LaCroix wrote: ↑2024-01-11 10:57am
Hypothetical: Say he is sentenced in, say Georgia for the state charges of election fraud, and gets a few years in prison. No Parole.
Then he wins the election. Can the secret service come and just take him with them?
Can he even rule from there - he isn't allowed to phone too much, and only a few visits.
How would that even work?
One thing I've heard is that, if Trump is incarcerated, it's likely to be in secure housing on a military base because that would allow the secret service to protect him.
That could probably be modified to allow him to be president from there. They could even install a SKIF.
Don't think that would work - because that would be the equivalent to house arrest, which is similar to a paroled sentence. Telefone, unlimited visitors, eating, tv, internet, being allowed to work during his sentence, etc. That would not be equal to a sentence of prison time.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
If he manages to get sentenced to incarceration and win the presidency, compromises are going to be required. What I suggested is what I think would be the minimum number of compromises to his sentence that allow him to do his job as president.
LaCroix wrote: ↑2024-01-11 10:57am
Hypothetical: Say he is sentenced in, say Georgia for the state charges of election fraud, and gets a few years in prison. No Parole.
Then he wins the election. Can the secret service come and just take him with them?
Can he even rule from there - he isn't allowed to phone too much, and only a few visits.
How would that even work?
I would argue that he's incapacitated/unable to perform his duties, and therefore his running mate/the Vice President automatically becomes President.
Which, maybe that's what the Republicans are hoping for?
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
bilateralrope wrote: ↑2024-01-11 08:04am
But no evidence was provided. No statements from anyone who witnessed anything. Just a claim that one of the defendants lawyers saw something incriminating in some of the documents in the now sealed divorce case of the special prosecutor. So that lawyer wants the divorce case unsealed.
So I have no idea if the lawyer believes that the improper relationship happened or is just trying to get the divorce unsealed to give more ammunition for mudslinging.
Mudslinging.
This is almost Scientology level tactics.
Almost.
I've been asked why I still follow a few of the people I know on Facebook with 'interesting political habits and view points'.
It's so when they comment on or approve of something, I know what pages to block/what not to vote for.
LaCroix wrote: ↑2024-01-11 10:57am
Hypothetical: Say he is sentenced in, say Georgia for the state charges of election fraud, and gets a few years in prison. No Parole.
Then he wins the election. Can the secret service come and just take him with them?
Can he even rule from there - he isn't allowed to phone too much, and only a few visits.
How would that even work?
I would argue that he's incapacitated/unable to perform his duties, and therefore his running mate/the Vice President automatically becomes President.
Which, maybe that's what the Republicans are hoping for?
So you'd ignore the election just because the elected president is in jail.
I'm sure the Republicans would love to have that precedent when it comes to the next election. No need to impeach if they can just get a corrupt state prosecutor to convict the president of something with a prison sentence.
LaCroix wrote: ↑2024-01-11 10:57am
Hypothetical: Say he is sentenced in, say Georgia for the state charges of election fraud, and gets a few years in prison. No Parole.
Then he wins the election. Can the secret service come and just take him with them?
Can he even rule from there - he isn't allowed to phone too much, and only a few visits.
How would that even work?
I would argue that he's incapacitated/unable to perform his duties, and therefore his running mate/the Vice President automatically becomes President.
Which, maybe that's what the Republicans are hoping for?
So you'd ignore the election just because the elected president is in jail.
I'm sure the Republicans would love to have that precedent when it comes to the next election. No need to impeach if they can just get a corrupt state prosecutor to convict the president of something with a prison sentence.
No. Making the VP president would be recognizing the election results. And if the Republicans could contrive to arrest every viable Democrat candidate they would already be doing it.
You do remember that the president can't be charged while in office, right?
Ralin wrote: ↑2024-01-11 11:20pm
No. Making the VP president would be recognizing the election results. And if the Republicans could contrive to arrest every viable Democrat candidate they would already be doing it.
You do remember that the president can't be charged while in office, right?
So they slap the charges on the president and VP after the primary. Or on any of the likely winners when they announce their candidacy.
We are talking about a party that launched an impeachment 'investigation' into Biden without even being able to name anything they think he might have done wrong. I doubt they will hold off on other dodgy charges just because they haven't attempted them before.
I think we've established by this point that while flawed the machinery of the US government and legal system is still resistant to a lot of this bullshit. That's why they have need a detailed and public plan to replace thousands upon thousands of people with loyal fascists to bring it in line.
And also that not charging people like Trump with crimes because we're afraid of Republican retaliation is a great way to get from point A to point B.
LaCroix wrote: ↑2024-01-11 10:57am
Hypothetical: Say he is sentenced in, say Georgia for the state charges of election fraud, and gets a few years in prison. No Parole.
Then he wins the election. Can the secret service come and just take him with them?
Can he even rule from there - he isn't allowed to phone too much, and only a few visits.
How would that even work?
I would argue that he's incapacitated/unable to perform his duties, and therefore his running mate/the Vice President automatically becomes President.
Which, maybe that's what the Republicans are hoping for?
This is the best case scenario in the event he's elected, yes.
Personally I don't want the fucker elected at all, but hey, I'm just one vote.
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
Ralin wrote: ↑2024-01-11 11:20pm
You do remember that the president can't be charged while in office, right?
Where does that idea come from ?
Last I heard, it was DOJ policy, meaning it only limited them.
Ralin wrote: ↑2024-01-12 06:39am
And also that not charging people like Trump with crimes because we're afraid of Republican retaliation is a great way to get from point A to point B.
I never said don't charge him. Just that, in the unlikely event that he wins the election and is convicted, then compromises need to be made. I say unlikely because I've heard a lot people saying that the Georgia case isn't likely to reach trial for years and that's the only state case that could lead to imprisonment.
We all know exactly what will happen to federal charges if he's elected.
bilateralrope wrote: ↑2024-01-12 10:21pm
Where does that idea come from ?
Last I heard, it was DOJ policy, meaning it only limited them.
I can't actually remember if it's explicit law somewhere but it seems to be assumed?
Also to clarify, I'm still leaning towards the "Trump says you and what army" thing in this scenario. I think the 'declaring him unfit to execute his duties' thing would be legally valid, but it would also require Trump's Republican vice-president to publicly backstab him and whoever that is he'll have seen what nearly happened to Pence for a lot less.
bilateralrope wrote: ↑2024-01-12 10:21pm
Where does that idea come from ?
Last I heard, it was DOJ policy, meaning it only limited them.
I can't actually remember if it's explicit law somewhere but it seems to be assumed?
A quick google only turns up thinks like this. It's a policy from Nixon's DOJ during Watergate.
Also to clarify, I'm still leaning towards the "Trump says you and what army" thing in this scenario. I think the 'declaring him unfit to execute his duties' thing would be legally valid, but it would also require Trump's Republican vice-president to publicly backstab him and whoever that is he'll have seen what nearly happened to Pence for a lot less.
Yeah. That scenario is probably going to get violent, no matter what compromise people think is ideal.
bilateralrope wrote: ↑2024-01-12 10:21pm
We all know exactly what will happen to federal charges if he's elected.
Or if any Republican is elected - haven't all the other runners pledged to pardon him if elected?
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
I know nothing about Haley, but DeSantis is probably canny enough to attach conditions to that like, "Don't get any bright ideas about trying again when I'm up for re-election." I don't think a US President can revoke a pardon they've issued yet but Trump and DeSantis are running for tyrant instead.
There are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do.
-- (Terry Pratchett, Small Gods)
Replace "ginger" with "n*gger," and suddenly it become a lot less funny, doesn't it?
-- fgalkin
Zaune wrote: ↑2024-01-13 04:51am
I know nothing about Haley, but DeSantis is probably canny enough to attach conditions to that like, "Don't get any bright ideas about trying again when I'm up for re-election." I don't think a US President can revoke a pardon they've issued yet but Trump and DeSantis are running for tyrant instead.
"Well, what I've said is very simple. I'm going to do what's right for the country. I don't think it would be good for the country to have an almost 80-year-old former president go to prison," DeSantis said.
Pressed on whether that means he would pardon Trump, Desantis continued: "It doesn't seem like it would be a good thing. And I look at like, you know, Ford pardoned Nixon, took some heat for it, but at the end of the day, it's like, do we want to move forward as a country? Or do we want to be mired in these past controversies?"
"I would pardon Trump if he is found guilty," Haley said in response to a question at a campaign event. "A leader needs to think about what's in the best interests of the country. What's in the best interests of the country is not to have an 80-year-old man sitting in jail that continues to divide our country. What’s in the best interest of the country would be to pardon him so that we can move on as a country and no longer talk about him.”
But that's only what they said. Not what they actually plan to do.
So... you're saying we should just assume they're lying now?
Really, I don't trust any of these people any further than I can spit into a hurricane. Well, OK, I do trust Trump when he says he wants to be a dictator. That I believe.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
I think it is very much possible that they are saying the words now, and then will hem and haw, kick the can down the road, cite the court documents and that Trump really did some things, which they now have seen evidence, or how the Democrats are threatening to block everything if they do...
They'll find an excuse. Especially since they can't do anything to pardon him if he is in a state prison.
Trump in prison, not constantly tweeting, give the people around him no further platform republican media, let him rot a bit in jail until he goes completely around the bend and/or senile (a guy like him, a germophobe, who lives on the internet/tv and lives of the attention will go spare in a prison very quickly), or physically frail, and then get him out when he is not threat anymore on some mery clause they can haggle over with the state.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
The same New York state judge previously dismissed Trump's 2021 lawsuit against the paper and three of its journalists for their Pulitzer Prize-winning series on his finances.
Jan. 13, 2024, 11:07 AM NZDT
By Zoë Richards
A New York state judge on Friday ordered former President Donald Trump to pay The New York Times nearly $400,000 for legal fees stemming from a failed lawsuit he brought against the newspaper in 2021.
Justice Robert R. Reed of the state Supreme Court in New York County ordered Trump to pay attorneys’ fees, legal costs and expenses totaling almost $393,000, including $229,931 for the Times and journalists Susanne Craig and Russell Buettner, and $162,717 for David Barstow, a third journalist from the paper.
Trump's attorneys had opposed the dollar amount sought by the defendants, calling the figure "exorbitant, excessive and unreasonable."
Reed last year dismissed the $100 million lawsuit against the Times and three of its journalists over their Pulitzer Prize-winning series on Trump's undisclosed finances, published in 2018.
In 2021, Trump sued the paper, his estranged niece Mary Trump and others, alleging that his niece and the Times' journalists “engaged in an insidious plot to obtain confidential and highly-sensitive records which they exploited for their own benefit and utilized as a means of falsely legitimizing their publicized works.”
In his ruling, Reed rejected that claim, saying Trump’s allegations against the Times “fail as a matter of constitutional law.”
1A spokesperson for the Times lauded Friday's order in a statement.
“The court has sent a message to those who want to misuse the judicial system to try to silence journalists," said Danielle Rhoades Ha.
An attorney for Trump, Alina Habba, said Friday that the former president would pursue claims against Mary Trump.
“While we are disappointed that the NY Times is no longer in this matter, we are pleased that the Court once again affirmed the strength of our claims against Mary and is denying her attempt to avoid accountability," Habba said in a statement. "We look forward to proceeding with our claims against her.”
The court last year denied a motion by Mary Trump to dismiss the case against her, which she appealed in June. This week the judge denied a stay of her case pending appeal and ordered her to appear virtually for a preliminary conference on Feb. 13.
Another Trump loss. Though a minor one compared to the other civil cases he's facing.
Another Trump loss. Though a minor one compared to the other civil cases he's facing.
Like Trump's going to pay that. It'll be just another line on the Bankrupt Filing.
IF the IRS went through the TRUMP CAMPAIGN FUNDS, I wonder how much of those funds are going to the Campaign, and how much is being split off into trying to cover Legal Fees.
Which, iirc, is ILLEGAL USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS.
But while the thought of having the IRS do a Line-Item Audit of Trump's Campaign is amusing, it'll never happen because of who don't want to be found.
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
By Hannah Lang
January 16, 202411:04 PM GMT+13Updated 2 hours ago
Jan 15 (Reuters) - Joseph Tacopina, an attorney on former U.S. President Donald Trump's legal team, on Monday said he will no longer represent him in a criminal case in Manhattan related to alleged hush money payments or a separate appeal of a civil case.
Tacopina withdrew from representing Trump in two of the former president's ongoing legal battles, including a state criminal case in which Trump was charged with falsifying business records over a hush money payment to a porn star before his victory in the 2016 presidential election, the lawyer confirmed in an email to Reuters.
Jan 15 (Reuters) - Joseph Tacopina, an attorney on former U.S. President Donald Trump's legal team, on Monday said he will no longer represent him in a criminal case in Manhattan related to alleged hush money payments or a separate appeal of a civil case.
Tacopina withdrew from representing Trump in two of the former president's ongoing legal battles, including a state criminal case in which Trump was charged with falsifying business records over a hush money payment to a porn star before his victory in the 2016 presidential election, the lawyer confirmed in an email to Reuters.
The shift in Trump's legal team comes as Iowans are set to cast the first votes in the 2024 campaign on Monday, with Trump as an early favorite to claim victory in the early contest in the Republican presidential primary.
Tacopina is a frequent cable news commentator who has represented high-profile clients including rapper Meek Mill, former Yankees baseball star Alex Rodriguez and Donald Trump Jr.'s fiancée Kimberly Guilfoyle.
Asked about Tacopina's shift, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told Reuters, "President Trump has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled as he continues to fight for America and Americans against these partisan, Crooked Joe Biden-led election interference hoaxes."
Tacopina is one of several Trump lawyers to have stopped representing him in ongoing cases. At least three members of his legal team in Florida stepped down after Trump was indicted in June on charges he unlawfully kept national-security documents when he left office.
My understanding is that lawyers aren't allowed to withdraw from a client during a case without a good reason. So I have to wonder what it is.
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
LaCroix wrote: ↑2024-01-16 09:20am
Him not paying her bills?
That's my immediate thought.
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet
