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
12 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I think they’re faced with the conundrum of how do they give Trump immunity without giving Biden immunity. 

Which is why I think they delay the decision until after the election.  If dotard wins, Presidents get immunity, if Biden wins, not so much. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

All this "SCOTUS will overturn talk" is primarily to provide cover for sitting congressmen to endorse a convicted felon.  I was wondering why so many of them made some kind of "I fully anticipate it being overturned on appeal" remark immediately after the ruling, and then realized it's the fool-proof response to "why are you supporting a felon?"  

They know the appeals process will last past the election, so there's no downside regardless of whether or not they really believe it will be appealed.  And bonus points for them: this Calvinball SCOTUS might figure out some way to make them correct.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
11 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

Steve Bannon is still out.

The DC court of appeal unanimously appealed his conviction.  He was out because the trial court found he had a likelihood of success on appeal - and could stay out of jail pending appeal.

Having lost that appeal, all he has left is his en banc request, which is really no reason to keep him from reporting to jail.   May 15 the feds asked that he be ordered to jail.    Bannon responded May 20, and it is before the court, although no decision has been made because that particular court has an extremely full docket for a week or so.

In sum, Bannon’s excuse for not going to jail is now gone.    We will see if the trial court, having been told it was wrong, will still insist on an en banc decision before pulling the string.  I would guess we are less than 10 days away from Bannon going to jail.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted

Let me add one that has been shut out. Shep is a, no pun intended, straight shooter. He would call out FOX bullshit live on the air.

3000.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Multiple witnesses in criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have reportedly received significant financial benefits from his businesses and campaign, including large raises, severance packages, new jobs, and shares and cash from Trump's media company. The timing of these benefits often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings, raising concerns about potential witness tampering. Trump's legal team attempted to suppress the story with a cease-and-desist letter to ProPublica, which published the report despite the threat.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 5
Posted
2 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Is this Nick Tortelli, Carla’s husband from Cheers?

Nick could only dream of delivering a cross-body check like Ed.

Posted
Just now, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Multiple witnesses in criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have reportedly received significant financial benefits from his businesses and campaign, including large raises, severance packages, new jobs, and shares and cash from Trump's media company. The timing of these benefits often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings, raising concerns about potential witness tampering. Trump's legal team attempted to suppress the story with a cease-and-desist letter to ProPublica, which published the report despite the threat.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

Super normal. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Multiple witnesses in criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have reportedly received significant financial benefits from his businesses and campaign, including large raises, severance packages, new jobs, and shares and cash from Trump's media company. The timing of these benefits often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings, raising concerns about potential witness tampering. Trump's legal team attempted to suppress the story with a cease-and-desist letter to ProPublica, which published the report despite the threat.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

Meanwhile, 42% of America firmly believes that the Democrats are the ones corrupting the legal process, and will claim unfairness or overreach if there is any attempt to investigate/prosecute these obviously illegal dealings.

Edited by Chuckie Finster
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Meanwhile, 42% of America firmly believes that the Democrats are the ones corrupting the legal process, and will claim unfairness or overreach if there is any attempt to investigate/prosecute these obviously illegal dealings.

Well, duh. Have you listened to FOX News or AM radio?

1b89bb59-f3a8-4491-ac71-c5f33a1c3606_scr

 

Posted
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Which is why I think they delay the decision until after the election.  If dotard wins, Presidents get immunity, if Biden wins, not so much. 


Maga justices aren’t going to let it slip that far 

Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, in answer to your question.  SCOTUS will only review questions raised in the trial court or validly on appeal in the NY state appellate courts.  

AFAIK, Trump never raised any such issue before the trial court. I suppose there's an argument that it isn't "ripe" until sentencing, so maybe it can be raised for the first time there.  But I don't think the NY state courts are going to do Trump any favors on that ground when/if raised.  Nor do I think SCOTUS would, and then only after NY appeals are exhausted.

As willfully implies, its a sort of "candidate immunity" that is completely without precedent or grounding in anything and as you note would open a can of worms in relation to any criminally corrupt candidate for office.

C'mon man. SCOTUS will do whatever 5 justices want to do.  

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Which is why I think they delay the decision until after the election.  If dotard wins, Presidents get immunity, if Biden wins, not so much. 

Yep. 

Posted
3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

If you were looking for judicial cover, don’t forget that Trump’s‘s department of Justice gave Michael Cohen a couple of years for following Trump’s instructions.   IOW, we have an example of a first time white collar criminal who did time for the exact same facts in the exact same scheme. The difference is, Michael Cohen pled guilty and did not put the government through the effort and expense of a multi week trial with an essentially nonexistent defense. 

And if he violated the gag order for the 10th time, he needs to get 30 days for that regardless of his time for the charges.  I think that jail time could only be reversed on abuse of discretion.  Trump has provided the court with a huge dump of valid reasons why jail time, in some form, is appropriate.

C-man, I will bet you a C-note Trump gets some jail time, the loser donating to Surly.   

I'm in. What are the parameters? I don't think he'll get jail/prison for any of the 34 counts he's been convicted of -- is that the bet? He's going to appeal this shit for years no matter what anyways. Or are we lumping in even a single hour or day in the event he's given that punishment for violating the gag order or contempt of court? That wasn't necessarily my thought but we can throw that in there if you want. I was disagreeing with @immamac and don't think he'll get time behind bars for the 34 felonies.

Posted

Questions for those with criminal or constitutional law expertise:

I assume that SCOTUS would have jurisdiction in a state criminal case only if a constitutional issue is raised, e.g Miranda. 

1. Can a defendant appeal directly to SCOTUS, or does the appeal have to run its course through the state appellate courts first? 

2. Is the alleged constitutional defect waived if it not raised in the trial court and preserved?

3. Were any such claims made by Trump in the trial court? 

Posted
13 hours ago, scottsins said:


Right, but they will file their notice of appeal and post an appeal bond to keep him from being locked up for at least a year or two.

 

14 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Even if sentenced to prison, appeals will take a couple years. (He will make sure to drag it out). He still has the other cases. While Cannon will likely torpedo the documents case somehow, the DC one will eventually go to trial. 

 

12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

At what point does the crime become significant enough for the appeal to happen while the defendant is behind bars?  What creates the tipping point beyond which the guilty has to sit in prison while appealing?

This whole thing seems nuts.

Imagine for a moment that everything about this is reversed. Biden is the corrupt, narcissistic, racist, facsist shitgibbon from New York, Trump is president. Biden is now 34 times convicted of these crimes, and let's also say it's in Texas.

The solution to all our problems would be a sentence of 10 years on each count to be served consecutively (let's pretend the analogue offense is a 3rd Degree felony in Texas, to be honest I haven't cared to look). There would be no appellate bond, because, being a sentence of 10 years or more, he would be inelligible for one.

You all know that if the shoe were on the GOP foot, that would be the result.

I don't know if that kind of result is possible here, under New York law, but if it is, I hope Merchan at least consideres it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
46 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Multiple witnesses in criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have reportedly received significant financial benefits from his businesses and campaign, including large raises, severance packages, new jobs, and shares and cash from Trump's media company. The timing of these benefits often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings, raising concerns about potential witness tampering. Trump's legal team attempted to suppress the story with a cease-and-desist letter to ProPublica, which published the report despite the threat.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

Trump has a lifetime of getting people financially beholden to him while they're useful. As soon as they're not useful, the money is cut off. 

Posted
2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I think they’re faced with the conundrum of how do they give Trump immunity without giving Biden immunity. 

It's simple. They'll say Presidents get immunity for "official acts" and they don't for acts that aren't official acts. Well what qualifies as an official act? That'll be for them to decide.

  • Rage+1 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, Horndog said:

Questions for those with criminal or constitutional law expertise:

I assume that SCOTUS would have jurisdiction in a state criminal case only if a constitutional issue is raised, e.g Miranda. 

1. Can a defendant appeal directly to SCOTUS, or does the appeal have to run its course through the state appellate courts first? 

2. Is the alleged constitutional defect waived if it not raised in the trial court and preserved?

3. Were any such claims made by Trump in the trial court? 

Your initial assumption is correct, a Constitutional or otherwise federal question.

1. No (yes to the rest)

2.  Presumably

3.  I think they made some half-ass argument that acts occurring while in office could not be the subject of prosecution (e.g. checks signed in office).  I suppose some arguments might not be ripe until sentencing (like the bullshit that imprisonment would interfere with his campaign).

Posted
On 5/31/2024 at 9:44 PM, Chewbacca said:
On 5/31/2024 at 5:58 PM, WhatTheBuck said:
Baseless Republican accusations and decades of character assassination didn’t make Hillary a flawed candidate. 

The DNC using Superdelegates to give her the nomination, and her ignoring battleground states is what made her a flawed candidate.

We were going to get a disaster no matter which was elected. The obstructionist, hate-mongering GOP would have made American politics a nightmare. Given a chance, I think should would have been a fine president. Of course, she's undeniably more fit to hold office than what we got. Anybody notice what a bad person Trump is?

Posted
11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I'm in. What are the parameters? I don't think he'll get jail/prison for any of the 34 counts he's been convicted of -- is that the bet? He's going to appeal this shit for years no matter what anyways. Or are we lumping in even a single hour or day in the event he's given that punishment for violating the gag order or contempt of court? That wasn't necessarily my thought but we can throw that in there if you want. I was disagreeing with @immamac and don't think he'll get time behind bars for the 34 felonies.

Let’s make it any jail time from the 34 or any jail time (in this trial only)for contempt.

Nobody owes anything until after all appeals are exhausted. 

To be clear, if he goes to jail I win.  If he never goes to jail, you win.  If he goes to jail and the order sending him to jail is later reversed on appeal - he still went to jail, but we push. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Multiple witnesses in criminal cases against former President Donald Trump have reportedly received significant financial benefits from his businesses and campaign, including large raises, severance packages, new jobs, and shares and cash from Trump's media company. The timing of these benefits often coincided with critical moments in the legal proceedings, raising concerns about potential witness tampering. Trump's legal team attempted to suppress the story with a cease-and-desist letter to ProPublica, which published the report despite the threat.

https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-criminal-cases-witnesses-financial-benefits

Quote

Boris Epshteyn

Trump campaign adviser

Benefit: Pay more than doubled

Boris Epshteyn

Seriously? It's like the simulation isn't even trying anymore.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, VivaNaranja said:

Boris Epshteyn

Seriously? It's like the simulation isn't even trying anymore.

RonBurgundyVoice, "Simulation, are you just looking around the room for words that sound like common Russian first names and famous pedophiles?" 

-What?  I love Cyrillic, okay?  I love Cyrillic.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Horndog said:

Questions for those with criminal or constitutional law expertise:

I assume that SCOTUS would have jurisdiction in a state criminal case only if a constitutional issue is raised, e.g Miranda. 

1. Can a defendant appeal directly to SCOTUS, or does the appeal have to run its course through the state appellate courts first? 

2. Is the alleged constitutional defect waived if it not raised in the trial court and preserved?

3. Were any such claims made by Trump in the trial court? 

  Basically limited to constitutional questions in criminal cases.

1. No.

2.  Yes.  All error must be preserved, including constitutional error, unless such error falls under the limited category of  "structural" error.

3.  I don't recall.  But nothing jumps to mind.  

Posted
8 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

There is nothing worse than a deep drive across the 50 being stymied by self induced motion/offsides penalties. 

She did get a couple of the assholes to plead guilty, so it will never be a nothing burger.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Let’s make it any jail time from the 34 or any jail time (in this trial only)for contempt.

Nobody owes anything until after all appeals are exhausted. 

To be clear, if he goes to jail I win.  If he never goes to jail, you win.  If he goes to jail and the order sending him to jail is later reversed on appeal - he still went to jail, but we push. 

Book it!

Posted
54 minutes ago, Party_Taco said:


What a joke, but the slow walking of all these trials by both state and federal prosecutors set the stage for such a possibility.

We should have been going after these traitors from the jump. The fact that those supporting the insurrection were allowed back into Congress itself is incredibly suspect.

I hope we can somehow avoid disaster, but boy howdy are we cutting it close…

The reality is that the earliest these could have been brought is some time in 2022.  That would have increased the likelihood of trials, but appeals would still remain pending through the election. 

Posted
15 minutes ago, 1978horn said:


Waldron lives and owns a distillery in Dripping Springs.

Which one?  I know of Deep Eddy, Nine Band,  and Treaty Oak at a minimum.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

image.png.c3c848debc75392476b84f43c7aa6b3a.png

I get that emotions were running high, and I get that whole mob mentality thing.    But I swear to God, I cannot fathom what was going through her brain when she thought that attacking elected representatives in Congress was a good idea, given the locked doors to keep you out - and the armed security who have their weapons drawn and pointed at you - telling you to stop or they’ll shoot - makes you think,  “Ya know…this might be a really good time to try to bash out the window between us and crawl through it to get to those people.”

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
I get that emotions were running high, and I get that whole mob mentality thing.    But I swear to God, I cannot fathom what was going through her brain when she thought that attacking elected representatives in Congress was a good idea, given the locked doors to keep you out - and the armed security who have their weapons drawn and pointed at you - telling you to stop or they’ll shoot - makes you think,  “Ya know…this might be a really good time to try to bash out the window between us and crawl through it to get to those people.”

Well…see…these people are deluded fucking morons of the highest order.
That’s how they end up doing deluded moron things.
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...