Charges

[Shirley]

Ha. Caught her. Such a simpleton

After a while, it's difficult not to take it personally that they think we're as dum as they and their base are.

[jfish26]

Ha. Caught her. Such a simpleton

I read speculation earlier that maybe she’s TRYING to get the 11th circuit to pull the case. That’s really a better outcome for her than keeping it (which is absolutely a no-win).

[Shirley]

Considering her lack of experience, it would likely be a relief to her.

[japhy]

Did someone say lack of experience?

WASHINGTON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - The judge in former U.S. President Donald Trump's upcoming trial over his handling of classified documents made two errors in a June trial, including one that potentially violated the defendant's constitutional rights and could have invalidated the proceedings, according to legal experts and a court transcript.

Florida-based U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon closed jury selection for the trial of an Alabama man - accused by federal prosecutors of running a website with images of child sex abuse - to the defendant's family and the general public, pointing to a lack of space in the courtroom, a trial transcript viewed by Reuters showed.

A defendant's right to a public trial is protected by the U.S. Constitution's Sixth Amendment, though judges have discretion in certain circumstances to close courtrooms.

Cannon, a 42-year-old former federal prosecutor appointed by Trump to the bench in 2020, also neglected to swear in the prospective jury pool - an obligatory procedure in which people who may serve on the panel pledge to tell the truth during the selection process.

This error forced Cannon to re-start jury selection before the trial ended abruptly with defendant William Spearman pleading guilty as part of an agreement with prosecutors. Spearman's plea deal included an unusual provision allowing him to appeal a decision by Cannon against his motion to suppress evidence in the case.

Cannon's decision to close the courtroom represents "a fundamental constitutional error," said Stephen Smith, a professor at the Santa Clara School of Law in California. "She ignored the public trial right entirely. It's as though she didn't know it existed."

[Shirley]

Too bad Leawood isn't around, he had a thing for Latinas.

He could offer to be her sugar-daddy, and like Clarence, Samuel, and their benefactors, buy himself a supreme court justice.

Considering there are apparently no limitations, the only question would be, why not?

[Shirley]

Prime example of an effort to throw as much shit against the wall as possible and 'enjoy' the likely result.

But even if the plan did not ultimately pass legal muster at the highest level, Mr. Chesebro argued that it would achieve two goals. It would focus attention on claims of voter fraud and "buy the Trump campaign more time to win litigation that would deprive Biden of electoral votes and/or add to Trump's column."

[jfish26]

All of it sort of puts CC-2’s “one more minor violation of law” exhortations into context, right?

The whole thing was to add up all of these little nonsense tricks and hope that things would get so muddled and technical that a state or two would fall and the Court would have an opening.

Or, more darkly (but in the words of of CC-4), “that’s why we have the Insurrection Act.”

[jfish26]

[twocoach]

Yet despite the fact that these are documents from Trump's people openly stating that this was a fraudulent claim, they still believe that the election was stolen. It's not the media putting a spin on it. It is THEM admitting that this was a con meant solely to make it appear for even a moment that Trump won, despite the fact that even they knew it would ultimately be shot down under legal scrutiny.

[Shirley]

All of it sort of puts CC-2’s “one more minor violation of law” exhortations into context, right?

The whole thing was to add up all of these little nonsense tricks and hope that things would get so muddled and technical that a state or two would fall and the Court would have an opening.

Or, more darkly (but in the words of of CC-4), “that’s why we have the Insurrection Act.”

And, if things get a little too "muddled", declare martial law and fix the problem...

[jfish26]

Yet despite the fact that these are documents from Trump's people openly stating that this was a fraudulent claim, they still believe that the election was stolen. It's not the media putting a spin on it. It is THEM admitting that this was a con meant solely to make it appear for even a moment that Trump won, despite the fact that even they knew it would ultimately be shot down under legal scrutiny.

That's what's delicious about the delusional free-speech-absolutism defense. It won't work, but it pretty much REQUIRES The Defendant's legal team to find fancy ways to say "yeah he knew he was lying so what."

[twocoach]

All of it sort of puts CC-2’s “one more minor violation of law” exhortations into context, right?

The whole thing was to add up all of these little nonsense tricks and hope that things would get so muddled and technical that a state or two would fall and the Court would have an opening.

Or, more darkly (but in the words of of CC-4), “that’s why we have the Insurrection Act.”

And, if things get a little too "muddled", declare martial law and fix the problem...

While claiming that it's the Dems that want to "come after citizens".

[twocoach]

Yet despite the fact that these are documents from Trump's people openly stating that this was a fraudulent claim, they still believe that the election was stolen. It's not the media putting a spin on it. It is THEM admitting that this was a con meant solely to make it appear for even a moment that Trump won, despite the fact that even they knew it would ultimately be shot down under legal scrutiny.

That's what's delicious about the delusional free-speech-absolutism defense. It won't work, but it pretty much REQUIRES The Defendant's legal team to find fancy ways to say "yeah he knew he was lying so what."

It will be interesting to see what approach his lawyers finally take once it is time to stand up in court. It's one thing to make a bunch of claims on social media. It's entirely another to have to testify under oath.

[jfish26]

Yet despite the fact that these are documents from Trump's people openly stating that this was a fraudulent claim, they still believe that the election was stolen. It's not the media putting a spin on it. It is THEM admitting that this was a con meant solely to make it appear for even a moment that Trump won, despite the fact that even they knew it would ultimately be shot down under legal scrutiny.

That's what's delicious about the delusional free-speech-absolutism defense. It won't work, but it pretty much REQUIRES The Defendant's legal team to find fancy ways to say "yeah he knew he was lying so what."

It will be interesting to see what approach his lawyers finally take once it is time to stand up in court. It's one thing to make a bunch of claims on social media. It's entirely another to have to testify under oath.

Not exactly what you're asking for, but it's going to take so, so, so much horse tranq to keep The Defendant from taking the stand.

[twocoach]

That's what's delicious about the delusional free-speech-absolutism defense. It won't work, but it pretty much REQUIRES The Defendant's legal team to find fancy ways to say "yeah he knew he was lying so what."

It will be interesting to see what approach his lawyers finally take once it is time to stand up in court. It's one thing to make a bunch of claims on social media. It's entirely another to have to testify under oath.

Not exactly what you're asking for, but it's going to take so, so, so much horse tranq to keep The Defendant from taking the stand.

I hope they let him. You know, so he can exercise his Constitution Rights.

Watching him spend the whole time either pleading the 5th Amendment or hanging himself with his own stupidity, ego and hubris would be hilarious.

[Shirley]

That's what's delicious about the delusional free-speech-absolutism defense. It won't work, but it pretty much REQUIRES The Defendant's legal team to find fancy ways to say "yeah he knew he was lying so what."

It will be interesting to see what approach his lawyers finally take once it is time to stand up in court. It's one thing to make a bunch of claims on social media. It's entirely another to have to testify under oath.

Not exactly what you're asking for, but it's going to take so, so, so much horse tranq to keep The Defendant from taking the stand.

And Trump's lack of personal insight almost certainly predisposes him to imagine that if he only had the microphone, he could convince the jury to buy whatever he's selling.

Or, is that only my own wishful thinking, because I'd love to see* it.





*Roberts has to be persuaded to allow the proceedings to be televised, although I'm not holding my breath.

[jfish26]

It will be interesting to see what approach his lawyers finally take once it is time to stand up in court. It's one thing to make a bunch of claims on social media. It's entirely another to have to testify under oath.

Not exactly what you're asking for, but it's going to take so, so, so much horse tranq to keep The Defendant from taking the stand.

I hope they let him. You know, so he can exercise his Constitution Rights.

Watching him spend the whole time either pleading the 5th Amendment or hanging himself with his own stupidity, ego and hubris would be hilarious.

Honestly, a not-the-worst-idea idea would be for him to take the stand, self-immolate and then claim ineffective assistance of counsel (for letting him take the stand).

Absent one or both of (1) the existence of yet-unknown exculpatory evidence, or (2) the government not being able to back up its claims with clear evidence...he's toast. And neither (1) nor (2) seems likely or even realistically possible.

[twocoach]

Not exactly what you're asking for, but it's going to take so, so, so much horse tranq to keep The Defendant from taking the stand.

I hope they let him. You know, so he can exercise his Constitution Rights.

Watching him spend the whole time either pleading the 5th Amendment or hanging himself with his own stupidity, ego and hubris would be hilarious.

Honestly, a not-the-worst-idea idea would be for him to take the stand, self-immolate and then claim ineffective assistance of counsel (for letting him take the stand).

Absent one or both of (1) the existence of yet-unknown exculpatory evidence, or (2) the government not being able to back up its claims with clear evidence...he's toast. And neither (1) nor (2) seems likely or even realistically possible.

Now that the prosecution has that internal memo that clearly states that they knew it was a lie, that they knew it would likely not be upheld in court but that their only goal was to make it LOOK like he won, I am not sure what kind of story Trump's team can cook up to try to get out from under that.

The board's Trumper MAGAphones have been oddly quiet this morning about this revelation. I am sure it's just a coincidence...

[jfish26]

I hope they let him. You know, so he can exercise his Constitution Rights.

Watching him spend the whole time either pleading the 5th Amendment or hanging himself with his own stupidity, ego and hubris would be hilarious.

Honestly, a not-the-worst-idea idea would be for him to take the stand, self-immolate and then claim ineffective assistance of counsel (for letting him take the stand).

Absent one or both of (1) the existence of yet-unknown exculpatory evidence, or (2) the government not being able to back up its claims with clear evidence...he's toast. And neither (1) nor (2) seems likely or even realistically possible.

Now that the prosecution has that internal memo that clearly states that they knew it was a lie, that they knew it would likely not be upheld in court but that their only goal was to make it LOOK like he won, I am not sure what kind of story Trump's team can cook up to try to get out from under that.

The board's Trumper MAGAphones have been oddly quiet this morning about this revelation. I am sure it's just a coincidence...

That's what's to love about the free speech nonsense. Especially thanks to Captain Free Speech Absolutist, a huge portion of the rubes think the free speech argument is clever. A neat little gotcha from Jefferson, Hamilton and the rest.

So all we're going to hear is how this was just a legitimate effort to verify something or other.

[randylahey]