RugbyRebels

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2024 8:39 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2024 8:35 am So he will appeal. No surprise I guess since accepting the verdict would have meant accepting it wasn’t a sham trial as he argued throughout. I wonder how the appeal and his need to be in court will impact other trials? I’ve lost track a bit of which ones are likely to be heard prior to the election.

All the other ones are gonna be delayed until after the election - the documents one has a Trump-friendly judge who is delaying, the federal one has gone to the Supreme Court to see if he's completely immune. The Georgia one was the only one that could've made the deadline, and that's been stymied by the prosecutors' inability to keep it in their pants.

Puja

Thanks. I understand that the Georgia case may also find itself impacted by the Supreme Court verdict which could be interesting. So much will hang on that outcome.

Arguably if the president is found to have unlimited immunity whilst in power, there’s nothing stopping Biden other than his own conscience from properly hammering Trump.

GOT HIM!!!!!!!!

Well sort of...

From listening to a slightly obsessive number of podcasts on the subject - I would recommend "Lawfare: Trump Trials and Tribulations" as the best mix of federal and state lawyerly and journalistic knowledge:
He'll probably get sentenced before the election. There's a decent chance he'll get a short period of some form of custody. He'll appeal through through the NY court system and have bail pending appeal which is pretty normal. Appeals are unlikely to complete before the There is at least one constitutional appeal which could go to SCOTUS on unanimity, which is a genuine issue (and here in England the jury direction would probably be considered defective on that basis) and possibly on the bootstrap issue. If it gets to SCOTUS it hits the Alito and Thomas of it all and a bunch of Republican hacks who don't give a fuck about precedent, or evidential or record, or law and work backwards from the result. Sure they might worry for 5 minutes about setting a precedent which means they cannot lock everyone up - thon feckers actually decided that even if you were found guilty of something which wasn't actually a crime, if you didn't appeal quickly enough then tough shit - but they'll just tee up another case to explain how the Trump case isn't actually a precedent.

Georgia RICO: never likely to be heard before the election due to a cast of thousands but currently on a bit of a go slow.

Jack Smith's Florida documents: being fucked by Trump appointed Judge Cannon who is avoiding making any final decisions so that it goes slow and to prevent the prosecution from appealing and getting her taken off the case.

Jack Smith's Jan 6 case: the republicans on SCOTUS currently trying to find a way of saying that Republican presidents have complete immunity but Democrats can't decide even to revoke student debt.

Eugene, what’s your money on the expected SCotUS verdict due soon? Are you expecting a fudge that just kicks the can down the road until the election is over or something that actually defines the limits of presidential immunity?

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 5:24 pm Eugene, what’s your money on the expected SCotUS verdict due soon? Are you expecting a fudge that just kicks the can down the road until the election is over or something that actually defines the limits of presidential immunity?

The smart money at the moment on the immunity argument is delay. I think they'll make a rule that some official adverts of the president attract immunity but which is yet to be determined. They'll send it back to the trial court to make those determinations so that they can then say they're completely wrong and that strangely everything Trump did was immune but nothing else.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Mon Jun 03, 2024 8:47 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 5:24 pm Eugene, what’s your money on the expected SCotUS verdict due soon? Are you expecting a fudge that just kicks the can down the road until the election is over or something that actually defines the limits of presidential immunity?

The smart money at the moment on the immunity argument is delay. I think they'll make a rule that some official adverts of the president attract immunity but which is yet to be determined. They'll send it back to the trial court to make those determinations so that they can then say they're completely wrong and that strangely everything Trump did was immune but nothing else.

And by the time the lower court works that out it will be election time anyway so a moot point in many ways. And the Republicans dare to blame the Dems for lawfare! The abuse of the Supreme Court is a disgrace

Hunter Biden is guilty.

Not a great look for his dad. In any sane world, the comparison between the ethics of Joe Biden and Trump would be clear cut and not a debate. Sadly I do think Hunters conviction will hurt the Democrats later this year.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:26 pm Hunter Biden is guilty.

Not a great look for his dad. In any sane world, the comparison between the ethics of Joe Biden and Trump would be clear cut and not a debate. Sadly I do think Hunters conviction will hurt the Democrats later this year.

It is bizarre cognitive dissonance on the part of the Republicans. Trump found guilty means that Biden is controlling and weaponising the courts, except in this case apparently, where Hunter committed terrible crimes against {checks notes} gun control laws, which of course are obscene and unconstitutional restrictions on liberty, except in this case.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 6:46 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:26 pm Hunter Biden is guilty.

Not a great look for his dad. In any sane world, the comparison between the ethics of Joe Biden and Trump would be clear cut and not a debate. Sadly I do think Hunters conviction will hurt the Democrats later this year.

It is bizarre cognitive dissonance on the part of the Republicans. Trump found guilty means that Biden is controlling and weaponising the courts, except in this case apparently, where Hunter committed terrible crimes against {checks notes} gun control laws, which of course are obscene and unconstitutional restrictions on liberty, except in this case.

Puja

I just saw the incredible take that he is the sacrificial lamb from the Dems in order to balance out their fraudulent case against Trump and make it look more legitimate. Awesome stuff. Thank the lord for Twitter.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 7:18 am

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 6:46 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:26 pm Hunter Biden is guilty.

Not a great look for his dad. In any sane world, the comparison between the ethics of Joe Biden and Trump would be clear cut and not a debate. Sadly I do think Hunters conviction will hurt the Democrats later this year.

It is bizarre cognitive dissonance on the part of the Republicans. Trump found guilty means that Biden is controlling and weaponising the courts, except in this case apparently, where Hunter committed terrible crimes against {checks notes} gun control laws, which of course are obscene and unconstitutional restrictions on liberty, except in this case.

Puja

I just saw the incredible take that he is the sacrificial lamb from the Dems in order to balance out their fraudulent case against Trump and make it look more legitimate. Awesome stuff. Thank the lord for Twitter.

It does make it more difficult for Trump to argue that the judicial system is rigged against him when the President's only son (noting the tragic loss of 2 other children plus his first wife) has been convicted for a crime which (as Puja suggests) many Republicans feel shouldnt be a crime at all.

Almost biblical in nature. And very hard for Trump to make hay with without making himself looking the chimp. Not that his team seem to have that level of sophisticated thought or his core supporters will care regardless, but it might help sway undecided voters.

Good job Supreme Court. Argue for a technicality to increase civilian access to gun mods that hand the advantage to people that want to kill other people. I mean, fuck me.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6pp5xl13wlo

morepork wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2024 4:59 pm Good job Supreme Court. Argue for a technicality to increase civilian access to gun mods that hand the advantage to people that want to kill other people. I mean, fuck me.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6pp5xl13wlo

Freedom!!!! USA!!!!

There is just no sound logic to this. A fat depressed middle aged Joe Average managed to kill 51 people in Vegas with one of these on a whimsical jolly recently. If he didn’t have access to it, shit would not have gone down so badly. There’s your data driven argument against it and there are hundreds more.

Just give up. Just become like me and wish someone would accidentally set off a world-ending nuke. It offers a surprising amount of peace of mind.

Micro dose of LSD in the water supply will chill everyone out. None of that unregulated foreign shit. Just pure measured doses of Gods beautiful drug made in the USandA under the watchful eye of the FDA, the only regulatory authority that gives a shit about safety.

Nukes. Come on Brown.

One person can buy policy. What essential legislation could an individual with 50 Mill in disposable income possibly need to get by?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce448zzwp2go

Clarence needs to just fuck off. Blatant common sense is all this is.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy77g704ldzo

morepork wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2024 1:35 am Clarence needs to just fuck off. Blatant common sense is all this is.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy77g704ldzo

Wow. A rare glimpse of sanity from even the right wing judges. I guess their instinct for allowing gun ownership clashed with their instinct for punishing dangerous criminals and this is the result.

This is grim, from the BBC article:

In 2022, the US Supreme Court significantly expanded gun rights when it decided the Second Amendment protects a broad right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defence.
It also created a new test for gun laws, specifying they must be rooted in "historical tradition".

So they can look back to any point in the history of their peace-loving nation to draw on 'historical tradition' to justify gun ownership rights. No matter how harmful. Glad I don't live there.

With Clarence Thomas, you should also be asking who bought his dissenting vote.

Have we already done the anti-bribery thing in here? It’s hard to keep track. With everything in UK politics at the moment it’s so funny to see the US continue to be so loudly and proudly pro-corruption.

The fate of the Western world could very well turn on the debate tonight. If Biden gaffes and acts like a tired old man, it will cement the story the Republicans are selling and he'll lose the election on the grounds of being too old. On the other hand, a strong performance like his State of the Union will put the lie to the narrative of him being a senile old codger and focus the attention on Trump's increasingly incapacity to string a coherent sentence together.

Two bald men fighting over a comb, but I hope the one that's not a literal fascist wins.

Puja

It doesn’t sound as if it went particularly well. What a horribly predictable turn of events.

Watching CNN and its pretty much unanimous they want biden replaced

Puja wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:46 pm The fate of the Western world could very well turn on the debate tonight. If Biden gaffes and acts like a tired old man, it will cement the story the Republicans are selling and he'll lose the election on the grounds of being too old. On the other hand, a strong performance like his State of the Union will put the lie to the narrative of him being a senile old codger and focus the attention on Trump's increasingly incapacity to string a coherent sentence together.

Two bald men fighting over a comb, but I hope the one that's not a literal fascist wins.

Puja

Yep. And the least problematic candidate lost.

I think trumps chances of winning have gone from possible to probable. Biden needs a miracle, albeit there’s still time before the election.

There has to be an honest conversation with Biden now where his own party make it clear he’s not up to it. Whilst unprecedented to replace a candidate at this point one can only hope that someone displays
Some moral backbone. If Trump wins in November it will be because the democrats lost, they need a better candidate.

Yup, we're all fucked. Shame on Biden for his ego and shame on the Democratic party for none of them having the minerals to stand up to him. Pick any white, middle-aged, straight, cis, Christian male, stick a blue ribbon on them, and they would be annihilating Trump at this juncture, but they're insisting on trying to push an 81 year old man, who is clearly in decline, on the most virility-obsessed electorate in the world.

Puja

I haven't seen any of the debate but it doesn't sound like it went well. No way is Biden going to stand down though, unless he's forced to by illness or something. He should have set up a successor in an orderly way over the last couple of years. He stuck around in politics long enough to get the big prize but like so many others he was too vain to do the right thing.

I'm sure it's not game over but you'd think a challenger with a criminal record would be easy to take down. Fingers crossed he really was suffering from a cold and will be a lot better next time.

This is bad for us, but my god, what must the Ukrainians be feeling??