|
I think it’s not really arguing in the alternative if you’re trying to claim both things are true at the same time.
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
their entire response to the hatch act issue is a single paragraph where they do not cite a single source of authority for their numerous legal conclusions that actually this is fine and, in fact, the court shouldn't even be thinking about it right now (along with a footnote vaguely saying that Al Gore's chief of staff talked to some people about the recounts -- who gives a poo poo!) edit: sorry, and a second paragraph where they say that Trump's white house counsel defended past blatant hatch act violations. to which i would again posit, who gives a poo poo eke out fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Aug 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
gregday posted:Meadows is trying to have it both ways: claiming it should be removed to federal court because he was acting under the color of his job duties as CoS, but also that it was first amendment protected speech because it was campaign work, which undercuts the first claim. To be unnecessarily fair, it seems like "was this part of his job duties or part of his campaign duties" seems like it's at least arguably a fact question for the jury, and if it's a fact question for the jury, then. . . yeah I guess removing it to federal court in an excess of caution seems to make some sense .I mean, we're talking about federal elections and federal offices. On the scale of "trump legal team arguments" this seems like one of the least stupid ones. It shouldn't actually *change* anything, right? Still the same prosecutors and so forth just in federal court instead of state court? I legit don't know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Votes in the presidential election are literally and legally not equal. Votes in different states are not aggregated together at any point in the electoral progress. The national popular vote is not used for anything. Voters in different states are voting directly for their electors and indirectly for the president. The national popular vote is a completely useless statistic that is only ever aggregated that way because people find it interesting to calculate. It is a determinant of nothing and is only an interesting emergent sidenote calculated by uselessly aggregating the vote counts for the separate elections held in each state. You're missing the forest for the trees. All these mechanisms of action your describing are true, but have nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm saying the engine makes the car go forward and you're correcting me by telling me it's actually the wheels spinning. None of that matters, from a systems point of view there's two pieces of data needed to determine the winner of the election: the number of votes, and where those votes are from. Our indirect electoral college process can be described as a weighting function based on geographic distribution. More votes is better, and is usually the determining factor in which candidate wins. Historically it's been very rare that the geographic weighting causes a different result then who has the most raw votes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 22:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:To be unnecessarily fair, it seems like "was this part of his job duties or part of his campaign duties" seems like it's at least arguably a fact question for the jury, and if it's a fact question for the jury, then. . . yeah I guess removing it to federal court in an excess of caution seems to make some sense .I mean, we're talking about federal elections and federal offices. On the scale of "trump legal team arguments" this seems like one of the least stupid ones. shouldn't have written that all of his actions in the indictment "concern unquestionably political activity" if they wanted to claim that there is a factual question about whether he was acting in the scope of his duties eke out fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Aug 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:To be unnecessarily fair, it seems like "was this part of his job duties or part of his campaign duties" seems like it's at least arguably a fact question for the jury, and if it's a fact question for the jury, then. . . yeah I guess removing it to federal court in an excess of caution seems to make some sense .I mean, we're talking about federal elections and federal offices. On the scale of "trump legal team arguments" this seems like one of the least stupid ones. I think the point people are trying to assert is that Meadows motion states that all his actions ‘concern unquestionably political activity’? The argument seems to be that he’s conceding that he was not acting as a federal officer or else he was acting illegally because the hatch act explicitly forbids the combination of ‘acting as a federal officer’ and ‘engaging in political activities’ for everyone except the president. From that viewpoint it seems there are no facts in dispute for a jury to resolve? There is no universe of those facts that allows him to be acting under the color of law. Unless he’s contending that admitting to illegal actions while a federal officer also gains the benefit of removal? Maybe? But that seems to forgo being able to avail himself of the supremacy clause since it doesn’t protect illegal activity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Ehhh I'm just gonna wait for the next Legal Eagle video on this..
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Our indirect electoral college process can be described as a weighting function based on geographic distribution. No, it cannot. It can only be described as a grouping of separate elections, because that's what it is. The biggest problem with the EC currently is not the different weighting (electors per capita) of different states, it's a side effect of the grouping of votes and allocation. In most states, 100% of electors are allocated based on winning a plurality. This, more than the different weighting of the votes' worth in each state, creates a far bigger problem, which is that instead of some citizen's votes being worth less in the context of electing a President, more votes are worth absolutely nothing at all. In a solid red or solid blue state, your electors are all but decided before the election. Swing voters don't matter to anyone. Swing votes matter in swing states. This is not a constitutional issue at all. This is a legal issue. State legislation like the interstate compact or even just allocating electors proportionally would vastly mitigate this issue, but the problem is that most states do not want this issue resolved. This issue is kept as it is to deliberately divorce the election of the President with the outcome of the federal popular vote. The popular vote is meaningless, because the problem is less with the weighting of votes and more with the grouping of votes so that as few as possible can decide the election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2023 23:57
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I think the point people are trying to assert is that Meadows motion states that all his actions ‘concern unquestionably political activity’? Going for that 6-3 “Hatch Act is Unconstitutional”. The legal goals have not changed since 2020: get everything to Sam and Clarence and have them rule “Trump can’t commit crimes QED”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
 Lying PoS
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
With that height and weight, and that criminal record, it's only a matter of time before the Dolphins draft him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 02:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:This premise doesn't support it's conclusion at all, it just means it's not the sole determining factor. No. It's like saying that the team who gains the most yards wins the game Jarmak posted:
Again, no. The Republican presidential candidate has won the popular vote twice since 1988 but has held the white house in 16 of those years. BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 02:58
|
|
|
eke out posted:absofuckinglutely not lmao. he cannot hide behind his federal position while simultaneously claiming he was engaging in First Amendment protected political activity when said political activity is explicitly made illegal by the Hatch Act. just because there were no consequences because trump ran a lawless administration does not mean that the law ceases to exist Making another acknowledgment that I'm out of my depth here. I don't know how criminal removal is, but that is how I think criminal removal ought to be. Where there is a dispute over the laws and/or job responsibilities, I want it settled in federal court. For that to be meaningful (imo), the bar for dispute needs to be at least permissive enough to include "there is an argument that if the disputed behavior was part of your official duties, then that behavior is illegal under a different law" While I hope Meadows' attempt to skate entirely fails, I'm with Hieronymous Alloy that he has one of the less absurd defenses (speaking of low bars). eke out posted:shouldn't have written that all of his actions in the indictment "concern unquestionably political activity" if they wanted to claim that there is a factual question about whether he was acting in the scope of his duties
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
Powell has also asked for speedy trial. I am all for getting a batch of these done quickly. Chezbro thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room and his 6-D chess game is on point and Sydney thinks the zorgmites of nebula 6 will beam the secret answers to her brain exposing the fraud and making trump president by November so it makes sense that neither of them even wants to see the evidence against them before committing to a strategy. Probably the real reason is just that they think are going to get a huge amount of grift money by going first and they’re so cocky they can’t think they can be wrong. Powell being sentenced to a couple years in an Atlanta prison by Christmas would really make up for a lot of the emotional harm she caused from her kraken nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 03:26
|
|
|
Please take election chat elsewhere
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 03:31
|
|
|
Woah, with two defendants demanding a speedy trial won't this undercut the rest trying to sever. https://twitter.com/TamarHallerman/status/1695165931012432121
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 03:51
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:
yeah, it's contained in his separate motion to dismiss that he filed in the (hopefully temporary) federal case. he says well even if the court found that the Supremacy Clause doesn't protect me, i would have first amendment defenses. quote:All of the alleged conduct as to Mr. Meadows relates to protected political activity that lies in the heartland of First Amendment. quote:"For example, whatever one thinks of the merits of the tone and tenor of the discussion with the Georgia Secretary of State, the subject matter was undeniably about public issues of political importance. A candidate for public office does not cease to be a political candidate when the polls close on election day. Rather, the right to “vigorously and tirelessly” advocate for one’s own election continues beyond that time. See Democratic Party of Georgia, Inc. v. Crittenden, 347 F. Supp. 3d 1324, 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2018) (Jones, J.) (enjoining the State of Georgia from certifying election results until certain absentee ballots were counted). Nor is it unlawful to petition for redress pursuant to political or legal process when the results of an election remain undetermined. quote:All the substantive allegations in the Indictment concern unquestionably political activity and thus, if not covered by Supremacy Clause immunity, the charges would be barred by the First Amendment. they are allowed to argue in the alternative but it's still it's loving egregious to claim that these electoral influence operations were simultaneously official actions that were necessary and proper in the scope of his duties as a federal official and also core protected first amendment political speech on behalf of Trump's campaign. it's trying to have your cake and eat it too eke out fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 04:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:To be unnecessarily fair, it seems like "was this part of his job duties or part of his campaign duties" seems like it's at least arguably a fact question for the jury, and if it's a fact question for the jury, then. . . yeah I guess removing it to federal court in an excess of caution seems to make some sense .I mean, we're talking about federal elections and federal offices. On the scale of "trump legal team arguments" this seems like one of the least stupid ones. It would be the same prosecutors and yes just in federal court. But if his argument that what he did fell under his duties as Chief of Staff, then he might have a better argument for getting his charges dismissed? Because county prosecutors don't prosecute Hatch Act violations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 05:55
|
|
|
eke out posted:they are allowed to argue in the alternative but it's still it's loving egregious to claim that these electoral influence operations were simultaneously official actions that were necessary and proper in the scope of his duties as a federal official and also core protected first amendment political speech on behalf of Trump's campaign. it's trying to have your cake and eat it too Don't have to hand it to him, yadda yadda, I know, but this is what's called a "belt and suspenders" argument and is so common in legal proceedings that not doing it would be incompetence on the part of his lawyer. Yes, it's literally doing the narcissist's prayer thing of "here's an argument and if you don't buy that one, here's a different argument," but it's how the law works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 06:43
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
The electoral college is determined by the sum of each states members of the House and Senate. Smaller states like Wyoming have disproportionately more representation than larger states in both the College and Congress, as the house is still limited to a number set over 100 years ago and the Senate which is absolutely favoring small states over large ones. If even the House was adjusted for modern demographics states like California and New York would gain something like 20+ seats each, and a like number of EV votes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 10:48
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:No, it cannot. It can only be described as a grouping of separate elections, because that's what it is. It's a weighting function that can be accurately described with a formula. It's just a non-linear differential equation and you seem to think weighting only means a linear coefficient and you're somehow surprising me with this revolutionary information that FPTP voting exists. Yes, that weighting function results in some additional votes being worth nothing or netting to effectively nothing, but not all of them, that's what weighing means. You're not addressing the point I'm making at all, you're just describing details of the mechanisms by which the election is carried out. Details that don't contradict what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 13:04
|
|
|
I don’t really think that for purposes of this conversation saying, “no I’m right you just have to model the election as a 50 part piecewise, multi variable, non linear differential equation” or whatever is winning you any points. Sure, there is some way to form the popular vote into a mathematical model and get the EC vote results but in this case being technically correct doesn’t make you right. So, let’s just drop it, okay? Murgos fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 14:19
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Don't have to hand it to him, yadda yadda, I know, but this is what's called a "belt and suspenders" argument and is so common in legal proceedings that not doing it would be incompetence on the part of his lawyer. Can a belt and suspenders argument be valid when the first prong requires admission of facts that invalidate the second prong and also the second prong requires admission of facts that invalidate the first prong? My expectation is that you have a set of facts A and prong 1 must be satisfied by those facts and also prong 2 through prong N must be satisfied by those facts or some subset of them. I.e. if A1 is true or A2 or A3 … An are true then the conditions are met. A and Not A = True seems an invalid result. Murgos fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 14:26
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Don't have to hand it to him, yadda yadda, I know, but this is what's called a "belt and suspenders" argument and is so common in legal proceedings that not doing it would be incompetence on the part of his lawyer. You can argue like that, but when one of your arguments involves categorical admissions that invalidate the other argument and unwittingly concede that the underlying conduct was unlawful -- which you make without any kind of qualification or seemingly even any awareness that there is a statute criminalizing the conduct you're admitting to -- maybe you shouldn't. Particularly when you're making that argument in a Hail Mary motion to dismiss that the federal court considering removal is never going to accept and it merely provides an opening for the other side to jump on you To be clear, this is not an abstract issue I am harping on out of nowhere: Willis correctly jumped on his rear end for it, and then Meadows did not substantively respond to her claims or authority about the Hatch Act at all and instead provided a couple paragraphs of legal conclusions without authority hoping that the court will just ignore this line of argument or at least not consider it at all as part of the threshold analysis for removal. But it's a bad argument and they should consider it. eke out fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 14:37
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Please take election chat elsewhere A huge part of this thread discussion centers around attempts to illegally overturn an election, changing vote counts, allegations of voter fraud, inciting a riot while attempting a coup and also how 91 federal indictments affect a former president's chances in an election to be held a little over a year from now. How does "election chat" constitute any sort of derail? Most of what we're talking about here is fundamentally about an election; and the crimes committed by seeking to steal one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 14:48
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:A huge part of this thread discussion centers around attempts to illegally overturn an election, changing vote counts, allegations of voter fraud, inciting a riot while attempting a coup and also how 91 federal indictments affect a former president's chances in an election to be held a little over a year from now. Because people are arguing about electability and the odds of Trump winning or not winning a future presidency in the thread for discussing the legal proceedings relating to the hosed up stuff he did to try to overturn the previous one? It is a derail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 15:12
|
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:Because people are arguing about electability and the odds of Trump winning or not winning a future presidency in the thread for discussing the legal proceedings relating to the hosed up stuff he did to try to overturn the previous one? It is a derail. yeah it's one thing to talk about how the current Troubles affect his future and it's another thing to argue about who can win 2024, will trump win, and how much the electoral college matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
I mean given his entire plan seems to be to stall criminal proceedings until being elected and then argue the president is immune to prosecution, uh
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 15:18
|
|
|
DeathChicken posted:I mean given his entire plan seems to be to stall criminal proceedings until being elected and then argue the president is immune to prosecution, uh Seeing it actually typed out like that, it seems like a really stupid idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
Lammasu posted:Seeing it actually typed out like that, it seems like a really stupid idea. That's his only option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
eke out posted:yeah it's one thing to talk about how the current Troubles affect his future and it's another thing to argue about who can win 2024, will trump win, and how much the electoral college matter. Yeah if you want to talk about how Trump used our election system in his plot, that’s fine. What we don’t need is yet another thread about how the EC is undemocratic and polls about 2024 voting, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 16:04
|
|
|
Ok here's a question I haven't seem discussed. How likely are Georgia Republicans to successful ly get Fani Willis fired?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok here's a question I haven't seem discussed. How likely are Georgia Republicans to successful ly get Fani Willis fired? It was immediately taken to court, and they’ll end up pushing it to the Supreme Court and see if the Republican justices there will let them politicize the rest of the judiciary. The court isn’t predictable at this point, so it just comes down to reading Kavanaugh’s tea leafs. Lammasu posted:Seeing it actually typed out like that, it seems like a really stupid idea. If Trump or probably any Republican takes the presidency, they’ll almost certainly either cease prosecution or pardon him. So the legal argument doesn’t have to be strong. Kaal fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ok here's a question I haven't seem discussed. How likely are Georgia Republicans to successful ly get Fani Willis fired? I think Kemp has to be on the commission or otherwise be a part of the selection process? Maybe even other oversight functions? If any of that is true then I don’t think it’s likely at all. He doesn’t seem like he’s interested in playing performances for Trumps favor and doesn’t seem to need to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Doesn't the Georgia Republican party hate Trump for costing them Senate seats?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Nervous posted:Doesn't the Georgia Republican party hate Trump for costing them Senate seats? I'm pretty sure huge swaths of the GOP in general hate Trump, it really just comes down to whether or not they fear his base.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
There seems to be enough of a mix of Georgia Republicans between those who will do anything to ensure Trump is set free, and those who are actually done with Trump and just want him locked up for his fuckups, that it doesn't seem likely that they can interfere. I'm more concerned about House Republicans trying some sort of nonsense like demanding the DA attend daily 8-hour House Congressional Hearings about her (fabricated) ties to Soros, Obama, Hitler, and The Literal Antichrist to try to interrupt things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 17:09
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Can a belt and suspenders argument be valid when the first prong requires admission of facts that invalidate the second prong and also the second prong requires admission of facts that invalidate the first prong? I'm not a lawyer so maybe one of them can jump in but I'm pretty sure I've seen this kind of thing in the context of "I didn't do x but even if I did do x (which I didn't), I would have been completely within my rights to do so" so later when they prove you did do it, you have something to fall back on. I have no idea what happens if the evidence you put forward saying you didn't do x also damages your argument saying you were allowed to do x, but I'd presume you'd try not to do that. In this case I think it's more subtle though - it's saying "if he was acting in his official capacity (which is a fact question for the court), then these arguments apply and if he wasn't, then we have to look at this under a different lens." KillHour fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
You can absolutely argue stuff in the alternative for your motions/pleadings.
Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Aug 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
ElegantFugue posted:There seems to be enough of a mix of Georgia Republicans between those who will do anything to ensure Trump is set free, and those who are actually done with Trump and just want him locked up for his fuckups, that it doesn't seem likely that they can interfere. I'm more concerned about House Republicans trying some sort of nonsense like demanding the DA attend daily 8-hour House Congressional Hearings about her (fabricated) ties to Soros, Obama, Hitler, and The Literal Antichrist to try to interrupt things. I'm wondering how this would work in practice. Does Willis just not show up to court if this happens, and an ADA in her district has to handle the case? Can Congress just subpoena everyone in her office to tie them up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2023 17:23
|
|
