Trump counter claim in E. Jean Carroll case dismissed.
Another loss, if anyone is keeping score. https://t.co/9CX2s9otu8
— Jack E. Smith ⚖️ (@7Veritas4) August 7, 2023
The J6 case in D.C.
NEW: Donald Trump has previewed several arguments for relocating his latest — and gravest —criminal case away from Washington, D.C.
Judge Chutkan has, in recent Jan. 6-related rulings, rejected all of them. https://t.co/LWjHNfKvqU
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 7, 2023
People in the know seem to think this is a big deal. Here’s Andrew Weissmann:
Why Cannon latest order is so off base: 1512 (i) permits an obstruction case to be brought where the crime, OR the intended effect on the investigation, occurred. And a grand jury may investigate if there is simply a good faith basis for either in the grand jury's district. https://t.co/pbRVn5hFWw
— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) August 7, 2023
Judge Cannon clearly shows her ignorance (bias? both?); the obstruction crimes that were investigated are charges that could have been brought in FLA or in DC and thus could be investigated in either district. And there was conduct that is alleged to have occurred outside FLA. https://t.co/KIGkUka59J
— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) August 7, 2023
And here’s the (fake) Jack Smith in response to the news above:
Oh Aileen, you’ve stepped in it now.
— Jack E. Smith ⚖️ (@7Veritas4) August 7, 2023
Can someone explain why that is a big Joe Biden deal?
Ooh, I like the sound of this.
Why I think Trump will be sentenced to jail in the DC case: https://t.co/KLXWFZMIGB
— Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads)🌻 (@AWeissmann_) August 4, 2023
Open thread.
Trivia Man
I’m looking forward to TIFG having to lock in his answers ON THE RECORD. It’s one thing to say “I’m busy, I have to postpone/ appeal/ delay” and another thing to prove it. Especially on the record and under oath.
Geo Wilcox
Cannon is off her meds again. Or maybe she really is just that fucking stupid.
WaterGirl
@Geo Wilcox: Can you explain about why that was so stupid, and/or why it’s a big deal?
Does this give the DOJ an opening to have her removed? If so, why?
Scout211
Not that I understand it all, but here is one explainer.
Judge Aileen Cannon Comes Out Swinging in Trump’s Favor—Again
smith
@Scout211: So much for the hope that she’d try to save her career rather than try to save TFG.
Anonymous At Work
tl;dr AND NOT LEGAL ADVICE, on the Grand Jury thing:
When you empanel a grand jury, you can do it where it make sense at the time. If you find a better location later, you don’t have to stop and redo everything in that better location. You only stop if the location doesn’t make sense after you start looking. So, Trump (in DC) took classified material from DC to Florida. The material belonged back in DC, Archives in DC requested the material and Trump was asked by the FBI in DC. So, DC makes sense as a location for a grand jury.
Aileen (“Judge Cannon” is now farther away) either forgot or “forgot” that, which is pretty basic stuff. Jack Smith, rather than deal with Aileen on the matter, can appeal her request to the 11th Circuit, which could (in theory) re-assign the case to someone who is
not in Trump’s pocket and is smartmore experienced in such matters. People have been wondering if Jack Smith was waiting for a chance to appeal some really boneheaded motion of hers, and this could be that moment.However, that remains to be seen since Jack Smith could simply deal with the motion and only appeal if Aileen rules against him, or Jack Smith could appeal to teh 11th and get a nice hard smackdown on Aileen that will sting AND make her less likely to rule on TFG’s behalf on future iffy motions.
p.a.
Don’t assume intent when incompetence is sufficient, but, maybe, Cannon wants off the case? Being the Orange Shitstain’s fixer will require tainting her career forever (already done?😂), but following the rule of law will make her a target for the “Second Amendment solution” scumbags. I’ll shed no tear for her. I assume she has the right to recuse?
Anonymous At Work
@Scout211: I hadn’t read about her denying a Garcia hearing. THAT’S HUGE. Not sure what the controlling precedent is like in 11th Circuit but the trial judge MUST take a request for a Garcia hearing seriously and MUST play an active role in performing an evaluation of the defendants’ knowledge of their attorneys’ potential limitations.
Anonymous At Work
trollhattan
@Geo Wilcox:
Anybody see her and Coathanger together in the same room?
Redshift
@p.a.:
Definitely. She could have recused at the beginning, and I’m pretty sure there’s nothing stopping her from recusing at any point.
smith
I’m thinking she’s not experienced enough (and maybe not intelligent enough) to know how to put her thumb on the scales without anyone noticing.
LAO
Wow. I’ve never seen a judge deny a Garcia hearing (a curcio hearing within the confines of the 2d circuit). The government’s motion definitely established the need. Crazy.
Sister Golden Bear
Dozens Of Cops Stationed Outside Georgia Courthouse
No indication of whether today’s the day, but….
WaterGirl
@Anonymous At Work: Can you tell us more about what a Garcia hearing is and why it’s a big deal for her to deny that?
Omnes Omnibus
@Anonymous At Work: Denying the Garcia hearing is virtually reversible error on its face. Insane.
WaterGirl
A quick definition of Garcia hearing:
A Garcia hearing is a legal proceeding that ensures a defendant, who is one of two or more defendants represented by the same attorney, understands the risk of a conflict of interest. This type of hearing also informs the defendant that they have the right to an attorney who does not represent anyone else in their case. The hearing is held to protect the defendant’s rights and ensure fair representation in court.
A more thorough explanation:
Definition: A Garcia hearing is a legal proceeding held to ensure that a defendant who is one of two or more defendants represented by the same attorney understands two things:
The risk of a conflict of interest that comes with this type of representation
That they are entitled to the services of an attorney who does not represent anyone else in their case.
For example, if two people are charged with a crime and they both hire the same lawyer, a Garcia hearing may be held to make sure that each defendant understands that their lawyer’s loyalty may be divided between them. The hearing is named after a court case called United States v. Garcia, which established the need for this type of hearing.
Anonymous At Work
@LAO: So many assumptions. Having one with Walt and Carlos but not with Donald there would be a thing. Aileen’s required to play a leading role in an in-depth inquiry as well.
Can you think of any reason why a competent and secure jurist would deny the hearing? I haven’t practiced, so my mind goes too quickly to “incompetent” and “corrupt” as reasons.
LAO
@p.a.: Cannon can step off the case without even giving a reason. There is zero reason to believe she’s engaged in a scheme to make the DOJ move for her recusal. Especially, since it’s virtually impossible to win a recusal motion.
JPL
@Sister Golden Bear: There are a few additional witnesses that Willis wants to call so it’s unlikely to happen today. Of course, she could decide to proceed without those witnesses.
LAO
@Anonymous At Work: none. I can think of no reason except maybe to slow the DOJ down. Which is a stupid reason to fuck up a simple and common procedure.
Omnes Omnibus
@WaterGirl: The link about Garcia hearings at comment 4 is a pretty good explainer. Basically, the court needs to make sure defendants are aware of any conflict of interest stemming from joint representation.
WaterGirl
@LAO: I can’t imagine that in this particular case, Cannon would even blow her nose or go to the bathroom without checking the the group that is most surely pulling her string.
Anonymous At Work
@WaterGirl: What you posted. This goes to a WAIVER of Constitutional Right to effective counsel under the Sixth Amendment. When an attorney represents multiple clients, the clients’ interests may diverge and attorney-client privilege may limit the ability of an attorney to, for example, cross-examine a former client at trial.
A Garcia Hearing is where the JUDGE questions the defendant(s) about their knowledge of their attorney’s conflict of interest, that their attorney can’t ask key questions or volunteer key information because they used to represent someone else in the proceeding (like an adverse witness). The JUDGE is supposed to elicit informed consent from the defendant that they know all the problems with their attorney and want that attorney DESPITE the problems and aren’t being misled.
So, it’s a big deal because Aileen must gain positive informed consent from Walt and Carlos that “I know my attorney won’t be that good, he isn’t misleading me on behalf of Trump, and I want to stick with this attorney.”
Because it is a WAIVER of a Constitutional Right, it is a Joe Biden Deal in the record, the Judge is the active leader of the hearing, and the defendants have to explain things in such a way to show active knowledge, independent decision-making, etc.
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: Thank you. What possible reason could a judge have for not wanting that, even if it’s just to dot the Is and cross the Ts so it can’t be an issue later?
smith
@Omnes Omnibus: Does omitting a Garcia hearing now set up a basis for an appeal further down the line due to the counsel’s conflict? If so, why would she want to do that? As far as I can see it only really impacts the aides’ cases, and if the appeal succeeded it would certainly make her look like a really shitty judge.
LAO
@WaterGirl: As I understand it, the potential conflict here is that WN’s lawyer also represented a number of witnesses during the investigation and the government intends to call one or more of them as witnesses at trial.
The lawyer cannot cross-examine a current or former client because he is privy to confidential information about that witness. That’s an actual conflict.
and, by the way this happens regularly in the federal system and it’s dealt with by a hearing exploring the potential conflict and by having the affected parties meet with non-conflicted attorneys.
WaterGirl
@smith: Pretty sure she’s already got the really shitty judge thing nailed!
Feathers
In other breaking legal news, golden retriever caught on camera greeting a thief and demanding pets and belly rubs. Still a good boy.
Redshift
@WaterGirl:
Considering the number of instances we’ve seen of TFGPAC-paid lawyers apparently putting TFG’s interests ahead of their clients’ (“apparently” only because no one has been formally reprimanded about it), this seems particularly egregious.
...now I try to be amused
@Trivia Man:
In Trump’s election lawsuits it drove me crazy that he and his attorneys made incendiary claims outside the courtroom but not in it, and the media did not report the latter. I’m hoping the media will pay more attention to what is said in court this time.
WaterGirl
@Feathers: Can that be real? The part where he calls out “Dad?!” seems unlikely for a thief.
WaterGirl
Isn’t it humiliating for other judges on that court, and for the 11th Circuit to have Cannon basically shitting herself in public? It demeans the entire court in a way – I mean, if Cannon can get on the court, it can’t be all that prestigious to be a judge.
Baud
In fairness, how many Republicans understand the concept of conflict of interest?
Mousebumples
I see news of another Wisconsin gerrymandering lawsuit being filed – https://www.democracydocket.com/cases/wisconsin-legislative-redistricting-challenge-wright/
Though this case seems to have been filed in Friday, so maybe it’s not new…
Anonymous At Work
@WaterGirl: Short answers:
JPL
I’m beginning to think that trump guy appointed unqualified people to serve on the court. who would have thought.
WaterGirl
@Mousebumples: It’s new to us!
WaterGirl
@Anonymous At Work: Oh, I very much hope #2 happens! thank you.
RaflW
Never underestimate that conservatives think shamelessness is their superpower. Hope the 11th Circuit gives her what she’s due anyway.
HumboldtBlue
I expunged my comment because Aqua lady already got there.
@WaterGirl:
And I see she went with the first link for the first Google result definition of a Garcia hearing as well.
Mousebumples
Fair enough! The WI SC session starts in September, but I’m appreciating all the crocodile tears from (current) SC CJ who may be replaced by the Dem majority next month. GOP changed the rules, and if the majority on the Court elects the CJ now, well, I think we may have a new CJ in a few weeks…
(*will defer to OO or other lawyers – I’m just guessing)
smith
Looking at Meidas Touch, it seems Cannon’s big issue is not so much the Garcia hearing, but Smith requesting that information about possible conflicts gained from a different grand jury be withheld from the public, though not from the defendants. In making this objection, she revealed that there is another grand jury still gathering evidence. Apparently she thinks there’s something wrong with this.
And then there’s this:
cain
@smith: or perhaps the team of people behind her are just advising her badly. That’s probably where her inexperience is – she’s got a team of goofballs advising her.
cain
@WaterGirl: She has to be really stupid to put her career in the hands of a group. Only she gets fucked not that group.
smith
@cain: That’s certainly on-brand.
UncleEbeneezer
@LAO: If she recuses she is immediately seen as a traitor to the GOP/Trump. My understanding is that she is a traditional, Cuban-American Republican but not MAGA, but like every Republican she probably really doesn’t want the hatred of the 27% that is guaranteed if she recuses.
tobie
@smith: Is the idea that now that the indictment has been filed, all evidence/material gathered in any grand jury, whether directly related to these charges or not, must be made public? What if there’s another grand jury with witnesses represented by the same lawyer fingering Nauta or DeOliveira for other crimes? I’m confused.
cain
@smith: That’s one grateful judge – I guess she’s going to have a very sad career as she gets sidelined over the years.
prostratedragon
@smith: There are many articles from last week on Cannon’s errors in that earlier trial. Here’s one where a commenter notes that there are provisions for a judge to get help with trial challenges, but of course they must ask for it.
zhena gogolia
@cain: We won’t have much of a justice system at all if Trump gets re-elected.
Anonymous At Work
@tobie: Aileen gave away that the grand jury that indicted all defendants still exists, is in DC, and could come down with more charges based on new evidence (or has additional sealed charges to be unsealed as needed), so there’s a huge danger over the defendants for refusing to cooperate.
And the underlying issue is that Jack Smith wanted to present evidence from that grand jury investigation that isn’t YET part of the record for the document case to WN and CdO as a reason to consider ditching their attorneys.
Aileen disagreed, wants a hearing, but did so in ways that are making the attorneys scratch their heads, like someone trying to push a car with the parking break on or something equally stupid.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@WaterGirl:
Underqualified judges can fuck up without any ulterior motive. Cannon strikes me as extraordinarily underexperienced as a trial level judge – it sounds like an honest fuckup to me.
smith
@tobie: I think it’s something like that. There’s a conflict in representation of witnesses giving testimony to another grand jury that might produce a conflict for Nauta’s counsel. Smith thinks it should be part of the Garcia hearing, but doesn’t want the other grand jury’s business made public. Cannon is apparently livid there’s another grand jury at all.
But I certainly ANAL, that’s just my understanding from looking around the web.
I have to say I like the fact that there is another grand jury active — I keep hoping TFG will be indicted for selling national secrets. It’s only thing possibly related to the docs I can think of that wouldn’t cover the same ground as the FL case.
Adam Lang
@Anonymous At Work: She didn’t deny a Garcia hearing, she denied a motion to have one that held its contents entirely confidential. She said she was still willing to allow some of the information shared in it to be sealed but will not do so without an explanation of why each piece of material should be sealed, individually.
Omnes Omnibus
@cain: Her “team” is two law clerks, a secretary, and a bailiff.
Alison Rose
@Baud:
You could replace “conflict of interest” with basically anything else and the answer would be: Roughly 0.5% of them.
HumboldtBlue
Keith Boykin made a great point the other day.
It only took a few minutes to arrest 21-year-old Kai Cenat and charge him for inciting a riot in New York.
But it took 2 1/2 years to arrest 77-year-old Donald Trump for the riot he caused in Washington, DC. And he still wasn’t charged for inciting it.
Omnes Omnibus
@HumboldtBlue: And?
Immanentize
@LAO: HI LAO👋!
There is one small way in which Cannon’s questions make sense. Some points:
— Grand juries have vast powers to investigate through subpoenas to testify or to get documents (or both!)
— GJs get to do this in secret. Not even a witness’ lawyer is allowed into the grand jury room during their testimony (target or not).
— witnesses to a GJ have the right to tell what happened in the room, but can be silenced with a gag order; also most people do not want to talk about what they said
— Although prosecutors really run the show in GJ proceedings, they are NOT an executive/prosecution institution; grand juries are part of the Judiciary Branch and are, as such, technically controlled by the judges
— [This is the Cannon order point] Because of all of the above, once a GJ returns an indictment on a charge, the GJ (or any GJ) cannot continue to investigate that particular charge. But criminal charges are defined by ACTS not sections of the penal code, so GJs in the original jurisdiction (or others) can investigate other ACTS that occured in the district, and other people commiting different acts.
In Trump’s case, the Southern District of Florida, the DC District, and the District of New Jersey* all seem to have potential criminal acts that happened in them. Others too, i am sure, because if you are on a phone talking crime, you are criming on both ends of that line. This gives the feds a lot of lee way in deciding where to bring charges. Think of it as “Cannon insurance.”
*All of NJ is one district, but it has three divisions, or “vicinages” — which is itself an interesting topic.
tobie
@Anonymous At Work: Thanks. So it’s sealed charges or potential future charges that she believes should be made public preventing the DoJ from exercising leverage and preventing the indicted parties from knowing their lawyer may have conflict(s) of interest. Wow. She manages to rule against the defendents, or two of the defendents (WN & CDO), and the prosecution at the same time.
LAO
@HumboldtBlue: Real question: why do you think that’s a great point?
UncleEbeneezer
@LAO: Because bashing Garland/DOJ is a hell of a drug.
LAO
@Immanentize: HI! 👋
tobie
@tobie: i tried to delete my comment but came too late. Ignore.
JWR
I just heard this clip on NBC news, and good for the reporter, who doesn’t let DeSantis off the hook about both the 2020 election and whether he would veto a national 6 week abortion ban, similar to the one he signed in Florida. It was refreshing, to say the least. I suppose this is what happens when the media is let loose on a DOA candidacy.
ETA that it’s a 4:24 minute clip, plenty time enough for good ol’ Ron to blow it all to Hell.
Immanentize
@Omnes Omnibus:
@LAO:
It could be a good point if what you were saying is:
the NYPD rushed to judgment without sufficient evidence in the Cenat case which may well be tossed by the prosecutor or the NY GJ; in comparison to the careful case built over time by the federal prosecutors in the Trump cases.
HumboldtBlue
@LAO:
Well, maybe not that great, but it appears yet again that an old white man with influence gets away with crimes nobody else does. Just another highlighter mark in the book of reference when we talk about “justice” in this country.
It’s also Fox News’ latest talking point, which is actually kind of hilarious.
Omnes Omnibus
@Immanentize: Fair point, but I doubt that was what was meant.
Omnes Omnibus
@HumboldtBlue: Trump hasn’t gotten away with it yet. And let’s see if the NY charges stick.
sdhays
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg: Wasn’t she an assistant US attorney for several years before being appointed as a Federal judge? From what lawyers are describing, these concepts shouldn’t be unfamiliar to someone with her experience – comparatively light or not.
HumboldtBlue
@Omnes Omnibus:
Understood.
Baud
@HumboldtBlue:
Say what, now? I mean, it depends on the details of the scheme, but for most details, it’s usually a crime.
Alison Rose
@HumboldtBlue: It’s absolutely true that the justice system treats white people differently, but at the same time, these are two massively different situations. This isn’t even comparing apples to oranges, it’s more comparing apples to chickens.
If Obama had lost his reelection in 2012 and incited a riot at the Capitol over it and they had arrested and locked him up within two months, and then we were facing what we are now with Trump exactly as it has played out…then sure, talk about the double standard.
jonas
Of course he’ll probably be walking that remark back so fast by this evening, the earth’s polarity will reverse.
MisterForkbeard
@LAO: My understanding (IANAL, etc) isn’t so much that she denied a Garcia hearing, she denied doing it under seal. I think?
jonas
If said schemes involve illegal conspiracies, fraud, and interference with government activities, then…yeah, they’re kind of a crime.
HumboldtBlue
@Omnes Omnibus:
And now the evidence has shown you were wrong, correct?
gene108
@smith:
Her employment with the U.S. government will end via her death or voluntary resignation, unless she goes on a bank robbery spree or something that‘s shocking enough to have ethics rules kick in for removal.
Omnes Omnibus
@HumboldtBlue: What annoyed me about that tweet is that they were using a cheap and facile comparison to try to make a valid point. The two cases are actually quite dissimilar, different jurisdictions, different fact patterns, etc. Comparing the two doesn’t really show what they are trying to show. It does a disservice to people who are actually trying to show the flaws in the system.
Frankensteinbeck
@HumboldtBlue:
If you have already lost the election it is.
LAO
@HumboldtBlue: I don’t really care how Fox News distorts and lies, but just for record, inciting a riot in NY state is a class A misdemeanor, Cenat was given a desk appearance ticket at the precinct and let go. While I believe the NYPD overreacted (shocking!), the DC indictment lays out serious, complicated crimes with serious potential penalties. I’d have liked Garland to move faster but investigations take time.
Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg
@sdhays:
A Puke graduate, looks like she was mainly a research drone, with participation trophies in only four jury trials.
Sallycat
@Anonymous At Work: The appellate court would reject the appeal as premature. The prosecutor can appeal an order that comes from this order, if the court rules against the prosecution. The order itself is bizarre, but not appealable.
Immanentize
@Omnes Omnibus: This.
It was a tweet clearly aimed at suggesting DOJ was too slow, not that the NYPD were too quick. Terri Klanfield pointed out that Trump has made everyone want the strong man response (lock him up!) Rather than the less interesting path of the actual rule of law.
LAO
@MisterForkbeard: I think you may be right.
trollhattan
@Baud: Oh, say, just for example, you kidnap and drag your opponent to, let’s suppose, Greenland, which the US should totally buy. Isn’t that just electioneering? Something, something Citizens United.
smith
@gene108: I’m aware that it’s a lifetime appointment and she can keep it as long as she likes. I was thinking more of her reputation, generally and especially among her colleagues. This is such a high-profile case, I’m guessing her shenanigans will embarrass the whole circuit, and she will be thought of forevermore as being either incompetent or in the tank. That doesn’t make for a comfortable working life, even if you get to keep your job.
Baud
@LAO:
Garland still hasn’t ticketed Trump.
Reboot
@zhena gogolia: Or a planet.
Baud
@trollhattan:
Time for this classic.
Sallycat
Sorry. My mistake–the part of the order denying the Garcia hearing is appealable.
Immanentize
@MisterForkbeard: the order is poorly written enough that it is hard to tell. Does she want a response to her question about GJ proceedings outside her district but not under seal first? Does she want that before she grants a Garcia hearing?
FWIW, Cannon did not schedule a Garcia hearing which would require all defendants, minus Trump, and their attorney to appear. Plus stand-by non-conflicted attorneys would be needed to counsel the potentially conflicted clients before any waiver of conflict should be accepted.
LAO
@LAO: I’m replying to myself because inciting a riot in the first degree is a class E felony. Based upon reports, cenat was charged with second degree inciting a riot which is a misdemeanor.
Immanentize
@Sallycat: I was going to mention that, but the order is so poorly written….
Baud
@LAO:
“Riot in the first degree” is a great rock album name.
Villago Delenda Est
@Baud: Indeed.
HumboldtBlue
@LAO: @Immanentize:
I think it very much highlights how minorities in this country view criminal legal proceedings when it comes to wealthy white folks and those who are not wealthy white folks.
Both LAO and omnes have pointed out that jurisdictional issues and such are key to the proceedings and that makes perfect sense, but there still remains a palpable sense that black men and women are at the mercy of a criminal justice system that does not seem to apply to others, particularly wealthy white men.
I don’t think the Tweet was solely about speed at all, but a lot of it stems from the fact that we have seen a parade of trials and convictions of those who colluded and conspired to overturn the results of the election and coupled with the Jan. 6 hearings themselves, Trump’s involvement up to his neck.
Yes, Trump’s day is coming and all of the learned commentary about how this would play out from DOJ has been both informing and reassuring that the day is not far off, but from the street level it appears as yet another example of the vast difference in how criminal cases are handled when it’s a wealthy white man and someone who is not.
On another note, has anyone else experienced trouble with this site going to blue screen-like behavior? I just tried typing that comment out four times, and each time my laptop screen went kerplooie and with some sort of glitch that only happens at BJ, no other websites. It’s most certainly my laptop graphic card or something,, but it’s just very weird.
WaterGirl
@Mousebumples: CJ is Chief Justice?
So I presume the current Chief Justice is a Republican, and s/he thinks they will lose status.
So sad.
WaterGirl
@smith:
Yeah, we saw that move already in the previous Cannon case. She is most definitely a puppet with the right-wing group pulling her strings.
Baud
@HumboldtBlue:
The mobile site has frozen up on me at times over the last month.
eversor
@HumboldtBlue:
Update drivers, command line sfc /scannow, clear out your browser is a good place to start.
WaterGirl
@tobie: Why? I thought it was an interesting point.
SpaceUnit
@HumboldtBlue:
I think it’s a great point. If someone yells FIRE in a theater and people get trampled it’s a crime. So how the fuck is it not a crime to yell STOLEN ELECTION to an angry mob that immediately riots and results in people getting trampled and beaten and shot?
I want to believe that further indictments are in the works.
Mousebumples
@WaterGirl: Yes, sorry for being lazy.
And it’s extra sad for her since the GOP changed the previous rule that the most senior Justice would so serve to it being a majority vote of Justices. All because a liberal Justice was most senior and was Chief. They even ended her CJ term early to replace her – and that decision was litigated with the “new majority vote procedures” winning.
Clearly, they never thought they’d lose the Court’s majority. 🙃
I appreciate reaching the Find Out portion of time for the Wisconsin Conservatives who have enjoyed their Fork Around time until now…
AM in NC
@Deputinize Eurasia from the Kuriles to St Petersburg: Did not know she went to Puke. Makes perfect sense she fits in with Nixon, Ken Starr, Rand Paul, Steven Miller, and honorary Dookie Mike (so glad UNC ruined the end to your career) Krzyzewski.
Frankensteinbeck
@SpaceUnit:
According to Popehat, no, it’s not.
WaterGirl
@Mousebumples: So very, very sad for them!
Putting your thumb on the scales to benefit yourself or your party can sometimes backfire. So glad they got burnt playing with their own matches.
LAO
@HumboldtBlue: I don’t like the analogy because to me it’s comparing apples to beagles.
BUT, I do agree that the American criminal justice system is racist. In fact, I no longer practice in state courts because (1) it’s obvious that minorities communities are over policed and (2) over policing leads to over criminalizing. There is less (but not none) in the federal system, which makes it easier for me, to participate in.
I merely disagree with the false analogy because it does little to promote any real change but not the underlying frustration and anger.
Omnes Omnibus
@LAO: I agree with all of this.
SpaceUnit
@Frankensteinbeck:
Really? I find that hard to believe. I’d like to hear some of our resident legal folks weigh in.
HumboldtBlue
@LAO:
I read it as deep frustration with the system as it is, and it’s particularly galling because in this case it’s Trump, a man who has been getting away with being the world’s biggest asshole (not a crime) and being a thieving, scheming, lying, racist asshole for as long as we have known of him.
Also, Judge Chutkan is now trending after another Trump outburst on truth social.
WaterGirl
Apparently Trump’s attorneys just filed his response that was due any minute. I’m sure they think that’s very cute.
If someone wants to read it and let us know what it says, that would be a great service!
WaterGirl
Quick take on the trump response from Mueller She Wrote:
E.
OT but I was once arrested for inciting a riot on Forest Service land in Idaho. I was taken to jail in Boise, 250 miles away, left there for two days till Monday arraignment and then released with the charges dropped. The “riot” was a Forest Service employee who wrongly believed I had insulted him while he passed me in his truck. It was during a protest against logging and I was seen as a leader of the protesters, but there was no one else present, for some miles, when it happened. The Forest Service guy told his LEO he wanted to beat me up so that was the “riot.” These guys can get pretty creative.
Frankensteinbeck
@SpaceUnit:
All I know is, ‘It is illegal to shout FIRE in a crowded theater’ is Popehat’s favorite example of popular myths about law. He makes fun of people using that argument frequently. I’m no lawyer. I could be missing the joke.
LAO
@WaterGirl: I couldn’t get past the first sentence…President Trump, by and through his attorneys….
WaterGirl
@WaterGirl: In my opinion, they have gotten so many things wrong as Trump pukes up his posts for the not-Truth place AND his attorneys got so much wrong on Sunday…
…that the only conclusion I can draw is that that they are trying to pull a Bill Barr response to the Mueller Report – get their lies and spin out there so it sets the narrative.
Truth be damned.
Omnes Omnibus
@SpaceUnit: This is a decent summation. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
WaterGirl
@LAO: These guys aren’t very quick on the update – he hasn’t been POTUS for going on nearly 3 years now. Assholes.
Anonymous At Work
@WaterGirl: I’m less upset about this than most. Inartfully worded and in a document full of other WTF items but what she seems to be trying to say is, “When you discuss your [personal and frivolous issues with a DC Grand Jury], you don’t waive any ability to file motions about the DC Grand Jury later.”
That she delayed the necessary Garcia Hearing for several weeks in a bad way, that’s news.
HumboldtBlue
@SpaceUnit:
No, it’s not, and it’s not just Popehat who says so.
LAO
@WaterGirl: ah, it’s not stupidity exactly, it’s client management. The stupidity part is not wanting to be fired by said client. 😂
SpaceUnit
@Omnes Omnibus:
Hmm. Okay, but this part seems relevant:
In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”.
WaterGirl
@Anonymous At Work:
For several weeks?????
WaterGirl
@LAO: There doesn’t appear to be any client management going on – all the managing seems to be directed from Trump TO the attorneys.
They should be ashamed. If they are going to take on someone like Trump, they have to be able to handle him. If they can’t handle him, they shouldn’t take him on as a client.
I think very poorly of any attorney who represents Trump, and that’s why.
Scout211
A very short summary by Reuters:
Trump argues proposed limits on 2020 election case evidence violate free speech
(My untrained read). Lots of red lines, something, something, sensitive, [A big pic of Biden with his Dark Brandon mug], something, something, free speech.
And this from the Reuters article:
zhena gogolia
@Omnes Omnibus: I will say that HumboldtBlue’s example was of yelling fire and it resulting in people being trampled. Doesn’t that change things?
Anonymous At Work
@WaterGirl: Next week, Nauta’s side briefs her on the out-of-district Grand Jury and other issues. Trump and de Olivera can weigh in at that time. A week later, Jack Smith replies. A week later they hold a hearing to discuss. She spends a week or three writing a motion, potentially.
HumboldtBlue
@SpaceUnit:
Yes, but evacuating a theater isn’t a crime.
Also, the video of McConnell being mercilessly mocked at this speech this weekend will never get old.
Omnes Omnibus
@SpaceUnit: We are all just trying to put to bed the crowded theater thing. The January 6 charges cover a lot of the same ground, but don’t actually spark a 1st Amendment fight. Prosecutorial discretion is a thing. And we don’t know that Smith is done yet.
LAO
@WaterGirl: I largely agree with you.
(when I used the term client management, I meant keeping the client happy not stopping him from continuing criminal conduct. No defense attorney appears capable of that.)
trollhattan
Poor Giacomo. ‘Twas the cheese wut done it.
LAO
@trollhattan: Not to make light of this poor man’s death by cheese but I swear to dog, this was once a murder plot line on Midsommer Murders.
HumboldtBlue
@trollhattan:
That’s terrible, I wonder if seismic activity played a role.
Chief Oshkosh
@smith: I doubt that Judge Loose Cannon gives a flip about what her “peers” think. I doubt she even considers other judges to be her peers. She’s in the rightwing bubble, she has her lifetime sinecure; she’s done. She’s likely showing her ass now because it’s easier to follow instructions from the people who are willing to give her freebies (see Alito and Thomas) than to actually know and apply the law.
SpaceUnit
@Omnes Omnibus:
The point I gathered from the Atlantic article is that the yelling-fire-in-a-theater example is vastly overused as an inaccurate analogy and that people should avoid invoking it as an excuse to censor. It doesn’t actually address the question of whether a person who literally yells FIRE in a theater in order to stir panic would be protected by the first amendment. I suspect that they would not.
cain
@Chief Oshkosh: I suppose we will soon see her on yacht trips with billionaires.
FelonyGovt
Yes, if you know your client is going to read your court filing (not all of them do) and you know they have a particular hot button about something, you stick the thing in there even if it’s kind of awkward or even inappropriate. Easy way to try to keep the client happy. But this client will never be happy, and will micromanage everything. (I wasn’t a criminal lawyer but the idea is somewhat the same.)
Geminid
@SpaceUnit: The question I have:
Should you ever yell, “Yell fire in a crowded theater” in a crowded blog post?
HumboldtBlue
DougJ wins the internets again.
JPL
@LAO: So what happened to the aged cheese?
JWR
So does this latest from Cannon give TFG and team all they were really after, that being another delay?
Baud
@HumboldtBlue:
Haven’t heard Barro’s name in a while.
NotMax
@HumboldtBlue
Evacuating in a theater, however, is.
:)
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@Baud:
Yeah, he used to be linked to all the time. When did he become an idiot?
SpaceUnit
@Geminid:
Hundreds will die. Post it under a pseudonym.
artem1s
haven’t read thru all the lawsplaining comments yet but this stuck out to me. aren’t there strict rules/laws about disclosing Grand Jury proceedings before their findings have been release to the public? has Cannon obstructed justice in another case? seems like a bad idea to me.
Another Scott
@SpaceUnit:
It’s best to read Popehat’s piece from 2012:
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
LAO
@JPL:
http://midsomermurders.org/schooledmurder2.htm#:~:text=Midsomer%20Murders%20%2D%20Schooled%20in%20Murder%20%2D%20Detailed%20Synopsis&text=Debbie%20Moffett%20is%20crushed%20to,at%20Midsomer%20Pastures%20Prep%20School.
FelonyGovt
@LAO: Now I have that theme song with the theremin in my head.
zhena gogolia
@LAO: I had a feeling that had to be in the “John Barnaby” era.
HumboldtBlue
@Goku (aka Amerikan Baka):
Read this execrable bullshit he wrote about Hunter Biden a few days ago.
SpaceUnit
@Another Scott:
Look, I’ve heard conservatives compare warnings about climate change to yelling fire in a theater. It’s too often used by lazy and disingenuous people. Point made.
The Jan 6 comparison however is extremely accurate. TFG caused a literal riot, not a figurative one. He riled up an angry mob with lies and sent them down the street hellbent on mayhem. The fire in a theater narrative is appropriate.
HumboldtBlue
@eversor:
Thanks, I hope all is well with you and your family.
LAO
@FelonyGovt: you’re welcome
@zhena gogolia: it had to be, the show was stupid during Tom’s era but it’s only gotten stupider.
Goku (aka Amerikan Baka)
@HumboldtBlue:
Emotional terrorism!? WTF! What Barro is writing about Hunter and his family is emotional terrorism. Fuck him. Thank you for sharing that. Have lost all respect for him
FelonyGovt
@LAO: Amazingly stupid. And yet I’ve watched all of them.
LAO
@FelonyGovt: same
zhena gogolia
@LAO: Haha, I couldn’t stick with it into the John era. I adore some of the older ones, like Tainted Fruit (with Lucy Punch) and Small Mercies (with Olivia Colman).
Paul in KY
@Baud: Word!