[thepossum]

pilowsky, on 2023-July-06, 04:16, said:

...


Just so you know, 'The Australian' is a Murdoch owned rabidly conservative daily here.

..

I don't feel like disagreeing too vigorously but its the only paper I read occasionally
Possibly the only real newspaper left in the country

[Gilithin]

thepossum, on 2023-July-09, 02:01, said:

I don't feel like disagreeing too vigorously but its the only paper I read occasionally
Possibly the only real newspaper left in the country

In the same way that OANN is the only real news service left in the US and GBN the only real news in the UK?

[thepossum]

Gilithin, on 2023-July-09, 12:06, said:

In the same way that OANN is the only real news service left in the US and GBN the only real news in the UK?

Maybe you have never read the Australian
PS I am not sponsored by the Murdochs and never buy it (wouldn't be seen dead), but will occasionally read it if I find a copy lying around

I did watch a few hours of GBN when last in England - hilarious

[Winstonm]

I had an ad pop on my phone that asked a question: does Trump’s indictment help or hurt his candidacy? A couple of thoughts: that this is even a question, that someone accused by the top law enforcement agency in the nation of stealing national secrets and then interfering with their return can be successfully running for president where he would have pardon power is in itself a frightening display of how so many can be duped by ridiculous propaganda from an organized effort or simply don’t care.
The second thought is that if Trump is indeed electable, this is a country no longer of value as home or neighbor.

The only question to ask at this point is of 12 jurors, How do you find, guilty or not guilty?

[Gilithin]

Many commentators have pointed out that as this stage it helps his candidacy in terms of getting the GOP nomination but hurts it in terms of winning the presidency. Either of those might yet change though - a week is a long time in politics.

[mycroft]

Argh, I've been paying way too much attention to US politics:

Finally got around to reading the Chicago NABC bulletins, and the first thing I see is "Four indicted into Hall of Fame"...

[Gilithin]

mycroft, on 2023-July-20, 10:20, said:

Argh, I've been paying way too much attention to US politics:

Finally got around to reading the Chicago NABC bulletins, and the first thing I see is "Four indicted into Hall of Fame"...

I'm surprised you didn't also spot Harvey Weinstein's Zedtwitz Award...

[Winstonm]

Marcy Wheeler has said that besides the attempted wiping of Mar-a-Lago security tapes there were also successful wipes done that are still under investigation and multiple grand juries are underway in multiple states: can it be that there might even eventually be espionage charges? Who was on those tapes and seeing classified documents and why have the Saudis granted favors worth millions to Trump’s golf courses?

[pilowsky]

UAP's UFO's - what's being hidden?
My guess is the amount of money being diverted to private industry instead of providing value for money in health education and welfare.

[Winstonm]

So trying to void everyone’s vote is illegal? Who knew? Vlad said it was legal in Russia.

[shyams]

I hope the oft-repeated talking points of TV pundits that Trump caused a "violent insurrection" and/or "sedition" will feature in some future indictment.

Those, if true, were the most serious charges against Trump. And the American people deserve to see him tried for them.

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2023-August-02, 05:01, said:

I hope the oft-repeated talking points of TV pundits that Trump caused a "violent insurrection" and/or "sedition" will feature in some future indictment.

Those, if true, were the most serious charges against Trump. And the American people deserve to see him tried for them.

There would be too many first amendment arguments for a strong expectation of conviction so it won’t happen.

[Winstonm]

I thought I'd post this as helpful knowledge as so many TV pundits are yelling about Trump "believing" he had won. As it turns out, that is irrelevant. He has been charged with 18 USC 1512 ( c ) (2), obstruction, so it doesn't matter if he believed it or not as the actions taken following that belief were unlawful. There are legitimate and lawful methods for challenging an election. Trump chose to use unlawful means; therefore, what he thought doesn't matter.

It helps to keep in mind that to convict requires real evidence presented under evidentiary rules in a court of law that will convince 12 strangers of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Gilithin]

Winstonm, on 2023-August-02, 12:41, said:

I thought I'd post this as helpful knowledge as so many TV pundits are yelling about Trump "believing" he had won. As it turns out, that is irrelevant. He has been charged with 18 USC 1512 ( c ) (2), obstruction, so it doesn't matter if he believed it or not as the actions taken following that belief were unlawful. There are legitimate and lawful methods for challenging an election. Trump chose to use unlawful means; therefore, what he thought doesn't matter.

18 USC 1512 (c ) (2) reads "Whoever corruptly...obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

I would assume that the plausible deniability argument here is that a President acting upon the genuine belief that an election was the subject of massive voter fraud was not acting corruptly. It may be a weak argument but it is premature to say that it does not matter at all.

[Winstonm]

Gilithin, on 2023-August-03, 05:24, said:

18 USC 1512 (c ) (2) reads "Whoever corruptly...obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

I would assume that the plausible deniability argument here is that a President acting upon the genuine belief that an election was the subject of massive voter fraud was not acting corruptly. It may be a weak argument but it is premature to say that it does not matter at all.

Here is what Judge Lamberth wrote in finding of facts in this charge against a Jan. 6 insurrectionist who is today in prison:

Quote

Even if Mr. Hostetter sincerely believed–which it appears he did–that the election was fraudulent, that President Trump was the rightful winner, and that public officials committed treason, as a former policy chief, he still must have known that it was unlawful to vindicate that perceived injustice by engaging in mob violence to obstruct Congress.

And that is only the one charge. There is plenty of evidence in the indictment that satisfies the criteria of mens rea for Trump. Trump has truly screwed himself.

The real tragedy in all this is the continued Republican response that this is all politically motivated, which only serves the interest of countries who would like to see the USA weakened, China and Russia particularly. If 60,000,000 people are told over and over that the DOJ is corrupt and hear nothing else then what does US law mean to those people? Without law, no US.

[Gilithin]

I agree that the defence is weak but there is a massive difference between actions taken by a civilian and those of the President. Simple example - if a Lieutenant orders his unit to kill someone who (s)he says they believe is working against the country but without evidence, that is generally going to be illegal; if the POTUS does so it is not providing they have sufficient plausible deniability that the belief is reasonable. The President gets an enormous amount of leeway in their actions so arguments that work for anyone else may fail when extrapolated. Therefore it is perfectly ok to say that this defence should fail, or even that is mildly ridiculous; but saying that it is irrelevant? Not yet, unless you have specific legal training in this highly specific (and untested) area of the Law.

[Winstonm]

Gilithin, on 2023-August-03, 07:10, said:

I agree that the defence is weak but there is a massive difference between actions taken by a civilian and those of the President. Simple example - if a Lieutenant orders his unit to kill someone who (s)he says they believe is working against the country but without evidence, that is generally going to be illegal; if the POTUS does so it is not providing they have sufficient plausible deniability that the belief is reasonable. The President gets an enormous amount of leeway in their actions so arguments that work for anyone else may fail when extrapolated. Therefore it is perfectly ok to say that this defence should fail, or even that is mildly ridiculous; but saying that it is irrelevant? Not yet, unless you have specific legal training in this highly specific (and untested) area of the Law.

Actions to get elected or re-elected are not presidential duties hence it doesn't matter. Here are what has to be proven in court for the non-conspiracy counts:

• Use deceit to undermine the Electoral College Act
• Prevent the certification of the Electoral votes on January 6
• Prevent the Biden voters votes in swing states from being counted

Note that as long as the actions committed are understood or should be understood to be corrupt, then it doesn't matter if you are doing it to rectify what you think is a greater wrong.

[barmar]

Gilithin, on 2023-August-03, 05:24, said:

I would assume that the plausible deniability argument here is that a President acting upon the genuine belief that an election was the subject of massive voter fraud was not acting corruptly. It may be a weak argument but it is premature to say that it does not matter at all.

That's why a bedrock of this case is the fact that almost all his advisors told him that there was no massive voter fraud and he actually lost. I think there's even some statements by Trump acknowledging this. So he knowingly lied to the public, he was not acting on this "genuine belief".

[barmar]

Gilithin, on 2023-August-03, 07:10, said:

I agree that the defence is weak but there is a massive difference between actions taken by a civilian and those of the President. Simple example - if a Lieutenant orders his unit to kill someone who (s)he says they believe is working against the country but without evidence, that is generally going to be illegal; if the POTUS does so it is not providing they have sufficient plausible deniability that the belief is reasonable. The President gets an enormous amount of leeway in their actions so arguments that work for anyone else may fail when extrapolated. Therefore it is perfectly ok to say that this defence should fail, or even that is mildly ridiculous; but saying that it is irrelevant? Not yet, unless you have specific legal training in this highly specific (and untested) area of the Law.

As Nixon claimed: "when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal".

Of course, Nixon is hardly the President that one should emulate. But I'm sure Trump is a big believer in that principle.

[thepossum]

Can I ask a (possibly uninformed) question

Can you be preselected from prison then go on to stand for President? Apologies if already asked

I have rather strong views about the amount of media time this issue is occupying