Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)
SteveSBrickNJ

SteveSBrickNJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Messages
1,664
Reaction score
776
Age
62
Location
New Jersey
Online
Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads? :unsure:
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*
www.yahoo.com

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
 
Snarky Sack said:
Interesting. I had been meaning to ask you if in federal criminal cases the judge or the jury decides the sentence.

So if the judge decides the sentence based on guidelines with not much discretion, my prediction would be that this would make it even less likely that a jury would convict. Suppose the jury were able to convict on the charges in which the prosecution presented strong evidence and hypothetically the defense did nothing to refute it. I think the holdouts on the jury would have been more likely to go along with guilty verdicts if they could also couple that with a light sentence not including any jail time.

Honestly you don't have to be a trump supporter to realize what could happen if Trump is actually put into prison when he is the choice of the majority of Republicans for president. I think that Trump opponents are caught up in a little bit of Hysteria and not really thinking this through if they are wanting him to actually serve prison time.
Click to expand...

You expect the justice system in the greatest nation on earth to care or show concern for what a corrupt conman's brainwashed supporters will do or think if he's convicted before convicting him?

If that's indeed what happens, it's already too late to save us and we may as well burn it all to the ground.
 
FullMonte said:
I'll defer to you on this, you know a LOT more about the legal system than the rest of us. I was thinking that if she were to grant this request and not set a trial date, that the DOJ could use that to go to the 11th and try to force her off the case (or to slap her down AGAIN and force her to set a prompt date).

Realistically, though, I can't see her granting the motion. I'm more interested in how Trump will respond when she denies it.
Click to expand...

Outside of recusal, judges don't get removed from cases - at least not in federal court. A judge may get her orders reversed, even with critical or annoyed language from the circuit but making bad orders doesn't get the judge replaced. At least I don't recall that ever happening through both just keeping up with important cases and my own practice which has been almost exclusively in federal court as far as litigation goes.

But as to recusal, I think the question of whether a judge who was appointed by the very person who is now a criminal defendant in a case should be recused is entirely novel, there's just no precedent for that. I think we call can see the argument for recusal based on whether the public would perceive an immediate lack of objectivity - but the arguments against are fairly strong as well. Traditionally, there has to be a direct personal interest from the judge, usually financial.

Federal district judges are a lifetime appointment and Judge Cannon doesn't have some deep MAGA background - she has never run for office and she has never made public comments about Trump as far as I can tell. She was just picked by Rubio because she was on the Heritage Foundation's pro-life list and she's Latina so it was win/win for Rubio. She's already gotten from Trump what he could give her, the appointment. She doesn't need anything from him.

I just don't see her being removed barring some wacky shirt.
 
superchuck500 said:
Outside of recusal, judges don't get removed from cases - at least not in federal court. A judge may get her orders reversed, even with critical or annoyed language from the circuit but making bad orders doesn't get the judge replaced. At least I don't recall that ever happening through both just keeping up with important cases and my own practice which has been almost exclusively in federal court as far as litigation goes.

But as to recusal, I think the question of whether a judge who was appointed by the very person who is now a criminal defendant in a case should be recused is entirely novel, there's just no precedent for that. I think we call can see the argument for recusal based on whether the public would perceive an immediate lack of objectivity - but the arguments against are fairly strong as well. Traditionally, there has to be a direct personal interest from the judge, usually financial.

Federal district judges are a lifetime appointment and Judge Cannon doesn't have some deep MAGA background - she has never run for office and she has never made public comments about Trump as far as I can tell. She was just picked by Rubio because she was on the Heritage Foundation's pro-life list and she's Latina so it was win/win for Rubio. She's already gotten from Trump what he could give her, the appointment. She doesn't need anything from him.

I just don't see her being removed barring some wacky shirt.
Click to expand...
Well, she is or appears to be conservative so whacky schlitz should be expected.😁
 
Since his indictment last month on charges of withholding classified documents, former president Donald Trump has publicly called special counsel Jack Smith “deranged” and a “psycho” and said he “looks like a crackhead.”


In response, Smith and the federal judge overseeing his pending criminal trial have said … nothing.


The prosecution of Trump, who is the first former president to face federal criminal charges and is also under an unrelated state indictment in New York, presents a test for the criminal justice system: whether it can effectively handle such a high-profile defendant known for daily and sometimes hourly diatribes against his perceived enemies.

Trump’s broadsides on social media against the Justice Department, the FBI, and Smith in particular have not gone unnoticed. The government spent $1.9 million for U.S. Marshals to provide security to Smith and other officials between November 2022 and March, according to officials.

Experts and government officials have said individual prosecutors are facing harassment and threats online from members of right-wing extremist groups.


The government doesn’t have to look far for examples in which Trump’s vitriol has led to security problems — the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol is one example, as is the recent arrest of an armed man near former president Barack Obama’s home after Trump posted an address he claimed was Obama’s on social media.


“In some ways, these comments are much more serious than if, say, a typical bank fraud defendant made them, because that person may have 500 followers and it won’t have much of an impact. But Jan. 6 shows his followers can see his posts as a call to action,” said Randall Eliason, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at George Washington University.

“I think it’s complicated for free speech reasons, but this is getting pretty close to the line.”……..

But prosecutors have not made any complaints to U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon about Trump’s comments or sought a gag order as they prepare to try the former president on 37 charges of allegedly mishandling classified documents and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.


“These are the kind of comments that might provoke some judges to issue a gag order,” said Ken White, a former federal prosecutor who practices law in California.

He cited the case of longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, who in 2019 was ordered not to post about his own charges on social media after demonstrating what a federal judge called “middle-school behavior” online that could influence potential jurors.


In the Trump case, White said, there are reasons why Smith and Cannon — who will preside over the first pretrial hearing in the case on Tuesday in Fort Pierce, Fla. — may decide not to raise the issue.


“Trump is likely trying to provoke a legal battle so he can portray himself as a victim of censorship as well as government abuse,” White said. “He wants that to be the narrative, to fundraise and make himself the victim. Smart judges avoid unnecessary fights and don’t want to be trolled.”….,

 
MT15 said:
He so smart, I’m sure she will never see through that. 🤪
Click to expand...

Even she knows that isn't true. lol

I'm not saying she thinks she's as terrible as many think she is, just saying that she has to have enough self-awareness to know that nobody would characterize her as "highly-respected" and "very strong" - she just hasn't earned that yet even if she aspires to.
 
superchuck500 said:
Even she knows that isn't true. lol

I'm not saying she thinks she's as terrible as many think she is, just saying that she has to have enough self-awareness to know that nobody would characterize her as "highly-respected" and "very strong" - she just hasn't earned that yet even if she aspires to.
Click to expand...
Forgot the sarcasm font, sorry. What I meant was he’s an idiot and she will see right through that.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Share this page

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Back
Top Bottom