|
https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1787873465439064069 yikes!
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
It kind of seems like Trump's lawyers should be objecting to this entire line of questioning.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
Simplex posted:It kind of seems like Trump's lawyers should be objecting to this entire line of questioning. They have been, but it is relevant so they can kick rocks. The point of the scheme was to conceal her story, it is relevant to the jury what they were trying to conceal. Also, he apparently called her 'Honeybunch' so I take no pleasure in saying that the jury has found he will be executed at lunch.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
When it's consensual that means she didn't use a condom either? You can always object until he uses one? Not that it makes any difference but I don't get being so pointed about something like that unless there was a discussion in which he ardently refused to use one and she gave in? Edit: Riptor posted:It speaks to there being numerous details about his infidelity that he would be inclined to conceal  good point
Tenkaris fucked around with this message at 17:14 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:When it's consensual that means she didn't use a condom either? You can always object until he uses one? Not that it makes any difference but I don't get being so pointed about something like that unless there was a discussion in which he ardently refused to use one and she gave in? It speaks to there being numerous details about his infidelity that he would be inclined to conceal
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
Basically, Trump hosed a pornstar without a condom while his wife, Melania, was caring for their newborn son. Trump presumably slid this same meatdog into Melania afterwards.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
atriptothebeach posted:He is not making founded or legitimate claims of judicial corruption, Trump begins against the judge's daughter the day the judge barred him from directing public attacks against prosecutors, court staff, and any of their family members. See, you're going way off the point here. Whether you think Trump's allegations against her are correct or not is entirely irrelevant. What's relevant is that:
It can be a violation of the gag order, but it's not a threat. After all, if it was legally considered to be a threat, a gag order wouldn't be necessary, as threatening people is already illegal, and punishable by a lot more than just contempt of court. Similarly, telling reporters to "go after this attorney general" does not necessarily constitute a threat, even if it's followed up by linking to an article about allegations of homeownership-related fraud against the AG that contains publicly-available documents which contain the address of the home in question. It could possibly be interpreted as a potential threat, yes, but let's check back to Merchan's recent contempt order on gag order violations to remind ourselves what the judicial system thinks of ambiguous stuff that might or might not be a threat: quote:To be sure, this Court understands the People's argument as it pertains to this Exhibit and agrees that often seemingly innocuous or even complimentary words and phrases can in truth conceal a more nefarious purpose, such as to threaten, harass or intimidate. However, context, facial expressions, emphasis and even cadence are critical in reaching such a determination. Under the circumstances here, this Court cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement in question constituted a veiled threat to Mr. Pecker or to other witnesses. Emphasis mine. Ambiguity and reasonable doubt go hand-in-hand, so it's actually quite difficult to establish to the needed standard that these kinds of things are threats. Especially when they're being fired into the void on social media or at press conferences, rather than in direct confrontations with the target of the threat. What about people who have large, violent fanbases who will engage in harassment and violence without being expressly told to? Existing First Amendment jurisprudence doesn't really account for something like that, and putting the crimes trial on hold to go haul First Amendment side issues all the way up to the Supreme Court would play right into Trump's hands. Also, and this is actually pretty important, muzzling Trump isn't really going to make much difference because he's not really the one directing the crowd in the first place. One of the reasons he's so easily able to maintain plausible deniability is that he's just repeating poo poo the right-wing media dug up and has already been jumping on for months by the time he gets around to retweeting one of their articles.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:18
|
|
|
small butter posted:Basically, Trump hosed a pornstar without a condom while his wife, Melania, was caring for their newborn son. Trump presumably slid this same meatdog into Melania afterwards. I'm sure he was demanding she resume "wifely duties" the day Barron was born  Edit: Morrow posted:Close, he set a deadline for her to get back to the pre-baby body. Ugh I remember reading this back during his term when I was in the cspam thread being unhealthy, and then detaching so hard that I had managed to forget about that little detail until now 
Tenkaris fucked around with this message at 17:29 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:21
|
|
|
Stochastic terrorism is clearly not a thing that happens in relation to Trump. We definitely didn't see it after the 2020 election and are absolutely not seeing any risk of it during his trials.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
Caros posted:They have been, but it is relevant so they can kick rocks. The point of the scheme was to conceal her story, it is relevant to the jury what they were trying to conceal. I think Trump and his legal team invited this when they stupidly floated the Clinton defense. But it's salacious and doesn't really connect Trump to the hush money payments. Don't get me wrong, it's all pretty amusing, and almost seems like Trump suffering some consequences.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
small butter posted:Basically, Trump hosed a pornstar without a condom while his wife, Melania, was caring for their newborn son. Trump presumably slid this same meatdog into Melania afterwards. In Trump's defense, an active pornstar is 1,000% more likely to be getting regular STD checks than a random person and Melania was allegedly in the know and okay with it.* *As okay as any sugar daddy relationship can be with the implied threat of being financially cut off if you make a big deal out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:24
|
|
|
Tenkaris posted:I'm sure he was demanding she resume "wifely duties" the day Barron was born Close, he set a deadline for her to get back to the pre-baby body.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:25
|
|
|
small butter posted:Basically, Trump hosed a pornstar without a condom while his wife, Melania, was caring for their newborn son. Trump presumably slid this same meatdog into Melania afterwards. Your hourly reminder that this is the person ultra-religious Christians see as God's perfect tool for leading America.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Stochastic terrorism is clearly not a thing that happens in relation to Trump. We definitely didn't see it after the 2020 election and are absolutely not seeing any risk of it during his trials. Of course it happens in relation to Trump. But it doesn't depend on Trump himself having to say anything, because there is a loving enormous sycophantic cult of personality that has taken over an entire political party, created its own dedicated network of loyalist media outlets dedicating to agitating and radicalizing the followers, and is perfectly capable of giving marching orders to their diehard following of crazed extremists without Trump himself having to lift a finger or speak a word.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
Do you think there is any ground to be had for reasonably forseeable consequences of his speech? Back in 2023 Trump posted a screenshot of (what he thought was) Obama's address. No direct threat, no call to violence. In less than 24 hours one of his stooges showed up in the neighborhood and was arrested while armed and staking out the area for "A good shot" Four months later, Trump posts the address of the attorney general in a case against him. What did he think was going to happen? Or was he just really interested in that Laura Loomer article talking about the AG's house? Given that he has seen directly what can happen when he posts the addresses of his political opponents, is it not reasonable to conclude that his goal is intimidation and/or harassment? Even if just from a layman perspective since I (sadly) have to agree that the legal system can't effectively deal with this behavior. Your example with pecker doesn't rise to reasonable doubt because you can make the argument that Pecker is a witness in Trump's criminal trial and all trump said about him was that he was a 'nice guy'. You have to infer harassment or threat from that, because trump has reasonable excuses for talking about the man. But attacking the family member of a judge? Again as Merchan put it: "This pattern of attacking family members of presiding jurists and attorney's assigned to his cases serves no legitimate purpose. It merely injects fear in those assigned or called to participate in the proceedings, that not only they, but their family members as well, are 'fair game' for defendant's vitriol. {...} Again, all citizens, called upon to participate in these proceedings, whether as a juror, a witness, or in some other capacity, must now concern themselves not only with their own personal safety, but with the safety and potential for personal attacks upon their loved ones. That reality cannot be overstated." If anything it feels like the gag order is largely being used as a judicial work around. It is obvious to any observer that he is engaging in 80s level mob boss threats, even if our legal system really isn't equipped to deal with 'Will someone rid me of this meddle some priest' Caros fucked around with this message at 17:58 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Your hourly reminder that this is the person ultra-religious Christians see as God's perfect tool for leading America. The Lord works his will in mysterious ways.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 18:10
|
|
|
Nervous posted:The Lord works his will in mysterious ways. The more sinful and horrible you are, the more it showcases the power of God's grace when you are forgiven. Any fool deity can use a Jimmy Carter to do good works, but using Donald "Vice" Trump? That takes a REAL god.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
Madkal posted:Your hourly reminder that this is the person ultra-religious Christians see as God's perfect tool for leading America. They're deep into "the ends justify the means" rationalization.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They're deep into "the ends justify the means" rationalization. Nah they’re just fascists and don’t care. Evangelicals have been reactionaries playacting at religious revival for a century and a half
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
atriptothebeach posted:Six weeks later, Judge Lefkow's husband and mother were found killed in her home following her address being shared online by the group; Greenwald did not report these coded messages until the FBI confronted him about them months later, finally recalling neither content nor intended recipient and violating the special administrative measures and his duty as an officer of the court. It doesn't invalidate the overall point by any means, but it's incomplete to not note here that the murders turned out to have no connection to Hale whatsoever that anyone ever found.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Caros posted:Do you think there is any ground to be had for reasonably forseeable consequences of his speech? That's exactly what gag orders are for. After all, you don't need a gag order to tell someone not to say things that are illegal. Illegal speech is already against the rules, and punishable by a lot more than just contempt of court. Gag orders are for stuff that is not illegal to say but may be disruptive to the case. They're temporary, limited infringements on someone's right to free speech for the sake of protecting the defendant's right to a fair trial (even if the defendant is the one trying to make the trial unfair). But because it's a balancing act between two constitutional rights, the judge has an obligation to infringe the defendant's free speech rights as little as possible while still achieving the goal of protecting the fairness of the trial. This means that the judge can use a gag order to bar Trump from hurling further accusations at his daughter, but he can't punish for the accusations Trump hurled before the gag order, because the accusations weren't threats. They may be disruptive to the trial in some way, but were not actually illegal to say. As for the Obama address thing, your facts are a bit off. According to court filings, the man in question had two guns in his van, but he wasn't carrying those guns around while walking the Obamas' neighborhood. And it's actually a good thing that he went to Obama's neighborhood, because law enforcement was already trying to track him down but not having much luck, and entering an area with so many Secret Service agents around made him much easier to catch. He'd been wandering all over the DC area and livestreaming himself making threats and other alarming remarks against lawmakers, government agencies, and schools for days, but authorities didn't know quite where to find him since he'd been living out of his van by that point. Over the week or so prior to his arrest, he had:
But even if he'd gone in there with a gun instead of a camera and shot the area up, it would have been difficult to pin any responsibility on Trump posting Obama's address. His recent history of unhinged behavior, along with the fact that he was already researching politicians' personal details and engaging in some degree of stalking on his own, would make it very easy for Trump's lawyers to say that he already had violent plans prior to Trump's post and that Trump could not have known that this guy was out there plotting violence, or that he might be influenced so strongly in his violent plans by a single Trump post.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
If we've learned anything, it's that you should always get a separate NDA/non-disparagement agreement for your penis.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:It doesn't invalidate the overall point by any means, but it's incomplete to not note here that the murders turned out to have no connection to Hale whatsoever that anyone ever found. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 19:47
|
|
|
atriptothebeach posted:How often do normal shoplifters or drug sellers get to repeatedly threaten judges, prosecutors and their families? Like, Trump is calling for people to attack this judges daughter, what is there to be done? The context of the discussion is about "consequence", it seems to me in your example the shoplifter or drug dealer getting charged with major(?) felonies to the point its gone to trial, or pre-trial hearings is massively consequential to those individuals and that "threatening" the judge if that is what happened here, is well below the list of things the individual is already suffering consequences from, and such actions only determine how deep the hole they're digging for themselves will go, but doesn't change the fact that meaningful consequences are being inflicted. Insofar as I was responding to people posting variations of "He keeps getting away with it!" despite the literal objective truth being otherwise, the fact is he is suffering a consequence for his actions, just not the consequence you presumably would like to see.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's exactly what gag orders are for. After all, you don't need a gag order to tell someone not to say things that are illegal. Illegal speech is already against the rules, and punishable by a lot more than just contempt of court. Trump was gagged specifically out of fears of witness intimidation, in this and other trials, Merchan has blatantly said this. Witness intimidation is illegal. Gag orders routinely cover things that are illegal in and of themselves in part because it is much more expedient to hold someone in contempt of Court and punish them that way than to hold a separate trial to convict them for witness intimidation. If Trump were to say 'I think someone should kill Stormy Daniels' that would be both a violation of his gag order and a threat warranting other charges. It can be both. quote:This means that the judge can use a gag order to bar Trump from hurling further accusations at his daughter, but he can't punish for the accusations Trump hurled before the gag order, because the accusations weren't threats. They may be disruptive to the trial in some way, but were not actually illegal to say. I literally said this in my post and previous posts so I don't know why you are reiterating it. With, I suppose, the caveat that they are absolutely intended to subject her to threats, harassment or harm, but that the legal system can't do poo poo about it. quote:As for the Obama address thing, your facts are a bit off. According to court filings, the man in question had two guns in his van, but he wasn't carrying those guns around while walking the Obamas' neighborhood. And it's actually a good thing that he went to Obama's neighborhood, because law enforcement was already trying to track him down but not having much luck, and entering an area with so many Secret Service agents around made him much easier to catch. He'd been wandering all over the DC area and livestreaming himself making threats and other alarming remarks against lawmakers, government agencies, and schools for days, but authorities didn't know quite where to find him since he'd been living out of his van by that point. Over the week or so prior to his arrest, he had: I did not say he was carrying them around I said that he was arrested while armed and staking out the residence. Which was true. The weapons charges recently given to him were related to the weapons found in his van near where he was caught by secret service. If I go to scope out a bank to rob it and cops find guns in my van no reasonable person would try to split hairs and say I was unarmed when I was arrested. The DOJ even described him as armed at the time in their motion to hold him pending trial. That he was arrested only for gun and Jan 6 charges is almost certainly a function of either time (they haven't hashed out the attempted murder charges yet) or effort, it is easier to put him in prison for decades based on weapons charges and Jan 6 behavior. For a direct comparison, Ross Ulbright absolutely tried two murders for hire but was only ever convicted on the simpler drug charges. As for the rest of this, I don't think it is a good thing the former president doxxed the president before him because the secret service were able to arrest his deranged follower when he showed up with weapons and stated intent to "get a good shot" on the former president. Ends don't justify the means, and Trump's intent in doing this wasn't to get one of his loons arrested, it was to get Obama harassed or attacked. With a smarter person (a stretch in trump world, admittedly) this ends in tragedy pretty readily. quote:But even if he'd gone in there with a gun instead of a camera and shot the area up, it would have been difficult to pin any responsibility on Trump posting Obama's address. His recent history of unhinged behavior, along with the fact that he was already researching politicians' personal details and engaging in some degree of stalking on his own, would make it very easy for Trump's lawyers to say that he already had violent plans prior to Trump's post and that Trump could not have known that this guy was out there plotting violence, or that he might be influenced so strongly in his violent plans by a single Trump post. You said a whole bunch of words here without really addressing the crux of my point. I am fully aware the us cannot handle stochastic terrorism. I wasn't asking you legally about this case, but more broadly from a moral standpoint and from, perhaps, a distant legal standpoint. If, for example, Trump hosting James' address had led to more than mere death threats and harassment, do you see a moral point at which Trump should be responsible? If it happened again? We recently had a case where parents were convicted for a mass shooting committed by their son and I'm curious if you ever see a point where repeatedly doxxing public figures subjecting them to threats and intimidation ever moves the needle? Caros fucked around with this message at 20:45 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 20:05
|
|
|
The answer to that incongruence, like many other bullshit aspects of things in the US, is that it's just a manifestation white supremacy. It's this way by design and there's too much momentum behind existing power structures to meaningfully impact it on a meaningful timescale.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
elhondo posted:If we've learned anything, it's that you should always get a separate NDA/non-disparagement agreement for your penis. Should get it insured, like Heidi Klum did with her legs
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
I did not wake up today expecting to think about whether sex workers can get insurance for their bodies but that's where Trump's Legal Troubles have taken my mind.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 20:52
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:In Trump's defense, an active pornstar is 1,000% more likely to be getting regular STD checks than a random person and Melania was allegedly in the know and okay with it.* It's since been established that she doesn't really care, do u?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
Caros posted:I literally said this in my post and previous posts so I don't know why you are reiterating it. With, I suppose, the caveat that they are absolutely intended to subject her to threats, harassment or harm, but that the legal system can't do poo poo about it. The legal system can't do poo poo about it because taking legal action requires actually proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to subject her to harm. Assuming that someone with a large, radical following automatically intends harm anytime he criticizes someone is a novel legal theory, but the courts have given far less sympathetic defendants a pass on rhetoric with a lot more vitriol to it. Caros posted:I did not say he was carrying them around I said that he was arrested while armed and staking out the residence. Which was true. The weapons charges recently given to him were related to the weapons found in his van near where he was caught by secret service. If I go to scope out a bank to rob it and cops find guns in my van no reasonable person would try to split hairs and say I was unarmed when I was arrested. The DOJ even described him as armed at the time in their motion to hold him pending trial. If he did not have guns in his direct personal possession when he was arrested, then he was not armed when he was arrested. Sure, he had guns in his van, but he wasn't in his van! That'd be like saying he was arrested in bed because he had a mattress in his van (because he was living in his van). The reason he wasn't charged with attempted murder is that attempted murder charges require any actual proof of intent or attempt to murder. Filming yourself walking around a couple of blocks from Obama's house may be suspicious, but it's not evidence of a murder plot. The fact that they eventually charged him with hoaxing for his threat to blow up NIST strongly suggests that they determined that he did not actually have serious plans for violence. And if they have a third set of charges waiting in the wings, I'm pretty sure they're almost out of time to spring them, since his trial starts in two months. And I didn't say it was a good thing that Trump posted Obama's address. I said it was good that this guy went to Obama's neighborhood instead of continuing to scout out elementary schools. I also said that it would be extremely difficult to prove in court that this guy was taking direction from Trump's tweets, because he'd been wandering all around the DC area hurling threats at politicians and the government for days before that. Caros posted:You said a whole bunch of words here without really addressing the crux of my point. I am fully aware the us cannot handle stochastic terrorism. I wasn't asking you legally about this case, but more broadly from a moral standpoint and from, perhaps, a distant legal standpoint. The reason I exclusively post about laws, legal precedents, and court decisions in the Trump Legal Troubles thread is because I'm more interested in what is actually going to happen, rather than what I personally think should happen. When it comes to what is actually going to happen to Trump, what he is and is not going to be held accountable for, and what kind of consequences he is likely to face, my own personal moral calculus does not matter one whit. And I'm not particularly interested in other people's personal moral calculus either. People can fantasize all they want about what they think ought to happen in a world where the legal system is run exclusively according to their own moral guidelines, but I don't think that's particularly relevant to the actual discussion here. Repeatedly posting publicly available information about people who are widely acknowledged to be public figures is never going to move the needle in the eyes of the courts, no matter what I think about it. Posting daydreams about how we wish it worked differently may feel satisfying for the people posting them, but it's not really relevant to the reality we're unfortunately cursed to live in. And it's not like it's really even possible to change the system here. Congress can't do it, short of a constitutional amendment, and I don't think many of us would feel anything but horror at the idea of inviting the current conservative-dominated Supreme Court to overturn those old First Amendment precedents. So like it or not, we're stuck with the laws we've got, and those are the laws that Trump is going to be tried under - regardless of whether or not those laws agree with our personal moral stances.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 21:24
|
|
|
 https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.530.0.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 22:06
|
|
|
I wonder if this is her saying "I'm in the bag for Trump" or "this is too complex for my inexperienced mind and I want a way out"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The legal system can't do poo poo about it because taking legal action requires actually proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to subject her to harm. Assuming that someone with a large, radical following automatically intends harm anytime he criticizes someone is a novel legal theory, but the courts have given far less sympathetic defendants a pass on rhetoric with a lot more vitriol to it. I literally said that I understand your point and you are repeating it back to me for the third time. Yes. Our legal system is not equipped to deal with large scale figures who try to encourage their audience to harass, intimidate or attack their opponents without outright saying calling for violence or harassment. I agree, I understand why. My point was that I think that this is bad and that we should alter our legal system to accommodate. That said I'll leave you with the last word and drop it going forward to avoid a pointless argument. You are interested in the purely legalistic, I'm interested in discussing the moral and systemic implications. Oil and water, so it's all good. No hard feeling goon or goonette. quote:I wonder if this is her saying "I'm in the bag for Trump" or "this is too complex for my inexperienced mind and I want a way out" The latter for sure. This isn't how similar cases are handled and for all the bluster, nothing about this case is particularly complex. There are guidelines for how this sort of case should be structured, and she is basically blowing past them or ignoring them. The goal is to stretch it past November. After that it goes away or she can reevaluate and either tank the case (if a true believer) or try to salvage some credibility if not. Caros fucked around with this message at 22:27 on May 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 22:12
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Gotta give him props, I'm not familiar with conspiracy theories about NIST! Please tell me he was super upset about the survey foot getting retired in 2023, that'd be amazing. Did he have personal animus against the stone wall they use to study weathering? Or was he a partisan of the International Prototype of the Kilogram?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
NIST conspiracies are about their huge step by step rebuttal of 911 conspiracies back in the day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIST_World_Trade_Center_Disaster_Investigation
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 22:26
|
|
|
Boring. They need more creative conspiracy theories.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 22:40
|
|
|
I'm assuming Trump is not going to testify. Is he going to call any witness in his defense
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 23:04
|
|
|
gregday posted:
Yup, saw this coming the moment Trump just happened to randomly draw the very best judge he could possibly hope for. Honestly, I thought she was just going to dismiss the case outright, but this really isn't much different.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 23:07
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I wonder if this is her saying "I'm in the bag for Trump" or "this is too complex for my inexperienced mind and I want a way out" do you really wonder, it seems very obvious to me
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 10:42 |
|
|
I wonder if her play currently is to drag the case so much that she violates the defendant's right to a speedy trial, and it gets dismissed with prejudice for that.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2024 23:10
|
|
