|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 02 2017 01:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 00:55 xDaunt wrote:
Have any of you read the Rod Wheeler complaint? The thing reads like a disaster. It just gratuitously throws a whole bunch of shit at the wall regarding Trump and Fox corporate operations to grab attention and headlines. As far as I can tell, there's no allegation that Trump made up the false quotes that are at issue. The journalist who wrote the article sent a draft to Trump to look at it, Trump liked what he saw, and told the journalist to publish it as soon as possible. And here's the big tell: there's no claim being asserted against Trump or any administration official. No defamation. No civil conspiracy. No civil rights claim. The attorney saw fit to include a racial discrimination component against Fox, but left out claims against the Administration. Yeah....
As to the core merits, there could be some juice to the defamation claim, but I want to see the response first. I never cared about the complaint being successful or its merits. The part where a news network is screening it stories for the White House is the part I’m interested in. Sometimes directly to the president himself. Of course, journalist will give someone a heads up a story is about to be published about them. But in this case, the story was completely unrelated to the White House, but they got a first pass at it. That and the Trump supporter who pushed Fox to jump on this fake story right around the time Russia was blasting through the news. Who cares about Wheeler?
Journalists colluding with government officials is nothing new.
On August 02 2017 01:05 Adreme wrote:
I have no idea why they even forwarded the story to Trump when he is not in the slightest bit involved. I can understand if he was wanting his comments on the article which seems rather routine, but the way they did it almost makes it seem like they were trying to give him an extra line of attack to use.
Because media outlets like to keep government officials in the loop so as to maintain favor with the government, which translates into sources/leaks/etc.
|
On August 02 2017 01:08 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 00:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump is a truly shameless opportunist who put personal gain before country when it came to his presidential run. That much alone isn't surprising, but he is more blatant, less competent, and more confident of his ability to get away with it, having been raised in the life of a shitty rich person.
What i kinda don't understand, you have procedures etc in place to prevent this. Yet nobody gives a shit.
Just the single fact alone that Trump is able to profit personally (big time) should disqualify him from office. Even worse, it's entirely possible that he "rules his kingdom" so after the presidency, his business will skyrocket.
You wouldn't employ a fox to manage the chicken coop, would you? edit: actually yeah you would/did, i guess the correct question is "should you".
|
On August 02 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 00:55 xDaunt wrote:
Have any of you read the Rod Wheeler complaint? The thing reads like a disaster. It just gratuitously throws a whole bunch of shit at the wall regarding Trump and Fox corporate operations to grab attention and headlines. As far as I can tell, there's no allegation that Trump made up the false quotes that are at issue. The journalist who wrote the article sent a draft to Trump to look at it, Trump liked what he saw, and told the journalist to publish it as soon as possible. And here's the big tell: there's no claim being asserted against Trump or any administration official. No defamation. No civil conspiracy. No civil rights claim. The attorney saw fit to include a racial discrimination component against Fox, but left out claims against the Administration. Yeah....
As to the core merits, there could be some juice to the defamation claim, but I want to see the response first. I never cared about the complaint being successful or its merits. The part where a news network is screening it stories for the White House is the part I’m interested in. Sometimes directly to the president himself. Of course, journalist will give someone a heads up a story is about to be published about them. But in this case, the story was completely unrelated to the White House, but they got a first pass at it. That and the Trump supporter who pushed Fox to jump on this fake story right around the time Russia was blasting through the news. Who cares about Wheeler? Journalists colluding with government officials is nothing new.
Reading the lawsuit (its a long draft so I am only about half through), it looks as though he is alleging that 2 people who worked for Fox fabricated 2 sets of quotes and attributed them to Wheeler in an effort to help Trump with the reasoning being given "that is the way the president wanted the article". Now whether they were going off implied desire or were being outright told is currently unknown but the fact that they allegedly used those words specifically does draw Trump into the lawsuit.
Again the people in the most trouble are the 2 who fabricated the quote assuming that they were the ones to do so, but if they did so at the behest of the president as the draft is trying to claim it does draw him in.
|
On August 02 2017 00:55 xDaunt wrote:
Have any of you read the Rod Wheeler complaint? The thing reads like a disaster. It just gratuitously throws a whole bunch of shit at the wall regarding Trump and Fox corporate operations to grab attention and headlines. As far as I can tell, there's no allegation that Trump made up the false quotes that are at issue. The journalist who wrote the article sent a draft to Trump to look at it, Trump liked what he saw, and told the journalist to publish it as soon as possible. And here's the big tell: there's no claim being asserted against Trump or any administration official. No defamation. No civil conspiracy. No civil rights claim. The attorney saw fit to include a racial discrimination component against Fox, but left out claims against the Administration. Yeah....
As to the core merits, there could be some juice to the defamation claim, but I want to see the response first.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/01/spicer-claimed-to-be-unaware-of-seth-rich-story-after-meeting-with-donor-who-pushed-it/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.51c287d9589d
This thing is gaining legs. Spicer was given notes directly from Wheeler, then told the media he'd never heard about Seth.
I think Wheeler is about to gain a huge settlement, because regardless of grievances to him, Fox (and the WH) will want this to go away before it gets picked apart by competition. Or maybe it's too late for that?
Daunt, you seem to be conflating Trump with the White House. I'm sure he wasn't involved or aware in the slightest! (riiiiight)
|
On August 02 2017 01:14 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:08 Doodsmack wrote:On August 02 2017 00:56 LegalLord wrote:
Trump is a truly shameless opportunist who put personal gain before country when it came to his presidential run. That much alone isn't surprising, but he is more blatant, less competent, and more confident of his ability to get away with it, having been raised in the life of a shitty rich person. https://twitter.com/crewcrew/status/892414270172012544 What i kinda don't understand, you have procedures etc in place to prevent this. Yet nobody gives a shit. Just the single fact alone that Trump is able to profit personally (big time) should disqualify him from office. Even worse, it's entirely possible that he "rules his kingdom" so after the presidency, his business will skyrocket. You wouldn't employ a fox to manage the chicken coop, would you? edit: actually yeah you would/did, i guess the correct question is "should you".
Many conflict of interest laws don't actually apply to the President. Previously they followed the same rules as their cabinet members because its the right thing to do but that was purely by choice.
|
On August 02 2017 01:16 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:11 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 01:03 Plansix wrote:On August 02 2017 00:55 xDaunt wrote:
Have any of you read the Rod Wheeler complaint? The thing reads like a disaster. It just gratuitously throws a whole bunch of shit at the wall regarding Trump and Fox corporate operations to grab attention and headlines. As far as I can tell, there's no allegation that Trump made up the false quotes that are at issue. The journalist who wrote the article sent a draft to Trump to look at it, Trump liked what he saw, and told the journalist to publish it as soon as possible. And here's the big tell: there's no claim being asserted against Trump or any administration official. No defamation. No civil conspiracy. No civil rights claim. The attorney saw fit to include a racial discrimination component against Fox, but left out claims against the Administration. Yeah....
As to the core merits, there could be some juice to the defamation claim, but I want to see the response first. I never cared about the complaint being successful or its merits. The part where a news network is screening it stories for the White House is the part I’m interested in. Sometimes directly to the president himself. Of course, journalist will give someone a heads up a story is about to be published about them. But in this case, the story was completely unrelated to the White House, but they got a first pass at it. That and the Trump supporter who pushed Fox to jump on this fake story right around the time Russia was blasting through the news. Who cares about Wheeler? Journalists colluding with government officials is nothing new. Reading the lawsuit (its a long draft so I am only about half through), it looks as though he is alleging that 2 people who worked for Fox fabricated 2 sets of quotes and attributed them to Wheeler in an effort to help Trump with the reasoning being given "that is the way the president wanted the article". Now whether they were going off implied desire or were being outright told is currently unknown but the fact that they allegedly used those words specifically does draw Trump into the lawsuit. Again the people in the most trouble are the 2 who fabricated the quote assuming that they were the ones to do so, but if they did so at the behest of the president as the draft is trying to claim it does draw him in.
The gist of the lawsuit is that the journalists told Wheeler about the anonymous source at the FBI so that they could quote Wheeler on what they would have liked the anonymous source at the FBI to say. What's fuzzy about the complaint is what happened when all of these drafts of the article were being exchanged. The initial draft did not have the subject quotes. The complaint indicates that additional drafts were sent to Wheeler and seems to claim that he did not review them because he did not have time. Where the complaint is strong, however, is the narrative on what happened afterwards -- unequivocal disavowal.
|
On August 01 2017 22:26 pmh wrote:That's law in the usa (and probably quiet a few other countries as well). Thx to scalia amongst others. When they know that someone is innocent but they also know that they are able to get a conviction from the jury they will proceed. Its a very technical and philosophical approach to law,any human element is being removed
What kind of criminal psychopath woukd work to send someone to jail for over a decade while having a document proving the person is innocent?
This woman deserves hell and it is really utterly fucked up that this can legally happen.
|
On August 02 2017 01:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 22:26 pmh wrote:That's law in the usa (and probably quiet a few other countries as well). Thx to scalia amongst others. When they know that someone is innocent but they also know that they are able to get a conviction from the jury they will proceed. Its a very technical and philosophical approach to law,any human element is being removed What kind of criminal psychopath woukd work to send someone to jail for over a decade while having a document proving the person is innocent?
This woman deserves hell and it is really utterly fucked up that this can legally happen.
A lawyer.
Lawyers are generally more concerned about winning than they are with justice. The one type of lawyer where this is clearly problematic is the prosecutor.
|
On August 02 2017 01:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 01 2017 22:26 pmh wrote:That's law in the usa (and probably quiet a few other countries as well). Thx to scalia amongst others. When they know that someone is innocent but they also know that they are able to get a conviction from the jury they will proceed. Its a very technical and philosophical approach to law,any human element is being removed What kind of criminal psychopath woukd work to send someone to jail for over a decade while having a document proving the person is innocent?
This woman deserves hell and it is really utterly fucked up that this can legally happen. A lawyer. Lawyers are generally more concerned about winning than they are with justice. The one type of lawyer where this is clearly problematic is the prosecutor.
Hey aren't you a lawyer?
|
There's more at play with prosecutorial misconduct than the lawyerness of lawyers.
|
This is growing by the minute.
|
On August 02 2017 01:28 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 01:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 01 2017 22:26 pmh wrote:That's law in the usa (and probably quiet a few other countries as well). Thx to scalia amongst others. When they know that someone is innocent but they also know that they are able to get a conviction from the jury they will proceed. Its a very technical and philosophical approach to law,any human element is being removed What kind of criminal psychopath woukd work to send someone to jail for over a decade while having a document proving the person is innocent?
This woman deserves hell and it is really utterly fucked up that this can legally happen. A lawyer. Lawyers are generally more concerned about winning than they are with justice. The one type of lawyer where this is clearly problematic is the prosecutor. Hey aren't you a lawyer?
Yes, but my fault as a trial attorney is that I am prone to sometimes caring more about justice than winning.
|
On August 02 2017 01:28 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 01:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 01 2017 22:26 pmh wrote:That's law in the usa (and probably quiet a few other countries as well). Thx to scalia amongst others. When they know that someone is innocent but they also know that they are able to get a conviction from the jury they will proceed. Its a very technical and philosophical approach to law,any human element is being removed What kind of criminal psychopath woukd work to send someone to jail for over a decade while having a document proving the person is innocent?
This woman deserves hell and it is really utterly fucked up that this can legally happen. A lawyer. Lawyers are generally more concerned about winning than they are with justice. The one type of lawyer where this is clearly problematic is the prosecutor. Hey aren't you a lawyer?
I think it is abundantly clear that Xdaunt cares about winning. But I don't think he is going to be re-trying bullshit cases to send people to prison just to get the big "W".
|
In many states, the attorney labor market and law school system ends up funneling some of the worst attorneys into government positions, especially those in which funding for the local courts/DA has been cut in the fashion of the times. You end up with prosecutor's offices with 50% idiots, 50% true believers, and at the head an elected stooge who has to look tough on crime no matter what.
|
Also the close relationship between the police and DA leads to one trying to over up for the other. No one wants to look like they went after the wrong person.
|
On August 02 2017 01:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:28 ShoCkeyy wrote:On August 02 2017 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 01:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 01 2017 22:26 pmh wrote:That's law in the usa (and probably quiet a few other countries as well). Thx to scalia amongst others. When they know that someone is innocent but they also know that they are able to get a conviction from the jury they will proceed. Its a very technical and philosophical approach to law,any human element is being removed What kind of criminal psychopath woukd work to send someone to jail for over a decade while having a document proving the person is innocent?
This woman deserves hell and it is really utterly fucked up that this can legally happen. A lawyer. Lawyers are generally more concerned about winning than they are with justice. The one type of lawyer where this is clearly problematic is the prosecutor. Hey aren't you a lawyer? Yes, but my fault as a trial attorney is that I am prone to sometimes caring more about justice than winning.
So maybe you could explain it to me because I must be understanding it wrong.
On the suit section 18 says that a draft was sent that did NOT contain that information and then it followsup in 20 saying a few days later it was published by Zimmerman WITH the false quotes added in. That seems to imply that the version to Wheeler and the version published were not the same.
|
On August 02 2017 01:36 farvacola wrote:
In many states, the attorney labor market and law school system ends up funneling some of the worst attorneys into government positions, especially those in which funding for the local courts/DA has been cut in the fashion of the times. You end up with prosecutor's offices with 50% idiots, 50% true believers, and at the head an elected stooge who has to look tough on crime no matter what.
It was probably like this 15+ years ago, but there are so many damned law school graduates now that the crappy ones simply don't get jobs. Hell, many of the best graduates went into DA and PD positions from my class. Those positions were generally very competitive.
|
On August 02 2017 01:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 01 2017 22:26 pmh wrote:That's law in the usa (and probably quiet a few other countries as well). Thx to scalia amongst others. When they know that someone is innocent but they also know that they are able to get a conviction from the jury they will proceed. Its a very technical and philosophical approach to law,any human element is being removed What kind of criminal psychopath woukd work to send someone to jail for over a decade while having a document proving the person is innocent?
This woman deserves hell and it is really utterly fucked up that this can legally happen. A lawyer. Lawyers are generally more concerned about winning than they are with justice. The one type of lawyer where this is clearly problematic is the prosecutor.
Ok but in any ither case a lawyer is hired by a client who has something to win. That's the job. Here no one has anything to win, it's just working to destroy an innocent life for absolutely no reason. Prosecutor's job is to to send innocent people to jail because it's fun.
How can one sleep at night after that? It's fucking horrifying.
And that country is so broken on so many respect it's frightening.
|
The big thing about Trump's messaging of the Jr story is that it coincidentally came very shortly after that meeting with Putin and only Putin's translator in the room with Trump. Then Trump dictates a statement that the meeting was about adoptions, and that the meeting with Putin had been about adoptions also.
Like there's smoke, and then there's a house literally on fire.
|
On August 02 2017 01:39 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2017 01:29 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 01:28 ShoCkeyy wrote:On August 02 2017 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 02 2017 01:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 01 2017 22:26 pmh wrote:That's law in the usa (and probably quiet a few other countries as well). Thx to scalia amongst others. When they know that someone is innocent but they also know that they are able to get a conviction from the jury they will proceed. Its a very technical and philosophical approach to law,any human element is being removed What kind of criminal psychopath woukd work to send someone to jail for over a decade while having a document proving the person is innocent?
This woman deserves hell and it is really utterly fucked up that this can legally happen. A lawyer. Lawyers are generally more concerned about winning than they are with justice. The one type of lawyer where this is clearly problematic is the prosecutor. Hey aren't you a lawyer? Yes, but my fault as a trial attorney is that I am prone to sometimes caring more about justice than winning. So maybe you could explain it to me because I must be understanding it wrong. On the suit section 18 says that a draft was sent that did NOT contain that information and then it followsup in 20 saying a few days later it was published by Zimmerman WITH the false quotes added in. That seems to imply that the version to Wheeler and the version published were not the same.
If you look further down past the introductory paragraphs (after the allegations of jurisdiction, venue, etc) you will see allegations stating that additional drafts were sent to Wheeler before the publication and that Wheeler told the journalists that he did not have time to read them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
