(03-24-2023 08:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  First, I am actually rooting for Trump to get convicted of something, and the sooner the better. That is about the only way I can see republicans winning in 2024. If Trump is the nominee I don't think he can get 270 EVs, and if he is not the nominee I think he will mount a third party campaign that will make it impossible for whoever is the republican nominee to win.

Second, for that reason I don't think the left really wants to convict him of anything. They just want to harass him with indictments, which also muddy the water badly for any election planning by republicans. I don't think law enforcement is playing without substantial Orange Man Bad bias. So I think they will just keep trying to indict him on trumped-up (sorry about the pun) charges.

Agree 100%.

I guess,in effect, this means I have joined the many, many Democrats who don’t give a damn about guilt or innocence, and the smaller number of never Trumpers. I do so because I think the long term benefit to this country would be for politics to return to just the normal amount of backbiting and lying, instead of the hyper levels of animosity demonstrated by the left.

So go, Blue Team. GET TRUMP!

Anybody notice the MSM cannot use the word “Trump” and the word “alleged” in the same same sentence?

A man can kill a dozen people on camera and he will be the “alleged” murderer, but Trump? Next time you hear a CNN reporter refer to him as allegedly inciting an insurrection, call me.

Tanq, I'm just not certain that a conversation between a president and his VP, at least theoretically protected by some privilege, that leads to no action can be properly considered an overt act for the purpose of inchoate criminal conviction.

But this and Stormy Daniels, like Russia collusion and Ukraine, give democrats exactly what they want--the potential to hamstring Trump with indictments without actually convicting him of anything. So they bottle Trump up without solving the Trump problem for the republicans.

DJT has become more of a liability than an asset to republicans. He may ave been the only one who could beat Hillary in 2016, but 7 years of character assassination witch hunts have damaged his brand. He cannot get 270 EVs if he is the nominee, and if he is not the nominee he will almost certainly mount a third party campaign that will ensure that no republican can get 270 EVs.

That being the case, what do republicans do?
1) Pray that DJT gets convicted of some felony, although I just don't see the evidence to do so.
2) Concentrate on winning control of the senate and expanding their majority in the HOR. That way they can at least limit the damage until 2028. I'm not sure anything worth saving will still be salvageable by then, but it's maybe the best shot.

(03-26-2023 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  DJT has become more of a liability than an asset to republicans. He may ave been the only one who could beat Hillary in 2016, but 7 years of character assassination witch hunts have damaged his brand. He cannot get 270 EVs if he is the nominee, and if he is not the nominee he will almost certainly mount a third party campaign that will ensure that no republican can get 270 EVs.

I think maybe he can get the 270, in a binary election against Biden. But it is far from a slam dunk. Both sides would have their preferred opponent.

Quote:That being the case, what do republicans do?
1) Pray that DJT gets convicted of some felony, although I just don't see the evidence to do so.
2) Concentrate on winning control of the senate and expanding their majority in the HOR. That way they can at least limit the damage until 2028. I'm not sure anything worth saving will still be salvageable by then, but it's maybe the best shot.

I like your second option the best.

(03-26-2023 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tanq, I'm just not certain that a conversation between a president and his VP, at least theoretically protected by some privilege,

The crime-fraud exception expressly is an exception to the conversation of committing illegal acts.

Just ask Haldeman, Erlichman, Mitchell, and Dean (Dean who had two levels of privilege to supposedly sit there).

Quote:that leads to no action can be properly considered an overt act for the purpose of inchoate criminal conviction.

Again, the criminal act is Pence delivering the 'Trump be fiat' and thwarting the legal action of Congress. That isnt an inchoate crime.

The attempt to have the above performed is clearly defined in the statute as an offense.

Unless you really feel the urge to ignore the Watergate executive privilege cases that we all learn about in law school -- I dont see how the Pence privilege stands given the above.

And again, unless you feel the need to rewrite the definition of attempt ('a concrete step beyond mere preparation'), I think the actions re: Eastman, Clark, and Trump fall squarely in that bucket. The steps to: a) decapitate the AG office and install a flack like Clark to use the AG office solely for the benefit of Donald Trump, not as the arm of the government; b) actively organize the alternate slate of elector pile of crap; c) actively ask and coerce the sitting VP, sitting as the head of the Joint Session, to declare by fiat that certified electors will be disallowed; and d) the admissions from Eastman himself that the steps are not legal ---

those each individually are concrete steps to fulfill the plan of the crime (except for the admission in d).

Sorry, the issue fits. As does the same facts and issues in conspiracy to defraud Congress.

Quote:But this and Stormy Daniels, like Russia collusion and Ukraine,

I dont equate 'this' to the proposed overcharging re: Stormy into the same 'only conspiracy from the Deep State' that you automatically do. Sorry.

Much as I dont automatically place the MAL crap into the bucket in a sua sponte manner. Again, sorry.

Notwithstanding your comments to me how I allegedly kneejerk dont think about governmental interference.

There may be well some issue that you bring up in those lines in which you tell me why you are confused that I dont automatically lean on and insist on a giant conspiracy for everything Trump. The difference that I see between your statements there to me (and my actions) is that I can see some in discrete issues and events -- and I dont automatically assume it in each and every case as you do.

Vive le diffence.

Quote:That being the case, what do republicans do?
1) Pray that DJT gets convicted of some felony, although I just don't see the evidence to do so.
2) Concentrate on winning control of the senate and expanding their majority in the HOR. That way they can at least limit the damage until 2028. I'm not sure anything worth saving will still be salvageable by then, but it's maybe the best shot.

If DJT is nominated, that will damage the Republican side for 3 cycles, maybe more. Across the spectrum. Not down the county level, and in some states not at the state level. He has *already* tainted the **** out of the Republican brand.

Even if there is 'no crime' in putting to together an effort to have the election tossed to him by fiat -- having a shitbird that attempts that 'not a crime' (in arguendo) as *your* selection to that office is at the minimum a near-death event to a vast swath -- excluding only those that dont give a rats ass that he tried to do just that. Might as well fing nominate Bernie Madoff.

2) will be the best shot. And I dont know myself if it might be salvageable after a Trump nomination. But that seemingly is the path the Republicans have set for themself -- I havent seen a potential extinction event of a party in my lifetime, and this could very well be it.

Unless there is something that stops Trump cold in his tracks, either way the Repubs ar fked for the Presidency in '24. If Trump isnt stopped cold in his tarcks, extend that to until '32. And in that case one should look forward to D majorities in both houses for at least '24.

If the Repubs pull their head out of their ass without something on the outside stopping Trump cold as above, and Trump loses the nomination, Trump will rat fk them at the end. They will lose the Presidency in '24, based on that rat fk. They might be able to salvage one or both houses of Congress for the foreseeable future.

But again, Trump is self made problem for the Republicans.

The difference that I see with respect to Nixon, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, et al, is that in their cases there were tangible acts.

Tanq, what I still don’t understand is why as a libertarian you are not more offended by the extreme political polarization and virtual Gestapo/KGB tactics employed by DOJ, FBI, and others against Donald Trump and his associates.

(03-26-2023 01:25 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The difference that I see with respect to Nixon, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, et al, is that in their cases there were tangible acts.

On January 1, 1975, Haldeman was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and three counts of perjury.

Ehrlichman was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

Mitchell was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury.

Colson wash, rinse, and repeat.

Their tangible acts in the conspiracy charge were: a) being involved in discussions in the White House that went beyond preparation, and (surprise, surprise) asking others to do a completed crime. And the conspiracy charge did not relate to the tangible act of the actual break in.

The issue I raised with the three (actually 7) only referred to your comment invoking the application of executive privilege, mind you.

If you want to elevate this to the actual charging issues and convictions (which is more relevant to the 'tangible act' aspect that note above), again, the conspiracy charge is seemingly on point with your issue on that.

Again, your privilege aside seems way off point -- the SCOTUS case re: Haldeman, Erlichman, and Mitchell is stride on point on the application of executive privilege and the application of the crime/fraud exception to it.

In fact, that issue in terms of Eastman has been visited three times by Judge Carter, and three times by the Circ Ct appellate level. That comment above in terms of privilege seems to have been answered in full and explicitly despite your characterization. Eastman claimed both privileges, and others in the meetings have claimed solely the Executive Privilege. Again, Eastman has already lost that three different times, as well as the Attorney/Client portion. I dont see why you raise that issue in that manner.

The tangible act goes to whether something more than mere preparation has taken place. The crime in question *is* having the VP perform an extra-legal act.

The discussions were to persuade the VP to commit to the plan. That it, the plan that they had prepared and presented. Not to mention the tangible act (s)of preparing (multiple) alternate slates in accordance with the Eastman plan. Or the acting to place a third rate hack into the office of AG so as to short circuit opposition of the acting AG to that plan. You might want to look at Barr's comments on those last two actions as well as is pertains to a tangible act. Or, the act of speaking to the crowd as to coerce Pence to undertake an action that even Eastman admitted was illegal.

Maybe its my blindness to the fact of organized "Gestapo/ KGB tactics" by the "DOJ/ FBI" (and in the latter --- potentially a gamut of the Federal court system, including Fla magistrates, 15 to 20 individual Federal courts, the DC, 11th, 2nd, and 8th Circs. apparently in their entirely) that permeates everything that is/ can be construed as "not in favor of Trump" that colors my viewpoint above.

(03-26-2023 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Tanq, what I still don’t understand is why as a libertarian you are not more offended by the extreme political polarization and virtual Gestapo/KGB tactics employed by DOJ, FBI, and others against Donald Trump and his associates.

Because almost everybody on the right kneejerks *everything* that happens into that realm. As you apparently do above.

For the umpteenth time you have asked and for the (umpteenth - 3) I will answer your question. And frankly given that record I am getting rather tired of it.

There are items I do find to be overreach. Im not going to retype them, because I have already. More than a few times.

I dont find them to be as so wholly pervasive as to label every single instance of a prosecution of Trump as unblindingly and in a rhetorical kneejerk fashion as "virtual Gestapo/KGB tactics".

And bummer, I dont find a Fla. magistrate finding probable cause to search Trump MAL for stuff he had no right to have as "virtual Gestapo/KGB tactics". Nor do I find a potential prosecution for the illegal possession and ahndling of those as a "virtual Gestapo/KGB tactics".

Coupled with Trump's middle finger to trying to retrieve them without an issue -- honestly that is a Trump fk up. Bummer. And those same actions (lying in a sworn statement to the Feds about them) again is a Trump fk up. Bummer.

Tough **** on that.

And in the opposite manner, should Biden show the same level of resistance to the documents issue he should be treated in the same manner.

Wash, rinse, and repeat for Jan 6 and Eastman memo. I think investigating and charging a shitbird who actively promoted a 'place me in the office by fiat' actually *should* be investigated, and *should* be charged. That level of action is fing grotesque. Bummer about that too.

The Ukraine impeachment was a political hash. But, impeachment *is* a purely political act. Always has, and always will. So no, I dont see the massive intervention of the "virtual Gestapo/KGB tactics" by the DOJ/FBI involved horrendously in that. I do see overreach by a political opponent, resulting in a political act.

On Steele, we have gone over that a few times. Absolute overreach by the FBI/CIA there. And no, I dont see *an* overreach as "virtual Gestapo/KGB tactics", no matter how fun that phrase feels to use in a rhetorical display.

As for Bragg -- Bragg may be overreaching. I dont know for sure because --- well, no indictment has been returned. Funny that. Come back and let's discuss at an individual basis if/when it does. For what its worth, Trump was stupid as fk to structure that settlement that way. Bummer Trump put himself in that position to some extent.

Now for the second or third time just this week I have fully denoted my position on various thing, the act of asking me once again I dont think is really helpful. I have answered this fully multiple times this weekend in this forum, a few times in the Spin Room, and a few times more prior in this thread (once just a few posts up, mind you).

Asking it one more time really doesnt help.

Well if I’m sitting in a jury box and the act is nothing more than words, I’m not going to vote to convict.

I think our criminal justice system has gone nuts over prosecuting process crimes, and I think a little jury nullification is appropriate. Particularly when the relevant bureaucracies lean hard to one side. That’s about a libertarian as you get.

(03-26-2023 03:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Well if I’m sitting in a jury box and the act is nothing more than words, I’m not going to vote to convict.

I think our criminal justice system has gone nuts over prosecuting process crimes, and I think a little jury nullification is appropriate. Particularly when the relevant bureaucracies lean hard to one side. That’s about a libertarian as you get.

At what point is trying to subvert the Constitution and its process a concern for you? Apparently not Trump, so..... what is that point that #s says 'no mas, dont fk with it'?

Is the only point that it matters is when the VP says 'Yeah Don, sounds peachy keen to do something that your own 'legal planner' says its illegal, but, what the hey. We can be two dudes who instigated the greatest Constitutional crisis since the rollout of the document, but we still have the office. Lets do it'?

Seems to me that is your only impediment to that. If I am incorrect, where does #s get his britches to where it matters?

I mean, between the two of us, you are the one that actually took an oath to that document..... seems kind of odd to me....

And no, in terms of the Eastman, note I am not advocating 'making up an issue or evidence' ala Steele. Nor am I advocating the expansion of police power to do this.

I mean, the *only* other action that was needed to complete the plan was Pence saying 'yeah dude, bros forever'. And apparently you are unwilling to vote to convict (explicitly so above) up until *when* the crime is totally completed? That is, *after* they have taken power in an illegal manner? Seriously? No offense but the timing of your 'point to convict' seems way the hell off when you consider the effects of the action you require. That doesnt seem very well thought out temporally.

I would say that you and I might have some very different viewpoints on 'defending the Constitution' in that aspect.

And honestly, wtf does any bureaucracy or bureaucratic action have *anything* to do whether two or more people conspired or attempted to subvert the Constitution? Is the response 'well since Donny had a bad time with Steele and Mueller, we are going to give him and Eastman and Clark a 'make up' call on a very real attempt to subvert the Constitution and its process'? Seriously, what does any institutional action have to do with that?

That is aside from you are fed up with the institution and the folks should get a pass on trying to subvert the Constitution as a make up call..... I guess. I see zero connection with the Eastman crap and *any* DOJ/ CIA/ FBI overreach issue at all. This sounds interesting.

#s, what is your stance on plain jane, criminal fraud? A crime? No?

You’re not going to move me and I’m not going to move you. On the one hand, I hope they can convict DJT of something, because otherwise I think 2024 will go to the democrats, and I’m not sure the country can be saved, or will be worth saving, with 4 more years of democrat rule. On the other hand, I am so disgusted by the way our top law enforcement and national security bureaucrats have conducted themselves that I am unwilling to give them anything.

It’s really a very pessimistic position for me to find myself in, and I really don’t like that.

(03-26-2023 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  #s, what is your stance on plain jane, criminal fraud? A crime? No?

Committing fraud is a crime. Talking about it, not so much.

(03-26-2023 05:14 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 04:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  #s, what is your stance on plain jane, criminal fraud? A crime? No?

Committing fraud is a crime. Talking about it, not so much.

#1
--------------------------
Asking your adjuster to approve a false claim, while telling him it is false absolutely is.

That is mere words. It is literally "talking about it" -- to another person.

Per above. And per your excuse to 'vote to acquit'.

You should know this from your experience with Enron.


Lets go to another one.

#2
-----------------------
You ask your controller to make a false entry in the books regarding Nigerian barges that you know dont exist.

Mere words again. Mere 'talking about it'. Seems to me to be attempted fraud. Disagree?


Or another one.

#3
------------------------
You ask your banker to tell a third party that you have $18 million in AAA Grade bonds as collateral to that third party lender, when you have zero. Mere words again. Mere talking about.

Cases seems clear in the law that those 'mere words' are, in fact, attempted fraud. And attempted conspiracy. And solicitation.

-------------------------

But in your stance those 'mere words' are not a crime, correct?

Your stance on mere words seems highly out of touch for certain crimes, and, in fact are not seen as 'mere words'.

Which of the three above are not criminal in your view, and in your stance that 'mere talking about it' is not objectionable in the criminal viewpoint?

I think your view on 'mere words' or 'mere talking' is way off base in some crimes, and in the case law.

And your view that those 'mere words' above (which are highly similar and equivalent to Trump's 'mere words' and thus would be worthy of an act of 'lets let them go' based on jury nullification) is rather frightening over all. You *did* say: "Well if I’m sitting in a jury box and the act is nothing more than words, I’m not going to vote to convict."

3 examples of mere words above, 3 examples of attempted fraud.

If you say that the 'mere words' above are not subject to your view on nullification, and Trump's are, I would posit that you are highly biased of which 'mere words' issues you find that you would vote to convict.

(03-26-2023 05:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You’re not going to move me and I’m not going to move you. On the one hand, I hope they can convict DJT of something, because otherwise I think 2024 will go to the democrats, and I’m not sure the country can be saved, or will be worth saving, with 4 more years of democrat rule. On the other hand, I am so disgusted by the way our top law enforcement and national security bureaucrats have conducted themselves that I am unwilling to give them anything.

It’s really a very pessimistic position for me to find myself in, and I really don’t like that.

That isnt an answer to the question, which stands as:

"At what point is trying to subvert the Constitution and its process a concern for you? Apparently the issue of Trump actually trying to doesnt meet that standard, so..... what is that point that #s says 'no mas, dont fk with it'?"

All I see above is blaming the conduct of "top law enforcement and national security bureaucrats", mind you...... I dont know *how* that is in any form an answer to to the question I posited to you and restated immediately above again to you here.

With respect #s, you continued to insist of me for weeks, maybe even a month or two, to answer your question on my stance on the Deep State, and I did. I avoided it for awhile, but in the end did answer. Multiple times in fact.

I would appreciate an answer to the above in return.

(03-26-2023 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  "At what point is trying to subvert the Constitution and its process a concern for you?

At the point that someone actually takes an action beyond merely talking about it.

(03-26-2023 10:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-26-2023 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  "At what point is trying to subvert the Constitution and its process a concern for you?

At the point that someone actually takes an action beyond merely talking about it.

You misstate again the actual threshold for liability -- that is the threshold of 'taking an action beyond mere preparation' as an attempt.

I'll take it that you would vote 'not guilty' for all three of the examples of clear attempted fraud in the examples I put out there?

In your mind --- trying to coerce someone or convince someone who wields a decision to improperly perform an action, with knowledge of the illegality of the action, is 'mere preparation'? Sounds kind of wild to me.

As it would to most people applying your new standard to very entrenched law dealing with a good subset of fraud issues.

Glad to know I can ask the company controller to cut me a check for a half mill with no recourse. Or that I can ask the insurance adjuster to overlook the video of the accident and simply rule for me. The bounds of this standard are quite intriguing.

I've had clients ask me to do things, or to assist them in doing things, which I believed were illegal or unethical. I refused and explained why I refused, and then fired the clients. I did not consider their requests to be criminal acts.

No wonder there are always lawyers on both sides of every dispute.

Watching the true crime on 20/20 et al, I am always struck by the fact that even 20 years later, despite whatever evidence has turned up in the interim, the defense lawyers are always sure of their client's innocence and the prosecutors are always sure of his guilt.

Tanq, if those words matter, what can I do about the guy who told me to stuff a buzzsaw up my ***? What crime should he be charged with? (I have a feeling I might be in line for a similar comment from Tanq himself).