What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

notobtuse wrote: »

How so?

Well one is an apple and the other is an orange.

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Defending Rudy and Dersh - the dregs of humanity.

Waiting for the defence of Bannon and Stone.

Lol.

'Those rats gave consent'

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't know about that as it sounds awfully convoluted to say he was merely refused bail. They are taking his livelihood away from him without a fair trial or due process. Sure sounds like they've made themselves prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

What a load of melodramatic rubbish. Dangerous criminal denied bail alarming no one, ahead of trial and due process, which they are not denied, which is to be seen over by judge(s), a jury, and argued by prosecutors, and it not run exclusively by whomever you've singled out as "they've."

Certainly no Kalief Browder here.

Smee_Again wrote: »

Well one is an apple and the other is an orange.

Thanks, Sherlock. I’ll have to remember that when questions are poised to me. Somehow I don’t think the majority here would accept that from me. But, hey... you never know till you try, right?

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't believe he got a fair trial as all the issues were not explored. Also, disbarment are almost always reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime, and seemingly never for a lawyer making statements in public. But I can see them disbarring him, as it seems to be merely a kangaroo court hell bent on a witch hunt against anyone brave enough to align themselves with Trump in a liberal state.

The Trial hasn't happened yet - What happened was the preliminary hearing to determine if there was a case to answer.

What Rudi was looking for was a summary dismissal of the charges based on the spurious argument that because of 1st amendment protections there was no case to answer. The Judges disagreed on that point.

He has a case to answer and they believe that the case is sufficiently strong that his license should be temporarily suspended until such time as the full case happens to prevent further damage being done

Just like a real court - The judges decided that Rudi has a case to answer and will now move forward with the full proceedings , with testimonies and witnesses etc. where Rudi and his team will be afforded all the time in the world to state their case.

No Kangaroo court , no Witch Hunt , just due process like everyone is entitled to , but some seem to think that they are above all of that and that they should be able to act with impunity and without consequence.

mcmoustache

Deleted User wrote: »

"Trump staffers sought refuge on second floor of White House as former president never climbed stairs"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-stairs-white-house-staff-b1874272.html

If only America could find refuge from Trump's policies by climbing stairs.

That might also work for Daleks and if Theo from the Cosby Show is to be believed, which he's not, snakes too. Aggressive Roombas are similarly defeated

notobtuse wrote: »

Thanks, Sherlock. I’ll have to remember that when questions are poised to me. Somehow I don’t think the majority here would accept that from me. But, hey... you never know till you try, right?

Most questions posed to you are asking you to back up your claims such as your claim that the DC media were suggesting Gov. DeSantis failed to provide resources to Surfside

You still haven’t backed that up.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The Trial hasn't happened yet - What happened was the preliminary hearing to determine if there was a case to answer.

What Rudi was looking for was a summary dismissal of the charges based on the spurious argument that because of 1st amendment protections there was no case to answer. The Judges disagreed on that point.

He has a case to answer and they believe that the case is sufficiently strong that his license should be temporarily suspended until such time as the full case happens to prevent further damage being done

Just like a real court - The judges decided that Rudi has a case to answer and will now move forward with the full proceedings , with testimonies and witnesses etc. where Rudi and his team will be afforded all the time in the world to state their case.

No Kangaroo court , no Witch Hunt , just due process like everyone is entitled to , but some seem to think that they are above all of that and that they should be able to act with impunity and without consequence.

Okay, preliminary hearing then.

And I'll edit my comment then...

Seems wrong and against common decency that they could take his livelihood away from him without a fair trial hearing or due process. Sure sounds like they've made themselves prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

Forget the local news versus national news, as that's irrelevant. If a lawyer goes on TV and says my client was a subject of police brutality, and it is proven not to be the case... is it not the same thing?

notobtuse wrote: »

Okay, preliminary hearing then.

And I'll edit my comment then...

Seems wrong and against common decency that they could take his livelihood away from him without a fair trial hearing or due process. Sure sounds like they've made themselves prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

Forget the local news versus national news, as that's irrelevant. If a lawyer goes on TV and says my client was a subject of police brutality, and it is proven not to be the case... is it not the same thing?

What livelihood? Trump stiffed him on the bill.

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

Thanks, Sherlock. I’ll have to remember that when questions are poised to me. Somehow I don’t think the majority here would accept that from me. But, hey... you never know till you try, right?

why do you keep ignoring the post that explains why you are wrong?

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Okay, preliminary hearing then.

And I'll edit my comment then...

Seems wrong and against common decency that they could take his livelihood away from him without a fair trial hearing or due process. Sure sounds like they've made themselves prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

Forget the local news versus national news, as that's irrelevant. If a lawyer goes on TV and says my client was a subject of police brutality, and it is proven not to be the case... is it not the same thing?

Statements of fact, especially those known to be false are treated very differently from statements of opinion when uttered by a lawyer to a judge. I could get into the difference between the two if I thought that you were interested in understanding it but I don't.

[Deleted User]

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why do you keep ignoring the post that explains why you are wrong?

Oh I think you know the answer to that.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/Forbes/status/1409964302518341643?s=19

More good news for Rudy.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Statements of fact, especially those known to be false are treated very differently from statements of opinion when uttered by a lawyer to a judge. I could get into the difference between the two if I thought that you were interested in understanding it but I don't.

Maybe you should explain it to Alan Dershowitz, former Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and author of several books about politics and the law. I’m sure the people here, that think what was done to Rudi was fair and just, are highly respected experts on the law regarding the legal subject matter, and you call me crazy but I think Alan knows a little more than ya’ll.

Leroy42

notobtuse wrote: »

Maybe you should explain it to Alan Dershowitz, former Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and author of several books about politics and the law. I’m sure the people here, that think what was done to Rudi was fair and just, are highly respected experts on the law regarding the legal subject matter, and you call me crazy but I think Alan knows a little more than ya’ll.

But you think the expertise and experience of the court should be dismissed as a kangaroo court hell bent on taking out Trump associates?

Either you value expertise or you don't?

Again, what did Alan particular point out had been done incorrectly in this process?

You haven't cited anything, just it must be a witch hunt.

notobtuse wrote: »

Maybe you should explain it to Alan Dershowitz, former Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and author of several books about politics and the law. I’m sure the people here, that think what was done to Rudi was fair and just, are highly respected experts on the law regarding the legal subject matter, and you call me crazy but I think Alan knows a little more than ya’ll.

Didn’t Dershowitz also argue that OJ Simpson was innocent but you’re on record as not believing that.

Why do you think that, I’m sure Alan knows a little more than you yet you disagree with him.

I’m confused.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The Trial hasn't happened yet - What happened was the preliminary hearing to determine if there was a case to answer.

What Rudi was looking for was a summary dismissal of the charges based on the spurious argument that because of 1st amendment protections there was no case to answer. The Judges disagreed on that point.

He has a case to answer and they believe that the case is sufficiently strong that his license should be temporarily suspended until such time as the full case happens to prevent further damage being done

Just like a real court - The judges decided that Rudi has a case to answer and will now move forward with the full proceedings , with testimonies and witnesses etc. where Rudi and his team will be afforded all the time in the world to state their case.

No Kangaroo court , no Witch Hunt , just due process like everyone is entitled to , but some seem to think that they are above all of that and that they should be able to act with impunity and without consequence.

For the record - criminal court proceedings can take years before they reach any trial verdict. It's not at all uncommon, either. These good old boys have been in jail for less than a couple months. Some people have waited over a year for proceedings due to Covid, and still others have waited years because, that's just how we do things, because Republicans will only confirm Republican judges, so they can bleat at the polls about how 'the Democrats can't fill the benches.' So if anyone is to blame here for their predicament, it's themselves, in totality. They love this hard on crime ****.

Penn

notobtuse wrote: »

Maybe you should explain it to Alan Dershowitz, former Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and author of several books about politics and the law. I’m sure the people here, that think what was done to Rudi was fair and just, are highly respected experts on the law regarding the legal subject matter, and you call me crazy but I think Alan knows a little more than ya’ll.

And I'm sure the law societies and courts who investigated and enforced the rules against Rudy know a little more than the lawyer whose job is literally to say things to try and defend Rudy, his client.

You're acting like these law societies have decided to just make sh*t up just to hurt Rudy, even though, as law societies, they would also be well aware of the repercussions for being found to have done so.

We don't need to be highly respected experts on the law regarding the legal subject matter, because it's literally highly respected experts on the law regarding the legal subject matter who undertook the actions against Rudy.

Smee_Again wrote: »

Didn’t Dershowitz also argue that OJ Simpson was innocent but you’re on record as not believing that.

Why do you think that, I’m sure Alan knows a little more than you yet you disagree with him.

I’m confused.

The Appeal to Authority Dershowitz Fallacy.

'Give us a sign, oh Alan! Explain people's arguments for them oh lord.'

If you're making a fact and logic argument about the law, you should be able to explain the logic without just going "well, Dershowitz said it was a witch hunt."

Trump's 4th of July rally will have to find a new venue: Battleship Memorial Park in Alabama has nixed his permit after it "became apparent that it was going to be a partisan political event, rather than just a patriotic event planned for that evening" as the park commissioner said it was originally applied for as. Trump had billeted the rally as a "Save America" rally, a copy of one he already had earlier this week where he played his greatest hits from his first album, such as "lock her up" and "witch hunt."

Sadly Trump will not get to make his appeal for being fascistically reinstated this August aboard the fascist-killing USS Alabama.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-alabama-rally-canceled-over-partisan-concerns/

A local Tea Party activist said he was disappointed by the cancelation, telling NBC 15, “If people can’t assemble in public places, where can we assemble?”

Translation: wah! I'm sure he'd love the homeless people to assemble on his sidewalk, the same people he would call the police on if he found them assembling in a public park. He understands permitted assembly just fine when it suits.

Igotadose

notobtuse wrote: »

Of course...

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0625/Witch-hunt-or-justice-Rudy-Giuliani-s-law-license-suspended

You ought to read the articles you quote.

notos article wrote:

Interim suspensions are often a precursor to disbarment but are typically “reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime,”

So, what Rudy drew, was an interim suspension, not a disbarment. He's not disbarred (yet.)

And, lawyers get disbarred frequently without committing crimes. I personally know some.

Tippex

Tippex wrote: »

So you are selective in your opinion as the very start of the article states that chan’s colleagues “might” have which could be deemed an opinion but it is certainly not a fact. Please list hard facts as backup as opposed to opinions.

Tippex wrote: »

With All due respect you seem to be struggling with the term fact in all of this. You have said

However in the same article "A Canadian scientist and Harvard postdoctoral associate said colleagues might have feared vocalizing support for the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis out of concern that it would be viewed as showing support for potentially inflammatory views espoused by former President Trump. "

The term Might is not a fact along with "Chan cautioned, however, that despite emerging calls for fresh investigations, there is not a singular piece of evidence that definitely proves the lab leak theory. "

Please stop grasping at straws picking and choosing elements from the article to suit your narrative when the same article counters your narrative.

Leroy42 wrote: »

God, you can't even that get right. It isn't disbarment that is unusal

So its rarely done, which means it is perfectly within the rules and remit of the court. That you think it is unfair is of no relevance.

notobtuse wrote: »

Then please explain rather than merely making those accusations without supporting evidence.

I'll play along and these are only instances in the last 2-3 days where you have been called out for picking and choosing from articles that don't actually say what you think they say.

Tippex wrote: »

I'll play along and these are only instances in the last 2-3 days where you have been called out for picking and choosing from articles that don't actually say what you think they say.

So basically you're saying it's your opinions based on how you took something against my opinions on how I took something. You should have said that in the first place.

Igotadose wrote: »

You ought to read the articles you quote.

So, what Rudy drew, was an interim suspension, not a disbarment. He's not disbarred (yet.)

And, lawyers get disbarred frequently without committing crimes. I personally know some.

Why did your acquaintance get disbarred, and in what country?

ohnonotgmail

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't believe he got a fair trial as all the issues were not explored. Also, disbarment are almost always reserved for lawyers convicted of a crime, and seemingly never for a lawyer making statements in public. But I can see them disbarring him, as it seems to be merely a kangaroo court hell bent on a witch hunt against anyone brave enough to align themselves with Trump in a liberal state.

notobtuse wrote: »

Of course...

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2021/0625/Witch-hunt-or-justice-Rudy-Giuliani-s-law-license-suspended

notobtuse wrote: »

So basically you're saying it's your opinions based on how you took something against my opinions on how I took something. You should have said that in the first place.

your claim in bold is incorrect and not supported by the link you posted. It doesn't matter how you take it what you posted was incorrect. Now you can ignore this post like you did the other post that corrected you or more likely you will just double down and post more nonsense. My money is on the second option because that is the trump way.