[shyams]

johnu, on 2023-August-13, 16:17, said:

Your comment speaks for itself

I don't have your acute, hawk-like vision. Having re-read my comment again, I still can't understand what inside of it is wrong.

To avert an accusation that I am passing off the analytical work to you, let me make two guesses.

1. I wrote "If Trump is found guilty specifically of causing violence and chaos" etc. and it seems you equated it to "If Trump is found guilty [for any of the charges from this indictment]". If so, that is fallacious. In a sane universe, I expect Trump to be found guilty of conspiracy (and I said so in previous posts).

2. I wrote about First Amendment rights and you, in your previous post, wrote that there never has been an absolute right to free speech etc. Brandenburg ruling says "constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.". Supreme Court rulings in decades prior had ruled in a more restrictive way where the mere suggestion of violence (without an incitement to imminent lawless action) was also prohibited.

If both my guesses are incorrect (which is likely), I would appreciate if you can clarify how my comment speaks for itself.

A final thought: Many may argue that Trump incited his followers to congregate near the Capitol, and incited them to go attack the Capitol, and thereby (alone or with his co-conspirators) ensured that the Capitol proceedings are disrupted. That is not how the Brandenburg standard works. As many may be aware that Brandenburg chap had real evil beliefs, was a KKK leader, used extremely vile language, etc. Yet the SC ruled in favour of his rights to speak which has led to your nation's first amendment rights being unparalleled both now, and all of recorded history.

[pilowsky]

Have we - after all these years - finally discovered the fundamental flaw in the American experiment?
Let's write to James Madison and ask him to issue a retraction of the constitution on behalf of all the authors.

[Winstonm]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-13, 18:35, said:

Have we - after all these years - finally discovered the fundamental flaw in the American experiment?
Let's write to James Madison and ask him to issue a retraction of the constitution on behalf of all the authors.

Yes, the flaw is people.

[Gilithin]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-13, 18:35, said:

Have we - after all these years - finally discovered the fundamental flaw in the American experiment?
Let's write to James Madison and ask him to issue a retraction of the constitution on behalf of all the authors.

The Constitution as currently interpreted by the Supreme Court judges has very little to do with the original document. It is most unfair to blame the Founders for the corruption of an entire branch of government that was meant to be above such politicisation.

[pilowsky]

4
Georgia on my mind....

[Winstonm]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-14, 22:36, said:

4
Georgia on my mind....

Of course, the only real justice for Trump would be jail in an autocratic country where he has pissed off the autocrat.

[barmar]

shyams, on 2023-August-13, 17:31, said:

1. I wrote "If Trump is found guilty specifically of causing violence and chaos" etc. and it seems you equated it to "If Trump is found guilty [for any of the charges from this indictment]". If so, that is fallacious. In a sane universe, I expect Trump to be found guilty of conspiracy (and I said so in previous posts).

Are there actually any charges that equate to "causing violence and chaos"? If not, this is a strawman.

But even if there are, and he's convicted of them, why do you think that means everyone's First Amendment rights are lost? As others pointed out, free speech is not absolute. Speech that directly and knowingly causes injury is not protected; if you're the leader of a gang, you can't use 1A as protection when you order your gang to fight in a rumble. Fraud is not protected by 1A.

Have you forgotten when Trump told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by"?

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2023-August-15, 07:14, said:

The interesting thing is that under Georgia law a conviction under their RICO statutes means mandatory jail time; there can be no probation or suspended sentence.

After listening to some current and former Georgia DA's on various shows, the RICO charges have a 5 year minimum sentence up to 20 years, but it could be probation. You can be sure that Fani Willis will be asking for a sentence closer to the maximum sentence than the minimum sentence, and won't be recommending probation unless a defendant makes a plea deal in exchange for testifying against the other defendants. I guess a judge could give probation despite the DA asking for prison time, but my total guess is that almost never happens.

Also, Georgia state pardons can only be granted 5 years after the sentence has been completed, by a parole board, not the governor.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2023-August-17, 03:33, said:

After listening to some current and former Georgia DA's on various shows, the RICO charges have a 5 year minimum sentence up to 20 years, but it could be probation. You can be sure that Fani Willis will be asking for a sentence closer to the maximum sentence than the minimum sentence, and won't be recommending probation unless a defendant makes a plea deal in exchange for testifying against the other defendants. I guess a judge could give probation despite the DA asking for prison time, but my total guess is that almost never happens.

Also, Georgia state pardons can only be granted 5 years after the sentence has been completed, by a parole board, not the governor.

Maybe my tv lawyer lied 🤥
Thanks for that edification as I deleted that part of the earlier post.

[Cyberyeti]

johnu, on 2023-August-17, 03:33, said:

Also, Georgia state pardons can only be granted 5 years after the sentence has been completed, by a parole board, not the governor.

Can the governor stack the parole board by that time ?

[shyams]

barmar, on 2023-August-16, 19:05, said:

Are there actually any charges that equate to "causing violence and chaos"? If not, this is a strawman.

But even if there are, and he's convicted of them, why do you think that means everyone's First Amendment rights are lost? As others pointed out, free speech is not absolute. Speech that directly and knowingly causes injury is not protected; if you're the leader of a gang, you can't use 1A as protection when you order your gang to fight in a rumble. Fraud is not protected by 1A.

Have you forgotten when Trump told the Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by"?

"Speech that directly and knowingly causes injury is not protected" --- Agree with this. However, my reference to the caselaws of 1960s was mostly to point out that what Trump said (esp. his often use of indirect and non-specific language) does not meet the standard for "directly and knowingly causing injury".

"if you're the leader of a gang, you can't use 1A as protection when you order your gang to fight" --- Agree with this as well. However, the same point applies. Disparate members of a political protest (who have rights to protest under 1A) are not the same as a gang. On a related matter, the Georgia RICO charges may actually lead to Trump being treated as a gang-leader. Then, all his lies and deceit (otherwise categorised as free speech) comes within the purview of the trial.This case is another where Trump looks very likely to be convicted (and jailed for at least 5 years!)

[Winstonm]

shyams, on 2023-August-17, 12:37, said:

"Speech that directly and knowingly causes injury is not protected" --- Agree with this. However, my reference to the caselaws of 1960s was mostly to point out that what Trump said (esp. his often use of indirect and non-specific language) does not meet the standard for "directly and knowingly causing injury".

"if you're the leader of a gang, you can't use 1A as protection when you order your gang to fight" --- Agree with this as well. However, the same point applies. Disparate members of a political protest (who have rights to protest under 1A) are not the same as a gang. On a related matter, the Georgia RICO charges may actually lead to Trump being treated as a gang-leader. Then, all his lies and deceit (otherwise categorised as free speech) comes within the purview of the trial.This case is another where Trump looks very likely to be convicted (and jailed for at least 5 years!)

My understanding of the quotes in the indictment is they are to show that promoting the known lie was part of the conspiracy. This would not be a first amendment protection right.

Imagine it this way. Suppose you and I decided to ruin a bridge players reputation by calling him a cheater over and over in public while rounding up non-bridge players to make the same claim. The lies are an integral part of the conspiracy and as such not protected speech.

[pilowsky]

Winstonm, on 2023-August-17, 14:08, said:

Suppose you and I decided to ruin a bridge players reputation by calling him a cheater over and over in public while rounding up non-bridge players to make the same claim.

Trump's argument is that his claims are true.
Or, in today's Newspeak (Winston), 'my truth'.

[Winstonm]

pilowsky, on 2023-August-17, 16:40, said:

Trump's argument is that his claims are true.
Or, in today's Newspeak (Winston), 'my truth'.

There is plenty of evidence he did know and regardless he led a conspiracy to disenfranchise all the votes in 6 states. As I have pointed out before, it doesn’t matter if you believe your lies as you still are responsible for your actions.
Trump has zero first amendment arguments to make.

[johnu]

Cyberyeti, on 2023-August-17, 07:23, said:

Can the governor stack the parole board by that time ?

Certainly possible, but unlike a presidential pardon, or some state pardons, criminals still need to serve their full sentence plus 5 years after before being pardoned. When Trump pardoned a multitude of his associates, they immediately got a get out of jail card and avoided further prosecution.

Parole is also a possibility if Trump is sentenced to prison, but AFAIK, criminals have to serve at least 1/3 of their sentence before applying for parole, so Trump would still have to service 1 2/3 year if he got the minimum 5 year prison sentence.

[Winstonm]

For those who doubt the power of propaganda: https://www.cbsnews....nts-2023-08-20/

Quote

More generally, Trump's voters hold him as a source of true information, even more so than other sources, including conservative media figures, religious leaders, and even their own friends and family.

[shyams]

For a non-American like me, the vision of having a President working in the Oval Office while wearing a electronic angle tag (on his "work release") is funny as hell
Apologies for making fun of a not-altogether-improbable* future for the USA, but I can't think of many countries where such a thing could happen.

To continue with this nightmare scenario, Will the state of Georgia expect him to report to prison every weekend when he's not "working"?



(*) Rationale: Betting markets price him currently at approx. 27% likelihood of being elected President

[Winstonm]

I have grasped the Republicans’ secret weapon: it is a direct appeal to stupidity to remain stupid and be proud of it.

Their message: whatever idiocy you choose to believe is true as long as you vote for us.

Ramaswamy is for: 6 week abortion bans. Zero federal spending fighting climate change. Supports Russian taking Ukraine land if Russia reduces ties to China. Supports no military aid to Ukraine. No interference in oil production. And more.

[shyams]

Here is a video presentation by a person who works to promote free competition. His views about the work underway in anti-trust: https://www.youtube....h?v=_L8wtOAWrn0

A few weeks ago, I had written about two people: FTC Chair and the Chief of Anti-Trust Division. And how their work is arguably one of the greatest achievement of the Biden administration. I also cynically predicted that the billionaire class will have Kanter and Khan "promoted" asap by threatening to withhold donor money.

If you watch the video, you will realise how badly these merger guidelines can impact the billionaire class. So I repeat my prediction --- that Biden's appointees are standing in the way of $$$ billions of illicit profits, and he will be compelled by the moneyed class to remove these two people from their current jobs.

You Americans may be able to do your bit and support the good work in the anti-trust area. That is, if you believe their work is important.

PS: If it is not too cynical to add, the billionaire class will happily prevent a run for the second term, if Biden refuses to cave. After all, the billions are far more important than Biden's political future.

This post has been edited by shyams: 2023-August-21, 01:55

[thepossum]

shyams, on 2023-August-20, 16:24, said:

For a non-American like me, the vision of having a President working in the Oval Office while wearing a electronic angle tag (on his "work release") is funny as hell
Apologies for making fun of a not-altogether-improbable* future for the USA, but I can't think of many countries where such a thing could happen.

To continue with this nightmare scenario, Will the state of Georgia expect him to report to prison every weekend when he's not "working"?



(*) Rationale: Betting markets price him currently at approx. 27% likelihood of being elected President

I have my concerns though. I regard myself as libertarian in many regards but sadly some mistake things like that as being fascist

Same for anarchists. I regard myself as one of them too and socialist

Probably capitalist too to avoid misunderstandings. Maybe democracy too provided not the fascist interpretation

A liberal too. Just whoever believes in freedom and rights. And not imposing on and denying others those rights

Whatever they are called in different parts of the world

Notice I use small letters for everything to be on the safe side

But many of them mistake their ideology for fascism or the other way around

It's brutally sad and sounds contradictory but who can we rely on to maintain some decency and fairness anymore

UN Declaration on Human Rights comes close to representing most of my views. How they apply to all of us. There could be a few I think need to be interpreted flexibly and sensitive to culture and nationality

I love the idea of anyone standing for President from prison