Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[PhaelixWW]

@PhaelixWW has a more accurate handle on how the nation is doing with deaths but from what I've been seeing it does continue to appear we've turned the corner for now.

Yeah, the trend I mentioned a few days ago has definitely continued.



Four straight days of negative compared same-day 7-day averages with the week prior. And the actual daily reported numbers are dropping noticeably, too. We can hope that the summer spike was partially a factor of having such a mild spring spike, and that the numbers of fresh natural immunity combined with vaccinations will keep the winter spike from being too high.

[Ursus]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/02/us/au...ing/index.html

A Texas man was arrested after using a Molotov cocktail to set fire to Democratic Party headquarters in Travis County. Fortunately he was pretty incompetent and only managed to cause minimal damage and no injuries or deaths. Just another one of the GOP's and right-wing media's stochastic terrorists.

[gondrin]

Based on Trump, no.

Oh, he's trying to claim they are...now, in a toddler stamping his feet screaming NO NO NO kind of way. The usual, basically. Problem is, Twitter has a rule about actual governments posting actual government stuff, something that shielded Trump almost four years. A government posting "we took over this stronghold" sounds like news to me. And, while Trump tries to play both sides on this one, he did negotiate with the Taliban directly, so he's on record saying they count as a government.

To the best of my knowledge, the Taliban have not posted (a) claiming the US election was false (b) COVID misinformation. That, combined with the government shield, was likely enough to keep their account above water.

And finally, even if Taliban did break the terms of service -- for example, if they were a terrorist group advocating terrorism which Trump personally ruled out -- whether or not they get kicked off for their violations, and whether or not Trump does, are independent. There are some ugly parallels to law enforcement and drug laws in the US I could spin this into, but the end result for Twitter (who did not shoot unarmed people for carrying Doritos or a cell phone) can ban Trump for breaking the terms of service if he did, even if someone else isn't banned for breaking the same terms.

I wish Trump enough luck to bring this to trial, just so he can get rekt son in public, maybe be forced to pay Twitter's court costs.

Better example would be if you get caught speeding. If a cop pulls you over for speeding but not someone else, you cannot state that you can't be held for speeding because someone else did it.

[cubby]

@cubby have you see this deposition Maddow is talking about? Or at least heard of it? The excerpts she reads in this short video are interesting from a layman’s PoV. Do you have any insight on a lawyer saying it’s not their job to make sure witnesses are credible before using them to build their case?

So, as with everything, it's complicated. Lawyers are duty bound to not put forth testimony or evidence they know to be false. That's the easy part. There is a due diligence requirement that attorney's review and evaluate the evidence they plan to present in a case and ensure that it's true. Past that mark, however, it becomes a question of two things: does the lawyer know the witness is lying; will he be believable by the jury (the end game in any witness/evidence). It becomes further complicated because there is an issue of objective evidence vs subjective evidence - is that the gun that was used to kill the victim vs did you see the defendant shoot the victim, if that analogy makes sense.

In our case, with Rudy and the election fraud lie, we would have to ask if Rudy thought his witness was credible, and was the evidence the witness was supplying objective or subjective. And here is where the reality plane takes flight and becomes very uncertain. Did Rudy know his witness was lying? Was the evidence the witness presenting to prove their case credible and believable. That will be part of the evaluation in the case against Rudy. And it comes down to the credibilty and proof the witness had to present in the case.

Someone of Rudy's stature, and the gravity of the case they were trying to make (i.e. the Presidential Election was [not] Stolen), Rudy and his team would have a standard of care to assess the evidence and ensure that it said what they claimed. Merely taking what they "heard on facebook" and presenting it as "evidence" in order to upset a national election isn't enough due diligence.

So, long winded answer - to your question. Lawyers have a legal obligation to make sure their witnesses are telling the truth and presenting factual evidence. You asked if they need to ensure their witnesses are credible. Credibility is a subjective standard - you see that a lot in lawyer tv shows where each side presents a medical expert to say the other side is to blame. When evidence conflicts, it comes down to credibility. A lawyer wants his witness to be credible, in order to win the case, so the expectation is that all their witnesses will be as credible as possible. So yes, it is their job to make sure a witness is credible, because the attorney has a obligation to do their best in presenting a case for their client, which includes putting forth credible witnesses, as best they can.

[Breccia]

Someone of Rudy's stature, and the gravity of the case they were trying to make (i.e. the Presidential Election was [not] Stolen), Rudy and his team would have a standard of care to assess the evidence and ensure that it said what they claimed. Merely taking what they "heard on facebook" and presenting it as "evidence" in order to upset a national election isn't enough due diligence.

So, it sounds like Giuliani is in trouble, because he didn't do that.

I mean, that's better than finding proof that the claims were false, then continuing anyhow.

Which, as I cited, they also did.

[cubby]

So, it sounds like Giuliani is in trouble, because he didn't do that.

I mean, that's better than finding proof that the claims were false, then continuing anyhow.

Which, as I cited, they also did.

From what I've seen of the case, and the history, and desperately trying to evaluate it all as objectively as I can - yes, I would say he's in trouble.

I thought your take and analysis of Vegas' question was spot on. I read yours before I answered, which is why I took the route I did in my response. Especially the part about ignorance not being a valid defense in a defamation case.

[Hollycakes]

As an artist myself, I never suggested that stereotype. Art teachers, on the other hand, have basically been a very specific breed in my experience and booooooy does she seem to fit it based on her tirade. Very much feelings over facts, for good or ill.

Then there's also the point that "art teacher" itself is kind of a contradictory term. Art can't really be taught. Art history, sure. Maybe introduce people to different methods at their disposal. But, as cheesy as it sounds, art comes from within.

I know, I was just kidding with you guys <3
She absolutely does.

Updated:
Looks like The Kraken is on the outs.
Shocker!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...d=winp1taskbar

Update 2:
Apparently Grisham also received a call from Trump, from Air Force One, to make the declaration that his penis was in fact not toadstool shaped.

I'd kill to hear that call.

[Breccia]

I read yours before I answered

Ah, then I'm glad I edited out my first response then:

"Your Honor, I found the witnesses very credible, but let's not forget I'm a lying partisan conspiracy-spewing hack. Really, this is your fault."

- - - Updated - - -

As the Jan 6th murderous insurrection hearings go on, this OP ED piece describes what happens if Team Trump refuses to testify.

Basically, its seems to be "the DoJ gets to decide". And, since Team Trump are no longer members of the Executive Branch -- they lost -- Biden has zero to negative fucks to give.

Technically there are other options, but the article says one isn't used and one doesn't have a great track record.

[Poopymonster]

Ah, then I'm glad I edited out my first response then:

"Your Honor, I found the witnesses very credible, but let's not forget I'm a lying partisan conspiracy-spewing hack. Really, this is your fault."

- - - Updated - - -

As the Jan 6th murderous insurrection hearings go on, this OP ED piece describes what happens if Team Trump refuses to testify.

Basically, its seems to be "the DoJ gets to decide". And, since Team Trump are no longer members of the Executive Branch -- they lost -- Biden has zero to negative fucks to give.

Technically there are other options, but the article says one isn't used and one doesn't have a great track record.

I bet his AG has a bunch of fucks to give out.
"Anyone in Congress who helped organize or 'aided and abetted' the terrorists will be brought up on charges. Regardless of party or job."
Y hullo thur Mister Turtle...fancy seeing you here...
Garland..SOOOOOO many fucks to give out. He'll be a giving people fuckings like he's a fucking machine.

Sadly, Garland seems more mature than I. Not sadly. I'm kind of a petty prick.

[Fugus]

I bet his AG has a bunch of fucks to give out.
"Anyone in Congress who helped organize or 'aided and abetted' the terrorists will be brought up on charges. Regardless of party or job."
Y hullo thur Mister Turtle...fancy seeing you here...
Garland..SOOOOOO many fucks to give out. He'll be a giving people fuckings like he's a fucking machine.

Sadly, Garland seems more mature than I. Not sadly. I'm kind of a petty prick.

Honestly, I am not so sure. Garland hasn't proven himself to be mature yet. So far, all he has proven himself to be was spineless judging by how little the terrorists have gotten so far. Evidently I could forcibly raid the capital building and get a lesser punishment than if I sold drugs.

And while they both know what they are doing isn't legal, only the terrorists would be willfully risking and potentially TAKING the lives of others.

[Fugus]

There are a lot of people charged and the bigger charges tend to take longer. I’m reserving judgment for now.

I have been hoping the same thing and been trying to reserve judgment on it, but the level of wrist slapping we have gotten this far is just maddening.

I recall a recent story where one of them had outright said they were going to shoot Pelosi in the head and got a slap on the wrist.

So help me if they identify the guy who came in in full tactical gear with zip ties for hostages and he gets probation or something.

Garland NEEDS to start making examples of these people.

[Fugus]

Garland NEEDS to remain impartial when it comes to what will be viewed as political prosecutions.

I understand that and completely agree with it, but when the evidence is overwhelming and the crimes are severe, they shouldn’t also go easy on them just to avoid looking bad.

I will continue to watch and wait, just hoping he actually starts giving out punishments of the severity that fits their crimes.

No way a drug dealer should get worse punishments than they do.

And for the ones who actively went against the police and attacked them, no way a thief, armed robber or kidnapper should get worse than them.

[Kaleredar]

Garland NEEDS to remain impartial when it comes to what will be viewed as political prosecutions.

I really don't see... why?

Going easy on these people wont suddenly convince those that raided the capitol, or those that sympathize with them, that Biden is a legitimate president. If anything it emboldens people to try and exercise violence for whatever jack-booted reason they get in their crazy little heads because they know, hey, what's the worst that could happen?

Their sentences should be a minimum of years, plural. "months" or "probation" is unacceptable.

The US' democracy IS under attack, whether directly by "useful idiots" like the ones that attacked the capitol on January 6th or by more insidious, underhanded means like the GOP passing more and more restrictive and attempting to create ways to directly override votes they don't like.

[Fugus]

When democracy is under attack you don’t save it by going fascist.

And one of the quickest ways to going fascist is by refusing to hold those accountable for attacking that democracy even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

For, even if they failed, there was no real consequences so they are encouraged to try again.

Were we going fascist when the guy who attacked the pizza parlor was sentenced? I mean he believed it was some underground pedophile ring and all so they can’t really claim the people who attacked the capital building are any better than him.

[zorkuus]

When democracy is under attack you don’t save it by going fascist.

Or they could just... you know... enforce the law and charge people for actual serious crimes they were guilty of, instead of jaywalking.

[Elegiac]

When democracy is under attack you don’t save it by going fascist.

ITT: Meaningful consequences for participating in an attempted coup is fascist.

[Fugus]

Or they could just... you know... enforce the law and charge people for actual serious crimes they were guilty of, instead of jaywalking.

Pretty much.

It would be like I was the getaway driver of a bank robber where people were murdered and even though they had me dead to rights and I couldn’t or didn’t flip on anyone or anything like that, I just got hit with a charge of parking in a no parking zone.

I REALLY hope the real charges are still coming.

[PhaelixWW]

When democracy is under attack you don’t save it by going fascist.

You have an awful strange definition of "fascist".

[Kaleredar]

When democracy is under attack you don’t save it by going fascist.

But it's not going fascist; it's appropriately punishing people for the crimes they committed.

[PhaelixWW]

Having the AG intervene and say the judges and prosecutors need to be harsher based on feels is indeed fascist.

No, it's really not; I don't think you have a clue what fascism actually is.

You also need to learn how not to hyperbolize. Somehow seems like it's always "fascist", or "bungled", or "perfectly flawless" with you. Like, learn how to recognize things that are between the extremes, please.

And ell-oh-ell for you suggesting that it's "based on feels". It's based upon the interest of national security and actually protecting democracy.

Let’s let the legal system do its job and reflect on necessary changes after the fact.

But it's literally a part of the legal system for prosecutors (and by extension their bosses) to determine the severity of the government's response to the crime, within preset parameters. Nobody's calling for extrajudicial punishments, FFS.

Kneejerk reactions to early convictions is very Trumpian though. Good on you.

I don't even know what this is...? You don't even seem to be able to keep track of to whom you're replying.

Frankly, it's embarrassing.

- - - Updated - - -

The AG’s job isn’t to decided each individual case in the justice system. That’s up to the judges.

The AG decides on the charges; the judges don't do that. The AG also recommends the sentence, though the final decision is up to the judge. Somehow I doubt the judge is going to arbitrarily come up with a harsher sentence on his own in these cases, though.