2024 POTUS ELECTON

[quikky]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66314075

The US presidential campaign of Ron DeSantis has fired an aide who shared online a clip featuring a symbol that was adopted by the Nazis.

Nate Hochman, a speechwriter, posted the 68-second video from a pro-DeSantis account on social media over the weekend before quickly deleting it.

The clip shows Mr DeSantis superimposed on a sonnenrad, or sun-wheel.

Silly DeSantis staffer probably thought this would get him billions in weapons and funding.

Good one, Comrade Solovyov.

if negative opinion on UKR funding:
If spewing banal Russian propaganda:
accuse("Russian Propagandist")

Ftfy.

[BostonRugger]

Oh, man. Look at Reuters, the Toronto Star and ABC spewing banal Russian propaganda. Bad look, yikes, have they considered being good people?

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-co ... 76cfe.html?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohe ... SKBN1GV2TY

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-10/ ... e/10983542

[quikky]

Oh, man. Look at Reuters, the Toronto Star and ABC spewing banal Russian propaganda. Bad look, yikes, have they considered being good people?

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-co ... 76cfe.html?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohe ... SKBN1GV2TY

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-10/ ... e/10983542

This is just lazy. Tell me, what does Ukraine having some Nazi extremist group and, bUt MuH AzOv Battalion, have to do with the war? The answer: nothing. The only places on the planet the Nazi war narrative is coming from is the Kremlin and its media. Your joke was a regurgitation of this narrative and I called you out on it. Somehow you were pretending it's simply an anti funding opinion. It's not.

[BostonRugger]

Oh, man. Look at Reuters, the Toronto Star and ABC spewing banal Russian propaganda. Bad look, yikes, have they considered being good people?

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-co ... 76cfe.html?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohe ... SKBN1GV2TY

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-10/ ... e/10983542

This is just lazy. Tell me, what does Ukraine having some Nazi extremist group and, bUt MuH AzOv Battalion, have to do with the war? The answer: nothing. The only places on the planet the Nazi war narrative is coming from is the Kremlin and its media. Your joke was a regurgitation of this narrative and I called you out on it. Somehow you were pretending it's simply an anti funding opinion. It's not.

So is it your opinion that those ABC, Reuters, and TS were functioning as Russian propagandists when publishing those pieces? Their reporting is pretty pro-UKR these days. What changed?

And if not, when exactly did this go from being a legitimate subject for criticism to a shibboleth which must not be uttered?

Feel free to quote me over in the UKR/RUS thread if you want. I posted here because of the DeSantis staffer using the Azov logo.

[quikky]

Oh, man. Look at Reuters, the Toronto Star and ABC spewing banal Russian propaganda. Bad look, yikes, have they considered being good people?

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-co ... 76cfe.html?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohe ... SKBN1GV2TY

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-10/ ... e/10983542

This is just lazy. Tell me, what does Ukraine having some Nazi extremist group and, bUt MuH AzOv Battalion, have to do with the war? The answer: nothing. The only places on the planet the Nazi war narrative is coming from is the Kremlin and its media. Your joke was a regurgitation of this narrative and I called you out on it. Somehow you were pretending it's simply an anti funding opinion. It's not.

So is it your opinion that those ABC, Reuters, and TS were functioning as Russian propagandists when publishing those pieces? Their reporting is pretty pro-UKR these days. What changed?

And if not, when exactly did this go from being a legitimate subject for criticism to a shibboleth which must not be uttered?

Feel free to quote me over in the UKR/RUS thread if you want. I posted here because of the DeSantis staffer using the Azov logo.

No, the point is the context and breadth of the Nazi question in Ukraine. The articles were talking about Nazi groups existing in Ukraine. Okay. Your comment was referring to Nazis receiving NATO/Western money and military aid, i.e. the Ukrainians and/or their government is Nazi. If that's not what you meant, it certainly read that way. And, if that is what you meant, it is indeed Russian propaganda.

In the context of the war, the Russian narrative is that the "Kiev regime", as they love to call it, are literal Nazis that must be destroyed for the safety of Russia, Russian speakers, and your mom.

[aurelius]

In the context of the war, the Russian narrative is that the "Kiev regime", as they love to call it, are literal Nazis that must be destroyed for the safety of Russia, Russian speakers, and your mom.

My mom certainly needs protection from Nazis. I don't know how anyone could disagree with this position. Maybe the US should send support to Russia?

[quikky]

In the context of the war, the Russian narrative is that the "Kiev regime", as they love to call it, are literal Nazis that must be destroyed for the safety of Russia, Russian speakers, and your mom.

My mom certainly needs protection from Nazis. I don't know how anyone could disagree with this position. Maybe the US should send support to Russia?

Damn... And now we are witnessing Putin's master 4D chess strategy.

[BostonRugger]

No, the point is the context and breadth of the Nazi question in Ukraine. The articles were talking about Nazi groups existing in Ukraine. Okay. Your comment was referring to Nazis receiving NATO/Western money and military aid, i.e. the Ukrainians and/or their government is Nazi. If that's not what you meant, it certainly read that way. And, if that is what you meant, it is indeed Russian propaganda.

In the context of the war, the Russian narrative is that the "Kiev regime", as they love to call it, are literal Nazis that must be destroyed for the safety of Russia, Russian speakers, and your mom.

I bumped over to the UKR thread.


ETA: Any word on the risk to Root's mom?

[aurelius]

ETA: Any word on the risk to Root's mom?

Also a nice lady.

[aurelius]

What are Trump's chances of being a convicted felon before the election? I'm thinking the documents case is looking like a sure thing for the prosecution. The new election interference is a big stretch of the laws. They have to prove Trump knew he lost which is very difficult. Thoughts?

[mikeylikey]

What are Trump's chances of being a convicted felon before the election? I'm thinking the documents case is looking like a sure thing for the prosecution. The new election interference is a big stretch of the laws. They have to prove Trump knew he lost which is very difficult. Thoughts?

Acktchually... I think what they have to prove is that a reasonable person, in Trump's position, knowing what Trump knew and with the advice Trump got, would or should have understood they lost the election.* That seems doable. All of his advisors were telling him he lost, and even the ones who were egging him on to fight were doing so from a position of "we don't have a case but he can't hurt to try xyz angle." Trump needs to convince a jury that a reasonable person, with those facts and advice, would legitimately still believe the things he was saying.

It's not going to be enough for Trump to say, "well Sydney Powell and Mike Pillow told me I won so I believed them" because a reasonable person would have weighed that against the overwhelming majority of advisors, people whom Trump appointed for their qualifications and who had a vested interest in him staying president, who were saying give it up you lost.


*I don't think this is all they have to prove, lying is not a crime, so they will have to establish that the various concrete actions taken by Trump constituted obstruction and conspiracy and whatnot. Here I'm just thinking of the mens rea part of the case.

[DanCR]

What are Trump's chances of being a convicted felon before the election? I'm thinking the documents case is looking like a sure thing for the prosecution. The new election interference is a big stretch of the laws. They have to prove Trump knew he lost which is very difficult. Thoughts?

Low. I agree that the documents case should be a slam dunk. The Fulton County indictment that almost certainly is coming also ought to be open and shut. The problem is that, in a country this polarized, what are the chances of getting a jury that doesn’t include at least one irrational MAGA type.

[mikeylikey]

what are the chances of getting a jury that doesn’t include at least one irrational MAGA type.

I don't know but the chances get better the more trials in more jurisdictions there end up being.

[aurelius]

Acktchually... I think what they have to prove is that a reasonable person, in Trump's position, knowing what Trump knew and with the advice Trump got, would or should have understood they lost the election.* That seems doable. All of his advisors were telling him he lost, and even the ones who were egging him on to fight were doing so from a position of "we don't have a case but he can't hurt to try xyz angle." Trump needs to convince a jury that a reasonable person, with those facts and advice, would legitimately still believe the things he was saying.

It's not going to be enough for Trump to say, "well Sydney Powell and Mike Pillow told me I won so I believed them" because a reasonable person would have weighed that against the overwhelming majority of advisors, people whom Trump appointed for their qualifications and who had a vested interest in him staying president, who were saying give it up you lost.


*I don't think this is all they have to prove, lying is not a crime, so they will have to establish that the various concrete actions taken by Trump constituted obstruction and conspiracy and whatnot. Here I'm just thinking of the mens rea part of the case.

The reasonable person standard is what is often discussed. But as many high profile shootings in numerous jurisdictions demonstrate, the person's criminal defense only had to argue their state of mind. Not a reasonable person standard. I don't think the reasonable person standard applies here.

Partly because the US never prepared or envisioned for a sitting President to do what Trump did. As you state, there are not specific criminal laws against lying about the election and a lot of what Trump did. Probably should be. Similar to how Alabama just figured out it is a low level misdemeanor (false report) to lie about being kidnapped (they are considering passing a law to make it a felony). What is 100% impeachable behavior versus criminal behavior will be up to a jury to discern. And all the defense needs is to convince one juror Trump thought his statements were true. But to do that Trump would almost certainly have to take the stand...

I'm basing this off of a Dispatch article that did a legal analysis (i get their daily newsletter emailed.The newsletter is free): https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/the- ... clear-cut/

[Hardartery]

What are Trump's chances of being a convicted felon before the election? I'm thinking the documents case is looking like a sure thing for the prosecution. The new election interference is a big stretch of the laws. They have to prove Trump knew he lost which is very difficult. Thoughts?

There are frequently charges that are non-winners included in Federal indictments, and there are reasons for that. First, sometimes the prosecutor gets lucky and there is no penalty for trying. Second, it gives the jury something to throw out if they have some sentiment that they don't want to convict on everything. Third, more charges make the accused look more guilty. Lastly, and most important of all, sentencing is based on all of the things CHARGED, not all of the things CONVICTED. So, find him guilty on any single charge and all of them count in the math for sentencing. So, it increases the likelihood of a plea.

[aurelius]

sentencing is based on all of the things CHARGED, not all of the things CONVICTED

Punishing someone for crimes they are not convicted of seems to be the anti-thesis of innocent until proven guilty. I tried to do some Google Fu to collaborate this statement and found nothing. Can you provide a link or reference?

[Hardartery]

sentencing is based on all of the things CHARGED, not all of the things CONVICTED

Punishing someone for crimes they are not convicted of seems to be the anti-thesis of innocent until proven guilty. I tried to do some Google Fu to collaborate this statement and found nothing. Can you provide a link or reference?

Personal experience. Ask an attorney that handles federal cases. And it seems wildly unconstitutional and unjust to me, but that is how it rolls.

[aurelius]

Personal experience. Ask an attorney that handles federal cases. And it seems wildly unconstitutional and unjust to me, but that is how it rolls.

I tried looking at Federal sentencing guidelines but



I'll take your word for it!

[DanCR]

I’m not a Federal criminal lawyer but am nearly certain that that is incorrect.

The sentencing guidlines do include consideration of one’s criminal history, but that means prior convictions, not charges.

[Hardartery]

I’m not a Federal criminal lawyer but am nearly certain that that is incorrect.

The sentencing guidlines do include consideration of one’s criminal history, but that means prior convictions, not charges.

I am 100% certain that it is correct. Unless there was an unpublicized change to the law in the last few years it is undoubtedly 100% for certain correct. I am not interested in getting into how exactly I know that, but I do.