Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

 

2 hours ago, Dayni said:

Why do I have the feeling the defendants will get off lightly?

As long as both Rudy and Sidney Powell get disbarred from this (which they should do, as these lies were first stated in a court of law), I will consider that a victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Also not sure if the defendants really will get off lightly: the mountain of evidence in the plaintiff's favor is pretty damning. And that's probably why they didn't bother cloaking it in verbose legalese lol.

3 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

As long as both Rudy and Sidney Powell get disbarred from this (which they should do, as these lies were first stated in a court of law), I will consider that a victory.

I am just wary of these people being brought in for their actions when similar cases have disappointed before.

The argument might be made in defence that "They were not singularly accused of stealing the election!" and I could see that managing to have an impact.

5 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Credit where it's due: they're doing a lot better than I thought they would.

That's the thing, the negotiation dance was done quite often during Obama only for multiple items to be slapped down ad with current behaviour I doubt that'll be any different.

This kind of mistake could still be made, but time will tell on that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know cynicism tastes delicious but all signs so far point to yes they have learned their lesson. You should allow yourself to feel optimistic: it feels much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst thing that can happen to a cynic is to be proven right. I'm a cynic myself and I love it when something turns out to be not as bad as I envisioned.

Edited by NinjaMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Dayni said:

I am just wary of these people being brought in for their actions when similar cases have disappointed before.

The argument might be made in defence that "They were not singularly accused of stealing the election!" and I could see that managing to have an impact.

All they have to do is prove they were affected by these false claims, I’m pretty sure.

Edited by Sooks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the temptation but I can't imagine feeling like we're gonna fail all the time really helps... well, anything.

Maybe my disappointment tolerance is just much higher because I'm old af.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Crysta said:

I understand the temptation but I can't imagine feeling like we're gonna fail all the time really helps at... well, anything.

Hard to be optimistic that softly softly approaches won't be taken to avoid being seen as too hard line based on prior form.

Temptation to me would be more like being tempted to think that lessons have been learned and that there won't be a naive acquiescence or a half hearted response to people who've shown very concerning tendencies for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dayni said:

Hard to be optimistic that softly softly approaches won't be taken to avoid being seen as too hard line based on prior form.

Temptation to me would be more like being tempted to think that lessons have been learned and that there won't be a naive acquiescence or a half hearted response to people who've shown very concerning tendencies for a long time.

I just pointed to a quote of Manchin indicating that Biden explicitly doesn't want to do the same dance Democrats did in 2009. You seem adamant in believing they will do the same 2009 dance anyway because... you don't want to believe it?

Biden has been driving his policies pretty hard straight out of the gate. Regardless of whether or not everything he wants to accomplish will succeed, it's a much different tenor being struck than the one in 2009. Dems are on confident footing while the Republicans are trying to launder Qanon for political gain: optically, they're under no incentive to make any political overtures, so they're not.

They're whining about unity and cancel culture but it's not working lol

Eta6FLTXEAU5ely.png.a2b8f9497007ad0f9531908eeb27af5a.png

It's a small victory -- she shouldn't even be in Congress in the first place -- but sometimes good things can happen.

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Crysta said:

I just pointed to a quote of Manchin indicating that Biden explicitly doesn't want to do the same dance Democrats did in 2009. You seem adamant in believing they will do the same 2009 dance anyway because... you don't want to believe it?

Biden has been driving his policies pretty hard straight out of the gate. Regardless of whether or not everything he wants to accomplish will succeed, it's a much different tenor being struck than the one in 2009. Dems are on confident footing while the Republicans are trying to launder Qanon for political gain: optically, they're under no incentive to make any political overtures, so they're not.

They're whining about unity and cancel culture but it's not working lol

Again, what's going on right now's against form from the past.

We'll have to see if it keeps up and I'd rather not be assuming or hoping it will continue for sure if there's a decision to change tack to be less "confrontational" as some journalists might put it.

Certainly on the executive orders he's been quick, Congress is starting to limber up again, this is not what I'm pessimistic about. I can't be so certain it'll stay that way, hence why I don't presume the heat will stay on. For more than a few they'll find the heat a bit overwhelming when it takes longer to cook up some justice than would be liked.

On a lighter note, pretty hilarious to hear MyPillowMan, when a certain news channel tried to tee him up to complain about cancel culture didn't play along and got so aggressive about a stolen election that one of the two interviewing him just rushes off screen.

13 minutes ago, Crysta said:

Eta6FLTXEAU5ely.png.a2b8f9497007ad0f9531908eeb27af5a.png

It's a small victory -- she shouldn't even be in Congress in the first place -- but sometimes good things can happen.

Yeah, impeaching of an active congress member could be considered an act of aggression, but considering her behaviour before it'd be calling out her own.

Also, Boebert? Just, she should have been after she tried to give rioters directions to find people they were angry towards. It's not hard to see she wasn't doing so to help them give formal letters of complaint to Democrat Congresspeople.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expulsion of the crazies is preferable but it'd help if people would stop voting them in.

We'll see where we go from here but Nancy is really shivving them on the Qanon stuff. Deservedly.

EtbA229XMAAE-Ue.jpg.a37921d004cc3305db5af2da10a63bfc.jpg

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For years, the conservative propaganda machine has painted Pelosi as a monster.  I see this as a fulfillment of their utter stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Crysta said:

Expulsion of the crazies is preferable but it'd help if people would stop voting them in.

We'll see where we go from here but Nancy is really shivving them on the Qanon stuff. Deservedly.

EtbA229XMAAE-Ue.jpg.a37921d004cc3305db5af2da10a63bfc.jpg

I heard Greene wasn't even voted into office but that she won by default after Qanon loons intimidated her opponents to step down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sooks said:

All they have to do is prove they were affected by these false claims, I’m pretty sure.

US defamation lawsuits are very difficult to prove, due to the strong protections on free speech, so don't get your hopes up too much. There is a lot more they have to prove (although a quick look at the filing looks rather promising). To put my own layman's understanding of it into layman's terms: they need to show clear actual monetary harm (not some vague or speculative monetary harm, actual numbers...) or irreparable harm (meaning harm that could not be fixed by any amount of money) from the statements; proof that those were false statements of fact and not opinions; and this is probably a case where they need to show that the perpetrators acted with actual malice, which means they need evidence showing their state of mind (which can be difficult to get) that they knowingly spread the falsehood intending harm, or had serious doubts as to the truth of the statement before spreading it.

If I were a betting man Fox is going to slide out of this lawsuit without consequences by claiming that they were simply reporting on the allegations made by the individual defendants for any news organization involved, and/or claiming that any statements made on talk shows or editorials were clearly not meant to be factual, and merely statements of opinion made clear by the venue of discussion, or possibly even throwing the host under the bus instead thanks to those "does not represent the opinions of the network" blanket statements that sometimes come up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you need mens rea in civil procedure, that's more of a criminal justice thing. 

I'm actually feeling pretty well about these defamation suits. There's still a good chance that things will be settled out of court, for an undisclosed amount, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent over an hour this morning arguing a motion for summary judgement in a NJ Superior Court defamation case. 

The issue of whether or not intent matters actually came up in the arguments. 

Defense's position was that what matters is whether you're stating a purported statement of fact or an opinion. And if you're stating an opinion it doesn't matter what your intent was; opinions can't be defamatory. Only (false) statements of fact can be defamatory.

My position was the distinction isn't fact vs. opinion. Its fact vs. reasonable opinion. A defendant doesn't actually need to know what they're saying is false to commit defamation; they only need to speak with unreasonable disregard for truth or falsity that could be ascertained by a reasonable person.  So intent is relevant insofar as it relates to care for truth or falsity, and the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the purported opinion.
___

We'll know in about 1 or 2 weeks when the judge issues an opinion whether I was right or not. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only 175 pages in at the moment, however, I would say that Smartmatic have a very solid case against Powell and Guilliani, at the very least.

Edited by NinjaMonkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that later this year will be a bit of a slowdown in terms of legislation -- or maybe, more specifically, we will find ourselves a lull soon -- and then election year is when they go balls to the wall.

Manchin's view of the filibuster is still a little troubling.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/02/09/trump-impeachment-live-updates/

Republicans not paying attention while the video of the Capitol siege is being played reminds me of the Nuremberg trials where some of the major war criminals were bored when the documentary videos of what happened in the concentration camps were shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

put head in the sand when the evidence is shown

attack on procedural grounds rather than attempting to debunk arguments or contemplate guilt or innocence

vote to acquit

gloat, because you got away with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Unity" and "moving on" seem to be the buzzwords among the GOP faithful, as evidenced by David Schoen calling the "streamlined" impeachment process that the House put forth as "pure, raw, misguided partisanship."

That is fucking rich coming from the idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should move on after this, tbh

The Republicans are not going to allow any meaningful consequences to be dished out on Trump. Not on the federal level.

State level is (hopefully) a different story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well  this was faster than I expected, but Fox has already filed a motion to dismiss the Smartmatic defamation suit against them under the grounds that they were reporting on newsworthy events...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as this impeachment trial unfolds exactly as you think it will, keep in mind the real jury shows up in 2022

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...