politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Here's the thing. I'm on Smith's side and all of that, but he's bluffing on this and Cannon knows it. Since she is in no legal jeopardy (The only thing that can happen to her is impeachment, which is impossible in today's political environment), there is absolutely nothing stopping her from simply ignoring Smith until the trial, waiting until the jury is seated, then essentially dismiss the case for whatever reason she wants once double jeopardy is attached and the dismissal is not appealable. If she is willing to endure the professional fallout from that decision, there is literally nothing Smith can do to stop her.
Mark my words:
From the day Trump came down that escalator, he has been playing our government, our judicial system, and our press system like a god damned fiddle. They continue to play Trump's games by Trump's rules and wondering why they keep getting dragged down to his level and beaten to death with experience. And as long as those in charge of just about every facet of our society continues to allow Trump to play by his own rules, there is no reason to believe that anything is going to change any time soon.
Not an attorney myself but also didn't see you wrestle with the mention of MANDAMUS in the brief. Discuss.
deleted by creator
You're very welcome, glad to share the gospel according to Harry. Also thanks for banging out that killer summary, I should have done that myself but excuse excuse.
deleted by creator
From my view, it is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of any one take, even from someone as well credentialed as Harry.
To that point, one bugbear I am wary of is the inherent cover that lawyerly types tend to give to the Justice system writ large: namely, that it can self-police and correct for biases or bad actors. No legal source I've followed has yet to grapple with this blind spot specifically.
Which is to say, I'm right there beside you in being hesitant to overinvest in any one outcome.
With that, I'll throw one more resource at you, and that is the Serious Trouble podcast. The cadence from this crew is much slower, but they bring a fair bit of levity to the table alongside some deep perspective from the angle of defense, and so I look forward to each episode. My hope is they will dive into a discussion around mandamus also, as I am just as flummoxed as you when it comes to understanding specifics.
Have a good one, and thanks again for the thoughtful conversation.
deleted by creator
Greatest country in the world my ass
America is not the greatest country in the world
Good series.
I watch this clip every time it’s posted. I wish there were real people that talked like this.
Although I’m not a lawyer, I suspect this analysis is correct because it is completely depressing and so matches up perfectly with reality.
Portugal has one of the best golden visa programs in Western Europe.
Thanks for the tip
Yep consenting adults being romantically involved is not an affair.
Actually, yes it was an affair. They started having a romantic relationship in 2019, and he was married until 2021. That's the literal definition of an affair. They also snuck around to hotel rooms and played all sorts of shell games with money to cover it up. They freely admitted it all on the stand, and even after that the judge still doesn't believe they were fully forthcoming.
With that said.....yes, they are consenting adults. Yes, their affair has absolutely nothing to do with Trump's case. But that's actually kinda the point. Regardless of the cases before her, she engaged in unethical (at best) conduct, was not forthcoming under testimony, and should consider herself lucky if she doesn't get disbarred. If she weren't the one who was the lead on the Trump case, I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot less support for her and a lot more calls for her resignation. She is likely benefitting because others don't want to see the Trump case fall apart entirely by having her removed.
That case is, far and away, the biggest case that she will have in her career. Probably the biggest and most consequential case in US history. In a case of this magnitude, you get one shot. You cross every T, dot every I. You engage in exactly fucking nothing that would even tangentally affect this case or hint at even a whiff of impropriety. To take on this case while engaging in that kind of unethical (if not outright illegal) conduct just shows hubris, a complete lack of judgement, and a complete disregard for the importance of the case that she herself brought or the impact that her actions could have on her career, the case, and even the country as a whole.
Professional fallout? Trump will make them a supreme Court member for this.
Could Smith split the pile of stolen files in half and simply pursue charges on half the files? Assuming jeopardy is attached on the case for the first traunch of the files and Trump is found innocent because of Cannon's trickery, Smith could then file a new case with the second traunch of the files and no jeopardy from the prior trial would apply because he'd be seeking prosecution on "new" files?
Only if the cases are separate criminal acts. If I murder someone in Philadelphia and six months later, I murder someone else in Pittsburgh, the DA can prosecute me for one of the two murders and keep the other case in his back pocket in case something goes wrong to ensure that I stay in jail.
But let's say I only killed one person. On a typical murder charge, there's usually a small list of felonies (Murder, assault, illegal weapon possession, civil rights violations, etc. etc. etc.). The DA can't bring a weak case against me for murder, then decide to try again and charge me for a weapons violation in order to keep me in jail, and then an assault charge if that fails too, etc. That is essentially an end-run around double jeopardy and is explicitly forbidden. If it weren't, the double jeopardy protections of the 5th amendment would cease to exist as the lawyer could just divvy up the charges among an endless stream of cases until something finally sticks.
I don't know much about the US legal system, but I don't understand how this affair has any bearing on the legitimacy of the case being brought against Trump?
I presume Fani Willis could be removed, but the case against Trump would still continue under a new DA?
It doesn't. From Trump's point of view, this was the equivalent of Trump standing at Mar-a-Lago, trying to score a hole in one on a golf course in New York by hitting the ball by way of Tokyo and just hoping the wind shifts direction, and actually hitting it. Her affair itself has absolutely zero bearing on the Trump case, but the facts that have been unearthed surrounding the affair have brought her general ethics and motives into question. This is typically the death knell of a lawyer's career.
It assumes a number of things: