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
5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Bijan Robinson, Jury Foreman.

For the betterment of the young man, who seems like a great kid, hope he gets traded.  He deserves better than the pit of despair which is the Falcons.  For that matter, that generally includes every decent human.  

Actually, making the RICO 19 have to watch the all the Falcons games ever played while serving out there terms on repeat would be fitting.  Stupid futility on top of stupid futility.  As kind of a cherry on top, one of our crowning moments includes an arrest, so yeah.  

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn94 said:

I like how defense counsel thinks they will get a better shake in federal court. Good luck with that!

I think the play is to get pardoned at the federal level.

Also, I like how everyone is just assuming that if dotard tried to pardon himself that it would work.  A president cannot pardon themselves.  They just cannot.  If that works, then all of reason and logic is thrown out the window and it's Thunderdome.  Didn't mean to light the Brisket signal, sorry.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

First - over under on how many days until the “I hate Riggers” tshirts start outselling “Let’s Go Brandon”?

Second - I should know this, but can you remove a criminal case to Federal Court?  Is the argument “if I committed a crime I broke Federal law too and that supersedes”?  These are Georgia statutes. 

Posted
6 hours ago, locodos said:

There isn't a car made that could fly Trump across all those broken? bridges.

That said, I'd like to see an attempt.

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

First - over under on how many days until the “I hate Riggers” tshirts start outselling “Let’s Go Brandon”?

Second - I should know this, but can you remove a criminal case to Federal Court?  Is the argument “if I committed a crime I broke Federal law too and that supersedes”?  These are Georgia statutes. 

No, the argument is "the acts that form the basis of my state law charges were committed in the course of me performing my duties under federal law."  E.g., if the POTUS was actually performing a duty of the office -- say, engaging in treaty discussions with a foreign leader -- then even if those allegedly broke GA state law, the case would need to go to federal court.  That law exists because way back when, racist states like Mississippi might try to bring criminal charges against, say, some white meddlin' FBI agents down there riling up the negroes.  Fuck that.  If that case is brought, it GTFO of Mississippi courts, and goes to Fed court.  Where the G-man would be dismissed as a defendant, because Mississippi's charges were bullshit.  But, in the event that they charges AREN'T bullshit....they get tried in Fed court.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Were they thought? Is it within the duties of the chief of staff to POTUS to try and interfere in Georgia election procedures?

For purposes of that analysis, you ignore whether they were criminal or not and just look at whether the acts are "for or relating to any act under color of such office."

Because this isn't a defense to the crime, it just examines whether a federal court is the proper forum to try that crime.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Counterpoint - can you imagine the official duties of people in the Trump White House?

Prosecutor: What official duties would you perform in the Trump Administration on a typical day?

Co-Conspirator: My daily duties primarily consisted of making fake Time Magazine Person of the Year covers and framing them in the Oval Office.  I also was in charge of ghostwriting some of the President’s Twitter posts, but only the ones when he would talk about Kanye.

Prosecutor: And what was your official title?

Co-Conspirator: I was the Attorney General. 

That....is both beautifully hilarious, and a horrifyingly accurate statement of how shit was done in the Trump admin.

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think the play is to get pardoned at the federal level.

Also, I like how everyone is just assuming that if dotard tried to pardon himself that it would work.  A president cannot pardon themselves.  They just cannot.  If that works, then all of reason and logic is thrown out the window and it's Thunderdome.  Didn't mean to light the Brisket signal, sorry.

And, also a broader jury pool.  In Manhattan, they draw only from NY County, SD NY includes New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan and draws jurors from those counties.

Same too with ND Georgia.

Also, nothing written stops a POTUS from pardoning himself, you have to look at the structure of the Constitution.  And one thing about that is, the framers assumed the pardon power would be largely constrained politically (vote) and by impeachment.  Obviously, the Framers never envisioned the simulation.

In any reasonable world, a president that pardoned himself would be immediately impeached and convicted.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No, the argument is "the acts that form the basis of my state law charges were committed in the course of me performing my duties under federal law."  E.g., if the POTUS was actually performing a duty of the office -- say, engaging in treaty discussions with a foreign leader -- then even if those allegedly broke GA state law, the case would need to go to federal court.  That law exists because way back when, racist states like Mississippi might try to bring criminal charges against, say, some white meddlin' FBI agents down there riling up the negroes.  Fuck that.  If that case is brought, it GTFO of Mississippi courts, and goes to Fed court.  Where the G-man would be dismissed as a defendant, because Mississippi's charges were bullshit.  But, in the event that they charges AREN'T bullshit....they get tried in Fed court.

Got it.  But is that truly a removal?  Would federal court decide on Georgia law in that instance?  Or is it a procedural play?   If it’s the former, then can they really still be pardoned given it’s still a state crime?  I am a dumb corporate fake lawyer  that only foggily remembers procedure from the Bar and Mullenix.  

Posted
4 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

i could see it going for quite a long time in the selection process.

This also will be outside of the ordinary since the prosecution is the more likely side to make a Batson challenge.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

Got it.  But is that truly a removal?  Would federal court decide on Georgia law in that instance?  Or is it a procedural play?   If it’s the former, then can they really still be pardoned given it’s still a state crime?  I am a dumb corporate fake lawyer  that only foggily remembers procedure from the Bar and Mullenix.  

I've done a number of federal question removals, remands, even a diversity or two over the years and thought myself pretty familiar with that chapter of 28 USC.

But this one completely escaped my attention.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442

The procedural details seem really fuzzy, so I have no idea.  But I'd kind of guess because even though it is tried in a federal court and judgment of conviction entered by a federal judge/court, it would still be a violation of state law, subject only to pardon according to that state's law.

One of the problems here is that in the usual case, the federal official has some kind of immunity defense.  They successfully remove it to federal court, plead the immunity, and game over, so it never reaches a trial or conviction stage.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Those.  AREN'T.  PILLOWS!!!!

Damn, you beat me to it. Partly because I’ve been thinking for five minutes how to best punctuate and accent it for the right emphasis in writing. You nailed it!
  • Haha 1
Posted

 

43 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

32 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

im sure his pm’s were full of encouraging words 

14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I wonder how many of them were boob and vag pics, and how he responded.

For a guy who doesn't do computers and email, I'm willing to bet that he drove a shit-ton of communication, official and otherwise, through twitter's DMs and through text messages.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

For a guy who doesn't do computers and email, I'm willing to bet that he drove a shit-ton of communication, official and otherwise, through twitter's DMs and through text messages.

Yeah Roy Cohn wasn't alive to warn him about dms and hes too stupid to figure it out for himself. 

Posted
I've done a number of federal question removals, remands, even a diversity or two over the years and thought myself pretty familiar with that chapter of 28 USC.
But this one completely escaped my attention.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442
The procedural details seem really fuzzy, so I have no idea.  But I'd kind of guess because even though it is tried in a federal court and judgment of conviction entered by a federal judge/court, it would still be a violation of state law, subject only to pardon according to that state's law.
One of the problems here is that in the usual case, the federal official has some kind of immunity defense.  They successfully remove it to federal court, plead the immunity, and game over, so it never reaches a trial or conviction stage.

That’s exactly what happened with the Austin cop who was acting in his capacity as a member of a federal task force. It was actually a very creative and clever gambit by his defense attorney - it fit the case, and it worked.
HILL STREET BLUES!

The judges also would have accepted NAKED AND AFRAID!
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
 

So….the absurdist satire that Three Year Letterman posts as jokes…Drumpf’s attorneys say for real.
When your lawyers say shit thats indistinguishable from a satire account…you might be a Dotard.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
45 minutes ago, Radical Larry said:

HILL STREET BLUES!

 

7 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

THAT'S INCREDIBLE!

 MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL!

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, A-Tex Devil said:

Got it.  But is that truly a removal?  Would federal court decide on Georgia law in that instance?  Or is it a procedural play?   If it’s the former, then can they really still be pardoned given it’s still a state crime?  I am a dumb corporate fake lawyer  that only foggily remembers procedure from the Bar and Mullenix.  

I think we're all a little out of our comfort zone on this stuff.  I'm still looking for the rule that gives the POTUS oversight on state elections.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I've done a number of federal question removals, remands, even a diversity or two over the years and thought myself pretty familiar with that chapter of 28 USC.

But this one completely escaped my attention.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1442

The procedural details seem really fuzzy, so I have no idea.  But I'd kind of guess because even though it is tried in a federal court and judgment of conviction entered by a federal judge/court, it would still be a violation of state law, subject only to pardon according to that state's law.

One of the problems here is that in the usual case, the federal official has some kind of immunity defense.  They successfully remove it to federal court, plead the immunity, and game over, so it never reaches a trial or conviction stage.

Forgive me for not having gone through the indictment, but do any of the other predicate offenses other than the letter occur after January 21, 2021? 

 

Also, Presidential criminal immunity defense?  Haven't heard of that one.  I get that this may be some sort of stretch on the civil immunity while in office, but there's no statutory support of which I'm aware for immunity from criminal prosecution for the President.  Even the supposed civil immunity while in office has no support in the law.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/08/trump-indictment-georgia-co-conspirators/675024/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20230815&utm_term=The Atlantic Daily

 

Quote

Former President Donald Trump now faces his fourth round of felony indictments, this time in Georgia, where prosecutors allege in a racketeering charge that he led an effort to overturn the will of the state’s voters in the 2020 election. Not much more can be said about Trump himself: We can note only so many times that he is an emotionally disordered man, beset by feral insecurities, whose actions have, in the words of the retired federal judge J. Michael Luttig, “corroded and corrupted American democracy.” So let’s leave him aside and turn to his accused co-conspirators in Georgia (at least five of whom appear to be mentioned in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment accusing Trump of a conspiracy to overturn the results of the 2020 election, although Smith has not yet charged them).

 

Quote

The indictments in Georgia depict an alleged racket that looks much like a multilevel-marketing scheme, in which the principals (Trump, his lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and his former chief of staff Mark Meadows) have something they want to sell (in this case, an election lie). They go out and recruit a gullible and ambitious sales force to spread the word (relying on loyalists such as the lawyers Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis), who then pull in another group of sellers (state legislators, election officials, state party officials, and others). Go down far enough and you’ll find the marks who were willing to serve as fake electors. In the end, they’re all tied to a sham product that is going to cost them their reputation and perhaps even their freedom.

 

 

Quote

But we should not be distracted by the inanity of the alleged plot. The Georgia case is an important window into the actions of Trump’s enablers and courtiers, the mediocre people around the former president who were determined to gain the respect and station to which they felt entitled, regardless of their actual talent. Most of us live our lives as ordinary people doing ordinary jobs. Not every career is fulfilling, and as my working-class father used to say, even Hollywood actors probably hate their job on some days, when they have to drag themselves out of bed for an early-morning call time and sit in a makeup chair for hours. (My one foray into watching real actors at work confirmed this wise observation.)

 

Spoiler

Since he entered politics, however, Trump has played the role of patron saint to this resentful third string. Ellis, for example, began her legal career as a deputy DA in a rural Colorado jurisdiction; she soon marketed herself as a “constitutional law attorney” on television, as The New York Times noted in 2020, despite a lack of experience that had no “apparent bearing on her ability to present herself as someone of great authority.” Unlike Trump, these are not larger-than-life figures. In fact, their most striking characteristics are how small, how odd, and how incompetent they each are—and yet, to judge from the indictments, how dangerous they were as a group.

Among the accused, only Meadows and Giuliani are anything like national figures. (Powell became famous mostly for going on Fox News and peddling unhinged ideas that even Fox management and hosts thought were “kooky” and “crazy.”) Rudy’s descent from “America’s Mayor” to a debt-ridden huckster has been amply documented. Meadows, for his part, seems to be just another politician addicted to life in the capital, whose friends and enemies alike describe him as something of an Eddie Haskell figure, “slippery,” obsequious, and ever-scheming.

I have already written about Jeffrey Clark—or, as I always call him now, “Jeffrey Bossert Clark,” because he reportedly insisted that his full name be used in Justice Department draft briefs—and John Eastman, two of the most egregious figures in this whole affair. Eastman was a law professor, a job that carries a special duty to be intellectually courageous in the face of a possible conspiracy; instead (like the former liberal lawyer turned Trump defenderKenneth Chesebro) he constructed rationales for overturning the election. Clark, at the time of the election a government employee, seems to have been an unexceptional functionary with a professional chip on his shoulder. He may also have been willing to become a danger to his fellow citizens. According to the Smith indictment, when Patrick Philbin, then the deputy White House counsel, warned “Co-Conspirator 4”—who appears to be Clark—that riots would erupt if Trump somehow remained in office beyond his term, Co-Conspirator 4 answered, “Well … that’s why there’s an Insurrection Act.”

Imagine the frisson, the sense of importance a mid-level bureaucrat such as “Co-Conspirator 4” must have felt saying something so hideous.

While some apparatchik was allegedly sitting in Washington, D.C., and blithely considering the possibility of using the U.S. military against fellow Americans, others were at work in Georgia, including Trevian Kutti, a former publicist for the rapper Ye, previously known as Kanye West. She is accused of trying to pressure the Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman to make false statements. (Freeman, along with her daughter and election co-worker Shaye Moss, had their lives upended when they were targeted by Trump and his goon squad.)

Willis is also prosecuting a group of people that is alleged to have been involved in a plot to replace Georgia’s true electors with fakes, including a former chair of the Georgia GOP and a current Georgia state senator. Meanwhile, two women—one of whom was a county election supervisor—have also been charged in an alleged breach of the voting system in Georgia’s Coffee County.

All of these people are indicted, not convicted. But few of Trump’s defenders are arguing that any of the accused didn’t actually do the things they’re charged with doing. Rather, Trump World and its associated outlets seem to be disputing whether any of these acts are crimes. (In a statement issued today, Trump’s lawyers said that the Georgia indictment “is undoubtedly just as flawed and unconstitutional as this entire process has been.”)

Nonetheless, without Trump, most of these people would never have been in remote proximity to the levers of national power. When Trump lost, they lost. The brass ring of power and influence—and, perhaps more than anything else, respect—was pulled away just inches from their hands. They now all have the importance they craved, but likely not in the way they expected.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Counterpoint - can you imagine the official duties of people in the Trump White House?
Prosecutor: What official duties would you perform in the Trump Administration on a typical day?
Co-Conspirator: My daily duties primarily consisted of making fake Time Magazine Person of the Year covers and framing them in the Oval Office.  I also was in charge of ghostwriting some of the President’s Twitter posts, but only the ones when he would talk about Kanye.
Prosecutor: And what was your official title?
Co-Conspirator: I was the Attorney General. 
To be fair to him, Attorney General Kid Rock wasn't well qualified for the position.
  • Haha 2


×
×
  • Create New...