Mar-A-Lago Raid

[Xprimentyl]

Those aren't all the reasons a loaded question may be asked. Loaded questions are also sometimes intended to mislead. A loaded question may not be a lie, but it can imply to the reader that the presupposition is confirmed and true, depending on context.

Now, I don't think Legal Eagle's loaded question title is intended to mislead. Video titles are short by practical necessity, and I think there's an understanding that anyone watching the video is smart enough to know that a possible answer to the question is, "no time at all". But it should've been titled something else (though I hardly think this is a significant issue).

I completely understand the nature of a loaded question; my own assumption is that no one worth their weight in common sense would answer one, or accept a yes/no response, without scrutiny of the facts to clarify and unload it. In tstorm's example, "yes" and "no" are not the only, least of all "best," responses to "have you stopped beating your wife." I'd personally say "I've never beaten my wife." Then we'd be discussing facts and dismissing presupposition as any good faith inquisition should proceed.

But let's face it; the semantics aren't lost on those like tstorm; it's just convenient to dismiss anything against their grain by throwing around malicious labels when confronted when something contrary to their liking.

 

[tstorm823]

In tstorm's example, "yes" and "no" are not the only, least of all "best," responses to "have you stopped beating your wife." I'd personally say "I've never beaten my wife." Then we'd be discussing facts and dismissing presupposition as any good faith inquisition should proceed.

I can't imagine that you think that baselessly accusing someone of beating their wife is sufficiently honest so long as a discussion happens afterwards.

 

[Xprimentyl]

I can't imagine that you think that baselessly accusing someone of beating their wife is sufficiently honest so long as a discussion happens afterwards.

But in this case, Trump was found standing over Melania in a wife beater t-shirt with one fist in the air, and the other holding a can of Bud Light and a cigarette...

In all seriousness, it has nothing to do with being honest or dishonest; it’s about taking the presumptuous accusation, then discussing and dissecting the facts behind it to arrive at the ultimate truth. In this case, Devin is not Trump’s prosecutor, he’s not on the jury, and he for damn sure isn’t the presiding judge, so anything he asserts in the title of a YouTube video as to Trump’s fate has about as much validity as any assertion you, myself, or anyone else might make, and anybody with a lick of common sense understands that.

Do you think any prosecuting attorney who stands before a jury and asserts “we will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it,” or any defending attorney who asserts “we will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client is innocent” before any evidence is shown or testimony is given is simply a liar to be dismissed out of hand? Because one of them will be wrong in the end; were their conflicting convictions and confidence in their cases lies?

Legal Eagle is informational entertainment first and foremost. Sensational titles that bring in viewers is, as someone else stated, nothing new, unusual, or indicative of deception. If you don’t like the channel, that’s all well and good, but accusing it of lying without looking beyond the thumbnail to point out the lies is only evidence of your lack of confidence in what you believe.

 

[tstorm823]

...so anything he asserts in the title of a YouTube video as to Trump’s fate has about as much validity as any assertion you, myself, or anyone else might make, and anybody with a lick of common sense understands that.

If you actually put no value on his words above anyone else's, your agreeing with me.

Do you think any prosecuting attorney who stands before a jury and asserts “we will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did it,” or any defending attorney who asserts “we will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our client is innocent” before any evidence is shown or testimony is given is simply a liar to be dismissed out of hand? Because one of them will be wrong in the end; were their conflicting convictions and confidence in their cases lies?

Sometimes they are lying. Sometimes they are both honest, but one is wrong. But they are in a position to potentially justify their confidence. A YouTuber with a track record of failing at pretty much all political analysis with no special access to the case is not in that position.

accusing it of lying without looking beyond the thumbnail to point out the lies is only evidence of your lack of confidence in what you believe.

I watched the video before I commented on it in the first place. My comment was that I don't get tired of knowing he's an idiot... Which might suggest I was not tired of his videos. It entertains me to watch him try to be serious and political, because I know from previous videos how politically ignorant he either is or pretends to be.

 

[Schadrach]

The idea that Trump would ever see the inside of a jail cell still seems completely far-fetched. Hasen said the Secret Service would have to arrange for his protection in jail. The logistics of that are mind-boggling. Would agents be placed into cells on either side of him? Would they dress as inmates or guards?

I always figured the way to solve that problem is to repurpose the SHU, and use it for Trump and his security detail - the entire unit. Presumably this requires his SS detail to wear some variety of uniform while protecting him on site but dedicating the entire SHU to Trump would greatly simplify his security arrangements.

 

[Ag3ma]

I always figured the way to solve that problem is to repurpose the SHU, and use it for Trump and his security detail - the entire unit. Presumably this requires his SS detail to wear some variety of uniform while protecting him on site but dedicating the entire SHU to Trump would greatly simplify his security arrangements.

A jail is already a secure facility, which potentially simplifies security (and costs) in some ways. I would think all that would be needed is a small liaison group to work with the existing jail security. We can also factor in that Trump would almost certainly go to a min-low security prison where he would be at minimal risk from the other inmates.

Another possibly simple idea might be sticking a portacabin in a military base for him and whatever agents. Again, a military base offers its own security solutions.

 

[Ag3ma]

Update: Trump's lawyers have asked for the trial to be held after the 2024 election. Obviously, the likely intent here is that should Trump win the presidential election, they'll make arguments based around presidential immunity to prevent it going ahead until after his term, and obviously Trump would have the DOJ trash the case and prevent its resurrection. How confident are we feeling about that judge?

Trump asks for classified documents trial to take place after 2024 election

Ex-president’s lawyers made clear their preference and intentions to delay proceedings as they opposed December trial date

www.theguardian.com

 

[SilentPony]

Update: Trump's lawyers have asked for the trial to be held after the 2024 election. Obviously, the likely intent here is that should Trump win the presidential election, they'll make arguments based around presidential immunity to prevent it going ahead until after his term, and obviously Trump would have the DOJ trash the case and prevent its resurrection. How confident are we feeling about that judge?

Trump asks for classified documents trial to take place after 2024 election

Ex-president’s lawyers made clear their preference and intentions to delay proceedings as they opposed December trial date

www.theguardian.com

Its a tricky situation because you know Trump didn't appoint anyone without having blackmail on them. So this judge is wrapped right around Trump's gross chubby smell little fingers.
But she's also preceding over what's going to be the most covered court case, probably ever. And every ruling she makes will be analyzed to the Nth+4 degree, and you better believe Jack Smith is ready to call for her dismissal if she starts to show favor towards Trump. She's already on thin ice with her bosses because of that whole special master thing, so she has very little wiggle room right now.

 

[BrawlMan]

She's already on thin ice with her bosses because of that whole special master thing, so she has very little wiggle room right now.

Regardless of the outcome, Trump will dispose of his pawn when she is no longer useful.

 

[Ag3ma]

Its a tricky situation because you know Trump didn't appoint anyone without having blackmail on them. So this judge is wrapped right around Trump's gross chubby smell little fingers.
But she's also preceding over what's going to be the most covered court case, probably ever. And every ruling she makes will be analyzed to the Nth+4 degree, and you better believe Jack Smith is ready to call for her dismissal if she starts to show favor towards Trump. She's already on thin ice with her bosses because of that whole special master thing, so she has very little wiggle room right now.

Hard to say.

Her job is secure because she can only be removed through impeachment by Congress, and given the politicised nature of overseeing Trump cases, it's almost inconceivable the Republicans would consent to do so. In other words, she's free to fuck with the case and keep her job.

As far as I understand, there is no mechanism to remove her from overseeing the case except her voluntary withdrawal. There are probably lots of ways she can skew it (e.g. jury selection) that would be almost unchallengable. Even if she is overtly partisan such that an Appeals court took action afterwards and even ordered a retrial, again, that's another huge delay which serves Trump's ends to potentially get into office before the case is resolved, at which point the case would then be ditched.

So we're relying on her moral fibre. Her previous record, given her monumental slap-down from the appeals court, suggests she may be biased. There are some huge potential advantages to her to be again, as she can earn some massive support and opportunities from the right wing whether within the field of law or outside. On the other hand, she may have enough personal and professional honour to want to be seen as a good judge for the rest of her career rather than a corrupt and incompetent one.

Regardless of the outcome, Trump will dispose of his pawn when she is no longer useful.

Yes, that's one of Trump's very obvious behaviours: when someone's no longer useful to him, he done with them. There's no sentimentality in there, and I don't think he has friends (or not as we would generally understand them). A person is either useful to Trump - which equates to utterly, fawningly loyal - or a nobody.

 

[Ag3ma]

Trump faces more charges in classified documents case with second aide

Prosecutors bring additional charges against former president as Mar-a-Lago worker Carlos De Oliveira named as third defendant

www.theguardian.com

Specifically asking staff to delete CCTV footage that may be inciminating is not a good look for a man who claims he did nothing wrong.

 

[Hades]

Yes, that's one of Trump's very obvious behaviours: when someone's no longer useful to him, he done with them. There's no sentimentality in there, and I don't think he has friends (or not as we would generally understand them). A person is either useful to Trump - which equates to utterly, fawningly loyal - or a nobody.

And yet despite his very common behavior Trump's pawns keep thinking they alone won't be betrayed by him.

 

[Ag3ma]

And yet despite his very common behavior Trump's pawns keep thinking they alone won't be betrayed by him.

Where Trump almost certainly has a high degree of skill is identifying people who are pliable and credulous, and keeping them close. Trump will look after these guys - as long as they tell the tale Trump wants. A lot of the other hangers-on will be much more cynically aware that they are entering a business deal where there are plentiful rewards for loyalty, but they'll be on their own if the wrong things happen. Take Javanka. Kuchner got a great deal out his service: he made buddies with foreign investors who propped up his bad property deals and Trump gave his daddy a pardon. Then after the transition they cashed out and don't need to dragged back into his morass.

 

[CaitSeith]

Trump faces more charges in classified documents case with second aide

Prosecutors bring additional charges against former president as Mar-a-Lago worker Carlos De Oliveira named as third defendant

www.theguardian.com

Specifically asking staff to delete CCTV footage that may be inciminating is not a good look for a man who claims he did nothing wrong.

As the saying goes "It's not illegal unless you get caught"; and boy, they did get caught. At least they should had been wearing sky masks.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Trump faces more charges in classified documents case with second aide

Prosecutors bring additional charges against former president as Mar-a-Lago worker Carlos De Oliveira named as third defendant

www.theguardian.com

Specifically asking staff to delete CCTV footage that may be inciminating is not a good look for a man who claims he did nothing wrong.

And yet Fox News opinioneers ask "doesn't he have the right to erase his own tapes?". No, he doesn't, if doing so impedes a criminal investigation.

Oh, but I forget. In that world, there is only one possible crime, and that's not being a Republican.

 

[Ag3ma]

... and another indictment, this one from Georgia.

Donald Trump and allies indicted in Georgia over bid to reverse 2020 election loss

Ex-president is defendant in fourth criminal case as 41-count indictment accuses him of planning criminal enterprise

www.theguardian.com

 

[Absent]

... and another indictment, this one from Georgia.

Donald Trump and allies indicted in Georgia over bid to reverse 2020 election loss

Ex-president is defendant in fourth criminal case as 41-count indictment accuses him of planning criminal enterprise

www.theguardian.com

How does it work. Does it just add to the list of stuff the Supreme Court will erase ?

 

[Ag3ma]

How does it work. Does it just add to the list of stuff the Supreme Court will erase ?

I am far from convinced SCOTUS would erase any conviction.

Firstly, because if a conviction is legally solid, this puts SCOTUS at severe risk of high reputational damage, as to pull a dodgy interpretation out on such a matter would stain them. They might be conservative-leaning politically, but they have to be mindful that over half their country is not. Secondly, whilst several might owe their seats to Trump, I don't think they will feel the need to owe him any favours. I strongly suspect they don't like him for being boorish, corrupt, crass, ignorant, and even dangerous, and they might be very content to see him go down.

We can then consider leverage, but SCOTUS judges are about as invulnerable as it gets. if Trump is convicted, he won't have very much leverage. The Republican Party could, but too many movers and shakers don't care about (or like) Trump either, and they're hardly going to attack the court they've stacked, which will deliver them favourable rulings for many years to come.

 

[SilentPony]

How does it work. Does it just add to the list of stuff the Supreme Court will erase ?

Well this is a state level offense, the Supreme Court can't touch it. State autonomy and all that. And even if Trump wins re-election, he can't pardon state level crimes.
My worry is this sets up an epic, probably shooty, showdown with Trump, his secret service and the police. Trump has until a week from Friday to turn himself it, and chances are he'll be detained as he's the definition of a flight risk. So what happens if Trump says no, and tells his security detail he's leaving? They don't blink, they don't let anyone near the even former president. What some local bailiff is gonna go toe-to-toe with the SS? Some local backwater bumkin deputy is gonna stop a presidential motorcade? Fuck me, they shut down DC, fucking all of it, from the airport to the court house a few weeks ago for this guy. Hundreds of law enforcement, all for him. Ain't no way this dude sees even a second in a jail cell, ever.

 

[Ag3ma]

So what happens if Trump says no, and tells his security detail he's leaving? They don't blink, they don't let anyone near the even former president.

The remit of the Secret Service to protect ex-presidents will not extend to interfering with proper, legal authorities carrying out their duty with respect to that ex-president. Put it this way: imagine Trump pulled out a gun and started shooting random passers-by. A Secret Service detail is not going to stand there and let him, and they certainly aren't going to start a shooting match with any regular police who turn up to take down the crazy gunman murdering civilians.

The security detail will stand politely by and do little more than ensure that if force is required, it is proportionate. And then probably have to accompany Trump to any place of detention if relevant.