I would think the state senator admitting the law was passed to remove those who prosecute republicans (trump) as he did during an interview would undermine the legality of the law. I.e, he should keep his mouth shut until after the law is tested for legal soundness. Having said that what do you think of republicans passing laws to protect republicans. Should democratic states be passing laws to lynch republicans to compenstate ?
It seems that Meadows is arguing that insuring fair and honest elections is a legitimate duty for a public servant in the Executive Branch. All he was doing was facilitating Trump in this endeavor.
If it was truly part of Meadows’s responsibility within the government to ensure fair and honest elections, he should be able to provide evidence of all the other elections he sought to intervene in. Failing that, he should be able to show that he evaluated all the other 2020 elections, up and down the ballot, in every state, and found them to be fair, with only the Georgia presidential election requiring his attention.
I'm wondering ...do arguments like that work in court? I suppose it’s a form of proof by contradiction. Can you convince a judge or jury with that sort of reasoning, or is it too indirect to be persuasive? In this case, it might also open the door for Meadows to say “I tried to overturn the elections in Wisconsin and Arizona, too”.
In his motion to dismiss, Meadows argues that he was engaged in First Amendment protected political speech (which would be a violation of the Hatch Act), while in his motion to move the case to Federal Court, he argues that he was acting fully in his (non-political) capacity as Chief of Staff.
Seems he’s trying to have it both ways.
If it was truly part of Meadows’s responsibility within the government to ensure fair and honest elections, he should be able to provide evidence of all the other elections he sought to intervene in. Failing that, he should be able to show that he evaluated all the other 2020 elections, up and down the ballot, in every state, and found them to be fair, with only the Georgia presidential election requiring his attention.
I'm wondering ...do arguments like that work in court? I suppose it’s a form of proof by contradiction. Can you convince a judge or jury with that sort of reasoning, or is it too indirect to be persuasive? In this case, it might also open the door for Meadows to say “I tried to overturn the elections in Wisconsin and Arizona, too”.
In his motion to dismiss, Meadows argues that he was engaged in First Amendment protected political speech (which would be a violation of the Hatch Act), while in his motion to move the case to Federal Court, he argues that he was acting fully in his (non-political) capacity as Chief of Staff.
Seems he’s trying to have it both ways.
Saylick
Diamond Member
- Sep 10, 2012
- 3,679
- 8,307
- 136
This has always been the hallmark and intent of Republicans.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
The law to them is nothing but a tool to wield as a means of giving themselves, or those deemed worthy, a structural advantage over everyone not like them. To them, laws have never been about fairness or to promote a more equitable society. If the law no longer serves the Conservative mission, they will change it so that it does.
Of course but a legislator admitting such prior to a court hearing adds evidence of an issue with the law. I don't believe you can legally create laws to deliberately protect a group lawlessness.
Saylick
Diamond Member
- Sep 10, 2012
- 3,679
- 8,307
- 136
We've gone past that point now. Republicans aren't even trying to hide their true motives because they don't lose support from their base for doing so. Dog whistles aren't even needed anymore when their base loves the megaphone.
This. They are openly flaunting their hypocrisy and strongmen now. They don’t care. If they get crushed in 2024 you will see a sudden shift back to “law and order” veneer but that is all it is. To openly state they are removing another party’s prosecutor after grand jury indictment is banana republic and openly anti-democratic.
they are banking on blue states acting rationally and not doing what they are doing. i would hope every blue state passes same law and terminates all Republican state attorneys if this is allowed to stand.
Enough is enough.
Since Trump insists he did nothing wrong, and this is all just a Witch Hunt™, why are they so worried about “providing an adequate defense”? Isn’t that tantamount to them admitting that the evidence is, at least on its face, somewhat convincing? Kind of puts a kibosh to the whole “Witch hunt” narrative.
Meadows needs to be put under oath and ask the question how many times did he register to vote in the 2020 election.
The nail him for lying to the court or nail him for registering multiple time.
Fuck that asshole
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,238
- 136
Get rid of Trump.... Hahahaha
They have a better chance of getting rid of bed bugs in a whorehouse.
Saylick
Diamond Member
- Sep 10, 2012
- 3,679
- 8,307
- 136
The issue with your statements are that it uses logic and reasoning. Trump's statements or defense has never been logical. It's literally throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks, conflicting arguments be damned. His base doesn't connect the dots between each argument; they hear them in a vacuum. When one argument falls out of favor, they latch onto the next one that Faux News tells them to use, regardless if the next argument is completely opposite of the first.
KMFJD
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2005
- 30,423
- 46,236
- 136
~Meanwhile, Judge Howell has fined Giuliani $132K for failure to provide discovery in GA poll workers' case -- if he continues to withhold financial info jury will be instructed that they must "infer that he is intentionally trying to hide relevant discovery about his ... assets"
Rudy appears to be in some deep shit
akugami
Diamond Member
- Feb 14, 2005
- 6,089
- 2,459
- 136
Probably useless as Rudy will no doubt declare bankruptcy; if the judge want some real teeth he'll sentence Rudy to a year in jail for his behavior.
JEDI
Lifer
- Sep 25, 2001
- 29,391
- 2,736
- 126
Giuliani loses defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers
A federal judge has determined that Rudy Giuliani has lost a defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers against him after he failed to provide information sought in subpoenas.
Why do i feel getting him to pay is almost as hard as getting Trump to pay?
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 37,142
- 29,474
- 136
Maybe the sentence by the judge can be pay money or prison. I'm sure Rudy would "find" it somewhere.Giuliani loses defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers
A federal judge has determined that Rudy Giuliani has lost a defamation lawsuit from two Georgia election workers against him after he failed to provide information sought in subpoenas.
Why do i feel getting him to pay is almost as hard as getting Trump to pay?
As I predicted the effort to remove Willis has failed and honestly, was obviously never going to happen from the start.
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 37,142
- 29,474
- 136
So we cool then?
I guess if yet another white nationalist buys bomb making material and plans out blowing up a daycare in a black neighborhood, but police foil the plot, everything's fine.
Pardon me if I continue to have the opinion Republicans are traitorous shitstains.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 64,747
- 13,086
- 146
How would you be any different than a Republican, regardless of evidence, calling Democrats shit stains. How can anybody be guilty of bigotry and require forgiving. We are talking about programs that are running at an unconscious level that can only be altered by self awareness. Can you will self awareness of is it a form of grace that is beyond rational understanding?
When you seek pardon for an opinion you can be sure that opinion is a form of prison defined as a need to reject guilt. A need to reject indicates an unconscious acceptance you feel guilty and don't want to know it. You are neither guilty or innocent. You hold unexamined unconscious beliefs that are programs that run in our sleep.
It's always possible people find some other way to mess with this but at least as things stand today:
1) The law itself is fairly likely to be struck down or be caught up in litigation for a while.
2) The only person with (semi) direct control over Willis' termination just came out and said he's not interested.
3) The legislature lacks the votes to impeach and remove Willis.
So unless something changes there seems to be no plausible path for her removal.
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 37,142
- 29,474
- 136
Key phrase...
"regardless of evidence"
I have no problem calling out a Dem who does something heinous. Today the Maya Angelou axiom applies.
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 37,142
- 29,474
- 136
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter