@Cascarino's Pizzeria please go back and read with both diablo and I said. When convicted, he will get time. Diablo thinks more time than I do, but we both think he'll get time.
I think the Fischer oral arguments should go here, even though they are more directly associated with the J6 stuff, or SCOTUS stuff in general. As noted above, two of the charges in DC for Trump could be removed based on the Fischer decision. Background (from Wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_v._United_States On January 6, 2021, Joseph W. Fischer attended the Stop the Steal rally at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C.. Prosecutors said that Fischer had a physical encounter with police at the Capitol, urged on rioters during the Capitol attack, and said that he wanted to go "to war" and take "democratic [C]ongress to the gallows". Fischer's attorneys said that Fischer entered the Capitol building at around 3:25 p.m., after it had already been breached and Congress had already recessed, and exited the building about four minutes later.[1][2] The felony charge of obstructing an official proceeding has been used to charge over 300 individuals in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack, and has resulted in over 150 convictions and guilty pleas. Among those charged with the provision include former President Donald Trump. The criminal statute covering "whoever corruptly alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document or other object...or otherwise obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding" had been created by the 2002 Sarbanes–Oxley Act in response to the Enron scandal, when accountants shredding crucial documents did so without being in violation of any laws.[3][4]
To nobody's surprise, Thomas has not recused himself, and is present in court after going AWOL yesterday.
From WaPo Fischer live feed Justice Amy Coney Barrett just asked a question that suggests that the two election obstruction charges against former president Donald Trump could survive, even if the court agrees with challengers that the statute is not appropriate for the Jan. 6 rioters. Not surprised she would say that, but perhaps a legal mind can explain how a ruling in favor of Fischer would not apply to Trump.
WaPo Jury Selection live feed: Trump wants to attend his son's graduation on May 17. Trump: “It looks like the judge will not allow me to escape this scam. It’s a scam trial.” Trump sleeping in court again. Merchan is deferring to potential jurors if they can be impartial.
WaPo live feed on Fischer When Jeffrey T. Green said he doesn’t understand how the government can ask to expand the obstruction statute to “cover something that it has never covered before,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol was unprecedented. “We’ve never had a situation before … with people attempting to stop a proceeding violently,” she said. Bam!
Missing the point. The Constitution doesn't explicitly say a large mob cannot storm the Capitol building and stop the electoral process from happening. You are expanding what was actually written in the Constitution. Bam! Or so argues Thomas, Roberts, etc.
WaPo live feed on Fischer Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., in suggesting that the obstruction charge is being read too broadly and covers normal political protest, proposed thinking specifically about an oral argument like the one happening Tuesday. “For all the protests that have occurred in this court, the Justice Department has not charged any serious offenses,” he said. And in a surprising turn of events, Alito minimized the insurrection into a "normal political protest."
According to some twitter account, that's BS, since the judge seems to indicate that he'll leave Wednesdays off. I'm shocked, let me tell you.
WaPo live feed Fischer Justice Elena Kagan kicked off her tough questions for Joseph Fischer’s attorney, Jeffrey T. Green, by picking up something Clarence Thomas asked a few minutes earlier. Later, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Green to respond more fully to a question from Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Links are broken, so not sure what the questions are. But likely something to do with the insurrection causing a disruption of an "official proceeding." And on the other side.. Conservatives on the Supreme Court challenged Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar with a host of questions that echo right-wing media who argue that the Jan. 6 prosecutions are partisan. Among the cases raised: pro-Palestinian protesters blocking roads across the country, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) pulling a fire alarm in the Capitol just before a vote, and protests against Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Heh-heh. Cool The internet is killing me 🤣💀…h/t @DanSpenser pic.twitter.com/m0gHyOUwzj— Wu Tang is for the Children (@WUTangKids) April 16, 2024
WaPo live feed Fischer Kavanaugh and Alito making the Trump argument: Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Brett M. Kavanaugh questioned the government’s use of the “obstruction of an official proceeding” charge, and whether Congress meant to turn illegal and disruptive protesting, a misdemeanor punishable by only a year or less in prison, into a felony that carries a potential 20-year sentence.
Can you cite a single example where someone convicted of a single felony…never mind 34 felonies…and takes no ownership of their conviction, shows zero contrition, denies guilt throughout both the trial and the sentencing stage…and is still sentenced to probation?
That example cannot be cited, but neither can one where a convicted ex-POTUS does time. I mean, how much time are we taking about? If him getting say, a month satisfies your letter of the law definition, I'm inclined to agree that he may get time. But there's really no point in time if it's not gonna be a year or more.
34 counts. Up to 4 years on each count…but they would be served concurrently. I was thinking anywhere between 6-18 months. Soccernutter was saying 15 days. I just don’t foresee this judge going through all of this and then sentencing him to probation.
Actually, I said 15 to 30 days. Somebody (Parloff on Lawfare?) was saying 2 months. I highly doubt he will serve beyond the election, but somebody on Lawfare did mention that Merchan was tough on white-collar convictions, so maybe...
Six jurors sworn, including a foreman. I'm learning something today. I always thought that once a jury got to deliberations, it picked its own foreperson.
I stole this: The jury is going to be 12 people so stupid they have no pre existing opinion about Trump. So he definitely is getting a jury of his peers.
And how many of those white collar criminals do you think have acted the way Trump has during their trials? Furthermore…as Marchen has made abundantly clear in some of his written rulings (including I think the jury instructions)….this isn’t a trial about Trump paying off a porn star. This is about Trump falsifying business records in order to interfere with the election. It’s about the seriousness of the intent of the underlying crime. I think he’ll give the maximum he thinks he can get away with.