|
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 February 20 2018 05:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 05:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2018 04:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Holy fuck...
This is easily one of the most disrespectful responses to a school shooting I've ever seen. Might as well take a golden shower on the coffins too. Yeah but it'll piss off them liberals. Don't you know his voters love libtard tears? What better way than to find that sweet sweet nectar than to laugh over the graves of dead children?
Also, shouldn't this piss off religious people? I thought that prayers were for God, not for Trump.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Old map.
New map.
Obviously this new map looks absurd, everyone knows voting-districts should be drawn to reflect the border-style of Afghanistan, so the Republicans legislators are going to sue the Republican judges.
|
I read that the new map results in 8 Dem seats, 1 tossup and 9 Republican seats. That seems fairly reasonable to me.
Will be interesting how the Republicans try to argue this in federal court. They had to do some pretty creative lawyering to try and get the case in front of SCOTUS before, since the State Supreme Court is the final say on the state constitutions and all..
|
And the Supreme Court likes to send things back to the state courts when it can, so I'm not sure it's anything but a talking-point protest. I can't imagine the Supreme Court overruling a state SC just to inflict these Kafka district-borders on Pennsylvania.
|
This picture made my day, the total weirdness of the situation and Trumps painful smile is hilarious. Wtf is going on these days...
Don't prayers generally go to the divine being of your choosing instead of a politician though? What is Trump supposed to do with them?
edit: apparently this picture is from months ago, since the trees are still green. But Mike Bost decided to post it on FB after the shooting for some reason which makes it even more confusing.
|
Well Trump is in Florida...
President Donald Trump supports laws to strengthen the background check system for gun purchases in the wake of the Parkland, Florida high school shooting that killed 17, the White House announced on Monday.
“The President spoke to Senator [John] Cornyn on Friday about the bi-partisan bill he and Sen. [Chris] Murphy introduced to improve Federal Compliance with Criminal Background check Legislation,” press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. “While discussions are ongoing and revisions are being considered, the President is supportive of efforts to improve the Federal background check system.”
An aide to Cornyn confirmed the president had spoken to the senator about the bill, which has the support of both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer.
“It’s clear the president is interested in getting something done,” the aide said.
This is the latest push for gun legislation in Trump’s tenure. The first came after a shooter in Las Vegas killed 58 people in October. There was bipartisan outcry and calls to more stringently regulate bump stocks, which the shooter used to increase his rate of fire, but the effort went nowhere.
In the wake of the Parkland shooting, there has been a renewed call for legislative action, with students who survived the massacre calling on Congress to act and planning a march in Washington to demand action.
The gun legislation Trump signaled his support for, spearheaded by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), aims to enhance state and federal record-sharing with the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The measure enjoys broad support on both sides of the aisle, but Murphy noted Monday that even though Trump’s thumbs-up is significant, “no one should pretend this bill alone is an adequate response to this epidemic.”
Source
|
On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: Show nested quote +On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out.
Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc.
|
On February 20 2018 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 05:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 20 2018 05:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is easily one of the most disrespectful responses to a school shooting I've ever seen. Might as well take a golden shower on the coffins too. Yeah but it'll piss off them liberals. Don't you know his voters love libtard tears? What better way than to find that sweet sweet nectar than to laugh over the graves of dead children? Also, shouldn't this piss off religious people? I thought that prayers were for God, not for Trump.
Pretty sure trump is their god-king. I would not be surprised if by the time his term is over or he's impeaced if I were to see at least a few priests and pastors literally kneel in front of him and kiss his shoes.
|
On February 20 2018 10:05 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2018 05:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 20 2018 05:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is easily one of the most disrespectful responses to a school shooting I've ever seen. Might as well take a golden shower on the coffins too. Yeah but it'll piss off them liberals. Don't you know his voters love libtard tears? What better way than to find that sweet sweet nectar than to laugh over the graves of dead children? Also, shouldn't this piss off religious people? I thought that prayers were for God, not for Trump. Pretty sure trump is their god-king. I would not be surprised if by the time his term is over or he's impeaced if I were to see at least a few priests and pastors literally kneel in front of him and kiss his shoes.
It will always boggle my mind how a man who said he never asked for forgiveness from God for his sins (a critical, if not the most important part of Christianity by the way) managed to rally all the Evangelicals behind him.
|
On February 20 2018 10:14 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 10:05 hunts wrote:On February 20 2018 07:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2018 05:21 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 20 2018 05:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:This is easily one of the most disrespectful responses to a school shooting I've ever seen. Might as well take a golden shower on the coffins too. Yeah but it'll piss off them liberals. Don't you know his voters love libtard tears? What better way than to find that sweet sweet nectar than to laugh over the graves of dead children? Also, shouldn't this piss off religious people? I thought that prayers were for God, not for Trump. Pretty sure trump is their god-king. I would not be surprised if by the time his term is over or he's impeaced if I were to see at least a few priests and pastors literally kneel in front of him and kiss his shoes. It will always boggle my mind how a man who said he never asked for forgiveness from God for his sins (a critical, if not the most important part of Christianity by the way) managed to rally all the Evangelicals behind him.
I think it was a mixture of religious people having rabid levels of tribalism for republicans, and trump saying he was for family values and against abortions and such. I doubt any of them have heard of or believe about all of his adultery or other things that are against the bible. Or maybe most christians do those things themselves and so they don't really care.
|
On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc.
Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person?
What. A. Fucking. List.
Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc!
David La Clarke!
Wayne La Pierre!
Nigel Fucking Farage!
|
On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage!
It's like a who's who of shitty right wing screwballs.
|
On February 20 2018 10:27 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage! It's like a who's who of shitty right wing screwballs.
Globally-speaking. And headlined by the POTUS and VP. I shudder.
|
On February 20 2018 10:29 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 10:27 Gahlo wrote:On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage! It's like a who's who of shitty right wing screwballs. Globally-speaking. And headlined by the POTUS and VP. I shudder.
Psh needs more Alex Jones and Milo! /s
|
On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage!
Everyone knows I want to know who on that list is a 'principled conservative' and who is a CINO/RINO according to people that call themselves conservatives or think that the Conservative Political Action Conference is for conservatives.
Ted Cruz is an easy one for intro, but I don't think I see any noted principled US conservatives according to the conservatives here besides Cruz at their biggest (I think conservatives agree on this) event of the year?
I can empathize with an event that's supposed to represent you explicitly putting people you don't even want to be associated with, let alone agree with, out on stage as notable influencers/representatives for you.
|
I like the conservative now means literally anyone from any country that agrees with me. Minority in their own countries. Majority are their invite only parties.
|
On February 20 2018 10:29 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2018 10:27 Gahlo wrote:On February 20 2018 10:25 Leporello wrote:On February 20 2018 09:40 Doodsmack wrote:On February 20 2018 06:01 xDaunt wrote:The curious case of Michael Flynn just got more interesting: On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
....
To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.” Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to “forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.” On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.
....
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment “includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.” Source. So here's what this means for the non-attorneys out there. Judge Sullivan, when he took over the case, ordered Mueller to produce all exculpatory information in his possession to Flynn's attorneys or, in the alternative, to produce such material to the court for Judge Sullivan to look at it first (in camera review). Apparently Judge Sullivan has looked at some material and is ordering that it be produced to Flynn's attorneys subject to a protective order. The protective order means that Flynn's attorneys will have to keep it confidential (ie we won't get to see what was produced). The general stink here is that Mueller and the FBI withheld exculpatory evidence from Flynn's team when negotiating the plea deal, which may result in Flynn having his guilty plea thrown out. Don't see any place where it says the judge looked at some of the material. This judge makes this order in every criminal case he has. And there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that withholding exculpatory evidence in plea negotiations is unusual. These pieces are simply meant to cast general doubt on Mueller's team based mainly on the coverage generated by the memo and the text messages etc. Well, obviously you are not a lawyer, because every ambulance-chaser knows... well, I don't know. I unfortunately am unable to preface all my posts and opinions with a generically meaningless signal of authority. It is good the internet has lawyers, because why should I trust this Robert Mueller person? https://twitter.com/yashar/status/965715128170754048What. A. Fucking. List. Marie Le Pen! Russia's favorite Franc! David La Clarke! Wayne La Pierre! Nigel Fucking Farage! It's like a who's who of shitty right wing screwballs. Globally-speaking. And headlined by the POTUS and VP. I shudder.
Of course, it's the chaff of the wheat.
|
On February 20 2018 10:58 Plansix wrote:
I like the conservative now means literally anyone from any country that agrees with me. Minority in their own countries. Majority are their invite only parties.
In fairness Bill Kristol was basically welcomed to the #Resistance as a principled conservative, and Kissinger courted by the Democratic candidate instead of both of them being permanently shamed warmongers (though Kissinger is notably worse).
The Democratic Nominee also hired the Republican (when he did it) that smeared Anita Hill as "nutty" and "slutty" and basically gave us Justice Thomas, to head up her online campaign and avoided campaign finance laws under the guise that it's fine for SuperPACs to coordinate with the campaign.
It's a weird time in politics.
|
Pretty good read in general, here's some parts from it.
The Russian attempt at long-distance choreography was playing out in many cities across the United States. Facebook has disclosed that about 130 rallies were promoted by 13 of the Russian pages, which reached 126 million Americans with provocative content on race, guns, immigration and other volatile issues.
“We are looking for friendship because we are fighting for the same reasons,” someone purporting to be with an online group calling itself Blacktivist wrote via Twitter to the Rev. Dr. Heber Brown III, a Baltimore pastor, in April 2016. “Actually we are open for your thoughts and offers.”
But Mr. Mueller’s indictment repeatedly states that the Russian operation was designed not just to provoke division among Americans but also to denigrate Hillary Clinton and support her rivals, mainly Mr. Trump. The hashtags the Russian operation used included #Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA and #Hillary4Prison, and one Russian operative was reprimanded for “a low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton,” the indictment says.
While most of the Americans duped by the Russian trolls were not public figures, some higher-profile people were fooled. The indictment mentions the Russian Twitter feed @TEN_GOP, which posed as a Tennessee Republican account and attracted more than 100,000 followers. It was retweeted by Donald Trump Jr.; Kellyanne Conway, the president’s counselor; Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser; and his son, Michael Flynn Jr.
They have expressed no regret that they were apparently taken in by the Russian operatives. Instead, since Friday’s indictment, Donald Trump Jr., like his father, has pointed mainly to the fact that it did not accuse the president or his associates of assisting the Russian operation.
Source
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/us/politics/russian-operatives-facebook-twitter.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
|
On February 20 2018 11:57 hunts wrote:Pretty good read in general, here's some parts from it. Show nested quote +The Russian attempt at long-distance choreography was playing out in many cities across the United States. Facebook has disclosed that about 130 rallies were promoted by 13 of the Russian pages, which reached 126 million Americans with provocative content on race, guns, immigration and other volatile issues.
“We are looking for friendship because we are fighting for the same reasons,” someone purporting to be with an online group calling itself Blacktivist wrote via Twitter to the Rev. Dr. Heber Brown III, a Baltimore pastor, in April 2016. “Actually we are open for your thoughts and offers.”
But Mr. Mueller’s indictment repeatedly states that the Russian operation was designed not just to provoke division among Americans but also to denigrate Hillary Clinton and support her rivals, mainly Mr. Trump. The hashtags the Russian operation used included #Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA and #Hillary4Prison, and one Russian operative was reprimanded for “a low number of posts dedicated to criticizing Hillary Clinton,” the indictment says.
While most of the Americans duped by the Russian trolls were not public figures, some higher-profile people were fooled. The indictment mentions the Russian Twitter feed @TEN_GOP, which posed as a Tennessee Republican account and attracted more than 100,000 followers. It was retweeted by Donald Trump Jr.; Kellyanne Conway, the president’s counselor; Michael T. Flynn, the former national security adviser; and his son, Michael Flynn Jr.
They have expressed no regret that they were apparently taken in by the Russian operatives. Instead, since Friday’s indictment, Donald Trump Jr., like his father, has pointed mainly to the fact that it did not accuse the president or his associates of assisting the Russian operation.
Source https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/18/us/politics/russian-operatives-facebook-twitter.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur
That's mostly a rehash of the same stuff that's already been put out.
Some of the funnier stuff is still in there, like citing their most prolific account on the left being shut down for trying to start a rally in Baltimore.
They recycled the single "both sides" protest they actually 'saw' materialize cited by P6 alongside the "thousands attend..." propaganda, even toplined the photo with a caption that conveniently leaves out the update to that story about how the left side of that protest said they were organizing themselves against assholes they know in the community.
To their credit they at least slipped in this 'modest' concession:
Facebook said some 338,300 people saw the announcements of rallies promoted by the bogus pages — and 62,500 said they planned to attend one. Those numbers are modest against the background of the entire presidential campaign
Remembering that the two major examples (one curiously absent from this telling, though clearly counting it's "planning on attending" numbers) were the "Thousands Rally" propaganda and the "dozens" at one event. No other evidence of any other rallies organized and attended of any significance.
I'd say you're better off reading the indictment if you want to know what's in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWbXVs9VAAE2Fjq.jpg:large)
