Wed/ Thurs Whitehouse Whims

[bowies]

Apparently WH can’t confirm the Flood hiring because he hasn’t been hired yet.

[sushi]

May 2, 2018 13:09:15 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

May 2, 2018 9:34:01 GMT -5 mbcdefg said:

Minnesota Lynx reportedly haven't received Trump's White House invite 7 months after winning WNBA championship

...

Even if every Lynx player was publicly interested in attending and received an invitation, a visit wouldn’t have been guaranteed. The Sparks weren’t able to make it after winning in 2016, so Obama instead sent a congratulatory letter instead. Such a message has yet to come from Trump.

Is he aware the WNBA is a thing?

Only if he can walk into their dressing room

[meshaliuknits]

May 2, 2018 13:14:22 GMT -5 sushi said:

May 2, 2018 13:09:15 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

Is he aware the WNBA is a thing?

Only if he can walk into their dressing room

[ESF]

I’m going to put up a wall of text lawsplainer because there’s a question that’s asked here nearly every day and I’m never want to answer it again, so I’m answering thoroughly for all eternity.

The answer to the question “can this [tweet, statement, action, etc] be used as evidence” is going to be yes. Evidence is evidence. There isn’t some magical thing that transforms a fact into “evidence.” All facts are evidence. As long as they aren’t violating fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments (like raiding a house to collect evidence without a search warrant), prosecutors can use just about anything they want to build a case or investigate a crime.

Whether the evidence actually gets admitted into a proceeding for a judge and/or jury to use in deciding an issue or determining someone’s guilt is a much different, much more complicated question. Sometimes one piece of evidence can be used by prosecutors to prove X but they can’t use it to prove Y.

For example, someone pleading the gift is evidence. You can use the fact that someone pled the fifth against them to show they could be civilly liable. But a prosecutor cannot say to a jury “look, he pled the fifth, what more evidence do you need that he’s guilty?” In other words, that’s a piece of evidence that can’t be used against him. Prosecutors can’t comment on someone pleading he fifth.

Whether a tweet is going to be admitted into evidence on any given proceeding for any given issue is not a question anyone can reliably answer with the info we know. The answer in most cases is “probably.”

[ESF]

May 2, 2018 12:35:00 GMT -5 Bernadine said:

May 2, 2018 12:30:28 GMT -5 bowies said:

If your specialty is impeachment and there’s one on the horizon, I imagine it’s pretty tough not to get involved. Even if the client is a lunatic.

I'd imagine there are also some lawyers who truly believe that everyone has the right to representation?

Meh I doubt it. Trump has millions of dollars. His problem in finding a lawyer is because he’s an unhinged criminal jackass who thinks he is above the law and uses lawyers to commit crimes. He may have a right to representation but he doesn’t have a right to use lawyers to commit crimes.

Even if the lawyer has no idea that his client is using him to commit crimes, the communications won’t be privileged and the lawyer could face bar sanctions and reputation damage. And they will likely have to hire their own attorney to deal with any criminal investigation into what they knew.

There are plenty of people with less money than Trump who need lawyers who wont cause you to lose your bar license. If they had a sense of duty, they can represent those people. The lawyers doing this are overconfident morons who underestimate the risks and overestimate their abilities to control the uncontrollable.

[Deleted]

May 2, 2018 13:26:42 GMT -5 ESF said:

May 2, 2018 12:35:00 GMT -5 Bernadine said:

I'd imagine there are also some lawyers who truly believe that everyone has the right to representation?

Meh I doubt it. Trump has millions of dollars. His problem in finding a lawyer is because he’s an unhinged criminal jackass who thinks he is above the law and uses lawyers to commit crimes. He may have a right to representation but he doesn’t have a right to use lawyers to commit crimes.

Even if the lawyer has no idea that his client is using him to commit crimes, the communications won’t be privileged and the lawyer could face bar sanctions and reputation damage. And they will likely have to hire their own attorney to deal with any criminal investigation into what they knew.

There are plenty of people with less money than Trump who need lawyers who wont cause you to lose your bar license. If they had a sense of duty, they can represent those people. The lawyers doing this are overconfident morons who underestimate the risks and overestimate their abilities to control the uncontrollable.

And despite having less money than Trump, they're more likely to actually pay their bills.

[pugz]

I find something strangely comforting about the groundhog day issues in these daily posts. When our country spirals out of control at least we have something consistent here 😂

[SwimDeep]

May 2, 2018 13:16:17 GMT -5 ESF said:

I’m going to put up a wall of text lawsplainer because there’s a question that’s asked here nearly every day and I’m never want to answer it again, so I’m answering thoroughly for all eternity.

The answer to the question “can this [tweet, statement, action, etc] be used as evidence” is going to be yes. Evidence is evidence. There isn’t some magical thing that transforms a fact into “evidence.” All facts are evidence. As long as they aren’t violating fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments (like raiding a house to collect evidence without a search warrant), prosecutors can use just about anything they want to build a case or investigate a crime.

Whether the evidence actually gets admitted into a proceeding for a judge and/or jury to use in deciding an issue or determining someone’s guilt is a much different, much more complicated question. Sometimes one piece of evidence can be used by prosecutors to prove X but they can’t use it to prove Y.

For example, someone pleading the gift is evidence. You can use the fact that someone pled the fifth against them to show they could be civilly liable. But a prosecutor cannot say to a jury “look, he pled the fifth, what more evidence do you need that he’s guilty?” In other words, that’s a piece of evidence that can’t be used against him. Prosecutors can’t comment on someone pleading he fifth.

Whether a tweet is going to be admitted into evidence on any given proceeding for any given issue is not a question anyone can reliably answer with the info we know. The answer in most cases is “probably.”

I love this answer, and I've learned a lot. ... But you know you're going to have to do this again at some point.

[pitta12]

OK, so you know how 45's propagandists keep saying that they gave missiles to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia and therefore they're the toughest on Russia ever?  NYT says that Ukraine stopped cooperating with investigations into Manafort coincidentally at that same time...

www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/world/europe/ukraine-mueller-manafort-missiles.html

The decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruption prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins.

The State Department issued an export license for the missiles on Dec. 22, and on March 2 the Pentagon announced final approval for the sale of 210 Javelins and 35 launching units. The order to halt investigations into Mr. Manafort came in early April.

In another move seeming to hinder Mr. Mueller’s investigation, Ukrainian law enforcement allowed a potential witness to possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to leave for Russia, putting him out of reach for questioning.

[ESF]

May 2, 2018 13:40:00 GMT -5 SwimDeep said:

May 2, 2018 13:16:17 GMT -5 ESF said:

I’m going to put up a wall of text lawsplainer because there’s a question that’s asked here nearly every day and I’m never want to answer it again, so I’m answering thoroughly for all eternity.

The answer to the question “can this [tweet, statement, action, etc] be used as evidence” is going to be yes. Evidence is evidence. There isn’t some magical thing that transforms a fact into “evidence.” All facts are evidence. As long as they aren’t violating fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments (like raiding a house to collect evidence without a search warrant), prosecutors can use just about anything they want to build a case or investigate a crime.

Whether the evidence actually gets admitted into a proceeding for a judge and/or jury to use in deciding an issue or determining someone’s guilt is a much different, much more complicated question. Sometimes one piece of evidence can be used by prosecutors to prove X but they can’t use it to prove Y.

For example, someone pleading the gift is evidence. You can use the fact that someone pled the fifth against them to show they could be civilly liable. But a prosecutor cannot say to a jury “look, he pled the fifth, what more evidence do you need that he’s guilty?” In other words, that’s a piece of evidence that can’t be used against him. Prosecutors can’t comment on someone pleading he fifth.

Whether a tweet is going to be admitted into evidence on any given proceeding for any given issue is not a question anyone can reliably answer with the info we know. The answer in most cases is “probably.”

I love this answer, and I've learned a lot. ... But you know you're going to have to do this again at some point.

I'm bookmarking this link to give to people in the future. Never typing it again!!!!!!!

[NewOrleans]

May 2, 2018 10:30:56 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

May 2, 2018 10:15:49 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

So is this thread now just a meme aggregator? Links to news stories and discussion make sense, but if I just want memes and charts posted with no source, I can check out my crazy uncle's Facebook page or track down fallbride.

It's like groundhogs day. We keep having the same conversations about this, and nothing changes.

Ha ha! I can’t see her shit anymore, but I know what you’re talking about anyway!  You’ve got to admire that kind of single-minded, give-no-fucks tenacity. 

[Vespasia]

May 2, 2018 13:41:34 GMT -5 ESF said:

May 2, 2018 13:40:00 GMT -5 SwimDeep said:

I love this answer, and I've learned a lot. ... But you know you're going to have to do this again at some point.

I'm bookmarking this link to give to people in the future. Never typing it again!!!!!!!

Perhaps you should tweet it or make it into a meme so it can get reposted here.  

[ESF]

May 2, 2018 13:44:17 GMT -5 Vespasia said:

May 2, 2018 13:41:34 GMT -5 ESF said:

I'm bookmarking this link to give to people in the future. Never typing it again!!!!!!!

Perhaps you should tweet it or make it into a meme so it can get reposted here.  

WINNER!

[jenny1980]

May 2, 2018 9:33:27 GMT -5 miniroller said:

Electoral map showing how the US would look if only millennials voted, bringing hope for the future (&, of course, encouraging registering).

Omg Ryan is a high school classmate and FB friend lol. Worlds colliding.

[elleblue]

May 2, 2018 13:12:59 GMT -5 bowies said:

Apparently WH can’t confirm the Flood hiring because he hasn’t been hired yet.

Omg. The incompetence. I'll die laughing if he doesn't come on board.

[biscoffcookies]

May 2, 2018 13:16:17 GMT -5 ESF said:

I’m going to put up a wall of text lawsplainer because there’s a question that’s asked here nearly every day and I’m never want to answer it again, so I’m answering thoroughly for all eternity.

The answer to the question “can this [tweet, statement, action, etc] be used as evidence” is going to be yes. Evidence is evidence. There isn’t some magical thing that transforms a fact into “evidence.” All facts are evidence. As long as they aren’t violating fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments (like raiding a house to collect evidence without a search warrant), prosecutors can use just about anything they want to build a case or investigate a crime.

Whether the evidence actually gets admitted into a proceeding for a judge and/or jury to use in deciding an issue or determining someone’s guilt is a much different, much more complicated question. Sometimes one piece of evidence can be used by prosecutors to prove X but they can’t use it to prove Y.

For example, someone pleading the gift is evidence. You can use the fact that someone pled the fifth against them to show they could be civilly liable. But a prosecutor cannot say to a jury “look, he pled the fifth, what more evidence do you need that he’s guilty?” In other words, that’s a piece of evidence that can’t be used against him. Prosecutors can’t comment on someone pleading he fifth.

Whether a tweet is going to be admitted into evidence on any given proceeding for any given issue is not a question anyone can reliably answer with the info we know. The answer in most cases is “probably.”

Preach.  Not to get all dorky with respect to the Federal Rules of Evidence and related principles over here, but especially for things like Tweets, you are going to have some issues with authentication and/or character evidence under 404 that will have to be resolved before it will get admitted.     

[sonrisa]

May 2, 2018 13:16:17 GMT -5 ESF said:

I’m going to put up a wall of text lawsplainer because there’s a question that’s asked here nearly every day and I’m never want to answer it again, so I’m answering thoroughly for all eternity.

...

Could you add an addendum here about hearsay? These tweets are all out of court statements. As such, they are less likely to be used in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted (absent an exception to hearsay) and more likely used to show something else - like the fact trump makes such statements.

(Example: let's say trump tweets that all mexicans are rapists. That wouldn't be used to prove all mexicans are rapists. But it might be used to prove that trump thinks such things, says such things, whatever).

[biscoffcookies]

May 2, 2018 14:02:56 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

May 2, 2018 13:16:17 GMT -5 ESF said:

I’m going to put up a wall of text lawsplainer because there’s a question that’s asked here nearly every day and I’m never want to answer it again, so I’m answering thoroughly for all eternity.

...

Could you add an addendum here about hearsay? These tweets are all out of court statements. As such, they are less likely to be used in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted (absent an exception to hearsay) and more likely used to show something else - like the fact trump makes such statements.

(Example: let's say trump tweets that all mexicans are rapists. That wouldn't be used to prove all mexicans are rapists. But it might be used to prove that trump thinks such things, says such things, whatever).

Unless something Trump tweets (or says) is offered by Mueller to prove his case of, say, obstruction, at which point it almost certainly comes in for the truth of the matter asserted as non-hearsay (rather than via a hearsay exception) as an admission by a party opponent. So, for example, let's say 45 is charged with obstruction, and Mueller wants to introduce a statement made by 45 where he said, "I fired Comey because I wanted the FBI to stop investigating Russia, and I thought if I fired Comey the investigation would stop."   That statement is going to be admitted for the truth of the matter -- i.e., that that was actually Trump's motivation -- because it was a statement made by the defendant and offered against him by the prosecution.

[Velar Fricative]

May 2, 2018 11:32:06 GMT -5 pitta12 said:

Ty Cobb is out, Emmet Flood is in.

www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/us/politics/emmet-flood-ty-cobb-white-house-lawyer-special-counsel.html?smid=pl-share

Maybe Ty Cobb can play some baseball with his new free time.

/rimshot. Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all day and night, every day and night.

[bex]

I don't think we need a hearsay lesson. LOL. I think the broader point was everything is likely "evidence" but there is a difference between what is evidence and what can be used in court and for what purpose.



I'm having law school flashbacks in this thread lol.

[elleblue]

So the Wall Street Journal is reporting today that Cambridge Analytica is shutting down (link) however that's not quite the whole story. Back in March Business Insider had a story about a new "secret" data company, Emerdata, being set up by the Cambridge Analytica power players.

Rebekah and Jennifer Mercer, daughters of hedge fund tycoon Robert Mercer, have just joined the board of a mysterious new company set up by executives at scandal-hit political research firm Cambridge Analytica.

According to public filings at Britain's Companies House, Emerdata was incorporated in August 2017 and the Mercers were appointed to its board on March 16 this year.

Cambridge Analytica's now-suspended chief executive, Alexander Nix, is also listed as a director, as is Julian Wheatland, chairman of Cambridge Analytica parent firm SCL Group.

link

[downtoearth]

May 2, 2018 11:43:39 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

So there may be some big fallout from the Dr Quack office raid the other day...beyond HIPPA violations, this was a theft/robbery

talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/the-bornstein-case-strikes-me-as-a-really-big-deal

Now, a couple other key points. The one running this encounter was Keith Schiller, the President’s longtime bodyguard. Schiller had a reputation for doing lots of unsavory things for the President. But during this incident, he was a government employee. He’d been given the job of “Director of Oval Office Operations” at the White House – basically a way for Trump to put his bodyguard on the payroll. That status puts his actions in a different light, possibly with different legal implications. Alan Garten, a Trump Organization attorney was also there. So was an unidentified “large man”. Who was he? Another government employee? Trump Organization muscle?

Finally, what was Schiller trying to accomplish by seizing the records? The raid came two days after Bornstein talked to The New York Times and told them about the President using Propecia, a hair growth drug. Bornstein claims discussing that was no big deal. That’s wrong. It may seem trivial. But it’s a medically prescribed drug. Whether or not Bornstein formally broke HIPAA regs, certainly he fell short of his ethical responsibilities to his patient.

----
The big story here is that the President sent a government employee, in some sense under cover of the law, at least carrying the force of the state behind him, to seize a private citizens property. That’s a big deal, considerably bigger than a small-time theft. It even brings into play issues that were raised in the Articles of Impeachment drawn up in the House of Representatives against President Nixon.

Didn't this happen in February?  The raid and taking of records?

[downtoearth]

Grrr... it's hard enough in our state to get a good Dem senator and then this... I mean, we already gave the US DOI Zinke and the hit-the-press-get-elected Gianforte to the house. but I am not losing the one Senator who is doing shit and working hard, especially for Veterans!

Trump's groups are going after him with money our state doesn't really have to counter...

GOP Groups Take Out Ads to Stoke Trump-Tester Feud

HELENA, Mont. — Republican groups are taking out attack ads against Sen. Jon Tester in an attempt to make good on President Donald Trump's pledge that the Montana Democrat will pay for scuttling his Department of Veterans Affairs nominee.

"Sen. Tester didn't even think twice before spreading unsubstantiated claims about a decorated veteran, just to please Chuck Schumer and his liberal party bosses in Washington," NRSC spokesman Calvin Moore said Tuesday.

Tester, who is the top Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, and Republican committee chairman Johnny Isakson of Georgia released a joint statement last week that Jackson's hearing would be indefinitely postponed. Tester's office then released a list of allegations against Jackson that included drunkenness, overprescribing medication and creating a hostile work environment.

Tester has said the allegations were made by more than two dozen people who've worked with Jackson. Tester said not investigating Jackson would have been a dereliction of duty and that he released the allegations for transparency.

www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/02/us/ap-us-trump-tester.html

[meshaliuknits]

May 2, 2018 13:16:17 GMT -5 ESF said:

I’m going to put up a wall of text lawsplainer because there’s a question that’s asked here nearly every day and I’m never want to answer it again, so I’m answering thoroughly for all eternity.

The answer to the question “can this [tweet, statement, action, etc] be used as evidence” is going to be yes. Evidence is evidence. There isn’t some magical thing that transforms a fact into “evidence.” All facts are evidence. As long as they aren’t violating fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments (like raiding a house to collect evidence without a search warrant), prosecutors can use just about anything they want to build a case or investigate a crime.

Whether the evidence actually gets admitted into a proceeding for a judge and/or jury to use in deciding an issue or determining someone’s guilt is a much different, much more complicated question. Sometimes one piece of evidence can be used by prosecutors to prove X but they can’t use it to prove Y.

For example, someone pleading the gift is evidence. You can use the fact that someone pled the fifth against them to show they could be civilly liable. But a prosecutor cannot say to a jury “look, he pled the fifth, what more evidence do you need that he’s guilty?” In other words, that’s a piece of evidence that can’t be used against him. Prosecutors can’t comment on someone pleading he fifth.

Whether a tweet is going to be admitted into evidence on any given proceeding for any given issue is not a question anyone can reliably answer with the info we know. The answer in most cases is “probably.”

OK, but what if Trump sent me a Thanks a latte card with "P.S. I have colluded with Russia, please don't tell anyone" written inside. Can that be used as evidence?

[jeaniebueller]

May 2, 2018 14:14:37 GMT -5 bex said:

I don't think we need a hearsay lesson. LOL. I think the broader point was everything is likely "evidence" but there is a difference between what is evidence and what can be used in court and for what purpose.



I'm having law school flashbacks in this thread lol.

Right? Stop it, people.

[downtoearth]

May 2, 2018 13:09:15 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

May 2, 2018 9:34:01 GMT -5 mbcdefg said:

Minnesota Lynx reportedly haven't received Trump's White House invite 7 months after winning WNBA championship

...

Even if every Lynx player was publicly interested in attending and received an invitation, a visit wouldn’t have been guaranteed. The Sparks weren’t able to make it after winning in 2016, so Obama instead sent a congratulatory letter instead. Such a message has yet to come from Trump.

Is he aware the WNBA is a thing?

Speaking of invites...sounds like after the initial flack, the WH is maybe inviting the Waffle-house hero (which is like the worst nickname ever... can't he just be James Shaw.

White House looking to set up Trump meeting with ‘hero’ in Waffle House shooting

www.politico.com/story/2018/05/01/trump-waffle-house-shooting-meeting-white-house-562585

Asked whether President Donald Trump had reached out to Shaw or had plans to invite him to the White House, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Tuesday referred to a potential meeting between him and Trump.

“My understanding is that there has been an outreach effort to bring him here to the White House, and I’ll keep you updated on that as I have more information,” Sanders told reporters during a White House press briefing.

Shaw did not respond to requests for comment.

[aurora]

May 2, 2018 13:41:00 GMT -5 pitta12 said:

OK, so you know how 45's propagandists keep saying that they gave missiles to Ukraine to defend itself against Russia and therefore they're the toughest on Russia ever?  NYT says that Ukraine stopped cooperating with investigations into Manafort coincidentally at that same time...

www.nytimes.com/2018/05/02/world/europe/ukraine-mueller-manafort-missiles.html

...

Seems totally normal.

[downtoearth]

May 2, 2018 13:49:00 GMT -5 ESF said:

May 2, 2018 13:44:17 GMT -5 Vespasia said:

Perhaps you should tweet it or make it into a meme so it can get reposted here. [img src=" 

WINNER!

I'll head over now ----------------------->

[litebright]

May 2, 2018 15:18:05 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

May 2, 2018 13:16:17 GMT -5 ESF said:

I’m going to put up a wall of text lawsplainer because there’s a question that’s asked here nearly every day and I’m never want to answer it again, so I’m answering thoroughly for all eternity.

The answer to the question “can this [tweet, statement, action, etc] be used as evidence” is going to be yes. Evidence is evidence. There isn’t some magical thing that transforms a fact into “evidence.” All facts are evidence. As long as they aren’t violating fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments (like raiding a house to collect evidence without a search warrant), prosecutors can use just about anything they want to build a case or investigate a crime.

Whether the evidence actually gets admitted into a proceeding for a judge and/or jury to use in deciding an issue or determining someone’s guilt is a much different, much more complicated question. Sometimes one piece of evidence can be used by prosecutors to prove X but they can’t use it to prove Y.

For example, someone pleading the gift is evidence. You can use the fact that someone pled the fifth against them to show they could be civilly liable. But a prosecutor cannot say to a jury “look, he pled the fifth, what more evidence do you need that he’s guilty?” In other words, that’s a piece of evidence that can’t be used against him. Prosecutors can’t comment on someone pleading he fifth.

Whether a tweet is going to be admitted into evidence on any given proceeding for any given issue is not a question anyone can reliably answer with the info we know. The answer in most cases is “probably.”

OK, but what if Trump sent me a Thanks a latte card with "P.S. I have colluded with Russia, please don't tell anyone" written inside. Can that be used as evidence?

Trying, trying ...

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[MrsAxilla]

May 2, 2018 14:14:37 GMT -5 bex said:

I don't think we need a hearsay lesson. LOL. I think the broader point was everything is likely "evidence" but there is a difference between what is evidence and what can be used in court and for what purpose.



I'm having law school flashbacks in this thread lol.

I unexpectedly rocked at evidence and criminal procedure. Sadly I've only retained the basics.