Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

He is desperate, his numbers are in freefall because he’s basically saying he can be Trump without the baggage (failing to note that’s why his voters like him) while Trump is in the race.

[Starver]

People who don't like Trump don't like how he originally supported Trump (and is stil idealistically more or less in the same frame).

People who do like Trump don't like how he has recently gone against Trump (trying to put a little clear/muddy water between).

...there's not too much electoral-stew left in the demographic pot once you've scooped out the above portions. He must be betting on recovering some of the above if/when Trump decides he can't be bothered any more and letting his other 'vote-worthy' qualities become his primary selling point.

[nenjin]

Even then. "Meatball Ron" is going to follow him through his entire campaign. Say what you will about Trump, he knows how to fuck with people.

[TamerVirus]

Think Trump is gonna end up in a 1920 Eugene Debs situation where he's possibly campaigning from prison?

[EuchreJack]

I still don't think Trump will ever step foot in a prison cell.
Then again, he is noteworthy.
But I doubt he'll be in prison until after the 2026 elections.

I feel it's important to note that to get convicted in the Florida document case, Trump needs to get convicted by a Florida jury...

[Telgin]

I feel like they've got pretty good evidence for the case now so there's a real chance he'll face consequences.

What's the minimum sentence if they do find him in violation of the Espionage Act or whatever it was?  He passed an EO that upped that to significant prison time, right?  I wonder if he could be convicted of a lesser crime instead, but admit I haven't really kept up with it in detail.

[Lord Shonus]

The section of the Espionage act he's formally charged with violating is

§793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or

(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or

(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

(h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State" includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.

(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—

(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;

(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and

(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,

Just so you don't have to dig through the legalese, this can be simplified to

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document ... or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

If I'm reading the indictment right, he is charged with 31 separate offenses under this statute (plus another five charges under different statutes), which would translate to potential prison time of 0-310 years. The more practical minimum would be 1 year per count, for a total of 31 years, and most people convicted on this charge get considerably more.


Trump did sign a law increasing the penalties for mishandling classified documents under a different statute from 1 year to five, but he didn't do anything with the Espionage Act.

[Telgin]

Ah, so there's no minimum prison time for it, which puts me back in the camp of not expecting Trump to end up in prison for it.  It's going to be very disappointing if he ends up with just a fine over it.

[da_nang]

Last opinions for this SCOTUS term. Two 6-3 along party lines, one unanimous.

303 Creative LLC v. Aubrey Elenis: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

(6-3. Correct, IMO)

Department of Education v. Myra Brown: Respondents lack Article III standing to assert a procedural challenge to the student-loan debt-forgiveness plan adopted by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).

(9-0. Correct, IMO)

Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States v. Nebraska: The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.

(6-3. WTF initially; will need to parse this.)

[Frumple]

Last opinions for this SCOTUS term. Two 6-3 along party lines, one unanimous.

303 Creative LLC v. Aubrey Elenis: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

(6-3. Correct, IMO)

One of the "fun" things with this one is that apparently a great deal of the case was based on shit that was just outright fabricated. Details on that one seem to be pretty fucked up, which makes it entirely unsurprising it was a 6-3 party line ruling.

That wasn't what the colorado law did, anyway; it was a specific prohibition against certain forms of discrimination, not just "messages with which the designer disagrees". The state had basically said you don't get to be a bigoted shit if you want to do business there, SCOTUS has said 'nah fam, be a shit, we got your back'.

Other 6-3's pretty crap too, for that matter. Really, you can just kind of assume anything 6-3 along party lines from this SCOTUS bench is a royally fucked up decision on some level. I can't think of any cases since the majority went that direction they weren't.

[da_nang]

WTF still stands on Biden v. Nebraska, but perhaps a bit tempered.

Even if you allow for MOHELA's standing, "waive or modify" in §1098bb(a)(1) sounds pretty clear. Even if you accept the majority's argument that modify “carries “a connotation of increment or limitation,” and must be read to mean “to change moderately or in minor fashion,”” the opinion syllabus reads as if the program fell on the forgiveness criteria.

It seems that you can either waive the loans in their entirety or make small changes, but not both; that the Secretary of Education can make small changes to existing provisions, and he can waive the provisions entirely, but he can't waive provisions with conditions since that is now "adding" to the provisions and not modifying.

It's such a nitpick of a technicality, and IMO a distinction without a difference. To put in terms I'm more familiar with, Nehrim is a total conversion of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. It basically rewrites the base game entirely, keeping only the game engine, but it's technically also a modification of Oblivion. I can understand that Congress probably didn't intend the Secretary to turn the HEROES Act into a constitution for his own personal kingdom, but come on! Debt forgiveness in response to a national emergency clearly sounds intended.

EDIT:

One of the "fun" things with this one is that apparently a great deal of the case was based on shit that was just outright fabricated. Details on that one seem to be pretty fucked up, which makes it entirely unsurprising it was a 6-3 party line ruling.

Eh, I'll chalk that one up to Colorado not doing their homework and getting it on the record in the district court. This was not brought up as a original jurisdiction case, so SCOTUS is a trier of law here and not the trier of facts. That, and there's still the chilling effect to be used as standing.

[Great Order]

You know, it's going to be interesting when we get non-Christians refusing to make Christian stuff because it goes against their views.

I do sometimes wonder if a lot of people are mentally capable of thinking "If I can use this against them, they can use this against me"

Be especially funny if a bunch of businesses started refusing SC justices.

[EuchreJack]

I do sometimes wonder if a lot of people are mentally capable of thinking "If I can use this against them, they can use this against me"

They're not.
Most people are inherently hypocritical.

On a related note, while I am disappointed that I won't get $10,000 of my student loan forgiven, I did like the part about "The President can't just do whatever he wants". Love when any Supreme Court limits any President's powers.

[EuchreJack]

More DeSantis is weak news:
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/desantis-signs-bill-prohibiting-medical-marijuana-at-florida-recovery-residences-even-if-recommended-by-doctor/

[Strongpoint]

You know, it's going to be interesting when we get non-Christians refusing to make Christian stuff because it goes against their views.

I will refuse* to do anything that will promote Christianity in any way. And I need the right to do so. If that means that Christians may refuse to do something based on their views, I am more than fine with it.

Will hypocrite Christians scream persecution when THEY will be denied? They will. And it will be interesting indeed.



*OK, there must be some amount of money that will make me do so, but it isn't low and I won't feel good for being a sellout.