A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Underdog 28765]

Coward pleaded the fifth over 400x per his depo tape released today. 

[Pato del Muerto 52557]

That’s a lot of self incrimination he’s not having to do. 

[NAVY 6747]

Not a lawyer, but when the person being deposed keeps taking the 5th can you slip some new questions in? Stuff like 

* True or False. When you say “I take the 5th” what you really mean is “ I’m a giant sack of shit.” 

[TwiceHorn 31520]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

So here's his lawsuit against Woodward, linked in a post above.  https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ryXewWPzBbqo/v0

First, I find it very difficult to believe that Simon and Schuster would publish the tapes in audiobook form if they didn't feel they had rights locked down solid.

One thing the lawsuit scrupulously avoids is reference to or acknowledgement of any agreement signed by Trump prior to the commencement of the interviews.  Similarly, it doesn't deny its existence, either, it just focuses on other things that might modify or alter any such agreement, but doubtfully so.

It also tries to allege that he is the sole owner of copyright in his responses to Woodward's questions, as opposed to the entirety of the interviews being a joint work, where they would have to split profits.  A stretch.

Legally speaking, it is head and shoulders above the tripe he has been filing, but I think there's a huge factual flaw in that I am virtually certain that Trump signed some kind of release, of the fairly bulletproof variety, for use of the audiotapes however Woodward/SS felt appropriate.  It could possibly maybe be sanctionable for not addressing that, if there is one.  And there's just got to be.

Also notable that he went to the Northern District of Florida this time, eliminating his chance of getting his babygirl as his judge.  There may be another forum-shopping motive, though, because that's not his "home" district, that is, he doesn't live there, which is always a bit shady.

One thing that's a little odd, though, is SS's response:

"All these interviews were on the record and recorded with President Trump's knowledge and agreement," reads the statement provided to NPR. "Moreover, it is in the public interest to have this historical record in Trump's own words. We are confident that the facts and the law are in our favor."

The bolded doesn't seem relevant to whether Trump consented to use of the tapes.  Maybe it's there to avoid some kind of oral modification of the consent, or whether the scope of the consent included an audiobook of the actual recordings themselves.  Or maybe it's to cut off some kind of right of publicity, NIL type claim on his voice, which might arguably be outside the scope of the consent/license.

[YGIFS 19452]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing that's a little odd, though, is SS's response:

"All these interviews were on the record and recorded with President Trump's knowledge and agreement," reads the statement provided to NPR. "Moreover, it is in the public interest to have this historical record in Trump's own words. We are confident that the facts and the law are in our favor."

The bolded doesn't seem relevant to whether Trump consented to use of the tapes.  Maybe it's there to avoid some kind of oral modification of the consent, or whether the scope of the consent included an audiobook of the actual recordings themselves.  Or maybe it's to cut off some kind of right of publicity, NIL type claim on his voice, which might arguably be outside the scope of the consent/license.

You know the legal stuff here as good as anyone.  But there is a lot of historical debate, and even case law, going back to LBJ after the White House tape recorders were installed, about a former President's "words."  Mark Updegrove, the presidential historian, has written extensively on this across his myriad books.  First, there's the consent and rights and open records aspect of it all which is pretty much settled law.  Seems like entities like Bob Woodward, the massive publisher S&S, and a lawyered-up former President/multiple-time author himself would know about consent forms and publishing rights.  

But the debate spills over into how the audio/video recorded materials are transcribed to text.  Other than redaction for security or ongoing litigation/auditing purposes...do you transcribe what the President said verbatim unabridged?  Meaning, every filler word, every "Uh", "So", "Yeah", "Like" goes in there?  Or can you take editorial license and remove unnecessary words, noises, repetitions, stammers, and even make minor corrections to grammar and syntax into more readable prose?  

Not saying this is the case, but this would not be the first time a former President did not like how their verbatim language looked in print and so they have thrown legal issues at the publisher/interviewer and usually gotten their way.  And the material was cleaned up, particularly in the books-on-tape era.  Of course, this being Trump, he probably thinks he sounds regal and messiah-like in these texts, but some advisers pushed him to have it not sound so fucked up.  Trump still didn't get it, so they said, "Well you could also get $40 or $50mm in the process for arguing they didn't get the historical record right."  To which, he smiled.

[Pato del Muerto 52557]

He didn’t consent to the release of the Georgia phone call either. Didn’t even know it was being recorded. 
 

so unless there was a contract with language stating he gets approval for anything to be released, who gives a shit what he approved of?

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

You know the legal stuff here as good as anyone.  But there is a lot of historical debate, and even case law, going back to LBJ after the White House tape recorders were installed, about a former President's "words."  Mark Updegrove, the presidential historian, has written extensively on this across his myriad books.  First, there's the consent and rights and open records aspect of it all which is pretty much settled law.  Seems like entities like Bob Woodward, the massive publisher S&S, and a lawyered-up former President/multiple-time author himself would know about consent forms and publishing rights.  
But the debate spills over into how the audio/video recorded materials are transcribed to text.  Other than redaction for security or ongoing litigation/auditing purposes...do you transcribe what the President said verbatim unabridged?  Meaning, every filler word, every "Uh", "So", "Yeah", "Like" goes in there?  Or can you take editorial license and remove unnecessary words, noises, repetitions, stammers, and even make minor corrections to grammar and syntax into more readable prose?  
Not saying this is the case, but this would not be the first time a former President did not like how their verbatim language looked in print and so they have thrown legal issues at the publisher/interviewer and usually gotten their way.  And the material was cleaned up, particularly in the books-on-tape era.  Of course, this being Trump, he probably thinks he sounds regal and messiah-like in these texts, but some advisers pushed him to have it not sound so fucked up.  Trump still didn't get it, so they said, "Well you could also get $40 or $50mm in the process for arguing they didn't get the historical record right."  To which, he smiled.

No offense, guys, but this convo sounds like Penthouse Forum, only for First Amendment lawyers.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13587]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

"Moreover, it is in the public interest to have this historical record in Trump's own words. 

"Prudence in preserving the historical record demands hearing this dickbrain bumper bowl his way towards a semi-coherent thought."

[tx 3 putt 77287]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

you think someone has to help him change his diaper and wipe his ass ? Throw some powder in his crack ? Put on the new diaper ? 

Edited February 1, 2023 by tx 3 putt

[TwiceHorn 31520]

14 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

You know the legal stuff here as good as anyone.  But there is a lot of historical debate, and even case law, going back to LBJ after the White House tape recorders were installed, about a former President's "words."  Mark Updegrove, the presidential historian, has written extensively on this across his myriad books.  First, there's the consent and rights and open records aspect of it all which is pretty much settled law.  Seems like entities like Bob Woodward, the massive publisher S&S, and a lawyered-up former President/multiple-time author himself would know about consent forms and publishing rights.  

But the debate spills over into how the audio/video recorded materials are transcribed to text.  Other than redaction for security or ongoing litigation/auditing purposes...do you transcribe what the President said verbatim unabridged?  Meaning, every filler word, every "Uh", "So", "Yeah", "Like" goes in there?  Or can you take editorial license and remove unnecessary words, noises, repetitions, stammers, and even make minor corrections to grammar and syntax into more readable prose?  

Not saying this is the case, but this would not be the first time a former President did not like how their verbatim language looked in print and so they have thrown legal issues at the publisher/interviewer and usually gotten their way.  And the material was cleaned up, particularly in the books-on-tape era.  Of course, this being Trump, he probably thinks he sounds regal and messiah-like in these texts, but some advisers pushed him to have it not sound so fucked up.  Trump still didn't get it, so they said, "Well you could also get $40 or $50mm in the process for arguing they didn't get the historical record right."  To which, he smiled.

The way I see it, this is a contract dispute basically over whether the agreement/consent/license Trump undoubtedly gave Woodward and Simon and Schuster extends to actual reproduction of the audiotapes themselves.  It's fairly common in publishing contracts and recording contracts, which are at heart copyright license agreements, to have a dispute over whether the license covers "unanticipated" uses of the copyright material, which may fall within the literal terms of the contract.  Examples include mp3s and other digital recordings and streaming when the older contracts say something like "sound recordings in electronic (or digital) form" etc.  I'm virtually certain that SS got some kind of written consent that assuredly includes a "written book" as well as audiobooks (meaning readings of the written book).  There may be a smidge of ambiguity or uncertainty as to whether that extends to use of actual recordings of his voice answering questions.  The public interest could be a factor in resolving that question against Trump.

Also, I think there's a difference in recordings of presidential voices made "solo" like Nixon did, or "automatically" by recording systems as contrasted with recordings made by an author of interviews for the express purpose of writing a for-profit book.  The former are arguably governmental records and the government cannot claim copyright in governmental materials and it seems that the public interest "trumps" (haha) any privacy interest in the president himself.  The latter are probably copyrightable, the question being who owns it and who owns rights (a license) to use it.

There could also be a claim that's not made under this rubric, for "bad light" or right of publicity/privacy, the same kind of nebulous IP that underlies NIL for student-athletes.  Whether to recognize such rights in this kind of situation may be governed by the public interest.

[tx 3 putt 77287]

1 hour ago, Underdog said:

Coward pleaded the fifth over 400x per his depo tape released today. 

[lemonlime 5503]

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing that's a little odd, though, is SS's response:

"All these interviews were on the record and recorded with President Trump's knowledge and agreement," reads the statement provided to NPR. "Moreover, it is in the public interest to have this historical record in Trump's own words. We are confident that the facts and the law are in our favor."

The bolded doesn't seem relevant to whether Trump consented to use of the tapes.  Maybe it's there to avoid some kind of oral modification of the consent, or whether the scope of the consent included an audiobook of the actual recordings themselves.  Or maybe it's to cut off some kind of right of publicity, NIL type claim on his voice, which might arguably be outside the scope of the consent/license.

I'm probably missing something.  But why would trump need to consent to use of the tapes?  Woodward taped him on equipment he, or S & S owned, in connection with an interview trump agreed to.  I don't think trump got a share of the profits from Woodward's book...  I don't see why Woodward and Simon & Schuster couldn't do whatever the hell they wanted with the tapes.

[Hookah Horns 3083]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing that's a little odd, though, is SS's response:

"All these interviews were on the record and recorded with President Trump's knowledge and agreement," reads the statement provided to NPR. "Moreover, it is in the public interest to have this historical record in Trump's own words. We are confident that the facts and the law are in our favor."

The bolded doesn't seem relevant to whether Trump consented to use of the tapes.  Maybe it's there to avoid some kind of oral modification of the consent, or whether the scope of the consent included an audiobook of the actual recordings themselves.  Or maybe it's to cut off some kind of right of publicity, NIL type claim on his voice, which might arguably be outside the scope of the consent/license.

I think that's merely in support of their decision to publish the audio, rather than a legal argument about their right to do so. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20469]

 

 

 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

I'm in disbelief that he didn't call it the "statue of limitations."

[TwiceHorn 31520]

17 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

 

I'm probably missing something.  But why would trump need to consent to use of the tapes?  Woodward taped him on equipment he, or S & S owned, in connection with an interview trump agreed to.  I don't think trump got a share of the profits from Woodward's book...  I don't see why Woodward and Simon & Schuster couldn't do whatever the hell they wanted with the tapes.

Typically, an interviewer and interviewee are co-authors and thus joint owners of the copyright in the recording of the interview.  Typically as in 99.9% of the time.  The joint owners owe a duty to account to one another.  Note that this is when an interview is recorded verbatim.  If it is not, but only notes of the interviewer, including selected verbatim quotations, are the product, that copyright belongs solely to the interviewer.

Also, the copyright office takes the position that each contribution to the interview, the questions and the answers, could give rise to three copyrights, one in the interviewer, one in the interviewee, and one in the joint product.  That hasn't been tested in the courts.

That can all be altered by contract, of course.  And you know goddamn well Simon & Schuster didn't publish a book without pretty solidly nailing down the rights.

 

Edited February 1, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 45702]

It’s a sculpture of limitations. 

[YGIFS 19452]

I'm also heavily pleased with "He came from a good law firm, represented many other clients over the years"

Judge, "Oh, so like an attorney then?  He was an attorney?"  

[tx 3 putt 77287]

1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

Is it really though?  I mean, tell me this doesn’t sound like Donald Trump:

1. Thinks infectious diseases can be treated by ingesting Lysol.

2. Thinks nuclear weapons can stop hurricanes.

3. Does not understand anything at all about tariffs despite talking endlessly about tariffs and foreign trade.

4. Generally has no accurate knowledge or beliefs about anything else, EXCEPT:

5. Can write a fucking treatise about the statute of limitations for various crimes and causes of action in every jurisdiction he’s ever lived, and can recite age of consent laws like Sleazy Criminal Rain Man. 

[RPM 26337]

7 hours ago, Underdog said:

Coward pleaded the fifth over 400x per his depo tape released today. 

https://www.facebook.com/ChinaGlobalTVNetwork/videos/if-youre-innocent-why-are-you-taking-the-5th-amendment-taking-the-fifth-amendmen/1023855461496503/

[tx 3 putt 77287]

8 hours ago, Underdog said:

Coward pleaded the fifth over 400x per his depo tape released today. 

 

[Beau Vine 54357]

Quote

A 25-year-old man was arrested at Mar-a-Lago earlier this month after he was found wandering the property without authorization, just hours after being denied entry when he sought to speak with former President Donald Trump, according to federal and Palm Beach County court records.

Joshua Warnock was arrested by Palm Beach police Jan. 8 on a trespassing charge.

According to a federal criminal complaint, Warnock had approached the main gate to Mar-a-Lago that afternoon, insisting that he needed to speak with Trump, who lives at the Palm Beach estate and was home at the time.

Police and a U.S. Secret Service agent informed Warnock that Mar-a-Lago was a restricted area and that he needed to leave. He was then escorted from the main gate to Woodbridge Road and South Ocean Boulevard and warned that he would be arrested if he returned.

Shortly after 6 p.m., a Secret Service agent at Mar-a-Lago noticed a man “walking up the pool deck staircase adjacent to the family suite.” The man was identified as Warnock and detained until police arrived.

According to the complaint, Warnock admitted that he “climbed up a big step” to get to the “front yard” and made his way toward the pool.

Secret Service agents later determined that Warnock was able to jump over a concrete ledge dividing Mar-a-Lago from a public area along Southern Boulevard.

Warnock now faces a federal charge of knowingly entering or remaining in a restricted building or grounds.

 

[Gatorubet 30285]

Quote

A 25-year-old man was arrested at Mar-a-Lago earlier this month after he was found wandering the property without authorization, just hours after being denied entry when he sought to speak with former President Donald Trump, according to federal and Palm Beach County court records.

well, of course, he’s not gonna tell them he and Melania are hooking up

[Underdog 28765]

Earlier this month?  How much earlier can you get on Feb 1st? 

[Beau Vine 54357]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

well, of course, he’s not gonna tell them he and Melania Don Jr are hooking up doing coke and jerking themselves off in the hot tub.

fify

Edited February 2, 2023 by Beau Vine

[tx 3 putt 77287]

4 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

 

he lives in a social club, it’s not a residence 

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28796]

17 hours ago, Underdog said:

Earlier this month?  How much earlier can you get on Feb 1st? 

What made you think that quote was from Feb 1? It was posted without attribution. We can’t even know if it’s real. 

[Underdog 28765]

Good fucking Lord. 

[Chooky 13317]

1 hour ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

 

That is probably fake. 

[tchookem 3905]

 

I don't know if he did it, but we know someone who could... and he probably would.

[Beau Vine 54357]

I've seen Thujone's dicks.  Those aren't Thujone's dicks.

 

[tchookem 3905]

I've seen Thujone's dicks.  Those aren't Thujone's dicks.
 

True, they need more smiling faces.

[Pancho 44943]

 

 

[tx 3 putt 77287]

[tx 3 putt 77287]

 

[tx 3 putt 77287]

 

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

On 1/31/2023 at 9:54 PM, Biff Tannen said:

It’s a sculpture of limitations. 

 

"SCULPTURE OF LAMENTATIONS"

 

[Biff Tannen 45702]

11 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Oh you complete fucking pussy. Fuck you. 

[956 Worldwide 34746]

[YGIFS 19452]

I hate to ask, but…^^^is that real?

[DigglerontheHoof 21211]

[crash_davis 23114]

14 hours ago, Pancho said:

 

 

Dear any stupid motherfucker who still thinks that the election was "stolen",

FUCK YOU! You're too gotdamned stupid to be living and hopefully you haven't reproduced.

Signed,

America

[Satchel 6941]

18 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I hate to ask, but…^^^is that real?

Yes.

[Pancho 44943]

13 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

Hogan has come out and said he’d support him as well. 

 

They are definitely up to something. 

[tx 3 putt 77287]

5 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

Dear any stupid motherfucker who still thinks that the election was "stolen",

FUCK YOU! You're too gotdamned stupid to be living and hopefully you haven't reproduced.

Signed,

America

magagqp - they could see the future !!!

[Biff Tannen 45702]

1 minute ago, Pancho said:

 

Hogan has come out and said he’d support him as well. 

 

They are definitely up to something. 

They are all just cowards that will bend the knee to this pathetic man who has taken over the party. He will be the nominee. He may win. It may end the republic. 

[YGIFS 19452]

51 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I picture Donald Trump screaming “Ashli Babbitt was murdered!!!

by Capitol Police!”

and Biff Tannen turns around to the news cameras and slyly remarks, “Not only that…I’m broke his tiny thumbs.”

[Red Five 40880]

In a sane world that statement by itself would single handedly end his political career. 

Seriously, someone put a mic in his face and ask him if when he was potus, if he would have been ok with his security detail letting a violent mob have free reign in the white house with him in it. He'd be upstairs hiding in a closet, "shoot them shoot them!!". "Sorry Mr. President, that would be murder. Oh look here they come now. Hold on Mr. President, they really want blood!". 

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

In a sane world that statement by itself would single handedly end his political career. 

Seriously, someone put a mic in his face and ask him if when he was potus, if he would have been ok with his security detail letting a violent mob have free reign in the white house with him in it. He'd be upstairs hiding in a closet, "shoot them shoot them!!". "Sorry Mr. President, that would be murder. Oh look here they come now. Hold on Mr. President, they really want blood!". 

That fat fuck was hiding in the white house bunker during the blm protests (before he had them all pepper sprayed so he could hold up an upside down bible).