Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Mendrian posted:

So what is the over/under on consequences for this thing?

What do you think over/under means?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
hhahaahaha he's crying about the crowd size

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
I stepped out. Who is Jim?

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
How much longer do we have for this session?

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
lmao i love that. "if you've suddenly remembered something, our door is open"

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Dr. Faustus posted:

This is a very good question that I have written a response to several times. Since it's such a good question I will type it again:

There is one huge reason to let the J6 Committee "go first" at the witnesses instead of the DOJ. Time is of the essence because if this whole plot isn't exposed by this September, it probably never would be. We needed these hearings for the same reason we needed the Watergate hearings. To inform and persuade the public to care. I suspect it is actually working and will, going forward from today, gather steam.

But: Imagine if DOJ had gone guns after Trump and everybody else before the J6 committee. What would that look like? First of all, Garland would empanel a Grand Jury and call witnesses to testify. Grand Jury testimony is secret! By the time they could get to the bottom of this, it would be time for the 2022 mid-terms and we would only know what can be figured out from public-facing court documents and leaks. A leaky GJ isn't going to inspire confidence in the DOJ first, but second, a perfectly water-tight GJ would mean none of us know all of this. Trump's base would be saying all of this FUD and chaff without the public knowing anything. Then the GOP wins the midterms and there never is a J6 committee. Ever.
By allowing the Select Committee to "go first" they are doing much of the same work of a Grand Jury! But in this case the Committee gets to choose what to share with the public and when. As you can see, they're doing a loving awesome job of that.
There is an added benefit: NOW as all of these people get hoovered into the DOJ investigations they will be giving secret testimony. The Committee is providing its witness testimony to the DOJ as well. This way, DOJ has two records of testimony to compare. This will make it far easier to catch witnesses who attempt to lie, as well as compelling smart witnesses (I suppose there are some) to not even try.

I hope this makes sense!

This makes sense but do you have evidence of this being intentional or is it just what you would do?

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
What’s a good podcast to keep up with this stuff that’s more on “just the facts” and less on speculation and hopium?

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

mobby_6kl posted:

Opening Arguments is quite good IMO. They were a bit optimistic during the Mueller investigation but lately Andrew's been pretty spot on with e.g. how the 11th Circuit isn't going to buy Trump's bullshit even though it's a conservative court, etc. https://openargs.com/

Thanks

Fuschia tude posted:

There's also Cleanup on Aisle 45 which also includes said Andrew. The other co-host was even more optimistic about Mueller, but she's also a big policy nerd, and the two shows generally focus on different aspects of the news even if they often cover the same story. https://mswmedia.com/show/clean-up-on-aisle-45/

I’m a bit wary of this one because it seems like the co host you’re talking about is the Mueller She Wrote(?) podcaster and even at the time the hosts on there seemed like they were injecting hopium straight into their veins.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
You got a link to the actual lawsuit? Because I don’t think the twitter account of someone using it to promote onlyfans is a credible one.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
It’s Tuesday.

Is it happening yet? Will it happen?

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
I can’t believe tromp lied to me about Tuesday.

Sad. Angry.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
does this mean hes going to jail or

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
Sucks we don't get a mugshot, but I heard an interview on I think BBC or something where the pro-Tromp guy was saying that having a public mugshot would be a good thing because it would be instantly become the best selling merch. So in that sense, I guess it's good he doesn't get a picture he can slap on t-shirts?

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
I had to google the word “indict” to make sure it was spelled right. It’s just one of those words that look wrong the more times you read it.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
Is there a favorite livestream on youtube to watch for news

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Kind of a gross tweet/video to be honest. Calling someone a filthy infected animal is like right out of the Nazi playbook isn't it?

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Oxyclean posted:

Calling the fascists mean things is right out of the nazi playbook?

I mean you can call them mean things without insinuating that they are inhuman pests.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Sundae posted:

You enjoy that high road right into a mass grave, dude.

All I did was point out that it was a gross thing to say, but I guess it's ok to be gross to the right people, I guess.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Xiahou Dun posted:

“Pest” is incredibly mild considering she just went to a literal Nazi conference.

Pest was my word. The guy in the video was screaming his lungs out calling her an infested or infected animal.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/1653028345653633024?s=20

Can he just stay there at his “home” and never come back.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

jarlywarly posted:

Do they carry weapons? Do other countries allow that/have police/security services etc liaise with them?

Part of the secret services job is to liaise with local law enforcement. Even domestically the secret service will call up the local cops to work with them to set up detail. They do the same with foreign officials. This article is from a lifetime ago but this quote was interesting:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/special-exemption-us-secret-service-agents-will-be-armed-20070904-gdr0vz.html

quote:

Negotiations with the US included establishing rules about when and how the weapons could be used, as well as detailed talks on how Mr Bush's close protection team would interact with Australian law enforcement officials.

A spokeswoman for Mr Ruddock confirmed yesterday he had made his final decision on the bids from foreign powers to carry weapons for APEC, but would not elaborate.

However, it is understood that Mr Ruddock rejected an application from Russia and that the US was the only nation to get a waiver from customs regulations banning foreign weapons.

It makes sense that other countries are welcome to disallow US agents in bringing their guns and those countries are, in turn, allowed to refuse to go if they don’t like it. It seems like Australia told Putin “no” in the same breath they told Bush “yes” at some point.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
What’s a good podcast to keep up with all this news nowadays? I used to listen to opening arguments but stopped because of the host being a sexpest

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
I think you could just delete the link to his rear end social network. Don’t wanna give them any accidental clicks.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

CapnAndy posted:

ABC just cut into regular coverage with a special report


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EbqmS3vUz4

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

lol

lmao

I knew it was too good to be true.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Nitrousoxide posted:

Y'all know that just because a judge was appointed by Trump doesn't mean that they are his footstool right? Though it's of course possible this one is, I don't know anything about them.

Also, they are randomly assigned to cases to prevent judge shopping.

This one specifically has a history of putting her thumb on the scale for the shithead who appointed her.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

quote:

On December 1, the Eleventh Circuit ordered the case to be dismissed because Cannon "improperly exercised equitable jurisdiction" over it.[53] The Eleventh Circuit stated that Trump needed to show that the case met all four criteria under the Richey test for equitable jurisdiction over lawsuits for seized materials, but failed to do so for any criteria.[54][55][56] The Eleventh Circuit found that under Cannon, "the district court stepped in with its own reasoning" multiple times to argue in favor of Trump, sometimes even taking positions that Trump would not argue before the appeals court.[57] The Eleventh Circuit also found that when Trump did not explain what materials he still needed returned, or why, the "district court was undeterred by this lack of information".[54][58][59]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aileen_Cannon

She's not just some random GOP appointed judge. She's literally compromised and moved to help the dipshit using her powers as judge.

Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Jun 9, 2023

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
Counts 1-31 willful retention of national defense information

Count 32 conspiracy to obstruct justice

Count 33 withholding a document or record

34 corruptly concealing a document or record

35 concealing a document in a federal investigation

36 scheme to conceal

37 false statements and representations

38 same as above but listed separately

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Uglycat posted:

Max legal penalty?

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
One of the documents he had was about the US nuclear weapons.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Mechanical Ape posted:

What does "formerly restricted data" mean in this context? Is it no longer secret?

EDIT: answered above

Yeah but just in case people don’t wanna click the PowerPoint linked above FRD examples includes:

stockpile quantities, weapons safety and storage, weapon yields, and where they are kept

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
I’m still on the fence on whether this is the mattering or not. It all depends on what """judge""" Cannon decides to do next.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
I really hope the guy who drained the swimming pool into the server room gets caught up in all this too.

Like you can’t make that poo poo up lmao.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Dr. Red Ranger posted:

I'm sorry, I must have missed this?

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1665812869143748608?s=20

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
NBC live stream just said that the rear end in a top hat has tweeted that the law says he's allowed to do everything the indictment said he did.

So throw out the "I didn't do it" argument lmao.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Old Surly posted:

Are these actual audio recording or audio from security cams?

Some of them are text message exchanges, but the one being shared above is a recorded interview (with knowledge and permission of the rear end in a top hat) it says.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

PhantomOfTheCopier posted:

Mandatory minima: not applicable. :downsgun:

loving espionage doesn't have minimum imprisonment? But hey, we just put traitors all over the news these days, so what should I expect.


ps Derp question but sentencing is Per Count, right? So 1--31 are 10yr maximum each, so 310yr max?

I think mandatory minimums are in general a bad thing and do more harm than good so it's good that there aren't any.

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
oh my god he's like that discord leaker just showing poo poo to everyone for clout

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!

Charlz Guybon posted:

He knew he was being recorded!? :wow:

We’re talking about the smartest person in the world except maybe other than Einstein and that one nuclear scientist at mit (the one with the good genes).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Boris Galerkin
Dec 17, 2011

I don't understand why I can't harass people online. Seriously, somebody please explain why I shouldn't be allowed to stalk others on social media!
I think I heard the same take last night on NBC or something from one of their talking heads. That the feds putting that assistant's name right there front and center next to the shitstain is to remind him that he can still cooperate because he's just an average Joe compared to the self-declared billionaire genius, and doesn't have any of the resources the other guy has.

e: On a tangent, I just watched Legal Eagle's video on the lawyers who used ChatGPT to fabricate cases and lol. I hope the defense hires them.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply