Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

So, one interesting thing about the gag order.  Chutkan lifted her stay of it right about the time Trump made the Barr tweet, which could be construed as violating it.

If the stay hadn't been lifted, then the order couldn't have been violated.  

Also, now the fight over staying the gag order moves to the DC Circuit, where there will be basically two issues under consideration:  a) how likely is the gag order to be affirmed or upheld, and b) is the harm resulting from it so grave as to merit being stayed pending the appeal.  So, the DC Circuit ruling on the stay may be a good preview of the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm admittedly no law dog but why is a gag order lifted at all in this case. It's made and he's not supposed to be discussing Endogoron (sp?)'s staff or making statements about potential witnesses. Why isn't just left in place until the trial concludes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I'm admittedly no law dog but why is a gag order lifted at all in this case. It's made and he's not supposed to be discussing Endogoron (sp?)'s staff or making statements about potential witnesses. Why isn't just left in place until the trial concludes?

 

Sometimes orders are stayed pending appeal.  Ordinarily, I presume, the appellate court issues such a stay order.  In this case, the trial court apparently stayed its own order and, therefore, was able to lift the stay.  I found that scenario to be a bit unusual, but I'm not a fed-type lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

Sometimes orders are stayed pending appeal.  Ordinarily, I presume, the appellate court issues such a stay order.  In this case, the trial court apparently stayed its own order and, therefore, was able to lift the stay.  I found that scenario to be a bit unusual, but I'm not a fed-type lawyer.

Yeah and we need to remember that there are two:  one in NY Superior Court by Engoron forbidding statements about court staff, but not about Engoron or others.  Trump has now been tagged on that one twice.  It has not been stayed and any appeal status is unclear.  It's probably so narrow as to be pretty unassailable.

The other is Chutkan's in DC, which is broader.  Under the Federal Rules, you have to first ask the trial court to stay an order in the nature of an injunction (which is what a gag order is), before you can ask the court of appeals to stay it.  It's a bit bizarre, because why would a trial court stay an order it just saw fit to grant, but there it is.

Nevertheless, Chutkan did stay her gag order while they briefed the issue of the stay and, as soon as briefing was complete, or maybe before Trumpco replied (usual order of briefing is motion, followed by response, followed by reply, but replies are usually optional and may not be considered), Chutkan lifted the stay and denied the motion for a more formal stay.

Now it's teed up for the DC Circuit for a stay pending appeal.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Walser said:

All I know is I woke up the morning after the election and literally laughed in my truck that we managed to elect Trump. That's when I knew the sim didn't care about appearances any more.

Not trying to shame a perfectly nice looking duck, but you sleep in a truck?

#drsuess

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sidney Powell backtracking on guilty plea?
 

She saw that interview where some woman said she shouldn't have pled out and thought "Yeah, what she said!"  

Once the Kraken has awakened it's hard to keep it under control.  Powell looks like a Kraken might be inside her skin suit.  Or a bunch of cockroaches.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sidney Powell backtracking on guilty plea?
 

Haven't been able to find anything stating the terms of her probation/deferred arrangement.  It is possible this kind of crap violates it, but unsure.

Other than that, the only real possibility here is that the judge or Willis hauls her back in to question the voluntariness of her plea.  Legally speaking, she's probably stuck with what she said in open court under oath:  that is that she's guilty of the offense pled to and the fact are as she stated under oath.  But it is conceivable that if she's noisy enough the plea is revoked as coerced or involuntary.

It's certainly not uncommon for pleading defendants to continue to protest their innocence, but most of the time they lack the platform to do it so publicly and nothing comes of it:  guilty as charged.

Obviously, she's still running the grift and maybe setting herself up to try to avoid disbarment or suspension on the ground that her plea wasn't voluntary, which probably won't work.  As outlined above, the only thing the bar has to prove is her conviction, and her only wiggle room is that this isn't the kind of offense for which automatic or "compulsory" disbarment is the remedy.  And that ain't gonna work.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I would think a defendant could backtrack on a plea if they asserted they weren't in the right frame of mind at the time (or were being coerced, etc., as already said).

I wouldn't think it would go over real well with the judge.  Oh well.

Well, there is a legit possibility of recanting a plea, yes.  But, I think you'd have to offer some real evidence of either impairment at the time of the plea. or what lawdogs call a "mistake of fact," which is an underlying fact about something material that the defendant is mistaken about and the prosecution knows they are mistaken about.  Would be a tall order, usually.

So, given that context, Powell's bleating probably does not provide grounds for revoking the plea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RomaVicta said:

If she were a black man, she'd already be in the slammer. Some of this is the usual pussy-footing with affluent white defendents. I think there is reluctance humiliate persons of Trump and Powell's stature. That hesitation doesn't exist for others. 

It must come down to the visual pictures they have in their heads. It's easy to imagine a black man in jail. It's tragic to imagine Powell deprived of her wardrobe and subject to the commands of prison guards.

We need to get over that. Powell and other traitors are dangers to the country. Trump, of course, is the worst. They need to be in cells.

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Foosters said:

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

There are plenty of biases in the justice system, but they tend to be more subtle and subjective than post-plea treatment.

As a general proposition, a plea leads to a sentence, which may just be straight up imprisonment, or some form of probation, or a mixture.

If there's a violation of any probationary part, that leads to the consequences of violating probation, usually imprisonment, but has no effect on the plea.

ETA:  obviously not trying to tell Foosters anything, but elaborating on the point.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

If I'm using plurality wrong, which I'm still not convinced that I am, thanks for calling it out. I still think I'm supported by common usage. I see in the definition that the word is inappropriate outside of an election where the winner has the plurality. The first definition pulls the meaning to a slightly more general meaning, but you're techinically correct.

If it turns out I'm using if fine, I use it to connote a large portion less than half in the context of the body of voters, I do appreciate the discussion. I'm sure everybody else is rapt as well.

The problem is that Trump won the Electoral College in 2016.  He did not win a plurality of the popular vote.  Hillary Clinton did.

2016 Election Results Popular Vote Pie Chart

 

In 2020 Joe Biden won an outright majority in the popular vote.

So:

2016 Trump won EC Majority and Clinton won Popular vote plurality

2020 Biden won both EC and PV majority

Trump never won a plurality of anything unless you're talking about the Republican primary

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

I've often thought the percentage of EC votes was a curiously overlooked statistic.  Obviously it means nothing in the Constitutional sense.  But it's been a curious tracking device for quite awhile now. 

s.  

 

0a64e1ee-11a0-4123-92cc-4def8972ed59_tex

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

Ken Paxton has been under indictment since 2015.  Explain that, smart guy.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Native Horn said:

Not trying to shame a perfectly nice looking duck, but you sleep in a truck?

#drsuess

I know I shouldn't post drunk, especially in my truck. But here we are.

Edited by Walser
No
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

image.png.91043f16376e9efad980ce1dfe57e7ce.png

image.png.7256802f47acc7ba0fa6397c3edb90d3.png

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

image.png.4f58d1dfc28b73ad2b042b6182c43fb4.png

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

image.png.91043f16376e9efad980ce1dfe57e7ce.png

image.png.7256802f47acc7ba0fa6397c3edb90d3.png

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

image.png.4f58d1dfc28b73ad2b042b6182c43fb4.png

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

My statement was not a sweeping defense of the fairness found in the criminal justice system, nor was it to mean that Black men receive equal treatment under the law. 

My statement was in response to your post about Powell's public statements that she was coerced into a plea, but I had been seeing similar positions by other posters that this type of conduct would lead similarly situated defendants straight to the slammer.

In my experience, that is not the case. Defendants yelling at judges. Calling them "motherfuckers," "bitches," "spics" etc. I have seen defendants with social media accounts posting daily trial updates accusing judges and DAs of all sorts of illegal and untechnical behavior. DAs will bring this up to the courts, and it rarely results in more than a stern verbal admonition. I have seen protective orders, stay away orders, and other judicial orders ignored or marginally complied with. I could go downstairs this afternoon and probably see each of these in real time. They happen all the time, and they rarely, if ever, lead to someone getting locked up, unless the prosecutors file additional charges based on that conduct. 

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^
Good points and my limited experience in the law can confirm.  I think a curious issue here though is this is somebody making veiled threats who used to be able to follow through with them with far more power than anyone else, and may be in a position to do it again.  But in the interim, they can call upon an army of millions to do their bidding with nothing more than a few dog whistle phrases online or at a rally.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

^
Good points and my limited experience in the law can confirm.  I think a curious issue here though is this is somebody making veiled threats who used to be able to follow through with them with far more power than anyone else, and may be in a position to do it again.  But in the interim, they can call upon an army of millions to do their bidding with nothing more than a few dog whistle phrases online or at a rally.  

 

I will agree that the defendant's influence and reach make this a far more compelling argument. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's weird. I saw that the case intended to make Trump the last witness, but now it's going to be Ivanka?

take everything Bill Palmer says with a grain of salt, but this is his take/guess:

Quote

if Donald Trump was planning to just wait to see how Ivanka addressed certain matters and then parrot those same answers himself, now he won’t be able to do that. Donald will have to commit himself to certain answers under oath, without knowing what Ivanka will then say during her testimony.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's one of the hazards of having to subpoena a non-party witness that lives out of state.  Unlike Vanky's arguments, she will have to testify even if she is no longer a party and no longer lives in NY, but the trial schedule will have to reasonably accommodate her travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, C-Man said:

Sidney Powell backtracking on guilty plea?
 

Well, the first time that I plea-dealed my qualifying was a shame
I started out way in the back and came back 'bout the same
Pulled her in the pit, couldn't look my daddy in the eye
He said, "If you quit now, Sydney, it's gonna haunt you all your life"
See, it ain't about the money or even being number one
You gotta know when it's all over, you did the best you could've done
And knowing that crazy's in you and you never let it out
Is worse than blowing any Trumpkin or any wreck you'll ever have
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Red Five said:

This is all very shocking. I asked a few pages back what the result would be when she started doing exactly this. These people are fucking nuts and aren't capable of abiding by those terms.

Yep, this was always going to happen. Take a plea deal, mail in an apology, tell MAGA that you tricked the librul judges, then continue the grift, knowing that the court is virtually powerless to do anything at that point.

And they'll never, ever, ever hurt Trump in any truly meaningful way by testifying against him--if it ever comes to that--because they aren't remotely credible and have shown that they'll say anything in the moment for self preservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

image.png.91043f16376e9efad980ce1dfe57e7ce.png

image.png.7256802f47acc7ba0fa6397c3edb90d3.png

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

image.png.4f58d1dfc28b73ad2b042b6182c43fb4.png

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

 

images.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2023 at 4:39 PM, Macanudo said:

The sooner Americans wake up to the fact that corporations don't give a shit about them and have bought/paid for every member of Congress, the better. 

I had never heard of the Powell Memo before watching this.   50 years later, we're in deep shit.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...