Host hat on @Martin54, if you really want to engage in detailed discussion about this, as appears to be the case, it seems only reasonable that you should do some basic legwork yourself, especially where links are provided, and not expect the random selection of American citizens aboard ship to answer questions for you which they can only do by doing the same legwork themselves.
If they prove unwilling to do that, then snippy ad hominem passive aggression is still a personal attack, and, as you well know, not permitted in Purgatory. Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
FWIW, as far as this non-US, non-practising lawyer understands it, the federal charge in relation to Georgia is about Trump’s alleged attempt to pack the electoral college with false electors. The state charge is about the allegation that he attempted to influence the counting of votes in Georgia.
Related tangent, why isn't the Georgia case federal?
So many layers of laws and structures.
State:
Trump committed a state level crime by attempting to get the Georgia Secretary of State (state level official who is elected by the residents of Georgia in a state level election) to alter the results of the presidential election in Georgia. As Ruth pointed out, each state is responsible to hold and govern its own election, even for president.
Federal:
The system of electors is established in the U.S. Constitution. Although it involves electors chosen by the states, it’s a structure devised through and encoded in federal law, and the electors are acting in a federal capacity, when they perform this role.
So Trump involved himself with Georgia at two different levels.
FWIW, as far as this non-US, non-practising lawyer understands it, the federal charge in relation to Georgia is about Trump’s alleged attempt to pack the electoral college with false electors. The state charge is about the allegation that he attempted to influence the counting of votes in Georgia.
There are no federal charges in the Georgia indictment. A state grand jury and a state prosecutor, like the Fulton County District Attorney, can only indict on and prosecute violations of the state’s criminal laws. So everything in the Fulton County indictment involves alleged violation of Georgia criminal laws—state racketeering (RICO) laws, solicitation of violation of oath by public officer (the call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger), conspiracy to impersonate a public officer (the false electors scheme), conspiracy to commit forgery in the first degree (attempts to produce false election results), and false statements and writings and filing false documents.
The state case in New York involves alleged violation of state campaign finance laws.
Indictments and prosecutions for violations of federal criminal laws are the preview of federal grand juries and federal prosecutors.
The federal prosecution in DC involves the alleged attempts to interfere with Congress’s certification of the votes of the electoral college. The federal case in Miami involves the alleged retention of classified documents and obstruction of justice with regard to recovery of those documents.
Superb Nick. So, if that is complete, Georgia doesn't and can't feature in any federal case.
Well, not quite. As pointed out above, trying to submit a false slate of electors from Georgia violates the federal constitution since the college of electors is established in the US constitution, so in that one instance, the feds can bring charges if they choose. However, it appears the feds will allow the Fulton County prosecutor to carry the ball.
The state of Georgia, or any people from Georgia, including officials, can appear in a federal case on either side or as witnesses, provided the case is about a federal law. What determines whether it is a state or a federal case is precisely the question of which law (federal or state) is at issue.
We can expect to see Trump embroiled in a whole host of cases, some federal and some state, or even local (city, county). This is not a guy who confined his misbehavior to a very limited arena.
Superb Nick. So, if that is complete, Georgia doesn't and can't feature in any federal case.
Well, not quite. As pointed out above, trying to submit a false slate of electors from Georgia violates the federal constitution since the college of electors is established in the US constitution, so in that one instance, the feds can bring charges if they choose.
The relevant issue, though, is not that electors are provided for in the US Constitution. Electors are state, not federal, officials, and the act of submitting electoral votes to Congress is an act of the state.
Rather, the issue would be whether those involved in the alternate electors scheme violated federal criminal law—such as by knowingly submitting or conspiring to submit fraudulent documents to Congress.
Getting back to the Classified Documents Case: As you may recall, Trump has been charged with improperly storing classified documents at his home (and then lying about it). In a typically ludicrous Trumpian move, he has requested that he and his attorneys be permitted to review those same classified documents ...in his home.
Judge Cannon agreed with prosecutors that that is, ummm, not proper. Because, y'know, the core of the whole case is that he should NOT have those documents in that location.
Instead, he and his attorneys can only review and discuss the documents in a properly secured location.
Getting back to the Classified Documents Case: As you may recall, Trump has been charged with improperly storing classified documents at his home (and then lying about it). In a typically ludicrous Trumpian move, he has requested that he and his attorneys be permitted to review those same classified documents ...in his home.
Judge Cannon agreed with prosecutors that that is, ummm, not proper. Because, y'know, the core of the whole case is that he should NOT have those documents in that location.
On the one hand, good for Judge Cannon for making an easy, common sense ruling. On the other hand, I have to wonder why it took her this long. The prosecution filed the request for a protective order back in July. Why does it take two months to make what should be an easy decision?
Getting back to the Classified Documents Case: As you may recall, Trump has been charged with improperly storing classified documents at his home (and then lying about it). In a typically ludicrous Trumpian move, he has requested that he and his attorneys be permitted to review those same classified documents ...in his home.
Judge Cannon agreed with prosecutors that that is, ummm, not proper. Because, y'know, the core of the whole case is that he should NOT have those documents in that location.
On the one hand, good for Judge Cannon for making an easy, common sense ruling. On the other hand, I have to wonder why it took her this long. The prosecution filed the request for a protective order back in July. Why does it take two months to make what should be an easy decision?
Could it be a stuggle against loyalties?
Trump's method is delay, delay, delay. Eventually, he thinks he will get back in office, and puff, it all goes away.
In other news, the Trump attorneys are asking Judge Chutkan of the case in Washington DC to recuse herself for making statements they argue show her prejudice towards their client. She made two statements during the sentencing of other January 6 convictions that said she thought Trump should also be tried.
Two problems: a motion for recusal should have happened shortly after Chutkan was assigned the case, not several months into the proceedings. Second, it is quite normal for a judge to reference a co-conspirator in explaining her reasoning for the sentence she had handed down.
When it gets down to the short hairs, Trump hates "uppity" black women who think they have power over him.
Getting back to the Classified Documents Case: As you may recall, Trump has been charged with improperly storing classified documents at his home (and then lying about it). In a typically ludicrous Trumpian move, he has requested that he and his attorneys be permitted to review those same classified documents ...in his home.
Judge Cannon agreed with prosecutors that that is, ummm, not proper. Because, y'know, the core of the whole case is that he should NOT have those documents in that location.
On the one hand, good for Judge Cannon for making an easy, common sense ruling. On the other hand, I have to wonder why it took her this long. The prosecution filed the request for a protective order back in July. Why does it take two months to make what should be an easy decision?
The prosecution filed the motion in the middle of July, but Trump did not respond until Aug. 8, which would be a typical timeframe. I presume the other defendants also responded, but I can’t find when. Then the prosecution likely would have had time to file a reply. Then the hearing on the motion was held yesterday, so Judge Cannon ruled within one day of the hearing. It doesn’t strike me as particularly slow at all.
I agree @Nick Tamen . While the decision may have been easy (although the order was made a little more complicated because the other defendants have even more restricted access than Trump, which needed to be set out), the steps of the legal process still need to be followed.
Trump did not respond until Aug. 8[/url], which would be a typical timeframe. I presume the other defendants also responded, but I can’t find when. Then the prosecution likely would have had time to file a reply. Then the hearing on the motion was held yesterday, so Judge Cannon ruled within one day of the hearing. It doesn’t strike me as particularly slow at all.
Indeed not - and what other matters were before Her Honour in that intervening period? And there are many other parties who would like such a rapid response.
On the one hand, good for Judge Cannon for making an easy, common sense ruling. On the other hand, I have to wonder why it took her this long. The prosecution filed the request for a protective order back in July. Why does it take two months to make what should be an easy decision?
I think it's more accurate to say that Trump's legal team was given at least three weeks to file a response, something within Judge Cannon's authority to set (relatively) arbitrarily.
Then the hearing on the motion was held yesterday, so Judge Cannon ruled within one day of the hearing. It doesn’t strike me as particularly slow at all.
Scheduling the hearing on the matter more than a month after after Trump's response was also a choice on Cannon's part. By way of comparison, in the Jack Texiera case (an Air National Guardsman accused of leaking classified documents to a Discord server) the prosecution filed a motion for a protective order related to those classified documents on July 6. The court granted that order on . . . July 10. Federal courts can (and should) move very quickly on cases that involve national security and classified documents.
Trump's treatment is the exception rather than the rule and pretending otherwise does no one any favors.
On the one hand, good for Judge Cannon for making an easy, common sense ruling. On the other hand, I have to wonder why it took her this long. The prosecution filed the request for a protective order back in July. Why does it take two months to make what should be an easy decision?
I think it's more accurate to say that Trump's legal team was given at least three weeks to file a response, something within Judge Cannon's authority to set (relatively) arbitrarily.
My experience is that the normal time for responding to a motion is either 21 or 30 days, then 10 or 14 days for a reply. Yes, it can be and sometimes is shortened, but not always. It’s also my experience that in cases such as this, judges want to make sure a defendant like Trump doesn’t have an argument that they weren’t given every opportunity to make their case.
Perhaps Judge Cannon does have a natural loyalty to Trump and was trying to figure out which way she’d go, or trying to give him a chance to give her a reason to rule in his favor. Given her history, it’s possible. I’m just saying that in my experience, the timeline here isn’t itself reason to wonder what took so long.
By way of comparison, in the Jack Texiera case (an Air National Guardsman accused of leaking classified documents to a Discord server) the prosecution filed a motion for a protective order related to those classified documents on July 6. The court granted that order on . . . July 10. Federal courts can (and should) move very quickly on cases that involve national security and classified documents.
The key bit in the Texiera case is the phrase (in the government's request for a protective order): "Counsel for the Defendant have reviewed the proposed Protective Order and related Memorandum of Understanding and consent to both as drafted." When both sides agree to the order, it is very easy for a court to approve it quickly. When the opposing party disagrees (as in Trump's case), then the judge needs to allow more time for argument. As Nick says, the time frames in this case were not outrageous for that situation.
Trump sat down for an interview with Kristen Welter of NBC on Meet The Press which aired on Sunday. Trump was argumentative and disruptive through out. It was very hard for Ms Welter to keep the interview on track.
Six topics were discussed:
The 2020 election: Trump claimed he won in spite of being told he lost 60 legal challenges. He said it was rigged. He decided to fight on regardless of what the lawyers were telling him. He said it was his choice.
The Indictments. Trump kept calling them the Biden indictments. He denied telling a Mar A Logo staffer to delete a security tape. He called the Special Prosecutor a lunatic. Garland, an angry has been who lost the Supreme Court nomination, and Biden a liar. While he loves American democracy, he hates what is happening now.
The January 6 Riots. Trump called the rioters beautiful people. He refused to talk about why it took more than three hours to tell the rioters to go home, or why he did not call out the National Guard. He said Pelosi had the power to do that, but refused. He said he could have pardoned himself before he left the office, but he did not do it because he did not do anything wrong. He was very vague about if he would pardon the convicted rioters.
Ukraine. Trump claims he would negotiate a treaty that will benefit all parties. He said he wants Europe to pull more of the weight of that war. Again vague about ending the war in 24 hours.
Putin. A very good friend. He appreciated what Putin said about the last American election and Trump's legal problems.
China. He and Xi are buddies. He did not say he would defend Tiawan.
Is it time your media over there stopped giving him time in air, just report the news about him?
I understand he is being charged with many things but if you give him air time he will never shut up.
Is it time your media over there stopped giving him time in air, just report the news about him?
I understand he is being charged with many things but if you give him air time he will never shut up.
I so agree. Why are we giving him a free public platform? He is no longer the President and is not yet the Republican candidate for president. I am sick of looking at his face on the news every day.
"We"? I was not involved, and I doubt you were either. The media give him air time because they are not trying to bring us the news, they are trying to make money. I should think that was pretty obvious by now.
Point is, he is the leading Republican candidate for the nomination. And he does have a large following. Even this week CBS published a poll that shows he has a slight lead over Biden. But, I think it is in the margin of error.
Point is, he is the leading Republican candidate for the nomination. And he does have a large following. Even this week CBS published a poll that shows he has a slight lead over Biden. But, I think it is in the margin of error.
The poll has Trump ahead by 1 point. The margin of error is reported as ± 2.1 points.
A poll of this kind is meaningless, at least as a predictor of election results, 4 months before the first primary or caucus and 13+ months before the general election. At best, it may be useful in identifying a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, or in helping identify trends.
If that's the poll I think it is, it really oversampled Republicans--like twice as many as should have been in there, from what I heard. I don't think anybody has to worry.
If that's the poll I think it is, it really oversampled Republicans--like twice as many as should have been in there, from what I heard. I don't think anybody has to worry.
Late last night, on MSNBC, Laurence O'Donnel interviewed Steven Rosenberg whose specialty is analyzing election results. He pointed out there have been 25 special elections since the Dobbs decision on abortion. Most of them have been Democratic wins. He says from his perspective, the Democrats have nothing to worry about. Video here.
I worry about people who think there is nothing to worry about.
I think there are two things we should keep in mind.
The first is that Donald Trump, the most likely Republican nominee for president in 2024, will probably face an even less favorable electorate than he did in 2016 (when he got 2,868,691 fewer votes than Hillary Clinton) or in 2020 (when he got 7,059,526 fewer votes than Joe Biden).
The second is that any major party nominee has a non-trivial chance of becoming president. This is largely due to the anti-democratic and counter-majoritarian factors built into the U.S. constitutional system.
With the caveat that Republican-held State Legislatures have worked diligently to modify voting and election processing procedures in not a small number states.
With the caveat that Republican-held State Legislatures have worked diligently to modify voting and election processing procedures in not a small number states.
And a number of those states have been ordered by federal courts to redraw the congressional districts. To date, those orders have been upheld by SCOTUS.
Now Trump wants NBC/MSNBC to be investigated for treason. I am sure the latest Rachel Maddow interview with former White House aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, contributed to his rage. Ms Hutchinson's new book, Enough, alleges how chaotic Trump's final year in the White House.
In the last couple of weeks, Trump has committed a number of gaffes which seem to indicate a lot of mental confusion, e.g. WWII vs WWIII or Jeb Bush vs G. W. Bush or who his opponents were in 2016 and 2020 (neither was Obama). I suppose it is too much to expect for him to understand the definition of 'treason'.
Well, Sombody got banned from ever doing business in New York again. All his properties in NY will now go into receivership. They will likely be sold off to pay off all his debts incurred in the state.
For those who are not going to read the full article, the judge in the Trump's New York civil trial for financial fraud has issued summary judgment that Trump Sr, Trump Jr, and Eric Trump committed financial fraud in overvaluing their properties. Essentially it's a holding that no reasonable (civil) jury would find any differently when provided with the facts of the case. This case involves more elements than just this so it's still scheduled to start on Monday, but the prosecution's case just got a lot easier to prove.
What interested me most was Trump Sr's explanation of why he couldn't possibly overvalue his properties.
He [ Trump ] also seems to imply that the numbers cannot be inflated because he could find a "buyer from Saudi Arabia" to pay any price he suggests.10
10 This statement may suggest influence buying more than savvy investing.
I've always thought that judges saved their best burns for the footnotes.
I've always thought that judges saved their best burns for the footnotes.
Absolutely. One of my favorites is Miles v. City Council of Augusta, Georgia, 551 F. Supp. 349 (1982). The issue is whether a talking cat needs a business license. The main text of the decision is completely straight-faced, but the footnotes are a hoot!
By contrast, the appellate court decision in the case drops multiple jokes in both the main text and footnotes---but they are appellate court judges and not bound to the decorum required at the trial court level. Even then, the best jokes are still the ones in the footnotes.
[legal tangent] I love some legal judgements. Lord Denning’s “It was bluebell time in Kent” and another (which I can’t now 35+ years on remember the citation for) about a refrigerated road haulage contract which began “This is the sad case of three hundred pigs that went to market”[/legal tangent]
Comments
Specifically? By name?
@Martin54, if you really want to engage in detailed discussion about this, as appears to be the case, it seems only reasonable that you should do some basic legwork yourself, especially where links are provided, and not expect the random selection of American citizens aboard ship to answer questions for you which they can only do by doing the same legwork themselves.
If they prove unwilling to do that, then snippy ad hominem passive aggression is still a personal attack, and, as you well know, not permitted in Purgatory.
Host hat off
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Yes. He committed a state level crime in Georgia.
Yes. He committed a federal level crime against Georgia.
So many layers of laws and structures.
State:
Trump committed a state level crime by attempting to get the Georgia Secretary of State (state level official who is elected by the residents of Georgia in a state level election) to alter the results of the presidential election in Georgia. As Ruth pointed out, each state is responsible to hold and govern its own election, even for president.
Federal:
The system of electors is established in the U.S. Constitution. Although it involves electors chosen by the states, it’s a structure devised through and encoded in federal law, and the electors are acting in a federal capacity, when they perform this role.
So Trump involved himself with Georgia at two different levels.
Does that answer your question as needed?
Thanks,
Doublethink, Admin
The state case in New York involves alleged violation of state campaign finance laws.
Indictments and prosecutions for violations of federal criminal laws are the preview of federal grand juries and federal prosecutors.
The federal prosecution in DC involves the alleged attempts to interfere with Congress’s certification of the votes of the electoral college. The federal case in Miami involves the alleged retention of classified documents and obstruction of justice with regard to recovery of those documents.
Well, not quite. As pointed out above, trying to submit a false slate of electors from Georgia violates the federal constitution since the college of electors is established in the US constitution, so in that one instance, the feds can bring charges if they choose. However, it appears the feds will allow the Fulton County prosecutor to carry the ball.
We can expect to see Trump embroiled in a whole host of cases, some federal and some state, or even local (city, county). This is not a guy who confined his misbehavior to a very limited arena.
Rather, the issue would be whether those involved in the alternate electors scheme violated federal criminal law—such as by knowingly submitting or conspiring to submit fraudulent documents to Congress.
Judge Cannon agreed with prosecutors that that is, ummm, not proper. Because, y'know, the core of the whole case is that he should NOT have those documents in that location.
Instead, he and his attorneys can only review and discuss the documents in a properly secured location.
On the one hand, good for Judge Cannon for making an easy, common sense ruling. On the other hand, I have to wonder why it took her this long. The prosecution filed the request for a protective order back in July. Why does it take two months to make what should be an easy decision?
Could it be a stuggle against loyalties?
Trump's method is delay, delay, delay. Eventually, he thinks he will get back in office, and puff, it all goes away.
In other news, the Trump attorneys are asking Judge Chutkan of the case in Washington DC to recuse herself for making statements they argue show her prejudice towards their client. She made two statements during the sentencing of other January 6 convictions that said she thought Trump should also be tried.
Two problems: a motion for recusal should have happened shortly after Chutkan was assigned the case, not several months into the proceedings. Second, it is quite normal for a judge to reference a co-conspirator in explaining her reasoning for the sentence she had handed down.
When it gets down to the short hairs, Trump hates "uppity" black women who think they have power over him.
Indeed not - and what other matters were before Her Honour in that intervening period? And there are many other parties who would like such a rapid response.
I think it's more accurate to say that Trump's legal team was given at least three weeks to file a response, something within Judge Cannon's authority to set (relatively) arbitrarily.
Scheduling the hearing on the matter more than a month after after Trump's response was also a choice on Cannon's part. By way of comparison, in the Jack Texiera case (an Air National Guardsman accused of leaking classified documents to a Discord server) the prosecution filed a motion for a protective order related to those classified documents on July 6. The court granted that order on . . . July 10. Federal courts can (and should) move very quickly on cases that involve national security and classified documents.
Trump's treatment is the exception rather than the rule and pretending otherwise does no one any favors.
Perhaps Judge Cannon does have a natural loyalty to Trump and was trying to figure out which way she’d go, or trying to give him a chance to give her a reason to rule in his favor. Given her history, it’s possible. I’m just saying that in my experience, the timeline here isn’t itself reason to wonder what took so long.
The key bit in the Texiera case is the phrase (in the government's request for a protective order): "Counsel for the Defendant have reviewed the proposed Protective Order and related Memorandum of Understanding and consent to both as drafted." When both sides agree to the order, it is very easy for a court to approve it quickly. When the opposing party disagrees (as in Trump's case), then the judge needs to allow more time for argument. As Nick says, the time frames in this case were not outrageous for that situation.
Six topics were discussed:
The 2020 election: Trump claimed he won in spite of being told he lost 60 legal challenges. He said it was rigged. He decided to fight on regardless of what the lawyers were telling him. He said it was his choice.
The Indictments. Trump kept calling them the Biden indictments. He denied telling a Mar A Logo staffer to delete a security tape. He called the Special Prosecutor a lunatic. Garland, an angry has been who lost the Supreme Court nomination, and Biden a liar. While he loves American democracy, he hates what is happening now.
The January 6 Riots. Trump called the rioters beautiful people. He refused to talk about why it took more than three hours to tell the rioters to go home, or why he did not call out the National Guard. He said Pelosi had the power to do that, but refused. He said he could have pardoned himself before he left the office, but he did not do it because he did not do anything wrong. He was very vague about if he would pardon the convicted rioters.
Ukraine. Trump claims he would negotiate a treaty that will benefit all parties. He said he wants Europe to pull more of the weight of that war. Again vague about ending the war in 24 hours.
Putin. A very good friend. He appreciated what Putin said about the last American election and Trump's legal problems.
China. He and Xi are buddies. He did not say he would defend Tiawan.
For a transcript of the interview go: https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-september-17-2023-n1307173
I understand he is being charged with many things but if you give him air time he will never shut up.
I appreciate a hacker with a sense of humor.
I so agree. Why are we giving him a free public platform? He is no longer the President and is not yet the Republican candidate for president. I am sick of looking at his face on the news every day.
Point is, he is the leading Republican candidate for the nomination. And he does have a large following. Even this week CBS published a poll that shows he has a slight lead over Biden. But, I think it is in the margin of error.
A poll of this kind is meaningless, at least as a predictor of election results, 4 months before the first primary or caucus and 13+ months before the general election. At best, it may be useful in identifying a candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, or in helping identify trends.
Late last night, on MSNBC, Laurence O'Donnel interviewed Steven Rosenberg whose specialty is analyzing election results. He pointed out there have been 25 special elections since the Dobbs decision on abortion. Most of them have been Democratic wins. He says from his perspective, the Democrats have nothing to worry about. Video here.
I think there are two things we should keep in mind.
The first is that Donald Trump, the most likely Republican nominee for president in 2024, will probably face an even less favorable electorate than he did in 2016 (when he got 2,868,691 fewer votes than Hillary Clinton) or in 2020 (when he got 7,059,526 fewer votes than Joe Biden).
The second is that any major party nominee has a non-trivial chance of becoming president. This is largely due to the anti-democratic and counter-majoritarian factors built into the U.S. constitutional system.
And a number of those states have been ordered by federal courts to redraw the congressional districts. To date, those orders have been upheld by SCOTUS.
I hope NBC/MSNBC wears this as a badge of honor.
Should we be surprised?
Too bad.
For those who are not going to read the full article, the judge in the Trump's New York civil trial for financial fraud has issued summary judgment that Trump Sr, Trump Jr, and Eric Trump committed financial fraud in overvaluing their properties. Essentially it's a holding that no reasonable (civil) jury would find any differently when provided with the facts of the case. This case involves more elements than just this so it's still scheduled to start on Monday, but the prosecution's case just got a lot easier to prove.
What interested me most was Trump Sr's explanation of why he couldn't possibly overvalue his properties.
I've always thought that judges saved their best burns for the footnotes.
By contrast, the appellate court decision in the case drops multiple jokes in both the main text and footnotes---but they are appellate court judges and not bound to the decorum required at the trial court level. Even then, the best jokes are still the ones in the footnotes.