Impeachment, Take Two (and Other Trump News)

[Regina Minx]

I distinctly remember reading about this weeks ago - I think the 'new' aspect is that CNN et al. have an actual recording instead of a transcript now.

Yeah, this was in the indictment they released before the arraignment. A lawyer buddy of mine remarked, and I quote, "That feels like a nightmare. Like, not metaphorically. "In my dream, I was the ex-President, yet I was waving around classified documents that I had not declassified, that I had no right to hold, and that would get me in trouble if I still had them." That sounds and feels like a nightmare I would have."

[Laughing Hyena]

Not a call, just a recording by people Mark Miller's ghostwriter who were doing research for his book.

My error on saying it was a call. It is indeed an audio tape. Still my sarcasm about moving the goal posts with an AI voice over might be the next excuse to pardon him.

[TheGlyphstone]

Apparently they're not arguing that it's fake, they are arguing that it proves he is innocent.

No, I don't get it either.

[Sara Nilsson]

Apparently they're not arguing that it's fake, they are arguing that it proves he is innocent.

No, I don't get it either.

They havent used logic before why start now?

[Oniya]

The grand jury for the 2020 election interference case has returned an indictment.

Trump has been ordered to appear in Washington, D.C., federal court at 4 p.m., Thursday to face charges in the new indictment, according to the office of special counsel Jack Smith.

[Keelan]

So the Fulton County (Georgia, USA) Superior Court may have pre-emptively posted the docket sheet relating to the indictment of Donald Trump... while the Grand Jury Testimony remans ongoing, and while the DA indicates no charges have been filed.

Like seriously, today was the first day of testimony.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-state-georgia-appears-set-file-charges-against-donald-trump-court-document-2023-08-14/

[TheGlyphstone]

Is anyone else semantically bothered by his continual incorrect use of the phrase 'witch hunt'? Even if he is/was right about the investigations being politically motivated, that would be a Kangaroo court, not a witch hunt. A witch hunt is when you have a confirmed crime/incident and you're looking for someone/anyone to pin the blame on - the complete inverse of having someone you want guilty and hunting for a crime to pin on them.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Trump has never been know for his accuracy in the words he uses and his descriptive abilities and from all I can remember he has always had a "poor me" attitude when caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[TheVillain]

Is anyone else semantically bothered by his continual incorrect use of the phrase 'witch hunt'? Even if he is/was right about the investigations being politically motivated, that would be a Kangaroo court, not a witch hunt. A witch hunt is when you have a confirmed crime/incident and you're looking for someone/anyone to pin the blame on - the complete inverse of having someone you want guilty and hunting for a crime to pin on them.

I thought "Witch Hunt" was when there was no actual crime and the community just wants a scapegoat for general troubles while a "Kangaroo Court" is when a crime did happen but either the crime itself was minor and the proceedings are wildly out of proportion and/or the evidence against the defendent was lacking.

Your point still stands, just picking a point for clarification.

[TheGlyphstone]

I thought "Witch Hunt" was when there was no actual crime and the community just wants a scapegoat for general troubles while a "Kangaroo Court" is when a crime did happen but either the crime itself was minor and the proceedings are wildly out of proportion and/or the evidence against the defendent was lacking.

Your point still stands, just picking a point for clarification.

Valid - thats why I said crime/incident; something generally happens to set off the hunt, even if it isn't specifically criminal in nature.

[Oniya]

As someone with ties by marriage to New England, and a couple of near-relations on that side living in/near Salem (and thus, getting all of the local skinny that never seems to make it into popular culture) - in general, the witch hunts did involve targets that people 'wanted to pin something on'.  There's a distinct geographical split between the accusers (on the west side of the Village) and the accused (east side of the Village), as well as an economic split (agriculturists on the west, merchants and traders on the east)

'The Crucible', which is the source most people are familiar with, was more about McCarthyism than history.

The fact that Trump's protestations of innocence are directly contradicted by actual wrongful acts makes the comparison to an outbreak of hysterical accusations of legitimately innocent individuals more offensive.

[Keelan]

witch hunt
noun
1
: a searching out for persecution of persons accused of witchcraft
2
: the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (such as political opponents) with unpopular views

kangaroo court
noun
1
: a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted
2
: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures

Seems to me he's using witch hunt correctly, BUT in some instances it would be appropriate for him to refer to things as a kangaroo court. However by the definitions, there seems little reason that a kangaroo court could not also be participating in a witch hunt.

That said, as much as people like to dunk on Trump for being dumb, how many more people in the US are not only more familiar with the term 'witch hunt' - regardless of technical accuracy on specifics - than they are 'kangaroo court'? Likewise, how much easier do you think it is to imagine a witch hunt in your head than a kangaroo court?

[TheGlyphstone]

Most of them. I think your average American citizen, let alone your average Trump voter, would think a 'kangaroo court' had something to do with the Australian legal system.

[Beorning]

... I admit I have trouble picturing a kangaroo court in my head, either...

*ducks*

[Oniya]

Without making a Google dive, I seem to recall that the term originally referred to the specific practice of a legal proceeding where the verdict was decided on prior to any evidence being presented (the verdict therefore 'carrying' the evidence in the manner of a kangaroo with a joey in her pouch.)

[Keelan]

... I admit I have trouble picturing a kangaroo court in my head, either...

*ducks*

Don't worry, that was kind of my point actually. That and the first part of Glyph's statement (I'm going to ignore the second part).

'Witch hunt' is more invocative whether or not you understand the specifics of the term or not compared to 'kangaroo court', and it's also the more familiar term of the two. Trump's not trying to convey a 'technically correct' statement; he's trying to sell an idea, the idea that he's a victim of persecution. I'd argue 'witch hunt' does a FAR better job of that than 'kangaroo court' would for the two aforementioned reasons, even if he's not using it TECHNICALLY correctly.

[Oniya]

Considering that a later Google-dive did produce a lot of results clarifying that the term had nothing to do with Australia (and possibly originated in Texas), and that the word might have referred to claim 'jumpers' or judges that 'hopped' from one place to another to clear as many cases as possible regardless of procedure/protocol, Glyph might have been onto something.

[TheGlyphstone]

Don't worry, that was kind of my point actually. That and the first part of Glyph's statement (I'm going to ignore the second part).

'Witch hunt' is more invocative whether or not you understand the specifics of the term or not compared to 'kangaroo court', and it's also the more familiar term of the two. Trump's not trying to convey a 'technically correct' statement; he's trying to sell an idea, the idea that he's a victim of persecution. I'd argue 'witch hunt' does a FAR better job of that than 'kangaroo court' would for the two aforementioned reasons, even if he's not using it TECHNICALLY correctly.

There's a very good reason I opened this whole thing with *Semantically*. I know why he's doing it, that was never in question.

[Beorning]

I must admit that it's satisfying to see that not only Trump was indicted in Georgia yesterday. But also people like Sydney Powell... ugh, what a foolish person she is.

[Beorning]

I have a question about Trump's upcoming arrest in Georgia:

So far, there were three arrests for three cases. In each case, Trump was released - and proceeded to badmouth and make threats against the prosecutors and judges involved. He made appeals to his supporters to fight for him. He even engaged in what at least some observers consider a blatant witness tampering. Basically, he's out of control and openly tries to disrupt the judicial process.

So, with that in mind...

... what is the chance of the judge in the Georgia case *declining* to release Trump? There's no reason to believe that, in the Georgia case, he's going to behave any different as in the other cases. So, shouldn't the judge, in the name of keeping him from disrupting him this trial, just say: "Sorry, you've have proven you cannot stick to any release conditions. You're going to wait for your trial in jail"?

[TheGlyphstone]

Zero. Nothing he has said or done is actually illegal, unless a judge has put a gag order on the case for some reason.

[Keelan]

Zero. Nothing he has said or done is actually illegal, unless a judge has put a gag order on the case for some reason.

The other lockup reason is flight risk, which to be blunt he's surrounded 24/7 by Secret Service so that wouldn't work either.

[Regina Minx]

I've heard, but cannot confirm and I am not a lawyer so take with a grain of salt, that in Georgia pre-trial release is different than in the federal courts where he's been arraigned thus far. In Georgia, the burden of proof is on the defendant to argue as to why they should not be detained pre-trial, as opposed to the government needing to argue for pre-trial detention in federal court. I'm not saying this pushes the chance much higher towards seeing him in jail before trial, just that he's going to have to argue why he shouldn't be. Georgia may also decide to put on more strict terms of release than he's gotten federally...he might he asked to surrender his passport and/or submit to electronic monitoring through an ankle bracelet.

[Beorning]

Zero. Nothing he has said or done is actually illegal, unless a judge has put a gag order on the case for some reason.

I don't get it. Making threats like "If you come for me, I will come for you" is not illegal? Publicly declaring that a specific witness shouldn't testify is not illegal? I don't get it 

[Kurogane]

I don't get it. Making threats like "If you come for me, I will come for you" is not illegal? Publicly declaring that a specific witness shouldn't testify is not illegal? I don't get it 

There are unearned privileges awarded certain members of our society. Sad but true.