Octopus Overlords

I hate drumpf with the fury of a thousand suns, but if I were on his jury, I could not vote to convict if the evidence didn't indicate guilt.

Which is not to say that I am immune to bias or being emotionally swayed, but I am capable of recognizing it and compartmentalizing.

I'll say it like this: You want me on your jury if you didn't do it, but you don't want me on it if you did.

I would hope one of the criteria for becoming a judge is a reputation for impartiality. Yes, I realize not all judges are chosen using the same method.

I don't know if its possible to find any people in USA who do not already have strong opinions about Trump. He was the fricking president, so everybody has in fact heard about him. And his actions or un-actions have impacted the lives of every american becuase he was president. So finding an "un-biased" jury is literally impossible. They best the court can hope for is a bunch of people who swear to use evidence based decision making, who are not lying about their bein secret trump lover/haters

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 11:36 am I hate drumpf with the fury of a thousand suns, but if I were on his jury, I could not vote to convict if the evidence didn't indicate guilt.

Which is not to say that I am immune to bias or being emotionally swayed, but I am capable of recognizing it and compartmentalizing.

I'll say it like this: You want me on your jury if you didn't do it, but you don't want me on it if you did.

If this was in reference to my response, I don't disagree when it comes to the law and evidence. I wasn't talking about the judge bending the law to help or hurt Trump.

I was talking about scenarios where the law is vague, or specifically leaves it up to the judge to decide how to proceed/what to grant. Where the letter of the law gives away to opinion and preference. For example, if a defendant is obviously under a lot of stress and snaps at the judge. Is that contempt of court? Depends on the judge. And while we expect and hope that judges are impartial, and many really do compartmentalize, when forming an opinion, deep seated feelings can't be completely dismissed. They influence us, even if only subconsciously. So yeah, pissing a judge off, threatening her staff, ignoring her orders, intimidating the court and witnesses, and being disrespectful toward the court does have the potential to affect your case. It won't be enough to counter clear evidence, but it could absolutely affect how much leeway you get when asking for things that the judge has the option of granting, and the degree to which such things are allowed.

I would hope one of the criteria for becoming a judge is a reputation for impartiality. Yes, I realize not all judges are chosen using the same method.

Absolutely. At least, ideally. But a lot of judges are on the bench for decades, and can change. Or they see money (or vacations) being waved around and it changes them. And again, we expect judges to be impartial and compartmentalize, but there are limits to how far that can go - they're still human beings.

I've only dealt with a dozen or so judges personally, so my experience isn't as broad as many of the posters here, but yeah - some were genuinely fair, and some were genuinely spiteful assholes.

I'll say it like this: You want me on your jury if you didn't do it, but you don't want me on it if you did.

I'd counter that by saying that you want me on the jury if the evidence doesn't prove you did it, and you don't if it does. But juries don't get the same leeway that judges do.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 1:05 pm

I'll say it like this: You want me on your jury if you didn't do it, but you don't want me on it if you did.

I'd counter that by saying that you want me on the jury if the evidence doesn't prove you did it, and you don't if it does. But juries don't get the same leeway that judges do.

Agreed. However, with the caveat that if you start threatening me, bullying me, sharing personal details online, etc., then I'm likely to include your actions outside of the courtroom as "evidence".

It seems clear that TFG doesn't ascribe to the idea that being respectful, polite, nice will win someone over. He's all in on bullying and threats. So, yes, I believe that he thinks if he threatens the judge enough, that the judge will do what TFG wants out of fear.

TheMix wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 1:10 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 1:05 pm

I'll say it like this: You want me on your jury if you didn't do it, but you don't want me on it if you did.

I'd counter that by saying that you want me on the jury if the evidence doesn't prove you did it, and you don't if it does. But juries don't get the same leeway that judges do.

Agreed. However, with the caveat that if you start threatening me, bullying me, sharing personal details online, etc., then I'm likely to include your actions outside of the courtroom as "evidence".

Of the crime? I wouldn't. I also learned to compartmentalize (too much - it cause me a complete breakdown 22 years ago.) But when it comes to time to decide, "Who is telling the truth" in a he-said, she-said, or "Could this person have done this?", then I'll absolutely use it as evidence of your character.

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 1:15 pm

TheMix wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 1:10 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 1:05 pm

I'll say it like this: You want me on your jury if you didn't do it, but you don't want me on it if you did.

I'd counter that by saying that you want me on the jury if the evidence doesn't prove you did it, and you don't if it does. But juries don't get the same leeway that judges do.

Agreed. However, with the caveat that if you start threatening me, bullying me, sharing personal details online, etc., then I'm likely to include your actions outside of the courtroom as "evidence".

Of the crime? I wouldn't. I also learned to compartmentalize (too much - it cause me a complete breakdown 22 years ago.) But when it comes to time to decide, "Who is telling the truth" in a he-said, she-said, or "Could this person have done this?", then I'll absolutely use it as evidence of your character.

Hence "evidence". I wasn't talking about cut-and-dried facts. I suspect that it's somewhat rare to have irrefutable evidence of the crime. Usually the evidence is put forth and then each side gives their interpretation. A person's character (often evidenced by their actions) absolutely would become relevant to me in that situation.

TheMix wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 1:10 pm

It seems clear that TFG doesn't ascribe to the idea that being respectful, polite, nice will win someone over. He's all in on bullying and threats. So, yes, I believe that he thinks if he threatens the judge enough, that the judge will do what TFG wants out of fear.

He's also got a long history of playing the victim card. And the fact that he's flouted the gag order after already being told not to drag the judge into it tells me he's not taking this seriously enough.

The gag order was pretty narrow and only mentioned the judge's staff. Not sure the judge himself would be included in that. In practice, the gag order was mostly for the clerk, and the damage is already done in that instance.

Regardless of that, he's been told, and he went ahead and blabbed, judge or not, which surely won't win him any sympathy. It only shows he doesn't respect due process which is surely to have a trickle-down effect on how he's treated.

Heh, Trump was told to quiet down yesterday:

“The admonition came during Trump’s second bout attending his sprawling fraud trial in person. He was also in attendance for the start of the trial earlier this month, where his frustration similarly dictated the proceedings.

The former president often grumbled, scowled or threw his hands up before exiting to deliver fiery stump speeches in the courthouse hallways. When that rage manifested in attacks on court staff on Truth Social, Engoron issued a limited gag order barring Trump or other parties in the case from posting or speaking about his employees.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... -down/amp/

Donald’s in trouble:

“Judge Chastises Trump For ‘Blatant Violation of the Gag Order’ on His Clerk, Raises Possible Penalties Including Fines or Jail. New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron is upset Trump failed to delete a post attacking his clerk on his campaign page, weeks after the imposition of a gag order.”

https://themessenger.com/politics/trump ... ge-engoron

“Why shouldn’t I send you to jail?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-arth ... gag-order/

He was fined $5K.

He probably made 10x than that today with whatever inane nonsense he's posting on social media.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Oct 20, 2023 4:13 pm He was fined $5K.

He probably made 10x than that today with whatever inane nonsense he's posting on social media.

It’s a shot across the bow. He couldn’t fine him millions, but the point has been made.

I'd imagine that they have a limited range that they can assign fines from. Jail would be nice, but I'd settle for community service. Maybe have him work on draining an actual swamp somewhere.

Or maybe a period of house detention.

Only if they take away all of his electronics and won't let him talk to his friends online. Oh, and he has to finish his homework before TV. He won't learn his lesson if we let him have too much fun.

Take away his Gorilla channel and he’ll fall into line.

Trump got fined another $10k today for violating his gag order. There was a brief hearing in which Trump was put on the stand to testify about the breach and the judge found him “not credible”.

Trump to testify on Nov 6 in fraud trial:

https://themessenger.com/politics/trump ... ey-general

Would pay to see this.

Watching coverage trickle out of Trump testifying but apparently it's not going well. Or about as anyone would expect. Apparently Trump is just airing all the wrongs he sees and sparring with the judge. At some point in the past hour or so Judge Engoron appealed to Trump's lawyer (Kise) about controlling his client and the attorney said that the judge was in control of the courtroom.

To be blunt, this episode with Trump is exposing that this system depends on people to either comply or be forced to comply. What we are seeing to some degree is what happens when the system is unwilling to to do the latter for the powerful and it gets out of control.

For the first time in history, I'm glad that Trump is Trump.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 12:31 pm Watching coverage trickle out of Trump testifying but apparently it's not going well. Or about as anyone would expect. Apparently Trump is just airing all the wrongs he sees and sparring with the judge. At some point in the past hour or so Judge Engoron appealed to Trump's lawyer (Kise) about controlling his client and the attorney said that the judge was in control of the courtroom.

And Engoron appears to be at the end of his rope, suggesting before the last break that he's close to dismissing Trump and 'drawing all negative inferences' which is a great-sounding development for Trump.

I'm sure the tactic is to goad the judge into taking some action that they can then use in the appeal.

I'd say I'm sure the tactic is Trump's megalomania combined him fancying himself a mob boss but the lawyer is going along with it, so I'm not sure of anything.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:30 pm I'm sure the tactic is to goad the judge into taking some action that they can then use in the appeal.

I think the appeals court would see right through that.

His supporters have given him the belief and the confidence that he's above the law. Once that box was opened, there was zero chance it was ever going to be closed again. I'm really hoping he continues to gorge on KFC. Mortality is the only cure for his megalomania. I hate that I feel that way, but he has proven that he's no better (and oftentimes worse).

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:45 pm His supporters have given him the belief and the confidence that he's above the law.

Well also this rotten system telling him and his peers they were generally above the law. To his point, he was untouchable until he got involved in politics.

Once that box was opened, there was zero chance it was ever going to be closed again. I'm really hoping he continues to gorge on KFC. Mortality is the only cure for his megalomania. I hate that I feel that way, but he has proven that he's no better (and oftentimes worse).

It's unfortunately true. I'm not for assassination but let's say I get what the Romans were worrying about when they killed Caesar. Unfortunately, like them we're here because their system was rotten to the core and was likely going to change no matter what. That is where I suspect we are today.

One of Trump's attorneys Alina Habba just went outside the courthouse and blasted the judge for telling her to sit down. It's clear that this has moved from legal case to become an extension of Trump's attack on the United States and law in general as a governing function. And his lawyers are bought in. I'm guessing they'll start eating sanctions.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:52 pm To his point, he was untouchable until he got involved in politics.

not true. He was able to buy his way out of trouble, but he was definitely being touched.

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 3:01 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 1:52 pm To his point, he was untouchable until he got involved in politics.

not true. He was able to buy his way out of trouble, but he was definitely being touched.

This directly overlaps with the corruption. I guess it comes down to what does untouchable mean but to me if you can buy off justice indefinitely then it's rotten.

When you don't have a defense, attack.

So what is the case about? Did he default on loans?

All they seem to be saying is that he said the value of his assest are higher that they were. What is the crime?

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:05 pm So what is the case about? Did he default on loans?

All they seem to be saying is that he said the value of his assest are higher that they were. What is the crime?

He defrauded lenders by overstating his wealth (the value of his properties), and cheated on taxes by undervaluing the same assets. This being a civil case, they're concentrating on the former.

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:05 pm All they seem to be saying is that he said the value of his assest are higher that they were. What is the crime?

When you borrow money, and say that your assets are worth more than they are, you have defrauded the people whose money you just borrowed.

defraud
/dəˈfrôd,dəˈfräd/
illegally obtain money from (someone) by deception.

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:05 pm So what is the case about? Did he default on loans?

All they seem to be saying is that he said the value of his assest are higher that they were. What is the crime?

Can I PM you? I would LOVE to sell you a car.

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:20 pm

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Mon Nov 06, 2023 4:05 pm So what is the case about? Did he default on loans?

All they seem to be saying is that he said the value of his assest are higher that they were. What is the crime?

Can I PM you? I would LOVE to sell you a car.

Do you have a handy Google Earth link to evaluate the current condition of the vehicle?

But in all seriousness, keep in mind that my brand adds anywhere from a thousand dollars to 1.5 billion dollars to any price.

Now these absolute crazies are saying they're going to move for a mistrial because the Judge won't share his communications with his clerk. Why are they obsessed with this person? I can't imagine it must be good to be this person right now.

It's a Breitbart sourced conspiracy theory. If a mistrial is approved over this, that's it for any future trials against Trump. He will have achieved complete immunity from any crimes he has or ever will commit. The question will then be, does it extend to his vile offsprings?*

*Excluding Barron and Tiffany of course, as he doesn't recognize them as his kids.