|
Huh, guess my stepdad was right, Russia is clearly top of his list for where to run to if he decides it's finally time to bail
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 08:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:45 |
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Huh, guess my stepdad was right, Russia is clearly top of his list for where to run to if he decides it's finally time to bail He's definitely dumb enough to think Putin would welcome him with open arms. He'd be accidentally falling out of a window within a day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 09:08
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:
Certainly doesn't sound like a literal flight risk!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 09:33
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:And since they got loving cancelled be sure to watch the documentary as something of a series finale I guess. loving Netflix I'd recommend watching the documentary first. Purely because while GLOW was a real thing that existed, the writers of the TV show just watched that documentary and decided that was enough to make a show from without looking at any of the real world angels they did. It also falls into this topic about wrestling as in the TV show the creative staff fall into the hole of making their talent into stereotypes as it is easier to sell them to audiences that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 10:44
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:There was a wrestling storyline in 2007 that had Vince McMahon “die” after his limo exploded. Allegedly, Trump called WWE offices after this aired to see if this was real and if Vince was okay. Goodnight HULKAMANIACS and jabronie marks without a life that don't know it a work when you work a work and work yourself into a shoot,marks
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 11:54
|
|
|
I don't believe the US Government would allow a former president to defect to Russia via giant golden airliner either way
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 13:56
|
|
|
Karma Comedian posted:I don't believe the US Government would allow a former president to defect to Russia via giant golden airliner either way Good news: if he does, he will forfeit bond in the amount of $200,000 US
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 14:02
|
|
|
I 100% believe if Trump fled, it would not be because he might be jailed, but because he doesn’t want his mugshot, height, and weight released.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 14:28
|
|
|
The bond amount is token anyway. Fleeing the country would mean leaving behind orders of magnitude more assets that any bail they could reasonably set.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 15:38
|
|
|
Big fish reeled in https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1693991422146564352 Lol, that's not going to work https://twitter.com/stphnfwlr/status/1693996374172590558 Charlz Guybon fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Aug 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 15:43
|
|
|
Wrestling chat is officially, if only briefly, on topic again as the Georgia prison systems says https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1693985155227205659 Things are moving today, as you might expect. Jeff Clark continues to spam discredited legal theories https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1693984275719463340 while former State GOP head Shafer wants you to know it wasn't fraud and furthermore if it was fraud, it's Washington's fault: quote:“Mr. Shafer and the other Republican Electors in the 2020 election acted at the direction of the incumbent President and other federal officials,” Shafer’s attorney wrote in a petition seeking to move the Fulton County case to federal court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
LOL. So their best defense is just a hair short of SovCit "That is a gold-fringe flag, making this an admiralty court" fantabulation, eh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 15:54
|
|
|
oh my god they have so much
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
hiding behind 'my lawyer said it was okay' when you were plotting to overturn an election, something literally no one needs a lawyer to evaluate the legality of great strat, let's see how it goes
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 16:16
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:hiding behind 'my lawyer said it was okay' when you were plotting to overturn an election, something literally no one needs a lawyer to evaluate the legality of "What about all the other 30 lawyers you also asked who said it wasn't ok?" "Uh..."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
Robviously posted:Bail is supposedly set at 200k for him in Georgia but this might be a problem for him: I do like the inclusion of "hey reposts of others saying this stuff counts too."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 16:42
|
|
Don, it'll be fiiiiiiine...
|
Trump is king of "Many people are saying..." so it has to be there
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 17:23
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Things are moving today, as you might expect. Jeff Clark continues to spam discredited legal theories "Jeffrey B. Clark (“Defendant”) hereby gives notice and removes the two actions listed below to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division:" Do these sort of "notice of removals" always assume that it's the defendant's decision and theirs alone? Cause this is some haughty-rear end poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:"Jeffrey B. Clark (“Defendant”) hereby gives notice and removes the two actions listed below to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division:" He's arguing that he has a legal right to and doesn't need the leave of the court. The latter of which would be a "motion for leave to remove" Just a note though, even though I am a lawyer, I've not done any trial work in like a decade so don't take this as gospel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:"Jeffrey B. Clark (“Defendant”) hereby gives notice and removes the two actions listed below to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division:" He’s claiming that he has a statutory right of removal as a federal employee who was operating “within the scope” of his federal duties. There’s a whole hell of a lot of things that are basically designed to prevent hostile state courts from loving with the operation of the federal government, and granting federal employees a right to always be heard by a federal judge is one. The question that federal judge has to answer is if proposing to the President of the Goddamn United States “hey, make me acting AG and I’ll send a memo from the DoJ to state legislatures lying about evidence of fraud” is “within the scope” of the head of one of the DoJ’s civil litigation divisions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1694033541376467187 I'm intrigued by this defense strategy. I mean, even if the election were stolen, what they did was still illegal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:43
|
|
|
All that matters is keeping the Trump based riled and hoping he wins the election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
gregday posted:https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1694033541376467187 "You see, doing a crime to stop another crime is perfectly legal" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
gregday posted:https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1694033541376467187 Trying to avoid those extra charges of knowingly and wilfully lying about fraud. Can't accuse me of lying if I'm sure what I lied about was true!
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Trying to avoid those extra charges of knowingly and wilfully lying about fraud. Can't accuse me of lying if I'm sure what I lied about was true! The George Constanza "It's not a lie... if you believe it." approach.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
gregday posted:I'm intrigued by this defense strategy. I mean, even if the election were stolen, what they did was still illegal. Well, if they can't successfully argue that what they did wasn't illegal, but they can successfully argue they did it for a good reason, then that is a plausible path to a hung jury. The standard method for prosecuting someone is to argue that what the accused did was wrong, then explain how the law allows the jury to punish them for it. People who are sympathetic to what a defendant did, even if it's formally illegal, will endeavor to find a way not to convict. Juries are not machines that blindly apply the law. They are, at best, people looking to serve what they perceive as justice. Hell, prosecutors are the same way. Nobody becomes a prosecutor because they want to abstractly compare people's actions to those prohibited by statute. They look for bad guys and then see if the law empowers them to gently caress the bad guys up. The prosecutors are (correctly) convinced these are bad guys. They will need to convince the jury of the same if they actually want a conviction. And they need to convince all twelve jurors, which means convincing whichever of the twelve is most sympathetic to the notion that the election was stolen. It's not necessarily going to be easy. Sir Kodiak fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Aug 22, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 19:09
|
|
|
Lol he's gonna ask to make the Necessity defense [E] you need the Judges permission to argue Necessity, innit? NAL
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
I get the feeling the defendants would like nothing better than for the trial to litigate whether the election was stolen rather than whether what they did was illegal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
gregday posted:I'm intrigued by this defense strategy. I mean, even if the election were stolen, what they did was still illegal. Going to quickly* address state of mind with the Smith indictments. I frankly don't know Georgia well enough, nor do I wish to learn, to figure out how state of mind works with those charges. First, the Jan 6/Fake Elector indictment. I'm oversummarizing, but the charges rely on Trump acting with corrupt purpose for a corrupt goal. This has been litigated on a much smaller scale with some of the Jan 6 defendants. Here, a Reagan judge chimes in 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. And... that's it. That's all there is to it. To oversummarize again: Even granting (despite evidence to the contrary) that Trump fully believed he won and fraud was stealing the election from him, there is no question that the chosen method to "impair, obstruct, and defeat the federal government function" was illegal regardless of who 'deserved' to be president. That he would be (and was) removed from power when the function was accomplished is tidy proof of the corrupt goal. Sincerity isn't a defense here. Next, a bit of selfplagarism on the documents case quote:This, from congressional research service, is a great way to familiarize yourself with the listed charges and their legal history and context (IANAL so i found it especially helpful) Jean-Paul Shartre posted:He’s claiming that he has a statutory right of removal as a federal employee who was operating “within the scope” of his federal duties. There’s a whole hell of a lot of things that are basically designed to prevent hostile state courts from loving with the operation of the federal government, and granting federal employees a right to always be heard by a federal judge is one. The question that federal judge has to answer is if proposing to the President of the Goddamn United States “hey, make me acting AG and I’ll send a memo from the DoJ to state legislatures lying about evidence of fraud” is “within the scope” of the head of one of the DoJ’s civil litigation divisions. Also, per some commentators, Meadows has both a legitimate case for removable and a viable defense to a number of the GA charges, which gets back to some of my unease about their strategy here. Meadows' argument has three parts, which I am oversimplfying out of laziness and general weak character
Marcy Wheeler points out that on 12/27, Meadows calls Georgia and offers to use campaign funds to get the signature validation finished in time. Meadows was almost certainly acting on behalf of Trump here, but it's a hell of a climb arguing that he was acting for President Trump and not Candidate Trump when offering to donate campaign money to a voter integrity effort premised on lies. As Wheeler also notes (a bit more vehemently than I think is warranted), if Meadows wants to standby his guns that the 12/27 call was a part of his Chief of Staff duties then we seem to have an open and shut Hatch Act violation. The Hatch Act bit strikes me as more of a "ah, but by your logic" gotcha than anything for Meadows to stress over. There are a few other pieces that likely gently caress Meadows in Georgia too. *obvious lie
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:As Wheeler also notes (a bit more vehemently than I think is warranted), if Meadows wants to standby his guns that the 12/27 call was a part of his Chief of Staff duties then we seem to have an open and shut Hatch Act violation. The Hatch Act bit strikes me as more of a "ah, but by your logic" gotcha than anything for Meadows to stress over. There are a few other pieces that likely gently caress Meadows in Georgia too. marcy's a very good source at times but is also a weird old crank of a blogger that gets really caught up in personal pet theories, always gotta separate out those latter tendencies lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
Robviously posted:Bail is supposedly set at 200k for him in Georgia but this might be a problem for him: Well, he clearly violated the similar stuff with the 1/6 case and nothing bad happened to him. So of course he'll do it here too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 20:38
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:"Jeffrey B. Clark (“Defendant”) hereby gives notice and removes the two actions listed below to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division:" that's how a civil notice of removal works, it is effective upon filing, and if you shouldn't have done that the federal court remands it i, uh, don't think that's how it works in criminal cases
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:"You see, doing a crime to stop another crime is perfectly legal" It didn't work for OJ. He was arrested for trying to steal some of his stuff back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
So I am asking an electoral procedural question 3 years after it's relevance but it may figure into the false electors legal issue. From my understanding of presidential elections, each state has its assigned electoral votes and those votes are cast in a winner take all based on who won the popular vote in that state. These electoral votes are actually cast by real people who are chosen by their party ahead of the election (hey if our guy wins the election, you and x number of others are going to go cast the states electoral votes). Were the fake electors the original assigned Republican electors prior to the election or did they round up an additional group of Republican electors and just say "yo I know we had another group of people who were supposed to do this but they can't, so you will do it instead" I would think that would 1) set off alarm bells for these folks that something was up and 2) actually create some evidence for the fake electors plot because I could see the fake electors go "hey isn't it weird that they're not using the guys who were supposed to cast these ballots if Trump won?" What was the explanation for going with an alternative group? Considering how PA group had additional wording saying "we are just going to use this group if it is necessary" and Trump's people declined to put the same language in the other state groups because they were worried about optics if it got out, the electors were aware that things were not on the up and up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 21:16
|
|
|
Donkringel posted:So I am asking an electoral procedural question 3 years after it's relevance but it may figure into the false electors legal issue. Mostly. Maine does things a bit differently in ways that aren't super relevant here, but it does very occasionally split their votes. Otherwise, correct. Donkringel posted:Were the fake electors the original assigned Republican electors prior to the election or did they round up an additional group of Republican electors and just say "yo I know we had another group of people who were supposed to do this but they can't, so you will do it instead" More or less, yes. The idea was to have the alternate electors show up in DC and have their votes for Trump counted instead of Biden. Donkringel posted:I would think that would 1) set off alarm bells for these folks that something was up and 2) actually create some evidence for the fake electors plot because I could see the fake electors go "hey isn't it weird that they're not using the guys who were supposed to cast these ballots if Trump won?" What was the explanation for going with an alternative group? Absolutely everyone would have known what was going on. And the other states could actually object to it too and the fake electors could be thrown out. But as I understand it then that state wouldn't get any votes for the president, which, since those states were Biden wins, would have resulted in a Trump victory anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 21:23
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Absolutely everyone would have known what was going on. And the other states could actually object to it too and the fake electors could be thrown out. But as I understand it then that state wouldn't get any votes for the president, which, since those states were Biden wins, would have resulted in a Trump victory anyway. The idea would be nobody has 270, therefore the House votes with each state delegation getting one vote and republicans controlled a majority of state delegations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 21:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The idea would be nobody has 270, therefore the House votes with each state delegation getting one vote and republicans controlled a majority of state delegations. Yeah, in detail that's what the plan was. If they could cast their votes for Trump he'd win whether they get thrown out or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
I think some but not all of the fake electors were on the original list of Republican electors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 21:36
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1694099334516642113 Well I believe this individual might have some interesting testimony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:45 |
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1694099334516642113 Context from earlier in the filing: quote:When Trump Employee 4 testified before the grand jury in the District of Columbia in March 2023, he repeatedly denied or claimed not to recall any contacts or conversations about the security footage at Mar-a-Lago. In testimony before the same grand jury, De Oliveira likewise denied any contact with Trump Employee 4 regarding security footage. The Government’s evidence indicated that the testimony by Trump Employee 4 and De Oliveira was false. This is all in the context of a filing to support a Garcia hearing, which is basically a hearing to ensure that a defendant is aware of a potential conflict of interest by those representing them. It appears that Employee 4 had been basically pressured to lie and take the fall for the other defendants represented by Woodward, particularly involving a proposal to delete security footage at Mar a Lago. All of this has been in the works since at least June. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Aug 22, 2023 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 23:24
|
|
