|
The Bible posted:It was a lot faster for the regular idiots who stormed the Capitol. To quote an infamous goon: if you explain something, it means you support it
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
The Bible posted:It was a lot faster for the regular idiots who stormed the Capitol. Building a case against the masterminds who arrange things from the shadows always takes longer than building a case against the people who are out there personally throwing fists. Especially when the latter are also filming themselves doing it and posting the videos to social media themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Building a case against the masterminds who arrange things from the shadows always takes longer than building a case against the people who are out there personally throwing fists. Especially when the latter are also filming themselves doing it and posting the videos to social media themselves. Fair enough, but maybe don't allow him to potentially take power again? Attacking your own government in an attempt to overthrow it should really be treated a little more seriously than your bog standard white-collar crime.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 00:57
|
|
|
The Bible posted:Fair enough, but maybe don't allow him to potentially take power again? Last time I checked, that was not one of the powers granted to the judiciary.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:05
|
|
|
The Bible posted:Fair enough, but maybe don't allow him to potentially take power again? Attacking your own government in an attempt to overthrow it should really be treated a little more seriously than your bog standard white-collar crime. What would stop people from doing this against people who didn't overthrow the government as long as they pinky swear that it's totally justified and totally not your bog standard white collar crime? The fact is that probably at the end of the day the American people are going to decide that and hoping the courts take care of it for you is not really all that different from when popular leftist politicians in Latin American countries get arrested on dubious grounds. At the end of the day its better for the country when the legal system is at least a little cautious and gunshy about arresting political candidates no matter how obviously it is the case that they're hella guilty and did it; they should still go through the process.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Building a case against the masterminds who arrange things from the shadows always takes longer than building a case against the people who are out there personally throwing fists. Especially when the latter are also filming themselves doing it and posting the videos to social media themselves. We have Trump on tape asking Russian hackers to hack his political opponents, which they then did.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:17
|
|
|
The Bible posted:We have Trump on tape asking Russian hackers to hack his political opponents, which they then did. Wasn't that during a campaign rally? Clear cut First Amendment rights. Should people be arrest for saying "I wish someone would rob this bank" if someone then perhaps by coincidence, robbed that bank?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:27
|
|
|
Who will rid me of this turbulent poster?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
Trump ordered to move ahead with his appeal of Carroll defamation verdictquote:Donald Trump has been given 14 days to start filing the necessary paperwork to appeal the $88.3 million defeat he was handed in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, according to a filing from a clerk in the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Wasn't that during a campaign rally? Clear cut First Amendment rights. Should people be arrest for saying "I wish someone would rob this bank" if someone then perhaps by coincidence, robbed that bank? Deteriorata posted:
quote:Deborah Birx acted as the White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator between 2020 and 2021. On September 6, 2021, NARA’s General Counsel wrote in an internal email that NARA was “arranging to pick up the PRA materials from Dr. Birx on Tuesday (tomorrow).” also why is this the only source for this story?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:35
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What would stop people from doing this against people who didn't overthrow the government as long as they pinky swear that it's totally justified and totally not your bog standard white collar crime? As you must already know, the government already does the "this" being described against normal people all the time. For, you know, all the normal bog standard not white collar crimes they prosecute on the regular. So what are you actually arguing? Raenir Salazar posted:Wasn't that during a campaign rally? Clear cut First Amendment rights. Should people be arrest for saying "I wish someone would rob this bank" if someone then perhaps by coincidence, robbed that bank? ... you are aware that that criminal incitement is illegal, right? That it is, at least sometimes, absolutely not a first amendment right, and the courts have said so, so that the idea that it is "clear cut" is kind of ludicrous?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:36
|
|
|
The Bible posted:Fair enough, but maybe don't allow him to potentially take power again? Attacking your own government in an attempt to overthrow it should really be treated a little more seriously than your bog standard white-collar crime. There is no clear-cut mechanism to stop this at this point. Congress needed to impeach him and they didn't so now *nothing matters other than beating him in the election. *: Assuming the supreme court rules, "well the constitution doesn't say you can't be president from jail." and given the makeup, I see little reason not to think this.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:44
|
|
|
quote:The former president’s legal team may be a bit busy — Trump is currently facing the tenth day of his criminal hush money and election interference trial in Manhattan. Thursday’s proceedings will focus on his contempt of court and whether he must face another round of sanctions for alleged gag order violations. What's the latest on that trial anyway? Is it just days of boring testimony about the mechanics of moving funds around inside Trump Org, or are they just stuck in endless gag order violation hearings? Failboattootoot posted:There is no clear-cut mechanism to stop this at this point. Congress needed to impeach him and they didn't so now *nothing matters other than beating him in the election. The clear-cut mechanism is that the people reject him. It can all go away* if Biden gets more electoral votes. It's a cultural problem that millions of Americans want to vote for him, and that's not something the courts can solve *for at least four more years haveblue fucked around with this message at 01:48 on May 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Who will rid me of this turbulent poster? The only way to stop a poster with an argument is another poster with an argument. InsertPotPun posted:i mean it certainly goes towards character and intent...i think you're missing the point? The Bible's line of questioning suggests to me that they do not really understand the why of why its bad to make exceptions to arrest and throw in jail political candidates more quickly; and the point of the analogy is to be as clear as possible about that why even though yes LITERALLY its obviously different; I don't think its a high bar here to be a little charitable about the point of the argument when the context is pretty clear. GlyphGryph posted:As you must already know, the government already does the "this" being described against normal people all the time. For, you know, all the normal bog standard not white collar crimes they prosecute on the regular. So what are you actually arguing? What are you talking about? What do you mean what I am I actually arguing? Do you suspect I am arguing something else then what I am plainly arguing or do you legitimately not understand the argument? Are normal people regularly being arrested while running for President? quote:... you are aware that that criminal incitement is illegal, right? That it is, at least sometimes, absolutely not a first amendment right, and the courts have said so, so that the idea that it is "clear cut" is kind of ludicrous? What Trump did isn't criminal incitement (assuming we're talking about the same event where he was speaking at a campaign rally and making a speech). No more then when a conservative empty headed talking head pleads for Russia to invade the US. Or more specifically, the legal bar to clear for Trump to be criminally liable (for that act specifically) and arrested is astronomically high and there's no actual legal argument that would pass muster in any US court that it is anything else.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:47
|
|
|
haveblue posted:What's the latest on that trial anyway? Is it just days of boring testimony about the mechanics of moving funds around inside Trump Org, or are they just stuck in endless gag order violation hearings? https://archive.ph/2pouz
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:48
|
|
|
Failboattootoot posted:There is no clear-cut mechanism to stop this at this point. Congress needed to impeach him and they didn't so now *nothing matters other than beating him in the election. They're much more likely to say you can't be president from jail, because that would interfere with your ability to do your duties as president, so we'd rather make you immune than admit we made a mistake supporting the most corrupt motherfucker alive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 01:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:The Bible's line of questioning suggests to me that they do not really understand the why of why its bad to make exceptions to arrest and throw in jail political candidates more quickly; and the point of the analogy is to be as clear as possible about that why even though yes LITERALLY its obviously different; I don't think its a high bar here to be a little charitable about the point of the argument when the context is pretty clear. Alright, fine, I give up then. This is all totally normal and the legal system is working perfectly well and as it would for any citizen in the country, regardless of wealth or status. I'm being unreasonable for wanting to see something done both legally and quickly about an actual armed insurrection explicitly aimed at overthrowing an election. That is apparently not a serious crime and should be treated as any other crime would be.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 02:26
|
|
|
OgNar posted:A Tweet calling Trump Von ShitzInPants was read in front of Donald today in court. I'm honestly surprised the whole regularly making GBS threads his pants thing hasn't got more traction. One of the Apprentice guys has been on a couple of podcasts talking about how often he poo poo his pants on set, there are photos where it is clear he is wearing an adult diaper, etc
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 02:54
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:I'm honestly surprised the whole regularly making GBS threads his pants thing hasn't got more traction. One of the Apprentice guys has been on a couple of podcasts talking about how often he poo poo his pants on set, there are photos where it is clear he is wearing an adult diaper, etc I mean there was that entire run of people using the "I poo poo myself on purpose" joke tweet.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 02:59
|
|
|
The Bible posted:We have Trump on tape asking Russian hackers to hack his political opponents, which they then did. Sure, but that's not illegal. He could be prosecuted for it if prosecutors could prove that he actually had some kind of direct arrangement with Russian hackers and issued that order knowing full well that those Russian hackers he had an arrangement with would hack in response to that statement. But that's actually pretty difficult to prove and requires a lot of investigating and evidence-gathering. It also requires the prosecutors to be ready to handle some very powerful and obvious defenses, like "if Trump had an arrangement with Russian hackers that allowed him to order them to do things, he'd probably have a better way of relaying those orders than just announcing them publicly". Believe it or not, it's not illegal to say "will no one rid me of this turbulent Clinton?", even if it's followed shortly after by someone ridding him of that turbulent Clinton. The Bible posted:Alright, fine, I give up then. This is all totally normal and the legal system is working perfectly well and as it would for any citizen in the country, regardless of wealth or status. The extremely important problem you're missing is that if prosecutors jump the gun and don't investigate very thoroughly and prepare their case very carefully, then maybe Trump gets acquitted because they failed to prove specific violations of specific laws to the satisfaction of a jury. This would be a very loving bad result! I would very much prefer that the prosecutors take their time and make sure they've got an absolutely rock-solid case, rather than rushing it to beat the election and ending up blowing the case. The DoJ's legal strategy should be dictated by legal considerations, not political considerations, and hurrying the case along to squeeze it in before the election is unquestionably a political consideration rather than a legal one.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 03:04
|
|
|
The Bible posted:Alright, fine, I give up then. This is all totally normal and the legal system is working perfectly well and as it would for any citizen in the country, regardless of wealth or status. If it wasn't done by the leader of one of the two political parties in the USA, you would have seen that.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 03:12
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Wasn't that during a campaign rally? Clear cut First Amendment rights. Should people be arrest for saying "I wish someone would rob this bank" if someone then perhaps by coincidence, robbed that bank? The part where Roger Stone was coordinating Hillary email leak timings though the GRU was a bit more than free speech.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 03:19
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The part where Roger Stone was coordinating Hillary email leak timings though the GRU was a bit more than free speech. That's not the situation we were discussing though, and iirc Roger Stone was arrested?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 04:41
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:They're much more likely to say you can't be president from jail, because that would interfere with your ability to do your duties as president, so we'd rather make you immune than admit we made a mistake supporting the most corrupt motherfucker alive. For the state crimes, there will be a 9-0 decision that says a state can't hold the president in jail because it would interfere with running the country and the supremacy clause says you can't do that. They may say the state can have him back in 4 years, but I don't think that is likely to matter - both because he's old as poo poo and because he would do everything in his power to start a second civil war if it kept him out of jail for even a day. The federal crimes don't matter because he would immediately pardon himself.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 05:10
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What are you talking about? What do you mean what I am I actually arguing? Do you suspect I am arguing something else then what I am plainly arguing or do you legitimately not understand the argument? What you are "plainly arguing" is, as far as I can derive meaning from it, obviously nonsense, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you are trying and simply failing to communicate make some sort of coherent point instead of intentionally arguing for nonsense. Heres a perfect example quote:Are normal people regularly being arrested while running for President? You are the one who brought up how it would be bad if "this" was done to a vague, not actually specified group of other people. The plain reading of your original statement was something akin to normal people. If thats not what you meant, then you should clarify what you meant, because its very non obvious that what you were trying to describe would be bad or who exactly it would be bad for.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 06:18
|
|
|
KillHour posted:For the state crimes, there will be a 9-0 decision that says a state can't hold the president in jail because it would interfere with running the country and the supremacy clause says you can't do that. They may say the state can have him back in 4 years, but I don't think that is likely to matter - both because he's old as poo poo and because he would do everything in his power to start a second civil war if it kept him out of jail for even a day. Even if he somehow was found to not be ablet o pardon himself (lol, set out by whom and enforced by whom?), couldn't he do some easy trickery like delegate powers to the VP for a day during his next medical procedure or whatever and then they do it while he is temporarily incapacitated? Seems like a pretty easy way to go about it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I mean there was that entire run of people using the "I poo poo myself on purpose" joke tweet. Sure if you are online as much as we are and in political spaces its known but if you asked most Americans on the street did they know that Trump regularly shits his pants I don't think they would. If Biden poo poo his pants even once and it got out we'd be hearing about it until the end of time.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 06:30
|
|