Oh, I agree, at least with your first point. The fact that “just a fine” exists as a conseqeunce for a Georgia RICO conviction gives the Judge (Scott McAfee) an option to not put Trump in prison.
We’ve already seen the ruling from the Colorado district court, which found that Jan 6 was an “insurrection,” and that Trump “engaged” in it … but that Section Three doesn’t apply to Presidents … ? The only explanation I can think of for that bizarre ruling is that the judge who made it, with full knowledge that it would be appealed no matter what the ruling was, chose not to take on the personal risk from Trump-supporting lunatics. A risk which we have seen that the Colorado Supreme Court did choose to submit themselves to.
That same personal risk would befall Judge McAfee if he were to sentence Trump to prison. From what I have seen of his courtroom, he may well choose to take that risk, but the “just a fine” escape is available.
I don’t think the State would appeal the verdict sentence, if Trump was found guilty by the jury, and sentenced to a fine by the judge. Such an appeal would definitely be seen as either “beating a dead horse” or “election interference” (::spit::).
I disagree. The State would appeal, because it would be William’s prerogative to do so & “just a fine” very plainly isn’t an actual punishment for a multi-millionaire.
I truly hope you’re right, but Trump has, to this point, seen zero real consequences for any of his clear and obvious infractions. The Colorado ruling gets closer, but staying the judgment until Jan 4 makes it fall short. If, one day, he does finally see consequences, I will be pleasantly surprised. I’m all done getting my hopes up, though.
For what it’s worth, the CO SC had a panel thst just ordered him removed from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection and is ineligible under the 14th.
There was an appeal and it got worse. So there’s that.
No … the full Colorado State Supreme Court made that ruling. 4 in the majority, 3 dissent. Next stop: SCOTUS
The Federal DC Circuit Court of Appeals - first your case goes to a three judge panel. That’s who’s going to hear oral argument the morning of Jan 9, 2024. If you don’t like how that went, then you appeal and it goes before the full court, en banc. Now your next appeal goes to SCOTUS.
Maybe I’m being pedantic.
Anyway - the kind of appeal I was talking about was one where the verdict was guilty, and the punishment was “just a fine.” The one you’re referring to - that’s not over, there are no consequences for that. That issue is never going to stop anywhere before a SCOTUS ruling.
No … the full Colorado State Supreme Court made that ruling. 4 in the majority, 3 dissent. Next stop: SCOTUS
A panel of seven is still a panel of seven. Yes it’s the full court.
I was simply adding context that it was in fact appealed and decreed an insurrection (and all that.)
Though I suspect; the question isn’t going to go before the Scotus. It’s largely irrelevant in a primary, and it’s going to be difficult to justify moving that quickly anyway. (Ballot names have to be certified by the SoS by Jan 5th.)
Oh, I agree, at least with your first point. The fact that “just a fine” exists as a conseqeunce for a Georgia RICO conviction gives the Judge (Scott McAfee) an option to not put Trump in prison.
We’ve already seen the ruling from the Colorado district court, which found that Jan 6 was an “insurrection,” and that Trump “engaged” in it … but that Section Three doesn’t apply to Presidents … ? The only explanation I can think of for that bizarre ruling is that the judge who made it, with full knowledge that it would be appealed no matter what the ruling was, chose not to take on the personal risk from Trump-supporting lunatics. A risk which we have seen that the Colorado Supreme Court did choose to submit themselves to.
That same personal risk would befall Judge McAfee if he were to sentence Trump to prison. From what I have seen of his courtroom, he may well choose to take that risk, but the “just a fine” escape is available.
I don’t think the State would appeal the
verdictsentence, if Trump was found guilty by the jury, and sentenced to a fine by the judge. Such an appeal would definitely be seen as either “beating a dead horse” or “election interference” (::spit::).I disagree. The State would appeal, because it would be William’s prerogative to do so & “just a fine” very plainly isn’t an actual punishment for a multi-millionaire.
I truly hope you’re right, but Trump has, to this point, seen zero real consequences for any of his clear and obvious infractions. The Colorado ruling gets closer, but staying the judgment until Jan 4 makes it fall short. If, one day, he does finally see consequences, I will be pleasantly surprised. I’m all done getting my hopes up, though.
For what it’s worth, the CO SC had a panel thst just ordered him removed from the ballot because he engaged in insurrection and is ineligible under the 14th.
There was an appeal and it got worse. So there’s that.
No … the full Colorado State Supreme Court made that ruling. 4 in the majority, 3 dissent. Next stop: SCOTUS
The Federal DC Circuit Court of Appeals - first your case goes to a three judge panel. That’s who’s going to hear oral argument the morning of Jan 9, 2024. If you don’t like how that went, then you appeal and it goes before the full court, en banc. Now your next appeal goes to SCOTUS.
Maybe I’m being pedantic.
Anyway - the kind of appeal I was talking about was one where the verdict was guilty, and the punishment was “just a fine.” The one you’re referring to - that’s not over, there are no consequences for that. That issue is never going to stop anywhere before a SCOTUS ruling.
A panel of seven is still a panel of seven. Yes it’s the full court.
I was simply adding context that it was in fact appealed and decreed an insurrection (and all that.)
Though I suspect; the question isn’t going to go before the Scotus. It’s largely irrelevant in a primary, and it’s going to be difficult to justify moving that quickly anyway. (Ballot names have to be certified by the SoS by Jan 5th.)