|
The Lone Badger posted:So if an ex-president is immune to the law, does that mean only another ex-president can stop one? I think so, and I think it means we've got one last job for Jimmy Carter.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 06:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Nervous posted:I think so, and I think it means we've got one last job for Jimmy Carter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3GNN05H8fk
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 06:31
|
|
|
Nervous posted:I think so, and I think it means we've got one last job for Jimmy Carter. https://imgur.com/PTy7HQB
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 07:17
|
|
|
Expect a lot of ranting from Trump and allies that Cannon actually allowed prosecutors to redact the names of government witnesses until the trial. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-maralago-jack-smith-justice-department-bad5cb148471724b76e4aced04e0337f AP News posted:WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal judge presiding over the classified documents case against former President Donald Trump granted a request by prosecutors on Tuesday aimed at protecting the identities of potential government witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 08:21
|
|
|
Nervous posted:I think so, and I think it means we've got one last job for Jimmy Carter. Close, but we've already got someone for this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_X_%28TV_series%29 Wikipedia article for the show Agent X posted:Plot A secret paragraph, in our very Constitution!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 13:26
|
|
|
Cannon posted:the case raised “still-developing and somewhat muddled questions.” This is completely untrue, right? Isn't the theory of prosecution that Trump intentionally retained documents that he was straightforwardly not allowed to?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 13:40
|
|
|
She loves saying that this is a complicated case. It's not remotely complicated or muddled but she's setting the stage for herself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 13:41
|
|
|
mdemone posted:She loves saying that this is a complicated case. It's not remotely complicated or muddled but she's setting the stage for herself. Yeah CIPA is extremely straightforward and there's no ambiguity involved, any complication or muddling is some combination of 1) her being ignorant, inexperienced, and stupid or 2) deliberate malfeasance
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 13:48
|
|
|
Belteshazzar posted:But does that continue to apply in perpetuity after they have left office? I looked into this, and apparently the immunity only applies while they are in office. After they leave office, they can be charged for crimes done while they were in office. There is an exception to this, in that members of parliament are indefinitely immune for for any votes they did in parliament and anything they said (except for slander) during official parliamentary debates or committee meetings . So that is different than the immunity that Trump is claiming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 13:51
|
|
|
raminasi posted:This is completely untrue, right? Isn't the theory of prosecution that Trump intentionally retained documents that he was straightforwardly not allowed to? This is the judge to be clear who applied the wrong legal standard that is used in every case in that judgment and got huge mad at the prosecution that they didn’t teach he the law. She is either a moron or corrupt or both at the same time. This is a slam dunk case that’s as straight forward as any of trumps cases. She is intentionally making things obtuse by trying to apply a civil statute about the PRA apply to a federal espionage crime and obstruction. Every legal expert who has commented on this have said she is insane and this whole legal theory was come up by some idiot in trumps orbit who isn’t even a lawyer and has zero legal expertise. This is the judge pounding the table for trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 15:30
|
|
|
That is also why rumors are circulating that Smith is going to try to have the next court up move the case to another judge over her objection, which is a very very rare and very very drastic thing to happen
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 15:52
|
|
|
If there's ever been a judge who should be kicked off, she's basically the platonic ideal example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 16:18
|
|
|
Another doomed appeal filed https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/politics/trump-lawyers-appeal-hush-money-case
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:43.9% of the German electorate voted for Hitler in 1933, was that not a threat to democracy because a large number of citizens voted for it? Hitler did not run for any office in 1933; he was already in office, having been appointed Chancellor under President Hindenburg's emergency powers in January. The election you're referring to was a showpiece as by November 1933 all the other parties had been either forcibly absorbed into the NSDAP or banned outright. It wasn't a threat to democracy as democracy was already dead by that point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Hitler did not run for any office in 1933; he was already in office, having been appointed Chancellor under President Hindenburg's emergency powers in January. The election you're referring to was a showpiece as by November 1933 all the other parties had been either forcibly absorbed into the NSDAP or banned outright. It wasn't a threat to democracy as democracy was already dead by that point. In the election of March 1933 - five weeks after Hitler was named Chancellor - all the other parties still existed, but faced severe repression through arrests, terror attacks, media and meeting bans, leadership being thrown into concentration camps, etc. No parties were banned for that election, as it wasn't seen as helpful or necessary. After the election, when the NSDAP didn't win the expected absolute majority, the seats won by the communist party were retroactively annulled in order for the NSDAP to get the absolute majority. The other parties were then banned in July 1933, which lead to the election in November 1933 in which only the NSDAP and some individuals without a party were electable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
My point was that if the people don't want democracy anymore and vote to eliminate it, that's a democracy success story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
Trump’s lawyers file another appeal in hush money case quote:Lawyers for Donald Trump have filed another appeal in the hush money case to challenge the order by the trial’s judge denying him from arguing he has presidential immunity. More straws being clutched at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 18:14
|
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:Close, but we've already got someone for this. This idea is way better if the VP is constitutionally required to be a secret agent. Mike Pence drinking soda water and trying not to be alone in a room with any of the bond girls is a billion dollar idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 18:22
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:My point was that if the people don't want democracy anymore and vote to eliminate it, that's a democracy success story. The 2020 presidential election in the US (with the highest participation in 70 years) saw the winner get votes from less than 34% of the voting eligible population. If Trump would win in 2024, he would probably get a similar amount of votes. Should that count as "people democratically electing to eliminate democracy"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:My point was that if the people don't want democracy anymore and vote to eliminate it, that's a democracy success story. I would consider that to be the suicide of a democracy, and as such would not characterize it as a "success story".
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:My point was that if the people don't want democracy anymore and vote to eliminate it, that's a democracy success story. Ahh yes the common definition of success, suicide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
It's the democratic paradox of tolerance. You can only have a democracy if you suppress movements that would eliminate it
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It's the democratic paradox of tolerance. You can only have a democracy if you suppress movements that would eliminate it Federalist paper no 10. In which Madison accident lays out the materialist underpinnings of socialist theory. Also he talks about this, because 'you can't stop a faction from appointing a king/emperor the moment they feel things are about to stop ever going their way' has been a problem in every form of democracy and republic. quote:There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests. In which he openly admits most of this is because government exists to mediate between the haves and have nots as an alternative to various kinds of violence (also he holds the  early liberal views) and finds that the only alternative to what we now call communism, state censorship of opinion, is just the kind of tyrannical power they wanted to avoid. He of course doesn't think highly of the whole proto-communism idea.He in fact actually talks about how the only protection from faction in the system is difficulty in coordination and interests. Now that that's long gone, factionalism is here to stay. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp The whole thing is worth reading, though his cure would probably be to toss the system and rewrite it again, especially considering that the idea of states sovereignty no longer makes sense. Once your to the point the only way to do anything is to game the system it's time to actually fix it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 19:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:This idea is way better if the VP is constitutionally required to be a secret agent. On Mother's Secret Service
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 19:45
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Federalist paper no 10. In which Madison accident lays out the materialist underpinnings of socialist theory. Also he talks about this, because 'you can't stop a faction from appointing a king/emperor the moment they feel things are about to stop ever going their way' has been a problem in every form of democracy and republic. State uniform control of opinion is not "what we now call communism," it's describing a totalitarian dictatorship. Madison does not say that "government exists to mediate between the haves and have nots as an alternative to various kinds of violence," he says that there's always going to be different distribution of resources and perverse incentives that follow from them, leading to the existence of factions. He's also not talking about the property rights concept of liberty in Federalist 10, it's rights to speech and conflicting views. Someone's given you a really weird gloss that you're applying to these documents. Barrel Cactaur posted:He in fact actually talks about how the only protection from faction in the system is difficulty in coordination and interests. Now that that's long gone, factionalism is here to stay. Madison's point is that having a complex system of government with variable checks, balances and forms of representation makes it more difficult for a faction to subvert or control all such systems at once- part of the straightforward advantage of republican versus direct democratic governance. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Apr 10, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 19:46
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:State uniform control of opinion is not "what we now call communism," it's describing a totalitarian dictatorship. Madison does not say that "government exists to mediate between the haves and have nots as an alternative to various kinds of violence," he says that there's always going to be different distribution of resources and perverse incentives that follow from them, leading to the existence of factions. He's also not talking about the property rights concept of liberty in Federalist 10, it's rights to speech and conflicting views. Are you completely dense? The second point (making everyone absolutely equal, especially in the economic sense) is the socialist one. Arguably he implicitly argues a practical way of getting the second implies the tyrant of the first but he libs about it being undesirable in its own right. E: As to why 10 is important, you basically have to read the whole thing to understand why a republic isn't actually any better if enough coordination of opinion can exist. He lays out a rebuttal to the very idea of a absolute protective effect if your ability to coordinate politics and opinion shaping reaches the national scale. Barrel Cactaur fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Apr 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 19:52
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:State uniform control of opinion is not "what we now call communism," it's describing a totalitarian dictatorship. Madison does not say that "government exists to mediate between the haves and have nots as an alternative to various kinds of violence," he says that there's always going to be different distribution of resources and perverse incentives that follow from them, leading to the existence of factions. He's also not talking about the property rights concept of liberty in Federalist 10, it's rights to speech and conflicting views. Someone's given you a really weird gloss that you're applying to these documents. Well, did he envision a country where people would put more loyalty to their faction than to their state or country? Were not the states supposed to be the higher power over the federal government because they were closer to the people they were representing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 19:58
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Are you completely dense? The second point (making everyone absolutely equal, especially in the economic sense) is the socialist one. Buddy I was the one who directed the thread to the federalist papers on this topic. You literally reposted the link I already posted six days ago. The solutions to the causes of faction that Madison is objecting to are not making everyone equal economically. They are a) destroying liberty and b) "giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests." Where Madison talks about property rights emerging from diversity of faculties, they are secondary to his point, which is why before he talks about the pervasive economic motivations to factionalism, he describes conflict arriving from non-financial sources. quote:The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. People being different is the source of conflict, and financial conflicts, while constant, are downstream from this. He also makes the point that there are different kinds of moneyed interests that can conflict with each other. quote:Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. This is not just haves and have nots. At no point does he describe communism. He's describing regulation. Cimber posted:Well, did he envision a country where people would put more loyalty to their faction than to their state or country? Were not the states supposed to be the higher power over the federal government because they were closer to the people they were representing? These are the federalist papers, written largely as a persuasive campaign to argue for a stronger federal government. Madison is specifically arguing for a stronger, diversified-structure federal government because individual states are more likely to fall prey to a shared factional interest. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Apr 10, 2024 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 20:02
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:State uniform control of opinion is not "what we now call communism," it's describing a totalitarian dictatorship. Madison does not say that "government exists to mediate between the haves and have nots as an alternative to various kinds of violence," he says that there's always going to be different distribution of resources and perverse incentives that follow from them, leading to the existence of factions. He's also not talking about the property rights concept of liberty in Federalist 10, it's rights to speech and conflicting views. Someone's given you a really weird gloss that you're applying to these documents. You misread that. He's saying censorship is the alternative to communism. It was badly worded and took a couple passes for me too, and I'm not saying he's right, just that's what he's saying there in that particular passage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Trump’s lawyers file another appeal in hush money case But they're also pathetic losers for representing Trump and they hopefully know how lame they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 20:42
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:You misread that. He's saying censorship is the alternative to communism. It was badly worded and took a couple passes for me too, and I'm not saying he's right, just that's what he's saying there in that particular passage. Thanks for the correction, that's helpful.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 20:44
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:I mean, I don't blame the lawyers for trying. I think it is the responsibility of a lawyer to try everything legally possible for their client. I do. Lawyers have an ethical duty not to file frivolous arguments. OTOH Trump has a right to counsel and I'm not sure it is possible to ethically represent him without committing unethical acts in the process, because all of his demands will be that you commit unethical acts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I do. Lawyers have an ethical duty not to file frivolous arguments. You tell him "no.". If one of my customers asks me to do something illegal or unethical I say "no.". It's actually not hard. gently caress the lawyers representing Trump who are willfully and unethicallly filing frivolous lawsuits. Nobody is making them do it. They are choosing to act unethicallly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 20:53
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:You tell him "no.". If one of my customers asks me to do something illegal or unethical I say "no.". It's actually not hard. gently caress the lawyers representing Trump who are willfully and unethicallly filing frivolous lawsuits. Nobody is making them do it. They are choosing to act unethicallly. Absolutely! But that will mean he fires you and hires another attorney, who he will then in turn ask to commit those same unethical acts. Any individual lawyer representing him has a choice, but taken collectively, his representation, which he has a right to, will involve illegal actions, inevitably. He's the legal-ethics equivalent of those "trap bikes" that my local university leaves out on the sidewalk unlocked and loaded with a GPS tracker so they can nab whoever takes them. The actual answer here is probably some sort of conservatorship but that is impracticable for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 21:01
|
|
|
Someone convince him to waive that right and go pro se Maybe he'd listen to a lawyer straight out of central casting with tears in his eyes
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 21:08
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Someone convince him to waive that right and go pro se That's the thing! Normally people dumb enough to pull this poo poo are also dumb enough to do that, but he isn't! And then he keeps finding lawyers who are dumb enough to work for him after all! It's like a law school ethics hypothetical. Is an attorney stupid enough to work for Trump, still capable of providing competent representation? Ethically responsible for their own stupidity?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
One thing I'm unclear on is, how unusual is it to redact witness names before trial like this? I see why it's justified in this case, just how big an ask was it by the prosecution in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 21:42
|
|
|
SpelledBackwards posted:Close, but we've already got someone for this. Secret paragraphs?? In MY Constitution? It's more common than you think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
Asproigerosis posted:My point was that if the people don't want democracy anymore and vote to eliminate it, that's a democracy success story. No it’s not generally when that happens turn out has been suppressed (and there could be many origins for that) or the state has been run extremely poorly for a sustained period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Is an attorney stupid enough to work for Trump, still capable of providing competent representation? Ethically responsible for their own stupidity? (points at Alina Habba)
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2024 22:42
|
|
