Current Events > Trump Trials General Part 11

(+) Yeah! (+)

So...does this come down to more shittiness from Garland's office?

https://twitter.com/allenanalysis/status/1768356989728374928

jesus fucking Christ hes really just going to get away with everything, isnt he.

God, Why does the U.S justice system bend over backwards to try to defend and help enable letting this dried up orange turd get away from ever being forced to deal with the consequences of his actions

Are the rich and powerful that afraid that it might create a precedent and that they might be next

Off Topic, but Katy Tur accidentally said "Sucking Off" on live TV...

https://Twitter.com/katiephang/status/1768383254661407090?s=46

CableZL posted...

https://Twitter.com/katiephang/status/1768383254661407090?s=46

I had a feeling this would be the outcome, but I was still holding my breath lol. That's a relief.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

string it out long enough that trump can just pardon himself

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Ruling still grants credence to the idea that the law *might* be unconstitutional and says it needs to be dealt with at trial, which is crap.

darkace77450 posted...

If she really wants to provoke him into defaming her again, she just needs to use some of his money to make donations to the Biden reelection campaign, Obama's presidential library, the Clinton Foundation, etc. Make a big show of it and thank Trump by name for making the such contributions possible and I guarantee you he'll expose himself to more litigation.

With Trump's lack of impulse control does she really have to do anything? That being said I think it would be better for her to send money to these groups who buy commercial time on Fox News that run ads to heckle Trump. Given how Trump has crapped a brick a few times over Lincoln Project ads it won't take much. For instance imagine Trump sitting down to watch Fox News when he sees the following ad:

"Hey Donald. Do you realize this time next year E Jean Carroll will be spending money, your money. The money a jury awarded her because you sexually assaulted her. Who knows she might even buy Mar-a-Lago from Letitia James. She would look pretty nice coming out of the place you currently call home. Don't worry though you won't be homeless you will be at your new home, a correctional facility."

Raiden2909 posted...

God, Why does the U.S justice system bend over backwards to try to defend and help enable letting this dried up orange turd get away from ever being forced to deal with the consequences of his actions

Because it was literally built to do that. It was designed to protect the ruling class. The legislative, judicial and executive bodies. All of it.

GTA1984 posted...

With Trump's lack of impulse control does she really have to do anything?

Did I dream this or did he tell her lawyer "C U Next Tuesday"?

https://Twitter.com/katiephang/status/1768620848280223986?s=46

Well great, so that effectively cancels any chance of the Georgia trial getting finished this decade.

Fucking clown show this asshole will never face justice

So I'm assuming Nathan Wade is out. I want to know if Fani is going to put those 3 dismissed charges back in.

CableZL posted...

So I'm assuming Nathan Wade is out. I want to know if Fani is going to put those 3 dismissed charges back in.

This is the best case.

Mearcstapa posted...

Well great, so that effectively cancels any chance of the Georgia trial getting finished this decade.

Swapping out Nathan Wade is fine tbh.

None of this shit was getting resolved until 2025 anyway.

CableZL posted...

https://Twitter.com/katiephang/status/1768620848280223986?s=46

So, essentially "You did nothing wrong, but people might think you did something wrong, so either you go or he goes."

Heineken14 posted...

So, essentially "You did nothing wrong, but people might think you did something wrong, so either you go or he goes."

Yes.

I liked the judge's decision here. Wade can be removed - he shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Like the judge said, they were indeed a constellation of bad choices to have been involved with each other while heading this case in addition to Willis' unprofessionalism during her testimony. The relationship between them didn't matter from an objective standpoint but they should have known that the Trump machine will wipe her life with a white glove and magnify any improprieties they see no matter how small.

Hopefully this ends the shenanigans and the case can move forward.

And by "people" we mean those with no grasp in reality that were always going to scream bias anyway.

So Wade is out and the trial moves forward. Acceptable as far as Im concerned. No need for knee jerk its over reactions here.

GranAures posted...

And by "people" we mean those with no grasp in reality that were always going to scream bias anyway.

Exactly. Removing Wade isn't going to change the perception of people who are going to back Trump no matter what.

To me, it feels like the Trump team got some big wins this week. Their entire strategy is just to delay stuff over and over. They got at least a 30 day delay in the Manhattan, NY criminal trial. And they've delayed the Georgia RICO case for over 2 months.

Democrats have an appearance of a conflict of interest and theyre shamed into compliance.

Republicans openly flaunt conflicts of interest and they say the fuck are you going to do about it?

Block_that_Kick posted...

Democrats have an appearance of a conflict of interest and theyre shamed into compliance.

Republicans openly flaunt conflicts of interest and they say the fuck are you going to do about it?

well it helps when you have people in high places in your pockets

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c26647af.jpg

https://twitter.com/TerryWatkinsJr1/status/1768631878993707283

Heineken14 posted...

So, essentially "You did nothing wrong, but people might think you did something wrong, so either you go or he goes."

That was going to be the likely outcome. They risk turning this into a side-car circus side show by having both of them there. Removing one removes that specter. Perception of integrity is more important than actual integrity. Wish we could say that about the House and Senate GOP leaders.

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1768749836440871010

https://Twitter.com/ap/status/1768721274312839245?s=46

https://Twitter.com/katiephang/status/1768739454263398899?s=46

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Block_that_Kick posted...

Democrats have an appearance of a conflict of interest and theyre shamed into compliance.

Republicans openly flaunt conflicts of interest and they say the fuck are you going to do about it?

They have the Chief 'Conflict of Interest' himself in Thomas providing a Supreme Court shield for them. Our Judicial is basically third world kangaroo court shit at this point.

https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1768717404178161709

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1768761618576331233

This is fucking sad. Trump is literally getting extra delays because his supporters are threatening public officials.

jefffan posted...

This is the hardest case to prove guilt.

But Bragg needs to get on the ball

Nah, I've heard career prosecutors talk about how it's actually one of the easiest cases. It's literally all documented and it's the same crime Cohen served time for.

How could one logically argue that the guy who instructed Cohen to do a crime he was found guilty of is not guilty of the same crime, especially since the crime only exists at his behest?

CableZL posted...

https://Twitter.com/katiephang/status/1768739454263398899?s=46

Been learning about this, it's fucked how the SDNY has handled this.

Over a year ago Trump's team requested the documents. They were provided some and insisted they knew there were more.

I think yesterday or today DOJ finally provided 73k pages of documents and I think there's another 15k on the way.

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1768771527665652071

That place was worth about $3 million from what I recall. Though there is a $500k+ tax lien on it. lol

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/a/aade4b8f.jpg

So I'm trying to understand something here... Mike Lindell (I know, I know) has been talking about having some big event on the steps of the Supreme Court this week (he backed out) and decided to have the event online somewhere. He had "technical difficulties," which he blamed on the deep state or some shit, and didn't actually do anything. He's acting like this case was just filed when it was actually docketed with SCOTUS back in early January. If they've only asked for a couple extensions to file the writ of certiorari and they haven't done anything since the latest deadline passed yesterday... Does SCOTUS do anything with that at all? As in, is there any leeway for them to ask for another extension or actually file the petition if the deadline has passed?

CableZL posted...

[image snip]

So I'm trying to understand something here... Mike Lindell (I know, I know) has been talking about having some big event on the steps of the Supreme Court this week (he backed out) and decided to have the event online somewhere. He had "technical difficulties," which he blamed on the deep state or some shit, and didn't actually do anything. He's acting like this case was just filed when it was actually docketed with SCOTUS back in early January. If they've only asked for a couple extensions to file the writ of certiorari and they haven't done anything since the latest deadline passed yesterday... Does SCOTUS do anything with that at all? As in, is there any leeway for them to ask for another extension or actually file the petition if the deadline has passed?

It looks like the petition, as unhinged as it is, was filed yesterday. Law & Crime has an article on it.

ThePieReborn posted...

It looks like the petition, as unhinged as it is, was filed yesterday. Law & Crime has an article on it.

Ah, ok. I guess the web site doesn't update right away. I really don't know why people continue to let Kari Lake and Mike Lindell string them along like this. Insanity.

The Supreme Court would not have original jurisdiction for this. And you don't submit evidence outside of such cases.

Starks posted...

The Supreme Court would not have original jurisdiction for this. And you don't submit evidence outside of such cases.

There are occasions where new evidence/facts may be reviewed on appeal, but these are rare. Probably the most common would be facts that would render a case moot and thus divest the appellate court of jurisdiction. Appellate courts also have inherent authority to supplement the record in exceptional circumstances.

The kicker being, all avenues to do so cannot be performed unilaterally by a party to the appeal.

A brief snippet from a Ninth Circuit case, Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2003):

This limitation is fundamental. As a court of appeals, we lack the means to authenticate documents submitted to us, so we must be able to assume that documents designated part of the record actually are part of the record. To be sure, the fact that a document is filed in the district court doesn't resolve all questions of authenticity, but it does ensure that both opposing counsel and the district court are aware of it at a time when disputes over authenticity can be properly resolved. Litigants who disregard this process impair our ability to perform our appellate function.

There are exceptions to the general rule. We may correct inadvertent omissions from the record, see Fed. R.App. P. 10(e)(2)(c); cf. United States v. Garcia, 997 F.2d 1273, 1278 (9th Cir.1993), take judicial notice, see Fed.R.Evid. 201(f); EEOC v. Ratliff, 906 F.2d 1314, 1318 n. 6 (9th Cir.1990), and exercise inherent authority to supplement the record in extraordinary cases, see Dickerson v. Alabama, 667 F.2d 1364, 136668 & n. 5 (11th Cir.1982). Consideration of new facts may even be mandatory, for example, when developments render a controversy moot and thus divest us of jurisdiction. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 68 n. 23, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (It is the duty of counsel to bring to the federal [appellate] tribunal's attention, without delay, facts that may raise a question of mootness.). One constant runs through all these exceptions, however: Only the court may supplement the record. [It is a] basic tenet of appellate jurisprudence ... that parties may not unilaterally supplement the record on appeal with evidence not reviewed by the court below. Tonry v. Sec. Experts, Inc., 20 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir.1994). Litigants should proceed by motion or formal request so that the court and opposing counsel are properly apprised of the status of the documents in question.