Convicted felon Donald Trump on Trial (Found guilty on 34 felony counts. 54 criminal count still in the air). Supreme Court rules in Trump's favor sends immunity case back to the lower court. Aileen Cannon (R-Florida) dismisses classified docs case

[China]

3 minutes ago, tshile said:

you sure about that? I watched one in person. 

it’s certainly well within the rules

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_29

 

I mean I’m far from someone that should be saying what’s usual or not in court. But it’s clearly an option per the rules, and I’ve seen it in person myself 🤷‍♂️ 

I didn’t say it wasn’t within the rules.  And your quote says only with the court’s permission.  That’s a permission that isn’t granted very often.  Unheard of?  No.  Highly unusual?  Yes.

[tshile]

Btw - you might want to consider groups that would be likely to do this sort of thing that maybe are more on your side than this case. 
 

NAACP is a good example. ACLU makes a living doing this stuff too.

 

Again - I think you’d need to find someone that’s well experienced in appellate level litigation, that you trust to be objective, to tell you how often they see this happen. I’ve seen it once - and that means basically nothing 😂 

 

but it’s clearly within the rule 🤷‍♂️ 

 

(and one of the people is presenting in support of Jack Smith….)

1 minute ago, China said:

That’s a permission that isn’t granted very often.  Unheard of?  No.  Highly unusual?  Yes

Where are you getting that from?

[The Evil Genius]

Fwiw someone commenyed on that both parties are now getting 3rd parties to argue in court.

 

 

Edited June 5 by The Evil Genius

[tshile]

Just now, The Evil Genius said:

Fwiw someone commenyed on that both parties are now getting 3rd parties to argue in court.

The original article that was posted pointed this out. 
 

2 are arguing against Jack Smith, 1 for. 

[China]

Just now, tshile said:

Btw - you might want to consider groups that would be likely to do this sort of thing that maybe are more on your side than this case. 
 

NAACP is a good example. ACLU makes a living doing this stuff too.

 

Again - I think you’d need to find someone that’s well experienced in appellate level litigation, that you trust to be objective, to tell you how often they see this happen. I’ve seen it once - and that means basically nothing 😂 

 

but it’s clearly within the rule 🤷‍♂️ 

 

(and one of the people is presenting in support of Jack Smith….)

I agreed it was within the rules.  And I would be surprised if she wasn’t allowing arguments from both sides because that would surely give the impression of bias if she only allowed support from one side.   Even I don’t think she’s stupid enough to do that.

[Fergasun]

Amicus at the Federal District Court level?  I think it is unusual... we normally hear about them at the Appelate level.

[tshile]

19 minutes ago, China said:

I agreed it was within the rules.  And I would be surprised if she wasn’t allowing arguments from both sides because that would surely give the impression of bias if she only allowed support from one side.   Even I don’t think she’s stupid enough to do that.

Right that’s fine. I’m just wondering where you are getting the idea it’s unusual. 
 

I find it odd the original article didn’t even bother to cover the process except to claim it’s unusual (didn’t even use the name for it…)

 

This isn’t exactly a hill I want to die on. I know very little about it all. I just know the article seems to be written weird.

 

and then there’s the tweet @The Evil Geniusposted where you have this person claiming to have 32 years experience, that he’s never seen nor heard of this happening, and then finished up with this 

 

“ Often, they won't even accept an amicus brief. So, yeah, highly irregular.”

 

which I thought - that’s odd cause I’m pretty sure it’s pretty normal so to say “often” they aren’t accepted seems weird. 
 

And of course with 2 seconds of google searching I found the ABA’s write up on some proposed rule changes in 2022 where they said where they cite research published in 2004 (which is before an established uptick in amicus briefs):

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Filing-of-Amicus-Curiae-Briefs-in-State-Courts-of-Corbally-Bross/04ad0a40ec5ad8cb4baa242ee2dcb404f9234e42

where the summary is:

Quote

Amicus briefs were most often used in tort and criminal cases. Finally, the courts' willingness to acknowledge, cite, and solicit amicus briefs was explored as a possible indicator of their influence. Amici were acknowledged in at least a third of the cases, and arguments made in the briefs were discussed in 82 percent of the sample cases. 

 

so you got a guy on twitter seeming to try to pretend his expertise says this never happens and btw even briefs “often … not accepted” with no context as to whether that may be because of where practiced or the type of cases he did. Just an appeal as authority on the subject matter. 
 

a person writing and article that provides no context around the procedure - doesn’t even use its name. 
 

idk. I’m open minded that this is highly unusual but the information presented thus far isn’t very good to support the argument. 

[China]

5 minutes ago, tshile said:

Right that’s fine. I’m just wondering where you are getting the idea it’s unusual. 
 

I find it odd the original article didn’t even bother to cover the process except to claim it’s unusual (didn’t even use the name for it…)

 

This isn’t exactly a hill I want to die on. I know very little about it all. I just know the article seems to be written weird.

 

and then there’s the tweet @The Evil Geniusposted where you have this person claiming to have 32 years experience, that he’s never seen nor heard of this happening, and then finished up with this 

 

“ Often, they won't even accept an amicus brief. So, yeah, highly irregular.”

 

which I thought - that’s odd cause I’m pretty sure it’s pretty normal so to say “often” they aren’t accepted seems weird. 
 

And of course with 2 seconds of google searching I found the ABA’s write up on some proposed rule changes in 2022 where they said where they cite research published in 2004 (which is before an established uptick in amicus briefs):

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Filing-of-Amicus-Curiae-Briefs-in-State-Courts-of-Corbally-Bross/04ad0a40ec5ad8cb4baa242ee2dcb404f9234e42

where the summary is:

 

so you got a guy on twitter seeming to try to pretend his expertise says this never happens and btw even briefs “often … not accepted” with no context as to whether that may be because of where practiced or the type of cases he did. Just an appeal as authority on the subject matter. 
 

a person writing and article that provides no context around the procedure - doesn’t even use its name. 
 

idk. I’m open minded that this is highly unusual but the information presented thus far isn’t very good to support the argument. 

I’d certainly like to hear from someone with more legal expertise and experience than you or I or some random Twitter folk.

[tshile]

Just to be clear I have no interest in defending that judge - best to my knowledge she’s totally unqualified to even be a just much less handle this type of case. 
 

but sometimes you read something and it just doesn’t sound right or make sense - and that stuff doesn’t really sound right or make sense. Maybe the point is right and the author did a bad job. Maybe I’m pretending I’m smarter than I am. Maybe, as we see often, people post stuff on the internet that isn’t true (for a variety of reasons) including “journalists” (who seem to categorically suck these days) 

[tshile]

18 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Amicus at the Federal District Court level?  I think it is unusual... we normally hear about them at the Appelate level.

I venture to guess you don’t often see a need for it below appellate. There has to be a need where 3rd party advocates or scholars fill a gap or rulings have far reaching consequences beyond the interest of the parties in the case. (Sorry that’s the most I’m willing to say without running the risk of saying some terribly wrong)

 

I imagine getting into whether special counsel is appropriate or their scope is appropriate would potentially qualify at any level 🤷‍♂️ 

[Fergasun]

@tshile

I do suppose a Federal Trial of a former President will attract a lot of attention. 

 

However, if one looks at the Jan 6 case, there's a lot of these on the docket:

Quote

LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Petition for Intervention as to DONALD J. TRUMP This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. "Even if construed as a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, the court is not persuaded that filing this submission is warranted. Although courts have in rare instances exercised their discretion to permit third-partysubmissions in criminal cases, neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rulescontemplate the filing of amicus curiae briefs. At this time, the court does not find it necessary to depart from the ordinary procedural course by permitting this filing". Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 9/13/2023. (zhsj) (Entered: 10/06/2023)

I emphasized the bold section.  So Judge Chutkan is wrong that amicus/3rd parties are rare?  

 

I am surprised that the people reporting on this didn't mosy on over to the Jan 6 docket.

 

So don't take my word for it!  This is from a sitting Federal Judge.  Also, I think the same amicus put forth this argument in the SCOTUS case.

[LadySkinsFan]

Cannon is allowing two Trump outsiders and only one prosecution outsider. I don't call that equal at all. Again, she's giving bias to Trump. She needs to go, inexperience and all.

[tshile]

22 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

So don't take my word for it!  This is from a sitting Federal Judge.

That’s more valuable than anything I’ve seen otherwise 

 

I don’t know if the problem is I just don’t know how to search for these things on the internet or if they’re just hard to find, but I can’t find much to show what. I get the thing I posted is flimsy at best.

 

again - totally not a hill I want to even think about dying on. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Ball Security]

Just now, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

I don’t think I’ve seen a good reason why the court is ruling on this. She didn’t have an affair with the judge, jury, bailiff, court reporter, etc. Why is this more than a Fulton County prosecution HR problem?

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Fergasun]

Either way, I just had an epiphany. Trump and MAGA don't realize it, but I don't think he can stop the Independent Special Counsel anyway.  And when he is found guilty, it will be interesting to see if the third time is the charm for impeachment.  Or is treason not a high crime / misdemeanor?  

 

Why can't Trump stop it? He can't fire the Special Counsel.  His AG can only fire for cause.  We are going to plunge right back into a worse than Nixon situation.  Hopefully Jack Smith isn't caught up with one of his fellow attorney's or someone else in DoJ.   But the Independent Special Counsel exists for a reason.  Unlike a Civil Case, it doesn't make sense to pause the trial.  Think if you had a President who committed murder and a Congress that didn't convict on impeachment (murder is extreme...).  SCOTUS can't just pause the indictments.  And the President can't be like "Oh, I am too busy to face the trial."  This is exactly why we have a VP. 

 

Biden needs to confront Trump with Trump's own words during the debate.  "Tell the American people you are innocent.  Why are you trying to delay justice?  My son has already faced justice.  Innocent people don't run from the law.   America, this man is a criminal and a liar.  We already saw what happpened with the so called weakest case.  People like him should be kept away from power in this country." 

 

Anyway... regardless... Trump is cooked.

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[DCSaints_fan]

8 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Either way, I just had an epiphany. Trump and MAGA don't realize it, but I don't think he can stop the Independent Special Counsel anyway.  And when he is found guilty, it will be interesting to see if the third time is the charm for impeachment.  Or is treason not a high crime / misdemeanor?  

 

Why can't Trump stop it? He can't fire the Special Counsel.  His AG can only fire for cause.  We are going to plunge right back into a worse than Nixon situation.  Hopefully Jack Smith isn't caught up with one of his fellow attorney's or someone else in DoJ.   But the Independent Special Counsel exists for a reason.  Unlike a Civil Case, it doesn't make sense to pause the trial.  Think if you had a President who committed murder and a Congress that didn't convict on impeachment (murder is extreme...).  SCOTUS can't just pause the indictments.  And the President can't be like "Oh, I am too busy to face the trial."  This is exactly why we have a VP. 

 

Biden needs to confront Trump with Trump's own words during the debate.  "Tell the American people you are innocent.  Why are you trying to delay justice?  My son has already faced justice.  Innocent people don't run from the law.   America, this man is a criminal and a liar.  We already saw what happpened with the so called weakest case.  People like him should be kept away from power in this country." 

 

Anyway... regardless... Trump is cooked.

 

I'm not sure if you realize how power actually works.  Laws and regulations are only relevant if there is the will to enforce them.

 

And its distinctly possible that Republicans control all three branches of the Federal government January 2025.  They already have the Supreme Court.  At that point, no one will have the will to take on Trump so directly.

[Fergasun]

@tshile

I found an article below linked from the ABA website (i had to copy and paste, due to a paywall type of thing).

 

Bottom line is that, it is unusual.  But this case is also unusual.  I just don't think it is appropriate for her to waste time on whether Jack Smith's appointment is Constitutional.  No Court has ever 

 

Quote

 

Criminal Justice Magazine

Criminal Justice Summer 2021

July 20, 2021

CRIMINAL JUSTICE MATTERS

Amicus Curiae Briefs in Criminal Trial Courts?

J. Vincent Aprile II

 

Litigators and judges in the criminal justice system are usually familiar with the “friend of the court” assistance provided appellate courts by the filing of amicus curiae briefs, but they may not be aware that these nonparty briefs are occasionally filed in civil trial courts, both federal and state. Although even less frequent, amicus curiae briefs do make sporadic appearances in criminal trial courts across the nation.

 

Defense counsel as well as prosecutors should consider in certain cases whether the filing of an amicus curiae brief will assist the trial court in resolving a significant issue being litigated. Prime candidates for amici participation are cases involving novel issues, public policy implications, public interest, or matters likely to be beyond the judge’s general knowledge or easily misunderstood. Even though trial courts are bound to follow the precedents of their appellate courts, when a case of first impression arises at the trial level, one or more amicus curiae briefs may prove helpful.

 

From what I undertstand.  It is also possible the SCOTUS could rule the appointment is not Constitutional.  I have no idea what that would do for the case.  Although the arguments were made to SCOTUS during the immumity appeal.

[bearrock]

Adding some more data point (it's an interesting question.  Based on my anecdotal experience, I have seen a few amicus briefs in DC District Court, but it is pretty rare at the trial court level): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9550912/

 

Quote

The American Medical Association (AMA) is one of the most politically active advocacy groups in the USA,1 and in 1995, it developed a dedicated Litigation Center. This center represents organized medicine before the courts and frequently files amicus briefs.2 This study aims to characterizes amicus briefs filed by the Litigation Center, analyze the groups that benefit from Litigation Center support, and report amicus citation rates.

 

Quote

Over 98% of briefs were submitted to appellate courts (Supreme Court of the United States [SCOTUS], 14.9% [48/322]; state supreme courts, 41.6% [134/322]; state or federal intermediate appellate courts, 41.9% [135/322]), and 1.6% (5/322) of briefs were submitted to state or federal district courts.

 

[Renegade7]

8 hours ago, tshile said:

I don’t see where that logic comes from whatsoever. 
 

if anything republicans have been reliable voters. Democrats biggest issue is their voters don’t show up to vote regularly. 
 

the maga people are mostly republicans 

 

turning around and saying they’ll only vote for Trump flies in the face of commonly accepted knowledge about the voting population going back decades

 

and if you look down ballot in 2020 and across the board in 2022, you see republicans showing up to continue to support republicans but not Trump and not MAGA republicans 

 

Voting and political vitriol slowing down Post-Trump aren't the same thing.

 

Remember that Trump represents a giant middle finger for many of his biggest fans.

 

We've seen so many try and fail to replicate, DeSantis proved this and I called it when I went to one of Trumps rallies several years ago.

 

The fascist playbook will keep being run and attempted after he's gone.  There will still be individuals who try to use our differences against us for power.  But Trump represents a cult of personality and personalities die.

[China]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Voting and political vitriol slowing down Post-Trump aren't the same thing.

 

Remember that Trump represents a giant middle finger for many of his biggest fans.

 

We've seen so many try and fail to replicate, DeSantis proved this and I called it when I went to one of Trumps rallies several years ago.

 

The fascist playbook will keep being run and attempted after he's gone.  There will still be individuals who try to use our differences against us for power.  But Trump represents a cult of personality and personalities die.

 

Please take it to the election thread.

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

 

Expand it to any citizen as part of ensuring right to due process and I'll listen.

Just now, China said:

 

Please take it to the election thread.

 

Apologies.

[China]

@tshile

 

Here is Glenn Kirschner's take on it, and he has 30 years of experience prosecuting cases for the DOJ.  He also references taking an informal poll of some of his colleagues, and confirms how unusual it is:

 

 

Edited June 5 by China