Holman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 19, 2023 6:18 pm
She was useful as a true-believing spokesperson until she got too close to open Q-Anonity. If anything, she was under Trump's spell, not vice-versa.
Well, I certainly didn't mean to imply that Trump was ever actually under her spell.
My concern was more about how anyone with a partner-in-crime who is also a lawyer seems to always have some squirmy little back-door legal way of just blaming the lawyer for their legal woes (I'm sure I'm overblowing specific events into a universal truth here that's not entirely accurate at all).
With Trump it is all about immediate transactional capacity. She showed up saying exactly what he wanted to hear - you had an election stolen - and had a plan to deal with it. The falling out happened when it was clear her plan wasn't going to work and he turned to couping.
As to the legal shield angle, I don't think that happens very often but doubly so when the conduct is straight up crime. Mechanisms like the crime fraud exception exist for this reason.
Perhaps Sidney Powell has gone too far for even Rudy Giuliani this time.
The Trump campaign’s legal team moved to distance itself Sunday from the firebrand conservative attorney after a tumultuous several days in which Powell made multiple incorrect statements about the voting process, unspooled unsupported and complex conspiracy theories and vowed to “blow up” Georgia with a “biblical” court filing.
“Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity,” Giuliani and another lawyer for Trump, Jenna Ellis, said in a statement.
Reporting now is that Kenneth Chesebro, the Trump attorney who helped craft the fake electors plot, has struck a guilty plea deal for a single felony count.
Why are these people pleading guilty on made up charges? Have we all gone insane?
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.
Holman wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:31 pm
Reporting now is that Kenneth Chesebro, the Trump attorney who helped craft the fake electors plot, has struck a guilty plea deal for a single felony count.
Chesebro is pleading guilty to one felony – conspiracy to commit filing false documents. Fulton County prosecutors are recommending that Chesebro serve 5 years of probation and pay $5,000 in restitution. He agreed to testify at any future trials in the sprawling election subversion case and write an apology letter.
...
A source familiar with the discussions said the likelihood of Chesebro taking a deal increased after his co-defendant Sidney Powell made a surprise turn and pleaded guilty herself on Thursday, leaving Chesebro as the sole defendant whose trial was scheduled to begin Friday.
...
Chesebro was originally charged with seven crimes, including a violation of Georgia’s RICO act, conspiracy to commit forgery and conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer.
...
Ahead of the trial, Chesebro and Powell lost several bids to get the case thrown out, including earlier this week. In a spate of pretrial rulings, McAfee rejected their arguments that Fulton County prosecutors misapplied Georgia’s RICO law and that the indictment failed to establish key elements of the crimes that have been charged.
Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:35 pm
Why are these people pleading guilty on made up charges? Have we all gone insane?
I don't believe it is the case here, but innocent people plead guilty all the time to avoid paying legal fees, avoid further legal jeopardy, etc.
Of course, in a complex case like this, having your deal result in just one conviction and no time inside means that you've given the prosecutors something very, very valuable.
Octavious wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 12:35 pm
Why are these people pleading guilty on made up charges? Have we all gone insane?
I don't believe it is the case here, but innocent people plead guilty all the time to avoid paying legal fees, avoid further legal jeopardy, etc.
Of course, in a complex case like this, having your deal result in just one conviction and no time inside means that you've given the prosecutors something very, very valuable.
No kidding. With the sheer number of crimes, confessions, and indictments, it's getting hard to keep track of. I can only assume that the investigators have a massive wall covered in photos, thumbtacks, and string.
Former President Donald Trump's final chief of staff in the White House, Mark Meadows, has spoken with special counsel Jack Smith's team at least three times this year, including once before a federal grand jury, which came only after Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The sources said Meadows informed Smith's team that he repeatedly told Trump in the weeks after the 2020 presidential election that the allegations of significant voting fraud coming to them were baseless, a striking break from Trump's prolific rhetoric regarding the election.
...
Meadows has not been charged in Smith's federal case, he has been charged -- along with Trump, Giuliani and 16 others -- by authorities in Georgia for allegedly trying to overturn the election results in that state. Four of those charged have already pleaded guilty and agreed to testify for the prosecution, while the others, including Meadows, Trump and Giuliani, have pleaded not guilty and are awaiting trial.
Meadows sought to have the Georgia case against him moved to federal court, but that effort was denied. He is now appealing that decision.
From 2013 to 2020, Meadows represented North Carolina in Congress, where he also led the conservative House Freedom Caucus for two years.
Under the immunity order from Smith's team, the information Meadows provided to the grand jury earlier this year can't be used against him in a federal prosecution.
Special counsel Jack Smith asked a federal judge to reimpose a gag order on former President Donald Trump in his election interference case in Washington, D.C., accusing him of trying to intimidate witnesses — including his former chief of staff Mark Meadows.
Trump has “capitalized” on the temporary suspension of his partial gag order to “send an unmistakable and threatening message to a foreseeable witness in this case,” Smith wrote in a filing Wednesday night in U.S. District Court in Washington.
Smith pointed to Trump’s statements in response to ABC News’ report that Meadows, the final chief of staff of Trump’s presidency, has been granted immunity to testify to the special counsel’s prosecutors.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:30 am
Did you listen to Serious Trouble this week? That gag order doesn't sound like it will hold up to appeal.
I did. I've heard different opinions as well. I find it hard to believe that anyone else would get away with threatening witnesses. Guess we need to see someone injured or killed before we take it seriously.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:30 am
Did you listen to Serious Trouble this week? That gag order doesn't sound like it will hold up to appeal.
So defendants are allowed to spew threats into the public forum because 4th 1st amendment? That seems unlikely.
Didn't see this. Agreed.
malchior wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:38 am
I did. I've heard different opinions as well. I find it hard to believe that anyone else would get away with threatening witnesses. Guess we need to see someone injured or killed before we take it seriously.
edit: amendments are hard.
Last edited by GreenGoo on Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:46 am, edited 2 times in total.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:30 am
Did you listen to Serious Trouble this week? That gag order doesn't sound like it will hold up to appeal.
I did. I've heard different opinions as well. I find it hard to believe that anyone else would get away with threatening witnesses. Guess we need to see someone injured or killed before we take it seriously.
Let's put it this way, it's a bad thing for everyone's first amendment rights if the order, as written, were upheld.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:30 am
Did you listen to Serious Trouble this week? That gag order doesn't sound like it will hold up to appeal.
So defendants are allowed to spew threats into the public forum because 4th amendment? That seems unlikely.
First amendment, but the gag order said he was not allowed to "target" certain people with no definition of what "target" means. To even begin to pass constitutional muster, any order must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal. If you can't even define what actions are prohibited, it's not narrowly tailored. Saying "you know it when you see it" doesn't work here.
Edit: And there are laws that already deal with witness intimidation - if he breaks those laws, prosecute him. But you can't stop speech before the fact in this manner.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:30 am
Did you listen to Serious Trouble this week? That gag order doesn't sound like it will hold up to appeal.
So defendants are allowed to spew threats into the public forum because 4th amendment? That seems unlikely.
First amendment, but the gag order said he was not allowed to "target" certain people with no definition of what "target" means. To even begin to pass constitutional muster, any order must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal. If you can't even define what actions are prohibited, it's not narrowly tailored. Saying "you know it when you see it" doesn't work here.
Really? "Target" isn't that vague. At least, there are criminal statutes that are much vaguer than that.
If appealed, tighten up the wording. I don't care, as long as he is legally punished for spewing threats.
In the mean time, I think "we know it when we hear it" is good enough. If he's targeting people with praise, we ignore. If he's targeting people with threats, we don't ignore.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:48 am
Edit: And there are laws that already deal with witness intimidation - if he breaks those laws, prosecute him. But you can't stop speech before the fact in this manner.
You absolutely can. If the wording is a problem, let them sue and get it reworded. In the end he's still punished for being a thug to government witnesses.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:30 am
Did you listen to Serious Trouble this week? That gag order doesn't sound like it will hold up to appeal.
So defendants are allowed to spew threats into the public forum because 4th amendment? That seems unlikely.
First amendment, but the gag order said he was not allowed to "target" certain people with no definition of what "target" means. To even begin to pass constitutional muster, any order must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal. If you can't even define what actions are prohibited, it's not narrowly tailored. Saying "you know it when you see it" doesn't work here.
Really? "Target" isn't that vague. At least, there are criminal statutes that are much vaguer than that.
Did his current post target Meadows? It made statements that addressed his conduct but wasn't being sent directly to Meadows. Smith said as much - it was Smith's belief that it was indirect knowing that Meadows would see it. If it's indirect, how is that targeting? How could anything NOT be targeting knowing that everything Trump says is newsworthy and gets reported so everyone will see it? Could he ever defend his innocence and say that he and Meadows worked closely on a making a decision?
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:48 am
Edit: And there are laws that already deal with witness intimidation - if he breaks those laws, prosecute him. But you can't stop speech before the fact in this manner.
You absolutely can. If the wording is a problem, let them sue and get it reworded. In the end he's still punished for being a thug to government witnesses.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:57 am
Did his current post target Meadows? It made statements that addressed his conduct but wasn't being sent directly to Meadows. Smith said as much - it was Smith's belief that it was indirect knowing that Meadows would see it. If it's indirect, how is that targeting? How could anything NOT be targeting knowing that everything Trump says is newsworthy and gets reported so everyone will see it? Could he ever defend his innocence and say that he and Meadows worked closely on a making a decision?
I don't understand this.
If you blow up a crowd because you're trying to kill 1 person, is that not a targeted killing?
If I yell "fuck you drumpf, I hope you die" in a crowd that I know contains drumpf, is that not targeted?
If I make finger gun motions at a news camera and suggest anyone testifying against me better watch out *wink*, is that not directed targeted at literally everyone testifying against me?
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:30 am
Did you listen to Serious Trouble this week? That gag order doesn't sound like it will hold up to appeal.
I did. I've heard different opinions as well. I find it hard to believe that anyone else would get away with threatening witnesses. Guess we need to see someone injured or killed before we take it seriously.
Let's put it this way, it's a bad thing for everyone's first amendment rights if the order, as written, were upheld.
Which is why the judge might have pulled it back and will re-write it but that also assumes the analysis is 100% correct. There is room for disagreement. And there are other consideration like how the appearance that Trump keeps getting breaks or heaven forbid someone does get hurt it might be worse for everyone in the long-term.
IMHO, it still comes back to the fact that we've never had someone at his level (politically) that is clearly trying to incite/inspire his followers. Apparently the skinhead standing on the corner yelling Neo-Nazi garbage through a bullhorn is fundamentally the same as a former President blowing a dog-whistle on social media as far as our 1A rights are concerned.
Between guns and now this, America sure is turning into one hell of an experiment 200+ years later.
stessier wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 10:30 am
Did you listen to Serious Trouble this week? That gag order doesn't sound like it will hold up to appeal.
So defendants are allowed to spew threats into the public forum because 4th amendment? That seems unlikely.
First amendment, but the gag order said he was not allowed to "target" certain people with no definition of what "target" means. To even begin to pass constitutional muster, any order must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal. If you can't even define what actions are prohibited, it's not narrowly tailored. Saying "you know it when you see it" doesn't work here.
Really? "Target" isn't that vague. At least, there are criminal statutes that are much vaguer than that.
Did his current post target Meadows? It made statements that addressed his conduct but wasn't being sent directly to Meadows.
I hadn't read this before my last post but..this is credulous to put it mildly.
Smith said as much - it was Smith's belief that it was indirect knowing that Meadows would see it. If it's indirect, how is that targeting?
He said it was indirect because it was indirect!? This comes off as impossibly naive.
How could anything NOT be targeting knowing that everything Trump says is newsworthy and gets reported so everyone will see it? Could he ever defend his innocence and say that he and Meadows worked closely on a making a decision?
I guess it comes down to two ideas. Do you really believe that this wasn't a threat? And two that if it was his speech can't be narrowly restricted without calling out specific actions he can't do? Hat tip to El Guapo but I don't really buy this 'targeted' is too vague argument.
Last edited by malchior on Fri Oct 27, 2023 11:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Oct 27, 2023 11:18 amBetween guns and now this, America sure is turning into one hell of an experiment 200+ years later.
I mean it's clearly a failed experiment. The question is how bad will it get. I say this as someone who just heard from a close Canadian friend that she and her husband will not be returning to the United States in the foreseeable future. They visited often. I wonder if this will be something that becomes obvious over time.
Anyway, I guess if I want to see them I'm going to Calgary. And honestly I can't blame them. It's not just a safety issue for them.
Last edited by malchior on Fri Oct 27, 2023 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
