There are so many bad legal takes from both sides on Twitter, even from supposed attorneys, that it is astounding. Unfortunately, it is not surprising in the least.

Joseydog said:

---

There are so many bad legal takes from both sides on Twitter, even from supposed attorneys, that it is astounding. Unfortunately, it is not surprising in the least.

---

Who is the decider of what is or isn't a bad legal take?

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

he does make it easier than most for there to be something that will stick on the wall.

---

Try again! Nothing has stuck. Everything starts loud, then whimpers away.


(Only later to find out Biden did it(

---

Maybe, but the story isn't over yet, so time will tell. Regardless, it does keep things interesting.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

There are so many bad legal takes from both sides on Twitter, even from supposed attorneys, that it is astounding. Unfortunately, it is not surprising in the least.

---

Who is the decider of what is or isn't a bad legal take?

---

Not someone who thinks Trump should just file something directly with SCOTUS.

Charpie said:

---

Do you think there are more indictments to come?

---

100%

Any notion of any pretense that this is anything besides hyper-partisan went out the window with the first indictment. Gates are open. Flood to come.

the_batman26 said:

---

You gotta admit; it's pretty creepy to have this line of thinking.

---

It is, but from what I've read regarding the criminal justice system, this isn't really anything new. The only oddity is the person at the center of it all.

Joseydog said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

There are so many bad legal takes from both sides on Twitter, even from supposed attorneys, that it is astounding. Unfortunately, it is not surprising in the least.

---

Who is the decider of what is or isn't a bad legal take?

---

Not someone who thinks Trump should just file something directly with SCOTUS.

---

What is the downside of filing something directly with SCOTUS and the 11th circuit when the worst that could happen is that they say no?

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Charpie said:

---

Do you think there are more indictments to come?

---

100%

Any notion of any pretense that this is anything besides hyper-partisan went out the window with the first indictment. Gates are open. Flood to come.

---

According to reports and speculation due to empaneled grand juries, the DOJ is looking at J6 and possibly further charges related to documents at Bedminster.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

There are so many bad legal takes from both sides on Twitter, even from supposed attorneys, that it is astounding. Unfortunately, it is not surprising in the least.

---

Who is the decider of what is or isn't a bad legal take?

---

Not someone who thinks Trump should just file something directly with SCOTUS.

---

What is the downside of filing something directly with SCOTUS and the 11th circuit when the worst that could happen is that they say no?

---

In Federal Courts, if a pleading or motion is deemed frivolous you can be hit with sanctions and attorney fees. So "no" is not the worst than could happen.

Quote:

---

What is the downside of filing something directly with SCOTUS and the 11th circuit when the worst that could happen is that they say no?

---

Sanctions that can hurt not only the lawyers but their clients.

Why does the suggestion of Trump seeking immediate relief in the appellate courts scare people?

Folks seem terrified of the suggestion.

Someone go get themselves a nice soy latte and sexplain that to all us layperson non-legal scholars.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Why does the suggestion of Trump seeking immediate relief in the appellate courts scare people?

Folks seem terrified of the suggestion.

Someone go get themselves a nice soy latte and sexplain that to all us layperson non-legal scholars.

---

Nobody is scared. It is just...

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What is the downside of filing something directly with SCOTUS and the 11th circuit when the worst that could happen is that they say no?

---

Sanctions that can hurt not only the lawyers but their clients.

---

Would the DOJ and the judiciary collaborate to seek and enforce sanctions against a federal criminal defendant seeking interlocutory relief from the appellate courts in an unprecedented case that already has a half-dozen known constitutional issues?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Why does the suggestion of Trump seeking immediate relief in the appellate courts scare people?

Folks seem terrified of the suggestion.

Someone go get themselves a nice soy latte and sexplain that to all us layperson non-legal scholars.

---

They hide these answers in books. Very difficult for you.

Google "interlocutory appeal" and get back to us.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What is the downside of filing something directly with SCOTUS and the 11th circuit when the worst that could happen is that they say no?

---

Sanctions that can hurt not only the lawyers but their clients.

---

Would the DOJ and the judiciary collaborate to seek and enforce sanctions against a federal criminal defendant seeking interlocutory relief from the appellate courts in an unprecedented case that already has a half-dozen known constitutional issues?

---

You need a ruling and usually permission to file for interlocutory relief after a motion for rehearing, first.

Federal rules are more precise and unforgiving.

Joseydog said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Why does the suggestion of Trump seeking immediate relief in the appellate courts scare people?

Folks seem terrified of the suggestion.

Someone go get themselves a nice soy latte and sexplain that to all us layperson non-legal scholars.

---

---

Running list of constitutional issues in US v. Trump:

1st
4th
5th
6th
14th (substantive and procedural);

and;

Article 1 Section 9

So I'd respond that that's not how any of this works either. But nobody want's to talk about that because their TDS is turtle heading.

Joseydog said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

Charpie said:

---

Do you think there are more indictments to come?

---

100%

Any notion of any pretense that this is anything besides hyper-partisan went out the window with the first indictment. Gates are open. Flood to come.

---

According to reports and speculation due to empaneled grand juries, the DOJ is looking at J6 and possibly further charges related to documents at Bedminster.

---

doesn't really matter what the basis might be. The point here is that this is no longer about "justice being done" but "trump being gotten."

It's like I've said about this all along: they got so caught up in whether they could that they never stopped to ask whether they should.

But they've created a new normal. Biden will be indicted. His successor is guaranteed to be indicted and so on.

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

What is the downside of filing something directly with SCOTUS and the 11th circuit when the worst that could happen is that they say no?

---

Sanctions that can hurt not only the lawyers but their clients.

---

Would the DOJ and the judiciary collaborate to seek and enforce sanctions against a federal criminal defendant seeking interlocutory relief from the appellate courts in an unprecedented case that already has a half-dozen known constitutional issues?

---

You need a ruling and usually permission to file for interlocutory relief after a motion for rehearing, first.

Federal rules are more precise and unforgiving.

---

If I'm Trump I'm looking at a motion to stay and for interlocutory relief filed in all three courts concurrently.

What's the worst that could happen?

They gonna put him in jail a little sooner rather than later?

Levy a larger fine sooner rather than later?

Let all three courts deny Tump's attempt at judicial relief.

Put the ball in their court. Put the onus on them to settle this unprecedented constitutional issue.

Joseydog said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Why does the suggestion of Trump seeking immediate relief in the appellate courts scare people?

Folks seem terrified of the suggestion.

Someone go get themselves a nice soy latte and sexplain that to all us layperson non-legal scholars.

---

---

Running list of constitutional issues in US v. Trump:

1st
4th
5th
6th
14th (substantive and procedural);

and;

Article 1 Section 9

So I'd respond that that's not how any of this works either. But nobody want's to talk about that because their TDS is turtle heading.

---

It is not being a turtle. I just don't have the time or the patience to explain federal procedure to you.

---

Are the federal rules being used to deny Trump's substantive rights?

It funny and a little cute the discussion on federal rules and procedures and standings and such.

None of that is relevant. We are in brand new unchartered territory.

Show me the federal code / procedure for indicting your political opponents for made up procedural crimes.

Can you cite the codes and show me the cases where all this has been decided? Go on well experienced, well-learned legal beagles, show us oh wise and valiant ones where our laws allow for the sitting POTUS to use the DOJ to prosecute a declared candidate running for election against them?

For people cheering this on or even for the folks not defending Trump... is this the United States of America you envisioned for yourself, your children? When you learned about the birth of this Country and the ideals of the Founding Fathers, was there a section on "if hereby in the year of our Lord 2016, there happeneth to be a man with Orange Hair and Skin Color be so elected to this nation's highest office, it shall then be considered that discussions with other foreign leaders about corruption shall be grounds for impeachment. Be it so further decided that should Orange Man ever again seek high office, the Executive Branch shall have exclusive authority to jail, imprison and silence such great mean Orange Man. Let it be so."

Maybe I was sick that day in school. I just don't recall it being covered.

All the other procedural this, standing that, this court, that court is all nonsense. Not one person on this planet has prior experience with the current set of facts, at least not in this Country.

Pretend to school others all you want. At least I can admit no prior experience here, because I live in the real world and the real world there is no precedent for what is being done to Donald John Trump. Period.

Joseydog said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Joseydog said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Why does the suggestion of Trump seeking immediate relief in the appellate courts scare people?

Folks seem terrified of the suggestion.

Someone go get themselves a nice soy latte and sexplain that to all us layperson non-legal scholars.

---

---

Running list of constitutional issues in US v. Trump:

1st
4th
5th
6th
14th (substantive and procedural);

and;

Article 1 Section 9

So I'd respond that that's not how any of this works either. But nobody want's to talk about that because their TDS is turtle heading.

---

It is not being a turtle. I just don't have the time or the patience to explain federal procedure to you.

---

My snooty arrogant lawyer reader is now permanently broken when if slammed into the maximum peg reading this.

Who here is opposed to Trump seeking extraordinary judicial relief in this unprecedented case on the basis that procedural rules may be violated?

and;

Who here thinks that the application of procedural rules outweighs a criminal defendant's fundamental constitutional rights?

These types of questions may be upsetting to some people. TDS may be triggered by some of the questions that I have asked. If that applies to you, liberal application of ignore feature may be best thing for you.

I get it that this really is a unique case that could only happen with a handful of people and a first in American history, but there's a process in place for all of this. Making extraordinary filings like you suggest puts the attorneys' reputations in peril.

you need to post here more

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

doesn't really matter what the basis might be. The point here is that this is no longer about "justice being done" but "trump being gotten."

It's like I've said about this all along: they got so caught up in whether they could that they never stopped to ask whether they should.

But they've created a new normal. Biden will be indicted. His successor is guaranteed to be indicted and so on.

---

I think more and more people will begin to understand this... hopefully.

This should not be the new normal. If so, its time to dissolve such government or allow for separation of the states.

If Rs in the House were smart, they would be drafting new laws and constitutional amendments and put it to the country to vote (in person, with ID).

Quote:

---

But they've created a new normal. Biden will be indicted. His successor is guaranteed to be indicted and so on.

---

Exactly.

But that overarching concept goes over on here like a fart in church.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I get it that this really is a unique case that could only happen with a handful of people and a first in American history, but there's a process in place for all of this. Making extraordinary filings like you suggest puts the attorneys' reputations in peril.

---

What is the process again for sitting POTUS to have the DOJ indict the opposition candidate?

I have admittedly not read the entire US Code, but I have not seen the "Use DOK to Silence, Jail opposition Candidates Act".

I know where you are coming from, but this isn't just exceptional, its extraordinarily exceptional.

However, I think it does not belong at SCOTUS to start. It belongs in Congress.

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

I get it that this really is a unique case that could only happen with a handful of people and a first in American history, but there's a process in place for all of this. Making extraordinary filings like you suggest puts the attorneys' reputations in peril.

---

I get that.

But I'd also argue that there's been a number of cases during the course of American history that put the attorneys reputations in peril.

But they did it anyway; and we still here.

233 years later.

I think it goes with the territory.

Quote:

---

Who here thinks that the application of procedural rules outweighs a criminal defendant's fundamental constitutional rights?

---

Raises hand.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure didn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere and without massive considerantion of both constitutional substantive and procedural due process. They were drafted and later interpreted with the protections of due process foremost in mind.

Other than the right to a speedy trial, due process does not have temporal or time element. The saying justice delayed is justice denied but that's dicta, not precedent.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Who here thinks that the application of procedural rules outweighs a criminal defendant's fundamental constitutional rights?

---

Raises hand.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure didn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere and without massive considerantion of both constitutional substantive and procedural due process. They were drafted and later interpreted with the protections of due process foremost in mind.

Other than the right to a speedy trial, due process does not have temporal or time element. The saying justice delayed is justice denied but that's dicta, not precedent.

---

Do the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure cover sitting POTUS using DOJ to silence and imprison their other candidates during re-election campaign? Amazing if so.

Quote:

---

Do the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure cover sitting POTUS using DOJ to silence and imprison their other candidates during re-election campaign? Amazing if so.

---

That's the funny thing about fair trials, only defendants are entitled to a fair trial. The state is not and never has been. But when prosecutors go rogue, it is up to the courts to police them, if the DOJ won't self police their own.

What we have at the moment is a failure in both the Executive and Judiciary Branches.

You can file anything you want, at any time, with the clerk of any court.

That doesn't mean the court has to look at it or do anything with it.

You file for extraordinary relief and it gets rejected by all three courts.

Then what?

All three courts deny Trump's appeal for extraordinary relief?

Where does that get you?

People don't like the idea because it would confirm what we already know.

I get it and not just trying to be a contrarian to those with experience studying and practicing the law.

But I agree we have a failure of the Executive and Judiciary, which leaves either Congress or the public to act.

Part of the actual incitement of emotions around Jan 6th was the perception, real or otherwise, that the courts and Congress for that matter refused to hear any challenges to the election. The 2020 election run-up and post-election represents a COMPLETE failure of the Judiciary, up to and including the Supreme Court.

They should all be ashamed and if they had any honor they would resign. All of them.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Who here thinks that the application of procedural rules outweighs a criminal defendant's fundamental constitutional rights?

---

Raises hand.

The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure didn't just suddenly appear out of nowhere and without massive considerantion of both constitutional substantive and procedural due process. They were drafted and later interpreted with the protections of due process foremost in mind.

Other than the right to a speedy trial, due process does not have temporal or time element. The saying justice delayed is justice denied but that's dicta, not precedent.

---

I'm vaguely familiar with the concept hawg.

But on the other hand, I would argue that the donkey show that we are seeing play out is the opposite of what you just said.