DJT indicted on four counts related to January 6

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

Commode flusher wrote:

Here is a copy of the Eastman memo which was sent to Pence and his lawyer Greg Jacobs.

Link:www.documentcloud.org/documents/210662...

Paragraph 3: "Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected." That is what Pence was asked (told) to do by Trump after rejecting the electoral votes that Trump told him to reject (also in the Eastman Memo). (Many people considered Pence's refusal to reject electoral votes a hanging offense).

AdultInTheRoom was either lying when he said Pence was merely asked to pause the electoral count (or any variations of that), or he was horribly misled by the people that he relies on to form his opinions for him. Now I'm thinking he was just misled and was not lying. He seems too ignorant of the facts to be lying (unless intentionally being ignorant is lying).

Link:www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/s...

If it was illegal this law would not have been necessary. Yet there it is.

Smith's indictment will win in DC because it's 98% blue. Then it will get laughed out of court on appeal.

Commode flusher wrote:

Does anyone have thoughts on what happened in the Stolen Documents case today? Judge Cannon denied AND struck a motion by the prosecutors to file certain things under seal and then required the parties to submit briefs on: "the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district."

So it's an issue neither party has even raised, and then Cannon inserted it into an unrelated motion about co-defendant Nauta's lawyer's possible conflict of interest. My first take is that Cannon is going of the rez again, like she did in the subpoena cases when she halted the DOJ investigation until the 11th circuit reversed her ("We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.").

It doesn't seem like it's any of a judge's business where prosecutors conduct grand jury investigations, even if they are related to the current case before the judge. And if the prosecutors say documents are confidential and need to be sealed, the judge can either agree or disagree with them, but what does where the grand jury is from have to do with that? Can she bar evidence because it's from out of state grand juries? Sounds completely nuts, but that may be where she is headed with this. I don't claim to know what this is about, though.

SB wrote:

Monkeys Skyping wrote:

The point is that "natural hierarchies" are and always have been a part of political dynamics, but they matter almost not at all to those white collar workers entrenched near the top of the hierarchy and are less manifest as a political driver for the blue collar class when they feel they are advancing or at least keeping up.

"Enlightenment concepts" are easily embraced by those who are comfortable and by those who feel they are advancing.

Models are inherently simplistic representations of a more complex reality. The goal in general is that we want the model to be simple enough to be understandable while still having utility in recognizing broad tendencies in how persons react to the environment of the moment. The point is that a one dimensional left/right model is probably too simplistic to be useful and there are any number of multi-dimensional models possible. That is, left/right fails because it really just recognizes party allegiance and doesn't provide a basis for changing allegiance or factionalization within the parties.

We could (and political strategists do) look at divisions based on age, race/ethnicity, religiousity, etc, but this tells us (imperfectly) "who" rather than "why" and gets complicated quickly as there are factions within these divisions.

In any case, I point out Kahan's work because it does seem to have utility in this context, not because it is the complete answer to life, the universe and everything.

But left/right ideological schema and appeals endure practically and methodologically because they continue to capture very important realities about how power works in capitalist societies in particular.

For instance, it is odd to say that more privileged segments of professional and wage workers don't resonate with concepts of natural hierarchy when you consider how these workers typically understand their own success in capitalist labor markets, and how they orient themselves on the questions of material redistribution in general (they are usually against it in fundamental ways). US politics today can be understood largely in terms of the myth of meritocratic wealth distribution held by affluent liberals on one hand (a belief in a natural hierarchy of "merit", usually understood in terms of intelligence and skill) and adherence to cruder ideas about human difference and inequality (race and gender) on the other (right) hand. Both sets of beliefs are mobilized to explain differences in wealth and income distribution (and the power distribution that accompanies it) within modern capitalist class systems-- systems of the kind that the concept of "left vs right" was developed to make sense of, and will continue to be very useful in making sense of until such time as we no longer live under modern capitalism.

This "beyond left vs right" business is usually just a way of trying to deny, politically or methodologically, that we're still living under capitalism with all that this entails about the distribution of wealth and power-- the things that really define any society. This, BTW, is why we need to insist on the difference between "liberals", who are often just as committed to naturalizing capitalist class inequality as conservatives are, albeit in their own terms, and the left proper, which wants to question it.

Mrs wrote:

Commode flusher wrote:

Does anyone have thoughts on what happened in the Stolen Documents case today? Judge Cannon denied AND struck a motion by the prosecutors to file certain things under seal and then required the parties to submit briefs on: "the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district."

So it's an issue neither party has even raised, and then Cannon inserted it into an unrelated motion about co-defendant Nauta's lawyer's possible conflict of interest. My first take is that Cannon is going of the rez again, like she did in the subpoena cases when she halted the DOJ investigation until the 11th circuit reversed her ("We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.").

It doesn't seem like it's any of a judge's business where prosecutors conduct grand jury investigations, even if they are related to the current case before the judge. And if the prosecutors say documents are confidential and need to be sealed, the judge can either agree or disagree with them, but what does where the grand jury is from have to do with that? Can she bar evidence because it's from out of state grand juries? Sounds completely nuts, but that may be where she is headed with this. I don't claim to know what this is about, though.

Ben Meiselis at MeidasTouch agrees with your statement re location of grand juries. iirc He also said that Cannon messed up by unsealing the matter because it concerns a grand jury which is supposed to have some secrecy.

Video:www.youtube.com/watch?v=psd-_fVG9uc

roomchild wrote:

TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:

Trump was impeached for asking questions about what Biden did in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Biden crime family has something like 170+ suspicious activity reports at the US treasury for their numerous shell companies which launder the money.

All of your outrage over Trump needs to be kept in context. You chose the most corrupt politician in American history to replace him.

A few questions for you:

1) Who constitutes the Biden crime family? Joe and Hunter, or does it go wider than that?

2) Why have I not read about all of this money laundering done by the Biden crime family? A big story like this one would be covered by the MSM.

3) Do you project like Trump? Trump is the most corrupt politician...not even close. He drained the swamp by putting his daughter and SIL into the WH, getting her some $ from China, etc. Wanting to do many illegal things, only to be thwarted by the deep state. And a billionaire that needs donations from the little people to cover his legal expenses and lifestyle...bigly sad.

Conundrum wrote:

SB wrote:

Serious question for Trump stalwarts (and, presumably, intended 2024 Trump voters):

While you clearly reject the idea that he's a potential criminal, do you not think that what this latest indictment has revealed indicates that Trump is unfit for high office, let alone one with as much attendant power as the US Presidency?

Think about it: If he knew the election had not been stolen and acted to undermine the peaceful transfer of power anyway, then he is a clear and present danger to the rule of law in the most fundamental sense. If he somehow believed that election had been stolen (as per his legal defense), in spite of all evidence and expert counsel to the contrary, does this not indicate that he is dangerously delusional, and thus unfit for high office?

Note: This is a question for people whose rational faculties are still intact Please don't bother responding if you're crazy enough to think the election actually was stolen. Not even Trump's legal defense is sticking with that insane line.

P.S. My own view is that a non-trivial number of diehard Trump supporters (maybe even close to a majority) believe that he knowingly tried to prevent the legitimate and peaceful transfer of power with the aim of remaining in office unconstitutionally, and that he was right to do so even if Biden won the election. American fascism today is founded on the belief that extreme defensive measures are required to prevent what amounts to a "lib/woke/communist" destruction of American society and culture (they believe it has already subverted the political order beyond reform). The increasingly mainstream American far right sees erstwhile partisan political struggle as having morphed into total war in which the majority of the country's major institutions are arrayed against it, the "real America", and are prepared to use every means available, legal and otherwise, to maintain a decadent and corrupt liberal order. It (the far right) sees establishment attempts to stop Trump as clear evidence of this intent. In attempting to stop Biden's ascension to the Presidency, many see Trump as having merely played by rules established long ago by corrupt liberals and their "deep state". In which case, he's only called out liberal establishment hypocrisy. There are no crimes when your enemy is criminal.

That was a very insightful post. You presented the conundrum of the Trump supporter either thinking Trump knew that he lost fairly but tried to undermine the peaceful transfer of power of anyway or he didn't know and is just a delusional idiot and in either case should not be president. (If the Trump supporter is also a delusional idiot and believes Trump won, than there is no conundrum for them here). You also made a good point about why Trump supporters are okay with Trump's criminal behavior. You stated, ".....belief that extreme defensive measures are required to prevent what amounts to a "lib/woke/communist" destruction of American society and culture..."

I believe what has happened in this country is really a tragedy. Trump is a brilliant conman. Keep in mind that a very financially effective conman is one who can con 5% of his attempted marks. Trump has conned the majority of Republicans and about 35-40%% of the population. Now maybe the Republican party was fertile ground for a conman like Trump to step in and take over and maybe even the party was not only looking for a Trump but actually reinforced the development of his extreme con because they wanted it. Nevertheless Trump is a brilliantly clever conman.

There a certain strategies he employs that make him so effective (and destructive). He is able to make his followers feel like they are in a special club with him and he speaks to them how you might speak to a close friend privately, honestly and at times inappropriately. He develops personal relationships with those who work for him (gets their loyalty) but he shows severe anger at those who cross him keeping loyalty out of fear. He knows that a lie repeated numerously becomes viewed as the truth. He knows how to demonize groups to his advantage. He has charisma and humor which engages groups and disarms rivals. He has a ton of energy. He tells people what they want to hear and he can speak lies with a very high degree of believability. He has a way of thinking of always externalizing blame and this comes fluently and natural to him. He knows how to brand and he knows how to sell.

It really is amazing how effective he has been with his con.

Commode flusher wrote:

Does anyone have thoughts on what happened in the Stolen Documents case today? Judge Cannon denied AND struck a motion by the prosecutors to file certain things under seal and then required the parties to submit briefs on: "the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district."

So it's an issue neither party has even raised, and then Cannon inserted it into an unrelated motion about co-defendant Nauta's lawyer's possible conflict of interest. My first take is that Cannon is going of the rez again, like she did in the subpoena cases when she halted the DOJ investigation until the 11th circuit reversed her ("We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.").

It doesn't seem like it's any of a judge's business where prosecutors conduct grand jury investigations, even if they are related to the current case before the judge. And if the prosecutors say documents are confidential and need to be sealed, the judge can either agree or disagree with them, but what does where the grand jury is from have to do with that? Can she bar evidence because it's from out of state grand juries? Sounds completely nuts, but that may be where she is headed with this. I don't claim to know what this is about, though.

loose cannon wrote:

Commode flusher wrote:

Does anyone have thoughts on what happened in the Stolen Documents case today? Judge Cannon denied AND struck a motion by the prosecutors to file certain things under seal and then required the parties to submit briefs on: "the legal propriety of using an out-of-district grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district."

So it's an issue neither party has even raised, and then Cannon inserted it into an unrelated motion about co-defendant Nauta's lawyer's possible conflict of interest. My first take is that Cannon is going of the rez again, like she did in the subpoena cases when she halted the DOJ investigation until the 11th circuit reversed her ("We cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so.").

It doesn't seem like it's any of a judge's business where prosecutors conduct grand jury investigations, even if they are related to the current case before the judge. And if the prosecutors say documents are confidential and need to be sealed, the judge can either agree or disagree with them, but what does where the grand jury is from have to do with that? Can she bar evidence because it's from out of state grand juries? Sounds completely nuts, but that may be where she is headed with this. I don't claim to know what this is about, though.

She is trying to allow the defense to review the classified documents and allow them to challenge their classification. Defense lawyers getting deciding retroactively classification levels, for documents they are not allowed to see. This turns each classified document into a multi-year challenge, insuring the case never gets resolved before Trump dies.