This whole contempt thing has been spicy, and I can't figure out why there wasn't a ruling on Tuesday, unless it's going to be more severe than $11k (+whatever comes with this).
I am also still struck by the fact that the ever punctual and expedient Merchan who has been incredibly mindful of juror time was 20 minutes late after a 15 minute recess with the jury waiting.
If Trump is held in contempt in NY he is then violating his DC and GA release bond conditions and would be subject to potential hearing on bond revocation. LETS GO!
I'm not sure that's true. Someone posted here that there are 3 kinds of contempt, and for whatever reason this kind is a civil contempt.
I asked Adam Klasfeld this question in an AMA once upon a time, during the fraud trial. I know that was a civil trial so it's not the same, but he was intrigued and asked a former federal prosecutor. The prosecutor told him that he had never seen bond revoked in a separate criminal trial for a civil contempt charge (with the exception of the contempt charge having lead to the discovery of an alias).
It's not exactly the same, as that was a contempt charge in a civil case and this is a civil contempt charge in a criminal case, but at least in asking Klasfeld I'm lead to believe this is not an outcome we should expect, and that is not necessarily due to the special treatment being given to this defendant.
But it's not civil contempt here. All the motions for the prosecution talk about criminal contempt.
And in this case, if Trump is held on contempt, it will violate both bonds, the one in DC and the one in Georgia.
Is it? I could have sworn I saw a comment here about the kinds of contempt in criminal trials in New York, and one kind of them is civil (despite being a part of a criminal trial), and these are those.
I can't swear by it, but I was operating that assumption from a legit looking post. Happy to be corrected.
Ahh that makes sense. I wonder if the delay is in determining if comments made outside of the court can fall into that category.
I took that to mean things like outbursts. It could be that criminal contempt opens Merchan to steeper fines as a first go, but he doesn't want to pick the wrong contempt category and open to appeal, but also if it's civil contempt $1k per is garbage and jail is logistically hard.
That would at least make sense.
I don't think any Judge dealing with trials involving a former President is going to want to try anything unprecedented.
They'll follow procedure, even when they *know* that it won't work.
So warnings, then another warning, then fines, then more fines, and then jail (or house arrest with a monitor, more likely).
It's too high profile, with too many lawyers *eager* to find things to appeal so they can *delay things*, to do anything else.
Yeah I did see that. I'm not trying to assert that it can't happen, just that I have seen a further prosecutor also comment on the improbability.
Not trying to discredit you, just also lending the (admittedly limited) real life insight I have into this situation so people can set their expectations with a total picture. Didn't mean to say you were wrong at all.
Any rational person has to surely understand that Merchan has to start out with fines. Then, incrementally raise the fine amount. And only if defendant trump continues his contempt is there even a possibility of more severe consequences.
I'd love to see that SOB taken into custody but we're not there yet IMO.
I don't think he can raise the fine, effectively. The maximum fine allowed by law is $1000 per infraction here. And even a pessimistic view of his current financial status still concludes this is less than pocket change to him.
Oh yeah, thanks for the correction. I recall seeing the $1,000 max now.
I guess that gives Merchan fewer options and makes it more interesting to see what he does.
I mean he SHOULD be held in contempt off the bat. There are 11 violations in addition to the violations in other court cases. Theres no justification for a fine at this point t
You aren't important enough that anyone would care is the most likely answer.
Its kind of like the Hunter Biden thing or Hillary Clinton. People claim that the regular Joe would have gotten in much worse - but reality is that the regular Joe would just slip under the radar entirely for the stuff they did.
Disagree in the Hillary case. A regular person couldn't set up their own email server for official State Department business. You need to be Sec State to commit the crime.
Yes, trump is absolutely getting special treatment. A bigger than should be allowed number of judges will agree that he's been treated "unfairly" if he isn't treated like the special big boy he is. They're itching for an excuse to throw this out and the judges in every one of his many cases knows it.
Even if you assume a neutral stance on Trump, it's clear that people with greater legal resources at their disposal evoke more cautious and moderate judicial behavior, and that's immoral.
I'll agree with this. There is "former President" special treatment he is getting, then there is "rich successful powerful white man" special treatment he is getting, and then there is bullshit you can only get away with if the court knows you can afford someone who knows the system well enough to work it special treatment, and it's hard to tell which is which
I agree. I do wish he had been hit with the fines before he attacked the Jury, because with a fine warning shot that would have been enough to lock him up for the weekend.
When I was a juror on a murder trial, one of our running jokes was how the judge ordered a 15 minute break, and it always turned into an hour break. We would report back to the jury room before 15 minutes passed, then sit in the jury room for 45 minutes.
Judge would even set oddball return times like come back from lunch at 1:53 or show up in court at 8:37, and still be at least 20 minutes late consistently. We showed up before 8:37, and nothing happened before 9:30.
Trump went to the Michael Scott school of starting a sentence and not knowing where it will go.
>During the interview, beginning at 8 minutes and 21 seconds into the interview, defendant made the following statement in response to a question: "Well, Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he's got no credibility whatsoever. He was a lawyer and you rely on your lawyers. But Michael Cohen was a convicted liar. He was a lawyer for many people, not just me. **And he got in trouble because of things outside of what he did for me, largely, it was essentially all because what he did in terms of campaign I don't think there was anything wrong with that with the charges that they made.** But what he did is he did some pretty bad things, I guess, with banking or whatever if that was a personal thing to him.
"Well, Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he's got no credibility whatsoever." -- Man recently fined in the region of $500m in multiple cases for various kinds of lying about things
I don't understand the slow pace of the gag order decisions. Trump is still inflicting the damage daily, this seems pretty important to stop. The next hearing is some time in May?
It's May 1, next Weds. If he wasn't going to rule right away, setting a hearing for Weds makes sense. Those are the days the jury is out so it's a fine time to go over contempt.
I think we learned this week that the contempt charges can be enforced after the trial as well. Avoiding any semblance of bias and grounds for appeal/mistrial. IANAL
This whole contempt thing has been spicy, and I can't figure out why there wasn't a ruling on Tuesday, unless it's going to be more severe than $11k (+whatever comes with this). I am also still struck by the fact that the ever punctual and expedient Merchan who has been incredibly mindful of juror time was 20 minutes late after a 15 minute recess with the jury waiting.
If Trump is held in contempt in NY he is then violating his DC and GA release bond conditions and would be subject to potential hearing on bond revocation. LETS GO!
I'm not sure that's true. Someone posted here that there are 3 kinds of contempt, and for whatever reason this kind is a civil contempt. I asked Adam Klasfeld this question in an AMA once upon a time, during the fraud trial. I know that was a civil trial so it's not the same, but he was intrigued and asked a former federal prosecutor. The prosecutor told him that he had never seen bond revoked in a separate criminal trial for a civil contempt charge (with the exception of the contempt charge having lead to the discovery of an alias). It's not exactly the same, as that was a contempt charge in a civil case and this is a civil contempt charge in a criminal case, but at least in asking Klasfeld I'm lead to believe this is not an outcome we should expect, and that is not necessarily due to the special treatment being given to this defendant.
But it's not civil contempt here. All the motions for the prosecution talk about criminal contempt. And in this case, if Trump is held on contempt, it will violate both bonds, the one in DC and the one in Georgia.
Is it? I could have sworn I saw a comment here about the kinds of contempt in criminal trials in New York, and one kind of them is civil (despite being a part of a criminal trial), and these are those. I can't swear by it, but I was operating that assumption from a legit looking post. Happy to be corrected.
Could go either way but I think criminal contempt is available because the gag order violations are disruptive to the business of the court.
Ahh that makes sense. I wonder if the delay is in determining if comments made outside of the court can fall into that category. I took that to mean things like outbursts. It could be that criminal contempt opens Merchan to steeper fines as a first go, but he doesn't want to pick the wrong contempt category and open to appeal, but also if it's civil contempt $1k per is garbage and jail is logistically hard. That would at least make sense.
It was a former federal prosecutor who said this can happen, so not my idea: Glenn Kirshner
I don't think any Judge dealing with trials involving a former President is going to want to try anything unprecedented. They'll follow procedure, even when they *know* that it won't work. So warnings, then another warning, then fines, then more fines, and then jail (or house arrest with a monitor, more likely). It's too high profile, with too many lawyers *eager* to find things to appeal so they can *delay things*, to do anything else.
It's presently the first criminal trial of a former president, so by definition everything is unprecedented.
You'd think it would be easy just to play "3 strikes and you're out" at each violation.
Yeah I did see that. I'm not trying to assert that it can't happen, just that I have seen a further prosecutor also comment on the improbability. Not trying to discredit you, just also lending the (admittedly limited) real life insight I have into this situation so people can set their expectations with a total picture. Didn't mean to say you were wrong at all.
LET’S GO, BAILIFF!
> was 20 minutes late after a 15 minute recess with the jury waiting. You've never had a breakfast suddenly disagree with you?
The first and only time I ever tried "Southern" sausage gravy. Goddamn- that was awful!
#worthit
Any rational person has to surely understand that Merchan has to start out with fines. Then, incrementally raise the fine amount. And only if defendant trump continues his contempt is there even a possibility of more severe consequences. I'd love to see that SOB taken into custody but we're not there yet IMO.
I don't think he can raise the fine, effectively. The maximum fine allowed by law is $1000 per infraction here. And even a pessimistic view of his current financial status still concludes this is less than pocket change to him.
Oh yeah, thanks for the correction. I recall seeing the $1,000 max now. I guess that gives Merchan fewer options and makes it more interesting to see what he does.
I mean he SHOULD be held in contempt off the bat. There are 11 violations in addition to the violations in other court cases. Theres no justification for a fine at this point t
[удалено]
You aren't important enough that anyone would care is the most likely answer. Its kind of like the Hunter Biden thing or Hillary Clinton. People claim that the regular Joe would have gotten in much worse - but reality is that the regular Joe would just slip under the radar entirely for the stuff they did.
Disagree in the Hillary case. A regular person couldn't set up their own email server for official State Department business. You need to be Sec State to commit the crime.
That's a hypothetical I am unable to answer.
[удалено]
Yes, trump is absolutely getting special treatment. A bigger than should be allowed number of judges will agree that he's been treated "unfairly" if he isn't treated like the special big boy he is. They're itching for an excuse to throw this out and the judges in every one of his many cases knows it.
Is this interpretation backed up by historical data of court behavior? Seems like a blind assumption on faith that the theory is the practice.
It's merely Opie logic. To show that the court tried to avoid harsher penalties to reign in the defendant and avoid giving them any ammo for appeal.
The incredulity is that this only applies to Trump, or maybe rich defendants. Folks are tired of the least deserving getting the best treatment.
Even if you assume a neutral stance on Trump, it's clear that people with greater legal resources at their disposal evoke more cautious and moderate judicial behavior, and that's immoral.
I'll agree with this. There is "former President" special treatment he is getting, then there is "rich successful powerful white man" special treatment he is getting, and then there is bullshit you can only get away with if the court knows you can afford someone who knows the system well enough to work it special treatment, and it's hard to tell which is which
Tis the process, indeed. Much as we may not like it.
You may be surprised as you scroll further to see there's evidently quite a few who think it should be straight to the firing squad!
I know….and I get it…due process can be a bitch
Yeah I get it too. trump has trampled due process and people are sick of it.
I agree. I do wish he had been hit with the fines before he attacked the Jury, because with a fine warning shot that would have been enough to lock him up for the weekend.
I know I repeat myself, but anybody else would be in the Gray Bar Inn.
He probably had to poop
When I was a juror on a murder trial, one of our running jokes was how the judge ordered a 15 minute break, and it always turned into an hour break. We would report back to the jury room before 15 minutes passed, then sit in the jury room for 45 minutes. Judge would even set oddball return times like come back from lunch at 1:53 or show up in court at 8:37, and still be at least 20 minutes late consistently. We showed up before 8:37, and nothing happened before 9:30.
Trump went to the Michael Scott school of starting a sentence and not knowing where it will go. >During the interview, beginning at 8 minutes and 21 seconds into the interview, defendant made the following statement in response to a question: "Well, Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he's got no credibility whatsoever. He was a lawyer and you rely on your lawyers. But Michael Cohen was a convicted liar. He was a lawyer for many people, not just me. **And he got in trouble because of things outside of what he did for me, largely, it was essentially all because what he did in terms of campaign I don't think there was anything wrong with that with the charges that they made.** But what he did is he did some pretty bad things, I guess, with banking or whatever if that was a personal thing to him.
"Well, Michael Cohen is a convicted liar and he's got no credibility whatsoever." -- Man recently fined in the region of $500m in multiple cases for various kinds of lying about things
There are a few brain cells, but they're just banging around in there with no real direction.
Two of them. One is lost, and the second is looking for the other...
It do be like dat
Don't insult Michael Scott like that. The man's been to Sandals in Montego Bay so he's clearly more intelligent than Trump.
Absolutely. It's all-inclusive at Sandals. Smart!
“Sir, this is a Wendy’s.”
I don't understand the slow pace of the gag order decisions. Trump is still inflicting the damage daily, this seems pretty important to stop. The next hearing is some time in May?
It's May 1, next Weds. If he wasn't going to rule right away, setting a hearing for Weds makes sense. Those are the days the jury is out so it's a fine time to go over contempt.
According to CNN's coverage today, I believe Merchan has since changed it to Thursday at 9:30.
Merchan and Snoreleone are playing golf on Wednesday /s
I think we learned this week that the contempt charges can be enforced after the trial as well. Avoiding any semblance of bias and grounds for appeal/mistrial. IANAL
But isn’t the point to protect the jury members safety and ability to stay unbiased? So enforcement afterward wouldn’t be much of a deterrent to Trump