to do that.     

Trump’s lawyers do not owe duty to captainant to roll over and say, “please convict Trump”.  That is another way of saying that Trump’s lawyers can do the same thing that the lawyers in my case are doing, so long as the motion is not totally specious and frivolous.  The mere fact that this legal issue in trumps case has never before been litigated makes it very difficult to prevent them from making the argument, thereby requiring courts to take time to consider it. 

I have no answer for your unhappiness with this reality. 

What immunity? Thats my point. This crime occurred before he was president. I’m not being argumentative just not really sure what the argument would even be.

[BamaATL 16209]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

What immunity? Thats my point. This crime occurred before he was president. I’m not being argumentative just not really sure what the argument would even be.

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't at least part of the crimes take place after he was President.  At least some of the actual payoffs and ledger entries occurred post election and post inauguration.  Mind you, I don't agree with any of it being tossed out, but if you boil it down to the simplicity of was he President vs was he not President at the time of the actual crimes, at least some of it occurred while he was in office.  My understanding of yesterdays ruling should mean all of these were non official acts, so in theory it shouldn't matter.  

[hobbes2702 12533]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't at least part of the crimes take place after he was President.  At least some of the actual payoffs and ledger entries occurred post election and post inauguration.  Mind you, I don't agree with any of it being tossed out, but if you boil it down to the simplicity of was he President vs was he not President at the time of the actual crimes, at least some of it occurred while he was in office.  My understanding of yesterday’s ruling should mean all of these were non official acts, so in theory it shouldn't matter.  
 

I’m not actually sure tbh. Thats what I’m asking. I thought I saw that the Trumps were arguing that because the prosecution used official statements in their case that was a problem? 
Im not a lawyer so I’m just trying to understand 

[B00M 6032]

8 hours ago, Red Five said:

I don't think it matters where he was sitting, if he was signing personal checks to pay off an an affair he had with a porn star. 

Well, it shouldn't matter anyway. But who knows.

“You have the morals of an alley cat, you had sex with a porn star while your wife was pregnant”

”I didnt have sex with a porn star”

[Captainant 26913]

22 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I’m not actually sure tbh. Thats what I’m asking. I thought I saw that the Trumps were arguing that because the prosecution used official statements in their case that was a problem? 
Im not a lawyer so I’m just trying to understand 

Official statements can't be made while you're campaigning. The Hatch Act exists, even if it was shredded during the trump admin. 

I'm just so fucking exhausted of trump's lawyers proposing something that's completely absurd and farcical on its face, and then all the kings horses and all the kings men twisting themselves into knots just to argue every little specious fecal filing down to get the right ruling. It's a scenario where trumpco only needs to succeed once or twice, and apparently attempting to overrule a democratically appointed slate of electors is actually a presidential duty.

Or at least it's so fucking unclear that we need to pause everything to argue about it for a few more months. What a goddamn clown fiesta. 

[Gatorubet 29665]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Or at least it's so fucking unclear that we need to pause everything to argue about it for a few more months. What a goddamn clown fiesta. 

I am honestly not trying to be snarky here, but absent some form of Minority Report pre-cog mutants telling us in advance what the proper ruling is, who in your system of litigation determines what is clear or unclear?

The way we do that in our system is to have a hearing and the judge rules. My very serious question is how does your system deal with the procedural aspect of one side wanting to bring up an issue that the other side thinks is stupid?  Who/how is it determined in advance what issues a party can bring up in your legal system?    Because that seems to be your main complaint, and the one thing you blame all the lawyers about the most.

I will hang up and listen to your solution.