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

[Sawbonz 26871]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

The way we do that in our system is to have a hearing and the judge rules

I think you’ve put the finger on the problem 

[TwiceHorn 30850]

1 hour 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 yesterdays ruling should mean all of these were non official acts, so in theory it shouldn't matter.  

 

57 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 

Yes, some of the checks were signed from the Oval Office and the associated false documentation created after he took office.  None of which can be credibly characterized as official acts, even under Roberts' rubric.

[C-Man 26696]

Sentencing in the hush money felony conviction is postponed until 9/18? Cool, cool.

[Slacks 6712]

9 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sentencing in the hush money felony conviction is postponed until 9/18? Cool, cool.

That's actually a good timeline if you want to see homeboy on paper during the election. 60 days would do it.

[Slacks 6712]

18 hours ago, Pods said:

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

Yet we've gone out, found a needle in an alley, brought it home, gone to the laundry room,  grabbed the Clorox bottle, and poured it right into the ol needle...

And we're thinking about the jab.

But we didn't have to.

Edited July 2 by Slacks

[dcbc 14247]

2 hours 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.

I think it has to do with the fact that he cut one of the checks to reimburse Cohen after he was President.  It's a stupid argument, if that's the argument.  The SCOTUS said "official acts" can't go to prove unofficial acts or some such.  So they'll roll with it to run the clock.

 

I could be wrong.  I've been busy and haven't kept much of an eye on it.

[dcbc 14247]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

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.

You don't see this too much, but I'd pay a shiny nickle to watch proceedings on a motion to have him declared a vexatious litigant.  Yeah, it might not do anything in criminal proceedings.  But surely there are some civil trilas in his future. 

[Biff Tannen 45151]

Motion to change thread title to "nothing matters and we are all fucked"

[Shut up Lou Holtz 1981]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Motion to change thread title to "nothing matters and we are all fucked"

Second the motion 

[dcbc 14247]

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Motion to change thread title to "nothing matters and we are all fucked"

 

12 minutes ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

Second the motion 

There already are three of those threads.

[WhatTheBuck 28613]

2 hours ago, dcbc said:

I think it has to do with the fact that he cut one of the checks to reimburse Cohen after he was President.  It's a stupid argument, if that's the argument.  The SCOTUS said "official acts" can't go to prove unofficial acts or some such.  So they'll roll with it to run the clock.

 

I could be wrong.  I've been busy and haven't kept much of an eye on it.

What about every phone call he made to Cohen (or Weissman or anyone else) while he was president? Couldn’t he claim those were official business so they can’t be used as evidence and the motive for the calls can’t be considered?

[TwiceHorn 30850]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What about every phone call he made to Cohen (or Weissman or anyone else) while he was president? Couldn’t he claim those were official business so they can’t be used as evidence and the motive for the calls can’t be considered?

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

[Captainant 26913]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

[Laughs in alito]

[Bozo_Casanova 25874]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

[tbone_ 13991]

This is the weirdest situation I could have never imagined. I hate this mother fucker and what he’s doing to the country I thought I lived in with ever fiber of my being. But I’m white and already own a house and drive a truck, so I guess I probably stand to benefit from his shit (other than that whole death of democracy thing).

Maybe ole Clayton Williams was right. If rape is inevitable might as well lay back and enjoy it. What a wonderful world. Yay.

[ultimaton 2950]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

[Laughs in alito]

Surly Lawdogs:

[dcbc 14247]

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What about every phone call he made to Cohen (or Weissman or anyone else) while he was president? Couldn’t he claim those were official business so they can’t be used as evidence and the motive for the calls can’t be considered?

Maybe he should have given Cohen a role on his White House staff after all.

[WhatTheBuck 28613]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

But they’ll hear it, right? And that will delay things further. They’ll claim everything they can and it will all get heard. And then if he wins the election he’ll sic the DoJ on everyone prosecuting him along with their spouses and children until he’s let off scot free. Right?

[hobbes2702 12533]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

How does that process play out? Like would it be dependent on the specific content? Would things be subject to privilege?

[Captainant 26913]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

How does that process play out? Like would it be dependent on the specific content? Would things be subject to privilege?

Idk let's have another hearing, ruling, and appeal cycle to get to the bottom of that before we go any further

 

 

...

 

 

What trial?

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1262]

19 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

This is the weirdest situation I could have never imagined. I hate this mother fucker and what he’s doing to the country I thought I lived in with ever fiber of my being. But I’m white and already own a house and drive a truck, so I guess I probably stand to benefit from his shit (other than that whole death of democracy thing).

Maybe ole Clayton Williams was right. If rape is inevitable might as well lay back and enjoy it. What a wonderful world. Yay.

That's like saying the Aryans benefited from Hitler. Nobody will benefit. We will just be eating a little less shit.

[Gatorubet 29663]

7 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I think you’ve put the finger on the problem 

So you advocate ruling on things without a hearing.  Interesting take.  Very efficient though, I’ll admit.

[Sawbonz 26871]

4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

So you advocate ruling on things without a hearing.  Interesting take.  Very efficient though, I’ll admit.

No

[C-Man 26696]

16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

So you advocate ruling on things without a hearing.  Interesting take.  Very efficient though, I’ll admit.

That'll be the new system -- after Trump wins in November.

"Now, what will it be? Death or banishment?"

Edited July 3 by C-Man

[TwiceHorn 30850]

9 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

How does that process play out? Like would it be dependent on the specific content? Would things be subject to privilege?

Trump will make a written motion pointing out evidence of allegedly immune acts that was presented to the jury.  The state will respond by arguing that the acts are not, in fact, official acts or presumptively immune.  The judge will decide if any of the acts were immune and thus improperly presented to the jury.  He would presumably order a new trial if any such acts are found or proven.  Or might have to order a mistrial that's tantamount to an acquittal.  Not sure on that.

And no, none of it is subject to privilege.  It will all be based on testimony and other evidence presented to the jury.

In a lot of ways, this is a narrower, more confined inquiry because the evidence has already been presented, whereas the argument before Chutkan was a tad speculative, based on the words of the indictment alone.

 

Edited July 3 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 30850]

5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

So you advocate ruling on things without a hearing.  Interesting take.  Very efficient though, I’ll admit.

Having spent most of my litigating life in federal trial courts, where hearings on written motions are the exception rather than the rule, as opposed to Texas state courts and others where the written briefing is ignored until a hearing takes place, I much prefer the former. 

Hearings are largely a waste of time.

Appellate courts, where brief hearings are usually in order on written briefs will tell you that oral argument rarely affects the outcome.

[Gatorubet 29663]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Having spent most of my litigating life in federal trial courts, where hearings on written motions are the exception rather than the rule, as opposed to Texas state courts and others where the written briefing is ignored until a hearing takes place, I much prefer the former. 

Hearings are largely a waste of time.

Appellate courts, where brief hearings are usually in order on written briefs will tell you that oral argument rarely affects the outcome.

I was referring to “hearing” in the sense that both parties put forth a position to a court on an issue.  Whether oral argument took place or not was superfluous. 

[Biff Tannen 45151]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Or might have to order a mistrial that's tantamount to an acquittal.

Oh goodie

[troph 24024]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump will make a written motion pointing out evidence of allegedly immune acts that was presented to the jury.  The state will respond by arguing that the acts are not, in fact, official acts or presumptively immune.  The judge will decide if any of the acts were immune and thus improperly presented to the jury.  He would presumably order a new trial if any such acts are found or proven.  Or might have to order a mistrial that's tantamount to an acquittal.  Not sure on that.

And no, none of it is subject to privilege.  It will all be based on testimony and other evidence presented to the jury.

In a lot of ways, this is a narrower, more confined inquiry because the evidence has already been presented, whereas the argument before Chutkan was a tad speculative, based on the words of the indictment alone.

 

This is true except certain evidence of acts taken in an official capacity will be ruled inadmissible to prove the checks written while president were unofficial. 
 

it’s the new evidentiary rules that are the insidious problem not the framework of what is official and what is not. 
 

the intersection of Roberts opinion and Barrett’s concurring opinion highlight the issue.  
 

this should be a slam dunk, of course it’s unofficial conduct but the question is what evidence is admissible to prove it. Some evidence is going to get kicked out potentially making the case hard to prove.  I think after appeals we may end up with a SCOTUS requirement for a new trial if not sooner, though I’d love to see the TC and COA force SCOTUS to twist more logic to get there. 

[Gatorubet 29663]

FWIW

[Fudge Nuggets 18977]

16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

Just like no way SCOTUS is going to grant immunity because no one is above the law.

We might find out one way or another if it's going to fly five years from now.

[Fudge Nuggets 18977]

3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

FWIW

[dcbc 14247]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

as opposed to Texas state courts and others where the written briefing is ignored until a hearing takes place,

Say what?  Texas trial courts consider matters on submission without a hearing all the time.

[dcbc 14247]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Or might have to order a mistrial that's tantamount to an acquittal. 

I'm guessing the only way we get to acquittal on a count is if (1) Merchan decides there evidence used to support a count against amounts to evidence of an "official act" and (2) the fact that such an "official act," if any, cannot be used to support the case for a "guilty" finding on that count, with consideration given to the remaining, supporting evidence, renders the evidence on that count to be legally insufficient (findings of legal insufficiency results in acquittal under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. 

[Gatorubet 29663]

2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I do agree that more people rely on Fudge Nuggets than Andrew Weissmann for legal matters involving the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court. 

[Fudge Nuggets 18977]

11 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I do agree that more people rely on Fudge Nuggets than Andrew Weissmann for legal matters involving the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court. 

They should. Everything espoused by the great legal minds has been shown to be bullshit. 

[C-Man 26696]

Sadly, I've come to the realization that Trump is going to get away with all of this.

ALL. OF. IT.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6513]

11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sadly, I've come to the realization that Trump is going to get away with be rewarded for all of this by becoming the President of the United States again.

ALL. OF. IT.

 I think this is what you meant to say.

[troph 24024]

14 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sadly, I've come to the realization that Trump is going to get away with all of this.

ALL. OF. IT.

My wife was addicted to the drama of his indictments. I've barely paid attention. I said to her, "when they haul him off in handcuffs to prison let me know, until then, meh."

[troph 24024]

2 hours ago, dcbc said:

I'm guessing the only way we get to acquittal on a count is if (1) Merchan decides there evidence used to support a count against amounts to evidence of an "official act" and (2) the fact that such an "official act," if any, cannot be used to support the case for a "guilty" finding on that count, with consideration given to the remaining, supporting evidence, renders the evidence on that count to be legally insufficient (findings of legal insufficiency results in acquittal under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. 

this is a real and considerable risk.

[YGIFS 19445]

He was never going to see the inside of a jail cell.  I think most of us came to terms with that 18 months ago.  But several weeks back, you could visibly see the calendar exhaustion tattoo'd all across him.  He was running ragged.  Between grifting fundraisers, courtroom appearances in multiple venues, rallies, and media appearances...he was starting to look like a bloated bag of shit.  The one thing I thought was clever about this all was the 4 prosecutors aligned their calendars to beat the shit outta the old man.  And it was starting to show, you could even hear it.  I bet you could even smell it, if you're into that kinda thing.  And then what happens, they reshuffle all 4 dockets, spread them out, and he's basically just got the convention, and his grift machine is back on auto-tune.  He's as full of shit as ever, but the whole system just arranged it so he can oranged, rested, and ready for November.  The guy was a half-hour from an ER visit, and all three branches together plus some state/local prosecutors got together and fucked it all up.  

[Gatorubet 29663]

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

They should. Everything espoused by the great legal minds has been shown to be bullshit. 

Great post. It’s just too bad you can’t quote to any specific examples to back you up.

But your sweeping generalities about the literally dozens of issues we’ve talked about in this thread are very helpful to everybody. 

[dcbc 14247]

2 hours ago, troph said:

this is a real and considerable risk.

Good thing there are 34 counts.  I don't think any of it is getting an acquittal, but if I'm wrong, I don't think it knocks more that a couple out (and that might be a stretch).

[TwiceHorn 30850]

11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I was referring to “hearing” in the sense that both parties put forth a position to a court on an issue.  Whether oral argument took place or not was superfluous. 

I know.  As with many of my posts, I'm riffing/elucidating on a point for the peanut gallery.  As I will do again, below.

Almost all attempts at relief (getting something from the court), require a motion, a response to the motion, and a reply to the response (optional, sometimes forbidden).  A hearing on the arguments raised in the motion is a matter of federal/state or local practice.

Sometimes, relatively rarely, a motion will require taking testimony or other evidence that can't just be attached to an affidavit.  Those are "evidentiary" hearings that tend to be relatively uncommon, although some are unavoidable (motion to suppress evidence).

Hearings seem more common in criminal courts than civil.  Maybe it's felt that that extra dollop of due process is required.

[TwiceHorn 30850]

5 hours ago, dcbc said:

I'm guessing the only way we get to acquittal on a count is if (1) Merchan decides there evidence used to support a count against amounts to evidence of an "official act" and (2) the fact that such an "official act," if any, cannot be used to support the case for a "guilty" finding on that count, with consideration given to the remaining, supporting evidence, renders the evidence on that count to be legally insufficient (findings of legal insufficiency results in acquittal under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. 

Ackshually, I'm afraid that if "immune evidence" was introduced on a count or counts, it could taint the verdict and require mistrial/acuittal (same thing at this point) on at least that count, maybe all of them.

That was what Roberts intimated:  that it was completely out of bounds because a jury couldn't be instructed around it, as is commonly done with other bad acts and other evidence.

The biggest load of shit in that entire opinion.  I think I am pretty familiar with immunity doctrines at most levels, and I've never heard of anything like this.

Edited July 4 by TwiceHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 18977]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Great post. It’s just too bad you can’t quote to any specific examples to back you up.

But your sweeping generalities about the literally dozens of issues we’ve talked about in this thread are very helpful to everybody. 

This thread is chock full of legal beagles on Twitter proclaiming the latest news is the lightning bolt that will finally get dotard.  We point out fuck all is going to happen to him, surly legal brain trust swoops in saying we don't know shit.  Nothing happens, surly brain trust throws shade saying "Too bad people don't rely on you for legal analysis." 

Based on how damn wrong y'all have been about everything and how right we have been (i.e. fuck all has happened to dotard) one wonders what a client really gets for the money y'all bill them.

That you can't see this is a you problem, not a me problem.

[dcbc 14247]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This thread is chock full of legal beagles on Twitter proclaiming the latest news is the lightning bolt that will finally get dotard.  We point out fuck all is going to happen to him, surly legal brain trust swoops in saying we don't know shit.  Nothing happens, surly brain trust throws shade saying "Too bad people don't rely on you for legal analysis." 

Based on how damn wrong y'all have been about everything and how right we have been (i.e. fuck all has happened to dotard) one wonders what a client really gets for the money y'all bill them.

That you can't see this is a you problem, not a me problem.

Username checks out.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11729]

We all know the system is rigged.  Rigged!   

[StassneyHorn 6440]

9 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

FWIW

This also means it comes out when early voting in the earliest states starts around 45-50 days out. That’s mid septemberish. Pennsylvania is one of those states that starts then.
 

 

[Gatorubet 29663]

19 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This thread is chock full of legal beagles on Twitter proclaiming the latest news is the lightning bolt that will finally get dotard.  We point out fuck all is going to happen to him, surly legal brain trust swoops in saying we don't know shit.  Nothing happens, surly brain trust throws shade saying "Too bad people don't rely on you for legal analysis." 

Based on how damn wrong y'all have been about everything and how right we have been (i.e. fuck all has happened to dotard) one wonders what a client really gets for the money y'all bill them.

That you can't see this is a you problem, not a me problem.

None of that is accurate. Except maybe the part about where you don’t know shit. That is pretty spot on.   

And it is not throwing shade to comment on your legal analysis. Saying ‘nothing will happen to Trump’ is not really in-depth legal analysis. It’s just you repeating the same thing over and over again.  For example, I think you were one of the posters proclaiming that no jury will ever convict Trump in the last trial.  You will ignore the fact that Trump was in fact convicted, and pivot to point out that he’s not in jail - so you and your goalpost moving brethren can celebrate your perspicacity.  Enjoy. 

I bolded your quote to give you an opportunity to repost old law dog posts where we said anything remotely like what you posted - Since you won’t be be able to find one, let me give you a good response:

”I’m not gonna look that up. Everyone knows you said it.”

You’re welcome. 

Edit: on a re-read, I see that your issue Is also with Twitter legal experts who say ‘lightning bolt’…’trump’s going down ‘ blah blah blah.     

if I understand you, there might be a Twitter post saying Trump will lose his immunity argument in the DC circuit court.  You say, “nothing will happen to him”, and one of us says that the tweet is absolutely right, there is no precedent for immunity and the DC circuit will affirm the trial court.  The DC circuit court rules exactly like we said.   Then the corrupt Scotus grants the writ and issues an unprecedented shit- tastic horrible decision helping Trump.

You say, “See….we told you!”

I can see your problem.  It’s reading comprehension. 

Edited July 4 by Gatorubet