Trump allegedly indicted in a Georgia 2020 subversion probe

[Foxi4]

That's just your opinion, and it doesn't make it a fact. A decision made by compromised judges who took bribes and who lied on their admission Oath only further invalidates your point. Fruit of a poisonous tree indeed.

Again, this seems like a you problem, not a legal problem.

Well, it’s my opinion, and the opinion of prominent legal scholars, including law professors from Harvard and Yale, so I’m feeling pretty confident about it. You’re welcome to have a different opinion - if you’re not a textualist and instead believe in the “spirit of the law” then you can reason yourself into that position, you’ll just have a hard time substantiating it since it’s not based on anything that’s actually in the document.

HEh, as 9/11 proved, too much spying is just as bad as no spying at all. So no, I'm not overly concerned.

There are only a few tangible consequences of 9/11 that affect everyday life in a meaningful way that are worth mentioning in this context.

The first was the establishment of the TSA which has prevented zero terrorist attacks to date, routinely steals from and abuses passengers, faces constant accusations of racism and may have actually cost people lives instead of saving them.

https://www.vox.com/platform/2016/5/17/11687014/tsa-against-airport-security

The second was the Iraq War which destabilised the Middle East in search of WMD’s that didn’t exist, resulted in at least 100k civilian deaths and cost around $3T dollars when all is said and done (true cost, not cost as reported by the Pentagon).

The third was the Patriot Act and the subsequent warrantless invigilation of the American people, in direct contradiction of your previous professed love of the right to privacy, in the style of a never-ending investigation in search of a crime, the antithesis of justice.

Uhh… yeah, good job. Now I *really* want to put the federal government in charge of more things, you’ve convinced me.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Well, it’s my opinion, and the opinion of prominent legal scholars, including law professors from Harvard and Yale, so I’m feeling pretty confident about it. You’re welcome to have a different opinion - if you’re not a textualist and instead believe in the “spirit of the law” then you can reason yourself into that position, you’ll just have a hard time substantiating it since it’s not based on anything that’s actually in the document.

There's just as many legal scholars of a different opinion and who agree with me so, as I said before, this is a non-point.

Uhh… yeah, good job. Now I *really* want to put the federal government in charge of more things, you’ve convinced me.

Not trying to convince you besides, you live in UK so all these examples you listed are irrelevant to you. On the other hand, the UK shows that leaving behaviours to convention doesn't work. And that includes presidential / PM conduct.

 

[Foxi4]

There's just as many legal scholars of a different opinion and who agree with me so, as I said before, this is a non-point.

You keep saying that, but you haven’t cited one. If I’m supposed to take their opinion into account, I need to know what it is first. I’m not interested in appeals to authority, as in “your experts versus my experts” - I’m sure that some lawyers agree with the decision, but if their reasoning is stupid, I’m going to reject it all the same. There is widespread agreement that the reasoning behind Roe is asinine, dissenting voices a few, far between and usually talking absolute nonsense themselves.

Not trying to convince you besides, you live in UK so all these examples you listed are irrelevant to you. On the other hand, the UK shows that leaving behaviours to convention doesn't work. And that includes presidential / PM conduct.

The UK is in desperate need of a new Bill of Rights, the government has trampled all over the old one. The rights afforded to Americans thanks to the constitution are just not a thing, they’ve been gradually chipped away into what we have now, hence the absolute cesspit we currently reside in both in public life and in politics. That doesn’t mean that I’m not allowed to have an opinion on American politics - I’m an English philologist, this was literally within my field of study.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

You keep saying that, but you haven’t cited one. If I’m supposed to take their opinion into account, I need to know what it is first. I’m not interested in appeals to authority, as in “your experts versus my experts” - I’m sure that some lawyers agree with the decision, but if their reasoning is stupid, I’m going to reject it all the same.

Well, you're not a lawyer, you haven't made any legal contribution or publication so, yeah, you can reject it, means nothing however because your lack of being convinced of something doesn't invalidate it. You haven't cited any either so... again, moot point.

Nevertheless, you want links?

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1264&context=faculty_scholarship

The UK is in desperate need of a new Bill of Rights, the government has trampled all over the old one. The rights afforded to Americans thanks to the constitution are just not a thing, they’ve been gradually chipped away into what we have now. That doesn’t mean that I’m not allowed to have an opinion on American politics - I’m an English philologist, this was literally within my field of study.

HAH. There's needs for laws and codes of conducts for people in power, so tory politicians. Plenty of rights.

 

[Foxi4]

Well, you're not a lawyer, you haven't made any legal contribution or publication so, yeah, you can reject it, means nothing however because your lack of being convinced of something doesn't invalidate it. You haven't cited any either so... again, moot point.

Not really, considering your footing is the same. If your argument is that we’re not lawyers therefore our opinion doesn’t matter then we can just stop talking now. Bit of a weird strategy, but knock yourself out.

Nevertheless, you want links?

https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1264&context=faculty_scholarship

This is a critique of Webster through the lens of Roe, not a legal justification of the Roe decision. If you’ll waste my time and make me read 36 pages of legalese for no reason I’m going to be very upset. What point are you trying to make by posting this before I go through the effort of actually reading the entirety of this opinion piece (since that’s all this is, an opinion) which is only adjacent to the case we’re actually interested in?

EDIT: I want to be fair to you and clear, so let me clarify. I gave you a specific citation with a specific argument authored by a specific person that you can do additional research on if you so please, you’re giving me a brick and telling me to find what you mean in it. I don’t know what you mean unless you tell me. Form an argument and convey it, ideally within a paragraph.

HAH. There's needs for laws and codes of conducts for people in power, so tory politicians. Plenty of rights.

Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what you just said.

 

[Taleweaver]

If I know Trump, and I know Trump quite a bit, me being a self-proclaimed Trumpkin and MAGAt, most (if not all) of this garbage was served to him on a platter in an attempt to impress him. Trump is the kind of person who gets things brought to him by his underlings, he has specific expectations, but doesn’t “delegate” in the traditional sense. Much like most businessmen, he gives people targets, and the target was to win. I wouldn’t be surprised if he actually was a victim of circumstance, grossly unaware of some of his less smart underlings were up to. We already know that he was grossly misinformed about the state of the election by his staff (who probably didn’t want to disappoint the guy in charge and face his ire), and when you’re operating based on faulty information, you can only be so culpable. As for the latter part, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Sorry, but I disagree strongly with that "we already know that he was grossly misinformed". A pretty chunky part of the book "Peril" goes about the events leading up to the election, and Trump was informed on quite some occasions that certain areas no longer resonated with his ideals, that his rhetoric was seen as exhaustive, that his stance on covid wasn't shared by everyone, and so on.
In his defense, I can't even fault Trump that much for not believing those messages: where he was touring the country and giving huge speeches for (at the time controversially) large audiences cheering him on, Biden was literally at home.

But even if you take that out of the equasion: many people bothered to register and vote that otherwise wouldn't have. Polls generally aren't anonymous, and as such I think many didn't so much want to vote for Biden but were actively voting against Trump. The ACTUAL lefties, for example: Sanders pretty much buggered off in 2016 when Clinton got the nominee, but now he was actively helping Biden.
I could theorize more reasons, but they all amounted to the same thing: Trump underestimated the support for Biden. And Trump doesn't ever lose; he only gets cheated upon. That's why that narrative (which he tauted from before the freaking elections) became more prominent. That's why his "less smart" underlings presumed it so and went looking for answers in that department.

You say "you can only be so culpable". There's some merit in that if he was indeed grossly misinformed by his team rather than selectively deaf (didn't I already brought up that on election night, Trump only listened to the one drunk person in the room saying he won?). But there are plenty of instances where he actively choose to ignore the truths. Remember his infrastructure specialists stating that the 2020 election was "the most secure in American history"? For some reason, Trump didn't got that memo.

This is *2014*, as in pre-Trump and pre-Biden. If you tried to plot that graph today it’d resemble the Great Canyon. Unless people start listening to each other and shake hands, we’re headed towards a point of fever pitch. Realistically, odds are that both of us would be considered Democrats in the 90’s, but those days are long gone. There’s a big ‘ol gap growing between us and our neighbours, we’re “othering” each other, and that’s just not healthy. You can’t establish dialogue like that.

Hear, hear.

 

[Foxi4]

Sorry, but I disagree strongly with that "we already know that he was grossly misinformed". A pretty chunky part of the book "Peril" goes about the events leading up to the election, and Trump was informed on quite some occasions that certain areas no longer resonated with his ideals, that his rhetoric was seen as exhaustive, that his stance on covid wasn't shared by everyone, and so on.
In his defense, I can't even fault Trump that much for not believing those messages: where he was touring the country and giving huge speeches for (at the time controversially) large audiences cheering him on, Biden was literally at home.

But even if you take that out of the equasion: many people bothered to register and vote that otherwise wouldn't have. Polls generally aren't anonymous, and as such I think many didn't so much want to vote for Biden but were actively voting against Trump. The ACTUAL lefties, for example: Sanders pretty much buggered off in 2016 when Clinton got the nominee, but now he was actively helping Biden.
I could theorize more reasons, but they all amounted to the same thing: Trump underestimated the support for Biden. And Trump doesn't ever lose; he only gets cheated upon. That's why that narrative (which he tauted from before the freaking elections) became more prominent. That's why his "less smart" underlings presumed it so and went looking for answers in that department.

You say "you can only be so culpable". There's some merit in that if he was indeed grossly misinformed by his team rather than selectively deaf (didn't I already brought up that on election night, Trump only listened to the one drunk person in the room saying he won?). But there are plenty of instances where he actively choose to ignore the truths. Remember his infrastructure specialists stating that the 2020 election was "the most secure in American history"? For some reason, Trump didn't got that memo.

In all fairness, I didn’t trust those experts either, and subsequent analysis demonstrated conclusively that the voting machines used in 2020 were susceptible to foul play and exploitable. I’m not saying that they were breached in that particular instance, I’m saying that those security claims were false and that it was perfectly reasonable for Trump to trust his team, he hired it to do research for him.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna89566

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Not really, considering your footing is the same. If your argument is that we’re not lawyers therefore our opinion doesn’t matter then we can just stop talking now. Bit of a weird strategy, but knock yourself out.

Actually my argument is that a corrupt SCOTUS made the whole point redundant.

This is a critique of Webster through the lens of Roe, not a legal justification of the Roe decision. If you’ll waste my time and make me read 36 pages of legalese for no reason I’m going to be very upset. What point are you trying to make by posting this before I go through the effort of actually reading the entirety of this opinion piece (since that’s all this is, an opinion) which is only adjacent to the case we’re actually interested in?

The critique explains clearly why Roe was both constitutional and stare decidis.

Can you rephrase that? I have no idea what you just said.

I said that there's plenty of rights already. What's needed is code of conducts for people in power (namely, tories).

Post automatically merged: Aug 17, 2023

In all fairness, I didn’t trust those experts either, and subsequent analysis demonstrated conclusively that the voting machines used in 2020 were susceptible to foul play and exploitable. I’m not saying that they were breached in that particular instance, I’m saying that those security claims were false and that it was perfectly reasonable for Trump to trust his team, he hired it to do research for him.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna89566

Isn't one of the charges that Trump's team tried to hack the machines?

Post automatically merged: Aug 17, 2023

Hear, hear.

It's easy to say "hear hear" when you're not part of a cult who daily regurgitates this sort of content

What sort of dialogue do you think can be had with voters whose majority not just of grassroots members, but also of higher-ups, clearly endorses such behaviour?

 

[Foxi4]

Actually my argument is that a corrupt SCOTUS made the whole point redundant.

Subjective.

The critique explains clearly why Roe was both constitutional and stare decidis.

Opinion, not fact, but I’ll give it a read in my spare time. If I find anything worth commenting on, I’ll get back to you.

I said that there's plenty of rights already. What's needed is code of conducts for people in power (namely, tories).

In the most confusing way possible, grammatically speaking - the punctuation and the “so” threw me off. Accountability is important, but a separate matter - the rights of Brits, particularly free speech (in Scotland especially) are under constant assault. It used to be a thing under the original Bill of Rights of 1689 (still partially relevant as an element of the “uncodified constitution” - don’t ask, Britain is weird like that), alongside other immutable rights that were since stripped from the population and replaced with various Acts. There was an attempt to repeal and replace the Human Rights Act of 1998 (which I find too restrictive) with the Bill of Rights bill of 2022, but it fell flat. Free speech as a fundamental right does not exist in Britain, speech and expression is handled via common law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Opinion, not fact, but I’ll give it a read in my spare time. If I find anything worth commenting on, I’ll get back to you.

Don't bother. As I said, and as you said, it's all a moot point now and irrelevant to the thread.

In the most confusing way possible, grammatically speaking - the punctuation and the “so” threw me off.

Subjective.

. There was an attempt to repeal and replace the Human Rights Act of 1998 (which I find too restrictive) with the Bill of Rights bill of 2022, but it fell flat. Free speech as a fundamental right does not exist in Britain, speech and expression is handled via common law.

I'm sorry but unsurprisingly I have to disagree: there's WAY TOO MUCH free speech in UK, to the point it contaminated the BBC and public debate in general. A 1st amendement in UK would be an utter disaster, considering how poisoned and post-fact public debate is.
Interesting you think the HRA is restrictive - FYI that 2022 was meant as a way to restrict rights, not expand them, because it implied abolishing the HRA.

Just as a snippet, this is yet another deviation from OP.

 

[Foxi4]

Don't bother. As I said, and as you said, it's all a moot point now and irrelevant to the thread.

Subjective.

I'm sorry but unsurprisingly I have to disagree: there's WAY TOO MUCH free speech in UK, to the point it contaminated the BBC and public debate in general. A 1st amendement in UK would be an utter disaster, considering how poisoned and post-fact public debate is.
Interesting you think the HRA is restrictive - FYI that 2022 was meant as a way to restrict rights, not expand them, because it implied abolishing the HRA.

Just as a snippet, this is yet another deviation from OP.

It was a proposed repeal of the HRA since that’s nothing more than a UK Act that adopts the European convention. This bill was supposed to be a strictly British creation and a drop-in replacement of the HRA. Hard to say if it would’ve restricted or expanded rights since it fell through, I don’t think we ever saw a final draft (at least I haven’t seen it - if you have, you can PM it to me), and even if we did, it’s yesterday’s news now. It did face some criticism from what I’ve gathered, I’ll have to give the last draft a glance to have a more firm opinion one way or the other. On free speech I disagree, but only partially - I’m a free speech absolutist, but only in regards to individual rights. Citizens should have the fundamental right to express any ideas they may have, I don’t accept the excuse of certain ideas being “grossly offensive” if they’re limited to speech and don’t cross into violent or otherwise illegal action. I will agree that *the media* are enjoying too much leeway in regards to civil suits and liability for libel and defamation. A British paper can print any old shite and it is effectively impossible to get justice for it in any court, even if there are demonstrable damages. That’s civil litigation though, not individual rights - different spheres entirely.

EDIT: Just to tie it back to our previous conversation, abortion rights were one of the things codified in BoR 2022.

 

[RedColoredStars]

If that’s the tack you’re going with, I didn’t establish that standard, James Comey did. That’s besides the point though.

So nothing but deflection from you as usual. But you're right, it's besides the point as James Comey isn't the one having this conversation with me, you are. So what you still said in a whole lot of words is that you think Trump is innocent due to ignorance. You never denied it, you just tried to deflect it elsewhere.

I’m a free speech absolutist, but only in regards to individual rights. Citizens should have the fundamental right to express any ideas they may have, I don’t accept the excuse of certain ideas being “grossly offensive” if they’re limited to speech and don’t cross into violent or otherwise illegal action.

You're completely full of shit. Trump's freedom of speech 100% crossed into violent or otherwise illegal action.

 

[Xzi]

Appeal to emotion. It was unconstitutional, and so it was struck down, nothing more and nothing less to it.

SCOTUS choosing to hear a case based solely on the political and religious views of individual justices is unconstitutional, but they did it anyway. Multiple times, as a matter of fact. If they wanna continue acting like a political institution, they need to be subject to elections, oversight, and accountability. Nothing more and nothing less to it.

There was never any opportunity to pass Roe into law, the Republican party made damn sure of that. "You made us do this to you" is something domestic abusers say, but not all of us are willing to to just curl up and take the hits.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Well there you have it, never thought I'd see the day a MAGA admits they're mentally unwell. I'll personally buy your ticket to Russia so you can get the experience you're craving, but just know it's one-way.

well there you have it, i never thought id see the dad where a radical admits they are bigoted toward mentally ill people ( not sure who you are referring to with your post though) not a shock, they are also well known for being racist, i assume its that non US mentality

Post automatically merged: Aug 17, 2023

No, that is what happened and I merely reported it.



That's just an euphemism for LIBERTARIAN, which is pretty far on the right of the Conservative spectrum.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism

so than you admit you dont understand english

 

[Dark_Ansem]

[/QUOTE]

so than you admit you dont understand english

No, that's still you.

 

[lolcatzuru]

No, that's still you.
[/QUOTE]

do you have a source on that? i already made it very clear i speak english fluently

 

[Foxi4]

SCOTUS choosing to hear a case based solely on the political and religious views of individual justices is unconstitutional, but they did it anyway. Multiple times, as a matter of fact. If they wanna continue acting like a political institution, they need to be subject to elections, oversight, and accountability. Nothing more and nothing less to it.

There was never any opportunity to pass Roe into law, the Republican party made damn sure of that. "You made us do this to you" is something domestic abusers say, but not all of us are willing to to just curl up and take the hits.

”There was never an opportunity”? Within the last *50 years*? That’s asinine, just 5 minutes ago the Democrats held a majority in both houses and had a sitting President. They also held both houses during the 110th Congress under Bush, and during 103rd under Clinton when they also had the perfect trifecta. We can keep going, by all means. If you’re not going to put the blame for inaction of Congress on the bloody Congress then there’s nothing to talk about here - you’re not an ignoramus, so I have to assume you’re being purposefully obtuse. I’m not going to humour you when you’re being dishonest like this - they had ample opportunity and half a century. The SCOTUS can accept any case it deems fit, you’re not the arbiter of which cases get accepted and which ones don’t.

So nothing but deflection from you as usual. But you're right, it's besides the point as James Comey isn't the one having this conversation with me, you are. So what you still said in a whole lot of words is that you think Trump is innocent due to ignorance. You never denied it, you just tried to deflect it elsewhere.

It’s a standard nonetheless, and has been for years. You cannot unknowingly be a part of a conspiracy, a conspiracy is organised, and it falls on the prosecution to prove that such careful planning existed. In that sense yes, ignorance is a defense in regards to that specific charge - it’s the law.

You're completely full of shit. Trump's freedom of speech 100% crossed into violent or otherwise illegal action.

I seem to remember Trump saying the exact opposite publicly - he urged the J6 crowd to respect the law, not break it, to use one example. Not that this has anything to do with Georgia, or with the statement you’re quoting. If you have some specific statement in mind then you’ll have to quote it - Trump says a lot of things in public, he can’t go five minutes without organising some kind of rally or speech. The context seems to have eluded you since we weren’t talking about Trump at that time, but oh well.

 

[Xzi]

”There was never an opportunity”? Within the last *50 years*?

Correct. Every time Dems managed to win a slim majority, there was always a Republican plant among them like Lieberman, Manchin, or Sinema who would ensure the most important stuff doesn't get passed. As I said before, the scheme to overturn Roe was decades in the making. A legitimate SCOTUS would not play along with it.

The SCOTUS can accept any case it deems fit, you’re not the arbiter of which cases get accepted and which ones don’t.

Precisely, they have far too much autonomy for a body that's been blatantly politicized. For months there's been one corruption/bribery scandal after another coming to light, making it clear that Roberts is incapable of keeping his house in order. Perhaps Jack Smith is the perfect janitor to take out the trash on the bench after he's done with Trump. People need to be able to view these institutions as trustworthy once again.

 

[Foxi4]

Correct. Every time Dems managed to win a slim majority, there was always a Republican plant among them like Lieberman, Manchin, or Sinema who would ensure the most important stuff doesn't get passed. As I said before, the scheme to overturn Roe was decades in the making. A legitimate SCOTUS would not play along with it.

Precisely, they have far too much autonomy for a body that's been blatantly politicized. For months there's been one corruption/bribery scandal after another coming to light, making it clear that Roberts is incapable of keeping his house in order. Perhaps Jack Smith is the perfect janitor to take out the trash on the bench after he's done with Trump. People need to be able to view these institutions as trustworthy once again.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on both of these points then. I may fancy myself to be forever young at heart, but I’ve been on this spinning ball of mud for quite some time and I cannot recall one serious attempt to codify abortion rights on a federal level, let alone an attempt that was roadblocked in Congress. If it’s such a key issue to Democrats then you’d expect them to holler about it from the rooftops every day of the week. It seems to me that they knew it was going to be a difficult battle and instead of enacting the effort, they opted to offload that responsibility on the SCOTUS. Once this magic trick resulted in the roaring success they wanted, they sat on their laurels, only to later find out that the tables can turn rather quickly when the seating arrangement changes and they no longer have a stranglehold on the highest court of the land. They thought they were safe, so they did nothing - that’s the truth. Your objection comes across as petty. You should blame your representatives, they’re the ones who dropped the ball on this. “I liked the rules better when we were in charge” is not a good look.

 

[tabzer]

People need to be able to view these institutions as trustworthy once again.

The whole video is relevent but it's marked to start from 15:56, as it most relates to the above quote.