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
2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, fuck off.  It's as if you never read my posts until you want to pitch a hissy fit.  And I'm not a fucking lawyer.  (I'm not sure which is the bigger insult.)

By the way, this study suggests (at the state level) the average time to trial for a felony is ~ 9 months, so yeah, several years is seemingly a problem.

 

image.png.ba7301e8bc2391142ecbc4d41395d430.png

As stated, this is not an average defendant. He can, will, and has spent lots of billable hours to delay in every way possible. And because of who he is, the court has to proceed deliberately because a hint of skipping a step to convict a former POTUS is how we get legitimate shouts about political persecution.  Add in a sympathetic judge in one case and every motion will be given the longest of leashes. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

As stated, this is not an average defendant. He can, will, and has spent lots of billable hours to delay in every way possible. And because of who he is, the court has to proceed deliberately because a hint of skipping a step to convict a former POTUS is how we get legitimate shouts about political persecution.  Add in a sympathetic judge in one case and every motion will be given the longest of leashes. 

As if I don't understand this?  It doesn't change the perception that there is something besides "proceeding deliberately" afoot (aka your "sympathetic judge" comment).

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, fuck off.  It's as if you never read my posts until you want to pitch a hissy fit.  And I'm not a fucking lawyer.  (I'm not sure which is the bigger insult.)

By the way, this study suggests (at the state level) the average time to trial for a felony is ~ 9 months, so yeah, several years is seemingly a problem.

 

image.png.ba7301e8bc2391142ecbc4d41395d430.png

Yeah, it's a problem inherent to the system.  One, we don't have enough courts and trial dates to dole out.  Two, due process takes some time.  Three, a defendant can exploit one and two to compound the delays.

So, delay is often to be expected, particularly in complex, high-profile, or significant cases, like death-penalty or former presidents.

Can call it "okey dokeing" if you want I guess, but it should be the expectation rather than a surprise.  Lawdogs have that expectation, others don't.

Also, that study is of mostly state cases.  States have many more courts than the federal system, and most of the criminal courts are dedicated to criminal cases, unlike the federal system.  They also handle more cases than the federal system.

Which brings up another factor.  Federal judges have a mixed criminal and civil docket.  A whole lot of them come from civil backgrounds and are somewhat unprepared to manage criminal cases.  And, civil cases are largely "self-paced" and tend to require less management than a criminal case that is heavy on motions and dilatory tactics.  Finally, being a civil judge that "puts up with no bullshit" has fewer due process limitations than the same trait in a criminal case, so I think federal judges are less likely to be sticklers in a criminal case.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
8 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, fuck off.  It's as if you never read my posts until you want to pitch a hissy fit.  And I'm not a fucking lawyer.  (I'm not sure which is the bigger insult.)

By the way, this study suggests (at the state level) the average time to trial for a felony is ~ 9 months, so yeah, several years is seemingly a problem.

 

image.png.ba7301e8bc2391142ecbc4d41395d430.png

Also, you need to extract pleas from that nine months.  If you looked at jury trials, it would be considerably longer.

Posted
Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

As stated, this is not an average defendant. He can, will, and has spent lots of billable hours to delay in every way possible. And because of who he is, the court has to proceed deliberately because a hint of skipping a step to convict a former POTUS is how we get legitimate shouts about political persecution.  Add in a sympathetic judge in one case and every motion will be given the longest of leashes. 

And suddenly..... He never actually has to face any consequences. He's fucking running for president and driving republican policy. STILL! 

 

Honestly from my perspective, people have been so afraid of appearing political in their decision making, that they're just making political decisions in prosecuting. Everyone is so scared of tarnishing their prosecutorial record that they're letting him skate and not even bothering to press the question and force the courts to address it. 

That weakness and uncertainty is the fault line that trumpco has exploited to make a mockery of our justice system. Our body politic has a cancer, and has let that cancer metastasize and grow while seeking your 2nd/3rd/4th/..../84662nd opinion on how to best proceed. 

Choosing to NOT prosecute someone simply because they're running for office is chicken shit and sets up a mile wide loophole for future abuse by future fascists. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

And suddenly..... He never actually has to face any consequences. He's fucking running for president and driving republican policy. STILL! 

 

Honestly from my perspective, people have been so afraid of appearing political in their decision making, that they're just making political decisions in prosecuting. Everyone is so scared of tarnishing their prosecutorial record that they're letting him skate and not even bothering to press the question and force the courts to address it. 

That weakness and uncertainty is the fault line that trumpco has exploited to make a mockery of our justice system. Our body politic has a cancer, and has let that cancer metastasize and grow while seeking your 2nd/3rd/4th/..../84662nd opinion on how to best proceed. 

Choosing to NOT prosecute someone simply because they're running for office is chicken shit and sets up a mile wide loophole for future abuse by future fascists. 

To put this in perspective, all of the crimes except the NY hush money case occurred right around January 2021, and a bit thereafter.

The January 6 case was brought August 1, 2023.  The documents case June 8, 2023.  The Georgia case August 21, 2023.  The NY hush money case in April 2023.  For all intents and purposes, they were filed at the same time.

At that point it should have been obvious to everyone that few if any of the cases would be tried before the election and none would result in a final (appeals exhausted) conviction until after the election.

The only of those cases where "political dithering" has been alleged is the January 6 case, some with the hush money case, which ironically was brought first, but also the most remote from the date of the crimes. 

Let's say that political dithering delayed the January 6 indictment an entire year, which I think is unrealistic given the novelty of the case and the level/scope of investigation required, see Willis' case filed at the same time.  So that would have placed it in August 2022, which realistically doesn't alter the timeline sufficiently to insure a trial before the election, much less exhaustion of appeals to final conviction.  And that's with a no-bullshit judge that is "fair" to likely biased against Trump.  The immunity question was always going to hamstring and prolong that prosecution.  And it would have done so even without the ridiculous immunity established by SCOTUS.

No dithering has been alleged with regard to the classified documents case, but a case involving more than 100 classified documents was always going to be a slow-go, Aileen Cannon or not.  She just made it that much worse.

Whatever dithering occurred didn't actually affect the outcome much.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

At that point it should have been obvious to everyone that few if any of the cases would be tried before the election and none would result in a final (appeals exhausted) conviction until after the election.

Conviction and final verdict or not, it fucking matters that the justice system has sat on its evidence on trumps treason and kneeled on first down. It's a failure that trump has not been inside a court room to answer for attempting to steal an election, doubly so when he's currently running the same playbook and rhetoric that he did last time that resulted in the worst stochastic terrorist attack in our nations history. 

He should have been put under oath and made to face trial prior to running for president again. The dickless dithering and fear from those charged with protecting the public is what has empowered fascism's rise in America. 

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The only of those cases where "political dithering" has been alleged is the January 6 case.  Let's say that delayed the indictment an entire year, which I think is unrealistic given the novelty of the case and the level of investigation required, see Willis' case filed at the same time.  So that would have placed it in August 2022, which realistically doesn't alter the timeline sufficiently to insure a trial before the election, much less exhaustion of appeals to final conviction.  And that's with a no-bullshit judge that is "fair" to likely biased against Trump.  The immunity question was always going to hamstring and prolong that prosecution.  And it would have done so even without the ridiculous immunity established by SCOTUS.

You know when there's a cancer, it's really really bad to just wait it out? Yeah. Waiting it out isn't going great for us. 

Edited by Captainant
Posted
14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Conviction and final verdict or not, it fucking matters that the justice system has sat on its evidence on trumps treason and kneeled on first down. It's a failure that trump has not been inside a court room to answer for attempting to steal an election, doubly so when he's currently running the same playbook and rhetoric that he did last time that resulted in the worst stochastic terrorist attack in our nations history. 

He should have been put under oath and made to face trial prior to running for president again. The dickless dithering and fear from those charged with protecting the public is what has empowered fascism's rise in America. 

You know when there's a cancer, it's really really bad to just wait it out? Yeah. Waiting it out isn't going great for us. 

Well, again, you seem to revert to wanting to change the rules for a given defendant.

Having to rely on the justice system to cure us of Donald Trump was never going to be an efficient or expeditious way of doing so.  I think it ultimately will result in trials and convictions that are affirmed on appeal and become final.  It just won't happen on a timeline that meets current wants or expectations.

Posted
39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, again, you seem to revert to wanting to change the rules for a given defendant.

WTAF are you talking about? Wanting someone to face a trial for their crimes within a four year time interval is unreasonable and a new rule based on a defendant? I'm not expecting resolution and a final verdict by then, but for fucks sake, the hand I've been hoping in still isn't full.

It's precicely of who this defendant is that he's gotten such special treatment and non-legally mandated extended delaying actions.

41 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Having to rely on the justice system to cure us of Donald Trump was never going to be an efficient or expeditious way of doing so.  I think it ultimately will result in trials and convictions that are affirmed on appeal and become final.  It just won't happen on a timeline that meets current wants or expectations.

TIL we should not expect the justice system to act on crimes committed. What a strange and through the looking glass sentiment. 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

To put this in perspective, all of the crimes except the NY hush money case occurred right around January 2021, and a bit thereafter.

The January 6 case was brought August 1, 2023.  The documents case June 8, 2023.  The Georgia case August 21, 2023.  The NY hush money case in April 2023.  For all intents and purposes, they were filed at the same time.

At that point it should have been obvious to everyone that few if any of the cases would be tried before the election and none would result in a final (appeals exhausted) conviction until after the election.

The only of those cases where "political dithering" has been alleged is the January 6 case, some with the hush money case, which ironically was brought first, but also the most remote from the date of the crimes. 

Let's say that political dithering delayed the January 6 indictment an entire year, which I think is unrealistic given the novelty of the case and the level/scope of investigation required, see Willis' case filed at the same time.  So that would have placed it in August 2022, which realistically doesn't alter the timeline sufficiently to insure a trial before the election, much less exhaustion of appeals to final conviction.  And that's with a no-bullshit judge that is "fair" to likely biased against Trump.  The immunity question was always going to hamstring and prolong that prosecution.  And it would have done so even without the ridiculous immunity established by SCOTUS.

No dithering has been alleged with regard to the classified documents case, but a case involving more than 100 classified documents was always going to be a slow-go, Aileen Cannon or not.  She just made it that much worse.

Whatever dithering occurred didn't actually affect the outcome much.

@captainant & @redfive -- Yes, we know.  Our government relies on people of all political affiliations following a code of conduct as well as the rule of law.  That the Republicans don't do this is an indictment of them but also a lot of intellectually lazy Americans.  A lot of our brethren have taken the easy way out and trusted the easiest lies to believe.  

It's hard for the average working stiff to know who to believe or figure out what information is important.  Hopefully this election will put our education system and media back on track.  

 

Edited by Bullneck
Posted
14 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

@captainant & @redfive -- Yes, we know.  Our government relies on people of all political affiliations following a code of conduct as well as the rule of law.  That the Republicans don't do this is an indictment of them but also a lot of intellectually lazy Americans.  A lot of our brethren have taken the easy way out and trusted the easiest lies to believe.  

It's hard for the average working stiff to know who to believe or figure out what information is important.  Hopefully this election will put our education system and media back on track.  

 

Why would republicans change their behavior? There's objectively no legal consequences for any of it. It's a big question up in the air if it's actually even allowed to go to fucking trial. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, F250 said:

We should end court cases and just use trial by combat but no one can defer to a champion.

 

Trial by combat odds Eddy Grant vs Trump, I've got Grant at 2 to 1 odds.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Trial by combat odds Eddy Grant vs Trump, I've got Grant at 2 to 1 odds.  

Yeah, even at 76 Eddy is looking prime compared to Trump:

image.png.18a1ce4a14aebf34178969329fde3073.png

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
On 10/27/2024 at 3:43 PM, Bullneck said:

@captainant & @redfive -- Yes, we know.  Our government relies on people of all political affiliations following a code of conduct as well as the rule of law.  That the Republicans don't do this is an indictment of them but also a lot of intellectually lazy Americans.  A lot of our brethren have taken the easy way out and trusted the easiest lies to believe.    

 

Yeah, the criminal justice system was never set up to handle criminals at the highest level of government. That responsibility was given to the American people through voting. 

When the systems were set up who was doing the voting? To those people in that era there was no way to ever fathom a 300+ million American population of every different ethnicity on the planet, the majority armed to the teeth, and full of ignorance, intellectual laziness, and stupidity. All being bombarded by pro-fascist propaganda 24/7 through devices in their pockets. 

The system is completely outdated and needs to be overhauled to account for today's culture and climate. The only thing that can save America from fascism in this outdated form of government is Harris, Walz, their people, and non ignorant, non fascist Americans. If the US population has become unable to maintain even a basement level, barely functioning representative democracy then we will all lose it. There's nothing anyone can do once we hit that tipping point. Let's just hope that point hasn't been reached yet. 

Edited by Hermanator
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

While at Bunker Hill last week, I realized the Second Amendment was written by guys whose flintlock muskets wouldn't fire in the rain and had a maximum rate of fire of three rounds per minute.

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

So even *that* lawsuit took 4 years.

Geezus, you're right.  Even for a civil suit, where the parties can fuck around for a year or more and discovery can be long and time consuming, that's a long time.  It is in SD NY, which is a congested court.

This is why lawdogs don't get too exercised about delays.

Posted

Oh shit, perusing lawfare, I read an amusing article about how the government had to half-heartedly oppose Ryan Routh's motion to disqualify Cannon.

But, and I had not seen this anywhere before. two of the amicus briefs on appeal of the Mar-A-Lago dismissal advocate for recusal of Cannon and one is ENTIRELY DEDICATED to the issue of recusal/reassignment.  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/in-routh-case--government-backs-cannon-but-barely  And one of the amicii signed on to that brief is Stephen Gillers, probably the most-cited and authoritative legal ethics expert in the country.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25088896/25-1-2024-09-03-attachment-1-crew.pdf

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
12 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Yeah, the criminal justice system was never set up to handle criminals at the highest level of government. That responsibility was given to the American people through voting. 

unimpressed michael keaton GIF

Posted
18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh shit, perusing lawfare, I read an amusing article about how the government had to half-heartedly oppose Ryan Routh's motion to disqualify Cannon.

But, and I had not seen this anywhere before. two of the amicus briefs on appeal of the Mar-A-Lago dismissal advocate for recusal of Cannon and one is ENTIRELY DEDICATED to the issue of recusal/reassignment.  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/in-routh-case--government-backs-cannon-but-barely  And one of the amicii signed on to that brief is Stephen Gillers, probably the most-cited and authoritative legal ethics expert in the country.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25088896/25-1-2024-09-03-attachment-1-crew.pdf

 

again...

unimpressed michael keaton GIF

Posted
1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Judge Aileen Cannon says Trump’s praise doesn’t warrant her recusal in Trump-related cases

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ar-AA1t9e1G

oh-sure-john-candy.gif

She's technically correct.  

However, reassignment, as by the 11th Circuit can be done "in the interest of justice" and isn't cabined by the recusal statute.

For example, you can't recuse a judge (by motion of a party) for fucking up a case on remand after appeal, but the court of appeals can reassign and relatively often does.  The combination of bias, inexperience and public perception might just do it, especially when serious people like Gillers advocate for it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

That his cases aren’t getting yanked from her is maddening.

Im sure it’s all par for the course, legally, so spare me the explanation of how it would be a travesty to justice if they did.

You don't have to get real complicated with it.  Imagine if Trump was able to recuse any judge appointed by Biden, or Obama.   Christ knows he tried with Merchan, Engoron, and Chutkan.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh shit, perusing lawfare, I read an amusing article about how the government had to half-heartedly oppose Ryan Routh's motion to disqualify Cannon.

But, and I had not seen this anywhere before. two of the amicus briefs on appeal of the Mar-A-Lago dismissal advocate for recusal of Cannon and one is ENTIRELY DEDICATED to the issue of recusal/reassignment.  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/in-routh-case--government-backs-cannon-but-barely  And one of the amicii signed on to that brief is Stephen Gillers, probably the most-cited and authoritative legal ethics expert in the country.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25088896/25-1-2024-09-03-attachment-1-crew.pdf

 

 

71257ee5-18d7-461e-b39b-3277361953dc_tex

Posted
3 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

71257ee5-18d7-461e-b39b-3277361953dc_tex

A respected, smart lawyer says that Eileen Cannon should step down because of the appearance of impropriety.   Canon opened her mouth like an unhinged jaw of a giant python, reached in and pulled out her mandible bone and smashed that guy with it, while bleeding profusely and grinning.

So nothing happened.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You don't have to get real complicated with it.  Imagine if Trump was able to recuse any judge appointed by Biden, or Obama.   Christ knows he tried with Merchan, Engoron, and Chutkan.

Wait a minute.  Is the argument that Biden would be the one forcing her to recuse?  And to take it one step further, the idea that Trump would be able to recuse a judge for his own trial is ludicrous.  Surely I'm misunderstanding one or both of those.  I have had a few chardonnays.  What of it?

Posted
4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

71257ee5-18d7-461e-b39b-3277361953dc_tex

Ryan Routh moved to disqualify Cannon for all reasons "we" like. The government has to oppose or agree with the motion They opposed, but without challenging any of Rouths assertions about her, just that it didn't meet the statutory grounds for recusal a page and a half. 

In the appeal of the Trump case, the government has not yet argued for reassignment, but two friend of the court briefs did, one making only that argument and very credibly as the two friends are the foremost legal and judicial ethics authorities in the country. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Wait a minute.  Is the argument that Biden would be the one forcing her to recuse?  And to take it one step further, the idea that Trump would be able to recuse a judge for his own trial is ludicrous.  Surely I'm misunderstanding one or both of those.  I have had a few chardonnays.  What of it?

Twice as simply saying that, if the argument is that Cannon cannot properly hear the Trump case because she is conflicted because he appointed her - that would mean that any Democratic appointee could not hear one of Trump’s criminal cases because Biden or Obama appointed them.  Which is why simply being appointed by a president on your same political team is not grounds to recuse that judge. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Gatorubet said:

Twice as simply saying that, if the argument is that Cannon cannot properly hear the Trump case because she is conflicted because he appointed her - that would mean that any Democratic appointee could not hear one of Trump’s criminal cases because Biden or Obama appointed them.  Which is why simply being appointed by a president on your same political team is not grounds to recuse that judge. 

ok yeah, I'm gonna step out of this one and continue drinking

Posted
4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

ok yeah, I'm gonna step out of this one and continue drinking

Me, Scotch and < checks vape cartridge> Northern Lights.  Even drunk you should know to ignore me.

  • Drool 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Twice as simply saying that, if the argument is that Cannon cannot properly hear the Trump case because she is conflicted because he appointed her - that would mean that any Democratic appointee could not hear one of Trump’s criminal cases because Biden or Obama appointed them.  Which is why simply being appointed by a president on your same political team is not grounds to recuse that judge. 

Well, I'd have to agree with all that, and it makes perfect sense.  How about her gross misinterpretation of the law?  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Now it's not just that he appointed her, but that it's come out that she is on his list of potential AGs. Which means she's on his list for SCOTUS, too.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
10 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Well, I'd have to agree with all that, and it makes perfect sense.  How about her gross misinterpretation of the law?  

that is where the reassignment policy comes in.  it would be a great result with terrible partisan optics.  Granted, she would be the cause of that, but if the reason was her not understanding the legal issues in the case, that is grounds to find a more experienced jurist to hear the case. 

Posted (edited)

We are getting to the point where optics don't matter so much.  When things get to where they have gotten, you eventually have to do some distasteful things to make sure they don't continue down that path.  There are many examples throughout history.  If removing a bad Judge who is in the tank for Trump is the worst thing the rest of us have to swallow, we got off pretty easy.

Edited by kevwun
  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

that is where the reassignment policy comes in.  it would be a great result with terrible partisan optics.  Granted, she would be the cause of that, but if the reason was her not understanding the legal issues in the case, that is grounds to find a more experienced jurist to hear the case. 

Well, the good thing about reassignment is that the 11th Circuit is a conservative court whose chief judge didn't have a problem slapping Cannon around a little bit and has had to field more than 1000 judicial complaints, hardly any of which were actionable (meaning citing any valid legal cause), so is well aware of the issues here and may just decide that the "optics," the public view of the judiciary, requires or suggests reassignment to a more experienced, apparently less-partisan judge.

Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the good thing about reassignment is that the 11th Circuit is a conservative court whose chief judge didn't have a problem slapping Cannon around a little bit and has had to field more than 1000 judicial complaints, hardly any of which were actionable (meaning citing any valid legal cause), so is well aware of the issues here and may just decide that the "optics," the public view of the judiciary, requires or suggests reassignment to a more experienced, apparently less-partisan judge.

I agree with all that. I don’t think they will touch the partisan issue in a decision, and will instead focus on her clear inability to understand the law in the case.  she is by all accounts a true dumbass who was not qualified for the appointment.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

I agree with all that. I don’t think they will touch the partisan issue in a decision, and will instead focus on her clear inability to understand the law in the case.  she is by all accounts a true dumbass who was not qualified for the appointment.

Serious question: Is law school at a place like Michigan so easy that a true dumbass can graduate manga cum laude from there? 

Posted
2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Serious question: Is law school at a place like Michigan so easy that a true dumbass can graduate manga cum laude from there? 

I knew some seriously booksmart people in law school who could not argue their way out of a paper bag.  I knew others who didn't know the law, but it didn't matter, because they could convince anyone of anything - legal or not.  Then there were the rest of us in between.  So yes, I could totally see any law school producing someone who made straight "A"s who didn't have the judgment god gave an amoeba simply because they had an ability to study and/or test well.  I'm not saying its right, but I'm saying that's my experience.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Serious question: Is law school at a place like Michigan so easy that a true dumbass can graduate manga cum laude from there? 

Michigan is a great law school.  So is Texas.  I know dumbass lawyers from each place.  The admissions process can only screen for so much.  Some dipshits get through.  And once you are IN such a law school, there are two things that are really hard to do: end up in the top 5%, and end up in the bottom 5%.  But there are people who end up in each slot.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...