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
29 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Uh huh. And aileens incompetence has eclipsed mere random error, so I don't see your point. It's like you're #bothsiding that since some people are biased sometimes, it's justifiable that aileen is wiping her ass with the judicial process to favor trumpco. I don't understand this weird reflex on your part to defend the indefensible

He isn't defending Cannon. He isn't approving of her rulings. What the fuck is your problem? 

Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

He's not even charged with the caps.

We know those were in the documents recovered from mar a Lago. We've literally seen the fuckin cover sheets from the binders recovered from the shitter. We had a huge spree of humint sources get killed abroad in the timeframe trump was running his classified blockbuster 

I guess since Smith didn't bring the charges, trump didn't actually do that either?

Just now, Dahobbs said:

He isn't defending Cannon. He isn't approving of her rulings. What the fuck is your problem? 

My problem is people acting like the justice system isn't irreparably distorted in favor of the wealthy and politically connected, and continuing to insist that what is occuring is the correct and right thing, since like, I mean, we can always appeal or something right? Elections and the continual and eternal delay of any sort of trial be damned

Posted
Just now, Captainant said:

My problem is people acting like the justice system isn't irreparably distorted in favor of the wealthy and politically connected, and continuing to insist that what is occuring is the correct and right thing, since like, I mean, we can always appeal or something right? Elections and the continual and eternal delay of any sort of trial be damned

I can guarantee you that @TwiceHorn will agree our justice system favors the wealthy. I really don't know what you're expecting him to do about it or how being an asshole to him helps anything. Our justice system isn't perfect. It definitely has flaws. One of those flaws is that if someone wishes to delay things, generally they can. And it doesn't have to be a wealthy individual. Just do a quick search on YouTube and you'll find plenty of sovereign citizen wackadoos gumming up the legal system. They don't win. But they do delay things by forcing rulings on their bullshit. It isn't much different with Trump. He has lost every case. His tactics slow things down, but so far they still just result in adverse outcomes for him. 

I mean fuck, you're bitching that the legal system as irredeemable because it hasn't punished Trump. But it has. He has been found liable for millions. He been convicted of 34 felonies. His election suits have been thrown out. His businesses and foundations have been found to be fraudulent. Yet, in your mind, the legal system has done nothing to him. Frankly, it is the only part of our system that has contained him at all. 

What I'm saying here is that maybe yelling at @TwiceHorn isn't the productive activity that you think it is. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I guess since Smith didn't bring the charges, trump didn't actually do that either?

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, I tend to kind of assume that Smith investigated the shit out of this case and, had there been evidence that he sold secrets to a foreign entity, he would have been duly charged with it.

But I guess we can make shit up too.  Works for Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I can guarantee you that @TwiceHorn will agree our justice system favors the wealthy. I really don't know what you're expecting him to do about it or how being an asshole to him helps anything. Our justice system isn't perfect. It definitely has flaws. One of those flaws is that if someone wishes to delay things, generally they can. And it doesn't have to be a wealthy individual. Just do a quick search on YouTube and you'll find plenty of sovereign citizen wackadoos gumming up the legal system. They don't win. But they do delay things by forcing rulings on their bullshit. It isn't much different with Trump. He has lost every case. His tactics slow things down, but so far they still just result in adverse outcomes for him. 

I mean fuck, you're bitching that the legal system as irredeemable because it hasn't punished Trump. But it has. He has been found liable for millions. He been convicted of 34 felonies. His election suits have been thrown out. His businesses and foundations have been found to be fraudulent. Yet, in your mind, the legal system has done nothing to him. Frankly, it is the only part of our system that has contained him at all. 

What I'm saying here is that maybe yelling at @TwiceHorn isn't the productive activity that you think it is. 

Explanations are easily interpreted as defenses.  I'm just trying to explain.

Reporting of legal matters is so shitty that it often makes matters worse as far as clarifying what's really going on.  And, I think a lot of the commentators just say what people want to hear because they're selected for that by the media or they want to drive clicks.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Elections and the continual and eternal delay of any sort of trial be damned


Propose a new rule to fix this problem and we can discuss it. I would presume that it would essentially include a limit on the number of pretrial issues that can be raised by a defendant in any case where said defendant is a potential candidate in an upcoming election?
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, scottsins said:

 


Propose a new rule to fix this problem and we can discuss it. I would presume that it would essentially include a limit on the number of pretrial issues that can be raised by a defendant in any case where said defendant is a potential candidate in an upcoming election?

 

Perhaps a rule similar to the one in most federal courts limiting parties to a single summary judgment motion?

Maybe something along the lines of a local or F. R. Crim. P.  rule requiring all motions of a particular type (suppress., e.g.),. be brought in a single motion X days before trial.

The difficulty with anything along these lines in the criminal context (as opposed to civil) is the constitutional limitations and requirements for fair trial, etc.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 6/25/2024 at 12:28 PM, dcbc said:

.A great many of us take our role in the system seriously and with a great amount of pride in doing what's right.  It's also why I'm curious about the utopian industry in which he plies his trade. 

Well, while Ant may live in his mom’s basement and not be “employed”, like your job shaming implies, you do not see him just giving up when there’s a problem - like she didn’t make meatloaf.  He put an app on her jitterbug phone that delivers food from her grocery store, completely eliminating the no meatloaf problem.  

He just wants to know why we refuse to correct our problems. 

Posted
6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Well, while Ant may live in his mom’s basement and not be “employed”, like your job shaming implies, you do not see him just giving up when there’s a problem - like she didn’t make meatloaf.  He put an app on her jitterbug phone that delivers food from her grocery store, completely eliminating the no meatloaf problem.  

He just wants to know why we refuse to correct our problems. 

Let's be clear, I'm not shaming him if he lives in his mom's basement and demands meatloaf whilst unemployed.  I'm just curious what utopian profession he is in that he can shit on mine like he's trying to win best colonoscopy prep.  Because it must be a model of perfection.  And I'm guessing it isn't since he's dodged the question so thoroughly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Let's be clear, I'm not shaming him if he lives in his mom's basement and demands meatloaf whilst unemployed.  I'm just curious what utopian profession he is in that he can shit on mine like he's trying to win best colonoscopy prep.  Because it must be a model of perfection.  And I'm guessing it isn't since he's dodged the question so thoroughly.

Lulz not unemployed, I'm in tech which is a never ending stream of problems and issues to be solved. Fortunately, it's typically a clear up/down as to if something will work or not and there's less of the aw-shucks-ing when there's an obvious fucking cancer eating at a system

And I'm more shitting on corrupt judges and the busted judicial system than I am on lawyers. It's just that shitty trumpco lawyers are the ones bringing the garbage to the courts and turning the crank

So like are you a trump lawyer or a judge or something? 

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lulz not unemployed, I'm in tech which is a never ending stream of problems and issues to be solved. Fortunately, it's typically a clear up/down as to if something will work or not and there's less of the aw-shucks-ing when there's an obvious fucking cancer eating at a system

And I'm more shitting on corrupt judges and the busted judicial system than I am on lawyers. It's just that shitty trumpco lawyers are the ones bringing the garbage to the courts and turning the crank

So like are you a trump lawyer or a judge or something? 

No.  I'm not a Trump lawyer or a judge.  And politically, you and I align.  I've worked in the judiciary for more than two decades, and in my little swath of the world, it is not corrupt and it is not political when it comes down to brass tacks.  If it were, I wouldn't have made a career as a civil-servant attorney in that branch of government.

 

It's not that I don't agree that parts of the system are fucked up and need fixing.  But the notions you espouse so often involve the entirety of the judicial system's being fucked up and corrupt.  And that broad, false generality is, whether intentional, a direct attack on me and people like me who do what I do, are in this for the right reasons, and work hard to make sure things are done fairly and impartially.  And there are a lot of us with the same motivations.  That's not to say we always get it right.  But that's the goal 100% of the time where I am.  And the reason I do what I do is because I saw parts of the system that didn't seem fair and found a way to put myself in a position to, in some small part, make sure things are fair.

 

TLDR, we might agree on quite a few things.  But every time you paint your diatribes with such broad strokes, it just comes off as noise---all zeros; no ones.

 

And thanks for ruining Austin, Tech Bro!   See?  Generalities, right?  You probably didn't ruin all of Austin.  ;)


 

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, dcbc said:

No.  I'm not a Trump lawyer or a judge.  And politically, you and I align.  I've worked in the judiciary for more than two decades, and in my little swath of the world, it is not corrupt and it is not political when it comes down to brass tacks.  If it were, I wouldn't have made a career as a civil-servant attorney in that branch of government.

 

It's not that I don't agree that parts of the system are fucked up and need fixing.  But the notions you espouse so often involve the entirety of the judicial system's being fucked up and corrupt.  And that broad, false generality is, whether intentional, a direct attack on me and people like me who do what I do, are in this for the right reasons, and work hard to make sure things are done fairly and impartially.  And there are a lot of us with the same motivations.  That's not to say we always get it right.  But that's the goal 100% of the time where I am.  And the reason I do what I do is because I saw parts of the system that didn't seem fair and found a way to put myself in a position to, in some small part, make sure things are fair.

 

TLDR, we might agree on quite a few things.  But every time you paint your diatribes with such broad strokes, it just comes off as noise---all zeros; no ones.

 

And thanks for ruining Austin, Tech Bro!   See?  Generalities, right?  You probably didn't ruin all of Austin.  ;)


 

There may be kind of a subtle thing going on here.  As an engineer, I have a strong technocrat streak.  And that tends to mean that I see things rather in black and white, that is, there is a right answer.

I was warned and intellectually knew that the "right answer" thing didn't fly in law school. Still, knowing that didn't really help with the adjustment to dealing with shades of gray.

For example, in response to essay questions, I made reasonable assumptions like any good engineer, and tended to focus on what in all likelihood was the right answer.  But that only gets you halfway there in law school.  You have to pay equal or near-equal attention to what is in all likelihood the wrong answer, or several rightish and wrongish answers.

I eventually "caught on" and made great grades second and third year, but was pretty meadoker first year.

I think that experience made me even more "fair minded" or willing to give equal attention to both sides of any issue even than the usual lawdog.

Also, I'm not sure where this came from in my background, if it was engineering or personal predisposition or what, but I tended to write at least (if not analyze) from a deductive standpoint, whereas inductive reasoning tends to be the order of the day.  That is, don't start with the outcome.

Anyway, I think technocratic types tend to recoil more from matters legal than even just ordinary laypeople, for some of the reasons mentioned above.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Point of order:  not all engineers are black or white when it comes to the "correct" position.  Complex systems (which comprise most of the real world) demand a collection of tradeoffs, many of which aren't particularly right or wrong on their face.  A Volvo ain't a BMW but they're both decent cars.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that experience made me even more "fair minded" or willing to give equal attention to both sides of any issue even than the usual lawdog.

I think the openness to drinking poison and lies from our enemies under the guise of #bothsides and a false notion of "the truth is ALWAYS in the middle" can lead to you getting taken for a ride by fascists. It's that good faith and tolerance for their intolerance and deceit that instigates the power imbalance and is a major contributing factor to why the justice system is so biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful. 

Because they'll always be able to throw out more grist for your intellectual mill than you can process. They'll drown you in a firehose of falsehoods if you give them the mic, you spend all your time debunking their lies so your message doesn't get out. 

We see it in action with how trump campaigns, and how cannon defends her client from the bench. 

But if you have brain worms that compell you to believe that everything is always done in good faith and there's always some reasonable middle ground, then you're gonna get taken for a fuckin ride. 

Posted
27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Point of order:  not all engineers are black or white when it comes to the "correct" position.  Complex systems (which comprise most of the real world) demand a collection of tradeoffs, many of which aren't particularly right or wrong on their face.  A Volvo ain't a BMW but they're both decent cars.

It's often the case that there's no "right" answer when picking a set of tradeoffs, but rather which set of constraints incurred leave you the most design space available, or are most palatable to the stakeholders. However, there's absolutely cases where something is the "WRONG!!!" answer even when there isnt a single "right" answer. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Captainant said:

It's often the case that there's no "right" answer when picking a set of tradeoffs, but rather which set of constraints incurred leave you the most design space available, or are most palatable to the stakeholders. However, there's absolutely cases where something is the "WRONG!!!" answer even when there isnt a single "right" answer. 

No argument there. 

Posted
41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tended to write at least (if not analyze) from a deductive standpoint, whereas inductive reasoning tends to be the order of the day.  That is, don't start with the outcome.

I really don't tend to approach any two cases in exactly the same way.  I mean, I have, but my process is extremely flexible.  Ultimately, there's that time-honored, syllogistic formula.  But within it, it's somewhere between dancing and a Swiss watch mechanism. 

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, dcbc said:

I really don't tend to approach any two cases in exactly the same way.  I mean, I have, but my process is extremely flexible.  Ultimately, there's that time-honored, syllogistic formula.  But within it, it's somewhere between dancing and a Swiss watch mechanism. 

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

And, don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating engineers at all.  Sometimes I wish I had stayed one.  But the thinking tends to be very different, indeed, with engineering tending more toward objectivity and outcome, and law more toward subjectivity and process.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Captainant said:

I think the openness to drinking poison and lies from our enemies under the guise of #bothsides and a false notion of "the truth is ALWAYS in the middle" can lead to you getting taken for a ride by fascists. It's that good faith and tolerance for their intolerance and deceit that instigates the power imbalance and is a major contributing factor to why the justice system is so biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful. 

Because they'll always be able to throw out more grist for your intellectual mill than you can process. They'll drown you in a firehose of falsehoods if you give them the mic, you spend all your time debunking their lies so your message doesn't get out. 

We see it in action with how trump campaigns, and how cannon defends her client from the bench. 

But if you have brain worms that compell you to believe that everything is always done in good faith and there's always some reasonable middle ground, then you're gonna get taken for a fuckin ride. 

Well, Trump is always spewing horseshit, of course.  And his lawyers too.  But his lawyers horseshit is considerably more grounded in some form of reality than Trump's.

Campaign rhetoric and legal rhetoric are not the same, or even all that similar.  Trump's lawyers do a pretty decent job of taking the outlandish and starting to make it seem almost somewhat reasonable.  It takes a strong and experienced judge to cut through that horseshit.

I think someone upthread mentioned how hard it can be to deal with pro se litigants.  They, like Trump, spew unvarnished horseshit most of the time.  It can be pretty tough for a judge to cut through that while still giving the litigant something like due process.  When the litigant has lawyers that can varnish the horseshit, it becomes that much more difficult.

Posted
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

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
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.

Posted
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. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
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.

Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
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.  

  • Like 1
Posted
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.

_john_03-30-2005_PE45JEV.jpg

Posted

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.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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

QFT

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
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. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
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. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
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 by Pods
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
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?

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
Posted
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.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

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.

  • Like 1
Posted
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. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

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

  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)

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 by mdmost
Posted
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.
Posted
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. 

Posted

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!”

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 7
Posted
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

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 3


×
×
  • Create New...