Are Trump protests finished?

[Mr. Dazzle]

As I've said loads of time, despite nearly 5 dozen attempts* to overturn the election in court, Trump and Co. have not managed to produce any actual evidence. I know DEADPOOL is going to say "they won't let the evidence be heard" but that's not the stories I've been seeing in the news. My favourite was in Georgia where a Trump lawyer was arguing observers had been barred from the counting room.

I remember seeing this 'live' in the news, but it still makes me laugh. Full details of the case are available here.

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/set ... ?cb=9b2c6f

9 Perplexed by the Campaign’s use of terms such as “nonzero number of people,”
the federal court put the question to the Campaign’s attorney directly:
THE COURT: I’m asking you as a member of the bar of this Court, are people representing the Donald J. Trump from President, representing the Plaintiff, in that room?
MR. MARCUS [COUNSEL FOR THE CAMPAIGN]: Yes
THE COURT: I’m sorry, then what’s your problem?
(Exhibit 3 at 11:1-7.)

For those who don't know, when a judge prefaces a question with "I'm asking you as a member oft the bar of this Court" they mean "you're pissing me of so you'd better not lie 'cause you're gonna get disbarred".

*Weird way of saying >60 but I like the turn of phrase

[cheb]

You do know that doctors use Youtube as a training resource don't you?

Yes, but I doubt they use Bubba from Bumfuck, Idaho as an authorative source.

I'd rather hope not, but dismissing something because it's on YT could be a mistake.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Dodgy Geezer had a brilliant phrase..."the sniff test". It's pretty easy to see (smell?) when something deserves scepticism IMO.

[cheb]

I can see why nonzero might be used, if they said many, or lots, then there could be pettifogging arguments about the actual number. Amusingly it doesn't exclude negative numbers, are there non people in the USA?

Like is a scotch egg a substantial meal. How big is the egg? A wren's egg or an ostrich egg? Does it come with any garnishes, accompaniments or salad? Do you have to eat all of it for it to be a substantial meal?

I doubt the lawyers involved are working for a flat fee for the case.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I doubt the lawyers involved are working for a flat fee for the case.

That is probably true, however most of Trump's lawyers seem to be pretty bad at lawyering!

Yu'd think it would be a nice simple case; observers aren't allowed in the room, observers aren't allowed close enough, observers aren't granted free access and so on. All pretty yes/no things. Yet when it's time to go on record officially suddenly the objections start to wobble.

[DEADPOOL]

Dodgy Geezer had a brilliant phrase..."the sniff test". It's pretty easy to see (smell?) when something deserves scepticism IMO.

Well it's a good point. As I allude to above, it's difficult being a skeptic and there is the danger of leaning one side or the other and ending up submerged in madness. That is true for both left and right, neither extreme is a good place to be.

But what I discover is that in leaning to the right, it's like a switch. Suddenly, you're one of them. A Trump supporter! I'm not as it happens, I just think he's had a ridiculously hard time and I find myself defending his position more as an advocate. Devils advocate if you will.

Being "on the other side" i.e. not automatically accepting some stupid left wing woke nonsense (lets not go there!) means people really won't enter into a dialogue within any (non anonymised) social media. You're either one side or the other and you dare not challenge any say, anti Trump dialogue or you get booted. Lost a couple of FB "friends" that way.

Whenever I visit some media approved forum or social media, I see a lot of stories being circulated which I know are simply not true (AOC springs to mind) but you literally cannot question them. On top of that, people with my right wing tendency are being labelled domestic terrorists or white supremacist and that in itself does not particularly convince me to "see the other side".

So I have to hang out on the right and you appear to be correct, I have been "taken in" by a statistic relating to proportion of police shootings**. I don't know exactly were I picked that up and tbh, there's still the massively disproportionate representation of criminal activity for one particular group but I will try to find out how exactly I fell for it.


**even a quick Google suggest that while the actual statistic is incredibly difficult to pin down (thats statistics for you) the overwhelming volume of evidence suggests that blacks are in fact disproportionately more likely to get shot.

[wheelnut]

That is probably true, however most of Trump's lawyers seem to be pretty bad at lawyering!

The ones he’s hired to represent him in the impeachment hearing are bizarre.

Perhaps there’s no more decent, capable lawyers that want anything to do with him. just like all the US banks.

Watching the prosecution lawyers at the moment.

[DEADPOOL]

I doubt the lawyers involved are working for a flat fee for the case.

That is probably true, however most of Trump's lawyers seem to be pretty bad at lawyering!

Trump is way too toxic as a private individual. The left are after him and more importantly, after anyone who sides with him. People get sacked for being "Trumpists". I rather suspect he has to put up with whoever is brave enough to have a go. The left will be after them too and that means basically the entire agency of the USA will make their lives a misery forever.

[Mr. Dazzle]

I imagine it takes a certain kind of person to be a lawyer who represents cases they don't actually believe in (most of them probably fit this bill TBF). Said person probably cares less about Trump's cause and more about taking Trump's money...and if that's your goal, it pays to be as odd as your client.

[JackyJoll]

I imagine it takes a certain kind of person to be a lawyer who represents cases they don't actually believe in (most of them probably fit this bill TBF). Said person probably cares less about Trump's cause and more about taking Trump's money...and if that's your goal, it pays to be as odd as your client.

You’re not a proper lawyer if you don’t take on cases that are patently wrong.

Everyone is, or should be, entitled to legal representation.

[Horse]

That is probably true, however most of Trump's lawyers seem to be pretty bad at lawyering!

The current ones he’s hired to represent him in the impeachment hearing are bizarre.

ftfy

First lot resigned a few days ago. Or were let go. Or agreed to differ. Whatever.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Everyone is, or should be, entitled to legal representation.

I imagine lots of lawyers take on cases of people they'd rather not defend for the 'pure' legal rights aspect of it. Upholding due process if you will.

I bet it takes a next level of person though to represent someone making grasping at straws claims trying to overturn an election.

[DEADPOOL]

Everyone is, or should be, entitled to legal representation.

I imagine lots of lawyers take on cases of people they'd rather not defend for the 'pure' legal rights aspect of it. Upholding due process if you will.

I bet it takes a next level of person though to represent someone making grasping at straws claims trying to overturn an election.

I was fully expecting Trump to twist this charade to his advantage by making it more about the "alleged" fraud than the so called "insurrection". It's not as if the impeachment even stands a chance so it's his last chance to have these allegations broadcast to the world. Whether you believe there's anything to them or not. Seems like his first set of lawyers decided not to go down that route!

I still say he's great entertainment value.

[Yambo]

You do know that doctors use Youtube as a training resource don't you?

I wonder if they have a foolproof method of deciding which YouTube video is a good/worthwhile training resource.

Perhaps they do what I do, read the comments below the vid and decide from there.

[Saga Lout]

Democracies don't do show trials, show trials are a communist thing.

This just shows how far to the left America has shifted.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Democracies don't do show trials, show trials are a communist thing.

If it was a show trial the outcome would have already been decided against Trump.

It seems like the outcome is actually gonna be in Trump's favour, so if it's a show trial it's a pretty shoddy one!

[JackyJoll]

I still say he's great entertainment value.

He can tour the halls then.

[Saga Lout]

Democracies don't do show trials, show trials are a communist thing.

If it was a show trial the outcome would have already been decided against Trump.

It seems like the outcome is actually gonna be in Trump's favour, so if it's a show trial it's a pretty shoddy one!

Maybe that shows that they haven't moved ALL the way to the left, that there may still be hope.

[Mr. Dazzle]

They're hardly an exclusively communist thing either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27 ... prov=sfla1

The court was established in 1933 by order of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, in response to his dissatisfaction at the outcome of the Reichstag fire trial, in which all but one of the defendants were acquitted. The court had jurisdiction over a rather broad array of "political offenses", which included crimes like black marketeering, work slowdowns, defeatism, and treason against the Third Reich. These crimes were viewed by the court as Wehrkraftzersetzung ("disintegration of defensive capability") and were accordingly punished severely; the death penalty was meted out in numerous cases.

The court handed down an enormous number of death sentences under Judge-President Roland Freisler, including those that followed the plot to kill Hitler on 20 July 1944. Many of those found guilty by the court were executed in Plötzensee Prison in Berlin. The proceedings of the court were often even less than show trials in that some cases, such as that of Sophie Scholl and her brother Hans Scholl and fellow White Rose activists, trials were concluded in less than an hour without evidence being presented or arguments made by either side

[Saga Lout]

They're hardly an exclusively communist thing either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27 ... prov=sfla1

The court was established in 1933 by order of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, in response to his dissatisfaction at the outcome of the Reichstag fire trial, in which all but one of the defendants were acquitted. The court had jurisdiction over a rather broad array of "political offenses", which included crimes like black marketeering, work slowdowns, defeatism, and treason against the Third Reich. These crimes were viewed by the court as Wehrkraftzersetzung ("disintegration of defensive capability") and were accordingly punished severely; the death penalty was meted out in numerous cases.

The court handed down an enormous number of death sentences under Judge-President Roland Freisler, including those that followed the plot to kill Hitler on 20 July 1944. Many of those found guilty by the court were executed in Plötzensee Prison in Berlin. The proceedings of the court were often even less than show trials in that some cases, such as that of Sophie Scholl and her brother Hans Scholl and fellow White Rose activists, trials were concluded in less than an hour without evidence being presented or arguments made by either side

OK, not exclusively a communist thing, a socialist thing. How's that?