|
Nitrousoxide posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick was thrown in solitary because the government thought he could launch nukes by whistling into the prison payphone. It also got recycled as a call-in for the conspiracy show on West Coast Talk Radio in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Judges don't get to just call someone to court daily to yell at them I mean if they want to they can If the judge says frog you start jumping.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2023 23:01
|
|
|
Judgy Fucker posted:I just don’t know how deep that messaging would penetrate in society. Yeah Newsmax addicts would believe and parrot that poo poo but the 50-60% of Americans totally checked out from politics would either not understand what any of that means and/or not care, let alone the people who do know and would see through the obvious bullshit. Maybe, but they do it with every blatantly obvious MAGA mass shooter who had diaries and FB posts talking about liberals and queers being satanic demons sent from hell to drink the blood of babies in underground pizza parlors and, similarly, work very hard to paint any of them as far left radicals when they discover one of them voted for Al Gore or some poo poo. Then they accuse the mainstream media of automatically assuming that the guy from Oklahoma with a noose hanging from his rear view mirror and a Lock Her Up Hillary Clinton bumper sticker that went on to shoot up an abortion clinic is automatically a Trump supporter. Even when the killer SAYS and demonstrably proves that they're a MAGA CHUD bent on murdering people, at best they'll ignore it. These are the people that shot all over David Hogg and the kids who spoke up in the wake of surviving the Parkland massacre and had the temerity to suggest we should do something about guns. They're also the ones who tried to re-frame the motivations of the Pulse Night Club killer and the maniac in Las Vegas. It doesn't have to penetrate THAT deep. Just deep enough to keep people from ignoring the obvious problem, doing anything about it and swing enough swing states red, as we've seen with the Electoral College. I quite FB in part because I saw people calling Hogg and Jaclyn Corin "disgusting human beings" and just couldn't take it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 00:10
|
|
|
Just daring the judge to gag him https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1687993694937653248
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Just daring the judge to gag him
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 02:39
|
|
|
Judges are generally VERY averse to restricting the freedom of defendants to speak on their case for obvious first amendment reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
So, about that protective order… Pence is a witness. Murgos fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Aug 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 03:32
|
|
|
Murgos posted:So, about that protective order… I don't believe any of the judges in any of his cases have ordered that Trump is not allowed to tweet about people who also happen to be witnesses. He's been ordered to not directly communicate with witnesses in at least one of his court cases, and the government is asking for (but hasn't yet received) an order prohibiting him from tweeting out the stuff he gets in discovery, but that's it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:... for what? What in that clip went against the judge's instructions or is otherwise so disruptive or dangerous as to require prior restraint?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 04:14
|
|
|
So, his tweet is fine as long as he didn't tell Pence "If I think you're going to testify against me, I will rail against you and damage your standing with Republicans." I think we're early yet, but at some point this is going to become "Can someone rid me of this meddlesome Pence (et al)"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:My understanding is that you can't threaten or impugn the integrity of the prosecutor or witnesses in a case. He can't e.g. intimidate witnesses or threaten or incite, but he can poo poo-talk the prosecutor and deny saying things to Mike Pence if he wants to. The protective order would only prevent him from sharing certain information he gets in discovery that's not meant to be public. His lawyers will write down each time they tell Trump to shut up, and the government gets to use whatever he says when he ignores them and incriminates himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 04:31
|
|
|
If you combine it with previous statements it could look like witness intimidation. It looks like this Statement 1: “would my followers kindly attack my enemies” Statement 2: “Mike pence is my enemy” These statements are separated by a lot of time but trump has essentially made both of them. I dunno if the connection is strong enough for the court to do anything about it though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 09:24
|
|
|
"I once read a major magazine article on Mike. It said he was not a very good person." Master of rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 09:32
|
|
|
The comment about Pence or Jack on their own might be okay. But when taken as a whole and combined with the Government taking the step of seeking a Protective Order, they are the sort of posts that absolutely should fall afoul of that order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 09:46
|
|
|
I feel like nobody has made the point that Trump was in office for four years and was never able to get a single indictment on any of his political enemies despite being in control of the DoJ. So maybe four indictments on him as soon as he leaves office aren't politically motivated by the deep state as Fox claims but are just because he, you know, did crimes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 12:09
|
|
|
Vino posted:I feel like nobody has made the point that Trump was in office for four years and was never able to get a single indictment on any of his political enemies despite being in control of the DoJ. So maybe four indictments on him as soon as he leaves office aren't politically motivated by the deep state as Fox claims but are just because he, you know, did crimes. Fox's rebuttal is the very obvious "the Deep State DoJ prevented Trump from rightfully indicting his political enemies. The proof is that as soon as he left office he was indicted for nothing, but while he was in office the DoJ refused to indict [imaginary Democrat crime de jour]" Just start from the assumption that strong daddy Trump is never wrong, always the best, picks the best advisors, and somehow is simultaneously surrounded by a sea of advisors hell-bent on bringing him down through malice or incompetence. Ravenfood fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Aug 6, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 12:13
|
|
|
The very idea of the deep state is an excuse for why the government was still bad even when Trump was nominally in control. Which is of course why you should reelect him so he can dismantle it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 12:40
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:"I once read" Big, if true
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 14:29
|
|
|
Clarste posted:The very idea of the deep state is an excuse for why the government was still bad even when Trump was nominally in control. Which is of course why you should reelect him so he can dismantle it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
Sounds like he did a pretty poo poo job at draining the swamp.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 14:50
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Sounds like he did a pretty poo poo job at draining the swamp. He just left tons of floaters for the DOJ to fish out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 14:53
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:The comment about Pence or Jack on their own might be okay. No, because the protective order the government asked for (which has not yet been granted) would not prohibit him from criticizing witnesses or the prosecutor. It would prohibit him from tweeting out privileged info he gains in discovery (which is something he's not supposed to do anyway, this just makes it absofuckinglutely clear). Vino posted:If you combine it with previous statements it could look like witness intimidation. It looks like this Mike Pence is Trump's enemy, though. To be specific, Mike Pence is running against Trump in the 2024 Republican primary, and is thus one of Trump's opponents. Given that strong legitimate reason for Trump to publicly criticize Pence, the court is not going to ban Trump from publicly criticizing Pence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt but Trump definitely isn't someone who needs benefit of the doubt. This feels like Republican apologists trying to decipher what Trump meant when he usually comes out and says it. Saying Pence is Trump's political enemy is just making excuses for someone who has been unsubtly calling for the punishment of someone who he thinks has betrayed for the past 3 years is missing the mark. Trump isn't making these remarks because he thinks he is campaigning against Pence. He is making these remarks because he thinks Pence is betraying him (again).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1688214998282027009
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
Very powerful grounds, the darkest roast you've ever seen, everyone is saying they've never had such incredible coffee
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
Madkal posted:I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt but Trump definitely isn't someone who needs benefit of the doubt. This feels like Republican apologists trying to decipher what Trump meant when he usually comes out and says it. I'm saying it because that's the level of benefit of the doubt the court is going to give him. No judge is going to ban him from publicly attacking his opponent in the election. They might ban him from using privileged information obtained during discovery to do it, but if Trump does somehow manage to get burned for witness intimidation, it's most likely going to be for private messages to Pence's team, not public rhetoric. Unless he posts an explicit, direct call to violence, with no wiggle room.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:My understanding is that you can't threaten or impugn the integrity of the prosecutor or witnesses in a case. If such a restriction is placed on Trump, you won't have to guess because it'll get in front of the Supreme Court in record time. As it should! Vino posted:I dunno if the connection is strong enough for the court to do anything about it though. The Question IRL posted:The comment about Pence or Jack on their own might be okay. quote:No Limit on Already Possessed or Public Documents
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 17:18
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:There's a massive gap between "threaten" and "impugn the integrity". A helpful and oversimplified rule of thumb is that if you think a law/order/ruling prevents criticism of the government or a government official, you're wrong. There are exceptions, and those exceptions usually have to be written to meet the standard of strict scrutiny: Is this accomplishing its goal in the least restrictive way possible? You aren’t wrong but Trump posts things and people act on his inferences. He is inciting violence against Pence, Jack Smith and the Judge and “well he gets to do it because he says it just barely indirectly then whelp nothing can be done” is a dumb answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You aren’t wrong but Trump posts things and people act on his inferences. He is inciting violence against Pence, Jack Smith and the Judge and “well he gets to do it because he says it just barely indirectly then whelp nothing can be done” is a dumb answer. 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.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You aren’t wrong but Trump posts things and people act on his inferences. He is inciting violence against Pence, Jack Smith and the Judge and “well he gets to do it because he says it just barely indirectly then whelp nothing can be done” is a dumb answer. I don't know how anyone who has lived through that and seen the generally godawful American justice system can decide that the issue is that the scales are too tipped towards the accused and we need to take more rights away before conviction. "We all know what's really happening" is a uniquely dogshit reason to strip civil rights from the accused and it doesn't stop being grotesquely authoritarian bullshit just because you really, really don't like Trump. 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.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
You’re arguing the general case when what’s clearly at issue is a specific actor with a long established past history. It’s disingenuous. Generally, yes, people should be given the benefit of the doubt that they aren’t actually trying to get someone killed by tweeting about them. However, we have years of evidence that Trump is actually trying to influence people to cause violence with his actions. Telling him, specifically Trump, that he can not post about the people who are witnesses against him or officials performing their required duties isn’t the end of rule of law. He’s not losing some fundamental specialness by not being able to direct stochastic terrorism.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
There's also a difference between Pence and DeSantis, for example, because one is (we assume) a witness in the trial and the other is merely a political opponent. Having an order restricting public comments about Pence may well be judicially prudent though, by contrast, there's very little reason to justify a gag order against DeS comments. Claiming that one is a presidential candidate carries, as far as I know, no legal precedent of blanket protections in the legal process (except the de facto position of the DOJ before election, from which T has already benefited).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm saying it because that's the level of benefit of the doubt the court is going to give him. No judge is going to ban him from publicly attacking his opponent in the election. They might ban him from using privileged information obtained during discovery to do it, but if Trump does somehow manage to get burned for witness intimidation, it's most likely going to be for private messages to Pence's team, not public rhetoric. Unless he posts an explicit, direct call to violence, with no wiggle room. Now I'm more convinced he's going to unequivocally blab. This is a guy who is also on the hook for taking classified information and then flaunting it all over the place. The dude just can't shut up about that stuff. So he'll find something out and he won't be able to resist. I don't know why this post particularly did it, but after the whole exchange, I got to here and was just like, "well, here we go."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 22:24
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:There's also a difference between Pence and DeSantis, for example, because one is (we assume) a witness in the trial and the other is merely a political opponent. Having an order restricting public comments about Pence may well be judicially prudent though, by contrast, there's very little reason to justify a gag order against DeS comments. Claiming that one is a presidential candidate carries, as far as I know, no legal precedent of blanket protections in the legal process (except the de facto position of the DOJ before election, from which T has already benefited).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2023 23:55
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
As someone with no legal experience and no real horse in this fight beyond wishing Trump eats poo poo and dies at some point in the hopefully near future, the idea that we shouldn't be able to stop a single person, with a known history of trying to incite violence, because "well, slippery slope!" is bullshit. The man literally tried to goad people into murdering Pence and incited a failed coup that directly put Congress lives in danger. We're not playing with Timmy Noname here, this is Donald J loving Trump. He knows exactly what he's doing, he knows that he has insane supporters looking for any reason to go violent. Getting him to shut the gently caress up and stop making thinly-veiled threats shouldn't be controversial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Unless he posts an explicit, direct call to violence, with no wiggle room. So, one week? Two at most?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 04:18
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:So, one week? Two at most? I admire your optimism
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
We haven't even begun to see how bad Trump's intimidation tactics can get. Wait until a Jury is selected. Especially in the DC case. And if that jury delivers a guilty verdict, God help them because they will target #1 for the maga crazies. And if Trump gets re-elected then they are doubly screwed when the actual real life weaponized DOJ goes after them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
I think the more interesting question is : Pretty much all bail is dependent on the person not doing additional crimes, right? So far all the indictments have been for crimes in the past, but what happens when Trump does a crime? He's going to do a bunch of crimes, we can take that as a given. He seems to judge exude them, and he has ample incentive to do more now. So the next time he gets his hand caught in the cookie jar, is a judge actually going to revoke his bail or is the entire might of the US Justice System just passing out wolf tickets?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2023 05:19
|
|
