Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[Gatorubet 30325]

17 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Perhaps worth noting that it only says "no offer of immunity was brought to clients in 2022."

Not sure that's the way I'd phrase my pleading if the offer was NEVER brought. 

That’s a good point. I guess I read that as referencing the time when the order was issued, and when the court was informed that the immunity offer offer had been conveyed.   They should have added “and never conveyed subsequently” or some such. 

[Sawbonz 27669]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

I should’ve left out the not needed part. Yeah, insurance and Medicaid fraud is a different beast. I was trying to convey that a breach of professional responsibility by the doctor would not necessarily lead to a criminal investigation of who was responsible by the local medical board.  

Clearly what is being described is both a breach of professional responsibility and a criminal act (lying to the court) so apples to apples from a logical standpoint. Any criminal act related to the practice of law should cost you your license. Hell you lose your medical license in Texas for any felony conviction, and some misdemeanors related to healthcare or moral turpitude 

[TwiceHorn 31627]

22 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Perhaps worth noting that it only says "no offer of immunity was brought to clients in 2022."

Not sure that's the way I'd phrase my pleading if the offer was NEVER brought. 

Yeah that whole thing is more a potential impropriety than straight-up alleged.

Their clients are, after all, Georgia Republicans, so they're prima facie morons.  They may not have understood what the lawyer told them.

[TwiceHorn 31627]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Clearly what is being described is both a breach of professional responsibility and a criminal act (lying to the court) so apples to apples from a logical standpoint. Any criminal act related to the practice of law should cost you your license. Hell you lose your medical license in Texas for any felony conviction, and some misdemeanors related to healthcare or moral turpitude 

And so do Texas lawyers, automagically.  With a few exceptions.

[Gatorubet 30325]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Clearly what is being described is both a breach of professional responsibility and a criminal act (lying to the court) so apples to apples from a logical standpoint. Any criminal act related to the practice of law should cost you your license. Hell you lose your medical license in Texas for any felony conviction, and some misdemeanors related to healthcare or moral turpitude 

The Bar is not the party to do criminal investigations. They will investigate to see if the rules of professional conduct were violated.  

Attorneys who commit criminal acts may be disbarred because of those acts, because they are also violations of the rules of professional conduct.

You wanting the bar to go after the GOP shitheads who are funding the lawyer is a bridge too far. Unless of course, the GOP shitheads also happen to be lawyers.

Look on the bright side, the GOP saved all that money not having independent counsel for each of the electors.  Top. Men. 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31627]

51 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Well you see unless they have her on tape saying “I failed to tell my clients about the offer of immunity and lied to the court about it in order to protect the Georgia GOP and Trump from legal repercussions,” the prosecutor’s and state bar’s hands are tied

Does it really bother you that professional violations have to be proven?

Because that pleading doesn't really allege one, even, and does not supply sufficient facts to show that a) any offers of immunity were in fact not communicated to clients and b) that anyone lied to the court about it.

This is a classic case of assuming what is stated in a Tweet is a legally provable fact.  The motion states on page 3 that the court instructed Pierson to discuss the issue of potential grants of immunity with the "defendants," and that she reported to the court that she did so.

On the following page, it says "no potential offer of immunity was ever brought to them in 2022," according to only some of the electors.  And doesn't say a damn thing about it for the next eight pages.

Nor does it allege that Pierson, or Debrow lied to the court.  It raises the above "factoids," in mushy language without ever cutting to the chase to allege either of them actually failed to communicate immunity offers or lied to the court about having done so.

That's not exactly high precision stuff there, as Foosters points out.  And the motion doesn't ask for any relief on that basis.

So, there's not really even an allegation here, just an inference.  

Edited April 19, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Sawbonz 27669]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

You wanting the bar to go after the GOP shitheads who are funding the lawyer is a bridge too far

No I was responding to the person who said she should be disbarred for her criminal as well as professional misconduct

 

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And so do Texas lawyers, automagically.  With a few exceptions.

Good to know 

[Gatorubet 30325]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

No I was responding to the person who said she should be disbarred for her criminal as well as professional misconduct

[Sawbonz 27669]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Does it really bother you that professional violations have to be proven?

Because that pleading doesn't really allege one, even, and does not supply sufficient facts to show that a) any offers of immunity were in fact not communicated to clients and b) that anyone lied to the court about it.

This is a classic case of assuming what is stated in a Tweet is a legally provable fact.  The motion states on page 3 that the court instructed Pierson to discuss the issue of potential grants of immunity with the "defendants," and that she reported to the court that she did so.

On the following page, it says "no potential offer of immunity was ever brought to them in 2022," according to only some of the electors.  And doesn't say a damn thing about it for the next eight pages.

That's not exactly high precision stuff there, as Foosters points out.  And the motion doesn't ask for any relief on that basis.

I absolutely agree things should need to be proven. I also absolutely do not believe you have to have someone on tape admitting what they did and why in order to have proof

 

eta and hopefully everyone here knows I am purposely being hyperbolic. 
 

(but only by a little)

Edited April 19, 2023 by Sawbonz

[TwiceHorn 31627]

Also worth noting that I think from a disciplinary standpoint, Debrow may actually be ok.

When you represent multiple parties to the same transaction or case, you have to give them informed consent and a waiver of any potential conflicts.  And then you can represent them until it becomes apparent that there are not just potential, but actual conflicts, like when one of the parties tells the law that they have dirt on another party.

Then you have to withdraw.

Willis' office found evidence of actual conflicts of interest last Friday and Wednesday.  Assuming that information is true, no ethical violation would have appeared to have happened in the past less than a week.

It's only when you keep going representing mutiple parties to the same action that have actual conflicts that you get disciplined.  Or when you fail to inform them of the possiblity and obtain consent in the first place.

So, absent further information, Mueller She Wrote just smeared a bunch of hysterical shit in her hair.

Now Georgia GOP is going to at least have to pay for 10 lawyers, so that's kind of fun.

Edited April 19, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31627]

It's also very fun that a bunch of Republicans are doing the circular firing squad again, and this time in a context that matters.

That's really the most important takeaway from this.

[Hermanator 7190]

[Sawbonz 27669]

19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Willis' office found evidence of actual conflicts of interest last Friday and Wednesday

Is it not incumbent upon the defense to identify and eliminate these conflicts? Or is it ok to do whatever tf you want unless and until the prosecution discovers it, then quickly address it?

[nbmishoid 970]

Twice

Upthread you asked whether professional violations should be proven.  As asked, you got agreement.  But what is “proven”?  In criminal cases, the bar is set so that any reasonable uncertainty has been ruled out.  But being de-professionalized is not the same as jail.  
 

If the civil standard of “probable” is too low, why?  Why not “reasonably certain” or some such?  From all this discussion it strikes many that assholes who would be run off of any other job get to keep wrecking shit.  Why must society tolerate that, for only one or two professions?   They can work at Burger King, or CVS.  

[tx 3 putt 77619]

 

[TwiceHorn 31627]

2 hours ago, nbmishoid said:

Twice

Upthread you asked whether professional violations should be proven.  As asked, you got agreement.  But what is “proven”?  In criminal cases, the bar is set so that any reasonable uncertainty has been ruled out.  But being de-professionalized is not the same as jail.  
 

If the civil standard of “probable” is too low, why?  Why not “reasonably certain” or some such?  From all this discussion it strikes many that assholes who would be run off of any other job get to keep wrecking shit.  Why must society tolerate that, for only one or two professions?   They can work at Burger King, or CVS.  

Never said it was or should be a higher standard.  It's preponderance of the evidence, more likely than not, or 51%, however you like to think of it.

The point I'm trying to make here is that proving up a lawsuit is harder than people think it is, especially when they're all riled up by lousy legal and other reporting.  Not that there's a higher burden of proof or should be.

A sub point is that "undermining democracy" is not as concrete a thing as people like to think it is.  How do you prove that someone undermined democracy?  As has been pointed out, there have been a lot of things that might have been considered undermining democracy at various points in time, like, say membership in the Communist Party, or the Workers of the World.

I'm not saying those are equivalent, but when you start legally prosecuting or persecuting people for vaporous notions like undermining democracy, you may be getting in trouble.

So, the bar is stuck with more prosaic, but concrete, things like lying to a court.  And it takes more than a tweet or an article in the NYT to prove that someone lied to a court.

[TwiceHorn 31627]

3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Is it not incumbent upon the defense to identify and eliminate these conflicts? Or is it ok to do whatever tf you want unless and until the prosecution discovers it, then quickly address it?

In this particular case, the elimination is by withdrawal from representation.  And yes, it is incumbent on defense counsel to do that.

But they aren't going to be disciplined for not doing it in under seven days.  They might, possibly, conceivably be sued by one of the clients if something prejudicial happened in those seven days.

There's not even a indictment here, so time isn't pressing the defense particularly hard.

[Captainant 27862]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A sub point is that "undermining democracy" is not as concrete a thing as people like to think it is.  How do you prove that someone undermined democracy?

Idk, something direct like inciting a riot thag directly impeded the peaceful transfer of power in accordance with our constitution? That's a pretty bright fuckin line. 

But sure, equivocate away.

[Cairn Horn88 8287]

“I didn’t vote for Donald Trump,” Musk told Fox News personality Tucker Carlson in an interview that aired Monday. “I actually voted for Biden. I’m not saying I’m a huge fan of Biden, since that would probably be inaccurate. But, you know, we have difficult choices to make in these presidential elections.”

Musk said he’d prefer “just a normal person as president, a normal person with common sense and whose values are smack in the middle of the country.”

Ditto!

[Pato del Muerto 52641]

He’s a US citizen?

[jimmyjazz 46302]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

He’s a US citizen?

Yeah, he is.

[tx 3 putt 77619]

What’s at stake here when dumb ass loses this suit ?

 

[atomheartbevo 89861]

Yeah Donnie, call her a slut, women love to hear that kind of talk out of a guy facing sexual harassment or assault charges.

[tx 3 putt 77619]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yeah Donnie, call her a slut, women love to hear that kind of talk out of a guy facing sexual harassment or assault charges.

shes not even his type !

[Born to Run 6569]

shes not even his type !

Calling her a slut, whore etc would prove she is his type.

[WhatTheBuck 28814]

The enlightened misogynist uses “sloot.”

[TwiceHorn 31627]

13 hours ago, Captainant said:

Idk, something direct like inciting a riot thag directly impeded the peaceful transfer of power in accordance with our constitution? That's a pretty bright fuckin line. 

But sure, equivocate away.

We weren't talking about that.  We were talking about the Bar and Sidney Powell.

And, again, that falls into the category of obstruction of an official proceeding, not some vagary like "undermining democracy."  The effect is to undermine democracy, but the legal violation is something else altogether.

So, you have to take all this buttfuckery they've been up to and find a crime or ethical provision that it violated. Then you have to prove it.

ETA:  I have also said that it appears that we don't have the most robust set of criminal statutes encompassing actions that "underimine democracy."  One reason for that is that such statutes often get thrown out as violating the First Amendment, see. e.g. the Alien and Sedition Act.  It's not that what Trumpco did is protected by the First Amendment, necessarily, its that a statute that encompasses it is likely to also encompass protected speech, and thus is unconstitutional.

You don't get to shriek about tweets and reports on CNN and NYT and assume that a prosecution or disciplinary proceeding is a fait accompli because you saw it on TV.

Edited April 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Pato del Muerto 52641]

[Captainant 27862]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, you have to take all this buttfuckery they've been up to and find a crime or ethical provision that it violated. Then you have to prove it.

Wow, a legal system that says you have to get butt fucked by the fascists before you can do anything about TOTALLY sounds like it doesn't favor the fascists. 

 

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You don't get to shriek about tweets and reports on CNN and NYT and assume that a prosecution or disciplinary proceeding is a fait accompli because you saw it on TV.

Motherfucker I'm pointing at court filings and evidence and public fucking record of what happened on and around January 6th. It's not mere news reporting and speculation - we have the receipts. No amount of pearl clutching by blindly uncritical insitutuionalists will change that 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Captainant

[TwiceHorn 31627]

18 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Wow, a legal system that says you have to get butt fucked by the fascists before you can do anything about TOTALLY sounds like it doesn't favor the fascists. 

 

Motherfucker I'm pointing at court filings and evidence and public fucking record of what happened on and around January 6th. It's not mere news reporting and speculation - we have the receipts. No amount of pearl clutching by blindly uncritical insitutuionalists will change that 

Stop being such a petulant child.

You haven't pointed out shit.  I am one of the few people trying to analyze actual evidence and court filings and how it affects things in this entire site.  

The rest of you, and you in particular, are just bleating about meta-information that is often inaccurate.

Edited April 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27862]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Stop being such a petulant child.

You haven't pointed out shit.  I am one of the few people trying to analyze actual evidence and court filings and how it affects things in this entire site.  

The rest of you, and you in particular, are just bleating about meta-information that is often inaccurate.

You are materially misrepresenting the nature of the public record of trump's criminal actions. It's not just some NYT or CNN article. You're doing a cute legal slight on hand when you assert as much. 

It's not a question as to his frame of mind or his intent. We have it in his own words. But since he's a rich white conservative we MUST approach every legal action with utmost caution and apprehension! But our """justice""" system will jail poor people as a matter of course while presuming their guilt via a cant-refuse plea deal because they can't afford to fight it. 

We're fucking sick and tired of seeing nothing happen as he's grabbing lady justice by the pussy. And even more tired of lawyers fastidiously explaining why we MUST let trump continue his abuse, otherwise we don't have no justice no mo!

[TwiceHorn 31627]

55 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You are materially misrepresenting the nature of the public record of trump's criminal actions. It's not just some NYT or CNN article. You're doing a cute legal slight on hand when you assert as much. 

It's not a question as to his frame of mind or his intent. We have it in his own words. But since he's a rich white conservative we MUST approach every legal action with utmost caution and apprehension! But our """justice""" system will jail poor people as a matter of course while presuming their guilt via a cant-refuse plea deal because they can't afford to fight it. 

We're fucking sick and tired of seeing nothing happen as he's grabbing lady justice by the pussy. And even more tired of lawyers fastidiously explaining why we MUST let trump continue his abuse, otherwise we don't have no justice no mo!

Fucking bullshit.

You're just showing your own ignorance of the legal system. Trump's statements in the public record are insufficient to secure a conviction of any crime.  If you want his ass nailed to the wall, or at least a puncher's chance of it, you have to develop more corroboration of his intentions and schemes.

We have only the vaguest idea what the real evidence being developed by Jack Smith and others may be.

The biggest flaw in our justice system is that you have to pay lawyers to assert your rights.  Sometimes, as in the case of good public defenders and contingent fee representation, you don't have to pay or pay up front.

Poor people get hosed most often because they don't get good lawyers, usually but not always, because they can't pay them.  There are some more subtle biases, as well.  

So, set aside the fact that Trump can assert rights, whether with good or bad lawyers, the fact remains that the prosecution will have to PROVE whatever crimes or other offenses he has committed and what's in the public record may be a good start, but is not sufficient to do that, standing alone.

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29442]

On 4/18/2023 at 9:30 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Also worth noting that I think from a disciplinary standpoint, Debrow may actually be ok.

When you represent multiple parties to the same transaction or case, you have to give them informed consent and a waiver of any potential conflicts.  And then you can represent them until it becomes apparent that there are not just potential, but actual conflicts, like when one of the parties tells the law that they have dirt on another party.

Then you have to withdraw.

Willis' office found evidence of actual conflicts of interest last Friday and Wednesday.  Assuming that information is true, no ethical violation would have appeared to have happened in the past less than a week.

It's only when you keep going representing mutiple parties to the same action that have actual conflicts that you get disciplined.  Or when you fail to inform them of the possiblity and obtain consent in the first place.

So, absent further information, Mueller She Wrote just smeared a bunch of hysterical shit in her hair.

Now Georgia GOP is going to at least have to pay for 10 lawyers, so that's kind of fun.

Mueller She Wrote is one of the more annoying "resistance" twitter accounts. They're less obviously bullshit than the early days "the marshall of the supreme court is about to arrest Trump"/"Steve Bannon is going to get the death penalty" nonsense, and their bullshit is more geared toward misleading punditry than baldly false factual assertions, so it's more insidious.  I'm not even sure where they fall on the "knowing bullshit grifter" vs "true believer pundit with a financial incentive to be this way" spectrum.  

[TwiceHorn 31627]

30 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Mueller She Wrote is one of the more annoying "resistance" twitter accounts. They're less obviously bullshit than the early days "the marshall of the supreme court is about to arrest Trump"/"Steve Bannon is going to get the death penalty" nonsense, and their bullshit is more geared toward misleading punditry than baldly false factual assertions, so it's more insidious.  I'm not even sure where they fall on the "knowing bullshit grifter" vs "true believer pundit with a financial incentive to be this way" spectrum.  

I will say that the factual portion of her stuff seems timely, but sometimes the analysis is a bit hysterical.

[Foosters 17889]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fucking bullshit.

You're just showing your own ignorance of the legal system.

As I have said repeatedly, what's in the public record is not admissible proof sufficient to secure a conviction.

We have only the vaguest idea what the real evidence being developed by Jack Smith and others may be.

 

Wait til he hears about the hearsay rules 

[TwiceHorn 31627]

24 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Wait til he hears about the hearsay rules 

Yes, there are rules of evidence and procedure that all litigants have to follow.

That Trumpco can use them to their temporary, but not lasting, advantage does not make them fascist.  They're fundamentally neutral rules that apply to everyone.

The biggest flaw of the justice system is the "pay to play" nature of it.  That will tend to favor the monied if not the outright fascist.

I don't know how you get around that, exactly.  We nibble around the edges of it with Gideon and people like you, at least in the criminal context. And contingent fee arrangements do a lot to equalize things in the civil context, see, e.g. Dominion v. Fox.

I'm not aware of any legal system anywhere on earth that doesn't generally require paid representation.  For the most part, my observations lead me to believe that it is actually more expensive outside the US, and there is also less access for those without the funds to pay.

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29442]

It doesn't really help things when Trump judges have been entertaining public statements as if they've been argued in court (Aileen Cannon) or utterly bullshit aggyesque online polls as if they're serious evidence (Kacsmaryk). There's probably at least like a dozen recent SCOTUS examples of both as well.  When politically convenient to certain judges, the normal rules just don't really apply, so I get that non-legal experts can be frustrated by what looks to be their selective application in certain contexts. 

[TwiceHorn 31627]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It doesn't really help things when Trump judges have been entertaining public statements as if they've been argued in court (Aileen Cannon) or utterly bullshit aggyesque online polls as if they're serious evidence (Kacsmaryk). There's probably at least like a dozen recent SCOTUS examples of both as well.  When politically convenient to certain judges, the normal rules just don't really apply, so I get that non-legal experts can be frustrated by what looks to be their selective application in certain contexts. 

I get the frustration.  I tend not to comment anymore on the overtly political cases like Supreme Court and those you mention.  It's too depressing and nihilistic.

But I remain fascinated by the machinations of things that are more akin to day-to-day litigation, like Dominion, the Powell disbarment and sanctions appeal to the 6th Circuit, the NY civil and criminal cases, etc.

[Captainant 27862]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tend not to comment anymore on the overtly political cases like Supreme Court and those you mention.  It's too depressing and nihilistic.

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But I remain fascinated by the machinations of things that are more akin to day-to-day litigation, like Dominion, the Powell disbarment and sanctions appeal to the 6th Circuit, the NY civil and criminal cases, etc.

It's weird that you'd be interested in these cases when they ultimately don't matter given the overtly political and agenda-driven superior and appellate court system. If a lower court gets a case "wrong", the upper courts are happy to hear appeal after appeal from the fascists until someone gives a favorable ruling.

Or hell, we'll just see more of trump doing more venue shopping for his cases pending trial hoping to land them in a friendly (read: compromised) court. But hey, at least those aren't also filled with shitheel judges that lied to get their seat right?? RIGHT????

Just wake up and smell the horseshit man. It's not roses like you'd like to believe.

[TwiceHorn 31627]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's weird that you'd be interested in these cases when they ultimately don't matter given the overtly political and agenda-driven superior and appellate court system. If a lower court gets a case "wrong", the upper courts are happy to hear appeal after appeal from the fascists until someone gives a favorable ruling.

Or hell, we'll just see more of trump doing more venue shopping for his cases pending trial hoping to land them in a friendly (read: compromised) court. But hey, at least those aren't also filled with shitheel judges that lied to get their seat right?? RIGHT????

Just wake up and smell the horseshit man. It's not roses like you'd like to believe.

Except that's not what's happening, at all, in these cases.

In case you hadn't noticed, Trump is losing his ass at every turn.

Corcoran.

The White House advisors re: 1/6

Pence.

The tax return cases.

The Aileen Cannon case.

The Clinton lolsuit.

The suits against Letitia James.

Jean Carroll.

The Kraken cases, disposed of each in two weeks or less with unsuccessful appeals.

I never said it was roses.  It fucking sucks that SBOT isn't stuffing Sidney Powell through the hoop, for example.  It doesn't diminish my interest in the goings on.

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Captainant 27862]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except that's not what's happening, at all, in these cases.

In case you hadn't noticed, Trump is losing his ass at every turn.

Corcoran.

The White House advisors re: 1/6

Pence.

The tax return cases.

The Aileen Cannon case.

The Clinton lolsuit.

The suits against Letitia James.

Jean Carroll.

The Kraken cases, disposed of each in two weeks or less with unsuccessful appeals.

I never said it was roses.  It fucking sucks that SBOT isn't stuffing Sidney Powell through the hoop, for example.  It doesn't diminish my interest in the goings on.

 

Yeah and I hate that I have to continuously point this out to you: all those specious cases are themselves abuses of the justice and court system. As I've said earlier - the court bouncing them out is what should be happening. It's just surprising that the court would welcome so many cases from the same litigant without wondering why they're getting so much bullshit coming their way.

In my world, we call that a DDOS ATTACK. Why are we allowing trumpco to DDOS our courts with their specious cases? 

Yay woohoo yippee the court is correctly adjudicating that they're all horseshit! 

...

 

What's eh? They've been burning time dealing with a firehose of falsehoods rather than prosecuting the goddamn fucking fascists? What an unforeseeable turn of events that will surely not come to bite us in the ass the next time the fascists take a bite at the apple! Because we both know they're going to be allowed to try again. We don't have no justice system otherwise! Or something like that right?

[tx 3 putt 77619]

😂😂😂😂

 

[TwiceHorn 31627]

15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yeah and I hate that I have to continuously point this out to you: all those specious cases are themselves abuses of the justice and court system. As I've said earlier - the court bouncing them out is what should be happening. It's just surprising that the court would welcome so many cases from the same litigant without wondering why they're getting so much bullshit coming their way.

In my world, we call that a DDOS ATTACK. Why are we allowing trumpco to DDOS our courts with their specious cases? 

Yay woohoo yippee the court is correctly adjudicating that they're all horseshit! 

...

 

What's eh? They've been burning time dealing with a firehose of falsehoods rather than prosecuting the goddamn fucking fascists? What an unforeseeable turn of events that will surely not come to bite us in the ass the next time the fascists take a bite at the apple! Because we both know they're going to be allowed to try again. We don't have no justice system otherwise! Or something like that right?

So, somehow you think Trump should just be entirely deprived of the right to file suit or defend himself when sued or indicted?

Who is the fascist here, anyway?

These things you call "specious" are only specious because the legal system has declared them so.

You might also note that Alvin Bragg is using essentially the same tactics and strategies to defy Gym Jordan and his apes.

I would venture to say that the legal system has done a better job dealing with Trump's firehose of bullshit than any other American institution.

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂

 

MOAR enabling fascism!!!

Edited April 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46302]

When has Trump successfully venue-shopped?

[Captainant 27862]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, somehow you think Trump should just be entirely deprived of the right to file suit or defend himself when sued or indicted?

Who is the fascist here, anyway?

To continue the DDOS metaphor, no you don't deny - you throttle them. They can only have X many cases originated or something that applies a negative incentive against a firehose of bullshit cases. 

 

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

These things you call "specious" are only specious because the legal system has declared them so.

The cases were specious because they were based on lies, fabricated evidence, and falsely perceived grievances. It's not like some almighty supreme judge in the curliest powdered wig ruled it as such - it simply IS because we (allegedly) live in a world that differentiates between facts and fiction. 

 

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You might also note that Alvin Bragg is using essentially the same tactics and strategies to defy Gym Jordan and his apes.

Yes, Bragg is applying basic reasoning and a critical inspection of the assertions to dismiss them and defying jordan on those grounds. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, aside from there's power in calling a liar a liar, rather than dutifully treating them as a serious actor case after dismissed case 

[TwiceHorn 31627]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

When has Trump successfully venue-shopped?

He has filed all over the Southern District of Florida, in various divisions.  For the most part, the venue is the SD Fla and it's proper and technically not a forum-shop as long as it's in the right district.  Divisions within the district are, for the most part, not legally relevant.

The Special Master case was a successful forum shop in that he got Cannon by going to the Palm Beach division.  He got Middlebrook in his next foray there and got his ass handed to him.

The case he filed against Cohen was a bit of a forum-shop as I don't think Cohen is subject to jurisdiction in Florida.

[TwiceHorn 31627]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yes, Bragg is applying basic reasoning and a critical inspection of the assertions to dismiss them and defying jordan on those grounds. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, aside from there's power in calling a liar a liar, rather than dutifully treating them as a serious actor case after dismissed case 

Because you don't know what you're talking about.

Bragg is using the exact same kind of separation of powers arguments to resist Congressional inquiries that Trump did.  The same kind of things you call specious when employed by Trump.

When a person invokes judicial process, they get judicial process.  You can't, on a principled basis deny one party the ability to invoke the process just because you don't like them.  When their invocation is bullshit, the process sorts that out.

 

[wildcat09 29442]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, somehow you think Trump should just be entirely deprived of the right to file suit or defend himself when sued or indicted?

Who is the fascist here, anyway?

These things you call "specious" are only specious because the legal system has declared them so.

You might also note that Alvin Bragg is using essentially the same tactics and strategies to defy Gym Jordan and his apes.

I would venture to say that the legal system has done a better job dealing with Trump's firehose of bullshit than any other American institution.

MOAR enabling fascism!!!

I mean...

[TwiceHorn 31627]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I mean...

It's a nice idea, sure.  

[wildcat09 29442]

The American legal system has effectively stolen that right from many other people (they probably number in the tens of millions) who have never abused legal process and have far more meritorious claims.