|
Discendo Vox posted:Your hypothetical has no relation to the actual current situation you're just asking questions about. You entire counter-point rests on the idea that the feds would just have to sigh and agree to it, because ignoring the judiciary is just "not how the government works." It's a clear demonstration of how fundamentally ludicrous your non-argument is. Discendo Vox posted:That's now how it worked. Go on. Explain how the Republicans in Ohio did not explicitly ignore decrees by the judiciary.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You entire counter-point rests on the idea that the feds would just have to sigh and agree to it, because ignoring the judiciary is just "not how the government works." It's a clear demonstration of how fundamentally ludicrous your non-argument is. 1) No it doesn't 2) Can you provide an actual example because "the GOP did it in Ohio" is not an example, it's just you making an assertion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The Republican electoral strategy in Ohio was to ignore decrees by the courts, and they did. Yes, another higher court later expressly rewarded them for doing so, but it was only able to do so because they ignored court decrees until then. The Republicans in Ohio didn't ignore the courts. Every time the courts rejected a map, they complied with the rejection. None of the maps they drew met the court's requirements, but they didn't just ignore the court and put those maps into practice anyway. If a judge ruled that Trump is president now, the case would be immediately appealed to a higher court, which would immediately put a stay on the ruling, blocking it until the appeals court ruled. That's why your hypothetical doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 19:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why should I agree with the bolded? I haven't seen any evidence on it one way or the other, and researching it myself seems like a huge pain in the rear end just to refute a point you haven't bothered to back up in the first place. You've just asserted that it's true, but you haven't provided any backing at all for that assertion, so I don't really have any reason to think that it's a reasonable assertion. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-picks-more-not-qualified-judges-1 quote:More of Donald Trump’s judicial picks have received “not qualified” ratings from the American Bar Association than did those nominated by his four most-recent predecessors in the first two years of their presidencies, Bloomberg Law research shows.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 19:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The Republicans in Ohio didn't ignore the courts. Every time the courts rejected a map, they complied with the rejection. None of the maps they drew met the court's requirements, but they didn't just ignore the court and put those maps into practice anyway. U.S. District Judge Marbley: “Following the majority’s April opinion, the Commission never attempted to craft a constitutionally compliant fifth plan. Two Commissioners, who had participated in all prior rounds of map-drawing, actually ceased their service and appointed substitutes" Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor: The problem was “created by the commission’s lack of action — which is in direct defiance of its constitutional duties and this court’s four prior judgments [...] respondent Ohio Redistricting Commission has, contrary to this court’s clear order, resubmitted an unconstitutional General Assembly district plan and, in doing so, has engaged in a stunning rebuke of the rule of law." From https://woub.org/2022/06/06/republicans-on-ohio-redistricting-commission-ignore-supreme-court-order-for-new-maps-by-monday/: "Republicans on the panel charged with drawing new House and Senate district maps said they will ignore an order from the Ohio Supreme Court to produce a sixth attempt at new maps by Monday." These quotes do not, to me, read like they "complied with the rejection" or followed the court decree. Even before they stopped drawing maps at all, the decree was to draw a map that met certain requirements which they repeatedly refused to do. If they were actually complying with the court somehow, I think I can be forgiven for thinking they weren't, considering the opinions of those involved in the case. But we're getting way off topic here, and if my hypothetical isn't relevant this is even less relevant, especially since I already conceded the point that the feds should ignore the court in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 20:14
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:U.S. District Judge Marbley: “Following the majority’s April opinion, the Commission never attempted to craft a constitutionally compliant fifth plan. Two Commissioners, who had participated in all prior rounds of map-drawing, actually ceased their service and appointed substitutes" In continuing to derail discussion, you're ignoring that there was a federal case on that point. Not knowing how the court system works doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You didn't "concede the point" of the thing you have been claiming this whole time, you repeatedly restated a nonsensical claim phrased as a rhetorical question, then misread an unrelated case after being prompted to support any part of it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2022 20:33
|
|
|
Things are bordering on Trumpian arguments here (eg "No" and "That's not how it works"), but there have been a few things hidden in the walls of text. It does seem important that the DOJ not pursue a course of action where a later court decides all the evidence is inadmissible. I may not like what the chudge did, but waiting a few days for the DOJ ain't gonna hurt much either. They may have had dealings with the appellate in the past and know whether or not an appeal would work. Biden doesn't need much public presence in any of this and he's already getting enough fake bad press. Let the FBI and DOJ be the scapegoats for a tad; people showing up at their offices are getting arrested rather directly. Biden can focus on the message that the voters need to stop being dupes; they're going to be angry whether Trump is telling them lies or Biden is telling them facts, but at least this way what's in front of them is a message about the facts ("these people broke the law") instead of conspiracy bullshit. "Decorum" doesn't mean withholding reality. It they can't accept the facts that's their right, but the messages need to loudly become factual and realistic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 00:10
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Things are bordering on Trumpian arguments here (eg "No" and "That's not how it works") We've had the "separation of powers exists, the executive is not able to overrule the other branches of the government" discussion many, many times. "Why doesn't X branch just ignore the others and do whatever" isn't a remotely novel or interesting contribution to discussion.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:That didn't answer my question at all. The white house, the president etc. cannot have someone arrested. I'm sure that will change in 2024 if Trump wins but for now it doesn't matter how much the president would like someone to be arrested they have no mechanism to do it. That all goes through the Justice Department. The DOJ is part of the Executive Branch (I was mistaken about that in my previous comment) but the Office of the President at least on an official level has no control of the DoJ (again this is something Trump very much tried to do and will do again) and Biden seems to be rigorously trying to keep the DoJ from being influenced or politicized by the Office of the President. The DOJ (FBI etc,) would have to do it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
Not really thread related but since it came up here, I've been thinking about this for some time and isn't high time we did away with the requirement that a lawmaker has to be physically present to cast a vote on a bill? I mean, we have zoom and email webcams and online all sorts of poo poo so I don't personally see a reason that the distinguished gentleman from district zero in Bumfuck Oregon really needs to be on the Senate floor in DC to vote yes or no on renaming a battleship or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Not really thread related but since it came up here, I've been thinking about this for some time and isn't high time we did away with the requirement that a lawmaker has to be physically present to cast a vote on a bill? I mean, we have zoom and email webcams and online all sorts of poo poo so I don't personally see a reason that the distinguished gentleman from district zero in Bumfuck Oregon really needs to be on the Senate floor in DC to vote yes or no on renaming a battleship or some poo poo. Pelosi instituted that in Spring 2020 when COVID started spinning up, and it's been renewed continuously (currently set to expire late this month) ever since. Nearly every Rep has used it by now. Of course, McConnell refused in the Senate, and they still haven't adopted it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 02:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:We've had the "separation of powers exists, the executive is not able to overrule the other branches of the government" discussion many, many times. "Why doesn't X branch just ignore the others and do whatever" isn't a remotely novel or interesting contribution to discussion. In the lawfare podcast today they noted that DoJ has in the past just shrugged off district court rulings that they believe to be invalid. Partly I think this is because district courts are not controlling over areas outside a specific area and partly because DoJ feels that if it becomes an impediment they’ll just litigate it then. There is a fair amount of analysis that Cannon doesn’t have jurisdiction and that Trump doesn’t have standing and that the relief ordered isn’t grantable and that the public interest isn’t the private interest of a person so DOJ might be of the opinion that they can ignore her without concern. However, the podcasters (lawyers from the Brookings institute) were also of the opinion that DoJ wouldn’t do that in this case because other chudges might refer to this ruling as precedent and it’s best to just fight it out now. One interesting thought was that it may not be Bratts group that fights the ruling but rather OLC since OLC has a more vested interest in the executive privilege question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Not really thread related but since it came up here, I've been thinking about this for some time and isn't high time we did away with the requirement that a lawmaker has to be physically present to cast a vote on a bill? I mean, we have zoom and email webcams and online all sorts of poo poo so I don't personally see a reason that the distinguished gentleman from district zero in Bumfuck Oregon really needs to be on the Senate floor in DC to vote yes or no on renaming a battleship or some poo poo. It should be technically fine and allowed in special situations, but I also think politics should function better when politicians are physically around each other and hopefully interacting and forming relationships that could help pull different sides together in the future. Does this actually happen now? Probably not much, but also if we let them vote remotely they'd probably just vote from Epstein's private island or some poo poo, not while working at a soup kitchen in their home district.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 03:09
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:It should be technically fine and allowed in special situations, but I also think politics should function better when politicians are physically around each other and hopefully interacting and forming relationships that could help pull different sides together in the future. Does this actually happen now? Probably not much, but also if we let them vote remotely they'd probably just vote from Epstein's private island or some poo poo, not while working at a soup kitchen in their home district. Congressional delegations, that is when groups of congressfolk do foreign travel for whatever reasons, is one of the better ways to get them to interact and form relationships that help pull together bipartisan legislation or negotiation. So essentially if you take a group of... well actually decent congressfolk -- so not like Boebert or MTG or Tuberville -- and put them together but away from the hyperpartisan cesspool of DC and away from the majority/minority leaders and whips, they actually form interpersonal bonds that last into working in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 07:46
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:It should be technically fine and allowed in special situations, but I also think politics should function better when politicians are physically around each other and hopefully interacting and forming relationships that could help pull different sides together in the future. Does this actually happen now? Probably not much, but also if we let them vote remotely they'd probably just vote from Epstein's private island or some poo poo, not while working at a soup kitchen in their home district. The average age of Congress and the Senate is something like 60 years old. So the more likely scenario is all legislation will come to a grinding halt because half the senators won't be able to figure out how to get on Zoom. Although it would be pretty funny to have a Senator with a cat filter they can't figure out how to turn off like that lawyer from a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 07:57
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The average age of Congress and the Senate is something like 60 years old. So the more likely scenario is all legislation will come to a grinding halt because half the senators won't be able to figure out how to get on Zoom. Although it would be pretty funny to have a Senator with a cat filter they can't figure out how to turn off like that lawyer from a few years ago. I promise that members of Congress aren't generally having problems with Zoom, especially after several years of pandemic. Even if they haven't been able to use it to attend hearings and votes, it's been essential to constituent and lobbyist meetings this whole time. edit: the funny part is when the incompetent/cheapskate/walking dead offices don't bother to spend the incredibly cheap price for the basic zoom plan and their constituent meetings get cut off at 45 minutes or w/e the limit is Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 08:06
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:The average age of Congress and the Senate is something like 60 years old. So the more likely scenario is all legislation will come to a grinding halt because half the senators won't be able to figure out how to get on Zoom. Although it would be pretty funny to have a Senator with a cat filter they can't figure out how to turn off like that lawyer from a few years ago. They will just have a staffer run the Zoom call and wake up the senator to say "aye" or "nay" during a pause, so for most of them like Feinstein nothing will change
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 14:44
|
|
|
Justice Department to appeal judge's ruling on special master in Trump searchquote:The Justice Department will appeal a judge's ruling for a special master to look at the documents seized during the search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, according to a notification filed Thursday.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
Pretty good news day so far.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:39
|
|
|
Wow, they do not mince words in explaining how she erred. Lot of pressure on her now to rule before that Thursday deadline or people will be hollering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
"The government argued that there was evidence that the Trump team "concealed and removed" additional classified documents that had been stored at Mar-a-Lago before the FBI's August search took place." Is this saying they hid documents in March, which were later recovered in the raid? Or is this implying Trump is still hiding more documents that could not be recovered?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:"The government argued that there was evidence that the Trump team "concealed and removed" additional classified documents that had been stored at Mar-a-Lago before the FBI's August search took place." They found a lot of empty classified info folders, so they probably suspect the contents of those have gone elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
TVs Ian posted:They found a lot of empty classified info folders, so they probably suspect the contents of those have gone elsewhere. Or they contained some of the myriad documents they found, it's not exactly clear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:32
|
|
|
TVs Ian posted:They found a lot of empty classified info folders, so they probably suspect the contents of those have gone elsewhere. Framed, on the wall, in some hallway next to the fake Time covers...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:54
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:Or they contained some of the myriad documents they found, it's not exactly clear. Right I mean at this point we're splitting hairs and know full that Trump broke some pretty serious laws that would have landed anyone else in a Leavenworth basement but we don't know the exact details and precise manner by which the crimes occurred. So, to the MAGA mind, that renders the whole investigation a hoax and a witch hunt. Like, if the DOJ finds the nuclear launch codes under Trump's mattress but the date it's entered into evidence has a typo or some poo poo, that means witch hunt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
They should check the outgoing tray of the fax machine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
So, the Feds are not actually appealing yet, they are giving notice that they are going to appeal if the judge does not reconsider. Basically saying, "regarding non-classified documents we think you are wrong on that too, but whatever, those are not as important and we can fight about those later. Your order applying to the classified documents is clearly idiotic, here are the reasons why. We are being nice by giving you a chance to very quickly modify your order, but if you don't then we will appeal."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Rigel posted:So, the Feds are not actually appealing yet, they are giving notice that they are going to appeal if the judge does not reconsider. Basically saying, "regarding non-classified documents we think you are wrong on that too, but whatever, those are not as important and we can fight about those later. Your order applying to the classified documents is clearly idiotic, here are the reasons why. We are being nice by giving you a chance to very quickly modify your order, but if you don't then we will appeal." I read the whole thing and the tone came across to me as, “you loving idiot you spent 0 time thinking about this in your rush to be a political agent”. She either has to rule that the classified documents don’t belong to the executive but rather a private citizen or grant the stay. They, by definition, can’t be private documents and they also, by definition, can’t be withheld from government use because they are the papers the government uses to make decisions. In essence they are the ultimate form of executive privilege in that no one can see them unless expressly permitted by the president and the president pointedly denied Trumps clearance so he MAY NOT have them and even if he had a clearance he still couldn’t have them unless Biden (via his agents) expressly says so. So, yeah, the classified documents are 100% covered by executive privilege. So much so that the special master can’t see them regardless of the judges order. I’m also of the opinion that the “hey, also Obstruction of Justice is a live issue in this case” inserted in the middle was a nudge that even judges are not above the law. Murgos fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 01:11
|
|
|
Is it true that despite Trump saying "I declassified these" that has not been brought up in a legal filing (because it is an obviously false claim)?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 03:18
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:Is it true that despite Trump saying "I declassified these" that has not been brought up in a legal filing (because it is an obviously false claim)? It's an irrelevant claim. The Espionage Act was enacted before classification existed, so it has its own definitions of what's covered. Classification status does not enter into it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 03:27
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:Is it true that despite Trump saying "I declassified these" that has not been brought up in a legal filing (because it is an obviously false claim)? I'm also not sure why it would matter here. The papers are government property, classified or not, not Trump's personal property. The government is trying to recover its own property and determine what, if any, crimes were committed. If Trump walked out with the White House china they'd want that back too. It might come up if they charged him with some crime related to handling of classified material, then he might want to argue that the papers weren't classified when he took them. But I'm not sure if it would really help. I understand there are charges they can bring that don't depend on whether the materials were classified or not. Also couldn't Biden just say "ok in that case I reclassified them and he continued to mishandle them after being told he has classified material"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
Federal grand jury investigating Trump's "Save America" Pac https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/08/politics/trump-save-america-pac-federal-grand-jury-january-6/index.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 03:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also couldn't Biden just say "ok in that case I reclassified them and he continued to mishandle them after being told he has classified material" Right. The thing that makes classified documents serious isn’t that someone stamped classified on it. It’s the information in it that represents grave harm to the United States were it to fall into the wrong hands. Like, say, information on an allies most secret weapons or intelligence system that causes a huge diplomatic incident and causes the US to lose trust with our closest allies reducing their cooperation with us and puts US national defense at greater risk. Murgos fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 03:45
|
|
|
lol he still has more documents apparently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:lol he still has more documents apparently. Probably. Some of them may have been pinched by the various spies frequenting MAL. (Normally you'd photograph a document, but if they're being stored so carelessly why not go for it?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 03:53
|
|
|
Whoever is running the investigation should have an accounting of somewhere between almost every and every document that should be in his possession and there is zero excuse for every single one to not be accounted for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:Whoever is running the investigation should have an accounting of somewhere between almost every and every document that should be in his possession and there is zero excuse for every single one to not be accounted for. Oh they absolutely know what he took, I'm just saying that might not match up 100% with what he still has.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 03:58
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:lol he still has more documents apparently. I mean it's a Trump scandal, there was no way that all those empty folders were going to be the end of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
From what I understand, the empty folders have serial numbers or code numbers that specify the nature of the contents, so it shouldn't take long to reunite them to the loose documents...and determine which documents remain missing. Can't wait to see how the chudge responds to the DOJ..
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
They should just start charging. https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1568020351313125376https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1568022946110898177 EDIT: Didn't realize she was being charged with so many felonies. Great to see. https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1567907244779642880 Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2022 06:38
|
|