Trump's Sentencing

[Carborendum]

I have to wonder what kind of lawyers Trump has.  They are bumbling everything.

There are proper reasons to appeal and improper reasons to appeal.  They are using all the improper reasons to appeal.  And they are being shot down every time.

Now they're appealing to SCOTUS to overturn the sentencing prior to his inauguration.  But the argument they are making is based on Presidential Immunity (per recent SCOTUS decision).  The problem is that Presidential immunity does not apply to unofficial acts (which was the subject of his recent conviction).  SCOTUS, by their own written opinion would have to deny the request for appeal. 

Who are these idiots?

What they need to do is claim malicious prosecution, deprivation of rights, conspiracy against rights, disenfranchisement, etc.  That would CLEARLY be right up SCOTUS' alley.  This has nothing to do with Presidential immunity.

I don't know if SCOTUS has the legal discretion to say, "No, that argument won't work.  But this other argument is valid and certainly applies.  So, we'll vacate the judgment and grant the dismissal based on this other principle that your lawyers didn't think of using.  But we did.  So, you're welcome."

If they legally do have such discretion, then I hope they will exercise it.  But that still means that Trump has idiots for lawyers.

Edited January 8 by Carborendum

[Vort]

Lawyers always file motions to dismiss on procedural grounds before attacking the meat of the case.

[Carborendum]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Lawyers always file motions to dismiss on procedural grounds before attacking the meat of the case.

That is only when it is early in the case.  I'm no lawyer, but I haven't ever heard of "procedural grounds" going to the SCOTUS.  And I don't think this is a "procedural" argument.  It's just a dead-in-the-water argument.

Edited January 8 by Carborendum

[Vort]

Maybe JAG can weigh in. I understood that Supreme Court cases often hinged on standing and other procedural questions.

[Carborendum]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Maybe JAG can weigh in. I understood that Supreme Court cases often hinged on standing and other procedural questions.

If it is standing, I thought that is usually one of those things that SCOTUS would consider during initial review of the paperwork before even accepting a case to bring to the court.  Again, I'm no lawyer.

@Just_A_Guy, can you weigh in?

[Just_A_Guy]

This isn’t my speciality, which leads me to point 1:

1.  Lawyers who practice primarily state-court trial law are often staggeringly ignorant about most federal constitutional issues.  (That’s not meant as an insult-I am also staggeringly ignorant about most constitutional issues.  But we have a tendency to read some bat-shizzle crazy law review article about a theory that *might* work, and our eyes light up like we found a “get out of jail free” card; and our egos take us from there all the way to an appellate-level bench-slapping.

2.  Trump, frankly . . . doesn’t tend to pick good lawyers (remember Michael Cohen, and most of his 2020 election litigators?).  It’s relatively rare to have a person who both looks to a layman like a good lawyer, and is a good lawyer; and I think Trump has a weakness for picking people who merely look competent.  (On a personal note:  I love it when a private defense attorney in an expensive suit walks into my juvenile courtroom.  Bless them.  They know nothing.  They pick stupid fights, make bizarre motions, tick off the judge (but are too dumb to see how mad the judge is getting), I stand there in my frumpy fat-guy discount suit and calmly cite the procedural rule (which Mr. Armani didn’t know existed), and the judge rolls their eyes and rules for me.  It’s great.)  (Seriously, guys—unless you are looking at spending 10+years in prison and are sure you are actually innocent, you probably aren’t going to do better than the appointed public defender who’s in the courtroom 25 hours a week and gets invited to the judge’s bimonthly courtroom team lunches and annual Christmas parties.)

3.  Appellate courts do, with some regularity, become randomly mesmerized with issues that all of the attorneys involved thought were quite irrelevant; and request further briefing and argument on those additional issues.  I don’t know if SCOTUS’s current rules/procedures are more rigid about that kind of thing; and I don’t know that we have time for that kind of back-and-forth in Trump’s case.  But speaking generally, I’ve seen my state’s appellate courts do it a few times on cases I had handled at the trial level.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

But that still means that Trump has idiots for lawyers.

Maybe. Or...it could be just that Trump is forcing their hands a bit. Trump, bless his heart, is both a genius and and idiot. Or maybe just a genius. Or maybe just an idiot. Does anyone really know? ???

[Carborendum]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe. Or...it could be just that Trump is forcing their hands a bit. Trump, bless his heart, is both a genius and and idiot. Or maybe just a genius. Or maybe just an idiot. Does anyone really know? ???

He's not an idiot.  And I don't know if he's a genius.  He's certainly above average.  But his real talent is that he the world's greatest salesman.  This was both a help and a hindrance in his first term.

Salemanship is about two things:

• Convince a potential buyer. 
• Create a new potential buyer who didn't know he wanted to buy anything.

But working in the political arena was a new ball of wax.  That is why he got jock-blocked so many times during his first term.  Yet he still got some good things done in spite of his inexperience.  

Now, he's got a leg up.  Many in power are on his side and are willing to fill in the gaps in his political experience.  But I have no idea if this is also affecting his legal woes.

The only benefit that I can see here is that the greater the prosecution/persecution, the greater he looks like the underdog.  And everyone loves the underdog.

[Carborendum]

OK, I just learned that the Justice in charge of the preliminary review of Trump's case is Sotomayor.  Yea, she's just going to reject it and send right back to New York.

[Carborendum]

Well, it turns out that it was a bitter-sweet decision.  To her credit, Sotaomayor brought it before the court.  And the majority (incl. two conservatives) decided against Trump based on it being a faulty argument.  But they indicated that a full appeal process would probably exonerate him.

[askandanswer]

Media outlets here are describing the sentence as a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce. 

[Vort]

30 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Media outlets here are describing the sentence as a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce. 

The trial and conviction were classic kangaroo courts. Both were a joke, an embarrassing stain on American jurisprudence. The whole thing is political kabuki theater. If Republicans were to have pulled this kind of shameless crap, the media would have been hounding them nonstop for the brazen hypocrisy and absurdity of it all, but because it's Orange Man, they're all in bed with the state of New York.

[Carborendum]

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Media outlets here are describing the sentence as a slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce. 

It was basically saying, "Yes, we know this was a kangaroo court.  But we need this black mark on your record so we can say that we won something in this election."

The two impeachments he suffered were the same thing.  They knew it wouldn't pass the Senate.  It was a foregone conclusion.  But they went through with the impeachments anyway so they could make the claim, "Trump will forever be impeached."

And the Republicans responded, "And he will forever be exonerated."

[NeuroTypical]

I came close to calling it:

 

Quote

 

So, yes.  Let's give Trump exactly the same sentence anyone would get for the same crimes.  In other words, a slap on the wrist at worst, and nothing official on his criminal record.  Exactly like any other American would get in the same situation.

Compare and contrast with this other story that happened to one of my wife's friends.  She was convicted of a federal crime of a magnitude greater severity than what Trump did. 

 

 

I figure Trump will win on appeals and no longer be a felon.  

It'll be interesting to see if a visit to China or the UK or India happens.