ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,313 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
Poor Tommy Eyerolls seems to be having a tough time regulating his emotions. Maybe take a little time out and stick to being confused about how time and news works.
-
Tommy Eyerolls continues with his usual script. When will he post an original thought? Who knows! He hasn't before
-
1
-
1
-
-
Looks like the video was posted by Natalie Harp, one of Trump's staffers.
Her job seems to mainly involve following Trump around with a battery powered printer so she can print out nice things about Trump and hand them to him to read. In case anyone is still doubting that Trump has fairly severe NPD, imagine how you would feel about a friend or family member hiring someone to follow them around and flatter them all day.
While the campaign has been spinning the video as created by a random account and reposted by Harp, it was actually created by a group that has worked with the Trump campaign in the past.
In the past, Trump and his campaign have actually provided feedback to the group to edit videos and have collaborated with them behind the scenes. There is no evidence that I'm aware of that the campaign collaborated on this specific video. Most likely, Harp just saw the video from people they regular repost and just reposted it not seeing the "Unified Reich" stuff.
For the record, I do not believe that Trump is a Nazi, considers himself a Nazi, or believes in the Nazi ideology. Unfortunately, the people who do fall into those buckets seem to be a big fan of his.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
So you're saying that if he declassified them first, it would still be a big deal? That NARA absolutely had to get these unclassified documents back within 2 years of Trump leaving Office, necessitating armed agents raiding MAL and allowed to used deadly force if necessary?
Look, it's apparent that a major reason why these people take this stuff is for memoirs later on, like Biden did for his $8M deal with the ghostwriter. Again what I care about is what was done with the information. If there's evidence he (or anyone else) used it for nefarious purposes, string them up.
But it appears that Smith and his cohorts have cocked this case up. And then there's Cannon to do her best Merchan.
He was. Did you see his poll numbers?
If he declassified them first, it would still be a big deal.There were national security documents within Trump’s cache. They tried to negotiate with him for almost a year. It was only after he had his people hide the documents from his own lawyer and the try to destroy the evidence of their actions that the warrant was issued.
This would be a slam dunk obvious move in any similar situation. Someone stole things, refused to return them, and then when they finally said the returned them, they were actually lying. How could you *not* execute a search warrant at that point?
Also, if what you truly cared about was what was done with the info, you wouldn’t bring up Biden since Hur said that none of the classified info ended up in the book or was documented in any discussions with the ghostwriters.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Doc said:
Because Pence wasn't a threat at all to Biden politically. If not a way to say "see, we don't have to charge every Republican!"
He "obstructed" because he felt that he was entitled to it because a President (and only a President) can declassify anything he wants. That's the difference between him and everyone else. Different rules for different people. If anything, everyone else should be charged and he shouldn't.
And again, for the millionth time, there's little difference between Trump not giving it back when asked for it versus Biden knowingly having it and keeping it for years. The spirit of the law is to prevent people from using it for nefarious purposes. Otherwise it's just a property crime.
Oh buddy. You still think whether or not the documents were classified impacts Trump’s right to retain them after his presidency?-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
Not false at all. Biden took classified information he never had any business having. He knowingly kept them. He kept them in a wholly insecure location. And he shared some with his ghostwriter. You can deny it all you want, but everyone, even daz28, knows it's true.
But he's senile and to charge someone with something you need to be absolutely sure you can get a guilty verdict. Because in the history of the US, there have never been any "not guilty" verdicts (apparently
).
Why didn’t they charge Pence?Why don’t they generally charge people who hand the documents over when asked?
What would happen if every single person who possessed illicit documents was charged regardless of how they came to possess them?
Deep down, you know the truth. You know that the only reason Trump was charged was because he obstructed the investigation but you cannot accept that the godking is fallible so you drive in circles demonstrating your lack of knowledge in fealty to your ideology.
-
8 minutes ago, Doc said:
No. What Biden did was worse. But I still wouldn't charge him (or Trump). They just have a raging hard on for Trump.
This is a significant divergence from the law and obviously false.
But that will never stop the cult!
-
If you’re trying to avoid a cult, I’d suggest avoiding the people whose opinion of their leader never changes no matter what he does…
-
9 minutes ago, Pokebball said:
blue shades
Truth hurts.
-
3 minutes ago, daz28 said:
No, but they are what we have to work with. The right has everyone thinking the judicial system is going rogue against them, but I'd argue they're finally just not sweeping everything under the rug anymore. If the final result is politicians being held accountable, I'm ok with that.
Nah, it’s actually that the criminality of the right at the moment is fairly unprecedented. Simply applying the law as it’s usually applied results in literally hundreds of MAGA people being prosecuted.
That then gets spun as bias by grifters and conmen as politicization instead of fairly straightforward enforcement of the law.
-
“If a very common thing was very common but I, a highly regarded expert had absolutely no clue and no ability to investigate or understand it to the extent that I confused boilerplate language with an assassination order, then why the hell does anyone think I know that the hell I’m doing?”
-Julie Kelly, the best and brightest legal mind on the right.
-
1 minute ago, daz28 said:
Is there a reason I'm not attending one right now? If the judge and grand jury felt that he was protected under the PRA, the case would already have been dismissed. In fact, if it were as clear as you're claiming, they wouldn't have even had an investigation.
Fun fact: Trump wasn’t charged under the PRA.-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, daz28 said:
That's not for you, me, Fox news, or trump's lawyers to decide. That's up to the courts who define and implement the laws.
What the Trump backers here seem to constantly forget (aside from all that obstruction) is that Trump had the right to the documents while president and his possession of them was illegal as of noon on Inauguration Day 2021.
Thankfully for Mr. Trump, the Feds treated him like others who had been in his position and just asked for the documents back.
Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, he took Tom Fitton’s advice instead of his attorney and decided to obstruct the Feds, resulting in him being charged.
-
2
-
-
9 minutes ago, Doc said:
And here's a daz28 classic once again. I've said all along either you charge both or you charge neither.
What’s cool about this is that they charged everyone who obstructed investigations and didn’t charge those who didn’t.
Easy peasy!
-
4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
https://www.energy.gov/ceser/history-spr-releases
We fill it up, we draw it down; we draw it down, we fill it up.
Treason!
Shhh! You’re not allowed to look anything up. Just believe the rage baiting talking heads.
Biden probably needs the sale from the oil to fund his assassination squads going after Trump.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
I guess it would depend on whether or not I made a claim, as you did, that is refuted by a spectrum of accomplished individuals.
You did a lot of typing today to end up at “maybe they didn’t read, maybe they are wish-casting”. One of us is most certainly a hack.
You put forth people you listen to asking me why they believe what they do even though I don’t have any knowledge of them.
I did my best to explain the nuances of this case and why people disagree.
You think this makes me a hack. I think it’s pretty clear that you’re not acting in good faith and are just searching for whatever confirms your priors. That, or your just incapable of understanding anything that isn’t black and white.
I agree that you are most certainly a hack.
-
7 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
This is hilarious. And desperate. Nice work counselor.
Good lord.
Let me ask you something, and I encourage you to answer honestly.
If I posted a long list of legal experts who agreed with me or were even more convinced of Trump’s guilt, would you provide evidence as to why they were wrong? Would you spend time explaining why they are all wrong?
Or are you just a hack?
-
7 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
Maybe we can try one more time and you can attempt to answer succinctly:
why are there so many accomplished legal people declaring that no “other crime” has been specified in the charging documents?
There’s no need to discuss the actual trial as you have done ad nauseam or pretend you have a higher knowledge of NYS law than any of these people 🙄. Let’s just stay with the charging documents you started with.
Maybe they haven’t read them. Maybe they are relying on how things work in jurisdictions other than NY. Maybe they know it’ll get them more attention. Maybe they are wishcasting.
Why don’t you call them up and ask if the prosecution’s allegations qualify for violation of federal election crimes or tax crimes?
The documents clearly identify the charges and also provide the elements for several other crimes.
You don’t have to believe that the prosecution is correct to acknowledge that they have documented their case.
There are also plenty of legal experts who don’t fall into the bucket that seems so convenient for you.
-
32 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
You’ve gone from “the crimes are all in the charging documents for anyone to read” to “it’s a matter of opinion built on imperfect information”. Hoo boy.
Nope. Not at all.
The crimes are all there in the charging documents.
Whether or not the prosecution has proved them is a matter of opinion.
-
26 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
And this reasoning is why you, posting on a message board read by 12 people that are ostensibly Buffalo Bills fans, are right and so many others of prominence are wrong. That’s all you had to say.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/05/gaping-hole-trump-indictment-00090701
This is where Bragg’s indictment has done a disservice to the public and to Trump himself. Beyond a general reference to a violation of “election laws” and a passing reference to taxes, the indictment and statement of facts do not specify what “other crimes” Trump allegedly intended to commit.
Another guy who is not up to your level of legal analysis.
I’m not claiming they are wrong. It’s a matter of opinion built on imperfect information.
I believe it is clear what other crimes the prosecution is looking to for the step up. It’s fairly well documented in their charging documents.
I believe the weakness of the case is whether or not they successfully convinced the jury of any of the step up crimes. I don’t think they hit it as hard as they should have, leaving doubt about whether not they met their burden.
-
29 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
In short, despite your earlier contention of being spelled out for all to see, the “other crime” is not specified.
The charges are literally spelled out. The elements of the step up crimes are also included the charging documents.
What you’re focusing on is an interpretation of one of the potential step up charges.
To say that we don’t know what Trump is charged with requires one to either ignore the charging documents or to ignore all of the potential step up crimes in favor of a specific interpretation of just one of the charges despite the fact that proof of attempt of literally *any* other crime is sufficient for the step up.
-
45 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
I notice you avoided my question altogether in favor of rambling on about the trial. You stated earlier that the crimes are in the charging documents for all to see. I listed but a few examples of accomplished people saying the “other crime” is not specified in the charges. There are many more examples. Even assuming you now know more about NY law than some of these people🙄 tell me why they are wrong and you are right.
Trump was charged with falsification of business records. That was stepped up from a misdemeanor to a felony based on the idea that it was committed to conceal another crime.
Reading through the charging documents, it seems fairly clear they are looking at federal election crimes, state election crimes, and tax crimes.
The people you are quoting are very focused on the state election crimes. I think they are pointing out a valid weakness in one of the particular state election laws.
To me, it’s been very clear that the easiest hurdle for the step up is federal election law. They got Pxcker to take a deal to avoid prosecution on federal election laws for almost the same facts.
The tax law violation is also pretty clear (Pxcker also plead to this) but I don’t think it’d really fly with a jury because it resulted in overpaying taxes. -
1 hour ago, JDHillFan said:
Right. I’m only paying attention to one or two. In this case Honig (Harvard/lead legal analyst CNN*) and Abrams (Columbia/lead legal analyst ABC*). I am not paying attention to any of:
G Germain - Syracuse LawAssociated Press - Manhattan prosecutors did not specify the other crime in Trump’s indictment and said in subsequent court papers that they “need not prove intent to commit or conceal a particular crime.”
Temple Law School website - The charges are for falsification of business records with intent to defraud and conceal another crime (the other crime or crimes are not specified).
So on and so forth. You stated earlier that the crimes are all in the charging documents for anyone to read. Do you have any thoughts on how these well-educated folks could be so wrong?
* reliable mainstream media
One of the reasons we have so many lawyers is that the law is often not very clear. Especially when a case gets to the point of a trial: if it was obvious, there likely would have been a settlement to avoid trial.
I think a lot of the skepticism of this case comes from an unfamiliarity of NYS law and practice. I was originally fairly skeptical of the case, but as it progressed and I learned more about how these charges have traditionally worked (including against politicians), the case seemed stronger to me. Most national law commentators are federal practitioners and would also be unfamiliar with practice in NYS.
Importantly, this trial is not being televised. So at best, people are making their opinions based on what other people are reporting. I try to find a mix of beat reporters who live tweet the case with minimal commentary and compare them to each other to get an idea of what is happening. However, even this leaves a glaring hole since I cannot tell how the jury is reacting at any point. This is especially underscored with Cohen's testimony. He's a problematic witness for the prosecution, which is why they tried to buffer his testimony ahead of time through other witnesses and draw the sting before cross. Did it work? I cannot say. I was not there watching the jury's reactions.
That also means that commentary about the case is generally based on reports about the case instead of directly from the courtroom. The margin for error there seems pretty large since it's people giving an opinion based on what someone else is saying happened. If anyone is telling you the jury is "definitely" going to do this or that, it's a good sign that you should ignore them.
Ultimately, from what I can tell, the prosecution has put on a very strong case for the misdemeanor falsification charges but the step up to felony isn't quite as strong. They've outlined some of the potential violations of law and motives, but I think they'll need to have a very good closing statement to tie everything together neatly. And even then, it depends on how the jury viewed the witnesses. There are clear laws we can point to that would support the step up, but I do not know if the prosecution has brought the jury along on them.
tl;dr: These cases are rarely very clear and very few of us are working with direct knowledge and experience with the practice in Manhattan.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I’d say about the same. I think Brady having a full offseason to prep will improve the offensive scheme but the WR room as it currently stands is a drop off from last year.
OC environment: Better
WR room: Worse
Net: Probably around the same
Trump stole top secret nuclear docs - greatest security risk in US history - MORE TAPES!!!
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Do you believe that the President of the United States can designate any document they want as a personal record?