I desperately need people who are smarter than me and understand this shit to explain it.
Because, seriously, what the hell. Does this judge want to be famous? Is he trying to just be a stickler for the rules or something, consequences be damned?
I think this was the same judge screaming that the prosecutors were out to get Trump via this trial.
That’s the Manaford case, not this one.
It's immensely frustrating that at every single turn basically everyone who is not with Mueller or part of the Democrat minority in DC seems completely corrupt or completely stupid. Bias in defense of Trump can likely be both at once too, which is really disconcerting.
I'm not clear on the law here; if Trump just outright refuses to testify, what are the options? Can Mueller actually force him to appear and answer questions, or are there just varying levels of insistence that the President is allowed to ignore, forcing him to issue a summons that Trump ignores, and so on? Can he actually be held in contempt without a majority Republican Congress agreeing to it?
I'm actually not clear on what degree of immunity the President has. If he commits an obvious crime - not obvious like corruption, but obvious like assaulting someone with multiple witnesses (I'm trying to pick an absurd one I'm confident he wouldn't actually do, and I'm only half sure I've succeeded) - , can he just be arrested? Or can he do a Lethal Weapon 2 and just shoot someone and say "Diplomatic Immunity"?
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I'm not clear on the law here; if Trump just outright refuses to testify, what are the options? Can Mueller actually force him to appear and answer questions, or are there just varying levels of insistence that the President is allowed to ignore, forcing him to issue a summons that Trump ignores, and so on? Can he actually be held in contempt without a majority Republican Congress agreeing to it?
I'm actually not clear on what degree of immunity the President has. If he commits an obvious crime - not obvious like corruption, but obvious like assaulting someone with multiple witnesses (I'm trying to pick an absurd one I'm confident he wouldn't actually do, and I'm only half sure I've succeeded) - , can he just be arrested? Or can he do a Lethal Weapon 2 and just shoot someone and say "Diplomatic Immunity"?
A: The President must be tried for committing a crime.
B: A sitting President cannot be tried for a crime while in office.
A: We shall remove the President from office, and then try him.
B: On what grounds will you remove the President?
A: He committed a crime.
B: You can't prove that, as there hasn't been a trial.
This then raises issues over whether Congress/DoJ is even willing to try a sitting President in the first place.
GNU Terry Pratchett
PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
Hit me up on BoardGameArena! User: Loaded D1
Spoilered until images are unborked.
+11
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
The short answer is Mueller doesn’t have a lot of options if Trump refuses to talk.
As for the rest, we have been told not to speculate on that sort of thing.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Yeah, as far as I can tell, this is super uncharted waters and basically everything comes back to the fact that Congress is the entity that's supposed to provide the check against the President, and they're too busy getting enough of their agenda done that they're better off placating Trump rather than pissing off his base.
Maybe they'll spine up after Primary season, but I doubt it.
+14
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I desperately need people who are smarter than me and understand this shit to explain it.
Because, seriously, what the hell. Does this judge want to be famous? Is he trying to just be a stickler for the rules or something, consequences be damned?
I think this was the same judge screaming that the prosecutors were out to get Trump via this trial.
That’s the Manaford case, not this one.
It's immensely frustrating that at every single turn basically everyone who is not with Mueller or part of the Democrat minority in DC seems completely corrupt or completely stupid. Bias in defense of Trump can likely be both at once too, which is really disconcerting.
There are non-stupid, arguably non-corrupt* republicans. They all just resigned over the last two years when they saw the writing on the wall.
*which isn't to say good or positive policy, but smart enough to not fall into the idiot side of things.
I desperately need people who are smarter than me and understand this shit to explain it.
Because, seriously, what the hell. Does this judge want to be famous? Is he trying to just be a stickler for the rules or something, consequences be damned?
I think this was the same judge screaming that the prosecutors were out to get Trump via this trial.
That’s the Manaford case, not this one.
It's immensely frustrating that at every single turn basically everyone who is not with Mueller or part of the Democrat minority in DC seems completely corrupt or completely stupid. Bias in defense of Trump can likely be both at once too, which is really disconcerting.
There are non-stupid, arguably non-corrupt* republicans. They all just resigned over the last two years when they saw the writing on the wall.
*which isn't to say good or positive policy, but smart enough to not fall into the idiot side of things.
A lot of them are either useless, and/or were riding the tiger's tail for their own agenda until Trump got out of control (then get shocked when the tiger bites them) and have been hilariously incompetent at fighting against him. Trump wouldn't be where he is today without their support, and after Trump leaves office you can bet every single one of them will completely ignore they had anything to do with Trump.
Yeah, as far as I can tell, this is super uncharted waters and basically everything comes back to the fact that Congress is the entity that's supposed to provide the check against the President, and they're too busy getting enough of their agenda done that they're better off placating Trump rather than pissing off his base.
Maybe they'll spine up after Primary season, but I doubt it.
Not the Primaries. The Mid-terms. That has always been the target. To see if they can maintain control of one or both sides of Congress. Not that that would make it any likely they have a change of heart.
The requested delay was because of these insane discovery requests.
In their request on Friday to put off the arraignment, prosecutors included the extensive demands for information that the lawyers for Concord Management have set forth since they stepped forward last month.
Dubelier and Seikaly complained that the special counsel’s office has not replied at all to Concord’s discovery requests. The lawyers, who work for Pittsburgh-based law firm Reed Smith, also signaled Concord intends to assert its speedy trial rights, putting more pressure on the special counsel’s office to turn over records related to the case.
Friedrich, a Trump appointee based in Washington, sided with Concord and said the arraignment will proceed as scheduled Wednesday afternoon.
Ah okay, there we go. She's running interference for Trump. Good thing she's a judge and not also compromised by Russia.
WSJ reporter says Mueller has known since last November of the drug company payment to Cohen.
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
it just feels like more and more raw stupidity has the advantage. Like you can be the best lawyer in the world but you cant predict a metaphorical man with a bomb vest like this
It's one of the most frustrating experiences as a lawyer. You can be right on both the facts and the law, but the judge still rules against you. It just happens sometimes.
A: The President must be tried for committing a crime.
B: A sitting President cannot be tried for a crime while in office.
A: We shall remove the President from office, and then try him.
B: On what grounds will you remove the President?
A: He committed a crime.
B: You can't prove that, as there hasn't been a trial.
This then raises issues over whether Congress/DoJ is even willing to try a sitting President in the first place.
It's really not that unclear?
A: The President must be tried for committing a crime.
B: Then they must be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate.
There's ambiguity on what exactly constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as defined in the impeachment language, but I haven't seen a serious argument that the President doesn't have immunity from lower federal courts while in office.
I suppose in this particular case it is an open question whether the President can be impeached for crimes that occur before taking the oath of office but as part of their campaign for said office, but we'll cross the bridge if/when we get there.
A: The President must be tried for committing a crime.
B: A sitting President cannot be tried for a crime while in office.
A: We shall remove the President from office, and then try him.
B: On what grounds will you remove the President?
A: He committed a crime.
B: You can't prove that, as there hasn't been a trial.
This then raises issues over whether Congress/DoJ is even willing to try a sitting President in the first place.
It's really not that unclear?
A: The President must be tried for committing a crime.
B: Then they must be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate.
There's ambiguity on what exactly constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as defined in the impeachment language, but I haven't seen a serious argument that the President doesn't have immunity from lower federal courts while in office.
I suppose in this particular case it is an open question whether the President can be impeached for crimes that occur before taking the oath of office but as part of their campaign for said office, but we'll cross the bridge if/when we get there.
The question is more can the President be subpoenaed and compelled to testify to anyone other than Congress, or not. Even if his testimony is nothing but pleading the 5th, can he be required to give it?
The question is more can the President be subpoenaed and compelled to testify to anyone other than Congress, or not. Even if his testimony is nothing but pleading the 5th, can he be required to give it?
Not a lawyer, but I imagine the answer to that is no.
And if Congress refuse to act, openly protecting a President when the evidence of his guilt is clear, can they be charged with obstruction?
My initial guess is that it falls under the "political question" doctrine, so no. Also the standards for "clearly guilty" are different in a courtroom vs. public opinion.
The requested delay was because of these insane discovery requests.
In their request on Friday to put off the arraignment, prosecutors included the extensive demands for information that the lawyers for Concord Management have set forth since they stepped forward last month.
Dubelier and Seikaly complained that the special counsel’s office has not replied at all to Concord’s discovery requests. The lawyers, who work for Pittsburgh-based law firm Reed Smith, also signaled Concord intends to assert its speedy trial rights, putting more pressure on the special counsel’s office to turn over records related to the case.
Friedrich, a Trump appointee based in Washington, sided with Concord and said the arraignment will proceed as scheduled Wednesday afternoon.
According to the article, and also to the only other discussion I was able to find, the delay was requested because the defendants were alleged not to have been properly served (which, as far as I can tell as a non-law, is totally reasonable for the judge to reject when the allegedly unserved party is presenting itself in court and wants to proceed).
Do you (or anyone) have a source for the claim that the judge ordered Mueller to turn over 50 years of intelligence? Because that sounds super made up and I can’t find anything that corroborates it.
As far as I can tell, the difficulty here and the reason mueller is trying to delay is because prosecuting is lose-lose; the corporate defendants can send in lawyers to represent them and then demand to see the evidence against them, but, since they are largely crooked sham companies/don’t do business in the US anyway they could just ignore any ruling against them (and unlike persons presenting themselves for trial, who would promptly be apprehended, the individuals involved in the trial who are physically present in the US would not be personally liable for whatever the corporation might be found guilty of and can just walk away at the end). So maybe the charges wind up getting dropped but in the meantime the corporate defendants can be super aggro in their legal strategy with no real downside.
A: The President must be tried for committing a crime.
B: A sitting President cannot be tried for a crime while in office.
A: We shall remove the President from office, and then try him.
B: On what grounds will you remove the President?
A: He committed a crime.
B: You can't prove that, as there hasn't been a trial.
This then raises issues over whether Congress/DoJ is even willing to try a sitting President in the first place.
It's not circular. The House impeaches, which is the equivalent of the indictment in a regular trial. Then the Senate holds a trial. The president would only be removed if found guilty in the Senate trial. If acquitted, nothing happens, he's still president.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Nixon got his ass subpoenaed as far as I remember. It was for tapes, but still.
He actually had a sense of shame, and voluntarily complied. This adminstration? It's less clear
He did not. He fought that shit till the bitter end and on every occasion tried to get edited versions or even just some of his people writing down a summary of what was on them. released.
+39
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
he also definitely had parts of the tapes erased
let's not redeem Nixon the same way that people have done with GWB, please
Wouldn't US v Nixon be precedent for Presidents being subject to subpoenas? I thought that ruling made the tacit assumption that it was a valid request save for "executive privilege", and SCOTUS said "nope you gotta comply".
+4
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
The lawyers for Concord entered a plea of not guilty, and the magistrate judge scheduled their first appearance before judge Friedrich for next week on the 16th.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team has spoken with Blackwater founder Erik Prince, two sources familiar with the matter tell The Daily Beast. It was not immediately clear what questions Mueller’s team had or what information Prince shared with the special counsel.
Prince attended a now-controversial meeting with the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund in the Seychelles Islands on Jan. 11, 2017—just over a week before Inauguration Day. The Washington Post reported that Mueller is interested in potential efforts at the Seychelles meeting to set up a backchannel between the Trump administration and the Kremlin.
A spokesman for the special counsel declined to comment.
With this and the fiasco in the other thread, it feels like dots are getting connected financially.
"... series of documents purport to transfer not only Alaska, but the entire United States and all its territories and possessions, back to Russia. Experts do not believe the document is legally enforceable, however, as the President's alleged signature is both illegible and in orange crayon."
"White House sources have denied that the President actually and literally attempted to sell the country, claiming that he was 'confused' and believed that he was choosing what he wanted for lunch, or possibly attempting to sign an executive order to 'bomb Obamaland.'"
I thought we banned satire.
... please tell me that's satire. I don't want to move.
We did, and this thread and the Cohen thread could stand to have a lot fewer joke posts. There's enough to laugh about already. And by laugh I mean cry.
If erik prince got into strife it would make me so happy. Like it isnt every day that a special prosecutor goes after an honest to goodness member of Cobra
+19
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
If erik prince got into strife it would make me so happy. Like it isnt every day that a special prosecutor goes after an honest to goodness member of Cobra
If erik prince got into strife it would make me so happy. Like it isnt every day that a special prosecutor goes after an honest to goodness member of Cobra
Cobra ran a tighter ship than these assholes.
They couldn’t aim for shit, but at least they had a consistent vision and worked as a team.
+24
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Their aim was a lot better in the comics, from what I understand.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Posts
It's immensely frustrating that at every single turn basically everyone who is not with Mueller or part of the Democrat minority in DC seems completely corrupt or completely stupid. Bias in defense of Trump can likely be both at once too, which is really disconcerting.
I'm actually not clear on what degree of immunity the President has. If he commits an obvious crime - not obvious like corruption, but obvious like assaulting someone with multiple witnesses (I'm trying to pick an absurd one I'm confident he wouldn't actually do, and I'm only half sure I've succeeded) - , can he just be arrested? Or can he do a Lethal Weapon 2 and just shoot someone and say "Diplomatic Immunity"?
We don't know yet.
A: The President must be tried for committing a crime.
B: A sitting President cannot be tried for a crime while in office.
A: We shall remove the President from office, and then try him.
B: On what grounds will you remove the President?
A: He committed a crime.
B: You can't prove that, as there hasn't been a trial.
This then raises issues over whether Congress/DoJ is even willing to try a sitting President in the first place.
PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
Hit me up on BoardGameArena! User: Loaded D1
As for the rest, we have been told not to speculate on that sort of thing.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Maybe they'll spine up after Primary season, but I doubt it.
There are non-stupid, arguably non-corrupt* republicans. They all just resigned over the last two years when they saw the writing on the wall.
*which isn't to say good or positive policy, but smart enough to not fall into the idiot side of things.
A lot of them are either useless, and/or were riding the tiger's tail for their own agenda until Trump got out of control (then get shocked when the tiger bites them) and have been hilariously incompetent at fighting against him. Trump wouldn't be where he is today without their support, and after Trump leaves office you can bet every single one of them will completely ignore they had anything to do with Trump.
Not the Primaries. The Mid-terms. That has always been the target. To see if they can maintain control of one or both sides of Congress. Not that that would make it any likely they have a change of heart.
Do not engage the Watermelons.
Ah okay, there we go. She's running interference for Trump. Good thing she's a judge and not also compromised by Russia.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
WSJ reporter says Mueller has known since last November of the drug company payment to Cohen.
It's one of the most frustrating experiences as a lawyer. You can be right on both the facts and the law, but the judge still rules against you. It just happens sometimes.
Mueller is so far ahead of everyone else. His report is going to be absolutely damning when it comes out. Hopefully before November.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
It's really not that unclear?
A: The President must be tried for committing a crime.
B: Then they must be impeached by the House and tried by the Senate.
There's ambiguity on what exactly constitutes "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as defined in the impeachment language, but I haven't seen a serious argument that the President doesn't have immunity from lower federal courts while in office.
I suppose in this particular case it is an open question whether the President can be impeached for crimes that occur before taking the oath of office but as part of their campaign for said office, but we'll cross the bridge if/when we get there.
The question is more can the President be subpoenaed and compelled to testify to anyone other than Congress, or not. Even if his testimony is nothing but pleading the 5th, can he be required to give it?
My initial guess is that it falls under the "political question" doctrine, so no. Also the standards for "clearly guilty" are different in a courtroom vs. public opinion.
According to the article, and also to the only other discussion I was able to find, the delay was requested because the defendants were alleged not to have been properly served (which, as far as I can tell as a non-law, is totally reasonable for the judge to reject when the allegedly unserved party is presenting itself in court and wants to proceed).
Do you (or anyone) have a source for the claim that the judge ordered Mueller to turn over 50 years of intelligence? Because that sounds super made up and I can’t find anything that corroborates it.
As far as I can tell, the difficulty here and the reason mueller is trying to delay is because prosecuting is lose-lose; the corporate defendants can send in lawyers to represent them and then demand to see the evidence against them, but, since they are largely crooked sham companies/don’t do business in the US anyway they could just ignore any ruling against them (and unlike persons presenting themselves for trial, who would promptly be apprehended, the individuals involved in the trial who are physically present in the US would not be personally liable for whatever the corporation might be found guilty of and can just walk away at the end). So maybe the charges wind up getting dropped but in the meantime the corporate defendants can be super aggro in their legal strategy with no real downside.
He actually had a sense of shame, and voluntarily complied. This adminstration? It's less clear
It's not circular. The House impeaches, which is the equivalent of the indictment in a regular trial. Then the Senate holds a trial. The president would only be removed if found guilty in the Senate trial. If acquitted, nothing happens, he's still president.
He did not. He fought that shit till the bitter end and on every occasion tried to get edited versions or even just some of his people writing down a summary of what was on them. released.
let's not redeem Nixon the same way that people have done with GWB, please
Have people redeemed GWB beyond "welp, that devil was bad but he looks like an angel compared to Trump" ?
Outside the scope of this thread.
Nixon is definitely on topic though, heh.
I was not expecting this.
We live in strange times.
It's stupid Watergate.
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
In this case, it's trying to rhyme with Orange.
With this and the fiasco in the other thread, it feels like dots are getting connected financially.
sorry.
We did, and this thread and the Cohen thread could stand to have a lot fewer joke posts. There's enough to laugh about already. And by laugh I mean cry.
Cobra ran a tighter ship than these assholes.
They couldn’t aim for shit, but at least they had a consistent vision and worked as a team.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.