2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[jhu72]

. A man who had attended the riot had brass knuckles on him when he was arrested; several others had guns and ammunition, many without licenses. One young man was charged with assaulting an officer with a “hockey or lacrosse stick.” Those who were arraigned on Thursday afternoon all pleaded not guilty.

... in one of the news videos I saw a guy carrying what looked like a lacrosse stick. His image was only on the screen for a second so I could not be sure.

[ggait]

A third reason is that it may make it more likely that the feds would indict him. I think any self-respecting prosecutor would not want to allow an assertion of self pardon to stand, but would indict T**** to get it tested in the court.

This.

While there's no court precedent on this topic, existing DOJ OLC memoranda (from Nixon's 1974 resignation and pardon by Ford) conclude a self-pardon does not work. A self-pardon begs a challenge from the Biden DOJ. But the only way to challenge a self-pardon would be to actually prosecute Trump. Since courts only decide actual controversies.

If you think Biden/Garland would otherwise leave Trump's prosecution to NYS/NYC, you don't want to poke the bear.

[MDlaxfan76]

. A man who had attended the riot had brass knuckles on him when he was arrested; several others had guns and ammunition, many without licenses. One young man was charged with assaulting an officer with a “hockey or lacrosse stick.” Those who were arraigned on Thursday afternoon all pleaded not guilty.

... in one of the news videos I saw a guy carrying what looked like a lacrosse stick. His image was only on the screen for a second so I could not be sure.

well, as Petey never played the game and doesn't have any kids who play, guessing it wasn't him...anyone else on here want to cop to it?

[Typical Lax Dad]

. A man who had attended the riot had brass knuckles on him when he was arrested; several others had guns and ammunition, many without licenses. One young man was charged with assaulting an officer with a “hockey or lacrosse stick.” Those who were arraigned on Thursday afternoon all pleaded not guilty.

... in one of the news videos I saw a guy carrying what looked like a lacrosse stick. His image was only on the screen for a second so I could not be sure.

I wonder what his grievances are..... someone substituted his Maryland Crab with Asian in his crab cakes!

[youthathletics]

. A man who had attended the riot had brass knuckles on him when he was arrested; several others had guns and ammunition, many without licenses. One young man was charged with assaulting an officer with a “hockey or lacrosse stick.” Those who were arraigned on Thursday afternoon all pleaded not guilty.

... in one of the news videos I saw a guy carrying what looked like a lacrosse stick. His image was only on the screen for a second so I could not be sure.

I wonder what his grievances are..... someone substituted his Maryland Crab with Asian in his crab cakes!

Probably that Tillman takes too many transfers.

[njbill]

If you think Biden/Garland would otherwise leave Trump's prosecution to NYS/NYC, you don't want to poke the bear.

I agree with his thinking.

While I do think T**** should be prosecuted for the obstruction of justice that Mueller found and any tax fraud matters the IRS is working on, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden/Garland had intended to leave T**** to the states.

But the stunt T**** pulled last week may change the equation. I suspect it is more likely, though by no means certain, that they will indict T****.

I think they simply have to. You cannot allow a sitting President to try to overturn an election by violently taking over Congress without there being legal repercussions.

Yes, federal prosecutors generally don’t like to bring cases unless they are virtually assured of victory, but this is different. Even if T**** were to be acquitted through jury nullification or otherwise, a marker needs to be laid down that if you pull a stunt like this, you will be prosecuted. That’s how it looks from my couch anyway.

[MDlaxfan76]

. A man who had attended the riot had brass knuckles on him when he was arrested; several others had guns and ammunition, many without licenses. One young man was charged with assaulting an officer with a “hockey or lacrosse stick.” Those who were arraigned on Thursday afternoon all pleaded not guilty.

... in one of the news videos I saw a guy carrying what looked like a lacrosse stick. His image was only on the screen for a second so I could not be sure.

I wonder what his grievances are..... someone substituted his Maryland Crab with Asian in his crab cakes!

Probably that Tillman takes too many transfers.

If MD related, I was thinking more of a particular poster who trolls UVA than those who beef about Tillman, but funny!

I insist on MD sourced crab...support your local fishermen! (and it's better crab).

[Typical Lax Dad]

. A man who had attended the riot had brass knuckles on him when he was arrested; several others had guns and ammunition, many without licenses. One young man was charged with assaulting an officer with a “hockey or lacrosse stick.” Those who were arraigned on Thursday afternoon all pleaded not guilty.

... in one of the news videos I saw a guy carrying what looked like a lacrosse stick. His image was only on the screen for a second so I could not be sure.

I wonder what his grievances are..... someone substituted his Maryland Crab with Asian in his crab cakes!

Probably that Tillman takes too many transfers.

He can’t reclassify another year!

[MDlaxfan76]

If you think Biden/Garland would otherwise leave Trump's prosecution to NYS/NYC, you don't want to poke the bear.

I agree with his thinking.

While I do think T**** should be prosecuted for the obstruction of justice that Mueller found and any tax fraud matters the IRS is working on, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden/Garland had intended to leave T**** to the states.

But the stunt T**** pulled last week may change the equation. I suspect it is more likely, though by no means certain, that they will indict T****.

I think they simply have to. You cannot allow a sitting President to try to overturn an election by violently taking over Congress without there being legal repercussions.

Yes, federal prosecutors generally don’t like to bring cases unless they are virtually assured of victory, but this is different. Even if T**** were to be acquitted through jury nullification or otherwise, a marker needs to be laid down that if you pull a stunt like this, you will be prosecuted. That’s how it looks from my couch anyway.

I do think you go all guns blazing if he tries to self pardon, but I think you stick to the indictments you will win on the evidence and precedents.

I think the incitement charge is much harder to prove legally than with common sense, so I dunno if you risk the loss there, especially if the Impeachment covers that one. I'd also stick to the crimes (re Trump as POTUS) that had nothing to with political maneuvering and shenanigans, even this most egregious one (unless you find more tape or testimony that he actually wanted the violence, wanted the Congress and Pence to be 'citizen arrested or worse); I also think it's a slam dunk on the call to Georgia Sec of State, but I think maybe you avoid that too (unless he self-pardons)...Giuliani and "trial by combat" and Lyn Wood and the Kraken...another matter.

So nail him on any tax and bank fraud, penalize his businesses (he can't pardon those), etc.

That last comment about pardoning the businesses...I'm correct, right, legal folks? I haven't heard about that...

[old salt]

... in one of the news videos I saw a guy carrying what looked like a lacrosse stick.

It was Dr Pepper's kid from Fanville. TLD once showered with his dad,

[jhu72]

If you think Biden/Garland would otherwise leave Trump's prosecution to NYS/NYC, you don't want to poke the bear.

I agree with his thinking.

While I do think T**** should be prosecuted for the obstruction of justice that Mueller found and any tax fraud matters the IRS is working on, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden/Garland had intended to leave T**** to the states.

But the stunt T**** pulled last week may change the equation. I suspect it is more likely, though by no means certain, that they will indict T****.

I think they simply have to. You cannot allow a sitting President to try to overturn an election by violently taking over Congress without there being legal repercussions.

Yes, federal prosecutors generally don’t like to bring cases unless they are virtually assured of victory, but this is different. Even if T**** were to be acquitted through jury nullification or otherwise, a marker needs to be laid down that if you pull a stunt like this, you will be prosecuted. That’s how it looks from my couch anyway.

I was willing to leave Trump to the states, financial crimes. After last week, I want him prosecuted by the feds. I don't believe SCOTUS will allow self pardon to stand. If they allow it to stand the sooner we know about it the better. That has to be closed by legislation then.

[Matnum PI]

New York State Bar Association opens inquiry into removing Rudy Giuliani from its membership

[njbill]

If you think Biden/Garland would otherwise leave Trump's prosecution to NYS/NYC, you don't want to poke the bear.

I agree with his thinking.

While I do think T**** should be prosecuted for the obstruction of justice that Mueller found and any tax fraud matters the IRS is working on, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden/Garland had intended to leave T**** to the states.

But the stunt T**** pulled last week may change the equation. I suspect it is more likely, though by no means certain, that they will indict T****.

I think they simply have to. You cannot allow a sitting President to try to overturn an election by violently taking over Congress without there being legal repercussions.

Yes, federal prosecutors generally don’t like to bring cases unless they are virtually assured of victory, but this is different. Even if T**** were to be acquitted through jury nullification or otherwise, a marker needs to be laid down that if you pull a stunt like this, you will be prosecuted. That’s how it looks from my couch anyway.

I do think you go all guns blazing if he tries to self pardon, but I think you stick to the indictments you will win on the evidence and precedents.

I think the incitement charge is much harder to prove legally than with common sense, so I dunno if you risk the loss there, especially if the Impeachment covers that one. I'd also stick to the crimes (re Trump as POTUS) that had nothing to with political maneuvering and shenanigans, even this most egregious one (unless you find more tape or testimony that he actually wanted the violence, wanted the Congress and Pence to be 'citizen arrested or worse); I also think it's a slam dunk on the call to Georgia Sec of State, but I think maybe you avoid that too (unless he self-pardons)...Giuliani and "trial by combat" and Lyn Wood and the Kraken...another matter.

So nail him on any tax and bank fraud, penalize his businesses (he can't pardon those), etc.

That last comment about pardoning the businesses...I'm correct, right, legal folks? I haven't heard about that...

Almost any case against a high profile defendant has risks. I don’t think you don’t bring a case just because you aren’t sure you will win. Unfortunately, however, that is how a lot of federal prosecutors act.

Mueller, a Republican appointed by a Republican, found that T**** engaged in obstruction of justice. That seems so long ago now, but that still was a very serious offense. Arguably, more serious than the Georgia election interference.

T****, like a mafioso, tried to carefully couch his words to avoid legal liability. When a mafia boss does it, however, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be prosecuted simply because there are arguably multiple meanings to what he said.

As I said in another post, the incitement case will come down to jury selection. The fact that you may end up with a hold out who votes in favor of T**** regardless of the evidence is, to my mind, an insufficient reason not to prosecute him.

I don’t think you necessarily have to prove that T**** intended the rioters to be violent. To me, it is enough that he intended that they go to Congress, interfere with the job they were performing, and get them to vote to throw out sufficient number of electoral votes to deny Biden 270 votes. How are they going to do that other than through harassment, intimidation, or maybe even force? Even if they were to somehow do that peacefully, that still is illegal (insurrection to overthrow the validly elected president).

Sure, no one would want to see the prosecutor lose the case, but the message to some future president down the road would be that if I do this, I will be prosecuted. Maybe I won’t be so lucky as T**** to be acquitted. Maybe I will be convicted. Hopefully, that would give some future despot some pause.

Once you start the revolution ball rolling, you are responsible for the consequences. T**** doesn’t have to have specifically urged the crowd to kill the particular CP officer who died in order to be responsible for his death. Now, while I believe that to be the case, I wouldn’t suggest to prosecutors that they indict T**** for murder. For a lot of reasons, that would be bad strategy.

[jhu72]

New York State Bar Association opens inquiry into removing Rudy Giuliani from its membership

I think this is a lock. What its relevance is not clear.

[Matnum PI]

I think this is a lock. What its relevance is not clear.

I think one implication is to show the country (and the world) that what he did was criminal. For decades, Trump has behaved like laws don't pertain to him. For the past four years, he did this most publicly. And, with both instances, people walk away thinking, Laws don't matter. Lying doesn't matter. Lawyers lying doesn't matter. And Giuliani being disbarred will communicate that laws do matter, lying does matter. the new message to America needs to be that Justice is slow but justice is just. And, also, of course, to prevent the guy from practicing law any more.

[Matnum PI]

DC Attorney General investigates whether he can charge Trump with inciting violence for urging MAGA mob to march towards Capitol prior to siege

He is weighing whether he can bring charges against Trump and others, including his son Don Jr. and lawyer Rudy Giuliani
He noted that the Justice Department has already said they can't bring charges against a president
Racine is looking at whether that still applies once Trump is out of office
Racine described the comments made by Trump, his son and Giuliani during the rally that directly preceded the Capitol riot as 'outrageous'

[Typical Lax Dad]

DC Attorney General investigates whether he can charge Trump with inciting violence for urging MAGA mob to march towards Capitol prior to siege

He is weighing whether he can bring charges against Trump and others, including his son Don Jr. and lawyer Rudy Giuliani
He noted that the Justice Department has already said they can't bring charges against a president
Racine is looking at whether that still applies once Trump is out of office
Racine described the comments made by Trump, his son and Giuliani during the rally that directly preceded the Capitol riot as 'outrageous'

Trial by combat!!

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://m.timesofindia.com/world/us/bea ... 156241.cms

[SCLaxAttack]

Question for our resident legal eagles:

News reports both Cipollone and Barr (before resigning) have both advised Trump to not self-pardon. What are the potential legal implications that would cause that advice?

Thanks for everyone’s response to this. Many responses made a lot of legal and logical (sometimes different) sense.

The good news is we all know Trump takes advice from no one, and if he’s angry enough at either Cipollone or Barr he maybe just self-pardon to spite them.

Based on responses here I’m hopeful he tries it so that every governmental entity goes at him as hard as they can.

[MDlaxfan76]

If you think Biden/Garland would otherwise leave Trump's prosecution to NYS/NYC, you don't want to poke the bear.

I agree with his thinking.

While I do think T**** should be prosecuted for the obstruction of justice that Mueller found and any tax fraud matters the IRS is working on, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden/Garland had intended to leave T**** to the states.

But the stunt T**** pulled last week may change the equation. I suspect it is more likely, though by no means certain, that they will indict T****.

I think they simply have to. You cannot allow a sitting President to try to overturn an election by violently taking over Congress without there being legal repercussions.

Yes, federal prosecutors generally don’t like to bring cases unless they are virtually assured of victory, but this is different. Even if T**** were to be acquitted through jury nullification or otherwise, a marker needs to be laid down that if you pull a stunt like this, you will be prosecuted. That’s how it looks from my couch anyway.

I do think you go all guns blazing if he tries to self pardon, but I think you stick to the indictments you will win on the evidence and precedents.

I think the incitement charge is much harder to prove legally than with common sense, so I dunno if you risk the loss there, especially if the Impeachment covers that one. I'd also stick to the crimes (re Trump as POTUS) that had nothing to with political maneuvering and shenanigans, even this most egregious one (unless you find more tape or testimony that he actually wanted the violence, wanted the Congress and Pence to be 'citizen arrested or worse); I also think it's a slam dunk on the call to Georgia Sec of State, but I think maybe you avoid that too (unless he self-pardons)...Giuliani and "trial by combat" and Lyn Wood and the Kraken...another matter.

So nail him on any tax and bank fraud, penalize his businesses (he can't pardon those), etc.

That last comment about pardoning the businesses...I'm correct, right, legal folks? I haven't heard about that...

Almost any case against a high profile defendant has risks. I don’t think you don’t bring a case just because you aren’t sure you will win. Unfortunately, however, that is how a lot of federal prosecutors act.

Mueller, a Republican appointed by a Republican, found that T**** engaged in obstruction of justice. That seems so long ago now, but that still was a very serious offense. Arguably, more serious than the Georgia election interference.

T****, like a mafioso, tried to carefully couch his words to avoid legal liability. When a mafia boss does it, however, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be prosecuted simply because there are arguably multiple meanings to what he said.

As I said in another post, the incitement case will come down to jury selection. The fact that you may end up with a hold out who votes in favor of T**** regardless of the evidence is, to my mind, an insufficient reason not to prosecute him.

I don’t think you necessarily have to prove that T**** intended the rioters to be violent. To me, it is enough that he intended that they go to Congress, interfere with the job they were performing, and get them to vote to throw out sufficient number of electoral votes to deny Biden 270 votes. How are they going to do that other than through harassment, intimidation, or maybe even force? Even if they were to somehow do that peacefully, that still is illegal (insurrection to overthrow the validly elected president).

Sure, no one would want to see the prosecutor lose the case, but the message to some future president down the road would be that if I do this, I will be prosecuted. Maybe I won’t be so lucky as T**** to be acquitted. Maybe I will be convicted. Hopefully, that would give some future despot some pause.

Once you start the revolution ball rolling, you are responsible for the consequences. T**** doesn’t have to have specifically urged the crowd to kill the particular CP officer who died in order to be responsible for his death. Now, while I believe that to be the case, I wouldn’t suggest to prosecutors that they indict T**** for murder. For a lot of reasons, that would be bad strategy.

I can't argue with any of the righteousness of your position.

And I certainly agree in the event that he tries to self-pardon, pardons his kids, Guiliani etc.

However, my issue isn't with 'losing' due to jury nullification, it's that the incitement to violence is a necessarily high bar. Maybe it shouldn't be so high, that's arguable, but if I'm not mistaken there's a fair amount of legal precedence that may make it difficult for the courts to go there.

Totally agree that the obstruction case is slam dunk and I also think that the call to Georgia was an incitement to fraud. Provable.

But my real issue has been that I'd like us to avoid "political" prosecutions from the DOJ if we can possibly help it. Very slippery slope.

Maybe this situation will have no other recourse, maybe this is SO egregious there's no other choice, but I am concerned about the unintended downstream consequences.

And I'd like to see Trump behind bars.