|
The constant banana republic references are just so... I don't even know how to feel about them. Frustrated, amused, confused. None of these people have any idea what the word means (like many of the words they use), and they clearly don't care, but god drat do they believe it with all their hearts. They just... latch on to this stuff. Do they think it means anything beyond "bad"? Do they even think that or is it like just a outcome thing where they use it without thinking about what it means at all because they think it benefits them somehow? Or is it just regurgitation, and there's no thought that goes into it at all beyond some sort of aesthetic and popular appeal? I really want to read a linguistics paper about this phenomena. Keisari posted:The guy literally can't not lie. He's most definitely going to perjure the gently caress out of himself I wonder what will happen if he just refuses to show up.
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
The fact that it's private means he'll probably do fine. It's a public hearing where he'd have an audience and he wouldn't be able to resist playing to said audience I think that he'd have trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 14:26
|
|
|
Is there any reason for the executive branch to not simply... ignore this judges orders? Or is the new standard that any judge in the country regardless of jurisdiction is now allowed to make decrees without legal basis that bind the executive branch? Because that seems like an absolutely insane precedent to set.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2022 14:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The executive branch does not get to just ignore the judiciary. That's not how the government works. Funny, it seems like the executive (and legislative) branches in a bunch of states have been expressly ignoring their judiciaries in the recent past on several points, so that is clearly not always how the government works. Sometimes, it seems, they do get to just ignore the judiciary. You can argue that shouldn't be how things work, but we are clearly living in a reality where that is how things work, at least sometimes, so you need a stronger argument to support "they can't" than "because that's not how things work". Plus, surely even you recognize there are limits to this and things judges can declare that will absolutely get ignored by the executive branch. If a judge up and declares that Trump is President, the executive branch is not going to suddenly recognize his presidency until they finish an appeal - they are going to refuse to follow the ruling even if they also appeal it or seek some other legal response. And it is right and proper that they do so. There might be a case they should follow the judicial decree in this particular instance, but you can't realistically believe this as a general rule. Otherwise, there is no legal remedy to Trump just filing for whatever he wants and getting it as long as he has a single judge anywhere in the country reliably on his side, and any case against him can't proceed. The question isn't "should there be a line where the executive ignores the judiciary", it's "where should that line be drawn?" There's a good argument to be made it shouldn't be drawn here, but I think we are getting dangerously close to crossing the line. Deteriorata posted:We're supposed to be fighting authoritarianism, not encouraging it. Allowing judicial dictates without legal grounding to stand for any length of time could just as realistically be argued to be "encouraging authoritarianism". All that said, I concede on consideration in this case the ruling should not be ignored, but it's not for any of those reasons, but practical ones. Ignoring it might bias a future court on this case in favour of Trump, and the damage from following it considering the government has already reviewed the documents might well be minimal. I do think an additional legal remedy in the form of removing the judge in question for misconduct at least must be pursued to avoid worse consequences though, and I hope it is. But in principal, I think these arguments that we must hold decrees without legal bases or jurisdiction from Trump judges sacrosanct is extremely problematic, especially since they had been busy establishing precedent that they do not, will not, and need not follow decrees from judges they disagree with. We are slowly and constantly expanding the scope of what conservatives can get away with in gross violation of the law. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Sep 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm sure you can provide examples of these. 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. quote:This is not within lightyears of what is currently happening. Sure. Agreed. I'm not saying it is. But you agree they would be right in ignoring that hypothetical ruling, right? GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Sep 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
We've seen a bunch of evidence now that Trump still has documents at at least one other location, potentially more - why have they not tried to go and get them while this other stuff is going through the courts? I cant imagine Trumps advisors arent using this time to get him to hide or destroy them and make them harder to obtain...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:Aren't Secret Service agents subject to some of the most stringent background checks there are? Like if you were caught stealing a candy bar when you were 9, or you failed a history test they know about it before they hire you. Right, the people who hired them definitely knew about it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2022 16:25
|
|
|
Youth Decay posted:Exactly, if nothing actually mattered in the past 5 years Trump would still be President. This was a pretty direct result of the one thing everyone agreed actually mattered - Trump getting to appoint several Supreme Court Justices. When people talk about nothing mattering, they are not talking about presidents getting Supreme Court appointees.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:What specifically counts as “mattering” for this discussion. Things I (and I think the majority of the people asking the question) would accept as mattering: 1) Meaningful systemic change that would greatly reduce the chance of similar criminal activities happening again in the future, the potential damage future malfeasance would cause, or at least increase our ability to respond to it quickly and effective. 2) Trump facing criminal consequences or any setting of concrete precedent that engaging in this activity will leave a person who might do it undeniably worse off if they hadn't, delivered by the systems that are intended to do so. (Him getting shot by a random guy he pissed off badly enough would not count, for example) 3) The Republicans taking so much damage politically and in popular sentiment that they are no longer competitive in at least 60% of electoral divisions. So, has anything mattered? Or is this still not good enough for you? As far as I can see, the only thing that looks like its mattered is Trump losing the election, and that feels more like the "random guy shooting Trump" sort of mattering than the type people were actually hoping for - a lucky break, rather than a meaningful change. Blue Footed Booby posted:This has been done. It proves not fruitful because the people who wander into the thread to stir poo poo just argue with the linked definitions. "Who died and made you definer of mattering." You know, I've been following this thread since it opened and I can't actually recall one of these, though I'm sure they must have happened. Please re-share it at least, I'd like to be reminded of what the "it totally mattered!" folks think mattering means. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jan 29, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:As someone said before, it also depends on your definition of "mattering". Being a made-up phrase, it's essentially meaningless and thus useless for discussion. Instead of spouting lovely meme catchphrases, it'd be more helpful for discussion if people would just specifically ask what they want to know. For example, this? Or maybe, just maybe, it's not meaningless and useless unless people are being deliberately obtuse? What they want to know is if something mattered, that is it. There are a great many things that might have mattered for most people who ask, including things they might not think to specify, after all. And overall, despite all the responses complaining about how its "essentially meaningless", everyone seems to know exactly what people mean when they ask the question. You certainly seem to, specifically, and yet... and yet you do this. Are you really, genuinely confused? You really can't think of anything that would satisfy these people and actually count as mattering, even hypothetically? Have you ever honestly answered this question with something you thought the person asking it would think "mattered" and been wrong? I loving doubt it. Especially since you have now been given multiple concrete definitions of the term, any of which you could have responded to instead to actually answer the question, and you just... ignore them, in favour of lashing out at ghosts. Really, seriously, how hard is it to just say no and, if you feel like being optimistic, including a mention of the things you think still might?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
Are there any plans for any kind of systemic reform at all, at this point? I know legislatively things were stymied, but I'm not sure if there are other levels things could be/are happening at.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The “why even have laws or processes? Just snatch people off the street when you’ve got some authority” people seem to be missing the point of why we don’t want Trump running things. What on earth are you talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Also relevant is that by far the slowest investigations are against people like organized crime bosses who have layers of deniability, deep pockets to defend themselves, good will with their communities, and ways to influence judges and juries. That by no means requires prosecutors to like them, be soft on them, or want to make sure they don't face accountability. It's that the bar for "slam dunk case" is that much higher. And you really think that's what's happening here? (Also, most of the major federal investigations against organized crime bosses that I can find took around 2 years from start of investigation to conviction, with the longest period of time I can find between the start of the investigation and the indictment of the major players being around 3 years.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2023 07:29
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:But actually fixing problems means we have to know what's going wrong. Throwing your hands up and shouting, "None of this matters!" isn't helpful. Even if the solution is to burn the whole system down and make a new one, we still need to understand what went wrong if we're to not repeat the same mistakes. Oh, gently caress off, I gave a clear set of definitions, no snark, no weaseling, and you completely ignored them, and I explicitly included evidence for any kind of major systemic reform that would reduce the chance of this happening again as "mattering" so your bullshit claim that we should be focusing on fixing the problems is even more asinine as a counterpoint. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:I mean technically speaking all the prosecution can do is set charges and bail and even if they tried to say no bail, they have no control over whether the judge will accept that. The prosecution is generally a little bit more involved in sending people to prison than you're implying here.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:The law is very clear that they mean an opposing nation-state. Which law? Because Mitchell and Philip Weigel were sort of the defining case of what constitutes treason, they never had anything whatsoever to do with an opposing nation state, and they were nonetheless convicted without any major issues. And John Fries, obviously, was convicted twice. The traditional legal standard is, or at least was, that any "combining to defeat or resist a federal law" qualifies as levying war (States v. John Fries). Nothing that required a foreign power. Maybe it was changed at some point, but I don't recall any amendment covering this, and we do have a court that believes in the importance of Originalism... Discendo Vox posted:That didn’t happen. War has a structured meaning. Sure, and in the context of the treason statue, what exactly is that structured meaning? Make sure to explain how that works with how treason convictions have traditionally been achieved. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Feb 3, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:You're bring up 200+ year examples of people who were pardoned. And they were convicted first. So saying "The law is very clear that they mean an opposing nation-state" is stupid as gently caress, because it very clearly did not mean that. quote:Can you think of something that might have happened between then and now that might have changed it? Like maybe a time when half the country committed treason? Sure, maybe! Why don't you actually mention the change, if so, instead of being deliberately obtuse? Except it couldn't have changed too much, considering Walter Allen was convicted of treason over purely domestic activity 60 years later. Look, if you want to make actual, substantial arguments, feel free, obviously there's a reason we don't try people for treason anymore, but that aint it. The stuff you're saying is just factually untrue, and you saying that, or other people saying things like ""treason" is not even achievable because no state of war has existed since WWII" without any grounding as to why, isn't gonna get you to a coherent argument. So why don't you actually provide some, any, evidence that Xiahou Dun posted:The treason statute and jurisprudence disagree. Xiahou Dun posted:Gender-neutral version of sir, I think you might need to do a better job reading usernames. While you're at it, why don't you explain this no-content post. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Feb 3, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2023 05:42
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:This is a very real problem the DOJ must figure out how to address. "How do we lock up people we can't integrate into the normal prison population" isn't some novel problem, it's a well trod one we already have multiple solutions to, figuring out how to address it just means picking the best existing solution from the list.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
How long has it been since the government launched a major, meaningful criminal investigation of Congress with the intent of securing criminal convictions? Not since the early 80s, right? Do you think we even have the ability anymore to pull off something like Abscam nowadays? Maybe there's something more recent, but I can't think of it. Are we basically limited to prosecuting folks who commit their crimes so openly and brazenly that we can't ignore them, nowadays? It seems strange. Because the Trump question to me is less interesting than some of the Congressional collaborators, and I'm most disappointed nothing is going to happen to any of them. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Feb 12, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why would the DOJ bother doing all this investigation in the first place if they didn't plan to move forward with it? It's not like it's some big unexpected surprise that Trump is running again, nor is it shocking that it took a while to investigate - they had plenty of reason to expect that he would announce a new run before they could indict him. I think an indictment and trial is more likely than not at this point, but there are plenty of reasons, most of them being "the justice system isn't a monolith but is made of individual actors with complex motivations".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
This is loving absurd. Of all the judges, how does Cannon end up with this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Yeah, but it really shows how stupid the justice system is, if loving espionage on the highest possible level is less severe then owning some drugs. It's kind of the exact opposite - it's such an agreed upon severe thing that there's never been any need for mandatory minimums. No sane judge is going to be giving you the minimum possible for a guilty verdict, the way they might be tempted to for harmless drug crimes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2023 00:44
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Just listened to Popehat’s podcast and it’s definitely got the doomer take if you are interested: I genuinely don't understand this argument. She didn't handle the previous case, she came in from out of nowhere and declared herself involved.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:But seriously, gently caress Cannon, but I don't think it's likely she'll just "lol dismissed." She would have done it last time. Doing it last time would have hurt Trump, since it was Trump bringing to her a case against the FBI.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The case was originally filed in her jurisdiction and there are only a small number of judges. She was literally picked randomly from that small pool. It was bad luck From what I understand, it was specifically and intentionally assigned to her. She was not randomly selected. The feds asked for random assignment and did not get it. The details as to why are still hazy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
ryde posted:Maybe it is, but I've also been hearing that you typically don't even get charged for this poo poo, so they're actually going harder on Biden than normal. And at the same time it turns out the head of the DOJ was not actually slow walking a bunch of trump crime investigation but openly running interference for him and going out of their way to avoid prosecuting him, letting him get away with far more serious crimes until he basically forced their hand. Gee, its almost is of our institutions have been thoroughly corrupted! https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/06/garland-doj-resisted-investigating-trump-january-6 The conservatives are right in that our system has a blatantly partisan tilt, but like most things they are "right" about they are actually upset because its not worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
ryde posted:Lots of people on these forums expected that they were slow-walking things for decorum reasons. Good that we have confirmation, bad that this is yet another confirmation of the two-tiered justice system in this country. It reminds me a bit of the whole IRS debacle, where they were already favouring conservative groups and then the conservatives got mad and the Obama admin caved and made it formal policy to favour conservative groups even more.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I know this is from days ago and things move fast but this report is at best incomplete. I'm not sure what about those facts disagrees with the thrust of the article?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2023 20:30
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Would it? There is a small but significant percentage of independents who indicate that they would not be willing to vote for Trump if he was convicted (but would be willing to vote for him for anything short of a conviction) because "voted for a convicted criminal" doesn't line up with how they see themselves and sitting out one election is easy. It's an open question how truthful they are, but I think there's good reason to believe they are, and if it is true it would swing the direction wildly in favour of Biden. Even if those folks are lying or don't really exist, voting against a convicted criminal seems at least someone motivating for non-Trump folks who don't want one of them as president. It's not a guaranteed boost to his opposition (propaganda can do a lot to twist narratives and turn such things around) but its a reasonable thing to believe imo. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Jul 19, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
Murgos posted:A judge just ruled in clear unambiguous English that a jury found that Trump is a rapist. Not some colloquial definition either but the federal statute definition. But not, and this is important, a criminal. He was found to be a rapist in a specifically non-criminal way. To the conservatives I know, categorical differences like that are really important in weird non-obvious ways (and they will avoid switching the category of someone they've categorized until they have no other choice, so criminals they've simply decided are criminals will stay criminals forever even if they never did a crime, but people they like can only become criminals by being convicted) Sure, the vast majority of conservatives won't care, but you only need a small minority to care (even in a "I don't want to be publicly seen as supporting a convicted criminal" kind of way) in order for it to have a huge impact. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jul 20, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2023 02:50
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No, he's criticizing those people and saying he doesn't like them. The fact that he has fanatical followers who might attack whoever he doesn't like doesn't automatically mean that it's incitement to violence if he says he doesn't like someone. "If you go after me, I'm coming after you" is not a criticism, though - it is, very explicitly and without ambiguity, a threat, and it's what kicked this conversation off.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2023 00:58
|
|
|
Say Georgia DOES find him guilty and Florida DOES refuse to extradite him. How does that get resolved without it becoming entangled in the federal courts?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
DeSantis going to the mat for a Trump who has been found guilty and who is stuck unable to campaign in Florida seems like an ideal situation for him, too. You know Trump would prefer that over prison as well. If he gets off on the federal charges but found guilty on the state charges prior to the election, I honestly struggle to see an outcome where that doesn't happen.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I don't know why DeSantis wouldn't be love to have his primary political opponent locked up in a Georgia jail awaiting trial and unable to campaign though? If he was literally anyone else, that would be ideal. But he's the governor of Florida, and allowing Trump to be extradited will guarantee the Trumpists (directed by Trump himself in all likelihood) turn on him and cast him as part of the "deep state", a traitor. If he defends Trump, however, he'll be a hero, standing against tyranny - and Trump being convicted and stuck in Maralargo doesn't seem any worse for him. He may *personally* want Trump in jail, anyone else in the primary benefits from Trump being in jail, but DeSantis himself? If that happens when he could have prevented with it a big dramatic showdown, he's toast. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Aug 16, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2023 02:33
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:They're law enforcement. They're not gonna' assist in committing crimes; even ones as low-stakes as a former president having a bench warrant. ... the Secret Service already assisted in committing crimes for Trump (according to the Department of Homeland Security inspector general). It was a whole thing for a while. It's part of why Biden doesn't trust them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2023 04:24
|
|
|
The sentence for attempted murder is usually much less than for actual murder, though, isn't it? We're talking about sentencing here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:Yeah criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil is "based on a preponderance of the evidence" or something like that, it is not nearly the same standard "preponderance of evidence" seems like the better standard for a process that doesn't remove anyone's personal liberties and protects the public from the risk of their president waging insurrection against the country. Especially since civil court is where all the other qualification questions are answered, I don't see what makes this one so special it needs the super high standard of evidence we require to throw someone in jail. Whether its wise to actually do that in this situation is another question completely. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Sep 7, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Deuce posted:But Due Process of Law is how we decide pretty much anything like this. Maybe they didn't specify a conviction was necessary because it seemed too obvious. "Well how the hell else would you determine insurrection??" "Due process of law" for qualifications is generally a civil proceeding decided in civil court. Why do you insist on applying criminal qualifiers to a non criminal decision? The amendment would apply even if doing an insurrection was legal, just like how its legal not to be born in the United States. Are you going to ask that someone need a criminal conviction in order to be declared not born in the US as well? That's kind of crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2023 19:42
|
|