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
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Crystal Mason case is a very bad analogy. 

It's a very simple statute:

A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)

votes or attempts to vote in an election in which the person knows the person is not eligible to vote;

Granted, there is a state of mind in that one must knowingly vote (it wasn't some kind of accident) and know they aren't eligible to vote.

You can question the bringing of the case under the circumstances, and the sentence in the case at the statutory maximum, and you can question the jury's conclusion that she knew she was ineligible to vote.

But it's a simple case to attempt to prove.  There's no subtlety to it at all.  The feds, however, probably would not have brought that case if they didn't have some fairly solid proof from which the jury could infer that she knew she couldn't vote and did it anyway.  The mixed state of information delivered to Mason by various players probably should have created a reasonable doubt as to her guilt and the feds would have recognized that and not brought the case.

And, in fact, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, no friend of defendants, has held that her conviction must be reexamined because the state must prove that she KNEW she was ineligible.  This is a result the feds want to avoid at all cost, so they are rooting all around for evidence of Trump's intent.

 

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Crystal Mason case is a very bad analogy. 

It's a very simple statute:

A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)

votes or attempts to vote in an election in which the person knows the person is not eligible to vote;

Granted, there is a state of mind in that one must knowingly vote (it wasn't some kind of accident) and know they aren't eligible to vote.

You can question the bringing of the case under the circumstances, and the sentence in the case at the statutory maximum, and you can question the jury's conclusion that she knew she was ineligible to vote.

But it's a simple case to attempt to prove.  There's no subtlety to it at all.  The feds, however, probably would not have brought that case if they didn't have some fairly solid proof from which the jury could infer that she knew she couldn't vote and did it anyway.  The mixed state of information delivered to Mason by various players probably should have created a reasonable doubt as to her guilt and the feds would have recognized that and not brought the case.

And, in fact, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, no friend of defendants, has held that her conviction must be reexamined because the state must prove that she KNEW she was ineligible.  This is a result the feds want to avoid at all cost, so they are rooting all around for evidence of Trump's intent.

Another thing you have to understand, that I alluded to on this thread or elsewhere, state court prosecutors fly by the seat of their pants a lot of the time.  In most of their cases, outside the very highest profile murders, they get a file, look it over and try the case.  There's not a lot of thought or research that goes into it.  In the Mason case, you had a Nazi DA, Sharen Wilson, who was perfectly content to follow orders from her fellow travelers and indict this poor woman and some schlub prosecutor tried the case.  Bingo bango done.

The feds aren't like that.  They're anal as all hell.  They staff cases with multiple attorneys, including one from the appellate division to help make sure they aren't creating problems on appeal and to advise on procedure questions.  They have the whole fucking FBI (and DEA and CBP and everyone else) to investigate cases and they have a 90-something percent conviction rate that they really, really want to keep.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Some legal "expert" on Anderson Cooper just asserted that classification of the document isn't necessary for a criminal act, that merely possessing military information w/o appropriate permission or clearance is in itself a crime.  I might be misinterpreting what he said.  It's been a long time since I held a security clearance, too, and I don't recall that standard, but my clearance was about as low as could be imagined.

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Asking an election worker for assistance when trying to vote and acting upon that election workers' advice doesn't clear Mason of the Trump Every Semi-Plausible Possible Explanation Before Prosecution bar?

Really?

Apparently, the election worker didn't advise her she was eligible. She advised her she could sign a provisional voting affidavit and cast a provisional ballot.

Well one of the problems is the provisional ballot affidavit she signed contained the following oath:

I am a registered voter of this political subdivision and in the precinct in which I’m attempting to vote and have not already voted in this election (either in person or by mail). I am a resident of this political subdivision, have not been finally convicted of a felony or if a felon, I have completed all of my punishment including any term of incarceration, parole, supervision, period of probation, or I have been pardoned. I have not been determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be totally mentally incapacitated or partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote. I understand that giving false information under oath is a misdemeanor, and I understand that it is a Class A Misdemeanor to vote in an election for which I know I am not eligible.

So, she says she didn't read that and just signed it.  That's really no bueno for her and goes a pretty good way to proving she knew she was ineligible.

Still, because the state didn't eliminate all of her potential defenses to knowing she was ineligible to vote, flimsy as they are given the above, her conviction is in question.

The feds ain't having that.  Especially not with Donald J. Trump as defendant.

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

Some legal "expert" on Anderson Cooper just asserted that classification of the document isn't necessary for a criminal act, that merely possessing military information w/o appropriate permission or clearance is in itself a crime.  I might be misinterpreting what he said.  It's been a long time since I held a security clearance, too, and I don't recall that standard, but my clearance was about as low as could be imagined.

That is correct for violation of 18 USC 793(d), it only has to be information "relating to the national defense." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Apparently, the election worker didn't advise her she was eligible. She advised her she could sign a provisional voting affidavit and cast a provisional ballot.

Pretty sure no one argued eligibility and the rest you described more than covers all possible semi-plausible explanations prosecutors consider when the target of investigation is Trump before they indict.

Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another thing you have to understand, that I alluded to on this thread or elsewhere, state court prosecutors fly by the seat of their pants a lot of the time.  In most of their cases, outside the very highest profile murders, they get a file, look it over and try the case.  There's not a lot of thought or research that goes into it.  In the Mason case, you had a Nazi DA, Sharen Wilson, who was perfectly content to follow orders from her fellow travelers and indict this poor woman and some schlub prosecutor tried the case.  Bingo bango done.

The feds aren't like that.  They're anal as all hell.  They staff cases with multiple attorneys, including one from the appellate division to help make sure they aren't creating problems on appeal and to advise on procedure questions.  They have the whole fucking FBI (and DEA and CBP and everyone else) to investigate cases and they have a 90-something percent conviction rate that they really, really want to keep.

Nonetheless, it's not as if they don't have high conviction rates in state courts, which may say more about the juries on those cases and more still about the high bar for nonconstitutional, reversible error.  And while state prosecutors definitely don't work up a case like the feds do, the ones I know usually did their best to be prepared, even if they tended to wing it a lot during voir dire and jury argument.  Fact is, most of them try so many cases, they can do a lot of that stuff in their sleep.  Still, the better ones I know usually were prepared when it came to putting on their case.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Pretty sure no one argued eligibility and the rest you described more than covers all possible semi-plausible explanations prosecutors consider when the target of investigation is Trump before they indict.

Not sure what you're trying to say, but the Tarrant County DA is not nearly as meticulous as the US DOJ when it comes to indicting and trying people, especially when that person is Donald Trump.

So, they are going to gather all of the evidence they can to cut off any argument from Trump that he "[didn't know know, I mean really know, he was ineligible to vote]."

And, honestly, the facts were probably there to convict Crystal Mason.  Whether she should have been indicted in the first place or given the statutory maximum sentence are different questions entirely.  Signing that provisional affidavit oath on a solemn occasion like voting was galactically stupid.  She signed a false oath, and the oath informed her that she was not eligible.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Nonetheless, it's not as if they don't have high conviction rates in state courts, which may say more about the juries on those cases and more still about the high bar for nonconstitutional, reversible error.  And while state prosecutors definitely don't work up a case like the feds do, the ones I know usually did their best to be prepared, even if they tended to wing it a lot during voir dire and jury argument.  Fact is, most of them try so many cases, they can do a lot of that stuff in their sleep.  Still, the better ones I know usually were prepared when it came to putting on their case.

I may be being unduly harsh on state prosecutors.  But the difference in case preparation between state and federal prosecutors, I think you have to admit, is night and day.  As well as the resources applied. Especially for cases as high profile as those against Trump.

And, the crimes tend to be simpler, as well as the statutes.  It's mostly simple proof of facts, without a whole lot of intent to go along with it.  

And the defense lawyers are probably not as good/diligent as even Federal Public Defenders** or the high-dollar cats Trump will employ.

**I'm on record as having the highest respect for FPD, they're damn good.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 5/30/2023 at 9:35 AM, Snake Diggity said:

His parents lived to 93 and 88, when medical technology was not where it is today.  We are stuck in the living world with this piece of shit for at least 10 more years.

For real.  Dick Cheney and his baboon heart are still kicking around.  That guy should have been dead at least ten years ago.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

I think whether Trump is indicted for espionage/793 is going to depend more on whether there's evidence he did anything with the classified docs other than masturbate with them.

But that's certainly a nice piece of evidence to prove his knowledge that the declassification thing was bullshit and also that he was hoarding the classified stuff purposefully.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Yes, but what this defense pre-supposes is Trump declassified the tape about the false declassification when he erroneously declassified the non-declassified documents in question of never being declassified.  Ex.  Post.  Facto.  Libtards! 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yes, but what this defense pre-supposes is Trump declassified the tape about the false declassification when he erroneously declassified the non-declassified documents in question of never being declassified.  Ex.  Post.  Facto.  Libtards! 

Maybe trump, as potus, thought in his mind that anything incriminating against him was henceforth classified at the highest level, and therefore isn’t eligible for presentation on court and anyone that has it or knows about it is going to jail for possessing such material. 

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Beyond insisting that he had a right to possess the docs, has Trump ever tried to explain why he wanted them in the first place?

Well, he wanted a few of the docs because his wife's normally arid snatch turned into Niagara Falls when she met Macron.

TELEMMGLPICT000161417427_trans_NvBQzQNjv

 

Edited by Gil Bang
Posted
57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not sure what you're trying to say, but the Tarrant County DA is not nearly as meticulous as the US DOJ when it comes to indicting and trying people, especially when that person is Donald Trump.

What I'm trying to say-

All citizens should be considered equal in the eyes of law in a system that purports that principle

What you're describing-

Not that, by far. 5 years incarceration for a citizen without resources with a shoddy fraction of the effort by the state

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

What I'm trying to say-

All citizens should be considered equal in the eyes of law in a system that purports that principle

What you're describing-

Not that, by far. 5 years incarceration for a citizen without resources with a shoddy fraction of the effort by the state

What I'm describing is how some cases are complex and require vast amounts of preparation and some cases are simple and require virtually none.  Crystal Mason's case falls into the latter category.

That would be true if Crystal Mason were under investigation for Trump's crimes and Trump for Crystal Mason's crime.

Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Some legal "expert" on Anderson Cooper just asserted that classification of the document isn't necessary for a criminal act, that merely possessing military information w/o appropriate permission or clearance is in itself a crime.  I might be misinterpreting what he said.  It's been a long time since I held a security clearance, too, and I don't recall that standard, but my clearance was about as low as could be imagined.

Was that not Mark Hertling?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

I don't know if it is or isn't because I don't know Florida law.  

I'm not trying to make any global point about justice.  I'm explaining why some cases are quick and easy and some aren't.

If you want to confine it to Trump, the Mar A Lago case is easier than the January 6 case.  Accordingly, I would expect an indictment in MAL sooner than 1/6.

Posted
15 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Was that not Mark Hertling?

No, Hertling was on the show at the same time, along with Andrew McCabe.  I don't remember the attorney's name.  (I guess he's an attorney.)

Posted
5 hours ago, Red Five said:

They have him dead to rights on this. Does it really matter what he said two years ago about whatever crazy shit he believes he can and can't do? 

4 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So, I think that's what might be considered in litigation a "bad fact."

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Beyond insisting that he had a right to possess the docs, has Trump ever tried to explain why he wanted them in the first place?

What I love is the fact that these documents relate to Iran, which makes no sense - I could understand if they were, say a readout of Israel's current nuclear arsenal, or something that could benefit Saudi Arabia (say a lit of people trying to undermine the Saudi Royals).

But fucking Iran?  Unless he's related to the drone strike he ordered on Qasem Soleimani, I don't get it.  He was very proud and defensive of that drone strike, so maybe it relates to the reason(s) why he ordered the strike - we know he's a sensitive snowflake. I could easily see him keeping some information around to show people.  "Remember that Iranian general I had killed in Iraq? Yeah, this is why I had him killed.  You can thank me for saving the lives of Americans."

 

Posted
55 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

What I love is the fact that these documents relate to Iran, which makes no sense - I could understand if they were, say a readout of Israel's current nuclear arsenal, or something that could benefit Saudi Arabia (say a lit of people trying to undermine the Saudi Royals).

But fucking Iran?  Unless he's related to the drone strike he ordered on Qasem Soleimani, I don't get it.  He was very proud and defensive of that drone strike, so maybe it relates to the reason(s) why he ordered the strike - we know he's a sensitive snowflake. I could easily see him keeping some information around to show people.  "Remember that Iranian general I had killed in Iraq? Yeah, this is why I had him killed.  You can thank me for saving the lives of Americans."

 

It was the BEST MOST BEAUTIFUL ATTACK PLAN that Milley wouldn’t let him authorize against Iran 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I may be being unduly harsh on state prosecutors.  But the difference in case preparation between state and federal prosecutors, I think you have to admit, is night and day.  As well as the resources applied. Especially for cases as high profile as those against Trump.

And, the crimes tend to be simpler, as well as the statutes.  It's mostly simple proof of facts, without a whole lot of intent to go along with it.  

And the defense lawyers are probably not as good/diligent as even Federal Public Defenders** or the high-dollar cats Trump will employ.

**I'm on record as having the highest respect for FPD, they're damn good.

Oh, I agree with you in large part.  I was just saying that not all state prosecutors are winging it all the time.  Some do.  And I know of more than a few feds who got their start as state prosecutors.

 

But it's a different level for sure.

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

What I love is the fact that these documents relate to Iran, which makes no sense - I could understand if they were, say a readout of Israel's current nuclear arsenal, or something that could benefit Saudi Arabia (say a lit of people trying to undermine the Saudi Royals).

But fucking Iran?  Unless he's related to the drone strike he ordered on Qasem Soleimani, I don't get it.  He was very proud and defensive of that drone strike, so maybe it relates to the reason(s) why he ordered the strike - we know he's a sensitive snowflake. I could easily see him keeping some information around to show people.  "Remember that Iranian general I had killed in Iraq? Yeah, this is why I had him killed.  You can thank me for saving the lives of Americans."

 

Saudis and Iran have had their own mini arab cold war for a long time. Intelligence on Iran could definitely be worth money to the Saudis, especially if it exposes vulnerabilities in Iran's defense. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted

The goddamn mothefucking trust fund shit spent thousands of his inheritance on newspaper ads calling for the execution of Americans for crimes they didn't commit and is enabled to frame others for crimes he commits with impunity as a pretext to end America and democracy. There's no backstop behind us.

That's who we might lose to.

Orange slices all around.

 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Those of you who keep saying this... are y'all even paying attention?

Yeah.  For the last 7 years or so. What channel were you watching?

I would think Trump's most solid legal defense would be to claim that he is a lying piece of shit.  His vulnerability to prosecution is based on him speaking honestly to people in a room.  He could have been looking at a Denny's menu and claiming it was secret war plans.  Would that really seem unlikely or out of place considering what we know about him?  Shit, they could bring in a couple hundred million character witnesses who would testify that he just says stupid shit all the time, and for no particular reason. 

I doubt Trump would make such a claim, which makes me smile a bit. 

Posted
54 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Yeah.  For the last 7 years or so. What channel were you watching?

I don't watch TV unless there's Longhorn football on. I read my news.

You must have tuned out the last year or so. You need to pay attention to what's happening now. What's going on now is different.

Trump is turbofucked.

  • Like 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

does he get a day pass from prison when they unveil his presidential portrait ?

No need. It'll be a mugshot 

  • Haha 2
Posted
8 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Those of you who keep saying this... are y'all even paying attention?

Yeah, I was in the "nothing matters" camp, because he's gotten away with so much for so long.

But this really seems like it's going to sink him.  His own former lawyer, Ty Cobb, was on tv saying that he would advise his client that it's over and he should take whatever deal he can get.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The goddamn mothefucking trust fund shit spent thousands of his inheritance on newspaper ads calling for the execution of Americans for crimes they didn't commit and is enabled to frame others for crimes he commits with impunity as a pretext to end America and democracy. There's no backstop behind us.

That's who we might lose to.

Orange slices all around.

It scares ya to death. 

Posted
5 hours ago, Tuco said:

Yeah.  For the last 7 years or so. What channel were you watching?

I would think Trump's most solid legal defense would be to claim that he is a lying piece of shit.  His vulnerability to prosecution is based on him speaking honestly to people in a room.  He could have been looking at a Denny's menu and claiming it was secret war plans.  Would that really seem unlikely or out of place considering what we know about him?  Shit, they could bring in a couple hundred million character witnesses who would testify that he just says stupid shit all the time, and for no particular reason. 

I doubt Trump would make such a claim, which makes me smile a bit. 

Whether he was really waving around the document is secondary to him acknowledging that he is knowingly in possession of information concerning the national defense and knows he shouldn't have it and shouldn't be showing it to people.

And, I don't know that they would defend it that way, precisely, but it might be something closely related.

First, let's acknowledge that putting people on the jury that are like most of us is almost as wrong as putting q-magats on the jury.  So, there are going to be jurors that are more neutral than either of those groups of people, or, in any case willing to decide the case on the evidence before them and not their pre-existing knowledge or beliefs about Trump.

Most people know that you can't take anything Trump says at literally face value.  Most of us believe, probably rightly, that the real, intended meaning is far worse than what he actually says.  Others are going to be less easily convinced that it's something insidious, certainly when applying a reasonable doubt standard.

With some defendants, it's probably less risky to go to trial basically on their words alone.  But Trump is such a bloviating, double-talking, lying-ass, word salad motherfucker that you really need some extra evidence corroborating that worst possible meaning.

And, in contemplating where and how Smith got this recording, something occurred to me.  In some cases, you want to talk to every conceivable witness to find out what they might say, even if you don't believe they have valuable evidence.  And you can put them in front of a grand jury to make their testimony more truthful and have an actual record of it in case they change their story.

With Trump and his propensity for influencing/tampering with witnesses, this is probably doubly important so that one of those people doesn't pop up at trial with some kind of exculpatory evidence.  So I think Smith has been talking to "err'body" before the grand jury to reduce that likelihood and stumbled on this gem.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The law is linked in the article along with prosecutions arising from it.

 

Screenshot_20230531-214548-124.png

Well, the obvious answer of course is Florida, just like the answer for Mason is Texas.  But the way that statute is written, "willfully submits" could provide an out for someone who negligently or mistakenly provides an incorrect or the wrong address in voter registration information.

If you're a federal prosecutor indicting on that statute, you probably want some extra information as to why the defendant put the wrong information down and why it was willful and not negligent.

In the Mason case, unfortunately for her, you do have her signing the provisional application affidavit falsely, which is a bad look in and of itself, and the affidavit itself basically informs her that she is ineligible to vote.  And this is a woman who was a tax preparer that was convicted of filing false tax returns on behalf of her clients, so she's not exactly an ignoramus about paperwork and seems to have a morally casual attitude about filing false papers.

I'm not supporting her conviction, certainly not her sentence.  But if you're talking about the kind of evidence prosecutors need and want to secure a conviction, it's mostly there for Mason and takes a lot of digging for Trump.

ETA:  Oof, according to Wikipedia, and to my surprise, Tarrant DA Sharen Wilson, a standartenfuhrer if there ever was one, offered Mason probation if she'd plead guilty.  What a clusterfuck.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

Is a provisional ballot the same as a regular ballot?  Doesn’t it get extra vetting before being allowed to be tabulated, for various eligibility checks? Didn’t those checks work in that case?

Posted
9 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Those of you who keep saying this... are y'all even paying attention?

Yes. That’s why we keep saying this. I’ll believe he faces consequences if/when it happens. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

FxdkpJQXgAQ9OND?format=jpg&name=medium

So what do we call this hairstyle?  It's not a mullet because of the generous front combover.  It's not blonde, nor red.  Kinda orange.  Definitely party out back.  But overall, it's altogether different.  It needs a name.  

Posted
12 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Is a provisional ballot the same as a regular ballot?  Doesn’t it get extra vetting before being allowed to be tabulated, for various eligibility checks? Didn’t those checks work in that case?

Yes, but the statute covers an "attempt to vote."

Again, I'm not defending the Mason conviction, and particularly not the sentence.  I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of trying a criminal case.  The Mason case was easy-peasy with a little bit of wiggle room on the issue of "knew she was ineligible to vote."  That's an easily triable criminal case with one witness and about a day's preparation.

These Trump cases are nothing like that.

Posted
6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes. That’s why we keep saying this. I’ll believe he faces consequences if/when it happens. 

Again, I maintain that Trump's slipperiness with respect to the civil law is a different kettle of fish than what he's facing now.  And, even the civil things like Carroll have a different flavor than the bullshit he's pulled off in the past.  Is the Carroll case the first time Trump has been to trial on anything?  If not, it's one of a very few.

The Bragg case is a bit fraught, though.  We'll see on Fulton County.  The Mar A Lago thing seems to be shaping up to about as close to a slam dunk as one could hope for, at least on the obstruction charge.  One huge problem there is that it seems it would be tried in Florida, not DC or NY.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...