I wonder if the prosecution will try to get a retrial for those 10 counts, or settle for the 8 counts of which the jury found Manafort guilty. Can the prosecution even get a retrial, given the...
I wonder if the prosecution will try to get a retrial for those 10 counts, or settle for the 8 counts of which the jury found Manafort guilty. Can the prosecution even get a retrial, given the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment? Does it even matter when a second trial on other charges is pending?
IANAL, but according to this a mistrial does mean a new trial, or at least the opportunity of one. I believe double jeopardy would only apply if he was found not guilty.
Can the prosecution even get a retrial, given the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment?
IANAL, but according to this a mistrial does mean a new trial, or at least the opportunity of one. I believe double jeopardy would only apply if he was found not guilty.
If the first case Mueller brings to court goes this well it will be interesting to see how the rest of the investigation goes. I assume this is just the tip of the iceberg.
in the first case brought to trial by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US election.
If the first case Mueller brings to court goes this well it will be interesting to see how the rest of the investigation goes. I assume this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I'd hope for impeachment, but Trump's removal from office for any reason would mean we'd be stuck with Mike Pence as President until at least 2020 (unless we can take him down along with Trump and...
I'd hope for impeachment, but Trump's removal from office for any reason would mean we'd be stuck with Mike Pence as President until at least 2020 (unless we can take him down along with Trump and the rest of his cronies). I don't know about you, but the thought of "President Pence" has me doing research on converting my basement into a fallout shelter.
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only US presidents that have faced impeachment; both were later acquitted by the Senate. If anyone is to become the first sitting US president to be...
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only US presidents that have faced impeachment; both were later acquitted by the Senate. If anyone is to become the first sitting US president to be impeached and removed from office Trump would be a good candidate.
The process would most likely take up the better part of 2019, so we would only have to deal with Pence for a year. It would be a really shitty year yeah, but I think it would be doable.
Whereas Richard Nixon saw the writing on the wall and got out before the Senate could finish the job of exposing him for the mendacious scumbag he was. Will Trump do the same, or insist on...
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only US presidents that have faced impeachment; both were later acquitted by the Senate.
Whereas Richard Nixon saw the writing on the wall and got out before the Senate could finish the job of exposing him for the mendacious scumbag he was. Will Trump do the same, or insist on clinging to power until the bitter end?
I wonder if Cohen will eventually confirm the theory about Trump, not Elliott Broidy, having an affair with Shera Bechard and paying $1.6MM for her silence. There are many unanswered questions on...
I wonder if Cohen will eventually confirm the theory about Trump, not Elliott Broidy, having an affair with Shera Bechard and paying $1.6MM for her silence. There are many unanswered questions on that topic.
That deal is particularly interesting because of speculation that the larger payout amount ($1.6 million compared to "only" $130k to Stormy Daniels) was because Shera Bechard was impregnated by...
That deal is particularly interesting because of speculation that the larger payout amount ($1.6 million compared to "only" $130k to Stormy Daniels) was because Shera Bechard was impregnated by Trump and subsequently had an abortion.
I'd be very curious to see what the Christian conservative movement would make of that, if true. Would it finally cause a drop in his support among that demographic, or would it just be the latest example of "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue" being true?
I know you're probably being sarcastic, but I think we should have broken out the tumbrels and guillotines back in 2008, and OWS should have stood for "Overthrow Wall Street". I'm ready to sing La...
I know you're probably being sarcastic, but I think we should have broken out the tumbrels and guillotines back in 2008, and OWS should have stood for "Overthrow Wall Street". I'm ready to sing La Marseillaise and I can't even speak French.
Well, it seems I could write a long-winded post titled something like: to better express myself, but I'm tired this morning :P I get being upset about the status quo, but explicitly calling for a...
Well, it seems I could write a long-winded post titled something like:
To a select minority of less than ten people: please stop advocating ludicrous things without at least considering that there may be unintended consequences
to better express myself, but I'm tired this morning :P
And lead indisputably into Napolean trying to conquer Europe, and irrevocably changed the face of the continent / social structures, no argument here. My issue is not with the significance of the...
And lead indisputably into Napolean trying to conquer Europe, and irrevocably changed the face of the continent / social structures, no argument here. My issue is not with the significance of the event, or the large-scale social change that it created in France (and subsequently, Europe if we look how it formed a basis for 1848 and beyond), merely a blithe call to guillotines without addressing the whole "Oh yeah, we went on a massive, indiscriminate killing spree" aspect of it.
As much as I agree, the time for things to change without resorting to violence is certainly past once we start calling for jury-less trials & executions of our opponents, hence my vehement...
As much as I agree, the time for things to change without resorting to violence is certainly past once we start calling for jury-less trials & executions of our opponents, hence my vehement opposition of the OP, hyperbolic or not. Not to mention how easily those things could be turned against those who called for them in the first place.
You fucking called for bringing out the Guillotine to execute (presumably?) bankers and politicians, and you expect that to go well? You expect that to be persuasive at all?
You fucking called for bringing out the Guillotine to execute (presumably?) bankers and politicians, and you expect that to go well? You expect that to be persuasive at all?
I wonder if the prosecution will try to get a retrial for those 10 counts, or settle for the 8 counts of which the jury found Manafort guilty. Can the prosecution even get a retrial, given the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment? Does it even matter when a second trial on other charges is pending?
IANAL, but according to this a mistrial does mean a new trial, or at least the opportunity of one. I believe double jeopardy would only apply if he was found not guilty.
Thanks for the reference.
If the first case Mueller brings to court goes this well it will be interesting to see how the rest of the investigation goes. I assume this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Apparently Cohen is already flipping on Trump, so get your popcorn ready.
I'd hope for impeachment, but Trump's removal from office for any reason would mean we'd be stuck with Mike Pence as President until at least 2020 (unless we can take him down along with Trump and the rest of his cronies). I don't know about you, but the thought of "President Pence" has me doing research on converting my basement into a fallout shelter.
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only US presidents that have faced impeachment; both were later acquitted by the Senate. If anyone is to become the first sitting US president to be impeached and removed from office Trump would be a good candidate.
The process would most likely take up the better part of 2019, so we would only have to deal with Pence for a year. It would be a really shitty year yeah, but I think it would be doable.
Assuming he doesn't get caught in the fall.
Whereas Richard Nixon saw the writing on the wall and got out before the Senate could finish the job of exposing him for the mendacious scumbag he was. Will Trump do the same, or insist on clinging to power until the bitter end?
The best con artists know when to cut their losses and move on to the next con.
What's Trump's next con, then? He's already turned the White House into a bad reality TV show.
I wonder if Cohen will eventually confirm the theory about Trump, not Elliott Broidy, having an affair with Shera Bechard and paying $1.6MM for her silence. There are many unanswered questions on that topic.
That deal is particularly interesting because of speculation that the larger payout amount ($1.6 million compared to "only" $130k to Stormy Daniels) was because Shera Bechard was impregnated by Trump and subsequently had an abortion.
I'd be very curious to see what the Christian conservative movement would make of that, if true. Would it finally cause a drop in his support among that demographic, or would it just be the latest example of "I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue" being true?
He'll just say he's repented and all will be forgiven. The politically active evangelicals have no integrity for the most part.
We're running out of non-Trump family members to bring legal action against.
Hell, let's put Melania on trial and see if she throws hubby under a bus.
... what are we, the French Revolution in here?
Mueller actually used a similar tactic in the Enron case tbf. Got Andrew Fastow’s wife to flip and plead guilty.
I know you're probably being sarcastic, but I think we should have broken out the tumbrels and guillotines back in 2008, and OWS should have stood for "Overthrow Wall Street". I'm ready to sing La Marseillaise and I can't even speak French.
Spoken as only someone truly ignorant of the French revolution could... enjoy your revolution until Madame la Guillotine is turned on you.
What's wrong? You don't like that I'm angry about the way things are and choose to express my anger by referring to the French Revolution? Too bad.
Well, it seems I could write a long-winded post titled something like:
to better express myself, but I'm tired this morning :P
I get being upset about the status quo, but explicitly calling for a revolution akin to one where up to 40,000 people were summarily executed without trial or representation doesn't exactly improve the situation, now does it?
And lead indisputably into Napolean trying to conquer Europe, and irrevocably changed the face of the continent / social structures, no argument here. My issue is not with the significance of the event, or the large-scale social change that it created in France (and subsequently, Europe if we look how it formed a basis for 1848 and beyond), merely a blithe call to guillotines without addressing the whole "Oh yeah, we went on a massive, indiscriminate killing spree" aspect of it.
As much as I agree, the time for things to change without resorting to violence is certainly past once we start calling for jury-less trials & executions of our opponents, hence my vehement opposition of the OP, hyperbolic or not. Not to mention how easily those things could be turned against those who called for them in the first place.
This is inevitable from the structure of power (GCP Grey Rules for Rulers)
Oh, sure. Equate the entire French Revolution with the Reign of Terror. That's really persuasive.
You fucking called for bringing out the Guillotine to execute (presumably?) bankers and politicians, and you expect that to go well? You expect that to be persuasive at all?
Does anyone know what 10 charges didn't stick in the jury deliberations? (Since I'm sure the government will try them again.)