Trump

[Leo]

it means he has to testify and turn over documents (email, text messages, etc.). he's supposed to turn himself in on Monday. if he doesn't, the fed have the power to issue a warrant for his arrest.

mark meadows also currently defying subpoena, but that one is a little fuzzier because he was trump's chief of staff up through jan 6 (and could argue executive privilege), whereas Bannon had been out of the administration for years.

 

[IdleRich]

But who can issue subpoenas? Judges I guess. Also AZ senate issued one and the Bannon one was issued by the House Committee investigating the Jan 6th business. But do some subpoenas carry more weight than others? Is there a kind of hierarchy?

 

[Clinamenic]

But who can issue subpoenas? Judges I guess. Also AZ senate issued one and the Bannon one was issued by the House Committee investigating the Jan 6th business. But do some subpoenas carry more weight than others? Is there a kind of hierarchy?

Don't know, but I would imagine it would be a case by case thing. Defying/ignoring a subpoena may add to the case, indicate unwillingness, which depending on the case may be trivial or significant. Again I really don't know how these work.

 

[IdleRich]

But presumably a subpoena from a higher judge is more serious than that from a lower one? Or not? I really don't know. And even if there is a hierarchy of judges, how does that compare to the hierarchy of congresses? Is that a parallel system or what?

 

[Mr. Tea]

They should issue Stormy Daniels a subpeona about his sub-peener.

 

[IdleRich]

Who should though? It's beginning to feel as though almost anyone can issue one but that's not a problem cos most of em are ignored...
Or is that cos we only read about the ones issued to people who are effectively above the law? I imagine if yer average Joe Bloggs goes around loudly bragging that he won't show up in court cos investigating the massive fraud he's perpetrated is clearly politically motivated, then he won't have quite the same results as Trump and his cronies...

These last few years have made it explicitly clear that the US has a two (or more) tier justice system. Of course we knew the rich had better lawyers and so on but it seems to go much further than that - I've read that poor young people are often given the choice of pleading guilty or facing much more serious charges which would mean a life-ruining sentence.

So on the one hand you have rich people committing blatant crimes in broad daylight and then refusing to come to court, tying things up with appeal after appeal and so on, while poor people plead guilty to things they didn't do to avoid the threat of being charged with something more serious that they also didn't do.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I've never understood the concept of plea-bargaining. It seem to take for granted that it's theoretically impossible for someone to be wrongfully convicted.

 

[Leo]

I've never understood the concept of plea-bargaining. It seem to take for granted that it's theoretically impossible for someone to be wrongfully convicted.

I think it's a bird-in-the-hand thing. a prosecutor may or may not be confident the jury will convict for the maximum sentence. so instead of taking the chance of the jury acquitting the accused, prosecutors offer the accused a lesser sentence to avoid the jury vote. works both ways: if the defense feels they have made a strong case, they will often take their chance with the jury decision. but if they know their guy is guilty and might be convicted by the jury, they'll go for the plea deal.

either side can be confident the jury vote will go their way, but neither side can ever be 100% sure. so the plea deal is get what you can instead of risking an all-or-nothing jury decision.

 

[Leo]

and @IdleRich, I'm not a legal expert but I believe courts are the ones who issue subpoenas. in the case of this Jan 6 hearing, the congressional committee is a legal body, so they can issue them. and despite recent trump-related examples, it's actually extremely rare that people just ignore a subpoena.

 

[IdleRich]

I think it's a bird-in-the-hand thing. a prosecutor may or may not be confident the jury will convict for the maximum sentence. so instead of taking the chance of the jury acquitting the accused, prosecutors offer the accused a lesser sentence to avoid the jury vote. works both ways: if the defense feels they have made a strong case, they will often take their chance with the jury decision. but if they know their guy is guilty and might be convicted by the jury, they'll go for the plea deal.

either side can be confident the jury vote will go their way, but neither side can ever be 100% sure. so the plea deal is get what you can instead of risking an all-or-nothing jury decision.

But I've read about it being used to bully people. You have a first time offender with no money accused of, I dunno, petty theft and the prosecutor says that if you don't plead guilty we will accuse you of armed breaking and entering and assault and you will face 25 years in jail... and then the cheapo public defender says "you had better take it" and so they do.

 

[IdleRich]

From a quick Google I get this, haven't read the whole piece but... @sufi why are all the quotes and stuff greyed out for me suddenly?

As prosecutors have accumulated power in recent decades, judges and public defenders have lost it. To induce defendants to plead, prosecutors often threaten “the trial penalty”: They make it known that defendants will face more-serious charges and harsher sentences if they take their case to court and are convicted. About 80 percent of defendants are eligible for court-appointed attorneys, including overworked public defenders who don’t have the time or resources to even consider bringing more than a tiny fraction of these cases to trial. The result, one frustrated Missouri public defender complained a decade ago, is a style of defense that is nothing more than “meet ’em and greet ’em and plead ’em.”

 

[sufi]

From a quick Google I get this, haven't read the whole piece but... @sufi why are all the quotes and stuff greyed out for me suddenly?

As prosecutors have accumulated power in recent decades, judges and public defenders have lost it. To induce defendants to plead, prosecutors often threaten “the trial penalty”: They make it known that defendants will face more-serious charges and harsher sentences if they take their case to court and are convicted. About 80 percent of defendants are eligible for court-appointed attorneys, including overworked public defenders who don’t have the time or resources to even consider bringing more than a tiny fraction of these cases to trial. The result, one frustrated Missouri public defender complained a decade ago, is a style of defense that is nothing more than “meet ’em and greet ’em and plead ’em.”

que?

 

[IdleRich]

I can't seem to select bold or italics or anything... before there was a button to toggle them on and off but it seems to have vanished.

 

[wild greens]

Seems to me like Bannon got really sloppy and probably overconfident in a perceived result


If there's any paper trail that backs this all up- they must have emails or texts with him chatting shit - then all this internet tv proves conspiracy and should be fucked, in an honest system

Time to abscond to Belarus fella

 

[Mr. Tea]

Seems to me like Bannon got really sloppy and probably overconfident in a perceived result


If there's any paper trail that backs this all up- they must have emails or texts with him chatting shit - then all this internet tv proves conspiracy and should be fucked, in an honest system

Time to abscond to Belarus fella

Bannon presumably doesn't have much personal goodwill towards Trump after being booted from the team and publicly insulted, so I can only assume he's still supporting Trump here as part of his grand overarching ideological programme.

 

[IdleRich]

Seems to me like Bannon got really sloppy and probably overconfident in a perceived result


If there's any paper trail that backs this all up- they must have emails or texts with him chatting shit - then all this internet tv proves conspiracy and should be fucked, in an honest system

Time to abscond to Belarus fella

Seems fairly unequivocal... but some of his supporters below the line are saying "he doesn't mention a riot" or "he never used the word violence".

I've noticed this strain of rigid literalism on the US right lately - is this how people really think or is it just a position they have to take to defend these moronic public utterances?

So for example you have Trump recorded saying "Find me the exact number of votes so I win the state" and people say "He didn't say make up votes, just find some which is not illegal".
I wonder about people saying that.

1. Do they really believe it?
2. Do they think there is some legal technicality here that means that although he clearly meant that it's ok?
3. Are they just arguing in bad faith?

 

[Leo]

just a position they have to take to defend these moronic public utterances

just arguing in bad faith

you answered your own question, rich

 

[IdleRich]

Ooh, this is a good one. Apparently Powell wanted to be issued with a "letter of marque"

"A letter of marque and reprisal (French: lettre de marque; lettre de course) was a government license in the Age of Sail that authorized a private person, known as a privateer or corsair, to attack and capture vessels of a nation at war with the issuer. Once captured, the privateers could bring the case of that prize before their own admiralty court for condemnation and transfer of ownership to the privateer. A letter of marque and reprisal would include permission to cross an international border to conduct a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) and was authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders."

Also, she believed that the CIA director had personally undertaken a mission to Germany to steal evidence of election malfeasance hidden on a server there but had been captured (by whom I'm not sure? Germany guerillas loyal to Biden perhaps) and she demanded that the US sent soldiers there to free her.

 

[Leo]

haha, I was going to post that Powell about Germany but immediately thought "nah, rich will already be on it".

 

[IdleRich]

There is so much crazy in there but I think my favourite bit is the idea that the actual head of the CIA is basically James Bond. Does she think that it's just all spies from top to bottom with the best ones at the top? Probably she thinks all companies are like that with the head of, I dunno, a building company the best brickie.