I believe Ron White had it best when he said "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability." John Eastman's conviction doesn't need any other evidence than his Fox interviews. I'm going to be mildly entertained to see how his lawyers try to get that dismissed.
I asked lawyer who had just successfully defended my friend what would he say if I told him that I just killed someone. He said, and I quote "How much money do you have? An did anybody see you?"
> He wrote, “The Senate and House have both violated the Electoral Count Act this evening – they debated the Arizona objections for more than two hours.” Guess that means “the Electoral Count Act is not quite so sacrosanct as was previously claimed,” he said.
(a) It means that the Electoral Count Act is a law like any other. People can violate it if they choose, **and* *face* *the* *consequences.**
(b) IMHO, the far more serious violation was debating the Arizona objections in the first place. They are only supposed to debate which slate of purportedly valid electors to use, if a state has submitted more than one. *WHICH NONE OF THEM DID.*
Among other reasons, I read Wonkette for the correct use of all-caps, as in yelling at Eastman about the cause of the two hour debate of the Arizona electors slate.
After all this has been sorted out, and they write the definitive history of this event, John Oliver is going to be swimming in dough, because the only name they can possibly use for this is "Stupid Watergate".
The true believers are the worst. Yeah, Mitch put a fuckload of right wing shit heads on the bench, but they all went to law school, and some of them had valid legal experience outside some corporate boardroom before being nominated. Those are the ones who suddenly realize, "I'm here for life. I'll have a legacy. It doesn't just have to be 'Trump Appointed Judge'."
It took me a while, but I finally figured out who he reminded me of in that clip: the animated version of Don Knotts in the film 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘔𝘳. 𝘓𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵.
That's pretty much the strategy they follow on everything, including the "election fraud". Talk it up on TV, promise on TV that you have lots of evidence, then when you're under oath and a judge asks you if you have any evidence, you shrug and say, "No, your honor. But we should win anyway."
And Fani Willis does not have to prove that they either implicitly or explicitly knew their claims were bullshite because IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
My hypothesis to explain this behavior is that people like this are so used to getting on TV, spouting fabulist bullshit, and never getting called on it, that they just reflexively go there again, seemingly unaware that a criminal indictment completely changes their legal landscape.
I am ANAL -- what, that didnt' come out right, but I am not a lawyer -- but my understanding is that Rules Number 1, 2, and 3 for a criminal defendant are (a) SHUT UP, (2) SHUT UP, and (III) SHUT UP.
Rules 1, 2 and 3 for a criminal defense lawyer are (1) make sure your client can pay you, (2) order your client not to talk about the case and (3) get paid.
We all know that he doesn't believe what he was proposing was legal. We all know he would never have raised the idea if Trump had carried those swing states.
The sooner he's disbarred, the harder it will be for anyone, including MAGA scum, to assert that what he was proposing was legal.
MAGA scum will never find it difficult to claim their god-king's plans were legal. I mean, he was the president. So anything he did was legal per the constitution, or something similar.
Am I not able to make an observation without you assuming said observation is directing my behavior, or that I'm using that observation to tell others what to do?
I went to an Ivy partially because of a certain rockstar astronomer and wanted to major in planetary astronomy, even though they didn't have an astronomy major at the time - you'd have to pick either physics or mathematics. That particular rockstar taught a class in the spring that was Astro for Poets, as opposed to Geology 102, aka Rocks for Jocks. Even though I was taking the tougher courses, I would meet up with a couple of friends who were taking the course and listen to him lecture. He was really good. I know that he wasn't held in high esteem by his colleagues, a lot of which was sheer jealousy.
At my small liberal arts college I took "Rocks for Jocks" with PhD in Geology who also happened to be the football coach. Great class, lots of field trips to see the rocks in their natural habitat.
Not everyone is going to be a scientist. I just want to shout out my appreciation to all those scientists who teach introductory courses to first-years on plants and birds and rocks and things who may teach these young folks to look up, look down, or look outward for the rest of their lives.
I’m a lawyer who was represented by a well-known NY criminal defense firm. (Subject of a grand jury but, justifiably, never indicted.) I followed my lawyer’s advice, even when he told me to plead the Fifth on one occasion. His reasoning was that he hadn’t had time to prepare me, and even though I thought I had done nothing wrong, he wouldn’t know until he had had time to interrogate me. He wasn’t just worried about whether I would inadvertently confess something; he also wanted to make sure that my recollection matched the documentary record. We laugh at Eastman, but from the perspective of the established white collar defense bar, his behavior is insanely outside the norm.
I believe Ron White had it best when he said "I had the right to remain silent, but not the ability." John Eastman's conviction doesn't need any other evidence than his Fox interviews. I'm going to be mildly entertained to see how his lawyers try to get that dismissed.
No wonder he’s being disbarred. He’s a terrible lawyer.
Not any more. The school kicked him to the curb.
Not sure if you can be a law professor if you’ve been disbarred.
I asked lawyer who had just successfully defended my friend what would he say if I told him that I just killed someone. He said, and I quote "How much money do you have? An did anybody see you?"
all these weirdos in PAB's orbit don't know when to shut up. perhaps one of the reasons they got hired?
They also have no problem telling TFG exactly what he wants to hear and finding ways to do what he wants even when it is illegal.
> He wrote, “The Senate and House have both violated the Electoral Count Act this evening – they debated the Arizona objections for more than two hours.” Guess that means “the Electoral Count Act is not quite so sacrosanct as was previously claimed,” he said.
(a) It means that the Electoral Count Act is a law like any other. People can violate it if they choose, **and* *face* *the* *consequences.**
(b) IMHO, the far more serious violation was debating the Arizona objections in the first place. They are only supposed to debate which slate of purportedly valid electors to use, if a state has submitted more than one. *WHICH NONE OF THEM DID.*
Among other reasons, I read Wonkette for the correct use of all-caps, as in yelling at Eastman about the cause of the two hour debate of the Arizona electors slate.
A good example of the perils of relying on an echo-chamber, populated by YES MEN who tell you only what you want to hear.
After all this has been sorted out, and they write the definitive history of this event, John Oliver is going to be swimming in dough, because the only name they can possibly use for this is "Stupid Watergate".
And drunks CF Roodles.
Talking traitors, a nice info sheet on "Who's the J6 Nicest Judge of All".
https://twitter.com/AlisonR61423986/status/1697291180235432018
The true believers are the worst. Yeah, Mitch put a fuckload of right wing shit heads on the bench, but they all went to law school, and some of them had valid legal experience outside some corporate boardroom before being nominated. Those are the ones who suddenly realize, "I'm here for life. I'll have a legacy. It doesn't just have to be 'Trump Appointed Judge'."
If we lawyers can't tell our clients how to break the law, why even have lawyers????
It took me a while, but I finally figured out who he reminded me of in that clip: the animated version of Don Knotts in the film 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘔𝘳. 𝘓𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵.
https://doyouremember.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/MCDINMR_EC003-2048x1504.jpg
Pretty chatty guy for someone who pled the Fifth a gazillion times when questioned by people who matter. These people are shit.
That's pretty much the strategy they follow on everything, including the "election fraud". Talk it up on TV, promise on TV that you have lots of evidence, then when you're under oath and a judge asks you if you have any evidence, you shrug and say, "No, your honor. But we should win anyway."
And Fani Willis does not have to prove that they either implicitly or explicitly knew their claims were bullshite because IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NOT AN EXCUSE.
Specially....since dude's a (checks notes) Constitutional Lawyer for a living.
My hypothesis to explain this behavior is that people like this are so used to getting on TV, spouting fabulist bullshit, and never getting called on it, that they just reflexively go there again, seemingly unaware that a criminal indictment completely changes their legal landscape.
I am ANAL -- what, that didnt' come out right, but I am not a lawyer -- but my understanding is that Rules Number 1, 2, and 3 for a criminal defendant are (a) SHUT UP, (2) SHUT UP, and (III) SHUT UP.
The Latin term for (III) is: SHUT UP! SHUT UP! FOR GOD'S SAKE, SHUT THE FUCK UP!
Rules 1, 2 and 3 for a criminal defense lawyer are (1) make sure your client can pay you, (2) order your client not to talk about the case and (3) get paid.
Would not surprise me at all if many of the big fish in the 19 are counting on the Roberts Supreme Court to overturn all the convictions.
The mild, innoccuous face of fascism.
We all know that he doesn't believe what he was proposing was legal. We all know he would never have raised the idea if Trump had carried those swing states.
The sooner he's disbarred, the harder it will be for anyone, including MAGA scum, to assert that what he was proposing was legal.
MAGA scum will never find it difficult to claim their god-king's plans were legal. I mean, he was the president. So anything he did was legal per the constitution, or something similar.
Well, some MAGA scum, but not all. And no one else.
Waitaminute waitaminute, need to check...oh, Pres at the time was Republican, yup checks out.
Carry on.
Am I not able to make an observation without you assuming said observation is directing my behavior, or that I'm using that observation to tell others what to do?
And yet Ingraham still found a way to make his confession into a furtherance of the stolen election narrative.
That's my former student! Always a clever one, that Laura.
She must have thought that she was taking a class in astrology.
She actually took an astronomy class?
Without confirming or denying, a lot of people take astronomy for their science distrib.
I went to an Ivy partially because of a certain rockstar astronomer and wanted to major in planetary astronomy, even though they didn't have an astronomy major at the time - you'd have to pick either physics or mathematics. That particular rockstar taught a class in the spring that was Astro for Poets, as opposed to Geology 102, aka Rocks for Jocks. Even though I was taking the tougher courses, I would meet up with a couple of friends who were taking the course and listen to him lecture. He was really good. I know that he wasn't held in high esteem by his colleagues, a lot of which was sheer jealousy.
At my small liberal arts college I took "Rocks for Jocks" with PhD in Geology who also happened to be the football coach. Great class, lots of field trips to see the rocks in their natural habitat.
Not everyone is going to be a scientist. I just want to shout out my appreciation to all those scientists who teach introductory courses to first-years on plants and birds and rocks and things who may teach these young folks to look up, look down, or look outward for the rest of their lives.
Question for the lawyers out there... do lawyers have a tendency to ignore legal advice from *their* lawyers?
Asking for a talkative accused felon.
I’m a lawyer who was represented by a well-known NY criminal defense firm. (Subject of a grand jury but, justifiably, never indicted.) I followed my lawyer’s advice, even when he told me to plead the Fifth on one occasion. His reasoning was that he hadn’t had time to prepare me, and even though I thought I had done nothing wrong, he wouldn’t know until he had had time to interrogate me. He wasn’t just worried about whether I would inadvertently confess something; he also wanted to make sure that my recollection matched the documentary record. We laugh at Eastman, but from the perspective of the established white collar defense bar, his behavior is insanely outside the norm.