Pyperkub wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 3:53 pmOn the other hand, we, but more importantly the DoJ, will know if she is going to try to throw the trial right now based on her ruling here, and could be likely to start the appeal process to reassign/move the case to a different judge - which would IMHO, be very bad for her future as a Judge...
How would it be bad for her? One reason this might happen is because she is untouchable.
While it's rare, the Chief Circuit Court Judge can start an investigation and the House can Impeach. Examples:
The procedures under 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364 include a complaint process, review of complaints
initially by the chief judge of the circuit within which the judge in question sits, and, if
appropriate, referral of the complaint to a special investigating committee, to a panel of the
judicial council of the circuit involved, and, if needed, to the Judicial Conference of the United
States. At any point in the process, as deemed appropriate, action may be taken on the complaint.
Where a complaint alleges conduct that may rise to the level of impeachable offenses, the Judicial
Conference may certify that the matter may warrant consideration of impeachment and transmit
the determination and the record of proceedings to the House of Representatives for whatever
action the House of Representatives considers necessary.
Two such referrals were received by the House in the 111 th Congress regarding Judge Samuel B.
Kent of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas and Judge G. Thomas Porteous
Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Judge Kent was impeached by
the House of Representatives. His Senate impeachment trial was dismissed after he resigned from
office and the House indicated that it did not wish to pursue the matter further. Judge Porteous
was also impeached by the House of Representatives. On December 8, 2010, the Senate, sitting as
a Court of Impeachment, voted to convict Judge Porteous on all four of the articles of
impeachment brought against him.
By the time it gets there, it could easily be a (D) House and Senate... and, of course, the Chief Judge of the Circuit could reassign her during the proceedings...
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
None of that is likely going to happen. We have judges doing wild stuff all across the judiciary. No one is talking about sanctioning them. Absent something criminal or in breach of the code of ethics.
malchior wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:24 pm
None of that is likely going to happen. We have judges doing wild stuff all across the judiciary. No one is talking about sanctioning them. Absent something criminal or in breach of the code of ethics.
Perhaps, but as the Circuit has already overturned some of her orders previously on the related case, I could easily see them being open to a DoJ motion to recuse/transfer if Cannon gets too partisan... and yeah, maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but the question starts to become one of whether that partisan personal loyalty is worth it given that she already has most of what Trump and the GOP will give her...
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
malchior wrote: Tue Jul 11, 2023 7:24 pm
None of that is likely going to happen. We have judges doing wild stuff all across the judiciary. No one is talking about sanctioning them. Absent something criminal or in breach of the code of ethics.
Perhaps, but as the Circuit has already overturned some of her orders previously on the related case, I could easily see them being open to a DoJ motion to recuse/transfer if Cannon gets too partisan... and yeah, maybe I'm a bit optimistic, but the question starts to become one of whether that partisan personal loyalty is worth it given that she already has most of what Trump and the GOP will give her...
Consider that she has drunk the Trump Kool-aid and is a true believer in the vision of the country that he espouses.
During questioning with FBI Director Christopher Wray, House Dems Vice Chair Ted Lieu runs through a list of Trump officials who were convicted in federal court:
“It is not the fault of the FBI that Donald Trump surrounded himself with criminals.”
(with video)
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Scraper wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 8:30 am
Biden is going to have to really hammer facts like that and more during the campaign and especially during any debates.
Yes. As should the media, if they had any interest in facts.
Scraper wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 8:30 am
Biden is going to have to really hammer facts like that and more during the campaign and especially during any debates.
It is very unlikely that Trump will agree to debate Biden in 2024.
Alefroth wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 4:16 pm
Which is probably good for Biden, too.
Well, not really, no. I suppose the possible presence of a third party No Labels candidate, if they gain any traction, could complicate the analysis, but if it's a two person race then it can't be good for both candidates. And while Biden's not as polished in a debate as (say) Obama, Trump has been consistently awful in general campaign debates, which have hurt him. So Biden almost certainly benefits from a debate with Trump.
I don't think it matters. We know both these people very well. I don't think Biden or Trump can say much that changes anyone's mind. In the end if it is between these two, the simplest model is to probably assume it'll be a slightly weighted in Biden's favor coin flip.
Alefroth wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 4:16 pm
Which is probably good for Biden, too.
Well, not really, no. I suppose the possible presence of a third party No Labels candidate, if they gain any traction, could complicate the analysis, but if it's a two person race then it can't be good for both candidates. And while Biden's not as polished in a debate as (say) Obama, Trump has been consistently awful in general campaign debates, which have hurt him. So Biden almost certainly benefits from a debate with Trump.
I'm just not optimistic his performance will be anything like it was in 2020.
malchior wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 4:31 pm
I don't think it matters. We know both these people very well. I don't think Biden or Trump can say much that changes anyone's mind. In the end if it is between these two, the simplest model is to probably assume it'll be a slightly weighted in Biden's favor coin flip.
I think you're overestimating the low information voter. I would agree that it doesn't matter as much as it would with candidates that haven't been in the public eye as much as they have, but it still matters.
The optics of Trump refusing to debate would also benefit Biden, especially after the right has spent the last few years criticizing Biden's cognitive ability.
Alefroth wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 4:46 pm
The optics of Trump refusing to debate would also benefit Biden, especially after the right has spent the last few years criticizing Biden's cognitive ability.
I think it would hurt him less. He'd come up with some BS excuse for not doing it, and obviously get cover from the conservative media on that. A day or two of stories covering whatever excuse Trump has for not doing it wouldn't hurt as much as the actual debates would.
malchior wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 4:31 pm
I don't think it matters. We know both these people very well. I don't think Biden or Trump can say much that changes anyone's mind. In the end if it is between these two, the simplest model is to probably assume it'll be a slightly weighted in Biden's favor coin flip.
I think you're overestimating the low information voter. I would agree that it doesn't matter as much as it would with candidates that haven't been in the public eye as much as they have, but it still matters.
I don't think I am. I mean the case of low information voters probably leans *into my case*. They'll know one was President ~2.5 years ago. He hasn't changed. Biden has been around forever. He hasn't changed. As much as people want to dissect debate vs. no debate, retail politics, etc....it simply probably doesn't matter. It'll come down to the same coalitions with some entrenchment or minor swings in various places. I reckon the state of the economy, anti-democratic efforts, Supreme Court extremism and other miscellany probably matter more than how these two campaign.
Last edited by malchior on Thu Jul 13, 2023 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I thought numerous studies have shown that in the great scheme of things, presidential debates rarely ever matter. It seems the question comes up every election cycle.
YellowKing wrote:I thought numerous studies have shown that in the great scheme of things, presidential debates rarely ever matter. It seems the question comes up every election cycle.
Especially given the theater of the absurd a Trump debate is.
Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
FLASH: Special Counsel Jack Smith asks Judge Aileen Cannon to proceed w/ jury selection in Trump criminal case on Dec. 11
He asks court to disregard Trump defense request to wait for trial until after 2024 election
Special counsel court filing: "There is no basis in law or fact for proceeding in such an indeterminate and open-ended fashion, and the defendants provide none"
MORE from Special Counsel's argument to Judge Cannon -- urging against further delay
".. The conditions that defendants argue will make it a challenge to select a jury will not appreciably change after the completion of the election"
Trump’s lawyers filed petitions this week attempting to throw out the evidence collected last year by a special grand jury, banning prosecutors from presenting that material to a newly empaneled grand jury that has charging powers, and disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis from any related proceedings.
Lawyers for Trump say letting the investigation proceed would lead to “a violation of his fundamental constitutional rights” while he “seeks his Party’s nomination for the Presidency of the United States.”
I mean, so far being president and also continuing to want to be president has seemingly shielded him from immediate consequences, so why not continue to lean into that, right?
You can't blame lawyers for trying everything. That's what they are paid (or promised to be paid in TFG's case) to do. You can blame Cannon if she takes that stuff seriously.
Holman wrote:I wonder how many criminals facing indictment nationwide are preparing to announce a run for president? It's got to be worth a shot, right?
If it works for Trump they should all start filing the paperwork.
Holman wrote: Fri Jul 14, 2023 4:01 pm
I wonder how many criminals facing indictment nationwide are preparing to announce a run for president? It's got to be worth a shot, right?
What lawyer worth his/her salt wont come with all the candidate paper work almost filled out ahead of time…
Holman wrote:I wonder how many criminals facing indictment nationwide are preparing to announce a run for president? It's got to be worth a shot, right?
All of the ones with an (R)?
Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Scoop20906 wrote: Thu Jul 13, 2023 11:55 pm
Do we think we will get a response from Judge Cannon at the status hearing on July 18th??
Seems like her response is coming tomorrow (maybe?) as additional paperwork has just been filed by the prosecution:
TRUMP RECORDS: Prosecutors just turned over new discovery, including “additional documents obtained via subpoena and evidence obtained via search warrants; memorialization of witness interviews conducted between May 12, 2023, & June 23, 2023; and forms generated by the [FBI].”
I'm not a criminal procedure expert by any means but I don't see an obvious link between the discovery and the timing of the decision. This looks like part of the normal process whereby prosecutors turn over to the defense counsel evidence that they may use against him at trial.
I took it to mean the prosecution is demonstrating a timeline/history that information has been provided and that the defense can't claim they don't have enough time to prepare. That's not exactly what the defense was arguing against last week when they filed for a delay, but (I'd think) it should help make the case there's not a legal/procedural reason to delay the trial. The suggestion that it should be delayed because one of the defendants is intending to run for president in 2024 should be laughed at as a reason. But I guess we'll see.
The Massachusetts Air National Guardsman who is accused of posting a trove of classified documents to social media asked a judge to reconsider his detention on Monday, pointing out that he is charged with the same federal counts as former President Donald Trump and that prosecutors did not opposed Trump’s release.
...
Teixeira’s lawyers argued in a new filing on Monday that the judge should reverse his decision to keep Teixeira detained, pointing to several other criminal defendants who were released while awaiting trial, including Trump and his co-defendant Walt Nauta.
“The speculation that Mr. Teixeira is a flight risk by virtue of what he knows is squarely undermined by the government’s reasoned decision not to seek pretrial detention in other espionage cases, including most recently for either former President Donald Trump or his personal aide, Waltine Nauta, both charged with, among other things, mishandling classified national security information and conspiracy to obstruct justice,” Teixeira’s lawyers wrote.
His lawyers also said about Trump and Nauta: “The government – without any suggestion that the information known to them could make them a serious risk of flight – determined that their retained knowledge did not pose a serious risk of flight and advocated for their release on personal recognizance and without restriction.”
Furthermore, the defense lawyers wrote, both Trump and Nauta “possess extraordinary means to flee the United States. … Yet, the risk of flight posed by their knowledge of national security information, and their abnormal ability to flee, didn’t even result in a request that either surrender their passport.”
The Massachusetts Air National Guardsman who is accused of posting a trove of classified documents to social media asked a judge to reconsider his detention on Monday, pointing out that he is charged with the same federal counts as former President Donald Trump and that prosecutors did not opposed Trump’s release.
...
Teixeira’s lawyers argued in a new filing on Monday that the judge should reverse his decision to keep Teixeira detained, pointing to several other criminal defendants who were released while awaiting trial, including Trump and his co-defendant Walt Nauta.
“The speculation that Mr. Teixeira is a flight risk by virtue of what he knows is squarely undermined by the government’s reasoned decision not to seek pretrial detention in other espionage cases, including most recently for either former President Donald Trump or his personal aide, Waltine Nauta, both charged with, among other things, mishandling classified national security information and conspiracy to obstruct justice,” Teixeira’s lawyers wrote.
His lawyers also said about Trump and Nauta: “The government – without any suggestion that the information known to them could make them a serious risk of flight – determined that their retained knowledge did not pose a serious risk of flight and advocated for their release on personal recognizance and without restriction.”
Furthermore, the defense lawyers wrote, both Trump and Nauta “possess extraordinary means to flee the United States. … Yet, the risk of flight posed by their knowledge of national security information, and their abnormal ability to flee, didn’t even result in a request that either surrender their passport.”
How can you possibly argue against that?
Even Trump wasn't as bad as him, sharing them to a Discord chat
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!
Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The Supreme Court of Georgia on Monday denied former President Donald Trump's request to quash the work of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and the findings of a special grand jury she empaneled to review evidence in her probe of alleged misconduct in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.
"This is not the sort of relief that this Court affords, at least absent extraordinary circumstances that Petitioner has not shown are present here," the court wrote in a five-page order.
Well if we are following a pattern it looks like charges may finally drop for 2020. I will love how people will spin these as not serious charges.
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.
The Massachusetts Air National Guardsman who is accused of posting a trove of classified documents to social media asked a judge to reconsider his detention on Monday, pointing out that he is charged with the same federal counts as former President Donald Trump and that prosecutors did not opposed Trump’s release.
...
Teixeira’s lawyers argued in a new filing on Monday that the judge should reverse his decision to keep Teixeira detained, pointing to several other criminal defendants who were released while awaiting trial, including Trump and his co-defendant Walt Nauta.
“The speculation that Mr. Teixeira is a flight risk by virtue of what he knows is squarely undermined by the government’s reasoned decision not to seek pretrial detention in other espionage cases, including most recently for either former President Donald Trump or his personal aide, Waltine Nauta, both charged with, among other things, mishandling classified national security information and conspiracy to obstruct justice,” Teixeira’s lawyers wrote.
His lawyers also said about Trump and Nauta: “The government – without any suggestion that the information known to them could make them a serious risk of flight – determined that their retained knowledge did not pose a serious risk of flight and advocated for their release on personal recognizance and without restriction.”
Furthermore, the defense lawyers wrote, both Trump and Nauta “possess extraordinary means to flee the United States. … Yet, the risk of flight posed by their knowledge of national security information, and their abnormal ability to flee, didn’t even result in a request that either surrender their passport.”
How can you possibly argue against that?
Pretty easily, actually, at least in terms of distinguishing Trump who is not a flight risk because he is so well-known that it would be virtually impossible for him to hide or for law enforcement to lose track of him. I don’t think you can say that about Teixeira, who 999/1000 people couldn’t pick out of a lineup if their lives depended on it.
Unlike Trump, if Teixeira wanted to disappear and had the resources to do it, it probably wouldn’t be all that difficult.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
