This is all out of Roy Cohn’s book of tricks to delay justice by endlessly suing and countersuing the courts with teams of lawyers flinging tons of turds against walls to see what sticks. Then the judges will parse the questions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, make their decision months down the line, while trump remains free to cause more trouble and threaten more people he feels have wronged him. Then he will hire more lawyers to appeal the appeal and on and on it goes and he still stays out of jail. It is true that there is a two-tiered justice system in this country where the rich and politically connected can buy their way through the legal system and everyone else who can’t afford expensive legal representation get the crappy end of the stick every time…
Trump cannot learn anything. He thinks that he knows everything, and his unfathomable insecurity makes him incapable of acknowledging that he has anything to learn. If he is treated like any other accused criminal, he will claim that he is being persecuted by deranged people.
I think the thing we all need to ask ourselves is, what do we need to learn. He's still getting away with far too much. Why? I'm guessing the fact that almost half the country agrees with him on things, most of us would think, unthinkable.
You’re right. But I think the desperation he feels now makes this brazen thug even more brazen.
As much as we have learned, we’re still caught by surprise at that brazenness. Who would have thought, as the FBI uncovered his staggeringly grave document crimes, that he’d have the “fix” in with “his” federal judge (as many people believe).
I know this is just one person’s subjective opinion, but I think he’s starting to strangle himself in the cords of the many entangled crimes that define his life. I feel like we need to keep our nerve now, more than ever, relentless in pursuing accountability for TFG and exposure of his crooked accomplices. He probably thinks we’ll get tired first. I won’t.
Nov 22, 2023·edited Nov 22, 2023Liked by Lucian K. Truscott IV
One note, though-the woman who threatened the judge had been charged with doing it four times previously all in the last year. it's not like that particular woman was not a known quantity-even the judge handling her case noted that.
I remember that in some news stores her father said, "She's got a lot of time-she watches TV and drinks beer." You can guess which channel she watches, too.
Which is about right for someone from Texas. They grow them stupid there.
As for Trump he reminds me of that apocryphal story of someone who was trying to impress an airline clerk for whatever reason, and asked her, "Do you know who I am?" to which she said, "Why, don't you?" and to the crowd behind him:
"Does anyone know who this man is?"
Needless to say people who pull that shit should be made fun of because they're ridiculous, just like Trump is.
Trump is not so special and his lawyers know it, he's just a rich criminal who's gotten away with it for 70 years and time is running out-but if we keep having judges like Aileen (Boom Boom) Cannon ruling in his favor, we'll never get rid of the SOB.
I still want to escape to some place where he is not in the papers all the time. it would be a relief to have some other fool being an idiot to worry about-like that right wing new leader down in Argentina.
Seems as though this particular round of fascism is catching fire, which is why Trump should be in prison yesterday.
Please someone, put him in jail just to stop the flow of utter shit coming out of his mouth from coming out. It's relentless.
I don't know-I put it at 70 because perhaps before then he had guidance, and then everything fell apart. I think the whole family was dysfunctional, according to Mary Trump's book.
I am so sick and tired reading, listening or hearing about all the back and forth with the
defendant. Why are these judges pussy-footing around this criminal??!! There needs to be
a gag order of the highest kind enforced and be done with it. Anyone else would already have been
put away a long time ago. What is everyone waiting for??? He is dangerous and needs to be put away,period. I thought that they have enough proof by now.
Nov 22, 2023·edited Nov 22, 2023Liked by Lucian K. Truscott IV
Donald Trump is hands down the worst thing to ever happen to this country.He is the cancer that keeps metastasizing.His rhetoric that he has been singled out by our legal system surely is true as he is milking the system getting away with actions no other person in mind has ever done.I frankly am sickened by it but also frightened.Why has this sociopath been given special treatment under the law?Why do We The People have to endure painful days and undo suffering because of the lawlessness and corruption of this Demon?Whatever he has on key people in government that keeps them from speaking out against him must be a doozy.
I do not understand why people are so afraid of the shithead!! The only way to stop a bully is to bully him back...he needs a whack upside the head and he's needed it for a long time!
what immediately occurred to me is the fact that during every other presidential campaign I've ever seen or heard about, the only specific people who are mentioned are the people running against him. yeah, this is unprecedented because there's hasn't even been this kind of lowlife piece of shit running before. the idea that his campaign DEPENDS on his being able to name the names of virtually everyone he can think of to trash. and his followers, being unstable at best, know exactly what he's saying when he mentions those names.
on Keith Olbermann's podcast today, he was most eloquent on how fucked up these appellate judges were. it sure seemed to me that they were trying to do nothing other than trying to impress the rest of us with the depth of their legal philosophies. they are fools on their best day. I'd always thought that judges were judges because they tended to be relatively bright. another shattered illusion.
I listened to the full hearing, and did not come away with the impression that the DC circuit court judges were fools. In fact, I found them quite incisive and extremely well-versed in the points of law at issue. And they did push back and call BS on Sauer quite a bit.
I would have loved for them to have dropped the legal equivocations and ruled on the spot, calling out Sauer's sophistry and barring the orange turd from ever uttering another word. But that's exactly what the turd's team wants, giving them more legal holes to poke through on appeal.
It seems to me that the judges were very carefully crafting a basis for whatever elements of the gag order they maintain, removing as many arguments for appeal as possible. It's annoying AF, but when (not if) their ruling is appealed, SCOTUS will have a much more difficult time finding reasons to overturn it. I think that's pretty smart.
Thank you for helping bring us (me) back off the cliff! I, too, felt the judges were doing all they could to give way to Trump's arguments. But if, as you suggest, they are crafting a ruling that will stand - well OK, go for it. That at least is a reason to be more positive, instead of falling into depression thinking we will never be rid of - as Ms Wilson's comment puts it - "the cancer that keeps metastasizing."
...of course, this is assuming that SOME of the "Conservative supermajority" on SCOTUS are honest. and there are so many reasons to believe the opposite.
I learned a new word, in a way, "tertiary and quarternary effects," in the context of Trump's lawyer arguing Trump's speech cannot be justly limited by what amount to tertiary and quaternary effects of that speech, such as Abigail Jo Shry in Texas threatening to kill Judge Chutkan.
That would be allowing a heckler's veto standard into the free speech cases, already rejected by the Supreme Court.
Even thought I have worked with attorneys for over 40 years, I often have a difficult time understanding what they are saying. I guess that comes from writing complex letters to other attorneys. Can you dumb your comment down?
The primary reason isn't people using complex terminology in letters within any specialized profession, it's because the subject matter itself is complex. We're dealing with human beings and language, after all, as well as a mind-boggling array of possible crimes and torts connected with all sorts of statements that look very different to people trained in the law than to people untrained in the law - just as a person trained in engineering, biology, art history, or political science doesn't view physical events happening in a human or animal body, or events or statements in general about their specialized subject - aesthetic judgments about works of art is a prime example too - the same as they did before the were educated (also "indoctrinated," always a danger)* about those subjects.
So of course I can "dumb it down," but it will inevitably become even less on the mark .
First, it's assumed you are going to be analyzing the reasonably foreseeable consequences of speech by an American citizen, which automatically brings with it a entire background of legally enforceable rights, rights which do not now and have never existed in almost every other nation on the planet. So you can't reasonably demand an overly simple answer to what might turn out to be, on inspection and upon reflection, too complex for a really simple answer!
It happens to be Trump who is that citizen.
Forget that it's Trump, if "Hard cases make bad law," then "Bad characters make for bad law," meaning we do not want to import Trump's heinous character into the statements beyond what the statements themselves already indicate is his intent.
Change the speaker to "American citizen with all of the protected civil liberties that implies," because for one thing we do not want gag orders or free speech restrictions of any kind crafted so broadly they can be easily abused, to slap down what is now protected speech - like protesting Trump, his policies, or a racist law that discriminates on the basis of "race," i.e., phenotypical traits manifested via skin color, and then treated as sociologically-defined race. Or protesting against restrictions on reproductive freedom, it's a practically endless list of righteous causes and /or specific abuses we want to be able to protest "for a redress of grievances."
For a statement , or set of statements, there are direct effects, secondary effects,
and tertiary effects.
"Tertiary Effects are long-term effects that are set off as a result of a primary event. These include things like loss of habitat caused by a flood, permanent changes in the position of river channel caused by flood, crop failure caused by a volcanic eruption etc."
"Quaternary effects" is some effect that is even more remotely connected to the primary cause (s) [in the law commonly summed up as "proximate" causes] so here it might be journalists writing about the loss of habitat, or the change of the river's channel.
"Heckler's veto" might be confusing you, you didn't specify:
"In First Amendment law, a heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers. It is the government that vetoes the speech, because of the reaction of the heckler. Under the First Amendment, this kind of heckler's veto is unconstitutional."
* The biggest taboo in all of English Literature studies, because of "indoctrination" in a set of unsupported myths about who wrote Shakespeare's plays and sonnets,
Seems to me his speech comes under the 'you can't yell fire in a crowded theater' premise....unless of course, there is a fire. His words have consequences!
Sure Trump's words have consequences, and the legal antidotes to it vary according the precise context and the content of what the speaker said - the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" phrase is only a starting point, and I don't mean only the refutations that you can yell `fire!' in a crowded theater, if for example it's scripted in a play, or as part of a lecture on First Amendment law, those are indeed refutations but not really the point. For that we need something like this:
"You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. I’m sure you’ve heard somebody say that before when discussing free speech and limitations on free speech and the First Amendment. Well, it’s actually one of the most widely misunderstood quotes in American law. It’s routinely parroted as the status of why there can be or are limitations on free speech, but it is a big fat myth. I will explain here in just a moment, so stick around.
Happy Friday, everybody. Hope you had a great week, and as I said, I’m talking this week about the legal myth of you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. It comes up all the time in all of my First Amendment type cases when I’m discussing somebody kind of where the limitations on free speech are, they always say, “Well, yeah, I know there are limitations because you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” So where did that come from?
It actually came from a case way back when, in I believe it was 1917, Schenck versus United States is the case. I’ll put the citation down here so you can actually look it up. And it was a quote from Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes. And the interesting about it is the Schenck case wasn’t about fires, it wasn’t about theaters, it kind of wasn’t even about free speech. It was in a way, but it was really about a guy that was being charged with violations of the Espionage Act because he was a member of the socialist party and he was speaking out against the draft. And the other bizarre thing about why this quote gets attributed to why it’s okay to limit free speech is, the Schenck case, which has now actually been overturned and has been for like 60 years, actually stood for the exact opposite. The Schenck case was applying a pretty large degree of censorship on free speech. That’s why it was overturned is because it was actually found to be completely contrary toward what the First Amendment stood for.
So, the idea that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, Justice Holmes was using that as an analogy to simply say that free speech can’t go completely unchecked. And that idea has maintained it’s truth throughout the years. That’s still true. There are limitations on what is considered protected speech and what is not considered protected speech, and that’s a topic for a different video. But it’s just always been interesting to me that this quote, which is just dicta, it’s not the holding of the case, it’s not really the law of the land, and it’s not Justice Holmes saying that’s what the law of the land should be, has somehow withstood the test of time and is still, to this day, if you watch news reports on First Amendment issues, or you read newspaper articles on First Amendment issues, you’ll invariably run into somebody that talks about, “Well, we all know you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” That’s not the law. It really never has been the law. And it’s from a case that got overturned some 60 plus years ago."
***** "So, anyway, quick video today, just wanted to bust that legal myth. I’m going to start this series where I’m going to try to shortly dispose of some legal myths that you hear pretty regularly. So stay tuned because I think, I’m hoping, this is the first video in a series. If there’s any legal myths out there that you want me to examine, whether that’s tell you if they’re true or not true, I’m happy to do it, especially if they relate to criminal law, because that’s really what my practice area is. So, stay tuned for those. Drop me a comment below, send me an email, give me a call if you have any ideas or something you want to see me discuss in a future video, and I’d be happy to do it. Have a great weekend, everybody. Stay safe out there and we’ll see you next week."
Author Bio
James P. Whalen - etc., the rest is some impressive recommendations for Whalen & his skills
in case you or someone you want to help needs a defense attorney - I had no idea who this
guy is, but one thing you should learn in law school is even if you don't immediately recall the
"black-letter law," you know how to find it and how to base arguments for and against applying
it in a specific case. You know as well as I do that students in both formal education and informal research and learning on their own, as "self-taught" scholars of some subject that appeals to them learn similar skills, whether as an engineering student like Lucian at West Point, English lit., history, philosophy, or a solidly focused major in Women's Studies or Art History in college. I recalled only that the dicta from Schenk was never dispositive of anything.
During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment.
***** My first job after law school was with the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, at first the idea was to become an intern after the current one left, but my plans changed - in any event books and articles about cases stemming from Schenk were prominent in their large library on civil liberties, and I had access to that material, learned a lot!
Trump will not be stopped by the legal system because the judges are terrified of him and his brownshirts.. He will keep pushing and pushing until someone is hurt or killed, and even then he will not be held accountable. This country is broken.
Counsels of despair so early in my morning, only 5 AM in Mipples, returning to this comment thread to be greeted by a veritable jeremiad worthy of an ancient prophet of doom.
You've heard of the wisdom about the JFK assassination, that "the evidence IS the conspiracy," correct? Well, compare and apply it here: the trials and the hearings and the looming convictions, being compelled already not to defend having committed no frauds against the banks, the taxpayers, the other more honest real estate owners, insurance companies, the accountability has already moved beyond that: the Empire State is now watching the judge in the process of seeing if the huge $250 million fine owed by Trump should be levied, along with being expelled, an outcast, unable to conduct any kind of business whatsoever in the state of New York, ergo, to that extent Trump has already been stopped, the question is what's next for him?
I'll tell you what's next: a similar slapdown in E. Jean Carroll's second defamation suit, more evidence being assembled in the stolen national security secret documents case, and the federal cases connected with Trump's fiendish fascist attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election!
Here's some good musical energy to help counteract that otherwise depressing but fortunately inaccurate claim "this country is broken," anyway we can agree to disagree about that and I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, we all have plenty to be thankful for, and Trump's ongoing legal evisceration (he's lost again and again and count on him to lose for increasingly bigger stakes, too!) is a good place to start.
Nota bene, if you can't get enlivened by this...look out! The cats start dancing everywhere when they hear this, cats laughing too!
Jimmy Mundy arrangement of the swing standard, also previously recorded by Goodman for Columbia in 1934.
CD audio, originally issued on 78rpm: Victor 25467 - Bugle Call Rag (Pettis-Meyers-Schoebel) by Benny Goodman & his Orchestra, recorded in NYC November 5, 1936
THE 1936 HITS ARCHIVE - a collection of commercial recordings and songs that proved popular during the calendar year 1936 (some were recorded in 1935) via sales, sheet music, and radio exposure.…plus some others that have gained increased recognition or have been shown to have had an impact during the decades that followed. .
The three* MusicProf channels are home to The HITS ARCHIVES, YouTube’s most comprehensive collection of U.S. ‘popular music’ recordings from 1925 thru 1975. Discover thousands of original hit versions, conveniently arranged in year-by-year playlists and sorted alphabetically in your choice of either song title or artist name. Simply visit this channel’s home page (here: / @the78prof72 ), scroll down the rows of playlist categories, choose a favorite year, click on “view full playlist,” and then pick out the songs that you want to hear. Enjoy the music
More and more I can only comprehend the Drumpf by thinking of Dorian Gray. Drumpf has gone though life by ignoring any legal or societal bounds, by doubling down on any losses, and bulling forward to do whatever he wants. Like Dorian however, his hidden true picture must be hideous indeed. At some point, hopefully sooner than later, its going to be revealed and even he will recoil in horror. We have to do everything possible to make sure its not from the White House.
I cannot and do not understand this malignant circus. And I never understood this damaged mediocrity with delusions of adequacy. It is all beyond me, I don't know how it happened, and the jerks who think Lardass is swell are simply swine. I am beginning to identify with German Jews and Roma, Argentinians under Peron, and the citizens of banana republics. And what will these miserable people get when they've won? I'm not sure they've thought about it, or even know how to think about it. So fuck 'em. As I've said before, I'm counting on the a actuarial tables to rescue me.
" But each of us can give our individual answers to Trump’s contention that the rules don’t apply to him with our votes. Juries may come to decide that he belongs behind bars in three of the cases against him, but we can decide that the one place he doesn’t belong is in the White House, the verdict he fears most of all." Abso-fucking-lutely. It actually IS up to us.
When you are a lawyer for Donald Trump you are never going to be on firm legal ground when making arguments in front of any court. So the only recourse left is to make shaky legal arguments and that's what they did. I understand that with respect to the woman in Texas who threatened Judge Chutkan the Trump attorney claimed she was mentally ill so Trump isn't responsible for her actions. Trump actively courts the mentally ill as his supporters. If we used this as the standard Trump wouldn't be responsible for anything they do.
Lastly, time will tell, but I do not expect the Supreme Court to support Trump in this particular matter. Nor do I expect them to support him with respect to any of his personal legal appeals. They haven't so far. Neither have any lower courts with the exception of possibly one instance. Once they deliver their decisions they will be in the Court records for history. Judges, especially those who are appointed for life, are very concerned about how history views them.
I think you are right about the Supreme Court. They want to be rid of him as much as the rest of us. He's given them what they wanted - their jobs and the overturning of Roe. They don't want to be dealing with all his legal issues which every one of them will fall in their laps!
Yes, they have already done enough for themselves to tarnish their legacy. But they have a “Code of Ethics” 😹 now, to placate the American people. I think you’re right Eric, unless Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo chime in support for Trump.
Deus meus. Is there no relief from this creature and his threats against the nation and the world? I know I'm not alone in being utterly worn out from exposure to this pestilence for so many, many years. And now we have another year in store, the worst yet, and perhaps after that, worse to come.
This is all out of Roy Cohn’s book of tricks to delay justice by endlessly suing and countersuing the courts with teams of lawyers flinging tons of turds against walls to see what sticks. Then the judges will parse the questions about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, make their decision months down the line, while trump remains free to cause more trouble and threaten more people he feels have wronged him. Then he will hire more lawyers to appeal the appeal and on and on it goes and he still stays out of jail. It is true that there is a two-tiered justice system in this country where the rich and politically connected can buy their way through the legal system and everyone else who can’t afford expensive legal representation get the crappy end of the stick every time…
Exactly!! He learned it all from the slimiest shyster of them all! So that proves he can learn but only more evil and deviosity (if that's a word).
Greatest Country In the World! s/
Blacks and Hispanics can attest to that.
Nailed it!
“Trump is testing the limits of the law in four courts at this moment.”
And the miscreant will continue to do so until he meets with firm limits. Thousands of them. They’re way overdue.
Due process. That’s what he deserves. Like any other accused criminal. He’s not special. He needs to learn that.
Trump cannot learn anything. He thinks that he knows everything, and his unfathomable insecurity makes him incapable of acknowledging that he has anything to learn. If he is treated like any other accused criminal, he will claim that he is being persecuted by deranged people.
And he's already doing that!
I agree.
I think the thing we all need to ask ourselves is, what do we need to learn. He's still getting away with far too much. Why? I'm guessing the fact that almost half the country agrees with him on things, most of us would think, unthinkable.
You’re right. But I think the desperation he feels now makes this brazen thug even more brazen.
As much as we have learned, we’re still caught by surprise at that brazenness. Who would have thought, as the FBI uncovered his staggeringly grave document crimes, that he’d have the “fix” in with “his” federal judge (as many people believe).
I know this is just one person’s subjective opinion, but I think he’s starting to strangle himself in the cords of the many entangled crimes that define his life. I feel like we need to keep our nerve now, more than ever, relentless in pursuing accountability for TFG and exposure of his crooked accomplices. He probably thinks we’ll get tired first. I won’t.
One note, though-the woman who threatened the judge had been charged with doing it four times previously all in the last year. it's not like that particular woman was not a known quantity-even the judge handling her case noted that.
I remember that in some news stores her father said, "She's got a lot of time-she watches TV and drinks beer." You can guess which channel she watches, too.
Which is about right for someone from Texas. They grow them stupid there.
As for Trump he reminds me of that apocryphal story of someone who was trying to impress an airline clerk for whatever reason, and asked her, "Do you know who I am?" to which she said, "Why, don't you?" and to the crowd behind him:
"Does anyone know who this man is?"
Needless to say people who pull that shit should be made fun of because they're ridiculous, just like Trump is.
Trump is not so special and his lawyers know it, he's just a rich criminal who's gotten away with it for 70 years and time is running out-but if we keep having judges like Aileen (Boom Boom) Cannon ruling in his favor, we'll never get rid of the SOB.
I still want to escape to some place where he is not in the papers all the time. it would be a relief to have some other fool being an idiot to worry about-like that right wing new leader down in Argentina.
Seems as though this particular round of fascism is catching fire, which is why Trump should be in prison yesterday.
Please someone, put him in jail just to stop the flow of utter shit coming out of his mouth from coming out. It's relentless.
And we're tired of it.
Once again you hit the nail squarely on the head, Mary. Well done!!
A small possible correction: Trump is 77. I'm sure he got away with it for his first seven years too. The child is father to the man.
I don't know-I put it at 70 because perhaps before then he had guidance, and then everything fell apart. I think the whole family was dysfunctional, according to Mary Trump's book.
I am so sick and tired reading, listening or hearing about all the back and forth with the
defendant. Why are these judges pussy-footing around this criminal??!! There needs to be
a gag order of the highest kind enforced and be done with it. Anyone else would already have been
put away a long time ago. What is everyone waiting for??? He is dangerous and needs to be put away,period. I thought that they have enough proof by now.
AGREED!!!
He needs to be put on Wake Island until after the criminal trials are resolved.
As an alternative his travel could be restricted to the jurisdictions with active court cases.
It is perfectly legitimate to limit the right of defendants to travel outside of jurisdictions.
(He can only travel to Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and New York.)
If he wants to have a rally outside of the jurisdiction it can e by zoom.
I have to say how appalled I am with respect to how Trump has been able to manipulate the legal system.
Appalled but not surprised!
Donald Trump is hands down the worst thing to ever happen to this country.He is the cancer that keeps metastasizing.His rhetoric that he has been singled out by our legal system surely is true as he is milking the system getting away with actions no other person in mind has ever done.I frankly am sickened by it but also frightened.Why has this sociopath been given special treatment under the law?Why do We The People have to endure painful days and undo suffering because of the lawlessness and corruption of this Demon?Whatever he has on key people in government that keeps them from speaking out against him must be a doozy.
I do not understand why people are so afraid of the shithead!! The only way to stop a bully is to bully him back...he needs a whack upside the head and he's needed it for a long time!
Trump’s speech is NEVER free! Everyone else pays the price!
what immediately occurred to me is the fact that during every other presidential campaign I've ever seen or heard about, the only specific people who are mentioned are the people running against him. yeah, this is unprecedented because there's hasn't even been this kind of lowlife piece of shit running before. the idea that his campaign DEPENDS on his being able to name the names of virtually everyone he can think of to trash. and his followers, being unstable at best, know exactly what he's saying when he mentions those names.
on Keith Olbermann's podcast today, he was most eloquent on how fucked up these appellate judges were. it sure seemed to me that they were trying to do nothing other than trying to impress the rest of us with the depth of their legal philosophies. they are fools on their best day. I'd always thought that judges were judges because they tended to be relatively bright. another shattered illusion.
I listened to the full hearing, and did not come away with the impression that the DC circuit court judges were fools. In fact, I found them quite incisive and extremely well-versed in the points of law at issue. And they did push back and call BS on Sauer quite a bit.
I would have loved for them to have dropped the legal equivocations and ruled on the spot, calling out Sauer's sophistry and barring the orange turd from ever uttering another word. But that's exactly what the turd's team wants, giving them more legal holes to poke through on appeal.
It seems to me that the judges were very carefully crafting a basis for whatever elements of the gag order they maintain, removing as many arguments for appeal as possible. It's annoying AF, but when (not if) their ruling is appealed, SCOTUS will have a much more difficult time finding reasons to overturn it. I think that's pretty smart.
Thank you for helping bring us (me) back off the cliff! I, too, felt the judges were doing all they could to give way to Trump's arguments. But if, as you suggest, they are crafting a ruling that will stand - well OK, go for it. That at least is a reason to be more positive, instead of falling into depression thinking we will never be rid of - as Ms Wilson's comment puts it - "the cancer that keeps metastasizing."
when you put it that way, it DOES make more sense. so thank you.
...of course, this is assuming that SOME of the "Conservative supermajority" on SCOTUS are honest. and there are so many reasons to believe the opposite.
I learned a new word tonight and it's a real doozy - Trumptivity. Sums up a lot of what's wrong in America these days.
I learned a new word, in a way, "tertiary and quarternary effects," in the context of Trump's lawyer arguing Trump's speech cannot be justly limited by what amount to tertiary and quaternary effects of that speech, such as Abigail Jo Shry in Texas threatening to kill Judge Chutkan.
That would be allowing a heckler's veto standard into the free speech cases, already rejected by the Supreme Court.
Even thought I have worked with attorneys for over 40 years, I often have a difficult time understanding what they are saying. I guess that comes from writing complex letters to other attorneys. Can you dumb your comment down?
The primary reason isn't people using complex terminology in letters within any specialized profession, it's because the subject matter itself is complex. We're dealing with human beings and language, after all, as well as a mind-boggling array of possible crimes and torts connected with all sorts of statements that look very different to people trained in the law than to people untrained in the law - just as a person trained in engineering, biology, art history, or political science doesn't view physical events happening in a human or animal body, or events or statements in general about their specialized subject - aesthetic judgments about works of art is a prime example too - the same as they did before the were educated (also "indoctrinated," always a danger)* about those subjects.
So of course I can "dumb it down," but it will inevitably become even less on the mark .
First, it's assumed you are going to be analyzing the reasonably foreseeable consequences of speech by an American citizen, which automatically brings with it a entire background of legally enforceable rights, rights which do not now and have never existed in almost every other nation on the planet. So you can't reasonably demand an overly simple answer to what might turn out to be, on inspection and upon reflection, too complex for a really simple answer!
It happens to be Trump who is that citizen.
Forget that it's Trump, if "Hard cases make bad law," then "Bad characters make for bad law," meaning we do not want to import Trump's heinous character into the statements beyond what the statements themselves already indicate is his intent.
Change the speaker to "American citizen with all of the protected civil liberties that implies," because for one thing we do not want gag orders or free speech restrictions of any kind crafted so broadly they can be easily abused, to slap down what is now protected speech - like protesting Trump, his policies, or a racist law that discriminates on the basis of "race," i.e., phenotypical traits manifested via skin color, and then treated as sociologically-defined race. Or protesting against restrictions on reproductive freedom, it's a practically endless list of righteous causes and /or specific abuses we want to be able to protest "for a redress of grievances."
For a statement , or set of statements, there are direct effects, secondary effects,
and tertiary effects.
"Tertiary Effects are long-term effects that are set off as a result of a primary event. These include things like loss of habitat caused by a flood, permanent changes in the position of river channel caused by flood, crop failure caused by a volcanic eruption etc."
"Quaternary effects" is some effect that is even more remotely connected to the primary cause (s) [in the law commonly summed up as "proximate" causes] so here it might be journalists writing about the loss of habitat, or the change of the river's channel.
"Heckler's veto" might be confusing you, you didn't specify:
"In First Amendment law, a heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers. It is the government that vetoes the speech, because of the reaction of the heckler. Under the First Amendment, this kind of heckler's veto is unconstitutional."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler%27s_veto
* The biggest taboo in all of English Literature studies, because of "indoctrination" in a set of unsupported myths about who wrote Shakespeare's plays and sonnets,
in a tour de force performance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ72Ew1ujlk
Mark Twain's "Is Shakespeare Dead?" with Keir Cutler, PhD
That's the best I can do with a lot more editing and I have too much to do for more
editing, besides it is complicated, that's just the way it is.
Seems to me his speech comes under the 'you can't yell fire in a crowded theater' premise....unless of course, there is a fire. His words have consequences!
Sure Trump's words have consequences, and the legal antidotes to it vary according the precise context and the content of what the speaker said - the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" phrase is only a starting point, and I don't mean only the refutations that you can yell `fire!' in a crowded theater, if for example it's scripted in a play, or as part of a lecture on First Amendment law, those are indeed refutations but not really the point. For that we need something like this:
https://www.whalenlawoffice.com/blog/legal-mythbusting-series-yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/
"You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. I’m sure you’ve heard somebody say that before when discussing free speech and limitations on free speech and the First Amendment. Well, it’s actually one of the most widely misunderstood quotes in American law. It’s routinely parroted as the status of why there can be or are limitations on free speech, but it is a big fat myth. I will explain here in just a moment, so stick around.
Happy Friday, everybody. Hope you had a great week, and as I said, I’m talking this week about the legal myth of you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. It comes up all the time in all of my First Amendment type cases when I’m discussing somebody kind of where the limitations on free speech are, they always say, “Well, yeah, I know there are limitations because you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” So where did that come from?
It actually came from a case way back when, in I believe it was 1917, Schenck versus United States is the case. I’ll put the citation down here so you can actually look it up. And it was a quote from Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes. And the interesting about it is the Schenck case wasn’t about fires, it wasn’t about theaters, it kind of wasn’t even about free speech. It was in a way, but it was really about a guy that was being charged with violations of the Espionage Act because he was a member of the socialist party and he was speaking out against the draft. And the other bizarre thing about why this quote gets attributed to why it’s okay to limit free speech is, the Schenck case, which has now actually been overturned and has been for like 60 years, actually stood for the exact opposite. The Schenck case was applying a pretty large degree of censorship on free speech. That’s why it was overturned is because it was actually found to be completely contrary toward what the First Amendment stood for.
So, the idea that you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, Justice Holmes was using that as an analogy to simply say that free speech can’t go completely unchecked. And that idea has maintained it’s truth throughout the years. That’s still true. There are limitations on what is considered protected speech and what is not considered protected speech, and that’s a topic for a different video. But it’s just always been interesting to me that this quote, which is just dicta, it’s not the holding of the case, it’s not really the law of the land, and it’s not Justice Holmes saying that’s what the law of the land should be, has somehow withstood the test of time and is still, to this day, if you watch news reports on First Amendment issues, or you read newspaper articles on First Amendment issues, you’ll invariably run into somebody that talks about, “Well, we all know you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.” That’s not the law. It really never has been the law. And it’s from a case that got overturned some 60 plus years ago."
***** "So, anyway, quick video today, just wanted to bust that legal myth. I’m going to start this series where I’m going to try to shortly dispose of some legal myths that you hear pretty regularly. So stay tuned because I think, I’m hoping, this is the first video in a series. If there’s any legal myths out there that you want me to examine, whether that’s tell you if they’re true or not true, I’m happy to do it, especially if they relate to criminal law, because that’s really what my practice area is. So, stay tuned for those. Drop me a comment below, send me an email, give me a call if you have any ideas or something you want to see me discuss in a future video, and I’d be happy to do it. Have a great weekend, everybody. Stay safe out there and we’ll see you next week."
Author Bio
James P. Whalen - etc., the rest is some impressive recommendations for Whalen & his skills
in case you or someone you want to help needs a defense attorney - I had no idea who this
guy is, but one thing you should learn in law school is even if you don't immediately recall the
"black-letter law," you know how to find it and how to base arguments for and against applying
it in a specific case. You know as well as I do that students in both formal education and informal research and learning on their own, as "self-taught" scholars of some subject that appeals to them learn similar skills, whether as an engineering student like Lucian at West Point, English lit., history, philosophy, or a solidly focused major in Women's Studies or Art History in college. I recalled only that the dicta from Schenk was never dispositive of anything.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47
Facts of the case
During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment.
***** My first job after law school was with the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, at first the idea was to become an intern after the current one left, but my plans changed - in any event books and articles about cases stemming from Schenk were prominent in their large library on civil liberties, and I had access to that material, learned a lot!
Trump will not be stopped by the legal system because the judges are terrified of him and his brownshirts.. He will keep pushing and pushing until someone is hurt or killed, and even then he will not be held accountable. This country is broken.
I wish he would be that someone!
Amen, sister!
Sadly it appears you are right.
Counsels of despair so early in my morning, only 5 AM in Mipples, returning to this comment thread to be greeted by a veritable jeremiad worthy of an ancient prophet of doom.
You've heard of the wisdom about the JFK assassination, that "the evidence IS the conspiracy," correct? Well, compare and apply it here: the trials and the hearings and the looming convictions, being compelled already not to defend having committed no frauds against the banks, the taxpayers, the other more honest real estate owners, insurance companies, the accountability has already moved beyond that: the Empire State is now watching the judge in the process of seeing if the huge $250 million fine owed by Trump should be levied, along with being expelled, an outcast, unable to conduct any kind of business whatsoever in the state of New York, ergo, to that extent Trump has already been stopped, the question is what's next for him?
I'll tell you what's next: a similar slapdown in E. Jean Carroll's second defamation suit, more evidence being assembled in the stolen national security secret documents case, and the federal cases connected with Trump's fiendish fascist attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election!
Here's some good musical energy to help counteract that otherwise depressing but fortunately inaccurate claim "this country is broken," anyway we can agree to disagree about that and I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, we all have plenty to be thankful for, and Trump's ongoing legal evisceration (he's lost again and again and count on him to lose for increasingly bigger stakes, too!) is a good place to start.
Nota bene, if you can't get enlivened by this...look out! The cats start dancing everywhere when they hear this, cats laughing too!
1936 HITS ARCHIVE: Bugle Call Rag - Benny Goodman (Victor version)
The78Prof
53.2K subscribers
30,211 views May 7, 2019
Jimmy Mundy arrangement of the swing standard, also previously recorded by Goodman for Columbia in 1934.
CD audio, originally issued on 78rpm: Victor 25467 - Bugle Call Rag (Pettis-Meyers-Schoebel) by Benny Goodman & his Orchestra, recorded in NYC November 5, 1936
THE 1936 HITS ARCHIVE - a collection of commercial recordings and songs that proved popular during the calendar year 1936 (some were recorded in 1935) via sales, sheet music, and radio exposure.…plus some others that have gained increased recognition or have been shown to have had an impact during the decades that followed. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The three* MusicProf channels are home to The HITS ARCHIVES, YouTube’s most comprehensive collection of U.S. ‘popular music’ recordings from 1925 thru 1975. Discover thousands of original hit versions, conveniently arranged in year-by-year playlists and sorted alphabetically in your choice of either song title or artist name. Simply visit this channel’s home page (here: / @the78prof72 ), scroll down the rows of playlist categories, choose a favorite year, click on “view full playlist,” and then pick out the songs that you want to hear. Enjoy the music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyiOKBrrB5E
I’m impatiently waiting for logical consequences none have slapped his mouth shut.
Ok, those also serve who wait impatiently for the condign slapdown of Herr Gropenfuehrer!
AND we can all sing along , Trump Fought the Law And the Law Won...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL8chWFuM-s
The Clash - I Fought the Law (Official Video)
I hate him. Have since the 70s,
More and more I can only comprehend the Drumpf by thinking of Dorian Gray. Drumpf has gone though life by ignoring any legal or societal bounds, by doubling down on any losses, and bulling forward to do whatever he wants. Like Dorian however, his hidden true picture must be hideous indeed. At some point, hopefully sooner than later, its going to be revealed and even he will recoil in horror. We have to do everything possible to make sure its not from the White House.
I've been applying the story of Dorian Gray to the entire GOP, not just Trump. Rotten, rotten, rotten to the core.
I cannot and do not understand this malignant circus. And I never understood this damaged mediocrity with delusions of adequacy. It is all beyond me, I don't know how it happened, and the jerks who think Lardass is swell are simply swine. I am beginning to identify with German Jews and Roma, Argentinians under Peron, and the citizens of banana republics. And what will these miserable people get when they've won? I'm not sure they've thought about it, or even know how to think about it. So fuck 'em. As I've said before, I'm counting on the a actuarial tables to rescue me.
Lonely Planet Guide: Deportation Destinations 2024. The Do's and Don't's
" But each of us can give our individual answers to Trump’s contention that the rules don’t apply to him with our votes. Juries may come to decide that he belongs behind bars in three of the cases against him, but we can decide that the one place he doesn’t belong is in the White House, the verdict he fears most of all." Abso-fucking-lutely. It actually IS up to us.
When you are a lawyer for Donald Trump you are never going to be on firm legal ground when making arguments in front of any court. So the only recourse left is to make shaky legal arguments and that's what they did. I understand that with respect to the woman in Texas who threatened Judge Chutkan the Trump attorney claimed she was mentally ill so Trump isn't responsible for her actions. Trump actively courts the mentally ill as his supporters. If we used this as the standard Trump wouldn't be responsible for anything they do.
Lastly, time will tell, but I do not expect the Supreme Court to support Trump in this particular matter. Nor do I expect them to support him with respect to any of his personal legal appeals. They haven't so far. Neither have any lower courts with the exception of possibly one instance. Once they deliver their decisions they will be in the Court records for history. Judges, especially those who are appointed for life, are very concerned about how history views them.
I think you are right about the Supreme Court. They want to be rid of him as much as the rest of us. He's given them what they wanted - their jobs and the overturning of Roe. They don't want to be dealing with all his legal issues which every one of them will fall in their laps!
You are giving them too much deference. They literally DGAF about anything other than because fuck you that's why.
Yes, they have already done enough for themselves to tarnish their legacy. But they have a “Code of Ethics” 😹 now, to placate the American people. I think you’re right Eric, unless Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo chime in support for Trump.
Deus meus. Is there no relief from this creature and his threats against the nation and the world? I know I'm not alone in being utterly worn out from exposure to this pestilence for so many, many years. And now we have another year in store, the worst yet, and perhaps after that, worse to come.