Nougat @ Nougat @kbin.social

I am trying to focus on posting source documents, as opposed to someone els

---

Read more

Posts

22

Comments

1,917

Joined

2 yr. ago

Oh I am looking forward to a new era of anti-Popes.

I really have to wonder, though, exactly how firm that policy really is. Any crime? Say the sitting president shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, on carmera, in front of a huge number of witnesses. No charges until after impeachment and removal from office?

The standing DOJ policy is that presidents will not be criminally prosecuted while in office -- not that they are immune from criminal prosecution forever for any acts taken while holding office. Two wholly different things.

How can you ban ... celebrations?

No ... the full Colorado State Supreme Court made that ruling. 4 in the majority, 3 dissent. Next stop: SCOTUS

The Federal DC Circuit Court of Appeals - first your case goes to a three judge panel. That's who's going to hear oral argument the morning of Jan 9, 2024. If you don't like how that went, then you appeal and it goes before the full court, en banc. Now your next appeal goes to SCOTUS.

Maybe I'm being pedantic.

Anyway - the kind of appeal I was talking about was one where the verdict was guilty, and the punishment was "just a fine." The one you're referring to - that's not over, there are no consequences for that. That issue is never going to stop anywhere before a SCOTUS ruling.

Even with that bias, this particular article is pretty damned factual. The only hint of bias I saw was "Mr. Trump."

Compare to reporting from The Hill.

Not only does his inaction speak volumes, he also tweeted out about Pence "not having courage" and got on the phone to call Senators while the Capitol was being invaded to get them to halt the electoral vote count.

Read the Colorado ruling, it's worth it.

Last time this happened they said they don’t interfere in state election law.

Because I'm curious, what case was that? I'd really like to read it over and see how the concepts could apply to the Section Three ruling that came out of Colorado and will most certainly be appealed to SCOTUS.

With stolen guns.

Toddlers and monkeys don't own firearms.

Yes, that's when they begin to hear oral arguments. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals is notoriously slow with their rulings. They took a year to rule that Trump could be sued for damages related to Jan 6. Not that he was liable, mind you, but that he wasn't immune from civil suit.

How long it will take the court to rule is an unknown, but the pace at which they are moving the case forward to a hearing indicates they intend to move quickly on ruling as well.

Judge Chutkan issued the stay, which is essentially automatic and procedural. Once the appeals court rules on the case, the stay is lifted.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has already shown that it is going to move very quickly on this issue. If that had not been the case, SCOTUS may have decided to take it up. As it stands, SCOTUS wants to stay out of all this as much as possible; there is no ruling they can make on anything Trump that won't result in a huge public uproar, possibly leading to violence, possibly leading to violence against the justices themselves.

SCOTUS can't rule that presidents are immune from criminal prosecution for any actions they take while holding office. Not for love of democracy, not for self-preservation, not to protect any corruption status quo. They would need to rule against Trump, and that means violence.

I believe the stay remains in place pending all appeals.

The US "promoting democracy" elsewhere in the world: No, not like that!

That's fair. But it's also true that the actual Republican petitioners in the case (five of the seven) are very long time Republicans who have been notable in party politics in the state.

I truly hope you're right, but Trump has, to this point, seen zero real consequences for any of his clear and obvious infractions. The Colorado ruling gets closer, but staying the judgment until Jan 4 makes it fall short. If, one day, he does finally see consequences, I will be pleasantly surprised. I'm all done getting my hopes up, though.

I'm unfamiliar with her nutcasity, can you elucidate?

Oh, I agree, at least with your first point. The fact that "just a fine" exists as a conseqeunce for a Georgia RICO conviction gives the Judge (Scott McAfee) an option to not put Trump in prison.

We've already seen the ruling from the Colorado district court, which found that Jan 6 was an "insurrection," and that Trump "engaged" in it ... but that Section Three doesn't apply to Presidents ... ? The only explanation I can think of for that bizarre ruling is that the judge who made it, with full knowledge that it would be appealed no matter what the ruling was, chose not to take on the personal risk from Trump-supporting lunatics. A risk which we have seen that the Colorado Supreme Court did choose to submit themselves to.

That same personal risk would befall Judge McAfee if he were to sentence Trump to prison. From what I have seen of his courtroom, he may well choose to take that risk, but the "just a fine" escape is available.

I don't think the State would appeal the verdict sentence, if Trump was found guilty by the jury, and sentenced to a fine by the judge. Such an appeal would definitely be seen as either "beating a dead horse" or "election interference" (::spit::).

Let's talk about that for a moment.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-16/chapter-14/section-16-14-5/

Any person convicted of the offense of engaging in activity in violation of Code Section 16-14-4 shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by not less than five nor more than 20 years’ imprisonment or the fine specified in subsection (b) of this Code section, or both.

In lieu of any fine otherwise authorized by law, any person convicted of the offense of engaging in conduct in violation of Code Section 16-14-4 may be sentenced to pay a fine that does not exceed the greater of $25,000.00 or three times the amount of any pecuniary value gained by him or her from such violation.

The court shall hold a hearing to determine the amount of the fine authorized by subsection (b) of this Code section.

For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, the term “pecuniary value” means:

• Anything of value in the form of money, a negotiable instrument, a commercial interest, or anything else, the primary significance of which is economic advantage; or
• Any other property or service that has a value in excess of $100.00.

A conviction under Georgia RICO carries a mandatory punishment. That punishment is "5 to 20 years' prison" or a fine or both.

Or a fine. One might imagine that that "or," doing so much heavy lifting, exists for the purposes of eliciting plea deals. That may be true, but the fact remains that a Georgia RICO conviction can result in only a fine.

I think they probably meant "mutually inclusive."