Dominic Pezzola, the only Proud Boy leader not convicted of seditious conspiracy, but was convicted of other charges, got 20 years already.
The bet is the others will get what the prosecutors want.
Joseph Biggs 26257-509 has been sentenced to 17 years. Biggs claims he was seduced into his actions on January 6.
Biggs acknowledged to the judge that he “messed up that day,” but he blamed being “seduced by the crowd” of Trump supporters outside the Capitol and said he’s not a violent person or “a terrorist.”
“My curiosity got the better of me, and I’ll have to live with that for the rest of my life,” he said, claiming he didn’t have “hate in my heart” and didn’t want to hurt people.
That crowd was so seductive and naturally he was curious, so of course he couldn't help himself.
One can only wonder what that information is, that it is worth thousands of dollars not to be revealed - something criminal perhaps?
Might it be something, a letter, an email, say, that incriminates himself or Trump?
There's a privilege in the USA about self-incrimination but is that available in a civil suit about something else, and even if it is, can one plead it to protect the incrimination of anyone other than oneself?
One can only wonder what that information is, that it is worth thousands of dollars not to be revealed - something criminal perhaps?
Might it be something, a letter, an email, say, that incriminates himself or Trump?
There's a privilege in the USA about self-incrimination but is that available in a civil suit about something else, and even if it is, can one plead it to protect the incrimination of anyone other than oneself?
No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
This applies to any time anyone gives sworn testimony, whether in a criminal trial, a civil trial, or even before Congress. (Remember Iran-Contra?) So even in a civil trial Giuliani could refuse to testify.
However, the Fifth Amendment does not cover writings, documents, or records. Giuliani can refuse to testify in person about his various activities but he does not have the right to refuse to produce documents that he previously created of his own free will, which is what he's refusing to do here and why he suffered a default judgment.
Turns out Governor Kemp of Georgia has said he is going to follow the Constitution and laws of Georgia and will not allow the legislature to interfere with the office of the Fulton County District Attorney. The Legislature had been looking for ways to discontinue the prosecution of DJT by either defunding the investigation or impeaching Ms Willis or referring her to the specially created Prosecuting Attorney Qualification Commission which could disqualify her. The constitutionality of that commission is being challenged by several district attorneys in the Georgia court system as it is anyways.
The former guy's legal calendar keeps getting more crowded. Apparently he's suing his former lawyer, Michael Cohen 86067-054, for allegedly lying about Trump P01135809 and violating attorney-client privilege. Most regard this as retaliation for Cohen 86067-054's earlier, successful suit against Trump. Well, this happened:
Donald Trump is being ordered to come into court as soon as possible in a lawsuit that he had launched against his former lawyer, Michael Cohen.
In an unusual move, the judge updated the legal filing of Donald Trump's counter-suit late on Friday afternoon (below) demanding that his lawyers appear in court on the next business day.
<snip>
While Trump announced the suit in April, little has happened since then, according to the legal updates. Typically, when a lawsuit is filed there are several appearances in court and updates on the online docket. This has been largely silent, with nothing other than a deposition scheduled for Sept. 6 "at a law office in Miami," NBC News reported in July.
Cohen's attorney, Ben Brodsky, told NBC at the time that Trump's deposition notice "functions like a subpoena."
"He can’t avoid it, though he could dismiss the case," Brodsky explained.
“I look forward to Donald’s deposition under oath and proving the frivolous nature of the lawsuit,” Cohen said in a July statement.
But by Friday, the judge demanded an in-person hearing for the next business day, which is the day before the deposition was scheduled. Such appearances don't generally happen without warning, much less a late Friday afternoon before a holiday weekend.
I guess we'll find out what this is about on Tuesday. Incidentally, in addition to being the scheduled date for the deposition September 6 was also the date Trump P01135809 was supposed to get arraigned in Georgia. He relieved himself of that obligation by pleading "not guilty" in advance.
As I said, the former guy's legal calendar is getting pretty full.
In case you missed it, former Proud Boys boss Henry "Enrique" Tarrio 98721-004 was sentenced to 22 years in prison yesterday. This is the longest sentence handed down for a January 6th defendant to date.
Not nearly enough, in my opinion. CBS was saying the judge threw the book at him. Not when the prosecutors were asking for 33 years. When will he be up for probation?
Not nearly enough, in my opinion. CBS was saying the judge threw the book at him. Not when the prosecutors were asking for 33 years. When will he be up for probation?
Federal guidelines allow supervised release once 85% of the sentence is served, or at least that was the case the last time I checked. IANAL. Most of Tarrio 98721-004's fellow January 6 defendants have been granted credit for the time they've already spent in pre-trial federal custody, so that has to be factored in as well.
On a separate legal matter, those who are interested can watch the Fulton County pre-trial hearing live here.
Maybe it's just me, but from here, anyway, I don't see much emotional difference between 22 years and 33 years. I'm more concerned about whether he's likely to repeat his behavior after getting out some day--and I understand that mere age makes a difference in some crimes.
Maybe it's just me, but from here, anyway, I don't see much emotional difference between 22 years and 33 years. I'm more concerned about whether he's likely to repeat his behavior after getting out some day--and I understand that mere age makes a difference in some crimes.
I think you may be right. When you're punishing sedition I think there's a bigger aspect of deterrence than with a lot of other crimes. You want to avoid people even trying it, because even failed attempt are enormously damaging, so exemplary punishments pour décourager les autres [to discourage the others] are necessary. 22 years probably works just as well as 33 years. One wonders what might have been different had a certain Austrian WWI veteran done 22 years in Landsberg prison rather than the 5 he was given or the 9 months he served.
So what happened to his ratings and income yesterday after he lost the second E Jean Carroll defamation case?
This is a difficult question. Are you talking about the national averages, or just the Republican Numbers? Turns out the national averages show Trump's unfavorable v favorable ratings have been widening. There was a 12% spread the first of June. Now it is a 16% spread. The Republican numbers show that Trump has not changed very much. DeSantis, though, has dropped like a rock.
Since the second Carroll defamation case has just been decided, it will take at least a week to see any change. But, I think the more deciding factors will be what happens with the felony indictments.
I suspect that we've reached the point where things like the second Carroll case are just more noise in the atmosphere. They would sink anybody else, but with this guy he's already so far over the norms that anybody who can be put off him, probably has been already. Though if he gets convicted of a felony, that's a new level of Awful™ and may shave a few more percentage points off his ratings. But just losing another case, or paying another fine? Eh.
So what happened to his ratings and income yesterday after he lost the second E Jean Carroll defamation case?
I find it interesting that @Martin54 used the term "ratings" instead of polling or some other term more common in determining political popularity. Like politics is some kind of entertainment, not something that affects millions of lives. I've always despised that view of politics.
Well, the dude was on TV. I've wondered if he can even tell the difference between TV and real life. He seems to have the gravitational effect of a black hole when it comes to skewing other people's viewpoints, too. Which is absurd, but there it is.
I hope somebody does a really GOOD scientific study of charisma based on this dude, because he's so unlikable that I think he'd make a decent test case--like a chemically pure substance...
I don't care for the implications of that. Was it directed at my post in particular?
What?! Of course not! It was a satire on mass support for evil leaders. British liberals - myself included - still regard Churchill as the man of the hour.
So what happened to his ratings and income yesterday after he lost the second E Jean Carroll defamation case?
I find it interesting that @Martin54 used the term "ratings" instead of polling or some other term more common in determining political popularity. Like politics is some kind of entertainment, not something that affects millions of lives. I've always despised that view of politics.
I don't care for the implications of that. Was it directed at my post in particular?
What?! Of course not! It was a satire on mass support for evil leaders. British liberals - myself included - still regard Churchill as the man of the hour.
Wasn't Churchill a Conservative? In any case, history now shows he had a dark side too. But, hey, his your legacy.
I don't care for the implications of that. Was it directed at my post in particular?
What?! Of course not! It was a satire on mass support for evil leaders. British liberals - myself included - still regard Churchill as the man of the hour.
Wasn't Churchill a Conservative? In any case, history now shows he had a dark side too. But, hey, his your legacy.
That's the point. He was appalling. And fantastic.
I don't care for the implications of that. Was it directed at my post in particular?
What?! Of course not! It was a satire on mass support for evil leaders. British liberals - myself included - still regard Churchill as the man of the hour.
I suspect that we've reached the point where things like the second Carroll case are just more noise in the atmosphere. They would sink anybody else, but with this guy he's already so far over the norms that anybody who can be put off him, probably has been already. Though if he gets convicted of a felony, that's a new level of Awful™ and may shave a few more percentage points off his ratings. But just losing another case, or paying another fine? Eh.
Agree completely. His supporters aren't re-thinking anything at this point; they're totally bought-in true believers. The Republican nomination is Trump's to lose.
I wish Biden were younger. I wish the Democrats weren't so hopeless at messaging. I'm deeply afraid enough people will stay home and the voter suppression in key states will be bad enough that Biden will lose the electoral college and this will be the last free and fair election we have in my lifetime.
I don't care for the implications of that. Was it directed at my post in particular?
What?! Of course not! It was a satire on mass support for evil leaders. British liberals - myself included - still regard Churchill as the man of the hour.
Speak for yourself.
I do and obviously a great many liberals even here. I still believe he sacrificed Coventry.
That he sacrificed Coventry? Yeah I have evidence. Enough for my belief. I can't transfer it. It's a personal anecdote. It was from personal conversation with the highest profile disgraced historian of recent times if not of all time. In blood chilling detail. There's an image I cannot find of Churchill looking up, in a helmet, to the left, as I doubtless wrongly recall, on the air ministry roof, on a night in November 1940, possibly, most probably, the night of the 14th. It's the story behind that.
Former Donald Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro has been convicted of contempt of Congress for not complying to a subpoena from the House select committee investigating the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.
Navarro is the second ex-aide to the former president to be prosecuted for his lack of cooperation with the committee. Steve Bannon was convicted last year on two contempt counts. Bannon’s case is currently on appeal.
Navarro pledged to appeal based on executive privilege issues.
The CNN article does not mention it, but Donald Trump never publicly asserted executive privilege over Navarro and Navarro has not produced any evidence to substantiate his bare claim that he did. The jury took four hours to deliberate.
It is making sense. Seems like all the Proud Boys got about 2/3 of the prosecutors recommended sentences. Turns out, the judge that heard the cases was appointed by Trump.
It is making sense. Seems like all the Proud Boys got about 2/3 of the prosecutors recommended sentences. Turns out, the judge that heard the cases was appointed by Trump.
Does that infer (not imply) that he was too lenient? These people are frontier wild men, barbarians. A mob of pawns. They didn't pull security on the Capitol.
It is making sense. Seems like all the Proud Boys got about 2/3 of the prosecutors recommended sentences. Turns out, the judge that heard the cases was appointed by Trump.
Does that infer (not imply) that he was too lenient? These people are frontier wild men, barbarians. A mob of pawns. They didn't pull security on the Capitol.
I would argue that it definitely does imply excess leniency (relative to the sentencing guidelines). Obviously that it me inferring such leniency. Is that what you meant?
It is making sense. Seems like all the Proud Boys got about 2/3 of the prosecutors recommended sentences. Turns out, the judge that heard the cases was appointed by Trump.
Does that infer (not imply) that he was too lenient? These people are frontier wild men, barbarians. A mob of pawns. They didn't pull security on the Capitol.
I would argue that it definitely does imply excess leniency (relative to the sentencing guidelines). Obviously that it me inferring such leniency. Is that what you meant?
AFZ
Given that those are the guidelines (ref.?), then your inference of 'excess' (sic) leniency could be valid. Is 2/3rds excessive?
It is making sense. Seems like all the Proud Boys got about 2/3 of the prosecutors recommended sentences. Turns out, the judge that heard the cases was appointed by Trump.
Does that infer (not imply) that he was too lenient? These people are frontier wild men, barbarians. A mob of pawns. They didn't pull security on the Capitol.
I would argue that it definitely does imply excess leniency (relative to the sentencing guidelines). Obviously that it me inferring such leniency. Is that what you meant?
AFZ
Given that those are the guidelines (ref.?), then your inference of 'excess' (sic) leniency could be valid. Is 2/3rds excessive?
IANAL. Nor am I an American for that matter. But I do know how the federal sentencing works though because I've listened to enough detailed explanations by expert lawyers.
The federal sentencing is a matrix. You plug in the level of offence and then some factors like first-time offender vs multiple previous convictions. That then spews out a number. The judges then have discretion* about whether they give a greater or lesser sentence. As I understand it, though, there is supposed to be some justification from the details of the case to justify an upward or downward departure from the guideline.
I do not know the details but I don't think it an unreasonable inference that the judge may have been lenient specifically because he is a Trump appointee. Whether that is accurate or not, is a different question.
AFZ
*depending on the offence there may be curtailed discretion such as mandatory minimums which are self explanatory.
Related tangent, why isn't the Georgia case federal?
Because we don't have a single federal election for president, we have 50 state elections. Trump tried to mess with the election in Georgia, which is an offense against that state and its electorate.
Related tangent, why isn't the Georgia case federal?
Because we don't have a single federal election for president, we have 50 state elections. Trump tried to mess with the election in Georgia, which is an offense against that state and its electorate.
Plus, despite what Meadows claimed, elections form no part of the duties of the White House Chief of Staff.
Meadows will appeal. The appeal process can take some time. The scenario could be that the state will take him and the others to trial while the federal appeals process unfolds. If he wins in the appeals process, the indictment would be thrown out because of double jeopardy.
That's what I think they said could happen on MSNBC.
But I am sure our SoF Bar Association will clarify this.
Related tangent, why isn't the Georgia case federal?
Let me direct you to United States of America v. Donald Trump [PDF], the federal prosecution against Donald Trump for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. These are all federal charges against Trump stemming from his attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential election and was discussed earlier on this thread. You even commented on this (twice!) at the time.
Related tangent, why isn't the Georgia case federal?
Let me direct you to United States of America v. Donald Trump [PDF], the federal prosecution against Donald Trump for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. These are all federal charges against Trump stemming from his attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential election and was discussed earlier on this thread. You even commented on this (twice!) at the time.
No thanks. Just tell me. Does that specifically include Georgia?
Comments
Joseph Biggs 26257-509 has been sentenced to 17 years. Biggs claims he was seduced into his actions on January 6.
That crowd was so seductive and naturally he was curious, so of course he couldn't help himself.
There's a privilege in the USA about self-incrimination but is that available in a civil suit about something else, and even if it is, can one plead it to protect the incrimination of anyone other than oneself?
The Fifth Amendment states (in part):
This applies to any time anyone gives sworn testimony, whether in a criminal trial, a civil trial, or even before Congress. (Remember Iran-Contra?) So even in a civil trial Giuliani could refuse to testify.
However, the Fifth Amendment does not cover writings, documents, or records. Giuliani can refuse to testify in person about his various activities but he does not have the right to refuse to produce documents that he previously created of his own free will, which is what he's refusing to do here and why he suffered a default judgment.
All ahead full.
I guess we'll find out what this is about on Tuesday. Incidentally, in addition to being the scheduled date for the deposition September 6 was also the date Trump P01135809 was supposed to get arraigned in Georgia. He relieved himself of that obligation by pleading "not guilty" in advance.
As I said, the former guy's legal calendar is getting pretty full.
Federal guidelines allow supervised release once 85% of the sentence is served, or at least that was the case the last time I checked. IANAL. Most of Tarrio 98721-004's fellow January 6 defendants have been granted credit for the time they've already spent in pre-trial federal custody, so that has to be factored in as well.
On a separate legal matter, those who are interested can watch the Fulton County pre-trial hearing live here.
I think you may be right. When you're punishing sedition I think there's a bigger aspect of deterrence than with a lot of other crimes. You want to avoid people even trying it, because even failed attempt are enormously damaging, so exemplary punishments pour décourager les autres [to discourage the others] are necessary. 22 years probably works just as well as 33 years. One wonders what might have been different had a certain Austrian WWI veteran done 22 years in Landsberg prison rather than the 5 he was given or the 9 months he served.
This is a difficult question. Are you talking about the national averages, or just the Republican Numbers? Turns out the national averages show Trump's unfavorable v favorable ratings have been widening. There was a 12% spread the first of June. Now it is a 16% spread. The Republican numbers show that Trump has not changed very much. DeSantis, though, has dropped like a rock.
Since the second Carroll defamation case has just been decided, it will take at least a week to see any change. But, I think the more deciding factors will be what happens with the felony indictments.
I find it interesting that @Martin54 used the term "ratings" instead of polling or some other term more common in determining political popularity. Like politics is some kind of entertainment, not something that affects millions of lives. I've always despised that view of politics.
I hope somebody does a really GOOD scientific study of charisma based on this dude, because he's so unlikable that I think he'd make a decent test case--like a chemically pure substance...
What?! Of course not! It was a satire on mass support for evil leaders. British liberals - myself included - still regard Churchill as the man of the hour.
Me too.
Wasn't Churchill a Conservative? In any case, history now shows he had a dark side too. But, hey, his your legacy.
That's the point. He was appalling. And fantastic.
Speak for yourself.
Who hasn’t?
Agree completely. His supporters aren't re-thinking anything at this point; they're totally bought-in true believers. The Republican nomination is Trump's to lose.
I wish Biden were younger. I wish the Democrats weren't so hopeless at messaging. I'm deeply afraid enough people will stay home and the voter suppression in key states will be bad enough that Biden will lose the electoral college and this will be the last free and fair election we have in my lifetime.
I do and obviously a great many liberals even here. I still believe he sacrificed Coventry.
I guess the 'Codebreaker's Dilemma' lies behind the story.
Churchill was taking no risks whatsoever on the Air Ministry roof.
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Back to Trump on this one.
The CNN article does not mention it, but Donald Trump never publicly asserted executive privilege over Navarro and Navarro has not produced any evidence to substantiate his bare claim that he did. The jury took four hours to deliberate.
Does that infer (not imply) that he was too lenient? These people are frontier wild men, barbarians. A mob of pawns. They didn't pull security on the Capitol.
I would argue that it definitely does imply excess leniency (relative to the sentencing guidelines). Obviously that it me inferring such leniency. Is that what you meant?
AFZ
Given that those are the guidelines (ref.?), then your inference of 'excess' (sic) leniency could be valid. Is 2/3rds excessive?
IANAL. Nor am I an American for that matter. But I do know how the federal sentencing works though because I've listened to enough detailed explanations by expert lawyers.
The federal sentencing is a matrix. You plug in the level of offence and then some factors like first-time offender vs multiple previous convictions. That then spews out a number. The judges then have discretion* about whether they give a greater or lesser sentence. As I understand it, though, there is supposed to be some justification from the details of the case to justify an upward or downward departure from the guideline.
I do not know the details but I don't think it an unreasonable inference that the judge may have been lenient specifically because he is a Trump appointee. Whether that is accurate or not, is a different question.
AFZ
*depending on the offence there may be curtailed discretion such as mandatory minimums which are self explanatory.
Related tangent, why isn't the Georgia case federal?
Because we don't have a single federal election for president, we have 50 state elections. Trump tried to mess with the election in Georgia, which is an offense against that state and its electorate.
Plus, despite what Meadows claimed, elections form no part of the duties of the White House Chief of Staff.
That's what I think they said could happen on MSNBC.
But I am sure our SoF Bar Association will clarify this.
Let me direct you to United States of America v. Donald Trump [PDF], the federal prosecution against Donald Trump for conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights. These are all federal charges against Trump stemming from his attempt to subvert the 2020 presidential election and was discussed earlier on this thread. You even commented on this (twice!) at the time.
No thanks. Just tell me. Does that specifically include Georgia?