Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

 

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She has most of the right creds, except judicial experience.  I think I noticed she spent substantial time in the appellate section of the US Attorneys office, so she may be taking what my first mentor called a "law review" approach to trial issues that really aren't that juicy or complex.

I'd be in over my head too.  But in that circumstance, I'd fall back on "no reason to reinvent the wheel" and K.I.S.S.

 

And, at least in my realm, I'd be willing to posit that appellate experience does not wholly prepare someone to excel in a trial setting, nor does trial experience wholly prepare someone to excel in an appellate setting, particularly at the judge level.  There are people who do both well at the practice level.  See, e.g., BrisketTexan, et al.  But they are distinct skill sets.

Edited by dcbc
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

 

Full picture: 

image.thumb.png.1adf0bee6260389d3d359f947b428fbf.png

I don't think admitting that you have the cash helps you in your case to have the bond waived, not that he had much of a chance anyway.  Whatever cash he does have is probably for operating expenses and paying the outstanding loans.  He can't use that or he'll default, he can't lose a property to seizure because it is the collateral for another loan.

f250a85c9c9c8cb723ab54ff263598ab.gif

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

I'd be in over my head too.  But in that circumstance, I'd fall back on "no reason to reinvent the wheel" and K.I.S.S.

 

And, at least in my realm, I'd be willing to posit that appellate experience does not wholly prepare someone to excel in a trial setting, nor does trial experience wholly prepare someone to excel in an appellate setting, particularly at the judge level.  There are people who do both well at the practice level.  See, e.g., BrisketTexan, et al.  But they are distinct skill sets.

Agreed on reinventing the wheel.  But, in this particular case, the wheel was never really invented in the first place because, again, we are looking at some novel legal questions.  There's not much law on the interplay between the PRA and the courts and zero on the interplay between the PRA and Espionage Act.  Not that either of these pose particularly difficult questions.

She definitely seems overawed by the fact that this is the first presidential prosecution in history and seems to be wanting to find differences in this case and others that preceded it that don't really exist.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, dcbc said:

Let the first Surly Lawyer who hasn't had to deal with a high level of trial court fuckery during his/her career step forward.  I've spent my career observing the good, the bad, and the ugly, and Cannon's decision-making hasn't approached a level of weirdness or what-the-fuck that I've seen on the ugly end of the spectrum when considered in a vacuum.  The difference is that this case is important for our country and I'd like to think we deserve way better (some might argue we are getting what we deserve).  But as someone pointed out, there is a reason for judicial review.  We are in an awful hurry here, and the anxiety we who are concerned citizens feel is real.  Her fuck-ups are magnified.  Hopefully, they will be corrected, either by her or someone above her pay-grade.  But those of us in the business have seen it all.  If the stakes weren't so damned high, it would be a bit more laughable.

That is some valuable perspective, right there.

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is some valuable perspective, right there.

Let's chalk it up to a lucid interval on my part.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Full picture: 

image.thumb.png.1adf0bee6260389d3d359f947b428fbf.png

Does, I don't think admitting that you have the cash helps you in your case to have the bind waived, not that he had much of a chance anyway.  Whatever cash he does have is probably for operating expenses and paying the outstanding loans.  He can't use that or he'll default, he can't lose a property because it is the collateral for another loan.

f250a85c9c9c8cb723ab54ff263598ab.gif

Yup and I believe DA James has pointed this out in her brief that was just filed. 

His lawyers claim he doesn't have the money then later in the week he brags about how he does. 

Stupid.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Crossposting, because reasons:

 

 

 

 

What could possibly go wrong.  The irony is that Trump may inadvertently save the country from Gilead.

Edited by dcbc
Posted

I dunno man, I just get the feeling that Trump is going to end up being bad for the Republican party.

Posted
31 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. I’ve made real money litigating church property fights over schismatic splits/departures.
America has a long history of “conservative” wings of churches pitching a fit and breaking off…and being on the wrong side of history.
They broke off over slavery (pro slavery southern churches broke off).
They broke off over ordaining women (anti-women conservative churches broke off).
They’re breaking off over acknowledging gay people are not the devil (anti-gay conservative churches are about done breaking off).
The Trumpism schism, to the extent it hasn’t already happened, is happening.
Wrong side of history. Every time.

It's almost as if Jesus was a liberal.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Let the first Surly Lawyer who hasn't had to deal with a high level of trial court fuckery during his/her career step forward.  I've spent my career observing the good, the bad, and the ugly, and Cannon's decision-making hasn't approached a level of weirdness or what-the-fuck that I've seen on the ugly end of the spectrum when considered in a vacuum.  The difference is that this case is important for our country and I'd like to think we deserve way better (some might argue we are getting what we deserve).  But as someone pointed out, there is a reason for judicial review.  We are in an awful hurry here, and the anxiety we who are concerned citizens feel is real.  Her fuck-ups are magnified.  Hopefully, they will be corrected, either by her or someone above her pay-grade.  But those of us in the business have seen it all.  If the stakes weren't so damned high, it would be a bit more laughable.

Careful, lots of Surly lawyers aren't really lawyers.  And most of the actual lawyers here post way to much to be good lawyers.

  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

If she gave really bad/wrong jury instructions that force the jury to acquit on the classified information counts, we're looking at acquittal with no remedy. 

However, that would not affect the obstruction counts, where the evidence is maybe even stronger. 

The problem is that the government indicted on the section of 793 that requires that the defendant lack authority to possess the classified information in the first place, while they could have alleged the section that doesn't require that. 

She appears to want to instruct the jury that the PRA may initially have made his possession of these documents rightful, even after they had left the white house.  And they have to make a finding on that. 

The PRA does no such thing. 

My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

Thanks -- I saw somebody else mention "double jeopardy" which you acknowledged. I guess what I'm asking is that if the case is dismissed due to some colossal fuckup by Cannon herself, could he be re-charged and the process starts all over again? In other words, is she simply trying to kill a power play or could she completely fuck up the entire game? Maybe she's the one playing chess, not checkers. LOL

Posted
58 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

And most of the actual lawyers here post way to much to be good lawyers.

Some of us are just exceptional multi-taskers.

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

How is losing the second time by 6 million votes doing better than the first time again?

It was a personal best!  Also best outing ever by a loser!

Posted
31 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Thanks -- I saw somebody else mention "double jeopardy" which you acknowledged. I guess what I'm asking is that if the case is dismissed due to some colossal fuckup by Cannon herself, could he be re-charged and the process starts all over again? In other words, is she simply trying to kill a power play or could she completely fuck up the entire game? Maybe she's the one playing chess, not checkers. LOL

Part of the answer is that jeopardy doesn't "attach" until the jury is empaneled and sworn.  So anything she does now does not prevent charges from being refiled.  The concern is if she puts a bunch of confusing stuff in the charge that results in his acquittal, retrying him for such crimes may result in double jeopardy.

Posted
1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Thanks -- I saw somebody else mention "double jeopardy" which you acknowledged. I guess what I'm asking is that if the case is dismissed due to some colossal fuckup by Cannon herself, could he be re-charged and the process starts all over again? In other words, is she simply trying to kill a power play or could she completely fuck up the entire game? Maybe she's the one playing chess, not checkers. LOL

Well, in the scenario I envision, the government dismisses voluntarily to avoid going to trial on wrong jury instructions.  The government doesn't have unfettered discretion to do that, it needs court permission.  And, in some cases, the dismissal might be with prejudice (meaning can't be re-indicted).  So this would be a last ditch strategery.  Classically, "jeopardy" does not attach until the jury is sworn, meaning up until then, usually, any dismissal can be re-indicted.

There's all kinds of dismissal types and outcomes, mistrials, voluntary, prosecutor misconduct, blah blah blah.  

The other possibility in the event of terrible instructions is a mandamus appeal, which is a kind of rare deal that I'm not even sure is available.

Bad jury instructions, usually in a subtle way, are common in civil cases and a fruitful area for appeal.  When you get stuck with shitty ones and you're the government in a criminal case, I'm not sure what you do.

Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


Yep. I’ve made real money litigating church property fights over schismatic splits/departures.
America has a long history of “conservative” wings of churches pitching a fit and breaking off…and being on the wrong side of history.
They broke off over slavery (pro slavery southern churches broke off).
They broke off over ordaining women (anti-women conservative churches broke off).
They’re breaking off over acknowledging gay people are not the devil (anti-gay conservative churches are about done breaking off).
The Trumpism schism, to the extent it hasn’t already happened, is happening.
Wrong side of history. Every time.

wrong side of God, too, while we're at it

Jesus is woke

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in the scenario I envision, the government dismisses voluntarily to avoid going to trial on wrong jury instructions

And then Trump et al scream that it’s proof they had nothing and it was a witch hunt the entire time. 
 

maybe her play is to get them to withdraw, so that it’s not her dismissing anything. 

Posted
32 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Trump's Truth Social set to go public after winning merger vote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/22/donald-trump-truth-social-merger-public/73066699007/

“Digital World's former CEO Patrick Orlando and former Trump business associates Andy Litinsky and Wes Moss have separately sued to block the merger, arguing they are entitled to more shares for their previous work on the deal.”

Lulz. What? You thought you were going to do business with Trump and not get screwed over? Suckers. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
49 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Trump's Truth Social set to go public after winning merger vote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/22/donald-trump-truth-social-merger-public/73066699007/

This came across my NYT feed earlier this morning and made it sound like this would allow him access to the funds he needs to pay the bond.  The merger was with a shell company.  Hmm, I wonder who could possibly be behind a shell company that would want to help the dotard?  Surely not the Saudis or the Rooskies.  I'm sure I misunderstood it, but can someone elaborate? 

Posted

I really don't get how a shell company acquires a failing media company and somehow Trump gets a billion dollars. 

Explain this to me like I'm a golden retriever

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

This came across my NYT feed earlier this morning and made it sound like this would allow him access to the funds he needs to pay the bond.  The merger was with a shell company.  Hmm, I wonder who could possibly be behind a shell company that would want to help the dotard?  Surely not the Saudis or the Rooskies.  I'm sure I misunderstood it, but can someone elaborate? 

 

 

China come on down!

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in the scenario I envision, the government dismisses voluntarily to avoid going to trial on wrong jury instructions.  The government doesn't have unfettered discretion to do that, it needs court permission.  And, in some cases, the dismissal might be with prejudice (meaning can't be re-indicted).  So this would be a last ditch strategery.  Classically, "jeopardy" does not attach until the jury is sworn, meaning up until then, usually, any dismissal can be re-indicted.

There's all kinds of dismissal types and outcomes, mistrials, voluntary, prosecutor misconduct, blah blah blah.  

The other possibility in the event of terrible instructions is a mandamus appeal, which is a kind of rare deal that I'm not even sure is available.

Bad jury instructions, usually in a subtle way, are common in civil cases and a fruitful area for appeal.  When you get stuck with shitty ones and you're the government in a criminal case, I'm not sure what you do.

So, we've pretty much all determined she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but this seems potentially like it could be a way to get the orange dipshit off the hook on some bullshit procedural fuckup. It's not likely she dreamed this up on her own so could she be acting on some back-room political operative's directive, somebody who likely knows exactly what the fuck he's doing? (Or am I wading into tin-foil hat territory?)

Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, C-Man said:

So, we've pretty much all determined she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer but this seems potentially like it could be a way to get the orange dipshit off the hook on some bullshit procedural fuckup. It's not likely she dreamed this up on her own so could she be acting on some back-room political operative's directive, somebody who likely knows exactly what the fuck he's doing? (Or am I wading into tin-foil hat territory?)

First statement: true

 

Remainder: don't nobody know shit but Cannon and whatever cabal is pulling the strings of justice on this one, or, just as likely,  Cannon alone or not at all,  and it's all flowing from the answer to the first statement. 

 

I think the latter two (either she's acting based on bias or she's acting based on incompetence are the most likely.  Optimistically, I think its a mixture of incompetence and erring on the side of the defendant in the first-filed prosecution of a former President in U.S. history.

 

If there's money involved, it likely will come to light at some point, and she's not as robust a figure as Clarence Thomas to withstand the fallout.

 

 

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, dcbc said:

Who's a good boy?  You're a good boy!  Yes you are!  Want to go for a walk?  Outside?  Car ride?  Squirrel!!!

 

That make sense?

 

In all seriousness, I believe it's called "money laundering."  And I hope the SEC is watching this go down with great interest.

I fucking doubt it. They investigated and then approved the sale recently. 

Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Spacs aren’t money laundering.

Not traditionally.  But consider the beneficiary.  And, like a makeshift dildo, can't anything be used for attempted money laundering if you're dumb/brave enough?

 

Also, if the lead-in, dog-baby-talk to that earlier post wasn't a tell, I was being quite facetious, even after the "In all seriousness line."  It was a statement based on an assumption of bad faith among all those involved.

Edited by dcbc
Posted
4 hours ago, tbone_ said:

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Trump's Truth Social set to go public after winning merger vote

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2024/03/22/donald-trump-truth-social-merger-public/73066699007/

Quote

It's unclear how and when these cases will be resolved. Even if the deal gets completed next week, Trump will not be allowed to sell any of his shares in the combined company for six months or borrow against them, based on terms he previously agreed.

IMG_2477.jpeg.976a70d3dafa65a4ef281f3badfbe731.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 hours ago, Macanudo said:

Careful, lots of Surly lawyers aren't really lawyers.  And most of the actual lawyers here post way to much to be good lawyers.

And when not posting here, they are wasting time billing clients to read all the briefs on dotard's shenanigans.

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, The Dog said:

and if he were to sell them before then he would wipe out all of the MAGAts who invested in the company.

not that he cares...

*Serious post: I have the most basic understanding, but don't the spac investments go into escrow until the acquisition and IPO of the acquired entity is complete?  The fact that he already has applied to sell his interest seems like it would put a pretty definite timeline on the "dump" part of this equation.  Seems like any benefit as an investment vehicle will be quite short lived given the market share/size of T/S.  

 

Clearly, there's a reason I'm not in this business.

Edited by dcbc
Posted
2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

*Serious post: I have the most basic understanding, but don't the spac investments go into escrow until the acquisition is complete?  The fact that he already has applied to sell his interest seems like it would put a pretty definite timeline on the "dump" part of this equation.  Seems like any benefit as an investment vehicle will be quite short lived given the market share/size of T/S.  

 

Clearly, there's a reason I'm not in this business.

apparently he can sell if a certain percentage of investors approve it.

more likely he'll try to use this as collateral for posting a bond - which he'll have to do quickly because this stock is gonna crash fast.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Not traditionally.  But consider the beneficiary.  And, like a makeshift dildo, can't anything be used for attempted money laundering if you're dumb/brave enough?
 
Also, if the lead-in, dog-baby-talk to that earlier post wasn't a tell, I was being quite facetious, even after the "In all seriousness line."  It was a statement based on an assumption of bad faith among all those involved.

Simply grifting at the highest level imo
Posted

I know nothing about Truth Social, the SPAC entity, or the investors, but pretty much every company that goes public has a 6 month "market standoff" or "lock-up", where employees and shareholders agree not to sell any shares on the public market for 6 months.  The idea is that if you get to an IPO, you don't want all your key stakeholders cashing out and messing with the early trading post going public by flooding the market with shares.  I can't imagine the investors and bankers would let him sell all of them because that would hose everyone else, but maybe they permit some portion to help him with the liquidity crunch?  These are, after all, investors and bankers who are working with Truth Social, so I'm sure they're all probably knee deep in the cult.

Posted
3 minutes ago, tbone_ said:


Simply grifting at the highest level imo

. . . with oversight from the SEC, which is an odd twist.  Hiding in plain sight?

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Keef said:

I know nothing about Truth Social, the SPAC entity, or the investors, but pretty much every company that goes public has a 6 month "market standoff" or "lock-up", where employees and shareholders agree not to sell any shares on the public market for 6 months.  The idea is that if you get to an IPO, you don't want all your key stakeholders cashing out and messing with the early trading post going public by flooding the market with shares.  I can't imagine the investors and bankers would let him sell all of them because that would hose everyone else, but maybe they permit some portion to help him with the liquidity crunch?  These are, after all, investors and bankers who are working with Truth Social, so I'm sure they're all probably knee deep in the cult.

But doesn't the SPAC buy his shares and then take the company public itself.  I saw the six month hold mentioned above, but I thought he cashed out when the SPAC acquired T/S.  

 

I'm like a different Donny here, out of my element.

Edited by dcbc


×
×
  • Create New...