|
Sir Kodiak posted:If you want to say Trump is more blatant about it, if you find that disturbing, fair enough, I agree. But the claim I responded to was in regards to the prior GOP having a respect for democracy, which I struggle to square with a violent assault on the people counting ballots. The original claim was about elections being a referendum on democracy (well, fascism). Bush's GOP might have had no respect for the concept of democracy, but it didn't openly run on a platform of opposing it the way Trump's does.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 03:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Baronash posted:The Florida Supreme Court agreed, which is why they ordered the statewide hand recount that Sir Kodiak was referring to. Because there wasn’t enough time for a full statewide recount at that point. Had Gore not gotten greedy, a statewide recount probably would have still swung his way. Alternately, he could have just won his own state 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 03:44
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Unfortunately, I dont think you can have 100 bushes without getting 200 Trumps. It's the 'good' republicans who greased the skids for the virulent ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:You're thinking of the 14th amendment, which has been used successfully on an rear end in a top hat in Arizona who was at the 1/6 party. Ah, yes. I'm thinking that some of those espionage charges may lead there. I would not be surprised at all that he's traded on some classified information, and the tiny Pollyanna in me hopes that they're setting the table for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 03:56
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Inarguably. But the idea that fascism has been on the ballot for every election in living memory is ridiculous. There are people old enough to enlist for whom "living memory" consists of 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. It's not a total stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Isn't that basically what every election in our lifetime has been Eh, if Dole had beat Clinton in '96 I would have been bummed, but also 99.99% confident that there'd be an election in 2000 and that whoever lost would concede on live TV as soon as the 270 EV threshold was out of reach. CapnAndy posted:Yeah, and he was an authoritarian motherfucker with his "free speech zones" and his cancel culture bullshit and his "you agree with me 100% or you're a terrist" nonsense and the willful gaslighting of not just the country, but the entire world. And I'd take a hundred of him again, because at no point during his reign did I have any fear that the next elections simply would not happen. I remember a few people openly worrying about the possibility of Cheney or someone allowing an October terrorism to happen so Bush could declare emergency powers and seize a third term, but yeah it wasn't a serious concern the way it was in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
raminasi posted:The original claim was about elections being a referendum on democracy (well, fascism). Bush's GOP might have had no respect for the concept of democracy, but it didn't openly run on a platform of opposing it the way Trump's does. I responded to a post that claimed that Bush's GOP had a respect for democracy. I felt that was worth pushing back against even if the larger point was true, in an effort to not normalize what he did. That said, why is Trump running on a platform to pardon himself over charges regarding the handling of classified material in opposition to democracy? Like, Trump's reelection campaign will be a referendum on fascism, but I wouldn't think him explicitly stating that he'd pardon himself would make the top ten reasons why.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 04:04
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:There are people old enough to enlist for whom "living memory" consists of 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. It's not a total stretch. “In living memory” means measuring from the oldest person’s memory. I.e. there’s a person alive who remembers the topic. You don’t get to just pick a subset and make it exclusive. What would that even mean??? Could I use it as a synonym for “now” while referencing a newborn then? That’s what you just did, but I set the slider way low. What.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 04:04
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:There are people old enough to enlist for whom "living memory" consists of 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. It's not a total stretch. I mean Mittens winning would have been bad but he wasn't Trump. The Republicans have been the bad party that's wrong about everything for my entire life but they've also gotten worse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:There are people old enough to enlist for whom "living memory" consists of 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020. It's not a total stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:“In living memory” means measuring from the oldest person’s memory. I.e. there’s a person alive who remembers the topic. Then I guess I've got the wrong definition for the term. Oh well, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 04:13
|
|
|
TheDisreputableDog posted:Because there wasn’t enough time for a full statewide recount at that point. Had Gore not gotten greedy, a statewide recount probably would have still swung his way. Alternately, he could have just won his own state "There wasn't enough time" isn't a particularly strong argument when the explicit strategy of the Florida Secretary of State's office was to run out the clock, and the power to alter deadlines was within the Supreme Court's purview. More importantly, however, are you arguing that legal maneuvering in opposition to the will of the voters is fine as long as there is the veneer of "respecting the rules"? That's... certainly an argument. Baronash fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Jun 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 04:19
|
|
|
Baronash posted:"There wasn't enough time" isn't a particularly strong argument when the explicit strategy of the Florida Secretary of State's office was to run out the clock, and the power to alter deadlines was within the Supreme Court's purview. More importantly, however, are you arguing that legal maneuvering in opposition to the will of the voters is fine as long as there is the veneer of "respecting the rules"? That's... certainly an argument. A quite common conservative argument. Not to in any way imply that is TheDisreputableDog's argument
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
How significant is it, legally, that donald trump took the Oath of office? Like, the federal govt has a vested interest in making it clear that you must take your Oath seriously. Now, ive never taken a public Oath, shouldnt (hypothetically) charging a rando like me with Espionage should require a much higher offence than charging someone that has Sworn a public Oath. And generally they punish harshly Oathbreakers - Chelsea Manning got loving tortured for much of a year, iirc. Like, you can be a conman, a liar, etc and never Swear an Oath and hold Public Office and engage in a manner clearly contemptuous of the sworn oath.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 05:15
|
|
|
Usually the gods themselves punish oath breakers. But sometimes they punish the oath breakers' kids instead, which had always struck me as some real bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 05:33
|
|
|
HisMajestyBOB posted:Usually the gods themselves punish oath breakers. But sometimes they punish the oath breakers' kids instead, which had always struck me as some real bullshit. Well I know whose dad I shouldn’t trust I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 05:50
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:How significant is it, legally, that donald trump took the Oath of office? That specifically is what gets you barred from federal office via the 14th Amendment if you're involved in insurrection or rebellion. Hence the Arizona GOP member mentioned upthread who was involved in J6. If you mean does an oath have any legal weight if you become a government official and then trample it? No, not really. A judge might side-eye you in court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 06:12
|
|
|
Next time we draft a new constitution, maybe define something as a crime that people who have sworn an oath can be charged with. I mean, otherwise why require an oath?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 06:23
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:Next time we draft a new constitution, maybe define something as a crime that people who have sworn an oath can be charged with. Because for people acting in good faith it's a solemn moment symbolizing the trust placed in them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 06:54
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:Next time we draft a new constitution, maybe define something as a crime that people who have sworn an oath can be charged with. The drafters of the Constitution were more concerned about preventing political persecution than they were about stacking extra charges onto people who committed crimes. There are already crimes that only apply to people working for the government, like "deprivation of rights under color of law".
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 07:45
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Ah, yes. I don't think they're setting up demonstrating that's used the classified information for personal gain. From everything so far, it just sounds like they're hitting him with subsection e of the Espionage Act, which is the willful retention of national defense information. Which makes sense why they're indicting him in Florida: the entire willful retention of classified documents happened in Florida.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 09:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:A quick Trump Legal Tangles Summary Fun to be slowly transferring to the "There is always more and it is always better" chapter
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 12:24
|
|
|
Technically there are two Carroll suits. He lost Carroll II and Carroll I is still hung up in whether the POTUS can defame anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 12:35
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KFaulders/status/1667160251618021378
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/jeremyherb/status/1667138563241041925?s=46&t=CBKJcBX0BD3U5HgUdsqBtw Trump Legal Troubles: "Secret. This is secret information. Look, look at this,"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 14:40
|
|
|
lol lmao I knew it was too good to be true.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 14:43
|
|
|
Why would anyone assign a judge with a massive conflict of interest for this case? Aren't judges supposed to be assigned randomly in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:02
|
|
|
Y'all know that just because a judge was appointed by Trump doesn't mean that they are his footstool right? Though it's of course possible this one is, I don't know anything about them. Also, they are randomly assigned to cases to prevent judge shopping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Y'all know that just because a judge was appointed by Trump doesn't mean that they are his footstool right? Though it's of course possible this one is, I don't know anything about them. This one specifically has a history of putting her thumb on the scale for the shithead who appointed her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:06
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Y'all know that just because a judge was appointed by Trump doesn't mean that they are his footstool right? Though it's of course possible this one is, I don't know anything about them. They’re the one from the beginning of the documents investigation. The one who did a bunch of insane poo poo for him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:07
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Y'all know that just because a judge was appointed by Trump doesn't mean that they are his footstool right? Though it's of course possible this one is, I don't know anything about them. She's the judge who appointed the special master when Trump tried to move the search warrant hearing by filing suit against the FBI in another district. She had no jurisdiction and it took an appeal from the FBI to the 11th Circuit to get it removed from her hands. She even put forth arguments for Trump's side that his own lawyers didn't even try to argue, because they were so insane, and she was open to the idea that he still holds Executive Privilege and even the power to declassify, post-presidency. Trump specially filed his suit in her district so she would get the case. She is absolutely compromised.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Also, they are randomly assigned to cases to prevent judge shopping. It's actually likely Cannon got the case *because* she handled the prior document suit. One of the exceptions to random assignment is if a judge has already handled a related case, they often give her/him subsequent cases since the judge and chambers are already somewhat up to speed on things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Saoshyant posted:Why would anyone assign a judge with a massive conflict of interest for this case? Aren't judges supposed to be assigned randomly in the first place? If they are issued randomly, there's a non-zero chance she was the one picked randomly. That's the issue with having to be "fair" in justice, you can't remove Justices because they may be biased for the defendant, because then you're knowingly tipping the scales against them and you end up with a 1/100 chance that the trial is decided in favor of the defendant before it begins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:11
|
|
|
quote:On December 1, the Eleventh Circuit ordered the case to be dismissed because Cannon "improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction" over it.[53] The Eleventh Circuit stated that Trump needed to show that the case met all four criteria under the Richey test for equitable jurisdiction over lawsuits for seized materials, but failed to do so for any criteria.[54][55][56] The Eleventh Circuit found that under Cannon, "the district court stepped in with its own reasoning" multiple times to argue in favor of Trump, sometimes even taking positions that Trump would not argue before the appeals court.[57] The Eleventh Circuit also found that when Trump did not explain what materials he still needed returned, or why, the "district court was undeterred by this lack of information".[54][58][59] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon She's not just some random GOP appointed judge. She's literally compromised and moved to help the dipshit using her powers as judge. Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jun 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
This is loving absurd. Of all the judges, how does Cannon end up with this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
CapnAndy posted:Dude was absolutely the worst President in living memory before ol' trumpy. He also wasn't a tenth of the fascist that trump or desantis are. Reagan was worse than GWB.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
She even cited Nixon as precedent that maybe Trump does have the power to take the documents. The Presidential Records Act was created and passed because of what Nixon did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
So what happens in the event of s GJ trial with an obviously compromised judge? Are there avenues to have a new judge assigned to oversee the case/sentencing or is the DoJ just poo poo outta luck, Trump gets to run for Dictator for Life 2024?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:It's actually likely Cannon got the case *because* she handled the prior document suit. One of the exceptions to random assignment is if a judge has already handled a related case, they often give her/him subsequent cases since the judge and chambers are already somewhat up to speed on things. Similarly Judge Reinhardt, the one who signed off on the August search warrant, also had his name on Trump's summons to court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:42 |
|
|
Seems like there is precedent for the DOJ to push for Cannon's recusal, or removal, by the 11th Circuit since that is basically the route they took last time with her nonsense and they slapped down on her tactics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 15:32
|
|
