Criminal Charges Against Trump - Page 16

eerok · 22nd March 2021, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Interesting defense... claim that you are innocent of defamation by claiming you lied to the courts.

(After all, her claims that the Dominion voting machines were rigged appeared in more than just the media... it was part of her lawsuit over the Georgia election.)

The argument is more like politically-motivated lies are protected speech. But yeah, that's supposed to extend to statements made in court. Sounds pretty sketchy.

Minoosh · 22nd March 2021, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Did you miss the whole trying to stop a legit POTUS being sworn in? Inciting a riot? Trying to pressure Georgia election officials into throwing the election in his favor?

Trump gives himself enough weasel room to introduce doubt, and that has worked in his favor so far. His communication style makes it difficult to even quote him directly. So it's that much harder to say a threat was made, or a bribe offered, etc. Did he intend for his fans to break into Congress and force an evacuation? IMO that's a pretty high bar and I'm not sure the government can prove it.

Similar argument about Georgia. I'm not sure that's a provable crime. But I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

And who cares that Trump will call it a witch hunt? That's a given no matter what.

You got me there

Skeptic Ginger · 22nd March 2021, 05:31 PM

I happen to believe, yes, Trump has wiggled out of a lot of crimes, but he's too far out in the open now to get away with it.

We'll see.

smartcooky · 22nd March 2021, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Interesting defense... claim that you are innocent of defamation by claiming you lied to the courts.

(After all, her claims that the Dominion voting machines were rigged appeared in more than just the media... it was part of her lawsuit over the Georgia election.)

If she is now admitting to lying in court, under oath, that should result in

1. Immediate disbarment.
2. Immediate arrest pending trial for perjury.

smartcooky · 22nd March 2021, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Trump gives himself enough weasel room to introduce doubt, and that has worked in his favor so far. His communication style makes it difficult to even quote him directly. So it's that much harder to say a threat was made, or a bribe offered, etc. Did he intend for his fans to break into Congress and force an evacuation? IMO that's a pretty high bar and I'm not sure the government can prove it.

I could possibly see a prosecutor turning the tables here and using Fox News' (and now Sydney Powell's) tactic...

"No reasonable person could have understood Trump's words to mean anything other than a call to storm the capital and stop the counting of EC votes" After all, the whole event was literally called "Stop The Steal"

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Similar argument about Georgia. I'm not sure that's a provable crime. But I'd be very happy to be proven wrong.
You got me there

Georgia's case is much firmer. Trump asked Brad Raffensperger to find the exact number of votes to win, and implied that there would be consequences if he failed.

Norman Alexander · 22nd March 2021, 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

If she is now admitting to lying in court, under oath, that should resaut in

1. Immediate disbarrment.
2. Her immediate arrest pending trial for perjury.

Her arrest needs to be on the nightly TV news. And it would be hilarious!

alfaniner · 22nd March 2021, 05:58 PM

I hope some charges are made and can stick before he gets his media empire off the ground. All he has to do is start it. It will take on a life of its own. In fact, it would probably manage better if he kept his mittens off of it after the debut.

dirtywick · 22nd March 2021, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by eerok

It probably belongs more properly in the Trump's Coup thread, but here's more on it:

Sidney Powell Tells Judge ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Believe Her Dominion Conspiracy Theories Were ‘Statements of Fact’ [lawandcrime.com]

Ah, the Tucker "I lie too often to be taken seriously" Carlson defense.

Norman Alexander · 22nd March 2021, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by alfaniner

I hope some charges are made and can stick before he gets his media empire off the ground. All he has to do is start it. It will take on a life of its own. In fact, it would probably manage better if he kept his mittens off of it after the debut.

Oh, there are plans afoot to help it sink without trace as it comes off the launching slide.

dirtywick · 22nd March 2021, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I could possibly see a prosecutor turning the tables here and using Fox News' (and now Sydney Powell's) tactic...

"No reasonable person could have understood Trump's words to mean anything other than a call to storm the capital and stop the counting of EC votes" After all, the whole event was literally called "Stop The Steal"

Georgia's case is much firmer. Trump asked Brad Raffensperger to find the exact number of votes to win, and implied that there would be consequences if he failed.

I think a reasonable person knows exactly what he meant in that call. An unreasonable person would think he needs to explicitly say what he meant or it doesn't count.

Minoosh · 22nd March 2021, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Why should Trump have been treated better than Cohen? Both engaged in the same crime... if Cohen was punished for it, so should Trump.

Authorities had tons of evidence against Cohen, who was falling all over himself to provide it. They don't have nearly as much against Trump. For starters, Trump hasn't pleaded guilty to 8 felonies, or put himself under oath.

smartcooky · 22nd March 2021, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Authorities had tons of evidence against Cohen, who was falling all over himself to provide it. They don't have nearly as much against Trump. For starters, Trump hasn't pleaded guilty to 8 felonies, or put himself under oath.

His signature was on the ******* cheque for Christ's sake! That alone would get ANYONE else indicted, charged and convicted. Don't believe me? Try contracting someone to carry out a criminal act on your behalf, then personally sign then cheque, then have someone take the cleared cheque to the Police and report you.

Here's the thing. Mob bosses like Carmine Tramunti, John Gotti and Tony Corello were all convicted for crimes they didn't personally commit; crimes that they told others to commit. All that was needed to get them were witnesses willing to testify that they were told to commit those crimes.

The Trump Family are a mob family; DJ Trump himself is the Mob Boss. There is no reason why Cohen's testimony shouldn't put him away.

ETA: https://fortune.com/2018/12/07/feds-...paign-finance/

Attorneys from the Southern District of New York state explicitly in the court filing that Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1” in handling payments to two women who claimed to have an affair with Trump long before the election. Trump is identified in this and other filings by U.S. attorneys as “Individual-1,” who “was elected President.”

Were it not for the DoJ's OLM memo as regards indicting a sitting president, this would have led directly to an indictment against Trump for a campaign finance violation, a Federal criminal offense - in other words, anyone else would have been indicted and charged for the commission of a crime.

ponderingturtle · 23rd March 2021, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Authorities had tons of evidence against Cohen, who was falling all over himself to provide it. They don't have nearly as much against Trump. For starters, Trump hasn't pleaded guilty to 8 felonies, or put himself under oath.

Exactly individual 1 could be anyone!

Squeegee Beckenheim · 23rd March 2021, 10:34 AM

It's an odd one. Powell's defence attorneys are simultaneously saying that no reasonable person could have believed her claims were true, *and* that they were the facts on which she based her lawsuits.

MRC_Hans · 23rd March 2021, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

It's an odd one. Powell's defence attorneys are simultaneously saying that no reasonable person could have believed her claims were true, *and* that they were the facts on which she based her lawsuits.

Well essentially, the two claims are not contradicting. Together they do, however, imply that her lawsuits were baseless.

Hans

Squeegee Beckenheim · 23rd March 2021, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Well essentially, the two claims are not contradicting.

How are they not? Unless you're suggesting that they are suggesting she's an unreasonable person, which would definitely be an odd defence.

Mojo · 23rd March 2021, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by eerok

It probably belongs more properly in the Trump's Coup thread, but here's more on it:

Sidney Powell Tells Judge ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Believe Her Dominion Conspiracy Theories Were ‘Statements of Fact’ [lawandcrime.com]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Interesting defense... claim that you are innocent of defamation by claiming you lied to the courts.

(After all, her claims that the Dominion voting machines were rigged appeared in more than just the media... it was part of her lawsuit over the Georgia election.)

More coverage from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-fraud-claims

Quote:

In her defense against the Dominion defamation lawsuit, Powell argued that whatever “reasonable persons” thought of her wild claims, Dominion had failed to demonstrate that she herself thought them to be false as she spoke them – a key distinction in defamation cases.

“In fact,” Powell’s motion reads, “she believed the allegations then and she believes them now.”

dirtywick · 23rd March 2021, 12:09 PM

what reasonable person would call me reasonable

Ladewig · 23rd March 2021, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I could possibly see a prosecutor turning the tables here and using Fox News' (and now Sydney Powell's) tactic...

"No reasonable person could have understood Trump's words to mean anything other than a call to storm the capital and stop the counting of EC votes" After all, the whole event was literally called "Stop The Steal"

Georgia's case is much firmer. Trump asked Brad Raffensperger to find the exact number of votes to win, and implied that there would be consequences if he failed.

IANAL, but the statute i read says that a threat or inducement is not necessary. Simply asking an election official to produce a different outcome is illegal - even if the election official takes no action to change the result.

MRC_Hans · 23rd March 2021, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

How are they not? Unless you're suggesting that they are suggesting she's an unreasonable person, which would definitely be an odd defence.

Well, that was sort of my point.

Hans

eerok · 23rd March 2021, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Mojo

More coverage from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-fraud-claims

Quote:

In her defense against the Dominion defamation lawsuit, Powell argued that whatever “reasonable persons” thought of her wild claims, Dominion had failed to demonstrate that she herself thought them to be false as she spoke them – a key distinction in defamation cases.

“In fact,” Powell’s motion reads, “she believed the allegations then and she believes them now.”

So no reasonable person would believe her statements, but she does. Hmm.

Skeptic Ginger · 23rd March 2021, 01:00 PM

No reasonable person, I can go with that. There was a substantial portion of 74 million Americans that fit that category.

DevilsAdvocate · 24th March 2021, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by eerok

The argument is more like politically-motivated lies are protected speech. But yeah, that's supposed to extend to statements made in court. Sounds pretty sketchy.

That is correct. Powell is not arguing that no reasonable person would believe her statements. She isn't claiming that this was parody or satire like in Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell. Or that this for the purpose of entertainment.

Powell is arguing that a reasonable person would not consider her statements to be fact, but rather opinion. The courts allow a fair amount of leeway for political rhetoric.

If a sports writer says a running back murdered the opposing team's offensive linemen, that is not understood to be an accusation of criminal murder but rather a figure of speech. If a political candidate says their opponent is a corrupt criminal who has committed every illegal act under the sun, that is understood to be hyperbolic political rhetoric. In that context, statements that are figures of speech or are vague or hyperbolic or political rhetoric are understood to be mud slinging opinions rather than rock solid statements of fact.

That does not appear to apply to Powell's case. She isn't a politician. Her accusations were not against another politician. In fact, Dominion, by the nature of its work, must be politically neutral. Her statements were not vague. She made very specific claims. They were not hyperbolic. They were not political rhetoric. She made the claims within a context where she expected the statements to be believed and provided information intended to be evidence supporting those claims.

It is not whether a reasonable person would believe the claims, only whether a reasonable person would believe the claims are facts or opinion.

Mongrel · 24th March 2021, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

That does not appear to apply to Powell's case. She isn't a politician. Her accusations were not against another politician. In fact, Dominion, by the nature of its work, must be politically neutral. Her statements were not vague. She made very specific claims. They were not hyperbolic. They were not political rhetoric. She made the claims within a context where she expected the statements to be believed and provided information intended to be evidence supporting those claims.

And she was speaking with the authority of a lawyer.

The other people who've used this argument have been media personalities first and foremost, even if Fox deliberately blur the lines between what's a news show & what isn't.

Norman Alexander · 24th March 2021, 03:21 AM

She made the statements as a basis for a number of suits in a high courts of law on behalf of the President of the USA. That's no small claims or traffic court stuff. Nor is it Judge Judy made-for-crappy-TV-drama stuff. And I suspect even Judy Sheindlin would not allow that sort of play-for-the-cameras **** in her court.

So if Powell is now saying those statements she made previously were just "LOL Psyche! Gotcha!" then surely there must be penalties for her as a lawyer. Like disbarment if not jail.

eerok · 24th March 2021, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate

Her statements were not vague. She made very specific claims. They were not hyperbolic. They were not political rhetoric. She made the claims within a context where she expected the statements to be believed and provided information intended to be evidence supporting those claims.

That's it, but apparently she's going to flail around with arguments that skirt these facts. The other thing is whether she's off the hook for truly believing her nonsense, but I think it's relevant that she had no decent evidence to support her claims. I don't think there's an insanity defence for defamation cases.

Minoosh · 24th March 2021, 09:11 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

His signature was on the ******* cheque for Christ's sake! That alone would get ANYONE else indicted, charged and convicted. Don't believe me? Try contracting someone to carry out a criminal act on your behalf, then personally sign then cheque, then have someone take the cleared cheque to the Police and report you.

Here's the thing. Mob bosses like Carmine Tramunti, John Gotti and Tony Corello were all convicted for crimes they didn't personally commit; crimes that they told others to commit. All that was needed to get them were witnesses willing to testify that they were told to commit those crimes.

The Trump Family are a mob family; DJ Trump himself is the Mob Boss. There is no reason why Cohen's testimony shouldn't put him away.

ETA: https://fortune.com/2018/12/07/feds-...paign-finance/

Attorneys from the Southern District of New York state explicitly in the court filing that Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1” in handling payments to two women who claimed to have an affair with Trump long before the election. Trump is identified in this and other filings by U.S. attorneys as “Individual-1,” who “was elected President.”

Were it not for the DoJ's OLM memo as regards indicting a sitting president, this would have led directly to an indictment against Trump for a campaign finance violation, a Federal criminal offense - in other words, anyone else would have been indicted and charged for the commission of a crime.

For giving an old flame $130K to keep her mouth shut? It's chicken****. If he really is a Mob boss get genuine racketeering charges against him.

Cohen mystifies me. It doesn't seem to me like he even saved his own skin.

Minoosh · 24th March 2021, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Exactly individual 1 could be anyone!

I don't think very many people care. I don't, and I can't stand Trump.

smartcooky · 24th March 2021, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

For giving an old flame $130K to keep her mouth shut.....

You missed out this really important bit

"....because it might affect his chances of winning a presidential election!"

If you pay someone (in other words, bribe them) to not say things that might otherwise affect you in a campaign for election to public office ie. - buy their silence, that is a Federal crime under 52 USC § 301— FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, and the punishments can be severe.

Quote:

52 USC § 30109
(d) Penalties; defenses; mitigation of offenses
(1)
(A) Any person who knowingly and wilfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure—
(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or

Originally Posted by Minoosh

It's chicken****

Potentially five years in the Federal slammer is not chicken ****. He'll be 75 in June, if he was jailed and served the full term, that means he'd be at least 80 when he got out. It could kill him given how unfit and how old he is.

But best of all, if he was in the slammer, he'd be muzzled and out of politics - you cant run for the presidency from jail.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

If he really is a Mob boss get genuine racketeering charges against him.

Both things can and should happen.

If I was prosecuting him, I would not want other prosecutors to drop their cases, or litigants to drop their lawsuits. I would want to him to keep having to look over his shoulder, knowing that if he skates on one of the sets of charges or lawsuits, there are other charges or lawsuits awaiting him. Keep the legal pressure on him 24/7/365, and the lawsuits too. I want to see this vile asshat spend the rest if his miserable life in jail or at least being a defendant.

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Cohen mystifies me. It doesn't seem to me like he even saved his own skin.

He's no mystery to me - I know exactly what he did, and why he did it. He knew that the Feds had him dead to rights, and the if he fought them he would almost certain lose, and spend a LOT of time in jail. I'm betting his lawyers told him his best bet was to admit guilt, and co-operate - give up Trump. Its what I would have done in his position, and what I would have advised him to do if I was his lawyer.

Skeptic Ginger · 24th March 2021, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

For giving an old flame $130K to keep her mouth shut? It's chicken****. If he really is a Mob boss get genuine racketeering charges against him. ...

Did you miss the point of that crime? It wasn't because he paid Daniels off. It was because he broke election campaign finance laws doing it. And he hid his actions to hide them from the voters (poorly executed of course).

Fast Eddie B · 25th March 2021, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Did you miss the point of that crime? It wasn't because he paid Daniels off. It was because he broke election campaign finance laws doing it. And he hid his actions to hide them from the voters (poorly executed of course).

Maybe I’m naive, but it offended me that he bald faced lied to reporters, and hence to us, about any knowledge of the payoff. On Air Force One, no less.

Reminded me of Clinton’s finger-wagging denial about “that woman...”. Maybe “all Presidents lie”, but some lies are more revealing than others.

ponderingturtle · 25th March 2021, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

I don't think very many people care. I don't, and I can't stand Trump.

Yep felonies just don't matter against the rich.

quadraginta · 28th March 2021, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

She made the statements as a basis for a number of suits in a high courts of law on behalf of the President of the USA. That's no small claims or traffic court stuff. Nor is it Judge Judy made-for-crappy-TV-drama stuff. And I suspect even Judy Sheindlin would not allow that sort of play-for-the-cameras **** in her court.

So if Powell is now saying those statements she made previously were just "LOL Psyche! Gotcha!" then surely there must be penalties for her as a lawyer. Like disbarment if not jail.

She'd be fine with it ... as long as the cameras were on her.

jadebox · 28th March 2021, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim

It's an odd one. Powell's defence attorneys are simultaneously saying that no reasonable person could have believed her claims were true, *and* that they were the facts on which she based her lawsuits.

More correctly, her attorneys are saying that her claims were opinions not statements of fact.

Of course that still leaves her in a messy situation since you can base a lawsuit on opinion.

Squeegee Beckenheim · 28th March 2021, 03:11 PM

The latest Opening Arguments podcast is about the Powell lawsuit. It's a bit of a Hail Mary on her behalf, according to Andrew Torrez.

Minoosh · 28th March 2021, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Potentially five years in the Federal slammer is not chicken ****. He'll be 75 in June, if he was jailed and served the full term, that means he'd be at least 80 when he got out. It could kill him given how unfit and how old he is.

But best of all, if he was in the slammer, he'd be muzzled and out of politics - you cant run for the presidency from jail.

Yeah, I'm not saying it's not a crime, it's just one that I personally don't care much about. If they trace a bunch of secret money flowing through warlords to buy Trump's favor, that's the kind of campaign finance violation I care deeply about. If it's to cover up something embarrassing, well, OK, if it's a crime, keep the indictment option open, but these are not usually years-in-prison things.

Are federal prosecutors even pursuing this?

Ranb · 28th March 2021, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Ah, the Tucker "I lie too often to be taken seriously" Carlson defense.

Wasn't it the Fox lawyers who said that of Carlson? While it might become known as the Carlson defense, you have to be clear it was not Carlson making the claim.

Just like the Twinkie Defense was not based on murdering someone because they ate Twinkies.

smartcooky · 29th March 2021, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

Yeah, I'm not saying it's not a crime, it's just one that I personally don't care much about. If they trace a bunch of secret money flowing through warlords to buy Trump's favor, that's the kind of campaign finance violation I care deeply about. If it's to cover up something embarrassing, well, OK, if it's a crime, keep the indictment option open, but these are not usually years-in-prison things.

Are federal prosecutors even pursuing this?

Not 100% sure, but this article seems to hint that Cyrus Vance might be

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-jr-nail-trump

Eight interviews with Michael Cohen would tend to back that up.

dirtywick · 29th March 2021, 04:56 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Wasn't it the Fox lawyers who said that of Carlson? While it might become known as the Carlson defense, you have to be clear it was not Carlson making the claim.

Just like the Twinkie Defense was not based on murdering someone because they ate Twinkies.

the Chewbacca defense wasn't argued by Chewbacca

quadraginta · 29th March 2021, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by Ranb

Wasn't it the Fox lawyers who said that of Carlson? While it might become known as the Carlson defense, you have to be clear it was not Carlson making the claim.

Just like the Twinkie Defense was not based on murdering someone because they ate Twinkies.

Exactly. The Twinkies, not unlike Trump himself, were a symptom, not the disease.

OTOH, I think there is room to argue that Carlson is to some degree the disease, if perhaps also a symptom.

22nd March 2021, 04:48 PM	#601
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 5,369	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Interesting defense... claim that you are innocent of defamation by claiming you lied to the courts. (After all, her claims that the Dominion voting machines were rigged appeared in more than just the media... it was part of her lawsuit over the Georgia election.) The argument is more like politically-motivated lies are protected speech. But yeah, that's supposed to extend to statements made in court. Sounds pretty sketchy.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

22nd March 2021, 05:44 PM	#604
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 22,862	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Interesting defense... claim that you are innocent of defamation by claiming you lied to the courts. (After all, her claims that the Dominion voting machines were rigged appeared in more than just the media... it was part of her lawsuit over the Georgia election.) If she is now admitting to lying in court, under oath, that should result in 1. Immediate disbarment. 2. Immediate arrest pending trial for perjury.
	__________________ Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so" If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list! Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd March 2021 at 05:53 PM.

22nd March 2021, 05:52 PM	#605
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 22,862	Originally Posted by Minoosh Trump gives himself enough weasel room to introduce doubt, and that has worked in his favor so far. His communication style makes it difficult to even quote him directly. So it's that much harder to say a threat was made, or a bribe offered, etc. Did he intend for his fans to break into Congress and force an evacuation? IMO that's a pretty high bar and I'm not sure the government can prove it. I could possibly see a prosecutor turning the tables here and using Fox News' (and now Sydney Powell's) tactic... "No reasonable person could have understood Trump's words to mean anything other than a call to storm the capital and stop the counting of EC votes" After all, the whole event was literally called "Stop The Steal" Originally Posted by Minoosh Similar argument about Georgia. I'm not sure that's a provable crime. But I'd be very happy to be proven wrong. You got me there Georgia's case is much firmer. Trump asked Brad Raffensperger to find the exact number of votes to win, and implied that there would be consequences if he failed.
	__________________ Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so" If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

22nd March 2021, 05:52 PM	#606
Norman Alexander Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Dharug & Gundungurra Posts: 13,572	Originally Posted by smartcooky If she is now admitting to lying in court, under oath, that should resaut in 1. Immediate disbarrment. 2. Her immediate arrest pending trial for perjury. Her arrest needs to be on the nightly TV news. And it would be hilarious!
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

22nd March 2021, 05:58 PM	#607
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 27,395	I hope some charges are made and can stick before he gets his media empire off the ground. All he has to do is start it. It will take on a life of its own. In fact, it would probably manage better if he kept his mittens off of it after the debut.
	__________________ Science is self-correcting. Woo is self-contradicting.

22nd March 2021, 05:18 PM	#602
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,494	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Did you miss the whole trying to stop a legit POTUS being sworn in? Inciting a riot? Trying to pressure Georgia election officials into throwing the election in his favor? Trump gives himself enough weasel room to introduce doubt, and that has worked in his favor so far. His communication style makes it difficult to even quote him directly. So it's that much harder to say a threat was made, or a bribe offered, etc. Did he intend for his fans to break into Congress and force an evacuation? IMO that's a pretty high bar and I'm not sure the government can prove it. Similar argument about Georgia. I'm not sure that's a provable crime. But I'd be very happy to be proven wrong. Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger And who cares that Trump will call it a witch hunt? That's a given no matter what. You got me there

22nd March 2021, 05:31 PM	#603
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,972	I happen to believe, yes, Trump has wiggled out of a lot of crimes, but he's too far out in the open now to get away with it. We'll see.

22nd March 2021, 06:24 PM	#608
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by eerok It probably belongs more properly in the Trump's Coup thread, but here's more on it: Sidney Powell Tells Judge ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Believe Her Dominion Conspiracy Theories Were ‘Statements of Fact’ [lawandcrime.com] Ah, the Tucker "I lie too often to be taken seriously" Carlson defense.
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,237

22nd March 2021, 06:26 PM	#609
Norman Alexander Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Dharug & Gundungurra Posts: 13,572	Originally Posted by alfaniner I hope some charges are made and can stick before he gets his media empire off the ground. All he has to do is start it. It will take on a life of its own. In fact, it would probably manage better if he kept his mittens off of it after the debut. Oh, there are plans afoot to help it sink without trace as it comes off the launching slide.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

22nd March 2021, 06:26 PM	#610
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,237	Originally Posted by smartcooky I could possibly see a prosecutor turning the tables here and using Fox News' (and now Sydney Powell's) tactic... "No reasonable person could have understood Trump's words to mean anything other than a call to storm the capital and stop the counting of EC votes" After all, the whole event was literally called "Stop The Steal" Georgia's case is much firmer. Trump asked Brad Raffensperger to find the exact number of votes to win, and implied that there would be consequences if he failed. I think a reasonable person knows exactly what he meant in that call. An unreasonable person would think he needs to explicitly say what he meant or it doesn't count.
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,237

22nd March 2021, 06:58 PM	#611
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,494	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Why should Trump have been treated better than Cohen? Both engaged in the same crime... if Cohen was punished for it, so should Trump. Authorities had tons of evidence against Cohen, who was falling all over himself to provide it. They don't have nearly as much against Trump. For starters, Trump hasn't pleaded guilty to 8 felonies, or put himself under oath.

22nd March 2021, 07:39 PM	#612
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 22,862	Originally Posted by Minoosh Authorities had tons of evidence against Cohen, who was falling all over himself to provide it. They don't have nearly as much against Trump. For starters, Trump hasn't pleaded guilty to 8 felonies, or put himself under oath. His signature was on the ***** cheque for Christ's sake! That alone would get ANYONE else indicted, charged and convicted. Don't believe me? Try contracting someone to carry out a criminal act on your behalf, then personally sign then cheque, then have someone take the cleared cheque to the Police and report you. Here's the thing. Mob bosses like Carmine Tramunti, John Gotti and Tony Corello were all convicted for crimes they didn't personally commit; crimes that they told others to commit. All that was needed to get them were witnesses willing to testify that they were told to commit those crimes. The Trump Family are a mob family; DJ Trump himself is the Mob Boss. There is no reason why Cohen's testimony shouldn't put him away. ETA: https://fortune.com/2018/12/07/feds-...paign-finance/ Attorneys from the Southern District of New York state explicitly in the court filing that Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1” in handling payments to two women who claimed to have an affair with Trump long before the election. Trump is identified in this and other filings by U.S. attorneys as “Individual-1,” who “was elected President.” Were it not for the DoJ's OLM memo as regards indicting a sitting president, this would have led directly to an indictment against Trump for a campaign finance violation, a Federal criminal offense - in other words, anyone** else would have been indicted and charged for the commission of a crime.
	__________________ Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so" If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list! Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd March 2021 at 08:27 PM.

23rd March 2021, 09:06 AM	#613
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Originally Posted by Minoosh Authorities had tons of evidence against Cohen, who was falling all over himself to provide it. They don't have nearly as much against Trump. For starters, Trump hasn't pleaded guilty to 8 felonies, or put himself under oath. Exactly individual 1 could be anyone!
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

23rd March 2021, 10:34 AM	#614
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 32,124	It's an odd one. Powell's defence attorneys are simultaneously saying that no reasonable person could have believed her claims were true, and that they were the facts on which she based her lawsuits.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

23rd March 2021, 10:37 AM	#615
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 24,276	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim It's an odd one. Powell's defence attorneys are simultaneously saying that no reasonable person could have believed her claims were true, and that they were the facts on which she based her lawsuits. Well essentially, the two claims are not contradicting. Together they do, however, imply that her lawsuits were baseless. Hans
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

23rd March 2021, 10:46 AM	#616
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 32,124	Originally Posted by MRC_Hans Well essentially, the two claims are not contradicting. How are they not? Unless you're suggesting that they are suggesting she's an unreasonable person, which would definitely be an odd defence.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

23rd March 2021, 11:36 AM	#617
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 36,643	Originally Posted by eerok It probably belongs more properly in the Trump's Coup thread, but here's more on it: Sidney Powell Tells Judge ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Believe Her Dominion Conspiracy Theories Were ‘Statements of Fact’ [lawandcrime.com] Originally Posted by Segnosaur Interesting defense... claim that you are innocent of defamation by claiming you lied to the courts. (After all, her claims that the Dominion voting machines were rigged appeared in more than just the media... it was part of her lawsuit over the Georgia election.) More coverage from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-fraud-claims Quote: In her defense against the Dominion defamation lawsuit, Powell argued that whatever “reasonable persons” thought of her wild claims, Dominion had failed to demonstrate that she herself thought them to be false as she spoke them – a key distinction in defamation cases. “In fact,” Powell’s motion reads, “she believed the allegations then and she believes them now.”
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky Last edited by Mojo; 23rd March 2021 at 11:42 AM.

23rd March 2021, 12:09 PM	#618
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,237	what reasonable person would call me reasonable
dirtywick Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 4,237

23rd March 2021, 12:22 PM	#619
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,706	Originally Posted by smartcooky I could possibly see a prosecutor turning the tables here and using Fox News' (and now Sydney Powell's) tactic... "No reasonable person could have understood Trump's words to mean anything other than a call to storm the capital and stop the counting of EC votes" After all, the whole event was literally called "Stop The Steal" Georgia's case is much firmer. Trump asked Brad Raffensperger to find the exact number of votes to win, and implied that there would be consequences if he failed. IANAL, but the statute i read says that a threat or inducement is not necessary. Simply asking an election official to produce a different outcome is illegal - even if the election official takes no action to change the result.
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

23rd March 2021, 12:46 PM	#620
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 24,276	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim How are they not? Unless you're suggesting that they are suggesting she's an unreasonable person, which would definitely be an odd defence. Well, that was sort of my point. Hans
	__________________ Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.

23rd March 2021, 12:54 PM	#621
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 5,369	Originally Posted by Mojo More coverage from the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-fraud-claims Quote: In her defense against the Dominion defamation lawsuit, Powell argued that whatever “reasonable persons” thought of her wild claims, Dominion had failed to demonstrate that she herself thought them to be false as she spoke them – a key distinction in defamation cases. “In fact,” Powell’s motion reads, “she believed the allegations then and she believes them now.” So no reasonable person would believe her statements, but she does. Hmm.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

23rd March 2021, 01:00 PM	#622
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,972	No reasonable person, I can go with that. There was a substantial portion of 74 million Americans that fit that category.

24th March 2021, 01:16 AM	#623
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,406	Originally Posted by eerok The argument is more like politically-motivated lies are protected speech. But yeah, that's supposed to extend to statements made in court. Sounds pretty sketchy. That is correct. Powell is not arguing that no reasonable person would believe her statements. She isn't claiming that this was parody or satire like in Hustler Magazine vs. Falwell. Or that this for the purpose of entertainment. Powell is arguing that a reasonable person would not consider her statements to be fact, but rather opinion. The courts allow a fair amount of leeway for political rhetoric. If a sports writer says a running back murdered the opposing team's offensive linemen, that is not understood to be an accusation of criminal murder but rather a figure of speech. If a political candidate says their opponent is a corrupt criminal who has committed every illegal act under the sun, that is understood to be hyperbolic political rhetoric. In that context, statements that are figures of speech or are vague or hyperbolic or political rhetoric are understood to be mud slinging opinions rather than rock solid statements of fact. That does not appear to apply to Powell's case. She isn't a politician. Her accusations were not against another politician. In fact, Dominion, by the nature of its work, must be politically neutral. Her statements were not vague. She made very specific claims. They were not hyperbolic. They were not political rhetoric. She made the claims within a context where she expected the statements to be believed and provided information intended to be evidence supporting those claims. It is not whether a reasonable person would believe the claims, only whether a reasonable person would believe the claims are facts or opinion.
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

24th March 2021, 03:17 AM	#624
Mongrel Begging for Scraps Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: UK, suburbia. 20 minutes in the future Posts: 2,181	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate That does not appear to apply to Powell's case. She isn't a politician. Her accusations were not against another politician. In fact, Dominion, by the nature of its work, must be politically neutral. Her statements were not vague. She made very specific claims. They were not hyperbolic. They were not political rhetoric. She made the claims within a context where she expected the statements to be believed and provided information intended to be evidence supporting those claims. And she was speaking with the authority of a lawyer. The other people who've used this argument have been media personalities first and foremost, even if Fox deliberately blur the lines between what's a news show & what isn't.
	__________________ “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” - Charles Darwin ...like so many contemporary philosophers he especially enjoyed giving helpful advice to people who were happier than he was. - Tom Lehrer

24th March 2021, 03:21 AM	#625
Norman Alexander Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Dharug & Gundungurra Posts: 13,572	She made the statements as a basis for a number of suits in a high courts of law on behalf of the President of the USA. That's no small claims or traffic court stuff. Nor is it Judge Judy made-for-crappy-TV-drama stuff. And I suspect even Judy Sheindlin would not allow that sort of play-for-the-cameras **** in her court. So if Powell is now saying those statements she made previously were just "LOL Psyche! Gotcha!" then surely there must be penalties for her as a lawyer. Like disbarment if not jail.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

24th March 2021, 06:57 AM	#626
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 5,369	Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate Her statements were not vague. She made very specific claims. They were not hyperbolic. They were not political rhetoric. She made the claims within a context where she expected the statements to be believed and provided information intended to be evidence supporting those claims. That's it, but apparently she's going to flail around with arguments that skirt these facts. The other thing is whether she's off the hook for truly believing her nonsense, but I think it's relevant that she had no decent evidence to support her claims. I don't think there's an insanity defence for defamation cases.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

24th March 2021, 09:11 PM	#627
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,494	Originally Posted by smartcooky His signature was on the ***** cheque for Christ's sake! That alone would get ANYONE else indicted, charged and convicted. Don't believe me? Try contracting someone to carry out a criminal act on your behalf, then personally sign then cheque, then have someone take the cleared cheque to the Police and report you. Here's the thing. Mob bosses like Carmine Tramunti, John Gotti and Tony Corello were all convicted for crimes they didn't personally commit; crimes that they told others to commit. All that was needed to get them were witnesses willing to testify that they were told to commit those crimes. The Trump Family are a mob family; DJ Trump himself is the Mob Boss. There is no reason why Cohen's testimony shouldn't put him away. ETA: https://fortune.com/2018/12/07/feds-...paign-finance/ Attorneys from the Southern District of New York state explicitly in the court filing that Cohen “acted in coordination with and at the direction of Individual-1” in handling payments to two women who claimed to have an affair with Trump long before the election. Trump is identified in this and other filings by U.S. attorneys as “Individual-1,” who “was elected President.” Were it not for the DoJ's OLM memo as regards indicting a sitting president, this would have led directly to an indictment against Trump for a campaign finance violation, a Federal criminal offense - in other words, anyone else would have been indicted and charged for the commission of a crime. For giving an old flame $130K to keep her mouth shut? It's chicken**. If he really is a Mob boss get genuine racketeering charges against him. Cohen mystifies me. It doesn't seem to me like he even saved his own skin.

24th March 2021, 09:30 PM	#628
Minoosh Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 12,494	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Exactly individual 1 could be anyone! I don't think very many people care. I don't, and I can't stand Trump.

24th March 2021, 10:24 PM	#629
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 22,862	Originally Posted by Minoosh For giving an old flame $130K to keep her mouth shut..... You missed out this really important bit "....because it might affect his chances of winning a presidential election!" If you pay someone (in other words, bribe them) to not say things that might otherwise affect you in a campaign for election to public office ie. - buy their silence, that is a Federal crime under 52 USC § 301— FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGNS, and the punishments can be severe. Quote: 52 USC § 30109 (d) Penalties; defenses; mitigation of offenses (1) (A) Any person who knowingly and wilfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure— (i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or Originally Posted by Minoosh It's chicken** Potentially five years in the Federal slammer is not chicken . He'll be 75 in June, if he was jailed and served the full term, that means he'd be at least 80 when he got out. It could kill him given how unfit and how old he is. But best of all, if he was in the slammer, he'd be muzzled and out of politics - you cant run for the presidency from jail. Originally Posted by Minoosh If he really is a Mob boss get genuine racketeering charges against him. Both things can and should happen. If I was prosecuting him, I would not want other prosecutors to drop their cases, or litigants to drop their lawsuits. I would want to him to keep having to look over his shoulder, knowing that if he skates on one of the sets of charges or lawsuits, there are other charges or lawsuits awaiting him. Keep the legal pressure on him 24/7/365, and the lawsuits too. I want to see this vile asshat spend the rest if his miserable life in jail or at least being a defendant. Originally Posted by Minoosh** Cohen mystifies me. It doesn't seem to me like he even saved his own skin. He's no mystery to me - I know exactly what he did, and why he did it. He knew that the Feds had him dead to rights, and the if he fought them he would almost certain lose, and spend a LOT of time in jail. I'm betting his lawyers told him his best bet was to admit guilt, and co-operate - give up Trump. Its what I would have done in his position, and what I would have advised him to do if I was his lawyer.
	__________________ Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so" If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!

24th March 2021, 10:27 PM	#630
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 92,972	Originally Posted by Minoosh For giving an old flame $130K to keep her mouth shut? It's chicken****. If he really is a Mob boss get genuine racketeering charges against him. ... Did you miss the point of that crime? It wasn't because he paid Daniels off. It was because he broke election campaign finance laws doing it. And he hid his actions to hide them from the voters (poorly executed of course).

25th March 2021, 04:01 AM	#631
Fast Eddie B Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA Posts: 7,425	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Did you miss the point of that crime? It wasn't because he paid Daniels off. It was because he broke election campaign finance laws doing it. And he hid his actions to hide them from the voters (poorly executed of course). Maybe I’m naive, but it offended me that he bald faced lied to reporters, and hence to us, about any knowledge of the payoff. On Air Force One, no less. Reminded me of Clinton’s finger-wagging denial about “that woman...”. Maybe “all Presidents lie”, but some lies are more revealing than others.

25th March 2021, 07:10 AM	#632
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,905	Originally Posted by Minoosh I don't think very many people care. I don't, and I can't stand Trump. Yep felonies just don't matter against the rich.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

28th March 2021, 09:26 AM	#633
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,614	Originally Posted by Norman Alexander She made the statements as a basis for a number of suits in a high courts of law on behalf of the President of the USA. That's no small claims or traffic court stuff. Nor is it Judge Judy made-for-crappy-TV-drama stuff. And I suspect even Judy Sheindlin would not allow that sort of play-for-the-cameras **** in her court. So if Powell is now saying those statements she made previously were just "LOL Psyche! Gotcha!" then surely there must be penalties for her as a lawyer. Like disbarment if not jail. She'd be fine with it ... as long as the cameras were on her.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

28th March 2021, 09:40 AM	#634
jadebox Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: USA Posts: 2,363	Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim It's an odd one. Powell's defence attorneys are simultaneously saying that no reasonable person could have believed her claims were true, and that they were the facts on which she based her lawsuits. More correctly, her attorneys are saying that her claims were opinions not statements of fact. Of course that still leaves her in a messy situation since you can base a lawsuit on opinion.

28th March 2021, 03:11 PM	#635
Squeegee Beckenheim Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 32,124	The latest Opening Arguments podcast is about the Powell lawsuit. It's a bit of a Hail Mary on her behalf, according to Andrew Torrez.
	__________________ I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.