Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

 

I've read SCO Smith's response to the Trump team's proposed trial schedule.

 

The response is idiotic.

 

It relies upon the fact that a significant portion of the discovery materials were available to Trump because they came from Trump, Trump, Inc., etc.

 

That's not what "effective representation" involves.

 

It is irrelevant that the defendant himself knew of the discovery

 

-- the question is what time does Counsel need and there is no suggestion that Trump's counsel knew of or had access to this information in discovery.

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Agree 1
Posted

 

 

Rhetoric should be "hard to police."

 

I'm disturbed by this Washington Post headline: "In Trump cases, experts say defendant’s rhetoric will be hard to police."

 

Let's read the text. Is it as oblivious to traditional free-speech values as it sounds? 

 

As a 2024 candidate, Trump “has the best imaginable First Amendment case for talking about the charges against him, the evidence against him, the witnesses against him,” [said Kenneth White, a former federal prosecutor in California who specializes in free-speech issues]. particularly when one of those witnesses is former vice president Mike Pence, who is also seeking the GOP nomination....

 

Long before the indictments in D.C. and Georgia, Trump said the election-related investigations themselves sought to punish him for exercising his First Amendment speech rights in the aftermath of the 2020 voting. A pretrial legal battle over what the former president can or cannot say about those events might buttress that line of attack, experts said.

 

 

That is, Trump's opponents are in a bind. The more the courts restrict Trump's speech about the substance of the cases, the stronger his argument that they're violating his freedom of speech.

 

Click for more » https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/08/rhetoric-should-be-hard-to-police.html#more

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
On 8/22/2023 at 1:32 PM, B-Man said:

 

It’s not going to be moved.   None of the people indicted in this case - least of all Trump - were performing official Federal government duties or had roles relating to the legitimate electoral college.  
 

Now say, if Mike Pence had done something incredibly stupid on 1/6/2021 and had not just counted the electoral votes in his ceremonial role per the Constitution, *he* would be charged with Federal crime(s).

  • Vomit 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, TSOL said:

 

 

Looks like it's been removed 

 

It still works for me when I click on it.

 

It's a middle aged black man from Georgia wearing a t shirt that says..

 

"Nig..gas 4 Trump"

 

 But thankfully we have Twitter to shield us from "hateful content"

  • Haha (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...