Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | Smith Report on J6 Case Released

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 629
  • Views: 24K
  • Politics 
BlooVooDoo said:
That is neither the court’s mission or right.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's his bizarre and inappropriate use of language that makes me question if he has legal training. I don't know, maybe they do law differently in Georgia. But most everywhere else, courts don't have rights. The concept doesn't even make sense.

A brief explainer: a right is a principle or claim that justifies a favorable outcome in an adversarial setting. Initially, when one claims a right, it's not usually in court, but it's still adversarial. For instance, you might tell snoopy police officers that you have a Fourth Amendment right not to open your house to a search unless the officer has a warrant. Their efforts to gain access are adversarial to your effort to keep them out. But ultimately it comes down to claims that can be adjudicated in court. When you tell the police officer you have a right to refuse him entry, what you are saying is that, should the police officer force his way in without a warrant, you can obtain redress in court.

Thus, it's readily apparent that courts don't have rights. Rather, they have authority -- specifically, the authority to adjudicate claims of rights. Sometimes the right can asserted on both sides; for instance, in a contract dispute, one side might say it has the right to build, and the other side says it has the right to block building until it's paid. Or the right can be an assertion by a private individual against the government, which is generally how we tend to use the word in casual discourse. There is no way to conceptualize the court as having a right. It's there, in the words of Article III, to decide cases or controversies. Rights are what it decides.

Similarly, legislatures do not have rights except in very special situations involving interbranch disputes (and even there, it's not really a "right" but that word is sometimes used). Legislatures have powers. You would not say, "the legislature has a right to regulate medical practice." You would say that it has the power to do so, and if that power is challenged, we end up with a case, decided by a court, of an individual asserting a right and the government asserts a power.

To talk about courts having rights is a basic category mistake. Again, maybe they do things differently in Georgia, but I've never seen any respectable person of legal training talk about courts that way.
 
Ramrouser said:
It all depends on what a jury would determine was the intent of Trump in his statements to the SOS.

As we know, Trump stated to Raffensberger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes." Technically, he didn't expressly ask Raffensberger to find the votes but clearly that was implied. It is not clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Trump was asking the SOS to commit an illegal act.

That's the way Trump talks. Trump's legal team denies that the word "find" was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined the SOS would "find that you have many [ballots] that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries." Argument is that Trump was simply asking the SOS to reexamine the evidence.
Click to expand...
What Is It Reaction GIF by Nebraska Humane Society

I cannot imagine a world in which bar examiners would give you a license.
 
Ramrouser said:
It all depends on what a jury would determine was the intent of Trump in his statements to the SOS.

As we know, Trump stated to Raffensberger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes." Technically, he didn't expressly ask Raffensberger to find the votes but clearly that was implied. It is not clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Trump was asking the SOS to commit an illegal act.

That's the way Trump talks. Trump's legal team denies that the word "find" was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined the SOS would "find that you have many [ballots] that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries." Argument is that Trump was simply asking the SOS to reexamine the evidence.
Click to expand...
It's also the way mobsters talk.

Even on your account, Trump is still guilty because the election had already been certified. Had Raffensberger disturbed the tally at all, it would have been an illegal act. Thus, you've just admitted that Trump was indeed, beyond a reasonable doubt, soliciting illegal conduct from a public official, in full knowledge that it was illegal -- and in an inappropriate ex parte context. The only reason he was able to get that phone call was being the sitting president, which again is not a relevant legal status but an exercise in power.

So anyway, care to offer up a defense of your buddy? Or maybe you're going to sit this one out, LOL
 
Ramrouser said:
It all depends on what a jury would determine was the intent of Trump in his statements to the SOS.

As we know, Trump stated to Raffensberger: "I just want to find 11,780 votes." Technically, he didn't expressly ask Raffensberger to find the votes but clearly that was implied. It is not clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether Trump was asking the SOS to commit an illegal act.

That's the way Trump talks. Trump's legal team denies that the word "find" was inappropriate in context, as President Trump was expressing his opinion that if the evidence was carefully examined the SOS would "find that you have many [ballots] that aren't even signed and you have many that are forgeries." Argument is that Trump was simply asking the SOS to reexamine the evidence.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you embarrassed to be a mouthpiece for this corrupt bullshit?
 
I wonder if St. Donald of Mar-a-Lago thinks because he was always able to wriggle out of his misdeeds, cheating, lying, and such in his previous private life, he thinks because these current legal trouble can't be delayed to death or stalled until the adversary just gives up, that he actually is being persecuted by enemies? And now that for the first time in his entire life, he is being held accountable for what he just considers playing hardball, but everyone else in the world rightly see as flagrant criminal behavior, he believes "they" are out to get him and he is going to respond by using the power of government to enact a personal vendetta against those who dared to call out his blatant criminal behavior. Blatant criminal behavior that he had always previously been able to stall, delay, and deflect to death or irrelevance.
 
superrific said:
I didn't realize that the decision disqualifying Fani had absolutely no legal basis. I mean, I suspected it was bullshit, but the judges DID NOT EVEN TRY to articulate a rationale for their decision. This was the entirety of their legal analysis:

"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.4"

And the footnote only provides a half-hearted attempt to distinguish other on-point cases. But at no point does the opinion even offer an explanation of its assertion. It admits that the law is on Fani's side, but says this is a rare case that needs different treatment. Why? Nobody can tell.

I'm beginning to understand Ramrouser now. The quality of lawyering on display in this case -- the defendants, the advocates on both sides, the judges on this panel -- is horrifically poor. Some of the worst I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
1. black
2. woman
 
Ramrouser said:
Keep in mind that the charges against Lt. Gov Bert Jones have already been dismissed by the Prosecuting Attorney's Council of Georgia. Jones' case was assigned to the Counsel after the Fulton County judge determined that Fani's office had a conflict of interest with Jones. Instead of assigning the case against Jones to another DA, Executive Director Peter Skandalakis simply dismissed the charges against Jones last September. Jones was accused by Willis of being part of the so called "fake electors" scheme. He found Senator Jones' involvement and actions to be within the scope of his duties. "Therefore, this case does not warrant further investigation or further actions, and I consider the matter closed."

He could take similar actions against some or all of the remaining defendants.
Click to expand...
Some? Sure.

All? I'd be surprised.
 
superrific said:
To quote the appeals court that overturned Judge Richard Myers a couple of years ago, "to ask the question is very nearly to answer it."

MAGAs don't get embarrassed. If they did, they'd never be able to leave the house.
Click to expand...
If the did they wouldn't be MAGA.
 
Trump will get his conditional discharge (slap on wrist) so he can start his appeal process.
 
superrific said:
I'm beginning to understand Ramrouser now. The quality of lawyering on display in this case -- the defendants, the advocates on both sides, the judges on this panel -- is horrifically poor. Some of the worst I've ever seen.
Click to expand...
Well, it is Georgia....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top