What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah Beeb, you deal with many/any SovCits?

[Barrister]

Yeah Beeb, you deal with many/any SovCits?

I haven't for several years, but yeah I certainly have.

I'll freely admit that you can't truly know what's in another person's heart, but sense of it has generally been is that they think it's a scam they can use to get away with stuff (like not paying taxes) rather than some earnestly held belief on how the world works.

[Tonitrus]

But I think almost everyone would agree that the second example should get a more serious penalty.  The "gravity of the offence" is much more serious, even though it's just a matter of "where the ball landed".

I would not agree. The penalty for the same crime (the stabbing) should not depend on how lucky the victim was in their proximity to death.

[DGuller]

But I think almost everyone would agree that the second example should get a more serious penalty.  The "gravity of the offence" is much more serious, even though it's just a matter of "where the ball landed".

I would not agree. The penalty for the same crime (the stabbing) should not depend on how lucky the victim was in their proximity to death.

I don't agree either, at least not if you're only thinking of disincentives.  The most effective disincentives punish the action and ignore the luck in outcomes.  If you view the law as also an instrument of retribution, then it makes more sense to punish results as well.  The relatives of the dead guy will want retribution more than the relatives of the wounded guy, so the law does it for them so that they don't feel aggrieved and become tempted to take it into their own hands.

[Tonitrus]

And the obvious flaw in my own logic is it would treat Attempted Murder the same as Murder. 

[Barrister]

But I think almost everyone would agree that the second example should get a more serious penalty.  The "gravity of the offence" is much more serious, even though it's just a matter of "where the ball landed".

I would not agree. The penalty for the same crime (the stabbing) should not depend on how lucky the victim was in their proximity to death.

I don't agree either, at least not if you're only thinking of disincentives.  The most effective disincentives punish the action and ignore the luck in outcomes.  If you view the law as also an instrument of retribution, then it makes more sense to punish results as well.  The relatives of the dead guy will want retribution more than the relatives of the wounded guy, so the law does it for them so that they don't feel aggrieved and become tempted to take it into their own hands.

So I mean I deliberately constructed my hypothetical so both would be the same offence (in Canada - aggravated assault).

But yeah - you absolutely can have a scenario where someone punches another causing a black eye, vs one where they knock the person backwards, they hit their head, subdermal hematoma, and they die.  Such scenarios happen often enough we have an unofficial term, a "one punch manslaughter".

The one punch manslaughter is obviously treated differently than first degree murder (because the intent/"moral blameworthiness" is totally different), but is also treated completely different than a common assault (because the result/"gravity of the offence" is totally different).

Intellectually you can say that the result doesn't matter, but in the real world almost everyone would want a much harsher sentence for the guy who kills someone vs the guy who causes a black eye.

[jimmy olsen]

Evidence offered in the Georgia plea deals looks strong

https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1724206473977188353

[The Minsky Moment]

Copy of the settlement agreement from the Wisconsin fake elector's case: https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/730a3889-6bd4-4895-a9e9-e60b82ccbb43.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5

Some interesting provisions:

Elector Defendants, as nominated and/or replacement presidential electors for the Republican Party in Wisconsin in 2020, met and voted for Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence on December 14, 2020, because they were told that it was necessary to preserve their electoral votes in the event a court challenge may later change the outcome of the election in Wisconsin, and in compliance with requests initiated from the Trump campaign and
the Republican Party of Wisconsin.

The Elector Defendants will provide a public statement, set forth below, regarding the Dispute . . . On December 14, 2020, in compliance with requests received from the Trump campaign and the Republican Party of Wisconsin, we  . . . stated, in part, that we were "the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Wisconsin." The Elector Defendants took the foregoing action because they were told that it was necessary to preserve their electoral votes in the event a court challenge may later change the outcome of the election in Wisconsin. That document was then used as part of an attempt to improperly overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

he Elector Defendants agree to fully cooperate, or continue to cooperate, with any ongoing or future investigation or prosecution by the United States Department of Justice regarding: (a) any efforts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power related to and following the 2020 presidential election; (b) any efforts to interfere with the certification of electoral votes during the Joint Session of Congress convened on January 6, 2021.

Basically, there is going to be a parade of witnesses who are all going to corroborate the Special Counsel's case in the election conspiracy case in DC.  The Trump campaign lied to the fake electors; the intent was to use their ballots regardless of the outcome of the Court challenge and that is exactly what was done.

It may turn out Judge Cannon's antics and slowboating of the slam duck documents case against Trump will end up hurting him, as it has given Judge Chutkan the ability to slot in this election case for March. 

[crazy canuck]

And the obvious flaw in my own logic is it would treat Attempted Murder the same as Murder. 

Let's take the concept out of the criminal law then to explore how this principle applies to the law generally. I think about the thin skull rule in tort cases.

The exact same act of a tortfeasor (the person who committed the wrong) can attract wildly different assessments of damages, depending on the impact on the victim. If the victim is particularly susceptible to suffering harm because of the act, the damages increase.

[The Minsky Moment]

Jack Smith got game.

[Zoupa]

Trump barred from GOP primary ballot in Colorado by state supreme court lol.

He'll of course get the federal supreme court to overrule it but still. At least the slide into fascism is not TOTALLY without hiccups.

[garbon]

He must be fuming.

[DGuller]

If Supreme Court wants to play the long game, they would probably be wise to exclude Trump, but at the last possible moment, when Biden can't be replaced.  Not only would that improve the odds of GOP winning the election, but it would also make them look like saviors.

[Zoupa]

If Supreme Court wants to play the long game, they would probably be wise to exclude Trump, but at the last possible moment, when Biden can't be replaced.  Not only would that improve the odds of GOP winning the election, but it would also make them look like saviors.

They can't. The deadline for gop Colorado primary inscription is January 5th.

[Jacob]

So my understanding is that if Trump appeals and loses at the Supreme Court, then he'll have been found to have engaged in insurrection and be ineligible to be President - meaning he'll likely be removed from all GOP primary ballots, throwing the primary wide open. Alternately, I suppose the GOP could defy the Supreme Court for their primaries, which would result in a bit of a constitutional crisis I expect.

Is that correct?

And what are the odds that the Supreme Court will find for or against Trump during a potential appeal?