Full name: Oliver Wendell Holmes. Or Oliver Cromwell, perhaps.
I’d call him Oliver, but in Zha Zha Gabor’s accent (on Green Acres): Ahh’-LEE-vah!
When I was a kid, there was a kid a few of years older than I whose name was Oliver. The family was German, and Oliver’s mother would call for him in that pronunciation.
I want more indictments and I want them against more people. I want Jack Smith to put Rudy, Meadows, Flynn, and Eastman behind bars as well. Book them deluxe rooms in the Gitmo Hotel when this is all done.
You’ll probably not realize the Gitmo Hotel part of your fantasy (as I know you are aware!), but I do think you’ll see the rest. Eventually. Unless somehow a Republican is elected president.
I have a private notion that Smith is going to carve out some charges just for Trump to start, so as to get a clean conviction that doesn’t take years. The more defendants, the more complicated.
But nothing prevents him from bringing a superseding indictment or even a new indictment for the conspiracy part of the scheme later, one that will incorporate charges for all those who were in on said scheme. Including Trump.
It’s all speculation at this point. I hope by the time I get home with little Oliver today, there will be more clarity!
Me, too. Any chance Smith is coming for MTG and others who gave tours on Jan. 5?
It would be nice to see Steve Bannon and Roger Stone pay a price for their shenanigans as well. Throw in Peter Navarro and I’d be really happy.
I believe that in this case they will charge trump alone, then charge the co conspirators separately.
With mar a lago having both charged, gives a better chance of trump being convicted. Convicting nauta without also convicting trump is not logical. I do realize that logical and Florida are not best mates.
By charging trump alone in dc also gives his co conspirators a chance to have deals made should they be next up for the letter of doom.
I will be betting on a march trial date as that date opened up due to florida.
It should depend on where the evidence goes. Their crimes, if there were crimes, weren’t as blatant. They also weren’t targeted by the 1/6 committee for that reason.
You do realize your duty in the Pet Pictures thread, do you not?
I’m sure you meant Eva Gabor.
So, no Buster?
‘Zsa Zsa’
(Nitpick, I know, but I’m married to a Hungarian and she wants me to correct the record.)
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: SeamusMuadhen Trock posts
[I think Atlantic articles have a *conditional* gift link. IOW the article is free to read, but you have to register.]
…
I* have handled several criminal appeals in my career. None has ever been resolved, in even the simplest of cases, in less than a year. That’s just the way our appellate system works; there is no sense of urgency to the proceedings at all (nor, to be clear, should there be in the normal course of business—the trial has concluded and the record is complete; a mature and thoughtful review of those proceedings requires time). The result is that Trump’s appeal of his federal conviction (assuming one is secured) will quite likely still be pending before the Eleventh Circuit, the court with appellate jurisdiction over federal trials in Florida, at least through mid-2025—well past the election and into the next presidential term. And even were an appeal to be concluded quickly, Trump would inevitably then petition the Supreme Court for review, taking yet more time.…
In short, it seems to me that no possibility exists that any of the federal charges against Trump will be final before January 20, 2025—none at all. And it seems equally certain that one of the very first acts of the Trump-appointed attorney general (whoever that may be) would be for the DOJ to move to dismiss the case or cases against the president at whatever stage they are then pending. Put simply, if Trump wins reelection in November 2024, the federal cases against him will likely be terminated, without final resolution, within 24 hours of his inauguration.
…
Another expert weighs in.
* Paul Rosenzweig is a principal at Red Branch Consulting. From 2005 to 2009 he was the deputy assistant secretary for policy of the Department of Homeland Security, overseeing the U.S. Secret Service. He teaches cybersecurity at the George Washington University Law School. He previously served as a senior counsel in the investigation of President Bill Clinton.
Okay, what would it mean for the DOJ to move to “dismiss” a case if it’s at the stage of Trump appealing a conviction? Would the courts vacate a conviction just because the DOJ decides not to contest an appeal? Even if the DOJ doesn’t file any motions themselves, can’t a judge look at the case, and conclude, based on their own analysis, that the conviction was sound?
Also, could some other party step in and file the motions in lieu of the DoJ. I seem to recall that happening in some case not too long back, although it wasn’t a criminal case. In this situation, I’m sure there’d be some (many) lawyers who’d do it pro bono …
The federal courts can only decide controversies. If both parties say the conviction should be thrown out, the case is over. I agree that if Trump wins the White House again, his federal criminal problems are over.
I find that article misleading.
No one ever said the expected the appeals to be concluded by the time of the November election. Only that there will likely be a conviction by a jury on something. (Probably not the documents case, thanks to the judge drawn.)
The article isn’t wrong – appeals do take years. It’s just that most of them are conducted while the convicted person is serving out his or her sentence in prison.
I believe a lean case against Trump alone will be brought in the election interference (January 6) case to start. The D.C. federal courts know how to keep a case moving along. Motions will be decided promptly. Assuming I’m right about the first part and that Smith isn’t going to try to bring a criminal conspiracy case against many people (he can always bring one later), Trump should (in a just world) be convicted with time to spare before Election Day 2024. If that’s not sufficient to keep him from winning in 2024, then we’re already doomed.
Has such a thing ever happened? I mean, we’re talking about a case where there’s already a judgement in place. Would a second judge really just rubber stamp this, just because? Without any consideration on the merits of the case? Especially when both the defense and the DOJ are clearly partisan in favor of the convict?
I mean, even if the DOJ came forward and admitted there was a major error during the original trial, I’d at least expect the judge to take a look at the facts, at a minimum, to see if that admission was correct.
Don’t judges have to sign off on plea deals? There have been cases where the judges decided to toss a plea deal that they thought crossed a line. Wouldn’t this be similar? “The DOJ’s filing cites no legal reasoning or precedent to suggest that the conviction was in error, and is, on the face of it, nothing more than a partisan political decision obviously influenced by the convict himself.” Will no judge ever stand up and say that?