[HoosierDaddy]

 Tiste Simeon, on 31 May 2024 - 05:25 AM, said:

So how long before the Supreme Court pardons him of all offences (I'm not sure about the minutiae of US power, can they do that?)

It has to go through the New York state appeals courts: First the appellate division and then the Court of Appeals (state supreme court) before it can make its way to the SCOTUS. Even with expedited hearings, hard to imagine that's before the election in November.

While I know the ends justify the means for these people, do they not understand the danger of so destroying the foundation of the legal system by calling this "rigged" and "corrupt" when it was regular US CItizens who ound him guilty? What, if the justice system is thoroughly broken (and it is hanging, not by a thread, but hanging), is there uphold the law and hold people accountable for deeds?

It's all so very short-sighted. Desperate. Short-sighted and desperate actions are by their very nature dangerous and no way to run a country.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 HoosierDaddy, on 31 May 2024 - 08:07 PM, said:

 Tiste Simeon, on 31 May 2024 - 05:25 AM, said:

So how long before the Supreme Court pardons him of all offences (I'm not sure about the minutiae of US power, can they do that?)

It has to go through the New York state appeals courts: First the appellate division and then the Court of Appeals (state supreme court) before it can make its way to the SCOTUS. Even with expedited hearings, hard to imagine that's before the election in November.

While I know the ends justify the means for these people, do they not understand the danger of so destroying the foundation of the legal system by calling this "rigged" and "corrupt" when it was regular US CItizens who ound him guilty? What, if the justice system is thoroughly broken (and it is hanging, not by a thread, but hanging), is there uphold the law and hold people accountable for deeds?

It's all so very short-sighted. Desperate. Short-sighted and desperate actions are by their very nature dangerous and no way to run a country.

But hey, on the bright side, the justice system may be hanging... people Greatly Again before too long.

If as expected Trump is allowed to be out on bail during his appeals, it seems like he may want to drag it out---unless he thinks he'll win at the state level or there's some way to take it straight to the (federal) Supreme Court.

Quote

If he receives prison or jail time, Mr. Trump will likely be released on bail pending the appeal, and his lawyers would have 120 days to file their brief [...] The next step is for the prosecution to respond, which likely would happen several months later. [... The first appellate court] might not issue a decision until late 2025 or even early 2026. [...] If the conviction is overturned, the office of the district attorney, Alvin Bragg, can also seek to take the case to the Court of Appeals. [So it goes on to State Supreme Court either way.]

[...] the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, argued that the [federal Supreme Court] should take up Mr. Trump's cause.

"[...] the justices on the court, I know many of them personally, I think they're deeply concerned," said Mr. Johnson[...] "I think they'll set this straight, but it's going to take a while."

Trump Says He Will Appeal, Starting a Long Legal Journey - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 31 May 2024 - 08:31 PM

[Primateus]

 HoosierDaddy, on 31 May 2024 - 08:07 PM, said:

While I know the ends justify the means for these people, do they not understand the danger of so destroying the foundation of the legal system by calling this "rigged" and "corrupt" when it was regular US CItizens who ound him guilty? What, if the justice system is thoroughly broken (and it is hanging, not by a thread, but hanging), is there uphold the law and hold people accountable for deeds?

It's all so very short-sighted. Desperate. Short-sighted and desperate actions are by their very nature dangerous and no way to run a country.

Do they care?

Like they say, these people do not want to govern and serve you, they want to rule you.

And an essential part rulership is to be above the law.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

So if Trump gets sentenced to prison but remains out on bail during the appeal, and the appeals process doesn't finish until after the inauguration... once he's president again, is he going to agree to go to prison? Or if the Supreme Court rules he has to go to prison while president, he'll be like... "Oh yeah? Says you and what army?" Yeah, if he's allowed to stay out on bail until after the inauguration and he wins the election I doubt he'll ever end up in prison.

My champagne has turned to ashes in my mouth... oh well. Here's hoping he isn't allowed to be out on bail....

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 31 May 2024 - 08:51 PM

[worry]

 Azath Vitr (D, on 31 May 2024 - 08:30 PM, said:

If he receives prison or jail time, Mr. Trump will likely be released on bail pending the appeal...

This may become true (just as it may become true that he's not sentenced to prison at all anyway), but it seems like an odd assertion to make without further explanation or exploration.

[Abyss]

He's not exactly a flight risk when sticking around means he gets to be president. Again.

[worry]

That's a good reason to grant him bail before/during his trial -- which has now concluded, with him being found guilty on all counts. I'm not naive to the fact that he falls into the demographics that -- more likely than any other by far -- would be afforded such a privilege, regardless of good reason. I just don't understand the explanation-free foregone conclusion assertion in the NYT article.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 Abyss, on 02 June 2024 - 04:38 AM, said:

He's not exactly a flight risk when sticking around means he gets to be president. Again.

But the appeals process almost certainly won't be over until after the inauguration. And if he's president, he'll be a unique flight-or-fight risk. Particularly since he's made it clear that he's going to try to purge the executive branch and the military leadership in order to stuff them with people who are loyal to Trump over the Constitution.

Maybe some in law enforcement or the military would try to make him go to prison. Others---even in the military---would probably try to either help him escape (could he be president from Russia?) or fight on his behalf. So we could have a civil war over the cat not wanting to get in the carrier Trump refusing to go to prison.

More likely the Supreme Court would make up some bullshit about how being in prison would impede his ability to be president and rule that he can't be forced to go to prison so long as he's president. And then he'll either die in office, refuse to cede power, or figure out a way to flee to Russia or some other country (or non-country location? "libertarian" authoritarian fortress of doom on the open seas?) that won't extradite him.

Granted, since this is Trump's first criminal conviction, he is technically a "first-time offender", which experts cite as a key part of their justification for assuming he probably won't be sentenced to prison for this. But calling Trump a "first-time offender" is a bit like calling Al Capone a "first-time offender". And was Michael Cohen a first-time offender? I'd guess he was, yet he was sentenced to prison for carrying out the crimes which Trump was convicted of ordering. Plus the judge has a history of basing sentencing on whether those convicted demonstrate contrition and respect for the court---but I didn't see any examples of him using those as a criteria for whether to sentence someone to prison. Earlier in the trial the judge did say he doesn't want to jail Trump, though that was wrt jailing Trump for repeatedly violating the judge's gag orders.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

When Justice Juan Merchan sentences Mr. Trump, he will do so against a backdrop of many other defendants who have been convicted of this felony.

Spoiler

My research for a book about the case, "Trying Trump: A Guide to His First Election Interference Criminal Trial," included examining almost 10,000 prosecutions for falsifying business records in New York since 2015. In the most serious of these cases, about 10 percent of the total, incarceration was imposed. [...] My research also showed that first-time offenders like Mr. Trump are not exempt from sentences of incarceration, nor should they be if, like the former president, their offense is serious enough.

Moreover, Mr. Trump has shown absolutely no contrition. On the contrary, he has been defiant in the extreme. [...] On 10 occasions, Mr. Trump defied the gag order that the judge imposed to protect witnesses and jurors. Under New York law, all of that can and should weigh in favor of imposing a prison sentence on Mr. Trump.

The court may also take account of the defamation, sexual assault and civil fraud verdicts that have already been levied against him. This is allowed under the principle that the defendant's history and character bear upon his sentence, and this abhorrent history suggests prison time is warranted.

Opinion | Prison Time for Trump? The Cases for and Against. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

TL;DR

Spoiler

Yes the civil verdicts against Trump will count against him in sentencing... and in similar cases first-time offenders were sentenced to prison in NYC. Trump's repeated violations of the gag orders, his contempt of court, his extreme open disdain for the judicial process, and his verbal attacks on the judge, the prosecutor, and their families (not to mention the incitement of stochastic terrorism) will all weigh on the verdict, and strongly suggest that Trump should be sentenced to prison.

[Lady Bliss]

Azath I agree with you %100 but I like you don’t see our legal system actually doing anything. He is the new Teflon Don and nothing will stick.

This post has been edited by Lady Bliss: 02 June 2024 - 02:30 PM

[Abyss]

Odds of wealthy old white guy doing time, low.


Odds of this specific wealthy old white guy doing time, lower than low.

[Cause]

I think a possible outcome is him being given a jail time sentence but the sentence will be split or held back (there is a proper legal term for this) and Trump will receive house arrest or probation

However if he violates the terms, it will trigger the sentence.

I’d love for him to receive even one day as a symbolic gesture or just as a warning that it’s a real possibility.

[Macros]

 IMG-20240603-WA0011.jpg (106.4K)
Number of downloads: 0

[Lady Bliss]

 Cause, on 03 June 2024 - 05:04 AM, said:

I think a possible outcome is him being given a jail time sentence but the sentence will be split or held back (there is a proper legal term for this) and Trump will receive house arrest or probation

However if he violates the terms, it will trigger the sentence.

I’d love for him to receive even one day as a symbolic gesture or just as a warning that it’s a real possibility.

I think house Arest is more likely if anything happens. I doubt anything happens tbh.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Trump's lawyers are probably going to try to skip the state appeals process and go directly to the Supreme Court:

Quote

The harder [the Manhattan judge] punishes Trump—with jail time, for instance—the greater the likelihood lawyers for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee will stage an end run of the state justice system and head straight to Washington[...] claiming Trump's treatment in New York somehow violated his Fifth Amendment right to a fair trial. [...]

The most obvious avenue is a petition for a "writ of certiorari," essentially asking the Supreme Court to weigh in on an extremely pressing matter.

The bar is quite high, which helps explain why it's sometimes the route used by death row inmates.

Spoiler

Most requests for emergency action typically go to the justice assigned to a particular circuit—in this case Sonia Sotomayor, the left-leaning former New York federal judge who has ruled against Trump in almost every case that has come before her.

But the Supreme Court's own published rulebook says the petitioner—in this case, Trump—"may renew the application to any other justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the court has denied the application." That means Trump can keep chugging on the slot machine until the right justice pops up.

[...]

It only requires four justices to grant certiorari and five to "grant a stay", pausing any punishment Trump faces

Here's Felon Trump's Crazy SCOTUS Plan—and It May Even Work (thedailybeast.com)

And in case you missed it the Georgia election interference trial has effectively been postponed until after the election:

Quote

officially paused while they seek to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on appeal[...]

[...] tentative October hearing date for the appeal [...] The order further affirms the already apparent reality that there won't be a pre-election trial in this case against [Trump].
Trump's election interference case in Georgia has been paused indefinitely (msnbc.com)

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 11 June 2024 - 12:45 PM

[Cause]

Not sure if I’m onto something or just thinking about it too hard but it occurred to me that the very names of American political parties allow people to say I am a republican or I am a democrat they way somebody else might say I’m American, I’m Christian, I’m white etc.

In South Africa I could never say I’m An African National congresses, or I’m a democratic alliancer. You would instead say I voted for the ANC or I’m a member of the ANC.


Is this a meaningful observation or just silly. Just occured to me that the reason Americans might end up being so loyal to party and partisan is because of this language.

Once you say I’m a democrat voting republican would be a violation of your identity.

[Maark Abbott]

 Cause, on 14 June 2024 - 06:46 PM, said:

Not sure if I'm onto something or just thinking about it too hard but it occurred to me that the very names of American political parties allow people to say I am a republican or I am a democrat they way somebody else might say I'm American, I'm Christian, I'm white etc.

In South Africa I could never say I'm An African National congresses, or I'm a democratic alliancer. You would instead say I voted for the ANC or I'm a member of the ANC.


Is this a meaningful observation or just silly. Just occured to me that the reason Americans might end up being so loyal to party and partisan is because of this language.

Once you say I'm a democrat voting republican would be a violation of your identity.

From an external view I think that's lowkey what they bank on, and maybe why folk have such a hard time leaving their 'voting identity' behind when confronted with things that challenge it.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

 Maark Abbott, on 17 June 2024 - 11:33 AM, said:

 Cause, on 14 June 2024 - 06:46 PM, said:

Not sure if I'm onto something or just thinking about it too hard but it occurred to me that the very names of American political parties allow people to say I am a republican or I am a democrat they way somebody else might say I'm American, I'm Christian, I'm white etc.

In South Africa I could never say I'm An African National congresses, or I'm a democratic alliancer. You would instead say I voted for the ANC or I'm a member of the ANC.


Is this a meaningful observation or just silly. Just occured to me that the reason Americans might end up being so loyal to party and partisan is because of this language.

Once you say I'm a democrat voting republican would be a violation of your identity.

From an external view I think that's lowkey what they bank on, and maybe why folk have such a hard time leaving their 'voting identity' behind when confronted with things that challenge it.

It probably makes it easier to express identification with party. But language is malleable. For example, in the UK, the syntactic awkwardness of "I'm a Labour" probably makes it rare, but "I'm Labour" seems to be used more frequently ("I'm Labour to the core", etc.).

There's probably already been substantial survey-based research on this in the United States.

The specific words probably have a significant causal effect, but less of an effect than the cognitive frames and cultural practices of party identification. Of course there are various ways to try to measure this in different contexts. For example, the effect of having people in a survey randomly given either the option "I'm a Democrat" or "I identify with the Democratic party" or "I vote for the Democrats"---which rigorously establishes a limited sort of short-term causality for that particular context. But rigorously establishing causality over long time-frames and broader contexts is difficult given the constraints of IRBs and bureaucratically enforced "ethics" (though again I wonder if authoritarian regimes have carried out more rigorous research---probably in secret---raising children in highly controlled environments to test strategies for influencing either their own populations or those of Democratic states).

In most states, to vote in a particular party's primary you have to register as a member of that party; and you can't register as a member of more than one party. Wonder how much of a causal effect that has on measures of party identification and voter behavior.

[Edited: to determine the effect of specific "I am a" language vs a general self-identification frame, of course a better set of survey options would be "I am a [party X]" for one randomly selected group and "I identify as a [party X]" [Edited: to determine the effect of specific "I am a" language vs a general self-identification frame, of course a better pair of survey options would be "I am a [party X]" for one randomly selected group and "I identify as a [party X]" or "I identify with the [party X party] " for the other(s).]

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 17 June 2024 - 02:53 PM

[Garak]

You register as a member? Here you sign that yes you showed up to vote, given the paper with the parties, their candidates (separate papers for different offices to be voted) and you just stamp the one you want.

[Maark Abbott]

 Azath Vitr (D, on 17 June 2024 - 02:03 PM, said:

 Maark Abbott, on 17 June 2024 - 11:33 AM, said:

 Cause, on 14 June 2024 - 06:46 PM, said:

Not sure if I'm onto something or just thinking about it too hard but it occurred to me that the very names of American political parties allow people to say I am a republican or I am a democrat they way somebody else might say I'm American, I'm Christian, I'm white etc.

In South Africa I could never say I'm An African National congresses, or I'm a democratic alliancer. You would instead say I voted for the ANC or I'm a member of the ANC.


Is this a meaningful observation or just silly. Just occured to me that the reason Americans might end up being so loyal to party and partisan is because of this language.

Once you say I'm a democrat voting republican would be a violation of your identity.

From an external view I think that's lowkey what they bank on, and maybe why folk have such a hard time leaving their 'voting identity' behind when confronted with things that challenge it.

It probably makes it easier to express identification with party. But language is malleable. For example, in the UK, the syntactic awkwardness of "I'm a Labour" probably makes it rare, but "I'm Labour" seems to be used more frequently ("I'm Labour to the core", etc.).

There's probably already been substantial survey-based research on this in the United States.

The specific words probably have a significant causal effect, but less of an effect than the cognitive frames and cultural practices of party identification. Of course there are various ways to try to measure this in different contexts. For example, the effect of having people in a survey randomly given either the option "I'm a Democrat" or "I identify with the Democratic party" or "I vote for the Democrats"---which rigorously establishes a limited sort of short-term causality for that particular context. But rigorously establishing causality over long time-frames and broader contexts is difficult given the constraints of IRBs and bureaucratically enforced "ethics" (though again I wonder if authoritarian regimes have carried out more rigorous research---probably in secret---raising children in highly controlled environments to test strategies for influencing either their own populations or those of Democratic states).

In most states, to vote in a particular party's primary you have to register as a member of that party; and you can't register as a member of more than one party. Wonder how much of a causal effect that has on measures of party identification and voter behavior.

[Edited: to determine the effect of specific "I am a" language vs a general self-identification frame, of course a better set of survey options would be "I am a [party X]" for one randomly selected group and "I identify as a [party X]" [Edited: to determine the effect of specific "I am a" language vs a general self-identification frame, of course a better pair of survey options would be "I am a [party X]" for one randomly selected group and "I identify as a [party X]" or "I identify with the [party X party] " for the other(s).]

Hmmmm, over here you might have some folk say 'I'm red' but it's pretty rare to directly identify with a political party unless you're an actual member of that party. Or at least, it's not something I've very often encountered at all.