Sub judice

There are rules about what you can say while a trial is ongoing. As Tommy Robinson found out.

American rules about what is sub judice might be different.

A trial in the Senate might not be a trial in this same sense.

Someone, somewhere, should tell us. For this could, potentially, be a dangerous thing to be saying:

Donald Trump is clearly guilty.

That it’s Amanduh does mean that it’s possible she’s been badly briefed as to the law…..

21 thoughts on “Sub judice”

  1. Interesting that Senators are bid silence on pain of imprisonment. Why isn’t that extended outside the sitting?

  2. Shes a fucking idiot. A d just because Adam bug eyed cunt Schiff tells more lies than a 2nd hand car salesman doesnt make it so.

  3. Apart from the criminal position, it may also be libellous. What with insane US damages awards that could be far more dangerous than any offence?

  4. American libel awards are trivial by comparison with English. Rare to see one that goes into 5 figures US dollars.

    And public figures have an extremely difficult time claiming libel. If you’re a “public figure” – itself an elastic concept – then you have to prove malice. Not just that this was libel but also that they absolutely meant it and did it in order to harm you.

    It’s exceedingly rare for a public figure to be able to win a libel suit over there.

  5. Dennis, Tiresome Denizen of Central Ohio

    Septics view sub judice differently from wogs.

    First amendment trumps sub judice in the case of the general public, which, unfortunately, includes Amanduh.

  6. By coincidence, I’ve jusr read this at Chiefio’s blog.. Hat tip to Taz.

    Media now forces me to endure an additional step before reading. If the journo is female – check if she has children. No children? She’s likely out of her mind – not worth the trouble to read.

  7. Curious, isn’t it, that Biden is now saying he would not allow any of his family to benefit from his high office if he were to become President…it’s almost as if he suspects the game is up for him

  8. The Other Bloke in Italy

    Dennis (He of Many Hats) is correct in principle, but US juries can be generous.

    Perhaps, this is why young Nick Sandmann’s first target, CNN I think, settled so quickly. 25mil is a figure I have seen.

  9. “First amendment trumps sub judice”

    A legal game of Top Trumps……..

    Not sure if you have Top Trumps card games over in the US?

    When playing the “Tyrants and Dictators” version, having a hand full of socialist leaders gave you a good chance of winning. They’re just so far ahead in the “own citizens murdered” category.

  10. Dennis (He of Many Hats) is correct in principle, but US juries can be generous.

    For septics the issue all revolves around whether the receiver of the abuse fits the legal definition of a “public figure”. Clearly THE DONALD fits that definition. Equally clearly, Nick Sandmann doesn’t.

  11. There are almost no rules about what you can say about or around a trial here.

    Basically – don’t talk about ‘jury nullification’ (its legal, judges like to pretend its not) and don’t talk about the case around the jurors (nothing will happen to you but it might get a juror replaced).

    Its not even (legally speaking) libel/slander here.

  12. And, of course, the Senate’s impeachment ‘trial’ isn’t a trial by any other standard – criminal or civil. ‘Charges’ brought here don’t have to be crimes, they could just be ‘we don’t like your face’. If enough of them find him ‘guilty’ of having a non-likable face, then he’s out on his ear.

    Which is also why, for example, the impeachment ‘charge sheet’ doesn’t actually list any charges. No focus and no way for the defendant to know what he has to defend against. Evidence is whatever the Senate agrees is evidence. Rules are whatever the Senate agrees on – and they’ve been different at every impeachment trial.

  13. Bloke in North Dorset

    Other Bloke in Italy,

    I don’t think Sandmann would count as a public figure, at least before the incident and he’s also a minor.

    CNN got off lightly, let’s hope the rest of the shits get stung badly.

  14. [not too fast]

    ‘The House-appointed managers, let by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., spent most of the day arguing that trials work better when the evidence is actually presented’

    [not a duplicate]

    So why didn’t Schitt gather that evidence when he was running the show in the House? It’s HIS job to present the evidence they found. Schitt said they had enough evidence to impeach, so he wrapped it up and sent the papers to the Senate. Sorta.

    ‘as opposed to Senate Majority Mitch McConnell’s plan to stifle as much of it as possible.’

    He runs the Senate; Schitt doesn’t. Schitt knew this before the impeachment show ever started in the House.

    He claimed two months ago he had the evidence. Now he wants to call witnesses, presumably to get the evidence he said he already had. He lied before. And he’s lying now. It’s what he does.

    [testing]

    So this is a political show, calculated to help the Dems with the 2020 election. More for the Senate than the presidency. Their presidential primary clown show will produce no candidate for president. Their convention will have to select someone. They’ll probably go for Bloomberg. For his money. Talking up a rinky dink small town gay mayor is an act of decadence. By the convention they’ll realize they can’t afford such. Bloomberg will lose the election – as will any other Democrat – but at least he has $2B US to share. Pete has nothing.

    Don’t think Michelle Obama. She will stay out of it. Losing is no way to break into politics.

    I assume the Dems know all this. But they often have a problem with reality.

    ‘White House lawyers have no defense for Trump.’

    Defense for what? There are no charges! “Abuse of power” is not a crime – it’s a feeling. And disrespecting Congress is what the vast majority of Americans do.

    Let me show you how profoundly stupid Marcotte is:

    ‘cannot muster anything resembling an actual defense of Trump’s impeachable offenses, those trying to blackmail the Ukrainian president into smearing his political opponents on TV and then stonewalling Congress over it.’

    Ukraine is not in the impeachment papers. She believes that which is demonstrably not real.

  15. “Abuse of power” is not a crime – it’s a feeling. And disrespecting Congress is what the vast majority of Americans do.

    They’re alleging Abuse of power for Trump seeking relief from the courts.

    Its total panto bollocks.

    And Schiff is a world class cunt.

  16. Bloke in North Dorset

    Defense for what? There are no charges! “Abuse of power” is not a crime – it’s a feeling. And disrespecting Congress is what the vast majority of Americans do.

    Perhaps, but Impeachment isn’t about crimes its intent was always meant to be for political use:

    First among those myths is the notion that impeachment is reserved solely for criminal abuses of office. Perversely, as the power of the office has grown, that misconception has ensured that the federal official with the greatest capacity to do harm now enjoys stronger job protection than virtually any other American.

    But the remedy James Madison described as “indispensable . . . for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate” isn’t limited to violations of the law or abuses of official power. As the 1974 House Judiciary Committee report on “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment” put it, impeachment was “intended to reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office.” “A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments],” Massachusetts’ Elbridge Gerry insisted at the Constitutional Convention, and “a bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.” Through the exercise of the “sole Power of Impeachment,” the House can call even the most powerful federal officer to account. That power should never be invoked lightly, but neither should Americans fear to wield it, should it become necessary.

    As to Trump’s impeachment its bollocks and I hope it comes back to bite them. They were always going to impeach him from the moment he was elected, it was just when and on what charges. Dems claiming it was a national emergency because he was a threat to their sanity and then delayed it sort of proves the point.

  17. I am convinced that this is theatre to keep the Dems busy while Durham and Huber mine away for evidence and indictments(over 145 000 sealed indictments currently, usual no for comparison is 5 000 on pacer.gov). One can guess what will trigger it but Sidney Powell, Flynn’s lawyer, has started the process of revealing corruption and downright lying in the FBI; Peter Schweizer’s latest book reveals just how large a family enterprise followed when he was VP and that the other Dem candidates are also enthusiastic troughers; Giuliani is itching to haul out his evidence trove from Ukraine, and GOK what Obama was up to in Iran with his pallets of cash(btw he eased up restrictions on Soleimani in 2014 to which the UN Security Council strongly objected).

  18. True, BiND. In the end, an impeachable offense is what the House says it is. So it will always be political.

    “Dems claiming it was a national emergency” is a shiny object to get people to think it wasn’t just raw politics, and not just Orange Man bad.

    The press, and their surrogates in the Democrat Party, have engaged in a massive attack of false characterization of Trump. It is reasonable for the party faithful to demand impeachment, as Trump has done all these horrible things. Except he hasn’t. The press lies.

    The dumbass Dems impeach Trump on nothing, having been SET UP BY THE PRESS!

    Of course I hope this turns out really bad for the Dems. Bad enough that they split from the press. That divorce could return the press to doing their job, instead of colluding with Leftard politicians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *