According to Joyce White Vance, Trump is "re-truthing" fake allegations from Jesse Watters at Fox that liberals are lying to get on the jury and convict Trump. Doesn't this constitute jury intimidation? When is this pig going to be held to account? Also, the Washington Post has published info about a juror. I hope Judge Merchan will act quickly before any jurors are threatened or harmed. This shit has to stop and Trump has to be jailed.
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the fact that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.[2]
History
A photograph of Karl Popper
Karl Popper wrote on tolerance of intolerance in Vol. 1 of The Open Society and Its Enemies, published in 1945.
One of the earliest formulations of "paradox of tolerance" is given in the notes of Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies in 1945. Popper raises the paradox in the chapter notes regarding "The Principle of Leadership", connecting the paradox to his refutation of Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism". In the main text, Popper addresses Plato's similar "paradox of freedom": Plato points out the contradiction inherent in unchecked freedom, as it implies the freedom to act to limit the freedom of others. Plato argues that true democracy inevitably leads to tyranny, and suggests that the rule of an enlightened "philosopher-king" (cf. Noocracy) is preferable to the tyranny of majority rule.[3]
Popper rejects Plato's argument, in part because he argues that there are no readily available "enlightened philosopher-kings" prepared to adopt this role, and advocates for the institutions of liberal democracies as an alternative. In the corresponding chapter notes, Popper defines the paradox of tolerance and makes a similar argument. Of both tolerance and freedom, Popper argues for the necessity of limiting unchecked freedom and intolerance in order to prevent despotic rule rather than to embrace it.[2]
There are earlier examples of the discourse on tolerance and its limits. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech as President of the United States. Concerning those who might destabilize the United States and its unity, Jefferson stated: "let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."[4]
Yes - I think it was a connected but accelerated response to the "muttering" [which I also heard transcribed yesterday and broadcast as "uttering," arguendo {YES I USE THE LATIN INTENTIONALLY, SO SUE ME!] that's very slightly more in keeping with the "judicial demeanor" they're supposed to maintain than "muttering," although that's the kind of micro-distinctions t some law school class discussions featured excessively, that drove some of us up a wall. The rationale is supposed to be that you practice on what seem `utterly trivial' hair-splitting distinctions so you're ready for trial practice when it might be more momentous, and actually help or harm a defendant, a plaintiff, your case, the other side's case!
Trump is such a chaos agent with so many cases going on it might even be in another court!
Thanks for the info. We'll see if anyone slaps him down today. I took 2 years of Latin in High School in prep for what I wanted to be a law career but went into healthcare instead. Stood me in good stead in that field, too.
I kept picking up Latin so much I ended up with a Latin- English English- Latin dictionary or two, plus Black's Law Dictionary is filled with both kind of useless [Medieval Latin phrases useful for history of law and maybe how property & contract law especially has feudal roots), and really cool Latin "legalese" summary statements,* but in high school all I had was 2 yrs. French and 4 yrs. German, then used Spanish to satisfy the B.A. language requirement just for a change, and because "muy practico Senor!"
*"Ab abusu ad usum non valent consequentia," stuff like that, thought provoking! A conclusion as to the use of a thing from its abuse is not a valid mode of inference...Trump tests our patience with that constantly, "You see it's broken, folks, and only I can fix it!" Migrants enter at unofficial entry points, so...so nothing, fix the damn system - oh yeah Trump wants it for a campaign issue, no can do!
Those allegations about lying to get on the jury sound like a typical Trumpian/Republican reversal: they're forever accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of. Trump fan Clay Travis pretty much urged Trump-loving New Yorkers to lie to get on the jury and then vote to acquit regardless of the evidence.
Both Travis and Watters should be arrested for attempted jury tampering and intimidation. This is not a First Amendment issue but a criminal matter. Enough, damn it.
Is it a criminal matter if it stops at speech? I don't think so, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer either. It slides into criminal territory when incitement or conspiracy to commit a crime is involved. Like I could get up on a soapbox and tell people they should rob a bank, I'm pretty sure I'm within the bounds of the First Amendment. Now if someone takes my words to heart, tries to rob a bank, and gets caught. things *might* get more complicated -- but probably not unless there's a provable connection between that person and me. "The devil made me do it" is not much of a defense. ;-)
Would have to be surrounded with fact pattern showing Travis and Watters had specific persons poised to actually do that, it is pretty sketchy for them to be involved as a matter of ruining their own credibility, though!
It is extremely frustrating that Trump hasn't yet been held accountable for witness intimidation. He should have been jailed as soon as he broke the gag order the first time. Now we wait for some future hearing. In the meantime, Trump is free to spew all kinds of nonsense with the aim of stirring up his followers. At least his naps keep him quiet for the most part when he is in court.
I think it may have been something I heard on MSNBC as a POSSIBILITY, though, {I tried to track it down scheduled for sooner but failed] i.e., that any of these judges (Chutkan and Merchan or the odious Cannon!) COULD schedule it for the next day, hell they could even set it for the SAME day if it was that outrageous, but I guess it is set for Tuesday April 23 for sure, and anything else would be an additional hearing.
It must really be frying the cellular tissue that acts as his brain to have to sit in that courtroom and obey the rules like any other peon. No wonder he's bigly tired.
“You read that right: The story of how Trump ended up in a New York courtroom began 18 years ago.” It almost doesn’t seem fair, does it, that there are so many more recent crimes he could be sent away for? Mr. Inadequate has been lucky, I guess, that his payment to the piper has taken this long. Given his well known nighttime habits, one other factor should be added to the nodding and dozing in a really inappropriate place: it is a sign of Alzheimer’s.
As for covering trials, the only two I’ve covered (Blagojevich on the take, and the fake Rockefeller) allowed for some humorous riffs. I don’t know what I would do with this one. There is nothing funny about it at all. In fact, it is desperately sad that this awful, destructive, and dangerous man ever got close to the Oval Office, let alone occupying it. And Jesus went to drink gin from the cat dish.
Garland is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society. He is complicit. Biden was badly fooled into appointing him and we are all paying for it. My only hope is that after Biden's re-election he summarily fires Garland and appoints a real AG who is committed to the rule of law.
Google Merrick Garland and the Federalist Society. He has been a repeat moderator at their events and has close ties to the Society. That has been pointed out over the last few years by a number of legal commentators, many of whom are furious at his dilatory tactics. I would also remind you that he spent two years dragging his feet before being shamed into action by the J6 Committee. If he is not complicit, then he is a coward. We desperately need an AG with a spine.
Garland is not a F. S. member. Period. Participating in their events does not make him a member—they say so themselves If I repeatedly attend concerts at a church, that does not make me a member of the church or a believer. Fwew. I thought guilt by association was discredited a long time ago. And the Republican part? Hell, I don't like Garland either, but I don't think that gives me license to make up stuff about him and post it for the world to read. That's what Republicans do.
Wikipedia is only useful as a starting point on any current controversies (and plenty of squabbles over ancient history and other topics, too) - it is "crowd sourced" and then goes through a hierarchical review and editing process.
So unreliable on the JFK assassination there is this series as a valuable resource to refute some of the most egregious distortions:
It is BECAUSE Wikipedia is crowd sourced and can be edited by anyone that it is generally reliable for lists of facts. If someone adds Garland to the list, it gets added. If someone FALSELY adds him it gets deleted. This is harder for whole articles full of misstatements, but takes little energy for something like "is he or isn't he on the list of people holding office who belong to the society".
And I checked. No one has edited that list. You do this by clicking on "edit" for the section involved, in case you are unsure to how check the reliability of some things.
I did google further and could find nothing but rants on Quora and Reddit claiming he is a member. I simply asked what evidence the poster had. Wikipedia is better evidence than NO evidence.
This is the usual criticism of Garland by people who know nothing about criminal justice. In the first place we don't even know if Garland had anything to do with the SDNY's failure to act. They have always been very insular and resistant to authority.
The main issue here is the difficult situation the Barr DOJ has put the current DOJ in. The level of corruption in the way the conviction and persecution of Michael Cohen was carried out is not something Garland can simply disregard because it didn't happen on his watch. It implies a systemic failure of the Justice Department as a whole and could even lead to prior convictions being vacated. The way Bill Barr subverted justice means it is essentially impossible for the DOJ to prosecute Trump for the crimes being brought by New York now. The Court is not going to accept the "that happened during the previous administration" excuse. It doesn't work that way.
It's not at all surprising that SDNY took so long to provide the documentation required by the Court. There was always the chance the whole thing might go away and the integrity of the institution would be preserved. It's very likely certain documents went missing and others sanitized. This is what you sometimes have to due to mitigate the cataclysm caused by prior bad acts.
It is really getting tiresome explaining the same thing to the same people who want their pound of flesh from Garland because the people really responsible left the scene.
The sweetest thing is that there is no possibility of a presidential pardon for state crimes, if he gets sentenced to prison that’s where he’s going to go. That photo of the insipid bastard was probably the first image of him that I have ever seen that didn’t make me want to scream, it looks like it’s finally sinking in how totally fucked he is, it reminds me of how I felt every day he was in the White House. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻😎
The best thing about the trial so far is just the pain and annoyance it must cause him to have to be somewhere at a specific time and not leave as he pleases. While in the WH reports were that he scheduled "executive time" every morning until noon when he could just slack off and watch tv. On his foreign trips as president he simply begged off "its raining" from anything he didn't want to do. Now he's finally forced to sit there and keep his Big Mouth shut until a recess when he gets back to lying and spinning, claiming he's on trial for simply paying a prostitute, which, of course, most of the religious right is fine with as long as a woman is the victim.
By the way she would arguably make a far more dignified, sagacious, morally sound president than Donald J. Trump or any number of his despicable enablers in the now quasi-fascist once grand "Grand Old Party," a tragicomic note of sheer absurdity only the most wildly imaginative could possibly have anticipated when Defendant 1 came down those golden stairs almost nine years ago!
Richard, I completely agree. I wasn't saying she was a prostitute, it's the MAGA spin trying to characterize this prosecution as one for "paying a prostitute," instead of interfering with an election. None of this is true, of course, as Stormy made amply clear in the recent documentary.
She's been a sex worker but probably never a prostitute. Sex worker seems like a good generic, modern term kind of like saying I'm in IT there are many different specific jobs in both generic categories, so a sex worker can be anything from a stripper to a nude model, cam girl, porn star...
I think that you make an important point. The prosecution needs to emphasize to the jury that no one alleges payment to Stormy until well after this happened. Clearly it wasn't payment for suffering through the perfunctory sex act, it was payment to interfere with the election and keep voters from knowing the character of a man who would do this after his wife just gave birth to his son.
The omnipresent demonization of any woman, anywhere, who ever enjoys sex outside of marriage and even within the marriage, strictly for precreation, is just that: omnipresent. Much less having Stormy "Make America Horny Again" Daniels be so beyond caring about the culturally enforced norms as to act in and direct films featuring explicit sex, however "aesthetically challenged" they may or may not be!
I would be more concerned about the health checkups, the possibly insidious power dynamics, and people absolutely knowing what they are and are not "signing up for," than the content per se - assuming all are of legal age, and barring violence, etc.
Anyway this trial really is about election interference, the hush money aspect is just the circumstance that shows us Trump at work, as usual, breaking the law.
See: Prof Ruth Ben -Ghiat on her current "Lucid" Substack -
I read the book she wrote with Kevin Carr O'Leary, Full Disclosure (2018, St. Martin's Press) - she's much more intelligent and far wittier than any lazy stereotypes of a "porn actress and director" might convey, and apparently was in a discussion for an appearance on The Apprentice.
I posted on here something I absolutely think is correct and is also fairly amazing, let me amplify the claim a bit: Stormy Daniels / Stephanie Clifford would have been a better president BY FAR than Donald J. Trump - wiser in her decisions, i.e., delegating authority, listening to advice, and more morally sound in the sense of having compassion and a sense of fairness rooted in a rough and challenging upbringing in Louisiana, etc.
THAT is both a reflection on how absurdly judgmental it is to simply stereotype "adult porn film actress and director" as a completely one-dimensional human being, as well as what a ^%$#@! godawful human being Trump is, as well as being a terribly dangerous quasi-fascist crook - both things can be true.
Daniels's parents, Sheila and Bill Gregory, divorced about three or four years after she was born. She was then raised by her mother.[1][9]
She graduated from Scotlandville Magnet High School in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1997 and considered becoming a journalist.[1]
Daniels said she "came from an average, lower-income household… there [were] days without electricity",[10] and she has described herself as coming from a "really bad neighborhood."[1] During high school, Daniels had a job answering phones at a riding stable.[1] *******
LOL, it was the most serious locus of Abolitionism in the run-up to the Civil War - I have direct ancestors who lived in Ohio and fought in it, THAT is what I am talking about - that is the "once grand" reference.
"In 1854, the Republican Party emerged to combat the expansion of slavery into American territories after the passing of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. The early Republican Party consisted of northern Protestants, factory workers, professionals, businessmen, prosperous farmers, and after the Civil War, former black slaves. The party had very little support from white Southerners at the time, who predominantly backed the Democratic Party in the Solid South, and from Catholics, who made up a major Democratic voting block. While both parties adopted pro-business policies in the 19th century, the early GOP was distinguished by its support for the national banking system, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs. The party opposed the expansion of slavery before 1861 and led the fight to destroy the Confederate States of America (1861–1865). While the Republican Party had almost no presence in the Southern United States at its inception, it was very successful in the Northern United States, where by 1858 it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every Northern state.
With the election of its first president, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860, the Party's success in guiding the Union to victory in the Civil War, and the Party's role in the abolition of slavery, the Republican Party largely dominated the national political scene until 1932."
I swear this is getting to everyone, saints sinners losers winners, and only minutes ago my favorite local newscaster announced the breaking news of Israeli's retaliation (no kidding?!) to the hundreds of Iranian missiles and drones, now we see the entire panoply of the most diligent determined diplomacy cool this down to the standard simmer "or else," although it's unclear wtf that actually means, too.
He won't be able to keep his mouth shut in court once the testimony begins. He's going to start shouting and gesticulating and will be ordered out of the courtroom and into a soundproof room. That will drive him insane. He's also likely to end up incarcerated for contempt. Let's hope he gets either the full 30 days, or detention for the length of the trial. Nothing else will stop him.
This is the most personally damaging and humiliating of all the trails for Trump because it goes to the heart of his image as an Alpha Male Successful Celebrity. What will be exposed is that Trump is a low rent bully from Queens who gamed the system and broke all the rules because he thought it was his due. And that he is so repugnant a man that he has to pay for sex. It might be Stormy or Karen, but it is also Ivana, Marla and Melanoma. Oh, and he stinks. Word is that it was pretty foul in the courtroom this week.
This morning NPR both sides it all by saying that "Trump claims the trial is election interference because he is running for president. Alvin Bragg also claims this is election interference but the 2016 election". It's f'king infuriating.
Trump has claimed (falsely) everywhere except in court that this trial is election interference.
Whereas Bragg did release this statement “The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” at the beginning of this month.
*edit*
The difference being, only one of the two is willing to state their clam in a court of law, where lying under oath is punishable. And that's the distinction which is so gallingly absent from many so-called journalists, correspondent, and presenters.
The problem is the framing. They portrayed both as the same and they are not. Bragg is alleging a point of law, Trump is making false claims to stir up his violent base.
It must really burn his ass that the entire thing was completely unnecessary. If he had just let the story come out he may have gotten even more electoral votes. Nobody cared.
He wears a diaper for a reason, bathroom breaks don’t occur just on his whim anymore, who carries his diaper bag. I would like to hear more about the foul odor he emanates from MSM. 🤷♂️
Yes, the verdict will keep him awake, in prison I hope as money doesn't seem to do it for him! He can't help himself! Tomorrow the trial will resume and hopefully they will pick more jurors! I live in NYC and last year I was able to get myself out of jury duty for good because of my age and medical issues! I would definitely be excused and don't even speak about my social media presence! I have reposted your letters on FB and on Stitch.net a site for people over 50. I created a discussion there called "Our Democracy is Hanging by a Thread!"
Let's see what tomorrow brings when the trial resumes!
He can sleep in court secure in the knowledge that the only time he will see the inside of a cell is when he binge-watches reruns of “Orange is the New Black.” Rich white guys do not go to prison in this country unless they steal or swindle money from other rich white guys.
Yeah but consider the insular social milieu they deal with - what are the odds they encounter a situation where they are even in a position to DIRECTLY kill someone outside their "peer group"?
This particular trial might resist all efforts to be boring though. At least the highlights should be wildly entertaining. Am counting on it!
I remember Calley and the outrage the My Lai slaughter generated. It was likely the worst but certainly not the only massacre that took place in Viet Nam.
Notice even there, some soldiers retained their own moral integrity, at quite a cost:
The massacre prompted global outrage when it became public knowledge in November 1969. It contributed to domestic opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, both because of the scope of killing and attempts to cover up the events.[13]
Initially, the three U.S. servicemen who had tried to halt the massacre and rescue hiding civilians were shunned, and even denounced as traitors by several U.S. congressmen, including Mendel Rivers (D–SC), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Thirty years later, these servicemen were recognized and decorated, one posthumously, by the U.S. Army for shielding non-combatants from harm in a war zone.[14]
I remember it well. The following year, General Koster, West Point Superintendent, was “relieved of his job.” Within a few years, he was also relieved of a star, and Distinguished Service Medal. General Westmoreland, head general in Vietnam at the time, suffered no repercussions as he was deemed not culpable in the cover up. (After changing his tune about it all!) I hope the Evil TFG doesn’t convince anyone that his culpability is in question. We know his moral turpitude is totally questionable, but he continues to lie…lie…lie. We can only hope he can’t lie himself out of this one.
I think it was only TWO DAYS AGO [!] Herr Gropenfuehrer was outside the NYC court addressing news media and blundered into admitting HE authorized the hush money payments, then tried to backtrack, "the accountant, I don't even know his name" blah blah blah....Don't be surprised to see that video entered into evidence, rofl!
I remember it also and vividly. Calley got off as a “victim of circumstance”. Here was a guy , small in stature, who was given ammunition, a high-powered rifle, by the Armed Services. He thought he was the shit. It was, by all counts, an horrendous act. He committed murders of 107 men, women, and children.
And probably more. He was young and stupid. 2LTs were in great demand. As someone noted, this kind of action occurred frequently. Many innocent civilians were killed for no valid reason.
He, according to a meme on Twitter [as reliable a source as some commenters] it was noted that he claimed he was praying. I doubt that as I do not believe he knows how to pray.
The web spun during the cover up is what entangles the flies and the spider.
Each and every full day in court is going to feel like a week for Trump and already feels like that to cable news viewers who are treated to little else from 6AM to midnight.
Teevee legal eagles went from oh my gawd, jury selection with take weeks to opening arguments on Monday morning, baby. Two wrongs a right not make.
Trump is already punch drunk and demonstrating the 1000yd stare from a mere 2days of jury selection. By the time the name Pecker is mentioned in the courtroom, late-night comedians will have a field day w/his name and calling him a dick for his role in covering up Trump's truth.
Trump's legal team would be wise not to presume they are smarter and quicker thinkers than Stormy Daniels. She has been taking on annoying men since she was a teen and her natural intellect is her superpower. Would pay to see the look on the Judge's face as she parries away a verbal lunge, ripostes, then draws blood w her touche.
Repeating wrote I wrote yesterday, Trump is NOT in charge. That is very different from not being in control as the weak media framed it. One can be in control yet not in charge. That's not how Trump operates. Trump sees self as in charge whether employees refer to him as Boss, or his lackeys/sycophants/supporters call him Mr. President/President. Those titles are about being in charge. Political "experts" see it as authoritarian because everything is political to them while ignoring the more basic fault of thinking and believing he should be in charge no matter what, where, when, or how. Trump will brood over that while sitting there far more than anything else. And the Jury will see it. My money is on a Trump eruption during the DA case-in-chief. So, if he is smart he would stay up all night and sleep all day in the court room.
According to Joyce White Vance, Trump is "re-truthing" fake allegations from Jesse Watters at Fox that liberals are lying to get on the jury and convict Trump. Doesn't this constitute jury intimidation? When is this pig going to be held to account? Also, the Washington Post has published info about a juror. I hope Judge Merchan will act quickly before any jurors are threatened or harmed. This shit has to stop and Trump has to be jailed.
Trump is using the US's freedom of speech laws with the end goal of ending free speech and many other domestic American freedoms.
Something the Republican Party has been trying to do for a very long time.
Exactly, Jess, it's a real mess for a democracy to face - and one of Lucian's ancestors weighed in on it , too!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the fact that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.[2]
History
A photograph of Karl Popper
Karl Popper wrote on tolerance of intolerance in Vol. 1 of The Open Society and Its Enemies, published in 1945.
One of the earliest formulations of "paradox of tolerance" is given in the notes of Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies in 1945. Popper raises the paradox in the chapter notes regarding "The Principle of Leadership", connecting the paradox to his refutation of Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism". In the main text, Popper addresses Plato's similar "paradox of freedom": Plato points out the contradiction inherent in unchecked freedom, as it implies the freedom to act to limit the freedom of others. Plato argues that true democracy inevitably leads to tyranny, and suggests that the rule of an enlightened "philosopher-king" (cf. Noocracy) is preferable to the tyranny of majority rule.[3]
Popper rejects Plato's argument, in part because he argues that there are no readily available "enlightened philosopher-kings" prepared to adopt this role, and advocates for the institutions of liberal democracies as an alternative. In the corresponding chapter notes, Popper defines the paradox of tolerance and makes a similar argument. Of both tolerance and freedom, Popper argues for the necessity of limiting unchecked freedom and intolerance in order to prevent despotic rule rather than to embrace it.[2]
There are earlier examples of the discourse on tolerance and its limits. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech as President of the United States. Concerning those who might destabilize the United States and its unity, Jefferson stated: "let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."[4]
[More]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Popper is a hero; thanks for the reference.
Ironic, ain't it?
Trump is going to complain that any jury not composed of red hat wearing cultists is rigged against him. Ignore his whining.
"When is this pig going to be held to account?"
As early as tomorrow, Thursday, April 18, 2024 - a hearing is already scheduled.
Is that in addition to the hearing that Judge Merchan set for violation of gag order on April 23?
Yes - I think it was a connected but accelerated response to the "muttering" [which I also heard transcribed yesterday and broadcast as "uttering," arguendo {YES I USE THE LATIN INTENTIONALLY, SO SUE ME!] that's very slightly more in keeping with the "judicial demeanor" they're supposed to maintain than "muttering," although that's the kind of micro-distinctions t some law school class discussions featured excessively, that drove some of us up a wall. The rationale is supposed to be that you practice on what seem `utterly trivial' hair-splitting distinctions so you're ready for trial practice when it might be more momentous, and actually help or harm a defendant, a plaintiff, your case, the other side's case!
Trump is such a chaos agent with so many cases going on it might even be in another court!
Thanks for the info. We'll see if anyone slaps him down today. I took 2 years of Latin in High School in prep for what I wanted to be a law career but went into healthcare instead. Stood me in good stead in that field, too.
I kept picking up Latin so much I ended up with a Latin- English English- Latin dictionary or two, plus Black's Law Dictionary is filled with both kind of useless [Medieval Latin phrases useful for history of law and maybe how property & contract law especially has feudal roots), and really cool Latin "legalese" summary statements,* but in high school all I had was 2 yrs. French and 4 yrs. German, then used Spanish to satisfy the B.A. language requirement just for a change, and because "muy practico Senor!"
*"Ab abusu ad usum non valent consequentia," stuff like that, thought provoking! A conclusion as to the use of a thing from its abuse is not a valid mode of inference...Trump tests our patience with that constantly, "You see it's broken, folks, and only I can fix it!" Migrants enter at unofficial entry points, so...so nothing, fix the damn system - oh yeah Trump wants it for a campaign issue, no can do!
Those allegations about lying to get on the jury sound like a typical Trumpian/Republican reversal: they're forever accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of. Trump fan Clay Travis pretty much urged Trump-loving New Yorkers to lie to get on the jury and then vote to acquit regardless of the evidence.
Both Travis and Watters should be arrested for attempted jury tampering and intimidation. This is not a First Amendment issue but a criminal matter. Enough, damn it.
Is it a criminal matter if it stops at speech? I don't think so, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer either. It slides into criminal territory when incitement or conspiracy to commit a crime is involved. Like I could get up on a soapbox and tell people they should rob a bank, I'm pretty sure I'm within the bounds of the First Amendment. Now if someone takes my words to heart, tries to rob a bank, and gets caught. things *might* get more complicated -- but probably not unless there's a provable connection between that person and me. "The devil made me do it" is not much of a defense. ;-)
Would have to be surrounded with fact pattern showing Travis and Watters had specific persons poised to actually do that, it is pretty sketchy for them to be involved as a matter of ruining their own credibility, though!
It is extremely frustrating that Trump hasn't yet been held accountable for witness intimidation. He should have been jailed as soon as he broke the gag order the first time. Now we wait for some future hearing. In the meantime, Trump is free to spew all kinds of nonsense with the aim of stirring up his followers. At least his naps keep him quiet for the most part when he is in court.
Amen!
He is finally going to be punished for violating the gag order. I can't wait to see what happens tomorrow morning in that court!
I think it may have been something I heard on MSNBC as a POSSIBILITY, though, {I tried to track it down scheduled for sooner but failed] i.e., that any of these judges (Chutkan and Merchan or the odious Cannon!) COULD schedule it for the next day, hell they could even set it for the SAME day if it was that outrageous, but I guess it is set for Tuesday April 23 for sure, and anything else would be an additional hearing.
20never. All a these judges are MAGATs at heart.
LOL, no thank god you are way off on that.
It must really be frying the cellular tissue that acts as his brain to have to sit in that courtroom and obey the rules like any other peon. No wonder he's bigly tired.
“You read that right: The story of how Trump ended up in a New York courtroom began 18 years ago.” It almost doesn’t seem fair, does it, that there are so many more recent crimes he could be sent away for? Mr. Inadequate has been lucky, I guess, that his payment to the piper has taken this long. Given his well known nighttime habits, one other factor should be added to the nodding and dozing in a really inappropriate place: it is a sign of Alzheimer’s.
As for covering trials, the only two I’ve covered (Blagojevich on the take, and the fake Rockefeller) allowed for some humorous riffs. I don’t know what I would do with this one. There is nothing funny about it at all. In fact, it is desperately sad that this awful, destructive, and dangerous man ever got close to the Oval Office, let alone occupying it. And Jesus went to drink gin from the cat dish.
It is to the everlasting disgrace of DOJ that Bragg is first out of the gate.
There is regrettably something wrong with AG Garland.
Garland is a Republican and a member of the Federalist Society. He is complicit. Biden was badly fooled into appointing him and we are all paying for it. My only hope is that after Biden's re-election he summarily fires Garland and appoints a real AG who is committed to the rule of law.
I, too, question the Federalist Society membership. That makes NO sense.
Google Merrick Garland and the Federalist Society. He has been a repeat moderator at their events and has close ties to the Society. That has been pointed out over the last few years by a number of legal commentators, many of whom are furious at his dilatory tactics. I would also remind you that he spent two years dragging his feet before being shamed into action by the J6 Committee. If he is not complicit, then he is a coward. We desperately need an AG with a spine.
Garland is not a F. S. member. Period. Participating in their events does not make him a member—they say so themselves If I repeatedly attend concerts at a church, that does not make me a member of the church or a believer. Fwew. I thought guilt by association was discredited a long time ago. And the Republican part? Hell, I don't like Garland either, but I don't think that gives me license to make up stuff about him and post it for the world to read. That's what Republicans do.
Why do you think he's a member of the Federalist Society? He's not on Wikipedia's list of members.
Wikipedia is only useful as a starting point on any current controversies (and plenty of squabbles over ancient history and other topics, too) - it is "crowd sourced" and then goes through a hierarchical review and editing process.
So unreliable on the JFK assassination there is this series as a valuable resource to refute some of the most egregious distortions:
www.kennedysandking.com/content/will-the-real-wikipedia-please-stand-up
www.kennedysandking.com/content/part-two-addendum-fernandez-and-the-38-smith-and-wesson
www.kennedysandking.com/content/the-real-wikipedia-part-two-please-mr-wales-remain-seated
www.kennedysandking.com/content/the-real-wikipedia-the-wikipedia-fraud-pt-3-wales-covers-up-for-the-warren-commission
It is BECAUSE Wikipedia is crowd sourced and can be edited by anyone that it is generally reliable for lists of facts. If someone adds Garland to the list, it gets added. If someone FALSELY adds him it gets deleted. This is harder for whole articles full of misstatements, but takes little energy for something like "is he or isn't he on the list of people holding office who belong to the society".
And I checked. No one has edited that list. You do this by clicking on "edit" for the section involved, in case you are unsure to how check the reliability of some things.
I did google further and could find nothing but rants on Quora and Reddit claiming he is a member. I simply asked what evidence the poster had. Wikipedia is better evidence than NO evidence.
But thanks for the mansplain.
Absolute nonsense. He is one of the finest AGs in US history. Obama wanted him on the SC. You should be ashamed to make claims like these.
Eric, "sudden illness" which we discussed
What makes you think Garland is a Republican Federalist Society member?
There's prudential caution and then there is endless delays when action NOW! is on the agenda...
This is the usual criticism of Garland by people who know nothing about criminal justice. In the first place we don't even know if Garland had anything to do with the SDNY's failure to act. They have always been very insular and resistant to authority.
The main issue here is the difficult situation the Barr DOJ has put the current DOJ in. The level of corruption in the way the conviction and persecution of Michael Cohen was carried out is not something Garland can simply disregard because it didn't happen on his watch. It implies a systemic failure of the Justice Department as a whole and could even lead to prior convictions being vacated. The way Bill Barr subverted justice means it is essentially impossible for the DOJ to prosecute Trump for the crimes being brought by New York now. The Court is not going to accept the "that happened during the previous administration" excuse. It doesn't work that way.
It's not at all surprising that SDNY took so long to provide the documentation required by the Court. There was always the chance the whole thing might go away and the integrity of the institution would be preserved. It's very likely certain documents went missing and others sanitized. This is what you sometimes have to due to mitigate the cataclysm caused by prior bad acts.
It is really getting tiresome explaining the same thing to the same people who want their pound of flesh from Garland because the people really responsible left the scene.
Thanks for sticking up for the hapless Merrick Garland, it's a set of very lame arguments, but what else is there?
I think Bragg will be the first to bring him down. So be it!
The sweetest thing is that there is no possibility of a presidential pardon for state crimes, if he gets sentenced to prison that’s where he’s going to go. That photo of the insipid bastard was probably the first image of him that I have ever seen that didn’t make me want to scream, it looks like it’s finally sinking in how totally fucked he is, it reminds me of how I felt every day he was in the White House. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻😎
I hope so!
"The Nodfather"
Let's see him call the president "Sleepy Joe" now!
Wonderful! I love it.
lol
That is better than MOGAdon (Most Old Geezers Agree defend our naps).
Good One!!!
The best thing about the trial so far is just the pain and annoyance it must cause him to have to be somewhere at a specific time and not leave as he pleases. While in the WH reports were that he scheduled "executive time" every morning until noon when he could just slack off and watch tv. On his foreign trips as president he simply begged off "its raining" from anything he didn't want to do. Now he's finally forced to sit there and keep his Big Mouth shut until a recess when he gets back to lying and spinning, claiming he's on trial for simply paying a prostitute, which, of course, most of the religious right is fine with as long as a woman is the victim.
Correction: There's nothing on the record that Stephanie Clifford, aka "Stormy Daniels," has ever been a prostitute.
She starred in and directed sexually explicit videos, not the same thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels
By the way she would arguably make a far more dignified, sagacious, morally sound president than Donald J. Trump or any number of his despicable enablers in the now quasi-fascist once grand "Grand Old Party," a tragicomic note of sheer absurdity only the most wildly imaginative could possibly have anticipated when Defendant 1 came down those golden stairs almost nine years ago!
Richard, I completely agree. I wasn't saying she was a prostitute, it's the MAGA spin trying to characterize this prosecution as one for "paying a prostitute," instead of interfering with an election. None of this is true, of course, as Stormy made amply clear in the recent documentary.
She's been a sex worker but probably never a prostitute. Sex worker seems like a good generic, modern term kind of like saying I'm in IT there are many different specific jobs in both generic categories, so a sex worker can be anything from a stripper to a nude model, cam girl, porn star...
I think that you make an important point. The prosecution needs to emphasize to the jury that no one alleges payment to Stormy until well after this happened. Clearly it wasn't payment for suffering through the perfunctory sex act, it was payment to interfere with the election and keep voters from knowing the character of a man who would do this after his wife just gave birth to his son.
Thanks for the clarification!
The omnipresent demonization of any woman, anywhere, who ever enjoys sex outside of marriage and even within the marriage, strictly for precreation, is just that: omnipresent. Much less having Stormy "Make America Horny Again" Daniels be so beyond caring about the culturally enforced norms as to act in and direct films featuring explicit sex, however "aesthetically challenged" they may or may not be!
I would be more concerned about the health checkups, the possibly insidious power dynamics, and people absolutely knowing what they are and are not "signing up for," than the content per se - assuming all are of legal age, and barring violence, etc.
Anyway this trial really is about election interference, the hush money aspect is just the circumstance that shows us Trump at work, as usual, breaking the law.
See: Prof Ruth Ben -Ghiat on her current "Lucid" Substack -
lucid.substack.com/p/the-small-miracle-that-is-trumps
She’s an actress and a director of porn films. She probably thought Trump liked her for just being engaging with him.
I read the book she wrote with Kevin Carr O'Leary, Full Disclosure (2018, St. Martin's Press) - she's much more intelligent and far wittier than any lazy stereotypes of a "porn actress and director" might convey, and apparently was in a discussion for an appearance on The Apprentice.
I posted on here something I absolutely think is correct and is also fairly amazing, let me amplify the claim a bit: Stormy Daniels / Stephanie Clifford would have been a better president BY FAR than Donald J. Trump - wiser in her decisions, i.e., delegating authority, listening to advice, and more morally sound in the sense of having compassion and a sense of fairness rooted in a rough and challenging upbringing in Louisiana, etc.
THAT is both a reflection on how absurdly judgmental it is to simply stereotype "adult porn film actress and director" as a completely one-dimensional human being, as well as what a ^%$#@! godawful human being Trump is, as well as being a terribly dangerous quasi-fascist crook - both things can be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels
Early life
Daniels's parents, Sheila and Bill Gregory, divorced about three or four years after she was born. She was then raised by her mother.[1][9]
She graduated from Scotlandville Magnet High School in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1997 and considered becoming a journalist.[1]
Daniels said she "came from an average, lower-income household… there [were] days without electricity",[10] and she has described herself as coming from a "really bad neighborhood."[1] During high school, Daniels had a job answering phones at a riding stable.[1] *******
Esquire, the R party was never Grand, ever, except for their voting base -the Klan, Confederacy of Dunces and racists.
LOL, it was the most serious locus of Abolitionism in the run-up to the Civil War - I have direct ancestors who lived in Ohio and fought in it, THAT is what I am talking about - that is the "once grand" reference.
"In 1854, the Republican Party emerged to combat the expansion of slavery into American territories after the passing of the Kansas–Nebraska Act. The early Republican Party consisted of northern Protestants, factory workers, professionals, businessmen, prosperous farmers, and after the Civil War, former black slaves. The party had very little support from white Southerners at the time, who predominantly backed the Democratic Party in the Solid South, and from Catholics, who made up a major Democratic voting block. While both parties adopted pro-business policies in the 19th century, the early GOP was distinguished by its support for the national banking system, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs. The party opposed the expansion of slavery before 1861 and led the fight to destroy the Confederate States of America (1861–1865). While the Republican Party had almost no presence in the Southern United States at its inception, it was very successful in the Northern United States, where by 1858 it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every Northern state.
With the election of its first president, Abraham Lincoln, in 1860, the Party's success in guiding the Union to victory in the Civil War, and the Party's role in the abolition of slavery, the Republican Party largely dominated the national political scene until 1932."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Republican_Party_(United_States)
Agree I've been barking all day not at the trees though or the moon, yet.
I swear this is getting to everyone, saints sinners losers winners, and only minutes ago my favorite local newscaster announced the breaking news of Israeli's retaliation (no kidding?!) to the hundreds of Iranian missiles and drones, now we see the entire panoply of the most diligent determined diplomacy cool this down to the standard simmer "or else," although it's unclear wtf that actually means, too.
He won't be able to keep his mouth shut in court once the testimony begins. He's going to start shouting and gesticulating and will be ordered out of the courtroom and into a soundproof room. That will drive him insane. He's also likely to end up incarcerated for contempt. Let's hope he gets either the full 30 days, or detention for the length of the trial. Nothing else will stop him.
His trial is more entertaining than
The Apprentice.
This is the most personally damaging and humiliating of all the trails for Trump because it goes to the heart of his image as an Alpha Male Successful Celebrity. What will be exposed is that Trump is a low rent bully from Queens who gamed the system and broke all the rules because he thought it was his due. And that he is so repugnant a man that he has to pay for sex. It might be Stormy or Karen, but it is also Ivana, Marla and Melanoma. Oh, and he stinks. Word is that it was pretty foul in the courtroom this week.
I do wish all of the media would stop using the "hush money" label for this trial when it is "the first of Trump's criminal fraud trials to be held."
This morning NPR both sides it all by saying that "Trump claims the trial is election interference because he is running for president. Alvin Bragg also claims this is election interference but the 2016 election". It's f'king infuriating.
Well, I think they're technically correct.
Trump has claimed (falsely) everywhere except in court that this trial is election interference.
Whereas Bragg did release this statement “The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” at the beginning of this month.
*edit*
The difference being, only one of the two is willing to state their clam in a court of law, where lying under oath is punishable. And that's the distinction which is so gallingly absent from many so-called journalists, correspondent, and presenters.
The problem is the framing. They portrayed both as the same and they are not. Bragg is alleging a point of law, Trump is making false claims to stir up his violent base.
I totally agree. I saw this after editing my prior comment to say pretty much the same.
WOW!! So true. Humiliation to him is the worst!! I'm glad it's going first and it's all downhill from here!
It must really burn his ass that the entire thing was completely unnecessary. If he had just let the story come out he may have gotten even more electoral votes. Nobody cared.
He wears a diaper for a reason, bathroom breaks don’t occur just on his whim anymore, who carries his diaper bag. I would like to hear more about the foul odor he emanates from MSM. 🤷♂️
More than one reporter has said that he has been more than a little stinky in the courtroom. Must be filling up that diaper regularly.
I think Melanomia plays hide and seek with the diaper box and the ketchup.
Rotting from the inside out
The media should call it a geezer snooze. It’s what he is…
Melania must be thrilled that the Donald is in court in NYC and she doesn’t have to see his smug face in Florida.
It was reported that Melania was in New York City.
Perhaps part of the pre-nup. When on trial, she must appear to care?
Yes, the verdict will keep him awake, in prison I hope as money doesn't seem to do it for him! He can't help himself! Tomorrow the trial will resume and hopefully they will pick more jurors! I live in NYC and last year I was able to get myself out of jury duty for good because of my age and medical issues! I would definitely be excused and don't even speak about my social media presence! I have reposted your letters on FB and on Stitch.net a site for people over 50. I created a discussion there called "Our Democracy is Hanging by a Thread!"
Let's see what tomorrow brings when the trial resumes!
Cool, citizen activism comes in many forms, it's powerful stuff hated and feared by all the people one is proud to have as enemies!
You’re right, Lucian, ironies are abound and are kicking Trump right in the ass. It’s a real pleasure to watch.
Trump looks defeated in the photo you posted.
I'm trying to figure out why his left hand is a different color than the rest of him in that photo.
Maybe the lighting in the courtroom? White knuckles time?
He can sleep in court secure in the knowledge that the only time he will see the inside of a cell is when he binge-watches reruns of “Orange is the New Black.” Rich white guys do not go to prison in this country unless they steal or swindle money from other rich white guys.
Yeah but consider the insular social milieu they deal with - what are the odds they encounter a situation where they are even in a position to DIRECTLY kill someone outside their "peer group"?
INDIRECTLY, yes:
https://www.propublica.org/article/epa-finalizes-new-standards-for-cancer-causing-chemicals
https://www.propublica.org/article/chevron-will-pay-record-fines-for-california-oil-spills
https://www.propublica.org/article/calvert-city-kentucky-epa-pollution-westlake-sacrifice-zones
This particular trial might resist all efforts to be boring though. At least the highlights should be wildly entertaining. Am counting on it!
I remember Calley and the outrage the My Lai slaughter generated. It was likely the worst but certainly not the only massacre that took place in Viet Nam.
Notice even there, some soldiers retained their own moral integrity, at quite a cost:
The massacre prompted global outrage when it became public knowledge in November 1969. It contributed to domestic opposition to the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, both because of the scope of killing and attempts to cover up the events.[13]
Initially, the three U.S. servicemen who had tried to halt the massacre and rescue hiding civilians were shunned, and even denounced as traitors by several U.S. congressmen, including Mendel Rivers (D–SC), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Thirty years later, these servicemen were recognized and decorated, one posthumously, by the U.S. Army for shielding non-combatants from harm in a war zone.[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
Please turn now, your eyes, and look in the same light towards some recents acts by members of Israel's armed forces.
Good point.
I remember it well. The following year, General Koster, West Point Superintendent, was “relieved of his job.” Within a few years, he was also relieved of a star, and Distinguished Service Medal. General Westmoreland, head general in Vietnam at the time, suffered no repercussions as he was deemed not culpable in the cover up. (After changing his tune about it all!) I hope the Evil TFG doesn’t convince anyone that his culpability is in question. We know his moral turpitude is totally questionable, but he continues to lie…lie…lie. We can only hope he can’t lie himself out of this one.
I think it was only TWO DAYS AGO [!] Herr Gropenfuehrer was outside the NYC court addressing news media and blundered into admitting HE authorized the hush money payments, then tried to backtrack, "the accountant, I don't even know his name" blah blah blah....Don't be surprised to see that video entered into evidence, rofl!
I remember it also and vividly. Calley got off as a “victim of circumstance”. Here was a guy , small in stature, who was given ammunition, a high-powered rifle, by the Armed Services. He thought he was the shit. It was, by all counts, an horrendous act. He committed murders of 107 men, women, and children.
And probably more. He was young and stupid. 2LTs were in great demand. As someone noted, this kind of action occurred frequently. Many innocent civilians were killed for no valid reason.
He, according to a meme on Twitter [as reliable a source as some commenters] it was noted that he claimed he was praying. I doubt that as I do not believe he knows how to pray.
Praying to the nine eyed moon demon!😊
The web spun during the cover up is what entangles the flies and the spider.
Each and every full day in court is going to feel like a week for Trump and already feels like that to cable news viewers who are treated to little else from 6AM to midnight.
Teevee legal eagles went from oh my gawd, jury selection with take weeks to opening arguments on Monday morning, baby. Two wrongs a right not make.
Trump is already punch drunk and demonstrating the 1000yd stare from a mere 2days of jury selection. By the time the name Pecker is mentioned in the courtroom, late-night comedians will have a field day w/his name and calling him a dick for his role in covering up Trump's truth.
Trump's legal team would be wise not to presume they are smarter and quicker thinkers than Stormy Daniels. She has been taking on annoying men since she was a teen and her natural intellect is her superpower. Would pay to see the look on the Judge's face as she parries away a verbal lunge, ripostes, then draws blood w her touche.
Repeating wrote I wrote yesterday, Trump is NOT in charge. That is very different from not being in control as the weak media framed it. One can be in control yet not in charge. That's not how Trump operates. Trump sees self as in charge whether employees refer to him as Boss, or his lackeys/sycophants/supporters call him Mr. President/President. Those titles are about being in charge. Political "experts" see it as authoritarian because everything is political to them while ignoring the more basic fault of thinking and believing he should be in charge no matter what, where, when, or how. Trump will brood over that while sitting there far more than anything else. And the Jury will see it. My money is on a Trump eruption during the DA case-in-chief. So, if he is smart he would stay up all night and sleep all day in the court room.
Oh no what have you done Shadowcloud, putting ideas in my head? Peter Piper anyone...
POTUS paid to quash of how he porked a pornstar,
Of how he porked a pornstar POTUS paid to quash,
If POTUS paid to quash of how he porked a porn star,
Show the Pecker that did the squashing of which the porn star quoths.
In a NYC Jury there is bound to be someone who whispers something that creates inappropriate laughter. Difference being you wouldn't whisper
Guilty as (dis)charged.
Sentence: 4 consecutive posts w/embedded jokes/humor
Ya knew I knew to bait you and knew ya couldn't resist
still lmao here
Hahahahaha ♥
😂😂😂
A week, Earth time? or astrally?
both