• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Deeply Fractured US

I'm no legal eagle so I'll assume you're correct. My question is, why do people continue to tie their horse to this particular post? Several people in his entourage are now admitting to crimes against the democratic process. Is it really that conceivable that these individuals all did this of their own initative, and that the person to whom they are all subservient was somehow unaware of their actions? When is there enough smoke that we can admit that something's on fire?
 
brihard said:
Given that this entire part of the discussion is about criminal prosecutions, yes it is, in every way that matters, subject to the limitations I described. A conviction via guilty plea constitutes something being proven in court. It’s a conviction every bit as meaningful and consequential in every way as one delivered by a jury or a judge.
Click to expand...
I have no idea where you get that from, unless it's just a particular contruct - "proof in court". A process of proof that actually matters is one in which facts (premises) are established, compared to the law (argued), and judged (conclusion drawn). The existence of a criminal conspiracy isn't "cemented" because one or more people cop a plea. All that can be concluded from plea deals is that the people charged thought it was their best option.

When dealing with US jurisprudence, it's important not to overstate the meaning of a plea deal.
 
shiska said:
I'm no legal eagle so I'll assume you're correct. My question is, why do people continue to tie their horse to this particular post? Several people in his entourage are now admitting to crimes against the democratic process. Is it really that conceivable that these individuals all did this of their own initative, and that the person to whom they are all subservient was somehow unaware of their actions? When is there enough smoke that we can admit that something's on fire?
Click to expand...
Why is his support going up? I guess it's largely viewed that this is a political witch hunt and illegitimate. Recent history (russia collusion) demonstrates the institutions are not above this malfeasance and the US has a history of acting badly when it comes to presidential politics.

Look at the JFK Warren Commission... a member of the commission was a former head of the CIA fired by JFK for doing things without the approval or knowledge of POTUS... there are enough questions about that whole shit show and that's the guy they put on to help clear the air?
 
Fishbone Jones said:
Trump is innocent until proven guilty by the courts. Just because someone else flips and pleads guilty, whether true, false or to get a better deal, is not on Trump. Not until he has his day and his attorneys have a chance to exonerate him and question the floppers allegations in open court. Until his judgement comes down, his involvement into whatever they, the media and the prosecution say, is only alleged. Otherwise, as you contend, Trump needs no trial. Get a bunch of floppers to say he's guilty and it's all done.
Click to expand...

The only context in which I’ve mentioned Trump is that three of the guilty pleas so far come from his legal team. As you say, he is innocent until proven guilty, and nobody here has said otherwise. I have not contended what you claim I contend, so please don’t lie about it.

You’ve told us before that you wouldn’t accept the legitimacy of a conviction of Trump given your beliefs about the US justice system, so you don’t get to enjoy a presumption that you’ve re-entered this discussion in good faith. Have you since changed your position on this, at least with regards to the jury and state level charges in Georgia?
 
shiska said:
I'm no legal eagle so I'll assume you're correct. My question is, why do people continue to tie their horse to this particular post? Several people in his entourage are now admitting to crimes against the democratic process. Is it really that conceivable that these individuals all did this of their own initative, and that the person to whom they are all subservient was somehow unaware of their actions? When is there enough smoke that we can admit that something's on fire?
Click to expand...

He's a symptom of a portion of the US public who are fed up with the way the system is working.

I don't even think they give a shit about his policies or behavior, I think they hate system so much they will vote for who the system hates, and that is Trump.

Trump isn't the cause or the reason, he is just a symptom.
 
brihard said:
The only context in which I’ve mentioned Trump is that three of the guilty pleas so far come from his legal team. As you say, he is innocent until proven guilty, and nobody here has said otherwise. I have not contended what you claim I contend, so please don’t lie about it.

You’ve told us before that you wouldn’t accept the legitimacy of a conviction of Trump given your beliefs about the US justice system, so you don’t get to enjoy a presumption that you’ve re-entered this discussion in good faith. Have you since changed your position on this, at least with regards to the jury and state level charges in Georgia?
Click to expand...
What I think has no bearing on what you imply. Don't keep dropping back on some point I made awhile ago. You do this quite often. Everytime you seem jammed up, you try shift the conversation back to me personally. Try to change the channel. What I've said along is is that I won't accept a verdict until all appeals and procedures have been dealt with. So please, don't lie about it. I can enjoy whatever stance I want. I don't need your approval or permission. Only a fool would take, at face value, the verdict of a biased judge and hostile prosecutor. Sometimes people that are entrusted to apply the law equally and fairly, don't. They are just too overzealous and willing to short circuit investigations, abrogate personal rights and freedoms of the accused, in haste to get a conviction and a feather in their hat. That's why there is an appeal process that allows higher authority to chastise, admonish and debunk sloppy investigations and lower rulings.

Are you going to crow like a rooster when he’s convicted at state level and dance your little jig? Or will you put your celebration on hold until the the process is exhausted?
 
Lots of analysis out there suggesting Trump will likely get convicted at a lower court that later gets overturned at a higher one. The obvious goal has always been to damage Trump electorally, that has been going on since he came down the escalator.
 
QV said:
Lots of analysis out there suggesting Trump will likely get convicted at a lower court that later gets overturned at a higher one. The obvious goal has always been to damage Trump electorally, that has been going on since he came down the escalator.
Click to expand...
Trumps going to get convicted in a number of courts.
Secondly you can't just appeal a conviction because you didn't like the verdict.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
What I think has no bearing on what you imply. Don't keep dropping back on some point I made awhile ago.
Click to expand...

Nope, you staked out a position that has considerable bearing on how I and others should see your involvement in this discussion. The occasional reminder of that is useful.

Fishbone Jones said:
You do this quite often. Everytime you seem jammed up, you try shift the conversation back to me personally. Try to change the channel. What I've said along is is that I won't accept a verdict until all appeals and procedures have been dealt with. So please, don't lie about it.
Click to expand...

That’s not what you said, actually. Your own words previously:

Fishbone Jones said:
Will I accept the verdict? Not if it comes down like the democrat lawyer, Sussman, that was brought up on charges of lying to the FBI, last May. That should have been a slam dunk with the prosecution making their case. Overseen by an obama appointed judge whose pretrial instructions hamstrung the prosecution. The biased, partisan, Washington DC hard democrat jury found him not guilty in ten minutes. 90% of DC are hard democrat. You can't believe in a system with such a blatant disregard for the rule of law.
Click to expand...

As for ‘jammed up’, not sure what you imagine that to be. I’ve made a few very cautious and considered predictions, and have a good batting average so far, but that’s about it.

So, what you last gave us to work with is that the legitimacy of a conviction, to you, in part rests on your perceptions about the political affiliation of the judge and jury. You’ve yet to reverse yourself on that, although I’ll concede that your thinking looks to have matured slightly at least to the point of accepting the end result of all appeals once they reach their finality. Credit to you for that I guess?


Fishbone Jones said:
I can enjoy whatever stance I want. I don't need your approval or permission. Only a fool would take, at face value, the verdict of a biased judge and hostile prosecutor. Sometimes people that are entrusted to apply the law equally and fairly, don't. They are just too overzealous and willing to short circuit investigations, abrogate personal rights and freedoms of the accused, in haste to get a conviction and a feather in their hat. That's why there is an appeal process that allows higher authority to chastise, admonish and debunk sloppy investigations and lower rulings.
Click to expand...

You’re conveniently ignoring the role of the jury, but I guess you did speak to that previously.

Fishbone Jones said:
Are you going to crow like a rooster when he’s convicted at state level and dance your little jig? Or will you put your celebration on hold until the the process is exhausted?
Click to expand...

Why would I celebrate that? If Trump (I assume you mean Trump) is convicted of any of this stuff, that means the President of the United States has been convicted for essentially betraying and subverting America’s democratic institutions. That would be awful. That such subversion happened is very obvious at this point, but of course I don’t want it to, nor would I celebrate, that rising all the way to the level of the head of state. Celebrating that only makes sense if you’re a partisan hack. It’s something to lament. At most I’d take solace in knowing that there’s some semblance of accountability, and a formal legal finding about what actually happened and who’s responsible. But no, I won’t be ‘dancing a jig’ or ‘crowing’ in that event. Damage to national institutions, national security, and democratic norms is a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
Lumber said:
What a f***ing shit show.

Emmer out!

House GOP spirals into chaos as Emmer becomes third speaker nominee dropped in three weeks
Click to expand...
Stasis, maybe.

Don't know what the fuss is about. If having a House Speaker is important to America, Democrats have the power to get one of the Republican nominees across the finish line. They aren't doing that; ergo, it's not important - at least, not as important as whatever political advantage Democrats believe they are pursuing.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Stasis, maybe.

Don't know what the fuss is about. If having a House Speaker is important to America, Democrats have the power to get one of the Republican nominees across the finish line. They aren't doing that; ergo, it's not important - at least, not as important as whatever political advantage Democrats believe they are pursuing.
Click to expand...
The fuss is that the GOP house is un-cohesive, leaderless mess.

This has nothing to do with the Dems.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Stasis, maybe.

Don't know what the fuss is about. If having a House Speaker is important to America, Democrats have the power to get one of the Republican nominees across the finish line. They aren't doing that; ergo, it's not important - at least, not as important as whatever political advantage Democrats believe they are pursuing.
Click to expand...
Or vice versa if Republicans would pick a non fucktard and reach across the aisle…

Right now Trump is scuttling anyone who isn’t a moron, and the non moron Republicans are scuttling his agenda.

Eventually enough will sober up and find a middle ground.
 
dapaterson said:
Hypothetical question: If I hire a lawyer, and then later deny that I ever engaged them as my lawyer, does that mean I've waived solicitor-client privilege? Asking for a dude in NYC.
Click to expand...
He didn’t think that far ahead.
 
Lumber said:
The fuss is that the GOP house is un-cohesive, leaderless mess.

This has nothing to do with the Dems.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don’t see how it’s up to the Dems to unfuck the Republicans. It would be like a majority Liberal government being unable to pass a budget. Would the Tories help out a faction of the Liberal caucus or would they grab the popcorn and enjoy the show?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
    • Insightful
    • Like
Analysis of US Wishlists 2025
Replies
0
Views
879
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Departmental Results Report 2022-2023
Replies
2
Views
5K
daftandbarmy
daftandbarmy
Kirkhill
    • Like
US National Guard
Replies
3
Views
3K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
daftandbarmy
Digital government: how are we doing?
Replies
5
Views
8K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
Kirkhill
Hybrid Electric Vehicles
18 19 20
Replies
393
Views
143K
OldSolduer
OldSolduer
Back
Top