Page 67 of 80 FirstFirst ... 6566676869 ... LastLast
Results 793 to 804 of 952

Thread: Trump Trials

  1. #793
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by ThankyouArt! View Post
    First, I wasn't conflating anything, I never heard the Tomahawk story till you wrote about it. I simply Googled the name you gave, here's the link. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/jus...lty-rcna123992
    Actually you were. But it's very understandable. Tthe sentence you were working off (which I copy/pasted from the Jan 6 report) was awkwardly written.

    Here's the original:
    Alex Kirk Harkrider from Carthage, Texas, and his co-defendant, Ryan Nichols, left guns in a parked car just outside the district before attending the rally. Harkrider still brought a tomahawk axe.

    Two dudes mentioned. Harkrider and Nichols left their guns in the car. The first guy Harkrider brought the tomahawk. You looked up the second guy, Nichols. I bolded the word tomahawk, and you found the guy whose full name was nearest that word. Reasonable.

    As of your link (November), Tomahawk guy hadn't gone to trial yet. I didn't know about the crowbar.


    By the way, was it Greg who said I'm an idiot for thinking any of the rioters wanted to hang Pelosi?
    This is from your link:

    Nichols said that the mob would lynch elected officials who voted to certify Joe Biden’s presidential victory.

    “This is the second f---ing revolution!” Nichols said. “Ryan Nichols said it, if you voted for f---ing treason we’re going to drag your f---ing a-- through the streets.”

    I got no reason not to take the rioters at their word.


    Quote Originally Posted by ThankyouArt! View Post
    I haven't seen you once mention the farce that was called "Russian Collusion"
    I really am trying to hew near the Trump trials in this thread, Electric Vehicle excursions notwithstanding.

    Even this stuff is a digression to my mind, though since Trump is charged in DC court with some Jan 6 conduct, at least there's a tangential relationship.

    America lost the Trump impeachments several years ago, when senate Repubs quashed the evidence. I got no appetite for wallowing in that shameful period of senate history. There's an obvious straight line between their refusal to hold Trump accountable then, and their refusal now to acknowledge that the Jan 6 rioters were using violence to try to overturn the results of the lawful election. Repubs are dragging the American system of government and the rule of law straight down the toilet, and Dem turnout is really the only thing standing in their way.

    But! That's not what this thread is for. If you guys would stop trying to push the moronic narrative that the Jan 6 rioters were NOT using violence (and weapons!) to try to overturn the election, I wouldn't even see a need to talk about it here.

    I mean, shit: Greg is trying to say that tomahawks and crowbars and sharpened flagpoles and baseball bats and bludgeoning fire extinguishers and tasers aren't weapons. Come on!





  2. #794

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Actually you were. But it's very understandable. Tthe sentence you were working off (which I copy/pasted from the Jan 6 report) was awkwardly written.

    Here's the original:
    Alex Kirk Harkrider from Carthage, Texas, and his co-defendant, Ryan Nichols, left guns in a parked car just outside the district before attending the rally. Harkrider still brought a tomahawk axe.

    Two dudes mentioned. Harkrider and Nichols left their guns in the car. The first guy Harkrider brought the tomahawk. You looked up the second guy, Nichols. I bolded the word tomahawk, and you found the guy whose full name was nearest that word. Reasonable.

    As of your link (November), Tomahawk guy hadn't gone to trial yet. I didn't know about the crowbar.


    By the way, was it Greg who said I'm an idiot for thinking any of the rioters wanted to hang Pelosi?
    This is from your link:

    Nichols said that the mob would lynch elected officials who voted to certify Joe Biden’s presidential victory.

    “This is the second f---ing revolution!” Nichols said. “Ryan Nichols said it, if you voted for f---ing treason we’re going to drag your f---ing a-- through the streets.”

    I got no reason not to take the rioters at their word.


    I really am trying to hew near the Trump trials in this thread, Electric Vehicle excursions notwithstanding.

    Even this stuff is a digression to my mind, though since Trump is charged in DC court with some Jan 6 conduct, at least there's a tangential relationship.

    America lost the Trump impeachments several years ago, when senate Repubs quashed the evidence. I got no appetite for wallowing in that shameful period of senate history. There's an obvious straight line between their refusal to hold Trump accountable then, and their refusal now to acknowledge that the Jan 6 rioters were using violence to try to overturn the results of the lawful election. Repubs are dragging the American system of government and the rule of law straight down the toilet, and Dem turnout is really the only thing standing in their way.

    But! That's not what this thread is for. If you guys would stop trying to push the moronic narrative that the Jan 6 rioters were NOT using violence (and weapons!) to try to overturn the election, I wouldn't even see a need to talk about it here.

    I mean, shit: Greg is trying to say that tomahawks and crowbars and sharpened flagpoles and baseball bats and bludgeoning fire extinguishers and tasers aren't weapons. Come on!
    You think the “Repubs” are dragging down the American system of government and the rule of law? Umm, have you been following the FBI for the last 8 years? Talk about bringing down the American system of government and rule of law. The funny thing is that they don’t even try to hide it. We have the most corrupt national police force since the Gestapo and you’re ok with it because it benefits your side.





  3. #795

    Re: Trump Trials

    So it turns out Aileen Cannon was asked to recuse herself and didn't

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/u...documents.html

    Hopefully we can stop the nonsense with Merchan now

    Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
    PROUD DISABLED VETERAN DESPITE RSR HATRED





  4. #796
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    14,185

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    So it turns out Aileen Cannon was asked to recuse herself and didn't

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/u...documents.html

    Hopefully we can stop the nonsense with Merchan now

    Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
    Did she donate to Trump and pro-Trump or anti-Biden pacs? Does she have a family member raking in 9 figures from anti-Biden people?

    Is there a particular ruling you take contention with, and why?





  5. #797
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,656
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Did she donate to Trump and pro-Trump or anti-Biden pacs? Does she have a family member raking in 9 figures from anti-Biden people?

    Is there a particular ruling you take contention with, and why?
    So a whole long article and not one legal/judicial reason was given on why she should recuse.





  6. Re: Trump Trials

    Jack Smith's 'Shocking Display of Disregard for the Constitution'

    https://www.declassified.live/p/jack...y-of-disregard





  7. #799
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Trump Trials

    If I can interrupt briefly with something germane to the thread purpose:


    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post
    Immunity (Supreme Court) (appealed from WashDC)


    Very few here answered the immunity question I asked way way upthread, like around page 10. But as I recall, those who did basically said that:

    • the charges against Trump (DC, Florida, elsewhere) should be dismissed for various reasons; but
    • NOT for immunity.
    • The Supreme Court should rule that former presidents do NOT have immunity.

    I think that's probably the general take. My own take on the last bullet point is the same (no immunity); and as you might expect, I disagree on the first bullet. But that means we agree on immunity.

    But what will the Supreme Court do?
    ...
    First it's important to realize that Trump has already won his bid to SCOTUS. Jack Smith petitioned the court back in December for expedited review. They gave him the stiff-arm. Now it's six months later (next week), and they still haven't issued a ruling, having heard oral arguments on April 25.

    Trump wanted to run out the clock on his DC prosecution, until he could hopefully be re-elected and quash it. The Supreme Court said "By all means, let us us help you." It's disturbing. And it could still go on another month!
    ...
    So SCOTUS has already handed Trump the legal victory he needed, even before ruling on his petition.
    But at some point they WILL issue a ruling. (Gawd: imagine if they put it off til next term—!)
    What will that ruling be?

    Here are some possibilities:
    ...
    I dunno WTF is gonna happen.
    The Supremes will probably hand down their decision on immunity this week:

    Coming up: On June 26, 27, and 28, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. We will be live each day at 9:30 am EDT.
    What do you guys think they'll do?





  8. #800

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by JimZipCode View Post

    What do you guys think they'll do?
    Whatever is best for Trump, which would be more delays.

    They dont want to rule Biden has immunity nor do they want to make Trump liable for his actions.
    PROUD DISABLED VETERAN DESPITE RSR HATRED





  9. #801

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    Whatever is best for Trump, which would be more delays.

    They dont want to rule Biden has immunity nor do they want to make Trump liable for his actions.
    Does it really matter what the Supreme Court says? The DOJ will intervene in their normal bias ways. Biden can do whatever he wants and the FBI will claim they can’t charge him because he probably wouldn’t remember.





  10. #802
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    Whatever is best for Trump, which would be more delays.
    You think they'll put it off til next term??

    Wow! That would be brazen.


    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    They dont want to rule Biden has immunity nor do they want to make Trump liable for his actions.
    Some of the justices (Alito, Thomas) really are caught between a rock and a hard place on exactly that.





  11. #803
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadeRaven View Post
    So it turns out Aileen Cannon was asked to recuse herself and didn't

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/u...documents.html
    This is interesting. When my wife first read this headline to me last week, I said to her that if some senior colleagues had suggested to me that I should hand off some tough assignment at work, I might well respond "Naw, I can handle it!" It doesn't necessarily indicate anything bad.

    Now actually reading the piece, I can see that the two intervention attempts were more substantive than I realized. From the link:

    Quote Originally Posted by NY Times
    The first judge to call Judge Cannon, this person said, suggested to her that it would be better for the case to be handled by a jurist based closer to the district’s busiest courthouse in Miami, where the grand jury that indicted Mr Trump had sat.

    The Miami courthouse also had a secure facility approved to hold the sort of highly classified information that would be discussed in pretrial motions and used as evidence in the case. Judge Cannon is the sole judge in the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, a two-hour drive north of Miami. When she was assigned to the case, the courthouse in Fort Pierce did not have a secure facility. Because Judge Cannon kept the case, taxpayers have since had to pay to build a secure room — known as a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or SCIF — there.
    Not having a local SCIF is a real good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by NY Times
    [The chief judge in the Southern District of Florida, Judge Cecilia M] Altonaga placed a call. The chief judge — an appointee of former President George W. Bush — is said to have made a more pointed argument: It would be bad optics for Judge Cannon to oversee the trial because of what had happened during the criminal investigation that led to Mr Trump’s indictment on charges of illegally retaining national security documents after leaving office and obstructing government efforts to retrieve them.

    Shocking legal experts across ideological lines, she barred investigators from gaining access to the evidence and appointed a special master, although she said that person would only make recommendations to her and she would make the final decisions.

    Judge Cannon’s decision was unusual in part because she intervened before there were any charges — treating Mr. Trump differently from typical targets of search warrants based on his supposed special status as a former president. She also directed the special master to consider whether some of the seized files should be permanently kept from investigators under executive privilege, a notion that was widely seen as dubious since it has never successfully been made in a criminal case.

    Prosecutors appealed to the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta. ... [Cannon's order was] reversed in a sharply critical rebuke by a conservative appeals court panel. .... In a repudiation, a three-judge panel that included two Trump appointees reversed her order and ruled that she never had legal authority to intervene in the first place.

    “It is indeed extraordinary for a warrant to be executed at the home of a former president — but not in a way that affects our legal analysis or otherwise gives the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation,” the panel wrote. Limits on when courts can interfere with a criminal investigation “apply no matter who the government is investigating,” it added. “To create a special exception here would defy our nation’s foundational principle that our law applies ‘to all, without regard to numbers, wealth or rank.’”
    The "bad optics" concern from the chief judge, a W appointee, is well founded.



    The article says something else that I didn't know. Evidently there's "a general practice of federal judges in the Southern District of Florida of delegating some pretrial motions to a magistrate judge — in this instance, Judge Bruce E. Reinhart. While he is subordinate to her [Cannon], Judge Reinhart is an older and much more experienced jurist."

    I'd never heard of that. The article suggests it's a Southern District of Florida thing? No one has mentioned it in relation to the DC Trump case. There, Chutkan's been handling all the pre-trial motions herself. But that's a different District.





  12. #804
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Balt-Wash corridor
    Posts
    25,401

    Re: Trump Trials

    Quote Originally Posted by blueridgemtnman View Post
    Jack Smith's 'Shocking Display of Disregard for the Constitution'

    https://www.declassified.live/p/jack...y-of-disregard
    This link raises a question for me. I mean this seriously:

    How can you guys read this stuff?


    We all learned in high school about "polemic" writing and "slanted" writing. Doesn't this make your skin crawl with how slanted it is?

    I mean, I read stuff that I politically agree with, and even there I wince at stuff like this. I think to myself, alright now, let's stick to the objectively true stuff.

    A great example is the Jan 6 report, which I quoted extensively upthread. It's got a lot of verifiable & sourced facts in it, so on the one hand lots of sections of it are great to use. On the other hand, it's got lines like this, that make me wince:
    (and remember, this is something I agree with)

    • So the President of the United States did something he had planned to do long before election day: he lied.
    • It was a stunning moment.
    • President Trump also attempted to use the Department of Justice (DOJ) for his own corrupt political purposes.
    • President Trump was desperate.
    • President Trump had no intention of conceding. As he plotted ways to stay in power, the President summoned a mob for help.

    I mean, I get it. When you've established a factual basis, then you can make "conclusory" statements and they're justified. And it's intended to be read as a narrative that draws together the disparate pieces of testimony. But to me, those editorial/polemic/propaganda elements detract from the presentation. They make you LESS believable & trustworthy, at least to me.

    I read those and I think, "Stop trying to manipulate me!" And this is something I AGREE with.

    I much prefer a "just the facts, ma'am" approach coupled with some explicit labeling of the editorializing or analysis, like "it seems that" or "from there we can infer": something.


    How can you stand to read stuff were ALL of it is editorial/polemic/propaganda elements??


    • Headline: Jack Smith's 'Shocking Display of Disregard for the Constitution'
    I don't blame a column-writer for the headline (after some experience writing columns for RSR )
    but this headline is a direct quote from Trump's (attorney's) legal filing. You can't pretend to "objectivity" when you're letting Trump write your headline.

    • scandal continues to put the Department of Justice on its heels.

    • ... despite the best efforts by some to portray the [deadly force policy during the] search as “standard operating procedure.”

    unsubstantiated claims that the deadly force policy also was in play during consensual searches of Joe Biden’s home

    • Smith’s half-assed attempt to reach Trump’s lawyers the Friday evening before Memorial Day weekend

    • Those unfounded accusations follow a pattern. Smith made the same argument, successfully, to Judge Tanya Chutkan last year in the January 6-related case against Trump in Washington.

    • So, Smith is up to his same old tricks in less friendly territory in Florida.

    • the Special Counsel’s office is trying to shield the American people from learning about this case.


    Don't those just trigger your "propaganda" senses? It has all flags flying for "slanted writing". Not exactly subtle.

    The obvious attempts at manipulating the reader would bug the shit out of me. I don't get how they don't bother you (all you guys).





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Link To Mobile Site
var infolinks_pid = 3297965; var infolinks_wsid = 0; //—->