Where do we go from here?

[superrific]

I'm a practicing litigation attorney in Atlanta with 35+ years of experience so I know and appreciate the legal system and have the utmost respect for judges and juries that I appear before.

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

 

[TangledUpInBlue06]

You raise valid points. But, on the other hand, we shouldn't target powerful people with creative charges that no one else would face.

No one in NY jurisprudence ever faced fraud charges where there was no victim and the victim said it didn't rely on the statements in making its loan decisions AND appreciated the business. This was pointed out by the NY appellate court.

Hey, look, if I'm searching for commonality it sounds like we're both on the same page that the law should apply equally and regardless of the identity of the accused. I'll take that. It's an important thing to agree on. My caution is to be wary of a powerful person telling you repeatedly that the law is not being applied equally to him and without regard to his identity. Wealth and power much more frequently work as a shield.

On the NY point, I have no idea whether what you said is accurate (lawtig02 seems to think not), and even if it is accurate, whether it is meaningful. The facts of each case are unique, and as I'm sure you know, it's a lawyer's job to attempt to distinguish bad caselaw. That sounds a lot like what you are describing.

 

[CFordUNC]

Wait a second @Ramrouser . You said previously that one of your best friends and law partners is one of the folks charged in the Georgia RICO case. Is it possible that you aren't able to be very objective when it comes to assessing the DOJ at this time?

 

[MOUNTAINH33L]

It’s truly mind blowing to see people twist themselves into pretzels to defend Donald Fucking Trump, a caricature of a human

mind blowing and sad. fucking sad.

 

[UNCatTech]

I never claim to be the perfect average man, but I’m way closer to a political moderate/swing voter than 99% of people who post on here, based on the mere fact that so few here vote for any Republicans - while I routinely split my ticket and vote based on the candidate and not simply the party.

I’ve always said I’m center-right and not dead center. But I do bring a perspective to the board that could be valuable to people if they would take some of my posts as a differing perspective that comes from a place of good faith.

I like reading your post, though we don't often agree.

I too have voted for people from both parties.

I honestly believe the republican party shifted more right than I did left.

In 2016, I just couldn't vote for Trump and as the party appears to have moved to seeing him as a messiah I will struggle to vote for anyone that threw away their ideals to support such a conman.

 

[superrific]

On Democrats and Class, the Writing Was on the Wall

Two writers, Thomas Frank and Joan Williams, provided sharp insight into the Democrats’ hemorrhaging of working-class voters eight years ago. The Democratic Party ignored their perspectives. We asked them to explain how we ended up here — again.

jacobin.com

Can you help me understand the following statement from that interview?

And message-wise, the wokeness, the technocracy, the globalization stuff — that too needs to go. Democrats need to replace it with an actual plan for reindustrialization. They should go to the “sacrifice states” in the Midwest and tell voters they actually have a plan for industrial policymaking. Now they don’t have a plan. Do you know what they tell voters? “Go get a college degree and move to the Sunbelt states.” That is not a plan; that is a death verdict.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the Dems had more than an "actual plan" for reindustrialization. They passed that plan into law, at least twice -- CHIPs and IRA. Moreover, in that sacrifice state of Michigan, the Dems created more industrial policymaking, including a major manufacturing plant and repealing right to work legislation. The Pubs ran against the former and ignored the latter and won. In Pennsylvania, the interstate collapsed and the government immediately responded and had the bridge rebuilt in record time. PA's union laws were strengthened, and the state Supreme Court picked off a couple of unpopular pro-business regs.

Meanwhile, I've never ever heard any Dem tell voters to "get a college degree and move south." I mean, what is he talking about there?

 

[superrific]

Wait a second @Ramrouser . You said previously that one of your best friends and law partners is one of the folks charged in the Georgia RICO case. Is it possible that you aren't able to be very objective when it comes to assessing the DOJ at this time?

He has no law partners. This assclown is not an attorney.

 

[Ramrouser]

Wait a second @Ramrouser . You said previously that one of your best friends and law partners is one of the folks charged in the Georgia RICO case. Is it possible that you aren't able to be very objective when it comes to assessing the DOJ at this time?

I'll grant you that Fani's action against my friend may be impacting my objectivity but I don't think so.

 

[CFordUNC]

I'll grant you that Fani's action against my friend may be impacting my objectivity but I don't think so.

How could it not? You wouldn't be human, or a friend, if it wasn't impacting your objectivity. I'm not even remotely criticizing you for it- it's completely understandable. I'm simply providing context that may help you and others who read your posts understand your perspective.

 

[Ramrouser]

He has no law partners. This assclown is not an attorney.

I'm a member of the State Bars of Georgia and North Carolina.

 

[superrific]

There's no question the DOJ worked with the Fulton County and Manhattan district attorneys in the state court cases. I realize we're never going to agree on this but that is my opinion so don't interpret my views as "hating" the US Constitution or the legal system.

1. It can't be an opinion that "there is no question that DOJ worked with . . . ." You are making an assertion of empirical fact. Of course, if you believed this empirical fact, you wouldn't couch it as an opinion. You'd just assert it. The "this is my opinion" bullshit is just preemptive cover for being shown, yet again, that your assertion is false.

2. Anyway, you're right -- there's no question here. The DOJ did not "work with" either of those district attorneys for reasons that you would understand if you actually were a practicing attorney.

3. It's so funny when buffoons try to come on this board and pretend they are lawyers or money managers or have some sort of professional occupation. They don't realize how easy it is to see through them. This is what people who lack game never understand: ballers can instantly see it. You can show up to a court and claim that you once hit 10 3s in a game -- and then when people see your jumper, they know.

 

[superrific]

I'm a member of the State Bars of Georgia and North Carolina.

Nope.

 

[superrific]

I'll grant you that Fani's action against my friend may be impacting my objectivity but I don't think so.

Said no lawyer ever.

 

[Paine]

Can you help me understand the following statement from that interview?

And message-wise, the wokeness, the technocracy, the globalization stuff — that too needs to go. Democrats need to replace it with an actual plan for reindustrialization. They should go to the “sacrifice states” in the Midwest and tell voters they actually have a plan for industrial policymaking. Now they don’t have a plan. Do you know what they tell voters? “Go get a college degree and move to the Sunbelt states.” That is not a plan; that is a death verdict.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the Dems had more than an "actual plan" for reindustrialization. They passed that plan into law, at least twice -- CHIPs and IRA. Moreover, in that sacrifice state of Michigan, the Dems created more industrial policymaking, including a major manufacturing plant and repealing right to work legislation. The Pubs ran against the former and ignored the latter and won. In Pennsylvania, the interstate collapsed and the government immediately responded and had the bridge rebuilt in record time. PA's union laws were strengthened, and the state Supreme Court picked off a couple of unpopular pro-business regs.

Meanwhile, I've never ever heard any Dem tell voters to "get a college degree and move south." I mean, what is he talking about there?

Based on my knowledge of his work, Frank is taking the long view. I’d wager that he’d argue CHIPS and IRA were too little, too late.

 

[Ramrouser]

1. It can't be an opinion that "there is no question that DOJ worked with . . . ." You are making an assertion of empirical fact. Of course, if you believed this empirical fact, you wouldn't couch it as an opinion. You'd just assert it. The "this is my opinion" bullshit is just preemptive cover for being shown, yet again, that your assertion is false.

2. Anyway, you're right -- there's no question here. The DOJ did not "work with" either of those district attorneys for reasons that you would understand if you actually were a practicing attorney.

3. It's so funny when buffoons try to come on this board and pretend they are lawyers or money managers or have some sort of professional occupation. They don't realize how easy it is to see through them. This is what people who lack game never understand: ballers can instantly see it. You can show up to a court and claim that you once hit 10 3s in a game -- and then when people see your jumper, they know.

Fact: The number 3 official in the DOJ left his position and took a position in the Manhattan DA's office. I can infer from this that the DOJ sent one of its top lawyers to assist in the Manhattan prosecution. There's really no other logical conclusion.

Fact: There is more than ample evidence from Wade that he met with DOJ officials in Athens and DC. He even billed Fulton County for these meetings.
Fani also met with the DOJ when she was in DC. These connections are currently under investigation by the House.

So coordination between the DOJ and the state courts is more than just my unsupported opinion.

 

[lawtig02]

Said no lawyer ever.

I think he may be a lawyer. There are some unbelievably terrible lawyers out there, as I know you know. It's one of the many reasons the judicial system is struggling in the age of Trump. Alternative facts are one thing on a message board. They're a whole other thing when being proffered to courts, and even worse when they're finding their way into orders and decisions. I can say from personal experience, the court system is having real difficulty dealing with lawyers who are operating in a different factual universe, or who know they're lying but do it anyway. Two sides of the same coin.

 

[bassydude77]

Idiots. All I needed to see was the too focused on Trump to bring the country together crap. Too stupid to see through the lies from Trump and realize the threat he is to the country. It wouldn't have mattered what Harris and the Dems said. These people are just too ignorant to see reality.

These are the people that primarily get their "news" from TikTok, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. It did not matter what the Dems were saying, because that message is not reaching people on those platforms...Dems are completely out of the loop in the current media landscape. It started long ago with Rush and Fox News and now here we are...

 

[Paine]

These are the people that primarily get their "news" from TikTok, Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. It did not matter what the Dems were saying, because that message is not reaching people on those platforms...Dems are completely out of the loop in the current media landscape. It started long ago with Rush and Fox News and now here we are...

The frustrating part of this is that there are outlets on the left that are very active in content creation on these platforms that more and more people, especially young people, get their news from. The Democratic Party has, by and large, refused to engage with these outlets.

 

[superrific]

Fact: The number 3 official in the DOJ left his position and took a position in the Manhattan DA's office. I can infer from this that the DOJ sent one of its top lawyers to assist in the Manhattan prosecution. There's really no other logical conclusion.

Fact: There is more than ample evidence from Wade that he met with DOJ officials in Athens and DC. He even billed Fulton County for these meetings.
Fani also met with the DOJ when she was in DC. These connections are currently under investigation by the House.

So coordination between the DOJ and the state courts is more than just my unsupported opinion.

You should review what the word "coordination" means. And your first "fact" again gives you away. Not even the most ignorant attorney would fail to understand that lawyers change jobs with some frequency and it doesn't mean anything. Especially since this attorney in question had a long history of work in NY and NYC agencies, and it was the DOJ stint that was more the outlier.

 

[superrific]

I think he may be a lawyer. There are some unbelievably terrible lawyers out there, as I know you know. It's one of the many reasons the judicial system is struggling in the age of Trump. Alternative facts are one thing on a message board. They're a whole other thing when being proffered to courts, and even worse when they're finding their way into orders and decisions. I can say from personal experience, the court system is having real difficulty dealing with lawyers who are operating in a different factual universe, or who know they're lying but do it anyway. Two sides of the same coin.

All of that rings true to me, but I still don't think this cat is an attorney. There are neon blinking gaps in his knowledge and understanding.

Plus, he claimed to be a litigation attorney. That's what the poseurs always say, because it's the only type of attorney they know. And they draw on what they see on TV for reference. I mean, I suppose it's possible that all these fools just happen to cluster in an area of the law that employs maybe 20% of attorneys, but you don't find it suspicious that these questionable attorneys never work in-house at a company, or specialize in transactions or do corporate and commercial law?