|
lol they're trying to pin everything on John Eastman because everything Trump did was "following the advice of counsel"
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
 Something Awful 1.0.I've been pondering how thorough a gag order will be attempted tomorrow. Worse case they can appeal, right? Or does that piss off the appellate court and get one booted off the case? "Mister Defendant, seeing as how the charges in this case relate to conspiracies predicated on communication of both a public and private nature, and how such has continued even unto this morning, I shall provide you the choice: Either you promise zero public communication related to this case, jan6, or 'election interference' since that's what you've been charged with; or you can be held without bail to ensure no furtherance". (Hypothetical far left judge behaving like a regular right wing judge)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 00:11
|
|
|
I've got a drive ahead of me this afternoon, are there any fast-moving podcast / youtube folks that are already discussing the new indictment stuff?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:That's not even the wildest quote from the transcript. Ew. I wonder if the Borat 2 film footage is admissible here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Ew. It's in the documentation, at least. Page 15.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
Been thinking about the  from juror number 3 in Twelve Angry Men, and how easy it is to imagine T in the same It's on YouTube but major spoilers so I won't put it here.Defendant #1 / T (or maga juror depending on circumstances): [another pause, seething with anger] Everything - *every single thing* that took place in this courtroom, but I mean everything - says I'm innocent. What d'ya think, I'm an idiot or somethin'? [gets out of his seat] Why don'tcha take that stuff about the attorney general - the attorney general who *attended* the meeting and heard *every*thing and didn't complain? Or this business about the phone call! What, 'cause I said they could find votes for Biden but not for me? He's *complaining* instead of doing his job! Right there in the office! He should be on trial! What's the difference how many votes it was? Every single thing... The tweets welcoming my fans to Washington... You can't *prove* I wanted them to attack the Capitol ! Sure, you can take all the time, picking and choosing antifa plants on video, but you can't prove it! And what about this business with the electors? And Pence! There's a phony deal if I ever heard one. I betcha five million dollars I'd get the House to send it to the states ! I'm tellin' ya, every thing that's gone on has been twisted... and turned! [throws ketchup] This business with the lawyers? How do *you* know they didn't plan it all? This woman went through that door on her own! And what about the lies that I was watching it on TV and did nothing? Huh?! I'm tellin' ya, I've got all the facts here... here... [throws classified documents at the prosecutors] Well there it is, that's the whole case!
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:lol they're trying to pin everything on John Eastman because everything Trump did was "following the advice of counsel" Trump's lawyer was on NPR today and he just kept saying all of the charged behavior is just Trump exercising his first amendment right to free speech
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 01:40
|
|
|
Misdirection is the only thing he has left. https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1686861758080716802
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 01:42
|
|
|
 Epshteyn didnt kill himchelf
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 02:28
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Tread lightly with sourcing to Meidas Touch, it's very much in the Any Day Now line of coverage; look for the underlying coverage it's mediating and ensure that it matches its claims. Uhhhhhhhhhhh it's not "mediating" any "coverage" it's literally quoting the filing, as they say (and link to!) right in the article. But you already know that because you read it, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/axios/status/1686883588040499200
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 03:53
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Uhhhhhhhhhhh it's not "mediating" any "coverage" it's literally quoting the filing, as they say (and link to!) right in the article. But you already know that because you read it, right? When someone takes information and it passes through their hands or channel of communication to somewhere else, it's mediation. They're also not just quoting the filing, they're adding commentary and passing readers through their own site, with additional commentary. Meidas Touch has a pattern of overstating the significance of events; my caution about tracking to the prior source wasn't just about this tweet but also all the others that get posted from them. To wit, the "bombshell new filing" that "flew under the radar" is a three page checklist form. The case was known. Relative to the other ones, it's not very significant. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Aug 3, 2023 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
Well this was to be expected https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1686832005185478656
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 04:17
|
|
|
Kith posted:It's in the documentation, at least. Page 15. LOL no poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 04:17
|
|
|
in fairness, given the facts in the indictment, this might be the best strategy that isn't "flee to Russia"
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Meidas Touch has a pattern of overstating the significance of events; my caution about tracking to the prior source wasn't just about this tweet but also all the others that get posted from them. To wit, the "bombshell new filing" that "flew under the radar" is a three page checklist form. The case was known. Relative to the other ones, it's not very significant. PhantomOfTheCopier posted:I've been pondering how thorough a gag order will be attempted tomorrow. Worse case they can appeal, right? Or does that piss off the appellate court and get one booted off the case? "Mister Defendant, seeing as how the charges in this case relate to conspiracies predicated on communication of both a public and private nature, and how such has continued even unto this morning, I shall provide you the choice: Either you promise zero public communication related to this case, jan6, or 'election interference' since that's what you've been charged with; or you can be held without bail to ensure no furtherance". This is worth actually understanding because it stems from the same fundamental dumbassery that has underpinned the immediate GOP and Trumpworld response. Contra Trump's media flacks (and, apparently, you  ), Trump's not being charged with lying about the election. He's not being charged because he made statements about the election. He's not being charged because he made false statements about the election. He's not being charged because he believed or didn't believe or shouldn't have believed in the accuracy of his statements about the election. To the extent that there is any criminality to his statements, it is in their use to "impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function". It'd be helpful if any future fanfiction posted to the thread didn't misrepresent the fundamental facts and nature of the case, particularly in ways that align with the baldly lying Trump surrogates. It'd also be cool if it was less grotesquely and overtly authoritarian, but that's more a preference of personal taste. Even by Axios' meager standards, this is terrible. It's especially bad because the sincerity question has come up and been answered explicitly by a Reagan judge in the Jan 6 case of ex-cop Alan Hostetter. quote:Even if Mr. Hostetter sincerely believed–which it appears he did–that the election was fraudulent, that President Trump was the rightful winner, and that public officials committed treason, as a former police chief, he still must have known that it was unlawful to vindicate that perceived injustice by engaging in mob violence to obstruct Congress. quote:Why it matters: If they proceed to trial, Trump's lawyers effectively could be asking a jury to believe that the former president was delusional — undermining special counsel Jack Smith's core thesis that Trump "knowingly" sought to defraud the country. A belief in electoral fraud is not a defense for filing what Eastman explicitly confesses is a false verification on the Georgia lawsuit. It is not a defense for the false elector plots (with the possible exception of Wisconsin, where it's more arguably applicable but still worthless). It is not a defense for either set of lies about Pence. quote:What they're saying: "I would like [prosecutors] to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false," Trump attorney John Lauro said on Fox News last night. Axios also acts as stenographer for the vacuous argument that this is a good thing for Trump quote:What to watch: Citing the subpoena power that Trump's lawyers will be entitled to in the discovery process, Lauro pledged to "re-litigate every single issue in the 2020 election."
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 05:07
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:in fairness, given the facts in the indictment, this might be the best strategy that isn't "flee to Russia" Like Trump wouldn't just blow up the "was delusional" defense himself, since this would mean admitting that he was wrong on some level? Will probably be a worse, way more high profile version of the Alex Jones Sandy Hook trials.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 05:22
|
|
|
Let's discuss the really important question. What will the prison nicknames of Trump and his co-conspirators be? I'm thinking Rudy will be called Whisky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 05:24
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I feel that this analysis misses that Brett, the author, has personal and professional expertise in both the fields of questionably legal employment arrangements (he was paid as a consultant by the Avenatti-linked consultants the brothers' Super PAC hired, literally funneling donated funds to himself through an intermediary) and lawfare to protect the arrangement (threatening the Rolling Stone and its writer with a SLAPP for its reporting on that along with other suspect fundraising and spending behavior). Yep, I didn't remember the details and didn't have time to pull them up- thank you for doing so.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 06:15
|
|
|
Caros posted:Because it would involve criminal charges against a sitting Justice's wife. Not to sound doomy again, but no one really responded to this and I wanted to see what the thoughts were on it. SCOTUS judges are allowed to cheat on their taxes, openly accept bribes, and make rulings based on entirely fictional cases. What actually is there to prevent them from overturning a case for the express purpose of protecting one of their spouses? It isn't like they'd face any consequences for it. The Bible fucked around with this message at 06:45 on Aug 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 06:30
|
|
|
i'm not entirely joking when i opine that alito's seething, lifelong hatred for criminal defendants would probably override him being a bootlicking partisan hack as far as he's concerned, the moment the cops accuse you of a crime, it's time for drawing and quartering
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:LOL no poo poo? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 07:07
|
|
|
Giuliani is also in the middle of a sexual harassment suit by Noelle Dunphy which is where all his dick eugenics theories are transcribed. R Rudy's not having a good summer it seems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 10:02
|
|
|
Google Jeb Bush posted:i'm not entirely joking when i opine that alito's seething, lifelong hatred for criminal defendants would probably override him being a bootlicking partisan hack Yeah but that's because he thinks of "criminals" as a racial class to which criminal defendants belong by birth. His fellow patriots aren't part of that class, definitionally.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 10:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah but that's because he thinks of "criminals" as a racial class to which criminal defendants belong by birth. His fellow patriots aren't part of that class, definitionally. Poor people. He hates poor people. Whether the defendant is American or white or whatever, if they're poor, they're criminals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 12:45
|
|
|
The Bible posted:Poor people. He hates poor people. So if the prosecution can demonstrate that Trump is broke, Alito won't side with him?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 12:58
|
|
|
Dude/tte you need to calm down. Yes, I did read all 45 pages and, yes, one of the counts is a conspiracy against rights, and, yes, I think that conspiracy is suffering a continuing crime by T posting sixty five loving pages a day that everyone on the planet is engaging in "election interference" and any vote not for him is illegal or should be made illegal. Additionally, yes, I believe that others of his hourly Xits constitute ongoing obstruction of an official proceeding, namely the ability of multiple courts systems in multiple jurisdictions to do their jobs, because he's calling in droves of people to attack these institutions. I don't know if I dis/agree with the contents of your post because I won't have time to read that until later, but this is something awful, I made no "quotes" that could be confused as anything but satire, we have far surpassed "the matterings", and I'm going to continue celebrating by dreaming about the many faces of justice, even those where judges make very silly statements that must be followed and/or appealed. ps As if on cue, T says, of "Washington DC... I have called for a Federal TAKEOVER in order to bring our Capitol back to Greatness. It is now a high crime embarrassment". This, imho, seems a continuance of the accused behavior, ie obstruction by means of complete overthrow; but I'm not the judge who has to perform today's tasks. Can you imagine the pressure? PhantomOfTheCopier fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Aug 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 13:10
|
|
|
Kalli posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 13:30
|
|
|
The Bible posted:Not to sound doomy again, but no one really responded to this and I wanted to see what the thoughts were on it. The fact that rulings require five Supreme Court justices to agree. While the rest of the Court can't outright force Thomas to recuse, they can reasonably be expected to exert considerable personal and professional pressure. Believe it or not, the Court is (even now) concerned with their public image, and while there may be political causes that the justices are willing to sacrifice the court's legitimacy for, it's very unlikely that the other conservatives would throw themselves on a sword for Ginni Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The fact that rulings require five Supreme Court justices to agree. While the rest of the Court can't outright force Thomas to recuse, they can reasonably be expected to exert considerable personal and professional pressure. Believe it or not, the Court is (even now) concerned with their public image, and while there may be political causes that the justices are willing to sacrifice the court's legitimacy for, it's very unlikely that the other conservatives would throw themselves on a sword for Ginni Thomas. yeah, there is no mechanism for the rest of the supreme court to force someone to sit a case out this actually has come up in the past, when one justice was so loving senile that the rest of the judges made a pact never to let him be the deciding vote on anything (this was back before the court was significantly polarized) because they couldn't actually force him to stop hearing cases
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this actually has come up in the past, when one justice was so loving senile that the rest of the judges made a pact never to let him be the deciding vote on anything (this was back before the court was significantly polarized) because they couldn't actually force him to stop hearing cases When was this? I've never heard this one before. (Not surprised, though.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah, there is no mechanism for the rest of the supreme court to force someone to sit a case out That’s kind of what they can do. Tell Thomas “recuse or X number of us have agreed to decide against you no matter what.” I think you could get two conservative justices to sign on to that in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
tracecomplete posted:When was this? I've never heard this one before. (Not surprised, though.) Justice McKenna (on page 21) and Justice Douglas (page 59) of the pdf linked here both had this happen to them. I think I'd been thinking of Douglas but it apparently happened twice! https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5893&context=uclrev also it turns out many justices realized they should retire when they get senile, got senile, and it turns out it's hard for someone senile to realize they're senile and remember they ought to resign now that they're senile
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
Lammasu posted:Let's discuss the really important question. What will the prison nicknames of Trump and his co-conspirators be? I'm thinking Rudy will be called Whisky. Diaper Don and Little Italy
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 16:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:also it turns out many justices realized they should retire when they get senile, got senile, and it turns out it's hard for someone senile to realize they're senile and remember they ought to resign now that they're senile Seems like there should be an app for this, Senility Detector 1.0; and Seems like there should be routine competency tests for representatives and judges and drivers license holders; and Seems like deliberative assemblies have censure and no confidence for reasons and people should work with their peers sheesh; and Seems like this slope is quite slippery. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Yes, I did read all 45 pages and, yes, one of the counts is a conspiracy against rights, and, yes, I think that conspiracy is suffering a continuing crime by T posting sixty five loving pages a day that everyone on the planet is engaging in "election interference" and any vote not for him is illegal or should be made illegal. quote:The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and he had won. PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Additionally, yes, I believe that others of his hourly Xits constitute ongoing obstruction of an official proceeding, namely the ability of multiple courts systems in multiple jurisdictions to do their jobs, because he's calling in droves of people to attack these institutions. At core, you're seeking a judge to gag Trump because his current speech echoes speech that is alleged to have been in support of a criminal conspiracy that is no longer active. Here, you have the speech that Smith went to pains to make clear is legal. You can allege a conspiracy, I suppose, but you have no crime. Criticizing the courts and the government is not a crime, even when you lie. Nor is calling on supporters to protest and make themselves heard. You'll note that Trump isn't charged with incitement. There's no alleged criminality in even the ellipse speech itself. The crime is in using those supporters to illegally obstruct the ECA and in the purpose of that obstruction - to deny the privilege to those who legally voted for Biden in the relevant states. The speech and a fear that he may in the future call on his supporters to rally are the only similarities -- and they're the parts that aren't illegal. Which I'm glad for! If all it took to jail or legally silence candidate for any office (or hell, any opponent or critic of government) is an indictment that incorporates a criticism of the government, that'd be bad. PhantomOfTheCopier posted:ps As if on cue, T says, of "Washington DC... I have called for a Federal TAKEOVER in order to bring our Capitol back to Greatness. It is now a high crime embarrassment". This, imho, seems a continuance of the accused behavior, ie obstruction by means of complete overthrow
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 16:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:also it turns out many justices realized they should retire when they get senile, got senile, and it turns out it's hard for someone senile to realize they're senile and remember they ought to resign now that they're senile senile folks are also not uniformly senile. So even for the people around them it’s hard especially if they’ve been around them a long time. And decline like that can be mitigated effectively for a very long time too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
How can you resign if you're not of sound mind? Like if you are senile are you capable of retiring legally? Presumably a Senator in a coma wouldn't be capable of retiring, so whats the degree of incapacitation that can be tolerated while still being able to resign?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
celadon posted:How can you resign if you're not of sound mind? Like if you are senile are you capable of retiring legally? Presumably a Senator in a coma wouldn't be capable of retiring, so whats the degree of incapacitation that can be tolerated while still being able to resign? A country in better condition than the Roman Empire circa 475 would automatically remove a Senator in such a state so it would be moot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:44 |
|
|
So when exactly did Bill Barr flip to being an anti Trump commentary guy? I know he peaced out after Jan 6 but like has he been an anti trump legal troubles commentary guy all this time and I just missed it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2023 20:02
|
|
