|
e: wrong thread lol
davecrazy fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Aug 23, 2023 |
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Yours in service https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1694075005577961959
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1694099334516642113 Cannon had  over a grand jury relating to her case happening in another venue. Turns out the venue was proper, at least as it comes to Taveras - his false statements occurred in DC so he was target of a DC grand jury.The other bit was Cannon's weird reluctance on a Garcia hearing (about a conflict of interest similar to what DV's post quotes including that it's Woodward), which featured Woodward's truly insane recommendation that if Cannon finds a conflict of interest... she should just prevent Taveras from testifying, rendering the conflcit irrelevant. From Justice, a phrase we'll be likely to continue hearing: quote:Nauta has not identified any case, and the Government is unaware of one, in which a court has excluded evidence to avoid a conflict on facts remotely similar to this case, Some are reading the response to Woodward as a thinly-veiled warning to Cannon that this leaves the realm of things they just have to sit and take, that it'd be an obvious and egregious enough fuckup to bring higher courts down on her again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
In layperson's terms, are they basically telling Cannon, "If Mobster A says Mobster B pulled the trigger, and Mobster B says Mobster A pulled the trigger, but both Mobster A and Mobster B are represented by Attorney C, that doesn't mean the testimony of Mobster A and Mobster B can't be used."?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2023 23:56
|
|
|
Feel like we glossed over the bail bondsman not making bail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
Cobbler's children, you know?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 00:15
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:In layperson's terms, are they basically telling Cannon, "If Mobster A says Mobster B pulled the trigger, and Mobster B says Mobster A pulled the trigger, but both Mobster A and Mobster B are represented by Attorney C, that doesn't mean the testimony of Mobster A and Mobster B can't be used."? I think it's more that they're telling Cannon that they want a fair trial for Mobster A and Mobster B and if their defenses are in direct opposition they cannot be represented (or at least cross examined) by the same lawyer. All of this Garcia hearing poo poo is for the benefit of the actual defendants who aren't Trump
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Well it took about 4 hours for The Donald to violate the court’s orders. “The failed District Attorney of Fulton County (Atlanta), Fani Willis, insisted on a $200,000 Bond from me,” Trump wrote. “I assume, therefore, that she thought I was a ‘flight’ risk - I’d fly far away, maybe to Russia, Russia, Russia, share a gold domed suite with Vladimir, never to be seen or heard from again.” He added: “Would I be able to take my very ‘understated’ airplane with the gold TRUMP affixed for all to see. Probably not, I’d be much better off flying commercial - I’m sure nobody would recognize me!” I await my disappointment at the lack of consequences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 00:26
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted: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. I don't know the answer to a lot of this but it seems like another valid argument for eliminating the Electoral College. I mean, if you just want to say "State X is worth Y amount of 'points'" then just do that and award the points based on the loving vote count. I don't see any real reason to appoint specific people to vote according to what the god damned vote tally says (?) Do we really need some Official Old Person to officially submit a vote that says "yep. That there vote count is how Georgia voted this time, yep"? and what's the point of that when NOT doing it or getting some other person to do it apparently appears to be highly illegal? What I mean is, what's with the extra step here? Not to be pedantic about it or trivialize this with a sports comparison, but at the end of the World Series or the Super Bowl, we don't need a seperate group of weird people to certify that, yes, the score was 4-2 or 35-28 or hear from some official no one has ever heard of with a dubious, shadowy and nebulous background to declare that the Yankees or the Chiefs are World Champions. Basically asking the same thing that Donkringel did I guess BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Aug 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:Well it took about 4 hours for The Donald to violate the court’s orders. What does that violate? I don’t have the order to hand but I thought it was just about witness intimidation, not flight-from-prosecution daydreaming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 00:59
|
|
|
Yeah he's just prohibited from threatening the trial participants
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:00
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:Yeah he's just prohibited from threatening the trial participants I agree it says some participants, it doesn’t say anything about jury, judge, and prosecutor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
god this blows posted:I agree it says some participants, it doesn’t say anything about jury, judge, and prosecutor. There is no threat, explicit or implicit, in there unless you're willing to go so far as saying that any time Trump says someone's name with an insult it's a threat. We're all expecting him to actually violate it before the end of the week, but that ain't it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:11
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:I don't know the answer to a lot of this but it seems like another valid argument for eliminating the Electoral College. We have this weird system because the system was designed for the state governments to pick the president, not the people. The states each get x number of votes and it's up to the state to pick people to cast them. Those votes being cast for whomever won the popular vote in the state came later. If Alabama wanted to decide the electors by paintball tournament, they technically could. KillHour fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Aug 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:20
|
|
|
I think pretty much everyone realizes it's a loving dumb system. But the power holders are disinclined to try to change it because it's the system they got into power with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
Well that doesn't really explain anything. Let's have a vote and then another group of people who are (supposedly) legally beholden to the initial vote also vote and then those second guys vote with no autonomy anyway and just vote for what the vote says. Was it put in place as some sort of safeguard in the event that the popular vote got hosed up and that's what the Trump team is alleging or is it just some strange formality that I assume was at one point implemented to (maybe) simplify matters or reduce counting or some poo poo? I'm honestly asking here and know I could wiki it but I'm looking for a simple explanation and I know you goons are up to it. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Aug 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
The electoral college is more or less designed to do exactly what it is doing. Same as the Senate. Unequal representation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think pretty much everyone realizes it's a loving dumb system. But the power holders are disinclined to try to change it because it's the system they got into power with. More specifically, it would require a constitutional amendment that essentially says "Republicans can never win the presidency again" so you can imagine why it hasn't happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
KillHour posted:We have this weird system because the system was designed for the state governments to pick the president, not the people. The states each get x number of votes and it's up to the state to pick people to cast them. Those votes being cast for whomever won the popular vote in the state came later. If Alabama wanted to decide the electors by paintball tournament, they technically could. Well, no. I mean yes that was the original intent but it doesn’t work that way now. That’s kind of getting into the Independent Legislature nonsense that says there is no federal oversight of elections, which was thankfully slapped down. I think the real reason we don’t move away from the real physical electoral college is that any change opens up the possibility for more change, and they don’t want to risk that. It would take an amendment to change it to a federally-tabulated total instead of physical electors and there just isn’t appetite for that. I personally think it should be done away with but that is, I think, the reason it’s still there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:Well, no. I mean yes that was the original intent but it doesn’t work that way now. That’s kind of getting into the Independent Legislature nonsense that says there is no federal oversight of elections, which was thankfully slapped down. Well..ok..but I bet if only 2 democrats had won the popular vote in the last 35 years yet had held the white house for roughly half that time and managed to appoint 2/3 of the Supreme Court that talk radio might sound a little different right now at a minimum. And so...now it appears that the Trumpists are saying "gently caress all that voting poo poo anyway since it's all fake and rigged" and they just want to appoint whoever (I don't know how EC people get chosen) to vote for a God Emperor like it says in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bible and is embroidered on the Am I close here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Well that doesn't really explain anything. Take into account the overland speed of a horse and all of this starts making sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Well..ok..but I bet if only 2 democrats had won the popular vote in the last 35 years yet had held the white house for roughly half that time and managed to appoint 2/3 of the Supreme Court that talk radio might sound a little different right now at a minimum. I’m talking about the difference between a real physical electoral college and just automatically tabulating the votes as if an EC had met. There would be no differences in any outcomes there other than a small handful of inconsequential faithless electors over the years. Going straight to a popular vote (which IMO should absolutely be done) is a step further, and I think the risk of that step being taken is why the right doesn’t even want to have a conversation about going from a physical EC to a theoretical one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 02:01
|
|
|
If you're changing voting you should ditch FPTP while you're at it. Go for instant-runoff or condorcet or something.
The Lone Badger fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Aug 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 02:25
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Well that doesn't really explain anything. A lot of how things are done currently wasn't really predicted by the founders. However, the stuff that's enshrined in the Constitution can't really practically be changed. The parts of the system that weren't enshrined in the Constitution could change as necessary to adjust to different ways of doing things, but they had to be awkwardly kludged in around the parts of the system that were enshrined in the Constitution. Originally, the idea of voting for the president wasn't really expected at all. Instead, the idea was that the voters would choose electors they trusted to make such decisions on their behalf, and then those electors would vote for whoever they thought would make a good president. That sounds weird by today's standards, but it's not much different from how US senators were supposed to be elected by state legislatures, with the idea that voters would pick state legislators who they trusted to pick the right senators for their state. You also have to remember that when all that poo poo was originally written, at least some of the founders earnestly believed (or at least desperately hoped) that the US wouldn't have political parties, which would make these various indirect elections seem a lot less pointless because people wouldn't be able to go "I want the Republican president, so obviously I'm going to vote for people who've pre-committed to pick the Republican". So why do we have it if it's outdated and relevant? Because amending the US Constitution to fundamentally change the way major federal elections are done is very much a last-resort move, due to being difficult and extremely politically fraught. It can be eventually be managed if there's no other option (for example, the 17th Amendment removing the parts of the Constitution that said state legislators pick senators), but we're doing more or less okay with the vestigial remnants of the Electoral College so there isn't really a strong political impetus to go rip that out at the roots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 02:54
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I think pretty much everyone realizes it's a loving dumb system. But the power holders are disinclined to try to change it because it's the system they got into power with. Mostly it's that fixing it takes effort, and the system has only not worked the same as you would expect 5 times. 3 of those times were in the 19th Century. Of course the other two are Bush and Trump, so half the politicians absolutely don't want to change it. BiggerBoat posted:Well that doesn't really explain anything. Technically the Electoral College is there to prevent some demagogue from winning the election. It's to steal the election from the dangerous guy who tricked all the dumb voters into voting for him. You know, stop a Trump(assuming he was popular).
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 03:04
|
|
|
As far as the electoral college and the eligibility requirements for candidacy. The one and only constitutional change I can envision being made in today’s political climate, would be the addition of a maximum age for a presidential candidate. It obviously won’t happen while Trump and Biden are around, but I could see bipartisan support in congress for adding an upper limit in the next couple of decades. Anything else, I cannot imagine being changed in our lifetimes. Or longer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 03:11
|
|
|
There is popular vote compact of states. That’s actually pretty close to getting the needed count I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 03:34
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:There is popular vote compact of states. That’s actually pretty close to getting the needed count I think. By numbers yea, but they’ve run out of states that would gain power and need to sign up some states that would lose it, which is a way bigger lift
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 03:45
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:There is popular vote compact of states. That’s actually pretty close to getting the needed count I think. Technically, any inter-state compact needs approval from congress due to the compact clause in Article 1 of the Constitution. So even if it got the needed states, I fully expect it to see a decade of litigation at best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 03:48
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:There is popular vote compact of states. That’s actually pretty close to getting the needed count I think. Currently right now the states that have ratified it count for 205 Electoral Votes. There are seven states with a "pending" status (mostly still working their way through committee) , which if they all ratified it would be another 63 EVs and therefore just shy of 270 (268). Of course, all of this presumes it stands up to a constitutional challenge. haveblue posted:By numbers yea, but they’ve run out of states that would gain power and need to sign up some states that would lose it, which is a way bigger lift Yeah I was surprised that the Carolinas are currently even considering it at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
There is also an argument that states have broad powers to select and bind electors by any rules they see fit, so yeah, if it ever reaches the point where it might affect things it’s going to court for a very long time
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 03:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1694099334516642113 From the filing, “ As set forth below, following the indictment in this case, the Government continued to investigate false statements by two witnesses in the District of Columbia, and the hearing before the Chief Judge in the District of Columbia appropriately stemmed from that investigation. The Government promptly notified this Court of its request for that hearing, and Mr. Woodward participated in the hearing without objection.” So, Cannon knew they were having hearings in front of the DC grand jury. Not only that but she was also told that the DoJ asked the DC judge for a Garcia hearing because of Woodward’s conflict of interest. And that made Trump Employee Four realize he did need different counsel. Which made him realize he had committed perjury and so changed his testimony. And then after knowing all that Cannon balks at a Garcia hearing about Woodward’s conflicts in her court? Lol, what? That’s getting kind of hard to call incompetence. It’s going to be interesting to see if she denies the Garcia hearing request in her court after this because it seems like a slam dunk to get the appeals court to make her to do it. Edit: also, DoJ points out that Woodward is likely to cross examine Trump Employee Four about the false statements he made while he was Woodward’s client I.e. privileged information. That’s so surreal that it seems like there has to be some attorney conduct implications here. Murgos fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Aug 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 03:56
|
|
|
My understanding that even getting near cross-examining a former client is very bad. I'm just some rear end in a top hat who listens to lawyer podcasts, so grain of salt and all that, but I don't think you're supposed to cross-examine people that you were vaguely associated with in the past. As in, you shouldn't do it in an unrelated civil matter several years after representing them for a minor criminal matter. A former client in the same trial should be absolutely no dice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 04:22
|
|
|
Probably going to get another lawyer to cross. Or we get a spectacular sound byte. Woodward: If you're telling the truth now, then why did you lie in your interview? Witness: You told me to lie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Trump and McMahon are friends, surprising noone, and Trump did a wrestling plot with him that culminated in a Stone Cold Stunner at Wrestlemania 23 in 2007. The chip guy at the grocery store I used to work at literally voted for Trump for this reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I’m talking about the difference between a real physical electoral college and just automatically tabulating the votes as if an EC had met. There would be no differences in any outcomes there other than a small handful of inconsequential faithless electors over the years. All elections would probably need to be federalized to get a national popular vote done. Otherwise sooner or later you’d have a Trump-loving Secretary of State of WV or somewhere saying, “Oh yeah, well I certify 50 million votes for  ”I’m only slightly exaggerating, but the opportunities for continued tampering would run deep without dramatically curtailing the role of state and local governments vulnerable to authoritarian capture. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Aug 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 06:07
|
|
|
Weird decssion, that will likely end up with many defendants getting more time, not less https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/dc-circuit-court-jan-6-prosecutions-doj-fail.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 06:31
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Weird decssion, that will likely end up with many defendants getting more time, not less That might be the stupidest parsing of a legal sentence since the absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 09:00
|
|
|
Even if you're reading it like that moron the split sentence should still be allowed since he definitely wasn't sentenced "for the  ", there weren't any sharks involved at all
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 10:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:59 |
|
|
Going down with the ship https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1694317801815654669
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2023 12:59
|
|