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
16 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

He could claim it.  

But it's not going to fly.

 

Just like no way SCOTUS is going to grant immunity because no one is above the law.

We might find out one way or another if it's going to fly five years from now.

Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

as opposed to Texas state courts and others where the written briefing is ignored until a hearing takes place,

Say what?  Texas trial courts consider matters on submission without a hearing all the time.

Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Or might have to order a mistrial that's tantamount to an acquittal. 

I'm guessing the only way we get to acquittal on a count is if (1) Merchan decides there evidence used to support a count against amounts to evidence of an "official act" and (2) the fact that such an "official act," if any, cannot be used to support the case for a "guilty" finding on that count, with consideration given to the remaining, supporting evidence, renders the evidence on that count to be legally insufficient (findings of legal insufficiency results in acquittal under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

200.webp?cid=790b7611ht2b8w9lfe5fm2h1jwm

I do agree that more people rely on Fudge Nuggets than Andrew Weissmann for legal matters involving the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I do agree that more people rely on Fudge Nuggets than Andrew Weissmann for legal matters involving the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court. 

They should. Everything espoused by the great legal minds has been shown to be bullshit. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sadly, I've come to the realization that Trump is going to get away with be rewarded for all of this by becoming the President of the United States again.

ALL. OF. IT.

 I think this is what you meant to say.

Posted
14 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sadly, I've come to the realization that Trump is going to get away with all of this.

ALL. OF. IT.

My wife was addicted to the drama of his indictments. I've barely paid attention. I said to her, "when they haul him off in handcuffs to prison let me know, until then, meh."

Posted
2 hours ago, dcbc said:

I'm guessing the only way we get to acquittal on a count is if (1) Merchan decides there evidence used to support a count against amounts to evidence of an "official act" and (2) the fact that such an "official act," if any, cannot be used to support the case for a "guilty" finding on that count, with consideration given to the remaining, supporting evidence, renders the evidence on that count to be legally insufficient (findings of legal insufficiency results in acquittal under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. 

this is a real and considerable risk.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

He was never going to see the inside of a jail cell.  I think most of us came to terms with that 18 months ago.  But several weeks back, you could visibly see the calendar exhaustion tattoo'd all across him.  He was running ragged.  Between grifting fundraisers, courtroom appearances in multiple venues, rallies, and media appearances...he was starting to look like a bloated bag of shit.  The one thing I thought was clever about this all was the 4 prosecutors aligned their calendars to beat the shit outta the old man.  And it was starting to show, you could even hear it.  I bet you could even smell it, if you're into that kinda thing.  And then what happens, they reshuffle all 4 dockets, spread them out, and he's basically just got the convention, and his grift machine is back on auto-tune.  He's as full of shit as ever, but the whole system just arranged it so he can oranged, rested, and ready for November.  The guy was a half-hour from an ER visit, and all three branches together plus some state/local prosecutors got together and fucked it all up.  

Posted
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

They should. Everything espoused by the great legal minds has been shown to be bullshit. 

Great post. It’s just too bad you can’t quote to any specific examples to back you up.

But your sweeping generalities about the literally dozens of issues we’ve talked about in this thread are very helpful to everybody. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, troph said:

this is a real and considerable risk.

Good thing there are 34 counts.  I don't think any of it is getting an acquittal, but if I'm wrong, I don't think it knocks more that a couple out (and that might be a stretch).

Posted
11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I was referring to “hearing” in the sense that both parties put forth a position to a court on an issue.  Whether oral argument took place or not was superfluous. 

I know.  As with many of my posts, I'm riffing/elucidating on a point for the peanut gallery.  As I will do again, below.

Almost all attempts at relief (getting something from the court), require a motion, a response to the motion, and a reply to the response (optional, sometimes forbidden).  A hearing on the arguments raised in the motion is a matter of federal/state or local practice.

Sometimes, relatively rarely, a motion will require taking testimony or other evidence that can't just be attached to an affidavit.  Those are "evidentiary" hearings that tend to be relatively uncommon, although some are unavoidable (motion to suppress evidence).

Hearings seem more common in criminal courts than civil.  Maybe it's felt that that extra dollop of due process is required.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, dcbc said:

I'm guessing the only way we get to acquittal on a count is if (1) Merchan decides there evidence used to support a count against amounts to evidence of an "official act" and (2) the fact that such an "official act," if any, cannot be used to support the case for a "guilty" finding on that count, with consideration given to the remaining, supporting evidence, renders the evidence on that count to be legally insufficient (findings of legal insufficiency results in acquittal under the Jackson v. Virginia standard. 

Ackshually, I'm afraid that if "immune evidence" was introduced on a count or counts, it could taint the verdict and require mistrial/acuittal (same thing at this point) on at least that count, maybe all of them.

That was what Roberts intimated:  that it was completely out of bounds because a jury couldn't be instructed around it, as is commonly done with other bad acts and other evidence.

The biggest load of shit in that entire opinion.  I think I am pretty familiar with immunity doctrines at most levels, and I've never heard of anything like this.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Great post. It’s just too bad you can’t quote to any specific examples to back you up.

But your sweeping generalities about the literally dozens of issues we’ve talked about in this thread are very helpful to everybody. 

This thread is chock full of legal beagles on Twitter proclaiming the latest news is the lightning bolt that will finally get dotard.  We point out fuck all is going to happen to him, surly legal brain trust swoops in saying we don't know shit.  Nothing happens, surly brain trust throws shade saying "Too bad people don't rely on you for legal analysis." 

Based on how damn wrong y'all have been about everything and how right we have been (i.e. fuck all has happened to dotard) one wonders what a client really gets for the money y'all bill them.

That you can't see this is a you problem, not a me problem.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This thread is chock full of legal beagles on Twitter proclaiming the latest news is the lightning bolt that will finally get dotard.  We point out fuck all is going to happen to him, surly legal brain trust swoops in saying we don't know shit.  Nothing happens, surly brain trust throws shade saying "Too bad people don't rely on you for legal analysis." 

Based on how damn wrong y'all have been about everything and how right we have been (i.e. fuck all has happened to dotard) one wonders what a client really gets for the money y'all bill them.

That you can't see this is a you problem, not a me problem.

Username checks out.

Posted
9 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

FWIW

This also means it comes out when early voting in the earliest states starts around 45-50 days out. That’s mid septemberish. Pennsylvania is one of those states that starts then.
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This thread is chock full of legal beagles on Twitter proclaiming the latest news is the lightning bolt that will finally get dotard.  We point out fuck all is going to happen to him, surly legal brain trust swoops in saying we don't know shit.  Nothing happens, surly brain trust throws shade saying "Too bad people don't rely on you for legal analysis." 

Based on how damn wrong y'all have been about everything and how right we have been (i.e. fuck all has happened to dotard) one wonders what a client really gets for the money y'all bill them.

That you can't see this is a you problem, not a me problem.

None of that is accurate. Except maybe the part about where you don’t know shit. That is pretty spot on.   

And it is not throwing shade to comment on your legal analysis. Saying ‘nothing will happen to Trump’ is not really in-depth legal analysis. It’s just you repeating the same thing over and over again.  For example, I think you were one of the posters proclaiming that no jury will ever convict Trump in the last trial.  You will ignore the fact that Trump was in fact convicted, and pivot to point out that he’s not in jail - so you and your goalpost moving brethren can celebrate your perspicacity.  Enjoy. 

I bolded your quote to give you an opportunity to repost old law dog posts where we said anything remotely like what you posted - Since you won’t be be able to find one, let me give you a good response:

”I’m not gonna look that up. Everyone knows you said it.”

You’re welcome. 

Edit: on a re-read, I see that your issue Is also with Twitter legal experts who say ‘lightning bolt’…’trump’s going down ‘ blah blah blah.     

if I understand you, there might be a Twitter post saying Trump will lose his immunity argument in the DC circuit court.  You say, “nothing will happen to him”, and one of us says that the tweet is absolutely right, there is no precedent for immunity and the DC circuit will affirm the trial court.  The DC circuit court rules exactly like we said.   Then the corrupt Scotus grants the writ and issues an unprecedented shit- tastic horrible decision helping Trump.

You say, “See….we told you!”

I can see your problem.  It’s reading comprehension. 

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

This also means it comes out when early voting in the earliest states starts around 45-50 days out. That’s mid septemberish. Pennsylvania is one of those states that starts then.
 

 

Weissman is a pretty good commentator as they go on X.  Supposedly, he was a quite formidable AUSA (led the Mueller team) and a bit of a dick.  He comes off as very owlish on TV/video, though.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
4 hours ago, dcbc said:

Good thing there are 34 counts.  I don't think any of it is getting an acquittal, but if I'm wrong, I don't think it knocks more that a couple out (and that might be a stretch).

I hope you’re right. I am not super familiar with the evidence used other than stormy Daniels testimony lol. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, troph said:

I hope you’re right. I am not super familiar with the evidence used other than stormy Daniels testimony lol. 

At this point in my career, I'm about 50/50.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, troph said:

Good enough for the hall of fame. 

I'll take it.

Edited by dcbc
Posted
Judge dismisses classified documents case against Donald Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/judge-dismissses-classified-documents-case-against-donald-trump-is-dismissed
I for one am shocked

“In the end, it seems the Executive’s growing comfort in appointing ‘regulatory’ special counsels in the more recent era has followed an ad hoc pattern with little judicial scrutiny,” Cannon wrote.

lol we’re so fucked
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

I presume that by now, y'all have reached the conclusion that "the ledge" is actually a pretty large fucking chunk of real estate, right?

The takeover is almost complete.  Enjoy the illusion of this election.  It's the last remotely "free and fair" election you'll ever see (in truth, that election is in your rearview mirror).  The installation of the king is almost complete.  Wanna bet on whether the SCOTUS actually enforces the 22nd amendment in 2028 when Trump "runs" for a third term?

  • Rage+1 4
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

So can they refile and get a real judge?

Yup. White courtesy phone 

No, a reversal sends the case back to her. There's a chance the appellate court kicks her off in their decision, though. 

Edited by Hookah Horns
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Macanudo said:

Game over folks.   Just bend over and grab you ankles for what is coming.  

Remember when you called me shortly after Trump was elected in 2016, to ask me "is this really as bad as you're making it sound?"  And remember I said "yes?"  I was wrong.  It was worse than I thought.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

So the only remaining case with any real teeth. 

Cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool cool

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Of all the people to make a king they choose the absolute worst piece of shit.

It takes a special type of person to want to be the figurehead for what's happening.  Most would be a guilt and anxiety ridden mess at this point.



×
×
  • Create New...