Trump Legal Troubles: White Power Nap

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Trump Legal Troubles: White Power Nap

«‹›2 »

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

BiggerBoat posted:

Or just bring him diet cokes all day

Did he say "Yo-Sa-Might?"

Yo-Semite more likely

# ¿ Aug 11, 2023 01:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 04:01

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Fleets were basically Instagram/Snapchat stories

# ¿ Aug 17, 2023 06:35

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Nieuw Amsterdam posted:

What�s your source for �obviously Secret Service agents let protectees do all the criming they want�

What�s your source for �The Secret Service can just yell National Security or something and judges orders are void�

I have a strong suspicion it�s thriller movies.

Barron Trump buying a dime bag - nobody gives a poo poo, right.

Donald Trump fleeing to avoid prosecution on conspiracy charges - this is big boy stuff, you are setting your career on fire and exposing yourself to federal prison by aiding this.

The bush girls drank underage, Obama's daughter drank wine and smoked weed

It's not "all the criming they want" but I don't think they'd intervene if Barron tried to buy a dime because it's not worth the hassle

Otherwise I agree with your points, but it's not like we haven't seen SS detail let their protectees break the law in small ways, that's not just Hollywood writing room material.

# ¿ Aug 17, 2023 22:25

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Mercury_Storm posted:

Lolling that these guy's lawyer is Norm Pattis, the same guy who got his license suspended in Connecticut while being Alex Jones' lawyer and was on the case that lost Jones a billion dollars. Good choice guys!

This is their Perry Mason moment! :mmmsmug:

# ¿ Aug 18, 2023 01:27

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Is it a Borat reference?

Borat! Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan

# ¿ Aug 19, 2023 20:12

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

socialsecurity posted:

Someone should just convince Musk to run as a third party, bring on the chaos.

No, absolutely not

# ¿ Aug 21, 2023 04:08

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Just like when he blew both his quads, Vince has no legs to stand on :dadjoke:

# ¿ Aug 21, 2023 14:31

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

He makes me think of the owner of Jurassic World who immediately got his helicopter knocked down by pterodactyls and died

https://youtu.be/e-ZdjUrB5VA?si=QWXRUshUb6HbPnPe

# ¿ Aug 24, 2023 13:39

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Wang posted:

Don't know about all the other states, but here in AZ since 2020 there was a massive influx of people buying houses from CA which tends to lean blue so I'd imagine that it might skew more towards the Dems in the 2024 election rather than go the other way.

https://usafacts.org/articles/725000-people-left-california-in-2020-which-states-did-they-move-to/

It leans blue thanks to the cities, tons of California residents are CHUDs and you don't know which ones moved :shrug:

# ¿ Aug 25, 2023 16:51

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Fuschia tude posted:

No, he can in fact get convicted�both state and federal�even felonies�but continue to run for office, win the primary, and win the general election. Unlike some states, the US Constitution has no disqualification for felony convictions.

14th Amendment

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2023 19:27

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Judge Schnoopy posted:

I guess one more time for the people catching up in the back:

None of these people are charged with insurrection or rebellion or treason. Election interference, conspiracy to defraud the United States, infringing people's constitutional rights, and mishandling classified documents don't suddenly add up to insurrection because you want it to.

I wasn't claiming otherwise but to say there's no DQ in the constitution when it's.. right there in the text, is dumb too.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2023 19:43

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Ravenfood posted:

That isn't a disqualification for felony convictions. That's a disqualification for specific activities.

Okay cool so he doesn't need to be convicted at all, even better. Also if some states have felony DQs how does he get on their ballot?

# ¿ Aug 26, 2023 19:54

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Fuschia tude posted:

No, the way you prove someone committed some specific illegal activities is via conviction in court.

The US president is not a state office so state constitutional provisions or laws barring convicted felons from running for state office do not apply to it

So it's not a universal felony disqualification but it requires you being convicted of one of those specific felonies to be called into use?

# ¿ Aug 26, 2023 20:10

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Yeah I'm not making an argument against any of it, I'm just ignorant and asking stupid questions. And for some reason thought he probably ticked enough insurrection boxes for that to matter.

It's pretty "cool" how none of this may matter still, thanks for the clarification.

Also could a state try to do any of that using 10th amendment arguments or is it explicitly laid out that "you will have a felon on your ballot if we say so and that's that?"

Tenkaris fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Aug 26, 2023

# ¿ Aug 26, 2023 20:22

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Main Paineframe posted:

Well, no. It doesn't actually specifically set out any requirements at all for being called into use.

Which, practically speaking, means it requires a Congressional vote or a Supreme Court ruling to be implemented. Which means it's not happening in today's political environment.

Ah right so Congress could totally do it but won't :smith:

# ¿ Aug 26, 2023 21:12

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Murgos posted:

I don�t think the 14th amendment is as hard to put into effect as some people keep saying. Why does there need to be a criminal conviction of a few specific statutes? Or any congressional action?

Civil courts make determinations like this daily.

Trump applies to be on the ballot. Sec state puts him on the ballot. Another candidate moves to have him struck (mandamus the sec state to remove?) from the ballot per the 14th amendment forbidding his candidacy. It goes to a civil court, the plaintiff puts up a bunch of evidence about how what Trump did was actually meets the clear text of the article. Trump says no, it�s that�s lies and the jury decides who they believe.

Then there�s an appeal and it goes to scotus.

It�s an entirely reasonable progression and doesn�t require a criminal conviction or congress.

civil cases decide what is or is not constitutional and what it means every day. It�s one of their chief functions.

Edit: would it be easier if he had been convicted of insurrection? Probably. Would it be easier if congress laid out a clear set of criteria on how to interpret and put into effect the 14th? Absolutely. Is it necessary? I doubt it and we will find out because it�s going to happen.

https://youtu.be/zLrKJ1JTXvc?si=THe-4RkBrp2_38_n

# ¿ Aug 26, 2023 23:43

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

StumblyWumbly posted:

I feel like Chesebro is so heavily screwed by the public info, his only out is for Trump to get elected and pardon him. Plus he's close enough to Trump that it would be tough and risky for Willis to hold back Trump related evidence.

Neat to know about the ethics piece, but I feel like Team Trump is beyond that right now.

E: But delaying the trial would definitely just increase costs and stress, so he may just be rolling the dice

Trump has no ability to pardon state convictions if he wins

And neither does the governor of Georgia

# ¿ Aug 28, 2023 04:23

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Shooting Blanks posted:

This goes back a few pages (ok, a lot of pages), but I've seen a couple references to Trump's request for delay recently and wanted to follow up - assuming the ~11M documents is an accurate number, how long would it take a private e-discovery firm to go through that? I get that there are a lot of variables at play, just looking for a ballpark range.

Edit: This is purely out of curiosity, nothing more.

Nitrousoxide posted:

I AM an actual lawyer who specializes in running an e-discovery department, so this is literally my jam.

So let's take the lawyer at his word here and assume all 11.5 million pages are potentially reviewable. I'm sure this is before any search terms or threading are done to reduce the population since they want to pump up the population. And he gave the page count rather than the doc count which is what you usually go by.

So lets break down how you'd go about tackling this.

11.5m pages. In my experience you typically see 2.5-3 pages per document. It depends heavily on the types of docs you see, but a sufficiently large population will probably even out an not be super heavy with orphan families or chat threads or whatever. So lets go with 3 pages per doc on average.

That's 3.8 million documents in the review set.

Now we need to run search terms, threading, deduping, etc on the set. You might even be able to run active learning on the set to cut it down further. But lets assume you're not doing any AI stuff. You'd usually see a reduction of the review set to about 30% of the original doc count from this stuff. Again this is highly dependent on the data set. A richer set will have more. A set from a variety of custodians might have a ton of dupes that can be cut out. But lets go with 30% left over here because that's a pretty normal amount.

So that leaves us with 1.15m docs that need reviewing for responsiveness/privilege/issues. They need to be redacted where they have attorney privileged info on them. And a privilege log needs to be generated for the docs you are withholding which are responsive. How long does this take?

Well, with a sufficiently well-developed review company you can staff up to hundreds of attorneys on a case in short notice, so actually grabbing the reviewers to look at these docs shouldn't be a problem. Lets say we want to get this done in 10 weeks with another 2 weeks for logging and redactions. How many reviewers would we need to accomplish this?

Typical review speeds are ~45 docs an hour, assuming the docs aren't enormous or tiny and the coding choices aren't voluminous. Let's say the reviewers need to pick responsiveness/privilege and apply up to 6 issue tags. A normal review. They will have on average an 8-hour day and 40 hours a week (often you'd allow/require more than that, but let's give them a nice work/life balance here)

40hrs * 45dph * 10 weeks * 65 reviewers will get you 1.17 million docs reviewed. Go up to 70 or 80 to give yourself some wiggle room in case things don't go according to plan.

While 65-80 reviewers is not a small review. It's certainly not a huge review and it's the kind of thing that gets done all the time for other cases. I've run dozens of them like this and advised clients on ones for my department where I didn't run them.

You don't need 2 years to do this kind of review.

Edit: and if this is 11.5 million docs are all government produced docs then we don't need to worry about privilege at all. Maybe they are richer though since (hopefully) the government did their own responsiveness review and so didn't produce a ton of junk docs. You can again run your search terms, deduping, etc. Though if the government already did that and trimmed down their production then you might be left with a pretty rich set.

In this case you'd have to review most of the review set that hits on search terms. Still about 3.8 million docs. Larger than my above estimate. In that case a good team size might be to double your review time to 20 weeks with a team of 110 reviewers. Larger, but not overbearing. And I've run larger reviews with shorter turn arounds.

# ¿ Aug 28, 2023 11:47

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Judge seems to only understand suicide bombings to be terrorism?

Wonderful start of a new page.

# ¿ Sep 1, 2023 18:24

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Deteriorata posted:

Group sues to block Trump from 2024 ballot in Colorado citing 14th Amendment and Jan. 6

Well, the academic theory-crafting is over. We'll see what the courts actually do with this.

# ¿ Sep 6, 2023 18:24

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Fart Amplifier posted:

Yes, no poo poo that civil courts decide damages. That's not relevant.

The whole reason that civil trials can find guilt where criminal trials don't is that in a criminal trial you actually have to prove that someone actually broke the law. In a civil case you're just proving that someone probably did.

There is no realistic way this survives challenge.

Yeah criminal is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil is "based on a preponderance of the evidence" or something like that, it is not nearly the same standard

# ¿ Sep 7, 2023 01:12

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Yeah he's going to go down as one of the sorest losers in history, though I'm sure there's some ancient Roman or someone who bought copper from Ea Nasir that tops it. Time to Google history's sorest loser!

Edit: here's a Reddit thread including Hitler, Napoleon, and more!

Tenkaris fucked around with this message at 01:21 on Sep 7, 2023

# ¿ Sep 7, 2023 01:18

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

The tenth amendment gives a lot of power to the states, this is a way for states to maybe put up a stronger resistance than just watching the electoral college do its thing again? :shrug:

# ¿ Sep 7, 2023 04:30

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

TheDisreputableDog posted:

Dems won in 2018, 2020, and outperformed in 2022. Trump has been and continues to be a generational disaster for the Republican Party. All the posts bemoaning the coming decades of absolute Republican rule were dead wrong.

They still packed the courts and get away with everything while the Democrats do absolutely nothing worth a drat with their free wins. Sure, if the republicans were less of a disaster, the dems wouldn't be winning as easily, but that doesn't mean the republicans not winning means good things for any of us when the democrats just let them move goalposts and "meet in the middle," considering the middle in this country is still really loving right

So you may have a point but as a left-leaning citizen I'm not encouraged. The only candidates that appeal to me recently are railroaded by the party for being too left :shrug:

So what's there to look forward to until all these current politicians finally die? We can make meaningful change finally while the planet starts to boil us alive, yay?

# ¿ Sep 9, 2023 04:03

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

PainterofCrap posted:

The main difference is silence. The Biden administration has already seated more Federal judges in two years than McConnell did in four.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/trump-installed-historic-number-judges-biden-outpacing-far-rcna48142

That's nice to know, thanks for the link

Too bad the highest court of the land is the way it is, I don't particularly like wishing death on folks, but when so much hangs on that balance it's pretty grim. I guess I just have to remind myself that their decisions come with a real toll of human lives. Overturning roe definitely will come with a body count.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2023 04:14

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Tayter Swift posted:

My dude I don�t smoke weed but if you�re nihilisticallly doomposting on a Friday night in reaction to a Republican being handed a loss I think you really need a bowl

I wouldn't consider this doom posting. And I'm currently off the weed after a decade straight of abuse so I'll pass, sorry.

I'm not really reacting to that guy's L so much as another person's posts btw.

# ¿ Sep 9, 2023 04:24

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

TheKub posted:

I find that interesting as well. There is that trope about attorneys asking the client to give them a dollar real quick to presumably forming an attorney-client privilege. I have no idea if that is even remotely how it works.

Only if you're Saul Goodman in Breaking Bad :lmao:

# ¿ Sep 21, 2023 00:20

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Scratch Monkey posted:

I don�t think trump ever takes questions unless he knows the questioner is 1000% not going to ask something he doesn�t want to answer

Yeah because it just turns out like this classic

https://youtu.be/uH-UWAlX5AM?si=TDaPudkMVtk7PgoF

# ¿ Oct 6, 2023 01:45

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Wayne Knight posted:

Sorry if this is a dumb question: In these situations, do they actually do something to give the target a heart attack or do they just shoot them and write down �heart attack�.

https://youtu.be/J3Fva8HFRDg?si=3E0400gIwylv2uin

# ¿ Dec 16, 2023 02:54

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Yeah, who needs lies when you can just go hard into whataboutism and dodge the question entirely?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2023 03:33

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Well yeah because it detects stress not lies

# ¿ Dec 19, 2023 03:51

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Professor Beetus posted:

If everything warlock is built around eldritch blast then why is there a whole warlock subclass about using swords

e: wow this was definitely not the right thread for that post

According to at least this one frustrated DM, the power gamer move is actually using a polearm on your warlock :haw:

https://youtube.com/shorts/hyTmdwaUdTs?si=w9ANpBWrHdtXGGDj

# ¿ Dec 19, 2023 05:57

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

MaoistBanker posted:

unfortunately it is now 2023 and not 2016 and there are people who will literally kill them if they do this

... bonus

# ¿ Dec 20, 2023 00:33

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Cimber posted:

What, you don't want to read this?

lol what idiot thinks insurrection is three syllables??

# ¿ Dec 20, 2023 03:40

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

DarkHorse posted:

Can voters only vote in one or the other? Both? If both, how can you apportion delegates? If the primary is meaningless, what happens to the winner?

How loving confusing

Winner will receive all the delegates.

But yes, weird... not sure why they chose that way? Texas does both primary and caucus, the primary vote splits the delegates proportionately while the caucus is winner take all. Obama technically lost the Texas primary to Clinton but they were close enough on the delegate split that he took more delegates thanks to winning the Caucus.

# ¿ Jan 11, 2024 05:20

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Ms Adequate posted:

Eh, DCFADP.

Oh yes, absolutely.

what the gently caress does that mean??

# ¿ Jan 11, 2024 14:02

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Oh okay, Google only lead me back to SA posts :lol:

# ¿ Jan 11, 2024 14:17

Tenkaris: Feb 10, 2006; I would really prefer if you would be quiet.

Blind Rasputin posted:

I mean, I think she hates him. I wonder if being ruled by a jury an actual rqpist may have changed that but it�s hard to know. She really believed his talking points when they were in the White House. But that photo of him and her snapped at the funeral, getting into the car? She absolutely cannot stand him. No way anyone looks at another human that way otherwise.

I wanted to find this photo