Indicted

[jakee 1,556]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

If she needs to be removed it will be widely be seen as political both here and abroad and the interpretations that will come will weaken our nation.

Why?

She literally can’t be removed politically, right? The only people who can make her recuse herself (which it really seems like she should) are the members of the judiciary sitting directly above her.

[obelixtim 150]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

Why?

She literally can’t be removed politically, right? The only people who can make her recuse herself (which it really seems like she should) are the members of the judiciary sitting directly above her.

The DOJ will ask the court of appeals to recuse her if she doesn't do it herself. And the CoA have already slapped her down once. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

In the UK where politicians still answer the little bits of integrity left. BoJo resigned as MP after resigning as P.M. The report was released today and it plainly stated that he lied to the people and to parliament. His downfall was preceded by the resignation of others within his conservative party.

As compared to America under the GOP. Is the decimation of the party in elections the only way to build a backbone of integrity? Or is it going to be allowed to continue to send a message that the state is the enemy. Both a deep and shallow state enemy.

[gowlerk 2,241]

15 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Is the decimation of the party in elections the only way to build a backbone of integrity?

Yes, and it is nowhere even close to occuring.

[Phil1111 1,149]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yes, and it is nowhere even close to occuring.

Agree. trump has new election talking points to place the entire department of justice under direct presidential control. He states that its the only way to protect Americans from the deep state. The only way to keep what the deep state is doing to him. From doing it to every single American. What a hero!

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israel PM who has also gone populist. Is also going the same route, or at least trying to. He has similar corruption challenges in the courts.

What loyalists will trump put in as FBI director? How many FBI agents would quit as a result? One of trump's first orders in 2017 was to order the termination of 46 Obama appointed prosecutors.

[jakee 1,556]

40 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

In the UK where politicians still answer the little bits of integrity left. BoJo resigned as MP after resigning as P.M. The report was released today and it plainly stated that he lied to the people and to parliament. His downfall was preceded by the resignation of others within his conservative party.

Oh please don’t use BoJo and integrity in the same sentence. That would be quite a misunderstanding of what happened. He was toast, it was unavoidable that he would lose his job. Parliament would have voted on whether to impose the sanction recommended by the committee - he would have lost that vote. His constituency would then have held a recall petition, he would have lost that petition. He then could have stood in a by-election to try and get his job back, he would have lost that by-election.

 

The only reasons he stood down now were to avoid that damaging series of public losses, and to release a resignation statement that viciously and falsely slandered the Standards Committee and their investigation of him. It was absolutely the most Trumpian thing he could have done within the constraints of our system (now that he’s not in charge anymore and can’t simply ignore the rules)

[Phil1111 1,149]

22 minutes ago, jakee said:

Oh please don’t use BoJo and integrity in the same sentence. That would be quite a misunderstanding of what happened. He was toast, it was unavoidable that he would lose his job. Parliament would have voted on whether to impose the sanction recommended by the committee - he would have lost that vote. His constituency would then have held a recall petition, he would have lost that petition. He then could have stood in a by-election to try and get his job back, he would have lost that by-election.

 

The only reasons he stood down now were to avoid that damaging series of public losses, and to release a resignation statement that viciously and falsely slandered the Standards Committee and their investigation of him. It was absolutely the most Trumpian thing he could have done within the constraints of our system (now that he’s not in charge anymore and can’t simply ignore the rules)

Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. "Misguided loyalty to his party." How about that? But other conservatives resigned to force his retirement as PM and they were resigning now because of ...disgust with the party.

Which is night and day different from the US GOP messaging. America is corrupt, America is broken, Democrats are criminals and must be locked up,WOKE is destroying America, Dems want your guns, Gays and lesbians want your children, etc.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

13 hours ago, obelixtim said:

The DOJ will ask the court of appeals to recuse her if she doesn't do it herself. And the CoA have already slapped her down once. 

No they won't. They may ask the 11th Circuit for her removal, but only if she makes a string of bad calls, in a row, that have to be overturned by the 11th. They won't ask before the trial, not a chance. (unless they have evidence of further connection between AC and Trump)

[jakee 1,556]

4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Sorry, poor phrasing on my part. "Misguided loyalty to his party." How about that? But other conservatives resigned to force his retirement as PM and they were resigning now because of ...disgust with the party.

Which is night and day different from the US GOP messaging. America is corrupt, America is broken, Democrats are criminals and must be locked up,WOKE is destroying America, Dems want your guns, Gays and lesbians want your children, etc.

Ah ok, good points. The Conservative party as a whole forced him out as PM because they figured he was becoming an electoral liability rather than because of ethics. The other MPs resigning now are throwing tantrums after being blocked from receiving the honours he’d promised them as a reward.

But what we do have still are committees that work. It does seem like the MPs on committees which exist to work for Parliament as a whole rather than for their party, do still take that role very seriously. A world away from Jordan, Gaetz, MTG et Al over there.

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

7 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Agree. trump has new election talking points to place the entire department of justice under direct presidential control. He states that its the only way to protect Americans from the deep state. The only way to keep what the deep state is doing to him. From doing it to every single American. What a hero!

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israel PM who has also gone populist. Is also going the same route, or at least trying to. He has similar corruption challenges in the courts.

What loyalists will trump put in as FBI director? How many FBI agents would quit as a result? One of trump's first orders in 2017 was to order the termination of 46 Obama appointed prosecutors.

Hi Phil,

Re:  trump has new election talking points to place the entire department of justice under direct presidential control.

Right out of the Third Reich.

Jerry Baumchen

[Faicon9493 141]

Donald Trump is on a long, winding road, rather than the express lane but they both lead to the same place.....PRISON. if the express lane lead to his freedom, he would be on it.....and he's not.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

32 minutes ago, Faicon9493 said:

Donald Trump is on a long, winding road, rather than the express lane but they both lead to the same place.....PRISON. if the express lane lead to his freedom, he would be on it.....and he's not.

That is wishful thinking. Not unlikely he gets pardoned for the federal crimes before he is ever convicted.

Even if he is convicted and sentenced on the federal crimes prior to being pardoned, or convicted on any of the State charges he will simply not be sentenced to prison because the SS would not be able to ensure his safety. I think the absolute most would be house arrest and I think even that would be close to wishful thinking.

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,422]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

That is wishful thinking. Not unlikely he gets pardoned for the federal crimes before he is ever convicted.

Even if he is convicted and sentenced on the federal crimes prior to being pardoned, or convicted on any of the State charges he will simply not be sentenced to prison because the SS would not be able to ensure his safety. I think the absolute most would be house arrest and I think even that would be close to wishful thinking.

 

Hi Sky,

I am not an attorney.  However, I do not believe it is possible to pardon someone unless they have been convicted of a crime.

When Pres Ford pardoned Nixon no one challenged it.

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,514]

10 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

I am not an attorney.  However, I do not believe it is possible to pardon someone unless they have been convicted of a crime.

When Pres Ford pardoned Nixon no one challenged it.

Jerry Baumchen

And according to the text of the pardon, he pardoned Nixon for all crimes committed between 1969 and 1974 (which went before Watergate, BTW), without any convictions. So maybe they can pardon prejudicially. Or maybe he was just saying "I'm saying now I'll pardon him" in legalese, but it doesn't look that way from the straight-up language.

OTOH, if that kind of pardon were possible, I have a feeling it would be used more often. We've come to devalue the pardon, and it might have started with Nixon. In some ways I agreed with it at the time, and understand it now, and in others I still hate it. Because it also set a precedent of "some things are just too icky to take to court," and the guilt or innocence of a President shouldn't be among them.

Wendy P.

[ryoder 1,590]

11 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

And according to the text of the pardon, he pardoned Nixon for all crimes committed between 1969 and 1974 (which went before Watergate, BTW), without any convictions. So maybe they can pardon prejudicially. Or maybe he was just saying "I'm saying now I'll pardon him" in legalese, but it doesn't look that way from the straight-up language.

OTOH, if that kind of pardon were possible, I have a feeling it would be used more often. We've come to devalue the pardon, and it might have started with Nixon. In some ways I agreed with it at the time, and understand it now, and in others I still hate it. Because it also set a precedent of "some things are just too icky to take to court," and the guilt or innocence of a President shouldn't be among them.

Wendy P.

Heather Cox Richardson talked about this several days ago. She takes the origination of the problem all the way back to the post-Civil War era:

https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/june-13-2023

Edited June 16, 2023 by ryoder

[SkyDekker 1,465]

14 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Sky,

I am not an attorney.  However, I do not believe it is possible to pardon someone unless they have been convicted of a crime.

It is certainly unclear and there is very little jurisprudence around presidential pardon power. This includes questions around if a presidential power can be used against state crimes.

[obelixtim 150]

On 6/16/2023 at 4:09 AM, SkyDekker said:

No they won't. They may ask the 11th Circuit for her removal, but only if she makes a string of bad calls, in a row, that have to be overturned by the 11th. They won't ask before the trial, not a chance. (unless they have evidence of further connection between AC and Trump)

She has previous, and the statute requires recusal if there is any hint of bias, or reasonable suspicion she might show bias, which she has already shown, and been sanctioned for. She can choose the jury members, and disqualify any evidence she chooses, if she wants to, if she remains in charge. I think the DOJ will move to recuse her before she gets any chance to influence matters. Besides, she is extremely inexperienced for a trial of this import.

[JoeWeber 2,807]

1 hour ago, obelixtim said:

She has previous, and the statute requires recusal if there is any hint of bias, or reasonable suspicion she might show bias, which she has already shown, and been sanctioned for. She can choose the jury members, and disqualify any evidence she chooses, if she wants to, if she remains in charge. I think the DOJ will move to recuse her before she gets any chance to influence matters. Besides, she is extremely inexperienced for a trial of this import.

What is missing from your analysis is the defined mechanism. Sometimes the wrong people get the wrong slots on important loads and there is not jack shit anyone can do about it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Something I don't see mentioned is how experienced Jack Smith is.

He knows what he's doing. 
While this is the highest profile case he's ever done, this isn't the first high profile case he's prosecuted.

If anyone thinks he's not aware of the 'judge issues', they're kidding themselves.
If anyone thinks he doesn't have a plan to deal with those issues, and a plan he believes will work, they really need to rethink that.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/09/1181412650/jack-smith-special-counsel-classified-documents-case-trump

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Came across this elsewhere:

After the indictment, Trump led his supporters to a bakery.
He promised 'food for everyone'.

But then left. Nobody got anything.

Why am I not in any way surprised?

https://www.salon.com/2023/06/15/promised-food-for-everyone-at-versailles--but-it-turns-out-no-one-got-anything-report/?fbclid=IwAR3hjlXl50aBm6oUP0ptKnC_TFYToGuMnAVtU9CUwnQ_5mUmvauUpxwEX1c

[Erroll 80]

12 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

If anyone thinks he doesn't have a plan to deal with those issues, and a plan he believes will work, they really need to rethink that.

Agreed.

Here is a deep dive into exactly that subject: Jack Smith’s CALCULATED RISK in Trump Indictment EXPLAINED

[JoeWeber 2,807]

12 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Something I don't see mentioned is how experienced Jack Smith is.

He knows what he's doing. 
While this is the highest profile case he's ever done, this isn't the first high profile case he's prosecuted.

If anyone thinks he's not aware of the 'judge issues', they're kidding themselves.
If anyone thinks he doesn't have a plan to deal with those issues, and a plan he believes will work, they really need to rethink that.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/09/1181412650/jack-smith-special-counsel-classified-documents-case-trump

We all know how experienced he is and no one doubts he's gamed it through. But he cannot control every aspect, he can only make his best bet. It may be that he simply thought it was a better bet to indict in Florida and risk Cannon than to get tied up and endlessly delayed by a venue fight if he indicted in DC. Like you, I don't know if he ended up with the weakest outcome of many or if he is loaded with silver bullets.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

We all know how experienced he is and no one doubts he's gamed it through. But he cannot control every aspect, he can only make his best bet. It may be that he simply thought it was a better bet to indict in Florida and risk Cannon than to get tied up and endlessly delayed by a venue fight if he indicted in DC. Like you, I don't know if he ended up with the weakest outcome of many or if he is loaded with silver bullets.

Very true. 

I have no clue what his game plan is.

I have no ability to determine if his plan is viable or a pipe dream.

I DO have a decent amount of faith that he knows what he's doing and has a pretty good chance of getting a conviction.

But nothing is certain.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

On 6/16/2023 at 8:54 PM, obelixtim said:

She has previous, and the statute requires recusal if there is any hint of bias, or reasonable suspicion she might show bias, which she has already shown, and been sanctioned for.

She has not been sanctioned. She had a ruling overruled on appeal, something that happens. No judge has ever been removed for being overruled once, however egregious it was.

 

On 6/16/2023 at 8:54 PM, obelixtim said:

think the DOJ will move to recuse her before she gets any chance to influence matters.

Not a chance. She is already in a position to influence matters, first orders have already been issued by her.

[JoeWeber 2,807]

3 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

She has not been sanctioned. She had a ruling overruled on appeal, something that happens. No judge has ever been removed for being overruled once, however egregious it was.

 

Not a chance. She is already in a position to influence matters, first orders have already been issued by her.

Unless she does something appealable to the 11th Circuit, or recuses, she's the judge. Apparently she's a religious type who is known to invoke God at sentencing's. No clue if that's good or bad now.