News from the Club.
- Thread starter Rockport Zebra
- Start date
Fight like hell is a well worn phrase that means work hard. You know that. All the banal metaphors Trump used are used in every day language all the time and by politicians. Suggesting that Trump of all people was so smart as to be Jedi mind tricking the crowd into breaking into the Capitol just doesn’t make sense to me.
It’s a shame Jack Smith didn’t charge him with that then even though it’s what the little clown committee recommended.
You’re very late to the game on Johnson.
Re Trump, you have to be consistent. If he’s a ranting narcissist, who doesn’t really pay much attention to the damage he might cause with his words (see the voluminous Tweeting history for actual evidence of this), then you have to apply that characterization here. I just don’t buy Trump as the type who can “plan” a “sophisticated” coup. It wasn’t really in him.
He tried a ham fisted, stupid legal strategy and it was soundly rejected by the judiciary and Congress. When it didn’t work, he raged, pouted, and got a bunch of people riled up about it not being fair.
I get looking into it to see if what he did crossed the line into illegal behavior, given the results. But, again, if it was so clearly a planned insurrection, after years of investigation, why isn’t the Biden/Garland DOJ even charging him with that? Why didn’t Jack Smith?
It was off the cuff like everything trump does. He didn’t plan anything. Like blurting out bleach. Truthfully he isn’t fit to be president. The problem is neither is the other guy
thankfully this board does not represent the US presidential electorate in the slightest but it's amazing how even moderate-seeming posters will carry some water for Trump. here, at least, being middle of the road means finding equivalencies where none can possibly exist. it's an ugly ritual but we've been rioting in the US since we were a country. for all kinds of reasons, like taxes, race, unions, wars, and even college football games. what we didn't have a tradition of was our losing presidential candidates asking their followers to stop a provably fair election. first time EVAR! and now some would have us believe it's the new normal, like race riots. just the cost of doing business. insane.
I guess that depends. Is thinking the earth is round merely a "belief" or is it a fact? At some point something is so blatantly obvious that in order for it to be a "belief", it would require entertaining illogical thinking to the contrary. I don't have the time nor the patience to live in a land of make-believe.
Ok.
So are Biden, Garland, and Jack Smith living in a land of make believe? Are they Trump dupes, too? Are they just incredibly incompetent? How do you square this circle?
It's not about Jedi mind tricks. Trump is a simpleton and those "banal metaphors" were used because the Jan 6th rioters have openly said they took those exact words as a call to arms. Don't take it from me, take it directly from them! There is no plausible defense to his case.
You're going to need to provide a little more information around what you're implying. What are they incredibly incompetent about exactly? Biden is old AF, and needs to move on. He very well may be living in a land of make-believe. As for the other two, I am going to need more context on your implications in order to understand your question.
You've now shifted the argument from (1) Trump using words to intentionally beseech the crowd to break into the Capitol building to (2) the crowd interpreting Trump's words as a "call to arms." Those two aren't identical and mobs aren't rational. (Yes, Trump is responsible for a mob being there in the first place and he certainly planned that demonstration).
As for the phrase, "call to arms" it can also mean nonviolent means--proving my original point about Trump's use of well-worn phrases that shouldn't necessarily be taken literally:
call to arms
1: a summons to engage in active hostilities
2
: a summons, invitation, or appeal to undertake a particular course of action
a political call to arms
You think it is as plain as the earth is round that Trump engaged in and encouraged insurrection. That is a federal crime. If convicted of it, Trump would beyond doubt be barred from holding the Presidency again.
So why hasn't DOJ charged him with that?
As someone who works in law, the answer to that is actually quite simple.
In the judicial system, you often find prosecutors will charge a criminal with a lower-level crime beyond what may be obvious simply because it's a defense attorneys' job to muddy the waters with meaningless drivel, such as you're providing. In doing so, a human jury is a wild card and with a high-level charge and subsequent penalty, someone in the jury may be more apt to use that that illogical reasoning to assume there could be a shadow of a doubt. Therefore, to protect against that from happening, prosecutors go with a lower-level charge they confidently feel they can prove without a shadow of a doubt, simply because it's much easier to convict.
Thank god we have you "someone who works in the law" to explain such nuances to us.
What an odd phrasing. You a stenographer? Custodian at a law firm?
What? You do realize that logic you outlined goes both ways, right?
You can't proclaim him to be an unintelligent and oblivious narcissist, yet also somehow be a great president. At the same time, if he somehow is intelligent and knowingly coercing his disciples into doing these things, then he's obviously a diabolical and crazed sociopath. According to you, it's one or the other.
So which one is he to you?
The opposite is actually true. They overcharge so they can broker a plea and ensure convictions and their success rate
Neither. I'm actually in legal technology. I own a software company that I helped create and design which attorneys utilize to help them in every facet of law. From contract drafting, funding litigation via our vendor management tool, to utilizing AI resources to help develop defense and prosecuting theories for cases and even predict outcomes with a very high success rate.... amongst many other things.
But please, do carry on.....
That is merely a strategy often utilized when you have multiple people being charged simultaneously. In doing so, the tactic is to get one defendant to become a witness against the others. Especially when the evidence is overbearing. In a case like this, you set yourself up for losing the case by overcharging.
Uh no. It’s routinely done in cases with an individual defendant
What you're referencing are low level crimes where a cop may nab someone in a high-speed chase and then hit him with as many charges as possible knowing he has evidence to back them, but the jury isn't likely to convict them of all of them. To that, as you indicated, they're looking for plea deals knowing the criminal is going to have soft defense, likely with a part-time public defender.
What we're talking about here is quite different. I don't think DJT will have a public defender assigned to him.
I’m talking about felony classes as well. The trump case is anomalous in every way
Right, but like in the state of IN there are 7 categories of felonies. Wobblers, or level 1 felonies, can often be reduced down to misdemeanors.
Of course. That’s why they overcharge. There’s room to bargain a plea. State court is a different animal. That’s how they manage caseloads and ensure high conviction rates
He’s not a shyster. He’s in litigation funding. Smart. That’s better
Smith wanted this case to be quick and relatively uncomplicated. A charge of insurrection would have introduced 1A issues. Also, insurrection has rarely been criminally charged. The conspiracy counts, on the hand, have been oft-tested.
I think he had planned with several people in his administration, Mark Meadows, Steve Bannon, and several others for this to happen for several weeks According to Cassidy Hutchinson, no one was surprised.
That you don't like my arguments doesn't make them "meaningless drivel." Try using that language in your next brief and let us know how the judges treat that exaggeration.
As for "muddying the waters," how can one muddy the waters on something you described as being as obvious as the Earth being round? How many prosecutors do you know who would fear trying to prove a fact so obvious in court? Perhaps, you were engaging in a bit of hyperbole and didn't really mean to be taken literally (like Trump)?
As for the lower-level charge stuff, That seems unlikely given this administration's description of Trump as a "threat to democracy." But if it is so simple, what is your expert legal opinion on exactly how the insurrection charge is harder to prove than what Smith has already charged? What element, specifically, carries a higher burden? Of course, by arguing that, you've made my point--the evidence regarding Trump's alleged insurrection is weak--weak enough Smith doesn't think he can win.
You also must know of the phenomenon called "overcharging," where a prosecutor actually charges more than they think they might be able to prove in the hopes the defendant will either settle it out rather than face that risk or to give the jury a way to split the baby and deliver a middle-of-the-road finding that still nails the defendant. Why wouldn't Smith do that here if Trump is such a danger to democracy?
Perhaps you could point to the post where I described Trump as "a great president?"
It isn't hard to prove the Earth is round, Zeke. Not at all.
That's just your opinion, man.
They’re really going to have trouble as it sounds like we MAY have found alien life
I honestly don't dislike your "arguments", because they're not arguments. Their just meaningless statements that have nothing backing them up. Just because you hold up a DJT foam finger as you make hyperbolic statements as opposed to fact-based evidence, doesn't preclude your statements from still being meaningless drivel. Secondarily, as I said before, I'm not an acting attorney, I merely work alongside of them to help make their firms more profitable.
Secondarily, I already clarified how one would muddy the waters. Some imbeciles still pretend there's an argument to be made that the earth is flat, do they not? Ok, so even though we are absolutely certain that is NOT the case, said imbeciles try to muddy the waters with meaningless and often incoherent justifications. So, much in the same manner we clearly understand the crimes committed by DJT, there are people, much like yourself, who enjoy playing in this land of make-believe and somehow give credence without evidence that DJT was unaware he was a pied piper and since he himself wasn't the first one marching in, this is some political witch hunt. You see how throwing out baseless reasoning can muddy the waters? That is why Smith aims just high enough to give his charge the best chance of going through successfully while also making sure the charges on the table will likely put an end to his ability to danger democracy going forward. It's really not as difficult as you're making it out to be.
Also, those concerns that Trump is a threat to democracy isn't some forward thinking concept that perpetuates fear in the same cesspool Trump thrives in. He's already eroded our democracy so it doesn't take a genius to understand the additional damage he would do beyond what has already been done. As we say this, he is still pushing out lies and propaganda every day that questions the validity of our democracy. Right? Is pushing out lies to the public about the very foundation of which our democracy lies, of any concern to you?
Lastly, I already covered the overcharging. Read back to obtain your answer.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza- Latest: Marvin the Martian