Presidentvalget i USA 2024

[jallajall]

1 hour ago, jjkoggan said:

Jack Smiths filing was “sealed “ and would not have influenced the election if left unsealed by the judge.  Also, the DOJ policy you mention doesn’t apply to pending cases 

9-85.500 Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election

Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See § 9-27.260. Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General.

(60 eller 90 dager, litt avhengig av hvem man spør)

Så du tror ikke dette "may have an impact on election" ?

[jjkoggan]

jallajall skrev (2 minutter siden):

 

Smith sealed the document. Pending cases don't apply to DOJ policy

[jjkoggan]

jallajall skrev (13 minutter siden):

9-85.500 Actions that May Have an Impact on an Election

Federal prosecutors and agents may never select the timing of any action, including investigative steps, criminal charges, or statements, for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party. Such a purpose is inconsistent with the Department’s mission and with the Principles of Federal Prosecution. See § 9-27.260. Any action likely to raise an issue or the perception of an issue under this provision requires consultation with the Public Integrity Section, and such action shall not be taken if the Public Integrity Section advises that further consultation is required with the Deputy Attorney General or Attorney General.

(60 eller 90 dager, litt avhengig av hvem man spør)

Så du tror ikke dette "may have an impact on election" ?

"For the purpose".  You need to think about what that means.  A sealed filing clearly shows it was not "for the purpose" of influencing an election.

 

The DOJ's '60-day rule'

While Bratt's answer to Judge Cannon made clear the government's position that taking Trump to trial in the days leading up to an election was in compliance with the 'Justice Manual' containing all of DOJ's rules and policies, the so-called '60-day' rule is actually nowhere to be found in the manual itself.  Horowitz noted the rule "is not written or described in any Department policy or regulation" but is instead described by former officials as a "general practice that informs Department decisions."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dojs-60-day-rule-role-play-trump-trial/story?id=107789927

Endret 2 timer siden av jjkoggan

[jallajall]

Just now, jjkoggan said:

"For the purpose".  You need to think about what that means.  A sealed filing clearly shows it was not "for the purpose" of influencing an election.

 

The DOJ's '60-day rule'

While Bratt's answer to Judge Cannon made clear the government's position that taking Trump to trial in the days leading up to an election was in compliance with the 'Justice Manual' containing all of DOJ's rules and policies, the so-called '60-day' rule is actually nowhere to be found in the manual itself.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dojs-60-day-rule-role-play-trump-trial/story?id=107789927

Avhengig av hvem man spør, så konkluderer de med enten 60 eller 90 dager før et valg.

Hvor i DOJs policy står det at pågående saker er unntatt policien om valgpåvirkning? Det gjør det jo bare enda mer utsatt for sabotasje og påvirkning.

[jjkoggan]

jallajall skrev (2 minutter siden):

Avhengig av hvem man spør, så konkluderer de med enten 60 eller 90 dager før et valg.

Hvor i DOJs policy står det at pågående saker er unntatt policien om valgpåvirkning? Det gjør det jo bare enda mer utsatt for sabotasje og påvirkning.

En slik policy står ingen sted.  

Legal experts argue that only applies to new investigations, however, and does not apply when a case is already in court, as the case is then out of the DOJ’s hands and up to the judiciary to decide.

The Justice Manual and the so-called 60-day rule (the informal DOJ policy prohibiting overt investigative steps or indictments in politically sensitive cases within 60 to 90 days before an election) therefore apply primarily before cases are charged. Once cases are charged, because they proceed under court supervision (in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and constitutional considerations), the rules no longer apply in the same way (and the 60-day rule no longer applies at all). 

 

[jallajall]

2 minutes ago, jjkoggan said:

En slik policy står ingen sted.  

Legal experts argue that only applies to new investigations, however, and does not apply when a case is already in court, as the case is then out of the DOJ’s hands and up to the judiciary to decide.

The Justice Manual and the so-called 60-day rule (the informal DOJ policy prohibiting overt investigative steps or indictments in politically sensitive cases within 60 to 90 days before an election) therefore apply primarily before cases are charged. Once cases are charged, because they proceed under court supervision (in accordance with the Speedy Trial Act, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and constitutional considerations), the rules no longer apply in the same way (and the 60-day rule no longer applies at all). 

 

Finnes nok av legal expert som mener det motsatte. Kommer helt an på hvem man spør.

For eksempel, hvis Jack Smith bestemmer seg for å holde pressekonferanser hver dag frem til valget, så er ikke dette en handling som kan tenkes å påvirke valget?

[AtterEnBruker]

Wow. Mer mareritt-materiale.

https://www.rawstory.com/jason-miller-abortion-2669282978/

Menstruell overvåking, faktisk. Vi lever jaggu i den ene historiske begivenheten etter den andre....

[jjkoggan]

jallajall skrev (18 minutter siden):

Finnes nok av legal expert som mener det motsatte. Kommer helt an på hvem man spør.

For eksempel, hvis Jack Smith bestemmer seg for å holde pressekonferanser hver dag frem til valget, så er ikke dette en handling som kan tenkes å påvirke valget?

Alt kan tenkes å påvirke valget unntatt kanskje en sealed filing.

Endret 1 time siden av jjkoggan

[jallajall]

2 minutes ago, jjkoggan said:

Alt kan tenkes å påvirke valget unntatt kanskje en sealed filing.

Kan det tenkes å påvirke valget å gå mot føderale regler han selv er underlagt for å pushet ut dette nå? Hvorfor var det viktig å få sendt inn nå, det er jo ikke relevant eller avgjørende for saken?

The way motions work – under the federal rules, and consistent with common sense – is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions. Makes sense, right? It’s worked for hundreds of years in our courts.

Not here. Not when there’s an election right around the corner and dwindling opportunity to make a dent. So Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first – even with no actual defense motion pending. Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” – moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn.

Which brings us to the second point: Smith’s proactive filing is prejudicial to Trump, legally and politically. It’s ironic. Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool.

Yet Smith now uses grand jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines. You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure – and also members of the jury pool.
 

[jallajall]

Bolton vs Ramaswamy: US Foreign Policy.
Old right vs New right. Neocon vs America First.

 

[AveMORphine]

32 minutes ago, jallajall said:

Kan det tenkes å påvirke valget å gå mot føderale regler han selv er underlagt for å pushet ut dette nå? Hvorfor var det viktig å få sendt inn nå, det er jo ikke relevant eller avgjørende for saken?

The way motions work – under the federal rules, and consistent with common sense – is that the prosecutor files an indictment; the defense makes motions (to dismiss charges, to suppress evidence, or what have you); and then the prosecution responds to those motions. Makes sense, right? It’s worked for hundreds of years in our courts.

Not here. Not when there’s an election right around the corner and dwindling opportunity to make a dent. So Smith turned the well-established, thoroughly uncontroversial rules of criminal procedure on their head and asked Judge Chutkan for permission to file first – even with no actual defense motion pending. Trump’s team objected, and the judge acknowledged that Smith’s request to file first was “procedurally irregular” – moments before she ruled in Smith’s favor, as she’s done at virtually every consequential turn.

Which brings us to the second point: Smith’s proactive filing is prejudicial to Trump, legally and politically. It’s ironic. Smith has complained throughout the case that Trump’s words might taint the jury pool.

Yet Smith now uses grand jury testimony (which ordinarily remains secret at this stage) and drafts up a tidy 165-page document that contains all manner of damaging statements about a criminal defendant, made outside of a trial setting and without being subjected to the rules of evidence or cross-examination, and files it publicly, generating national headlines. You know who’ll see those allegations? The voters, sure – and also members of the jury pool.
 

All of wich the supreme court instructed her to do.

[Tussi]

AtterEnBruker skrev (1 time siden):

Wow. Mer mareritt-materiale.

https://www.rawstory.com/jason-miller-abortion-2669282978/

Menstruell overvåking, faktisk. Vi lever jaggu i den ene historiske begivenheten etter den andre....

Ingen stater har straff for kvinner som tar abort, ingen. Og der man prøvde seg, gikk de store pro-life gruppene ut  og protesterte, så de måtte snu

Forøvrig ville jeg ikke vært bekymret, selv om man skulle ønske noe slikt er det fullstendig ugjennomførbart

Men fint man kan skremme folk med tull likevel....

Endret 16 minutter siden av Tussi

[jallajall]

Just now, AveMORphine said:

All of wich the supreme court instructed her to do.

Sure. Saken havnet offisielt hos Chutkan igjen 2. august. 10 uker før valget, 27. august, sender Smith inn en ny siktelse som erstatter den gamle. Samme tiltaler, basert på mindre bevis. Shrinkflation.
5. september får han tillatelse til å sende inn briefen sin før Team Trump, og han bruker imponerende kun 3 uker på dette. Vi er godt innenfor 60-90 dager helt siden saken havnet tilbake på pulten til Chutkan. Men hvorfor så hastverk for Smith, når det åpenbart vil påvirke valget?