A Deeply Fractured US

[Fishbone Jones]

Is that the Bragg one? Democratic strategists months ago were worried that it was likely to be the first one in the pipe, because it has a strong likelihood of ending up as a "win" in Trump's column

On top of not another entity, federal or state, that would have anything to do with it. Lots and lots of people told him it wasn't going to fly and to drop it. But when Soros is your major campaign donor, you do what your told.

 

[dimsum]

You must be watching a different trial than me and listening to different experts, they are on the verge of perjuring themselves, but I'm not getting into a pissing match about it. We'll wait and see. I don't have a lot to do nowadays, so I don't watch soundbytes or little tidbits on the news. I sit and watch these trials, while they're happening.

Is the Willis case the one where the main eyewitness said he didn’t witness anything?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Cell Records Dispute Fani Willis And Nathan Wade’s Relationship Timeline, Trump Team Says​

Cell Records Dispute Fani Willis And Nathan Wade’s Relationship Timeline, Trump Team Says

Trump is seeking to have Willis disqualified from the Georgia election interference case over her romantic relationship with Wade.

www.forbes.com

 

[brihard]

Cell Records Dispute Fani Willis And Nathan Wade’s Relationship Timeline, Trump Team Says​

Cell Records Dispute Fani Willis And Nathan Wade’s Relationship Timeline, Trump Team Says

Trump is seeking to have Willis disqualified from the Georgia election interference case over her romantic relationship with Wade.

www.forbes.com

Yup, I’m aware of that. The cell tower data is quite a stretch; it can show someone’s phone was in a fairly broad area, but that’s about it. Don’t think of it as a dot on a map; it’s actually a quite large circle covering a large map area. We don’t use tower data to try to place people precisely for investigative purposes simply because it doesn’t offer that. My understanding is defence doesn’t even have an expert witness to speak to this. If Wade has a friend, girlfriend, family member, favourite bar or whatever in that general area, that’s something that easily adds a ton of ambiguity to the cell tower data. As to their communications, lots of possibilities for why two counsel might be communicating either personally or professionally.

While I’m sure you have some preferred commentators who are talking breathlessly of perjury, everything we’ve seen and heard in testimony so far is a long way short of proving any corruption or inappropriate relationship between Wade and Willis. Any other evidence the defence has attempted to introduce has failed to show what they hoped it to show, or to stand up to scrutiny. And, again, the key question is whether that results in any prosecutorial disqualification from the RICO case. That’s another (very tall) hurdle still. Even if it conceivably did, the prosecution would simply be assigned to other prosecutors, probably brought in from externally. It would not invalidate the grand jury’s indictment against the multitude of defendants, or the convictions in the case that have already happened.

This is a very large bet on a pair of fours by the defense.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yup, I’m aware of that. The cell tower data is quite a stretch; it can show someone’s phone was in a fairly broad area, but that’s about it. Don’t think of it as a dot on a map; it’s actually a quite large circle covering a large map area. We don’t use tower data to try to place people precisely for investigative purposes simply because it doesn’t offer that. My understanding is defence doesn’t even have an expert witness to speak to this. If Wade has a friend, girlfriend, family member, favourite bar or whatever in that general area, that’s something that easily adds a ton of ambiguity to the cell tower data. As to their communications, lots of possibilities for why two counsel might be communicating either personally or professionally.

While I’m sure you have some preferred commentators who are talking breathlessly of perjury, everything we’ve seen and heard in testimony so far is a long way short of proving any corruption or inappropriate relationship between Wade and Willis. Any other evidence the defence has attempted to introduce has failed to show what they hoped it to show, or to stand up to scrutiny. And, again, the key question is whether that results in any prosecutorial disqualification from the RICO case. That’s another (very tall) hurdle still. Even if it conceivably did, the prosecution would simply be assigned to other prosecutors, probably brought in from externally. It would not invalidate the grand jury’s indictment against the multitude of defendants, or the convictions in the case that have already happened.

This is a very large bet on a pair of fours by the defense.

That wasn't in response to anything you said Bri, but I get your point. Just another facet of the trial.

They're doing what they're paid to do. Cast doubt and find chinks in the prosecution case.

2,000 phone calls and 1,200 texts are an awful lot communication for a couple that was not supposed to have been personally involved with each other.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

While I’m sure you have some preferred commentators who are talking breathlessly of perjury, everything we’ve seen and heard in testimony so far is a long way short of proving any corruption or inappropriate relationship between Wade and Willis. Any other evidence the defence has attempted to introduce has failed to show what they hoped it to show, or to stand up to scrutiny. And, again, the key question is whether that results in any prosecutorial disqualification from the RICO case. That’s another (very tall) hurdle still. Even if it conceivably did, the prosecution would simply be assigned to other prosecutors, probably brought in from externally. It would not invalidate the grand jury’s indictment against the multitude of defendants, or the convictions in the case that have already happened.

This is a very large bet on a pair of fours by the defense.

The Judge overseeing the case has his own opinion.

Fani Willis Could Be Disqualified From Trump Case For Relationship With Prosecutor, Judge Says​

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said Monday “I think it's possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification” when considering whether to quash a subpoena for Willis and others in her office, after Trump co-defendant Michael Roman pushed for Willis’ removal from the case and claimed she had a personal relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

Fani Willis Could Be Disqualified From Trump Case For Relationship With Prosecutor, Judge Says

The disqualification evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Thursday.

www.forbes.com

 

[brihard]

The Judge overseeing the case has his own opinion.

Fani Willis Could Be Disqualified From Trump Case For Relationship With Prosecutor, Judge Says​

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said Monday “I think it's possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification” when considering whether to quash a subpoena for Willis and others in her office, after Trump co-defendant Michael Roman pushed for Willis’ removal from the case and claimed she had a personal relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

Fani Willis Could Be Disqualified From Trump Case For Relationship With Prosecutor, Judge Says

The disqualification evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Thursday.

www.forbes.com

Yup, and the context of that statement wasn’t judge opining on the likelihood of a specific outcome. It was in the context of the judge ruling on a motion to quash, and applying the appropriate legal test for that. The judge had to determine whether the (fairly significant and sensational) allegations, if taken at face value and proven by evidence, could have a significant or non-frivolous impact on the case. Quashing a subpoena in such a context is a reasonably high bar. The judge appropriately determined that, if the initial allegations made by defence were borne out and proven, then that result could happen. Part of his responsibility is to gatekeep what does and doesn’t enter the judicial proceedings. It’s normal in such settings to take theories from the parties at face value for the purpose of giving them the opportunity to introduce evidence to prove it.

That was just over two weeks ago before the testimony and evidence that has been offered since. So far, nothing that has emerged on the stand has come anywhere close to that.

It is of course still possible that new evidence could emerge that does reach a threshold for disqualification. I’m simply pointing out that the judge’s comments about why he’s allowing evidence to be heard and tested doesn’t mean he’s speaking to any degree of belief or likelihood. Just that he’ll accept a prima facie claim as potentially valid and let the parties argue it.

 

[QV]

The effort in all of this was to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. The goal was to terminally damage Trump in the primaries paving the way for Haley or someone else.

It isn't working. What will be interesting to watch are whether the efforts to "stop Trump" grow in desperation and what could possibly come next.

 

[brihard]

The effort in all of this was to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks. The goal was to terminally damage Trump in the primaries paving the way for Haley or someone else.

It isn't working. What will be interesting to watch are whether the efforts to "stop Trump" grow in desperation and what could possibly come next.

Alternatively, four separate jurisdictions each found probable cause to believe he committed criminal offences impacting such sundry things as electoral integrity, the peaceful transition of power, and national security intelligence, and each of those respective jurisdictions have had a Grand Jury return indictments that it is the respective courts’ responsibility to try. Everything up to this point has been efforts on Trump’s part to delay the commencement of any trial.

 

[QV]

Having unwavering faith in the integrity of all these processes is certainly a rare thing these days. Probably 200 million people don't.

 

[brihard]

Having unwavering faith in the integrity of all these processes is certainly a rare thing these days. Probably 200 million people don't.

You sound like you would prefer, even with probable cause to believe crimes were committed, that investigation, indictment, and prosecution not take place. That’s a lot of unwavering faith in one very temperamental and self-interested man, against a large and still mounting body of evidence to the contrary.

 

[QV]

You are attempting to mind read. That's never a good look. I am just making some observations.

One observation is the more they go after Trump, the higher his support. Why do you suppose that is? If the majority of the people truly believe the "system" is acting altruistically then there is no reason for Trump to be gaining support with every passing indictment. So, why?

 

[brihard]

You are attempting to mind read. That's never a good look. I am just making some observations.

One observation is the more they go after Trump, the higher his support. Why do you suppose that is? If the majority of the people truly believe the "system" is acting altruistically then there is no reason for Trump to be gaining support with every passing indictment. So, why?

I’m going where your words and reasoning logically take me. But let’s take the guesswork out of it.

Four separate grand juries have returned felony indictments against Donald Trump. Do you or don’t you believe that the prosecution and court processes involving DonaldTrump as criminal defendant should currently be continuing on their own merits?

 

[QV]

Your navigation system is fucked. The reason you are avoiding my question is because you don't like the answer.

But I'll play your game and give you more courtesy then you give me by answering. I believe the law should always be followed and enforced provided that law meets the constitution or charter, which ever country we're talking about.

Based on the last 8 years, processes and investigations with regard to 45 haven't been applied fairly and in some cases outright abused. There is no reason to believe now will be any different.

 

[brihard]

Your navigation system is fucked. The reason you are avoiding my question is because you don't like the answer.

But I'll play your game and give you more courtesy then you give me by answering. I believe the law should always be followed and enforced provided that law meets the constitution or charter, which ever country we're talking about.

Based on the last 8 years, processes and investigations with regard to 45 haven't been applied fairly and in some cases outright abused. There is no reason to believe now will be any different.

So do you believe some or all of the ongoing criminal prosecutions are unlawful?

To answer your question, I believe Trump is being prosecuted several times over because in each case there’s an abundance of evidence establishing that he may have committed crimes, and that in three out of four of those, they’re pretty egregious. I’m quite sure that answer was already clear from what I’ve said before, but there’s a direct answer to you as a courtesy. I believe that if he were not running again for president all of these same prosecutions would be underway on the strength of the probable cause evidence.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Alternatively, four separate jurisdictions each found probable cause to believe he committed criminal offences impacting such sundry things as electoral integrity, the peaceful transition of power, and national security intelligence, and each of those respective jurisdictions have had a Grand Jury return indictments that it is the respective courts’ responsibility to try. Everything up to this point has been efforts on Trump’s part to delay the commencement of any trial.

Alternatively, four separate jurisdictions - some with people who were on a crusade - each found worked very hard to find probable cause to believe

 

[QV]

So do you believe some or all of the ongoing criminal prosecutions are unlawful?

To answer your question, I believe Trump is being prosecuted several times over because in each case there’s an abundance of evidence establishing that he may have committed crimes, and that in three out of four of those, they’re pretty egregious. I’m quite sure that answer was already clear from what I’ve said before, but there’s a direct answer to you as a courtesy. I believe that if he were not running again for president all of these same prosecutions would be underway on the strength of the probable cause evidence.

I don't know. If all these cases are technically legal, were they initiated in good faith?

For example, the 51 former intelligence officials, who signed a statement claiming the Hunter Biden laptop scandal had "earmarks" of Russian disinformation, didn't technically break the law. Though we now know they purposefully mislead the public leading up to an important election. What impact do you think examples like this have on public trust for these institutions?

You did not answer my question. Here it is again: the more they go after Trump, the higher his support. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Lumber]

You did not answer my question. Here it is again: the more they go after Trump, the higher his support. Why do you suppose that is?

Simple: "people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals."

More seriously, albeit still not specifically, whatever is the reason why so many were able to rally around and fully support Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Pol Pot... that's the reason.

The fact that the same people on this site who are denying (or at least deflecting) the mountains of evidence against Trump are the same ones decrying Trudeau's "crimes" as if they are the most haneous ever is quite frankly, insane.

 

[QV]

Alternatively, four separate jurisdictions - some with people who were on a crusade - each found worked very hard to find probable cause to believe

Show me the man and I'll show you the crime.

 

[QV]

Simple: "people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals."

More seriously, albeit still not specifically, whatever is the reason why so many were able to rally around and fully support Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Franco, Pol Pot... that's the reason.

The fact that the same people on this site who are denying (or at least deflecting) the mountains of evidence against Trump are the same ones decrying Trudeau's "crimes" as if they are the most haneous ever is quite frankly, insane.

Here is the difference:

Trudeau's government is harming the country vs The State is harming a person.

Every person is innocent until proven guilty. The State gets no such right, it must demonstrate lawfulness at all times.