Daehawk wrote: Tue Jun 13, 2023 1:52 pm
So...do they have the slippery wiggly worm this time or not?
He appears at 3pm. There aren't any recording devices permitted in the courtroom (including phones) so we'll all have to wait for the reporters to run out 1980s style to update everyone as to what happened.
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet." - Abraham Lincoln
Daehawk wrote: Tue Jun 13, 2023 1:52 pm
So...do they have the slippery wiggly worm this time or not?
He appears at 3pm. There aren't any recording devices permitted in the courtroom (including phones) so we'll all have to wait for the reporters to run out 1980s style to update everyone as to what happened.
First thing that came to mind for me as well.
We’re old.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
I don't have time to pay attention
Is there a lot of protesters? It would make me happy if there only a handful.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
It's a bit hard to judge since there's so much media and there are plenty of anti-Trump protestors mixed in. But I don't think it's the "red wave" of armchair soldiers of fortune he was hoping for.
This guy is really arguing that it would be a good thing for Trump to be the GOP nominee?
Am I misunderstanding this? He actually thinks it would be better for the nation for Trump to be the GOP nominee for president because he’ll be easier for Biden to defeat? He’s hoping that the pending indictments don’t knock Trump out of the race because “Democrats should be worried” if Biden has to run against someone other than Trump?
So fucking myopic.
Why does he want Biden to win? I can see him not wanting Trump to win, but that's accomplished by him dropping out.
More evidence that the Senate is broken. Tuberville has been holding up DOD promotions and now Vance vows to hold up all DOJ nominees in service of a man who incredibly damaged our national security. This is all enabled by Manchin and Sinema slinging bullshit about cooperation.
You would think there would be some way for Schumer to work with the parliamentarian to fix the process that allows individual Senators to pull this crap.
The charges the charges..couldn't happen to a better son of a bitch.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
Stop at a cafe to pray with supporters. I'm totally sure he's really religious.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
malchior wrote: Tue Jun 13, 2023 3:55 pm
More evidence that the Senate is broken. Tuberville has been holding up DOD promotions and now Vance vows to hold up all DOJ nominees in service of a man who incredibly damaged our national security. This is all enabled by Manchin and Sinema slinging bullshit about cooperation.
Thiel's thrall is already trying to break the DOJ, the way Theil broke regional banking. yay... Maybe the other billionaire class who control the media and the town square will focus on this. But hey, the economy and job creators, amiright?
Jaymann wrote: Mon Jun 12, 2023 4:06 pm
Another rat deserts the ship:
This guy is really arguing that it would be a good thing for Trump to be the GOP nominee?
Am I misunderstanding this? He actually thinks it would be better for the nation for Trump to be the GOP nominee for president because he’ll be easier for Biden to defeat? He’s hoping that the pending indictments don’t knock Trump out of the race because “Democrats should be worried” if Biden has to run against someone other than Trump?
GOP marching orders are out. We do not support Trump but he is due his day in court. The allegations are political and the DOJ needs to be gutted so it is no longer weaponized against conservatism. See Hillary Clinton... If that floats, I don't even know...
Many if not most are still supporting Trump. They have a moment to think and step back from the brink of another disaster. Especially after yesterday. Trump pretty much confessed to some of his crimes in Bedminster last night. He talked about why he was allowed to do what he did. He is challenging the rule of law openly and brazenly. He also further weaponized the political campaign as another tool in his defense strategy. As it were at least. It's extremely risky but we're at another extremely dangerous moment in our nation.
YellowKing wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 8:36 am
I'm getting really tired of every presidential election being the most important in my lifetime.
Agreed. I keep on hoping this will be the one that sends us back on a more normal path. It's really a silly hope at this point.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
Jaymann wrote:I have not seen one pundit say that Florida Man is innocent or can beat this rap.
Unfortunately he still has one get out of jail free card and that is "get elected." I think the chances of that are fairly low, but any non-zero chance of democracy in the US ending is far too high.
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
There is no way that would stand up on appeal. If she were going to make that ruling it would happen before it goes to the Jury for deliberations. Once it goes to the jury it would be really difficult for the Judge to overrule them.
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
There is no way that would stand up on appeal. If she were going to make that ruling it would happen before it goes to the Jury for deliberations. Once it goes to the jury it would be really difficult for the Judge to overrule them.
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
There is no way that would stand up on appeal. If she were going to make that ruling it would happen before it goes to the Jury for deliberations. Once it goes to the jury it would be really difficult for the Judge to overrule them.
You are incorrect sir.
I am incorrect sir. Fast and incorrect reading and typing.
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
And Cannon would go down in history as the person who single handedly destroyed democracy and the rule of law with one bang of the gavel.
Can you imagine her explaining this to her grandchildren: "Yes, but they sent me a really nice red hat."
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
There is no way that would stand up on appeal. If she were going to make that ruling it would happen before it goes to the Jury for deliberations. Once it goes to the jury it would be really difficult for the Judge to overrule them.
You are incorrect sir.
I am incorrect sir. Fast and incorrect reading and typing.
I'm confused as to who is correct and incorrect or perhaps both. But I stand by my earlier comments.
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
There is no way that would stand up on appeal. If she were going to make that ruling it would happen before it goes to the Jury for deliberations. Once it goes to the jury it would be really difficult for the Judge to overrule them.
You are incorrect sir.
I am incorrect sir. Fast and incorrect reading and typing.
I'm confused as to who is correct and incorrect or perhaps both. But I stand by my earlier comments.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't appeal a judgement of acquittal. The government certainly can try to appeal and might even get heard based on the seriousness of the Constitutional crisis that'd erupt. But we're way into crazy town at that point so predictions break down.
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
There is no way that would stand up on appeal. If she were going to make that ruling it would happen before it goes to the Jury for deliberations. Once it goes to the jury it would be really difficult for the Judge to overrule them.
You are incorrect sir.
I am incorrect sir. Fast and incorrect reading and typing.
I'm confused as to who is correct and incorrect or perhaps both. But I stand by my earlier comments.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't appeal a judgement of acquittal. The government certainly can try to appeal and might even get heard based on the seriousness of the Constitutional crisis that'd erupt. But we're way into crazy town at that point so predictions break down.
A Judge dismissing a case based on a matter of law is not the same thing as an acquittal by a jury. I would think it would absolutely be an appealable issue.
Daehawk wrote: Tue Jun 13, 2023 1:52 pm
So...do they have the slippery wiggly worm this time or not?
He appears at 3pm. There aren't any recording devices permitted in the courtroom (including phones) so we'll all have to wait for the reporters to run out 1980s style to update everyone as to what happened.
It started with hiring a group of local high school students to work as production assistants for the day. Noah Gray, CNN's senior coordinating producer for special events, had grown up in the Miami area and attended Palmetto Senior High School. He contacted his former teacher, who heads the school's television production program, and said that CNN wanted to quickly hire some of her students to help with its reporting effort.
On Tuesday, several of the hired students were brought into the courthouse and seated in an overflow room with reporters Tierney Sneed and Hannah Rabinowitz. As the hearing unfolded and developments transpired, Sneed and Rabinowitz jotted down their reporting on notepads, tearing off sheets with urgent news, and handing it to one of the students. The students then ran the reporting to one of their classmates who was standing by at one of the courthouse's only two pay phones.
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
There is no way that would stand up on appeal. If she were going to make that ruling it would happen before it goes to the Jury for deliberations. Once it goes to the jury it would be really difficult for the Judge to overrule them.
You are incorrect sir.
I am incorrect sir. Fast and incorrect reading and typing.
I'm confused as to who is correct and incorrect or perhaps both. But I stand by my earlier comments.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't appeal a judgement of acquittal. The government certainly can try to appeal and might even get heard based on the seriousness of the Constitutional crisis that'd erupt. But we're way into crazy town at that point so predictions break down.
A Judge dismissing a case based on a matter of law is not the same thing as an acquittal by a jury. I would think it would absolutely be an appealable issue.
Not according to the Supreme Court. Whether the emergency changes the calculus of SCOTUS applying precedent is open to debate but what you're saying is wrong as we understand the law now. There are some exceptions but they are narrow so perhaps there is a new "lawless" road but we're way into the unknown at that point.
When a trial judge acquits a defendant, that action concludes the matter to the same extent that acquittal by jury verdict does. There is no possibility of retrial for the same offense.
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
There is no way that would stand up on appeal. If she were going to make that ruling it would happen before it goes to the Jury for deliberations. Once it goes to the jury it would be really difficult for the Judge to overrule them.
You are incorrect sir.
I am incorrect sir. Fast and incorrect reading and typing.
I'm confused as to who is correct and incorrect or perhaps both. But I stand by my earlier comments.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't appeal a judgement of acquittal. The government certainly can try to appeal and might even get heard based on the seriousness of the Constitutional crisis that'd erupt. But we're way into crazy town at that point so predictions break down.
A Judge dismissing a case based on a matter of law is not the same thing as an acquittal by a jury. I would think it would absolutely be an appealable issue.
Not according to the Supreme Court. Whether the emergency changes the calculus of SCOTUS applying precedent is open to debate but what you're saying is wrong as we understand the law now. There are some exceptions but they are narrow so perhaps there is a new "lawless" road but we're way into the unknown at that point.
When a trial judge acquits a defendant, that action concludes the matter to the same extent that acquittal by jury verdict does. There is no possibility of retrial for the same offense.
You're talking about something different than what Scraper is saying. You're talking about double jeopardy. If a judge rules as a matter of law that a defendant is not guilty, then the defendant can't be subsequently retried for the same offense. Scraper is talking about whether the judicial ruling that the defendant is not guilty as a matter of law is appealable. Which it is.
That's also different from a situation where a judge in a bench trial (i.e. acting as the jury) issues a not guilty verdict. I'm 99% sure that that's not appealable in the same way that a jury verdict is not appealable.
stessier wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 11:38 am
My money is still on Mr Fed's doomsday scenario where they have a full trial, he is convicted, and the defense asks the verdict be set aside and the judge rules that as a matter of law, he's not guilty. It would be all over with no chance for review or retrial.
There is no way that would stand up on appeal. If she were going to make that ruling it would happen before it goes to the Jury for deliberations. Once it goes to the jury it would be really difficult for the Judge to overrule them.
You are incorrect sir.
I am incorrect sir. Fast and incorrect reading and typing.
I'm confused as to who is correct and incorrect or perhaps both. But I stand by my earlier comments.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can't appeal a judgement of acquittal. The government certainly can try to appeal and might even get heard based on the seriousness of the Constitutional crisis that'd erupt. But we're way into crazy town at that point so predictions break down.
A Judge dismissing a case based on a matter of law is not the same thing as an acquittal by a jury. I would think it would absolutely be an appealable issue.
Not according to the Supreme Court. Whether the emergency changes the calculus of SCOTUS applying precedent is open to debate but what you're saying is wrong as we understand the law now. There are some exceptions but they are narrow so perhaps there is a new "lawless" road but we're way into the unknown at that point.
When a trial judge acquits a defendant, that action concludes the matter to the same extent that acquittal by jury verdict does. There is no possibility of retrial for the same offense.
This comes directly from the same page you cited, which is exactly what I was saying:
"First, because a primary purpose of the Due Process Clause is the prevention of successive trials and not of prosecution appeals per se, it is apparently the case that, if the trial judge permits the case to go to the jury, which convicts, and the judge thereafter enters a judgment of acquittal, even one founded upon his belief that the evidence does not establish guilt, the prosecution may appeal, because the effect of a reversal would be not a new trial but reinstatement of the jury’s verdict and the judgment thereon.19 Second, if the trial judge enters or grants a motion of acquittal, even one based on the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to convict, then the prosecution may appeal if jeopardy had not yet attached in accordance with the federal standard"
And yes El Guapo is right the issue of acquital or dismissal are two separate things that each warrant their own analysis.
The bottom line though is that Fed's proposal is a tricky one and it's one that I highly doubt will work out for Trump in the end.
Last edited by Scraper on Wed Jun 14, 2023 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
@El Guapo - I missed a little of that nuance but that isn't the Mr. Fed doomsday scenario as I understand it. The Mr. Fed doomsday scenario is Cannon entering a Judgement of Acquittal after a guilty jury verdict.
malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 1:18 pm
@El Guapo - I missed a little of that nuance but that isn't the Mr. Fed doomsday scenario as I understand it. The Mr. Fed doomsday scenario is Cannon entering a Judgement of Acquittal after a guilty jury verdict.
Per Scraper's post, that can also be appealed.
I will say, though, that I wish I had more confidence that the Court of Appeals and/or the SCOTUS would reverse on appeal.
malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 1:18 pm
@El Guapo - I missed a little of that nuance but that isn't the Mr. Fed doomsday scenario as I understand it. The Mr. Fed doomsday scenario is Cannon entering a Judgement of Acquittal after a guilty jury verdict.
Per Scraper's post, that can also be appealed.
I will say, though, that I wish I had more confidence that the Court of Appeals and/or the SCOTUS would reverse on appeal.
Right I think (and said) the government can *try* especially considering the circumstances but I think it is folly to even try to predict what would happen. It'd also be a matter of whether the DOJ would do so considering the blow back of that failing. There are so many bad paths here that the risk is quite high right now. In fact, I find this "doomsday" scenario a little contrived considering all the other ways she can sabotage this along the way.
Edit: FWIW this is one reason I tend to agree with Lawrence Tribe and Joyce Alene that Roberts should amend the rules and/or direct that the trial be televised (or audio only like SCOTUS hearings now). Transparency might not prevent potential abuses but at least we can see/hear them happen and perhaps it'll act to give her some pause. Her involvement is another unfortunate layer to this debacle. While another judge might have been just as bad we absolutely know Cannon is willing to act lawlessly.
malchior wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 1:18 pm
@El Guapo - I missed a little of that nuance but that isn't the Mr. Fed doomsday scenario as I understand it. The Mr. Fed doomsday scenario is Cannon entering a Judgement of Acquittal after a guilty jury verdict.
Per Scraper's post, that can also be appealed.
I will say, though, that I wish I had more confidence that the Court of Appeals and/or the SCOTUS would reverse on appeal.
Right I think (and said) the government can *try* especially considering the circumstances but I think it is folly to even try to predict what would happen. It'd also be a matter of whether the DOJ would do so considering the blow back of that failing. There are so many bad paths here that the risk is quite high right now. In fact, I find this "doomsday" scenario a little contrived considering all the other ways she can sabotage this along the way.
Edit: FWIW this is one reason I tend to agree with Lawrence Tribe and Joyce Alene that Roberts should amend the rules and/or direct that the trial be televised (or audio only like SCOTUS hearings now). Transparency might not prevent potential abuses but at least we can see/hear them happen and perhaps it'll act to give her some pause. Her involvement is another unfortunate layer to this debacle. While another judge might have been just as bad we absolutely know Cannon is willing to act lawlessly.
On the television issue, It really irritates me that almost every State court in the country allows TV coverage, cameras, etc in the Court room and in many of the states it's considered to be a right under the 1st Amendment. But the Federal Courts can snub their noses at the press and the 1st amendment. It wouldn't be hard to have one camera set up in the Supreme Court that can film and record the entire proceeding, the Justices wouldn't even know it's there. There is no good reason not to have it available to the public.
malchior wrote:While another judge might have been just as bad we absolutely know Cannon is willing to act lawlessly.
I was literally yelling at my computer yesterday because I had the ABC News livestream up and the commentator was dismissing the concerns over Cannon because "there are no Trump judges or Obama judges, just judges" that would be neutral and uphold the law.
I was like ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? This isn't a judge we know nothing about that just happened to be appointed by Trump. This is a judge with a history of making rulings in Trump's favor that fly in the face of reason.
