Old Man Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 15 minutes ago, Cygnia said: Trump just 'touched the third rail' in hush money trial: former prosecutor 1/3 of the jurors already selected today. At this rate the trial might get fully underway by Monday. Also, I'm getting tired of corporate media headlines burying the lede. This isn't a "hush money" trial, it's a campaign finance violation trial. Paying off your porn star is not a crime, but laundering the payments in violation of campaign finance law, and thereby cheating in the election, is a felony. Lord Liaden, Pattern Ghost and Starlord 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 1 hour ago, Cygnia said: Trump just 'touched the third rail' in hush money trial: former prosecutor If Trump is suffering dementia, as all professional analysis of available examples supports, he may be incapable of controlling his behavior any more. It would be ironic if his outbursts lead the court to compel him to take an actual psychological evaluation, rather than him just threatening to do it and demanding President Biden take one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 Yeah, there's many of the media outlets who use strongly misleading language like that, and I rate most of those as a rung better than Fox News...but only 1 rung. At the same time the Raw Story article was posted, I got an alert from NYT about their story on this. They mentioned the same thing...in factual language, mind...that the judge was not going to tolerate jury intimidation. They *also* pointed out that the judge chastised Trump's lawyer for some of his attempts to challenge for cause...that didn't come close to rising to the standard for a disqualification for cause. From the email: Quote A few minutes later, the still-irritated judge said he thought that Trump’s lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, was using the jury selection process to — wait for it — delay the proceedings. When Blanche tried to have a high school teacher from the Upper West Side dismissed for cause because she had taken a cellphone video of a street dance party on 96th Street celebrating Joe Biden’s victory, the judge summoned the potential juror. After ascertaining that she was sincere in her assurance that she could be fair, he refused to dismiss her for cause. And Merchan rebuked Blanche for also offering a video the juror took of New Yorkers saluting health care workers by banging pots and pans each night at the start of the Covid pandemic. Blanche suggested the video was disqualifying, but the judge said there was “nothing offensive” about it, adding that making such irrelevant challenges was a waste of everyone’s time. But Raw Story would rather toss out sensationalist comparisons...which IMO do more harm than good, as they support the tone that Fox News and its ilk want to promote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkdguy Posted April 16 Report Share Posted April 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 "...crackpot in the growing pool of cringe politicians." I'll put that up with the "half partisan, half courtesan" line about the House Republicans for Line of the Month. Pariah and assault 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 (edited) 16 hours ago, unclevlad said: "...crackpot in the growing pool of cringe politicians." I'll put that up with the "half partisan, half courtesan" line about the House Republicans for Line of the Month. I think Mr Reich said "fringe politicians," but RFK Jr is certainly cringe as well. ADDENDUM: I also appreciate the flash and reference to perennial Green candidate Jill Stein. IIRC in 2016 she did try to mount some legal challenges to Trump's election, which is more than Dems attempted. But is she actually so vain as to run again, knowing that she can only pull votes from Biden? Dean Shomshak Edited April 17 by DShomshak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 Ohio rejects Democrats' fix to get Joe Biden on November ballot https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/16/ohio-rejects-joe-biden-ballot/73351358007/ Old Man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted April 17 Report Share Posted April 17 10 minutes ago, Starlord said: Ohio rejects Democrats' fix to get Joe Biden on November ballot https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/04/16/ohio-rejects-joe-biden-ballot/73351358007/ Cripes. So much petty, procedural BS. Elsewhere, the Senate dismisses the impeachment charges brought up by the House against Homeland Security secretary Mayorkas, on the grounds that they don't rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor, when he's following the policy laid out by the president. The votes and rhetoric are precisely as expected...well, OK, Murakowski voted "present" on one of the 2 motions to dismiss. And nearer to home, the Arizona House rejected a move to repeal the abortion ban which the state Supreme Court ruled recently was valid. This is despite only a small majority and the urging of prominent Republicans to do so. (16-14 in the state Senate, 31-28 in the state House.) It's clear that those folks are concerned about the backlash that's been seen in other states...it's plausible that the Republicans will lose both. The governor's not up. And if the backlash is bad enough, particularly combined with the clown show in the US House...*maybe* they lose a US House seat? I have no clue if the Republican districts are actually competitive or not. Heck, who knows, this could be the push to give Biden the win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DShomshak Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 For a little better news: The March 23, 2024 issue of The Economist examines immigration in the UK and argues that the country assimilates its immigrants remarkably well. For all the hyperventilating of politicians, immigrant ethnic ghettos where white Britons dare not go are a myth: Britain's immigrants mix thoroughly with each other, and rapidly spread to mingle with the general population.* And, well, the Prime Minister and the Lord Mayor of London are both South Asian chaps. They call it "Britain's Superpower" and suggest the rest of Europe could try learning a thing or two from the British example. Leader: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/03/21/britain-is-the-best-place-in-europe-to-be-an-immigrant In greater depth, with charts: https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/03/18/without-realising-it-britain-has-become-a-nation-of-immigrants A letter in a more recent issue suggested one reason the UK might have an easier time assimilating people from other lands: A national identity as "British," separate from traditional ethnic identities such as "English" or "Welsh." Perhaps our resident Brits can comment? Dean Shomshak * No more Limehouse? No dark and mysterious enclave of sinister Orientals? I am almost disappointed, the place loomed so large in the stories of Sherlock Holmes and Fu Manchu. I suppose it would be culturally insensitive to re-create it as a theme park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 In a relatively pleasant surprise, considering...12 jurors have been selected for the Trump case. There's still a need for some alternates, and 2 prospective jurors were removed after having passed initially, so it's not a lock. I was worried this could take a LOT longer. Old Man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnia Posted April 18 Report Share Posted April 18 *world's tiniest violin* Donald Trump Had to Sit in Court and See All the Mean Memes Potential Jurors Have Posted About Him Online Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 (edited) I'm getting pretty annoyed with the press continuing to call this a "hush money" trial. There's nothing illegal for paying someone to not reveal details of actions which aren't criminal. This is a campaign-fund misappropriation felony trial, over a significant amount of money explicitly raised for funding an election campaign allegedly being diverted to another purpose, deliberately mislabeled as "legal expenses," and the payment not being reported to the FEC. EDIT: Added "allegedly" for legal reasons. Edited April 19 by Lord Liaden Old Man and Pariah 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 6 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said: I'm getting pretty annoyed with the press continuing to call this a "hush money" trial. There's nothing illegal for paying someone to not reveal details of actions which aren't criminal. This is a campaign-fund misappropriation felony trial, over a significant amount of money explicitly raised for funding an election campaign allegedly being diverted to another purpose, deliberately mislabeled as "legal expenses," and the payment not being reported to the FEC. EDIT: Added "allegedly" for legal reasons. Great minds think alike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 (edited) Sorry, didn't mean to be repetitive. But it just sticks in my craw, because it encourages people not in the know to downplay how serious the charge is. But of course "hush money" is an easier sell to an audience who don't follow the details of a story. It does highlight how Trump has managed to retain his personal fortune despite his managerial ineptitude. He uses other people's money. The "crowds" of Trump supporters appearing outside the courthouse during the past two days of the trial have numbered in the dozens. That must sting Donnie as badly as the mean tweets. Edited April 19 by Lord Liaden Old Man 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 3 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said: Sorry, didn't mean to be repetitive. But it just sticks in my craw, because it encourages people not in the know to downplay how serious the charge is. But of course "hush money" is an easier sell to an audience who don't follow the details of a story. It does highlight how Trump has managed to retain his personal fortune despite his managerial ineptitude. He uses other people's money. The "crowds" of Trump supporters appearing outside the courthouse during the past two days of the trial have numbered in the dozens. That must sting Donnie as badly as the mean tweets. I've come to some grudging acceptance of the "hush money" label simply because large swaths of the electorate wouldn't pay attention at all if it were a "mere" election fraud trial. I know my fellow Americans well enough to know that high treason isn't nearly as interesting as a porn star. Grailknight, DShomshak, Pattern Ghost and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starlord Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 Man on fire outside Trump trial https://www.fox5ny.com/news/person-on-fire-next-to-nyc-courthouse-during-trump-trial-jury-selection Yikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 The legal standard of whether a "reasonable person" would believe propaganda is not adequate. There are clearly no few unreasonable people in the world, and propaganda can do great harm to them, and to those around them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 35 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said: The legal standard of whether a "reasonable person" would believe propaganda is not adequate. There are clearly no few unreasonable people in the world, and propaganda can do great harm to them, and to those around them. OK, so when does it stop being protected speech? And who decides? How about statements like: --"Slavery is immoral"...in 1850 --"Women aren't competent to vote"...in 1905 --"Civil rights is human rights"...in the early 50s South This isn't the same thing as QAnon's conspiracy theories, as these statements are in the realm of ethics, rather than facts. The law can't readily distinguish between the two. That's even before considering that most hate speech is still protected by the First Amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man Posted April 19 Report Share Posted April 19 2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: The legal standard of whether a "reasonable person" would believe propaganda is not adequate. There are clearly no few unreasonable people in the world, and propaganda can do great harm to them, and to those around them. There's a point at which propaganda crosses the line into threats or stochastic terrorism, and that's usually fairly easy to spot. But it's much harder to draw a line between spin and lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 "The 2020 presidential election was rigged" is not spin. "The Biden family are criminals" is not spin. "COVID is a hoax" is not spin. People spreading demonstrable lies should be held accountable for the harm they do, which as we've seen, can be considerable. Pariah, tkdguy, Old Man and 1 other 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclevlad Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said: "The 2020 presidential election was rigged" is not spin. "The Biden family are criminals" is not spin. "COVID is a hoax" is not spin. People spreading demonstrable lies should be held accountable for the harm they do, which as we've seen, can be considerable. I think we generally agree with you, but the First Amendment says they're protected speech...for the most part. The "COVID is a hoax" may be actionable...if said by a doctor, as a violation of professional ethics. Even that, tho, probably requires quite a bit more to it before any punishment will get handed down. And how far do you want to take that? Because you KNOW the Paxtons and DeSantises would weaponize this as fast as they could, and THEIR definition of "demonstrable lies" or "harmful speech" might well include anything counter to their manipulation of Biblical text. Pattern Ghost 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Liaden Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 (edited) If you want to know how far I would want to take that, I would be inclined toward the standards of hate speech laws in Canada. But of course, I'm not American. The law and culture of my country is different. It just seems to me that what you have is not working for you as intended, at least not any more. Edited April 20 by Lord Liaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcw43921 Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 Trump Listens To Comments By Potential Jurors. They don't like him very much. Pariah 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grailknight Posted April 20 Report Share Posted April 20 " I wouldn't believe him if his tongue were notarized" I am so stealing that for my next game. Pariah and TrickstaPriest 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.