The Walls be Closing

[John from Riverside]

On 11/22/2023 at 1:22 PM, Tommy Callahan said:

Said the quiet part out loud there big guy.  

 

Gotta stick to script.  You make this sound like some kangaroo court where the guilt was already established?  

 

 

He’s already been found guilty. The court proceedings are to find out how much is actually going to owe

[BillStime]

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

11 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

👆 Fantasy - cuz that's all these MAGA nutters have

 

👇 Reality:

 

Trump’s border wall reportedly in severe disrepair in Arizona

 

[BillStime]

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

so i'm guessing the trump humpers here, think he was telling the truth while pence lied.  pls elaborate....

https://abcnews.go.com/US/pence-told-jan-6-special-counsel-harrowing-details/story?id=105183391https://abcnews.go.com/US/pence-told-jan-6-special-counsel-harrowing-details/story?id=105183391

11 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

just can't stop yourself huh?  try saltpeter or an anti estrogen like tamoxifen.

Edited November 29, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[Joe Ferguson forever]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Tommy Callahan]

24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

lol. those are triggering the heck out of one of the ***** birds in this place.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

53 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

so i'm guessing the trump humpers here, think he was telling the truth while pence lied.  pls elaborate....

https://abcnews.go.com/US/pence-told-jan-6-special-counsel-harrowing-details/story?id=105183391https://abcnews.go.com/US/pence-told-jan-6-special-counsel-harrowing-details/story?id=105183391

just can't stop yourself huh?  try saltpeter or an anti estrogen like tamoxifen.

Here’s my feedback:

 

The SC leaks like a sieve, and the leaks are carefully designed to shape the narrative and public opinion in a way that should be unnecessary.   It’s not the first time this has happened. 
 

The writer of this piece offers partial quotes without context, sandwiched with narrative designed to manipulate the reader, and fails to include the questions asked.  We have seen this before, many times, and thinking people should proceed with caution. 

Pence’s comments are undoubtedly self-serving, but he did the correct thing and certified the election.   
 

Generally, I think it’s interesting that the placement of a comma draws intense scrutiny, but politicians removing top secret/classified information while senator, VP, and President, losing track of multiple documents and exposing national secrets is considered acceptable behavior.  
 

 

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

35 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

lol. those are triggering the heck out of one of the ***** birds in this place.

 

 

 

Although I can't see what they post, I was 100% certain they'd be triggered by absurdity in response to absurdity.

 

And the beauty comes in the never ending variety that is Trump "history" 

 

Unlike another ***** bird who has posted the same thing 1000 times.

 

Additionally I only share these vital history lessons in absurd threads started by and populated with mostly useful idiots. 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Here’s my feedback:

 

The SC leaks like a sieve, and the leaks are carefully designed to shape the narrative and public opinion in a way that should be unnecessary.   It’s not the first time this has happened. 
 

The writer of this piece offers partial quotes without context, sandwiched with narrative designed to manipulate the reader, and fails to include the questions asked.  We have seen this before, many times, and thinking people should proceed with caution. 

Pence’s comments are undoubtedly self-serving, but he did the correct thing and certified the election.   
 

Generally, I think it’s interesting that the placement of a comma draws intense scrutiny, but politicians removing top secret/classified information while senator, VP, and President, losing track of multiple documents and exposing national secrets is considered acceptable behavior.  
 

 

 

 

 

 

Pence's testimony to Jack Smith's team includes one of those wonderful ambiguities that can make litigation fun.

His book included this line: "You know, I believe you lost the election."

His testimony is that the book's editors got it wrong by including the comma. It was really "You know I believe you lost the election."

Why is this important? Because in the "no comma" formulation, Pence is commenting on what he believes Trump's state of mind was at the time - Trump was encouraging him not to certify the election, and Pence was saying "you already know I believe you lost and the results are sound, so doing that would violate my oath of office." In the "comma" formulation, it could be read as an offhand comment, telling Trump for the first time that Pence is tending toward certifying the election.

Of such things are trials made.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Pence's testimony to Jack Smith's team includes one of those wonderful ambiguities that can make litigation fun.

His book included this line: "You know, I believe you lost the election."

His testimony is that the book's editors got it wrong by including the comma. It was really "You know I believe you lost the election."

Why is this important? Because in the "no comma" formulation, Pence is commenting on what he believes Trump's state of mind was at the time - Trump was encouraging him not to certify the election, and Pence was saying "you already know I believe you lost and the results are sound, so doing that would violate my oath of office." In the "comma" formulation, it could be read as an offhand comment, telling Trump for the first time that Pence is tending toward certifying the election.

Of such things are trials made.

So, just a humble observation--the fact that "litigation can be fun" is part of the problem here.  In the eyes of the voting public, there is generally a high degree of skepticism in the fairness of our system, often for good reason.   Part of the shading certainly comes from belief in a candidate, belief that the system is rigged one way or the other, or that "you guy" is getting screwed while the other guy is above the law.   The reality is, however you see it, you're probably right.  

 

When you add in the obvious nature of strategic leaking, snippets and tidbits of testimony, it feels an awful lot more like the National Enquirer than the work of The Department of Justice.  The lady in the photo may be visually impaired, but she sure seems chatty. 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

9 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

the fact that "litigation can be fun" is part of the problem here.  In the eyes of the voting public, there is generally a high degree of skepticism in the fairness of our system, often for good reason.

Well, what I mean is this: it's a real issue! Here's what we'd expect Pence to testify to, and if you believe him, believe his memory and impressions of the event are true, complete, and correct, it's pretty damning:

- "Trump told me I should refuse to certify the electoral slates. I told him the he already knows that I believe the slates are sufficient and that I would be violating my oath of office if I refused to certify them. He didn't seem to care."

Let's say Trump testifies in his own defense. (His lawyers would have a conniption, so I can't think he would, but play along). He says:

- "I told him some of my lawyers believe that those electoral slates are legally flawed because of clear evidence of voting fraud and that he can refuse to certify those and send them back to the states for clarification and recertification of what they believe is a valid slate. He then said, "You know, Mr. President, I think you [probably] did lose the election."

If a jury were to believe Trump's version (and he would be subjected to very vigorous cross examination), they could find that Trump did not try to subvert the rule of law by encouraging his VP (who has a statutory duty to certify the slates of electors) to violate his oath of office. The jury could decide that Pence offered his personal opinion that Trump probably did lose those states, but that reasonable minds could differ. That's very different than encouraging someone to violate a solemn oath.

That's what lawyers call a "triable issue of fact." 

And we don't know how a jury would decide ...

Edited November 29, 2023 by The Frankish Reich

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well, what I mean is this: it's a real issue! Here's what we'd expect Pence to testify to, and if you believe him, believe his memory and impressions of the event are true, complete, and correct, it's pretty damning:

- "Trump told me I should refuse to certify the electoral slates. I told him the he already knows that I believe the slates are sufficient and that I would be violating my oath of office if I refused to certify them. He didn't seem to care."

Let's say Trump testifies in his own defense. (His lawyers would have a conniption, so I can't think he would, but play along). He says:

- "I told him some of my lawyers believe that those electoral slates are legally flawed because of clear evidence of voting fraud and that he can refuse to certify those and send them back to the states for clarification and recertification of what they believe is a valid slate. He then said, "You know, Mr. President, I think you [probably] did lose the election."

If a jury were to believe Trump's version (and he would be subjected to very vigorous cross examination), they could find that Trump did not try to subvert the rule of law by encouraging his VP (who has a statutory duty to certify the slates of electors) to violate his oath of office. The jury could decide that Pence offered his personal opinion that Trump probably did lose those states, but that reasonable minds could differ. That's very different than encouraging someone to violate a solemn oath.

That's what lawyers call a "triable issue of fact." 

And we don't know how a jury would decide ...

I'm all for "triable issues of fact" (and thank you Your Honor for dumbing it down for me!).  What I'm against, generally, is the slow, steady, consistent drip of selected pieces of confidential information, fed to willing members of the media, who cut, copy and paste testimony purported to be accurate sandwiched between carefully crafted prose to paint a picture that may or may not be true.

 

The government is THE government.  The prosecution holds virtually every card here.  Jack Smith and his team could run this trial for the next 5 years, completely **** it up, and it would not cost them a dime.  The budget is unlimited.  The availability of experts, some fair, others not, is endless.  The opportunity for elevating one's position in the hyper-partisan world of DC politics is huge.  

 

The defendant, of course, risks everything.  Freedom, family, fortune.  

 

If the case is as rock solid as it seems to be, why the need to prosecute this case through innuendo and taint the jury pool with leaks and speculation?  

 

That's what some people call "icky". 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

4 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

try saltpeter or an anti estrogen like tamoxifen

😁

3 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I'm all for "triable issues of fact" (and thank you Your Honor for dumbing it down for me!).  What I'm against, generally, is the slow, steady, consistent drip of selected pieces of confidential information, fed to willing members of the media, who cut, copy and paste testimony purported to be accurate sandwiched between carefully crafted prose to paint a picture that may or may not be true.

 

The government is THE government.  The prosecution holds virtually every card here.  Jack Smith and his team could run this trial for the next 5 years, completely **** it up, and it would not cost them a dime.  The budget is unlimited.  The availability of experts, some fair, others not, is endless.  The opportunity for elevating one's position in the hyper-partisan world of DC politics is huge.  

 

The defendant, of course, risks everything.  Freedom, family, fortune.  

 

If the case is as rock solid as it seems to be, why the need to prosecute this case through innuendo and taint the jury pool with leaks and speculation?  

 

That's what some people call "icky". 

 

 

Agreed. The world of litigation would be cleaner if everyone kept a close hold on these things until the trial. But that perfect world has never existed and will never exist. The conflicts between free speech and the integrity of the judicial system are clear in the whole Trump gag order thing. There's always a tension.

[The Frankish Reich]

6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

(and thank you Your Honor for dumbing it down for me!)

Thanks. By the way, I've always tried to steer clear of jury trials. It's just not in my skill set. But I have been involved in lots of other litigation, and I've always had a grudging respect for the people who are great jury trial litigators - they have a way of making things clear to the lay men and women of a jury, getting them to respond emotionally, etc. I'm just not good at that part. Give me a good appeal brief any day!

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

😁

Agreed. The world of litigation would be cleaner if everyone kept a close hold on these things until the trial. But that perfect world has never existed and will never exist. The conflicts between free speech and the integrity of the judicial system are clear in the whole Trump gag order thing. There's always a tension.

Well, it's not 'free speech' and 'tension' so much as manipulation of the system by the prosecution.   You're the lawyer, and you latched on to the beauty of the placement of the comma.   I get that, I really do.  However, when members of the Smith team leak selective information from hours of testimony, context is completely missing as if it doesn't matter or is irrelevant.   It's as underhanded as anything Trump might say or do, but it goes unchecked while his behavior is presented as dangerous.   I see it less as tension, more as institutional arrogance.

 

While not Trump or SC related, I recall listening to a story after George Zimmerman shot Travon Martin.   The footage was edited to make it appear that Zimmerman volunteered that Travon was black.  What they cut was the 911 dispatcher asking for a description of TM.    One version is not the same as the other.  Why not just play the tape?  

 

I'm pro-law and order, and recognize the difficult job that prosecutors often have in front of them.  I simply don't see the need for tactical leaks, and as a result, tend to wonder why they feel manipulation is necessary in this case? 

 

 

 

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

11 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Thanks. By the way, I've always tried to steer clear of jury trials. It's just not in my skill set. But I have been involved in lots of other litigation, and I've always had a grudging respect for the people who are great jury trial litigators - they have a way of making things clear to the lay men and women of a jury, getting them to respond emotionally, etc. I'm just not good at that part. Give me a good appeal brief any day!

You sound like a dreary dullard. 

 

(jk-thanks for engaging on this subject.  It helps me think some of these things through.  Btw, a good friend of mine is a litigator in NYS govt, a brilliant guy and he says the same thing.)