|
Post by cadman on Apr 26, 2024 12:48:30 GMT -5
There are questions of law and questions of fact. Judges decide questions of law and juries decide questions of fact (unless its a bench trial, where the judge does both). Whether Trump did X conduct is a question of fact. Whether X conduct constitutes a crime is a question of law. So if Trump says “no I didn’t do X, I did Y,” the jury decides if its proven Trump did X instead of Y beyond a reasonable doubt. The matter of what law applies can’t be fully decided until X v. Y is sorted out. If both the prosecution and defense agree on X (meaning there’s no dispute as to the facts), then the question of law is ripe. If the facts are in dispute, then the jury has to decide the facts. I assume some facts are in dispute. There is likely at least some conduct Jack Smith says Trump did that Trump denies ever doing at all. On any matter that is in that realm, the Supreme Court probably won’t rule on, unless they think that even if Jack Smith is right, Jack Smith’s charged conduct still isn’t a crime. Isn't the issue of whether or not immunity applies in this case a question of law? Was Trump acting under his official capacity as President (giving him immunity) or was he acting as a candidate on January 6th? I think the court has to decide that, then if the court rules he was a candidate, then the jury will decide whether or not his actions were illegal or not. That's how I understand it. What am i missing?
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 26, 2024 15:10:45 GMT -5
There are questions of law and questions of fact. Judges decide questions of law and juries decide questions of fact (unless its a bench trial, where the judge does both). Whether Trump did X conduct is a question of fact. Whether X conduct constitutes a crime is a question of law. So if Trump says “no I didn’t do X, I did Y,” the jury decides if its proven Trump did X instead of Y beyond a reasonable doubt. The matter of what law applies can’t be fully decided until X v. Y is sorted out. If both the prosecution and defense agree on X (meaning there’s no dispute as to the facts), then the question of law is ripe. If the facts are in dispute, then the jury has to decide the facts. I assume some facts are in dispute. There is likely at least some conduct Jack Smith says Trump did that Trump denies ever doing at all. On any matter that is in that realm, the Supreme Court probably won’t rule on, unless they think that even if Jack Smith is right, Jack Smith’s charged conduct still isn’t a crime. Isn't the issue of whether or not immunity applies in this case a question of law? Was Trump acting under his official capacity as President (giving him immunity) or was he acting as a candidate on January 6th? I think the court has to decide that, then if the court rules he was a candidate, then the jury will decide whether or not his actions were illegal or not. That's how I understand it. What am i missing? The jury really isn’t supposed to decide whether Trump’s actions were legal. The jury decides what actions were taken. The judge, through the jury instructions, tells the jury what is legal and illegal and the jury decides which facts are true. In all of these cases, its the judge and the judge alone that is supposed to decide whether Trump’s actions were legal or not. That’s why as an attorney, the New York case looks like a crap show already, partisan weaponization of the system aside. It seems like Trump’s attorneys are being allowed to argue “yeah, so what? its not illegal.” That’s not for the jury to decide. I’m in a rush so maybe later I can write out a more articulate explanation. But let me try this: A judge will give the instructions that tells them what the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Those instructions are specific to the charged crime. Those instructions as to the crime(s) are broken down into multiple elements. Each element has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You probably know this already. Key to what you’re asking is that the elements are findings of fact. Such as: “To be guilty of Possession of a Controlled Substance, the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. Florida Bullfrog possessed a substance. 2. That substance was peanutbutter. Peanutbutter is a controlled substance. Definition of possess: (pretend there’s a definition here).” So the jurors decide if the facts show I possessed peanutbuttet. The Defense doesn’t get to argue to the jury as a matter of law that peanutbutter is NOT a controlled substance, therefore Florida Bullfrog did nothing wrong by possessing it.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 26, 2024 15:25:28 GMT -5
I just thought of some distinctions that may be muddying the way the legal issues are being perceived:
1. Immunities
2. Motions to Dismiss
3. Affirmative Defenses
All three are different but interrelated. 1 and 2 are decided by judges. 3 is decided by a jury. #3 deals with facts in dispute. #2 is a situation where everyone agrees with the facts and only disagree on how the law applies. #1 can either have no disputed facts, or have some disputed facts that a judge sorts out before applying the law as to the immunity.
Florida’s Stand Your Ground is not a good example to think about in this context because it had components of both 1 and 3 that blur the lines between the two.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Apr 26, 2024 16:52:04 GMT -5
I am not sure we are discussing the same thing as I understand the cases.
The immunity claim is about January 6th case and a lessor extent the classified documents case since if the President has absolute immunity it would apply to both.
The New York case I do not believe is related to the immunity claim and stems from whether or not they can prove Trump was directly involved with the hush money payments.
My questions were regarding the immunity case before SCOTUS and is not related to the New York Case. I am confused why you are discussing it.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 26, 2024 21:02:54 GMT -5
I am not sure we are discussing the same thing as I understand the cases. The immunity claim is about January 6th case and a lessor extent the classified documents case since if the President has absolute immunity it would apply to both. The New York case I do not believe is related to the immunity claim and stems from whether or not they can prove Trump was directly involved with the hush money payments. My questions were regarding the immunity case before SCOTUS and is not related to the New York Case. I am confused why you are discussing it. I mentioned the NY case because I’m answering the question you put forth. You wanted to know what you’re missing in understanding the process. The NY case provides an example as to why you would get the wrong impression as to the role of the jury. In the NY case, the role of the judge and the role of the jury are being confused by Trump’s team and the judge seems to be allowing it. You mentioned that you thought that the jury decides whether they think Trump’s actions are illegal or not. That’s not what they do. They don’t decide which actions are illegal. They decide what actions actually happened. What actions actually happened decide whether Trump is convicted or not. In the simplest terms, the judge is supposed to give the jury instructions that tell them that if the State has proven X, Y, and Z, beyond a reasonable doubt, Trump is guilty. Period. All that matters is whether X, Y, and Z, have all been proven. X, Y, and X are factual matters. Not legal matters. If these facts are proven, Trump is guilty. That’s the role of a jury. Now consider the inverse of the situation. All parties agree that X, Y, and Z, are true beyond a reasonable doubt. The only question is whether X, Y, and Z are illegal or not. The jury isn’t the body that decides whether X, Y, and Z are legal or illegal. Only the judge decides that. No jury is needed if the only question is whether X, Y, and Z are legal or illegal.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Apr 27, 2024 7:05:32 GMT -5
I am not sure we are discussing the same thing as I understand the cases. The immunity claim is about January 6th case and a lessor extent the classified documents case since if the President has absolute immunity it would apply to both. The New York case I do not believe is related to the immunity claim and stems from whether or not they can prove Trump was directly involved with the hush money payments. My questions were regarding the immunity case before SCOTUS and is not related to the New York Case. I am confused why you are discussing it. I mentioned the NY case because I’m answering the question you put forth. You wanted to know what you’re missing in understanding the process. The NY case provides an example as to why you would get the wrong impression as to the role of the jury. In the NY case, the role of the judge and the role of the jury are being confused by Trump’s team and the judge seems to be allowing it. You mentioned that you thought that the jury decides whether they think Trump’s actions are illegal or not. That’s not what they do. They don’t decide which actions are illegal. They decide what actions actually happened. What actions actually happened decide whether Trump is convicted or not. In the simplest terms, the judge is supposed to give the jury instructions that tell them that if the State has proven X, Y, and Z, beyond a reasonable doubt, Trump is guilty. Period. All that matters is whether X, Y, and Z, have all been proven. X, Y, and X are factual matters. Not legal matters. If these facts are proven, Trump is guilty. That’s the role of a jury. Now consider the inverse of the situation. All parties agree that X, Y, and Z, are true beyond a reasonable doubt. The only question is whether X, Y, and Z are illegal or not. The jury isn’t the body that decides whether X, Y, and Z are legal or illegal. Only the judge decides that. No jury is needed if the only question is whether X, Y, and Z are legal or illegal. I understand that, let's go back to immunity issue. Where do you think SCOTUS goes with it. I know Presidents have to have some immunity within their official duties. The court will have to acknowledge that. But will they determine Trump was not within his official duties on January 6th and acting as a candidate or private individual, or will they kick that decision back down to the lower courts and just order that Presidents do have immunity while acting under their official capacity and not for private actions taken as President. Even Trump's own lawyers admit some of his actions on January 6th were not official Presidential actions but private actions. A decision of immunity only while acting under official duties will hurt Trump in the classified documents case since his actions there was after he left office and he had no official duties. It will only help him in the January 6th case if they kick it back to the lower courts and delay the trial further.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 27, 2024 19:21:02 GMT -5
I mentioned the NY case because I’m answering the question you put forth. You wanted to know what you’re missing in understanding the process. The NY case provides an example as to why you would get the wrong impression as to the role of the jury. In the NY case, the role of the judge and the role of the jury are being confused by Trump’s team and the judge seems to be allowing it. You mentioned that you thought that the jury decides whether they think Trump’s actions are illegal or not. That’s not what they do. They don’t decide which actions are illegal. They decide what actions actually happened. What actions actually happened decide whether Trump is convicted or not. In the simplest terms, the judge is supposed to give the jury instructions that tell them that if the State has proven X, Y, and Z, beyond a reasonable doubt, Trump is guilty. Period. All that matters is whether X, Y, and Z, have all been proven. X, Y, and X are factual matters. Not legal matters. If these facts are proven, Trump is guilty. That’s the role of a jury. Now consider the inverse of the situation. All parties agree that X, Y, and Z, are true beyond a reasonable doubt. The only question is whether X, Y, and Z are illegal or not. The jury isn’t the body that decides whether X, Y, and Z are legal or illegal. Only the judge decides that. No jury is needed if the only question is whether X, Y, and Z are legal or illegal. I understand that, let's go back to immunity issue. Where do you think SCOTUS goes with it. I know Presidents have to have some immunity within their official duties. The court will have to acknowledge that. But will they determine Trump was not within his official duties on January 6th and acting as a candidate or private individual, or will they kick that decision back down to the lower courts and just order that Presidents do have immunity while acting under their official capacity and not for private actions taken as President. Even Trump's own lawyers admit some of his actions on January 6th were not official Presidential actions but private actions. A decision of immunity only while acting under official duties will hurt Trump in the classified documents case since his actions there was after he left office and he had no official duties. It will only help him in the January 6th case if they kick it back to the lower courts and delay the trial further. I’d put my money on them holding that the president has qualified immunity in which he or she may not be prosecuted for acting within their official duties. I do not have a strong opinion whether they’ll send the matter back to the trial court to make findings of fact. I‘d have to read the filings line by line to understand what facts the parties agree to and which facts are in dispute.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 27, 2024 20:26:44 GMT -5
It's only a matter of time before Donald Trump is begging President Biden for a pardon.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Apr 28, 2024 7:26:17 GMT -5
If Trump is convicted and if Biden is reelected, I would not be surprised to see Biden pardon him and Trump piss on Biden after Biden does so.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Apr 28, 2024 7:32:17 GMT -5
If Trump is convicted and if Biden is reelected, I would not be surprised to see Biden pardon him and Trump piss on Biden after Biden does so. I think if Biden wins, Trump may have to be committed to a mental hospital. I doubt his ego could take losing twice without a mental breakdown.
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Apr 28, 2024 8:30:46 GMT -5
It would be awesome if they rule that there is no presidential immunity.... Then we can go after Obama for murder. He ordered a drone strike that murdered an American citizen that he would no longer be immune from prosecution for.
|
|
|
Post by nikonoclast on Apr 28, 2024 8:41:04 GMT -5
Whether or not Trump is fitted for a drool-cup, we'll all be along for the ride.
( Today's chapter of "Doonsbury" should be required reading ... for everyone. )
Win or lose the election, the damage is done ... America will be the big loser.
The plutocrats have the Supreme Court they wanted, and they want more of everything.
( except regulation of pollution, and income taxes )
Instead of a debate, I suggest a better measure of competence: a brain scan.
Let both candidtes submit to a series of scans ... at least three types.
Allow the results be examined by a panel of experts, and let them point out any "issues".
What could be more fair?
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Apr 28, 2024 9:36:47 GMT -5
The main issue is that both sides would try to pack the "panel of experts".
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Apr 28, 2024 21:22:41 GMT -5
Looks like new information shows the gsa shipped the docs to maralargo...
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 29, 2024 0:15:57 GMT -5
All the fat fuck had to do was give them back.
|
|