Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34534
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by TwiceHorn

  1. 6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

    Settlement? WTF?

    It's the cost of defense of the lawsuit.  She apparently never entered the Capitol and was never criminally charged.

    Thus, she had a colorable claim of retaliatory discharge for exercising 1A rights.

     

  2. 3 hours ago, Rimbo said:

    What a shitty article.  Note all the weasel-words.  It is highly unlikely that Trump or any other contemnor in NYC winds up at Rikers.

    Most courthouses have their own jail facilities for short-term incarcerations and to hold prisoners awaiting transport to and from court.

    And even if it was Rikers, there are several different facilities there of varying levels of security and violence.  As a general proposition, most jails keep pretrial detainees separate from the convicted serving a sentence.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  3. Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

    If I've learned anything about lawyers, they can defend anyone against anything. 

    Kind of the nature of the beast. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Haha 2
  4. 1 minute ago, immamac said:

    never really understood that part either.

    The NDA has been dealt with previously. But judicial testimony under subpoena is almost always a valid exception to any NDA. 

    • Hook 'Em 3
  5. 2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    Are you saying the jury will not take into account whether the 2 had sex when determining whether the payment was made for legitimate legal expenses or was actually a campaign contribution paid to silence Daniels’ sex story that was then illegally expensed as routine legal services? Because that just doesn’t make sense to me

    Oh the jury may take that into account, for that reason and whether Trump is a general purpose dirtbag. 

    But legally, whether they had sex or not is not relevant to the crime.  It may be relevant to some collateral issues.

    And the judge is concerned with the jury taking that into account too much.  Thankfully, admission of evidence is typically not a fertile ground for appeal, especially when the judge is trying to "handle it," and not just make a haphazard decision, an abuse of discretion, if you will.

  6. 10 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    Same as the civil rules.  Relevance is relevance.  They're cross-examining her over whether she had sex with Trump.  So the relevance of that testimony is now cumulative and any argument of error by Trump as to the admissibility of that fact (not the remaining details) would seem to be nugatory.  

    Well civil either for that matter.  And this may touch on prior bad acts, which is not something that comes up too much in IP litigation, so I only know the broad contours.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. Just now, Dahobbs said:

    Did Trump stipulate that the payment occurred and the reason for it? If not, isn't it relevant to show the transaction occurred and why it occurred? Further, isn't it relevant beyond credibility of the witness as it goes to his motive to pay her off and hide the nature of the payment? 

    Yeah could be that.  This stuff gets fairly nuanced.

    But the fact that it's highly prejudicial to Trump I think is what Merchan is on edge about and doesn't want too many gory deets coming in.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

    That's a good point, but It might be admissible as some sort of same transaction contextual evidence?  I get that that's more of a 404(b) (in Texas) exception and it still has to be relevant.  But saying it's not relevant leads us to a story where, once upon a time, Michael Cohen paid Stormy Daniels to sign a nondisclosure agreement about nothing.  The idea that their having sex isn't relevant is the type of technically-accurate discussion that makes people dislike lawyers.

    I think here, but am not privy to the sidebars, that whether Daniels was a blackmailer or just had a story to bury, true or not, remains an issue.  So, her credibility is at stake.  So, according to the prosecution, she should be able to discuss her dealings with Trump from beginning to end.  Probably about the same thing, but I'm not that familiar with the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence.

  9. 1 minute ago, Nivek said:

    Is that not normal?

    Some time ago, I wrote that gamesmanship in litigation is common.  So, yeah, to an extent.  The better question is, is it right?  Situationally, here we love it.  Elsewhere, maybe not so much.

    It becomes problematic when a win at all costs mentality in litigators, particularly criminal prosecutors, makes them lose sight of any notion of actual justice.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  10. I have greatly enjoyed the Don Winslow books I have read:  Savages, the Cartel Trilogy, etc.  

    Thus, I have embarked on what is apparently his last, the Danny Ryan trilogy.  The first was alright, the second a huge disappointment although I suppose somewhat original in conception.  I'm dreading the final installment.

  11. 35 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

    Eww

     

    so the judge doesn’t want details of a sexual encounter the defense refuses to stipulate as having occurred? Is this guy a leave it to beaver character?

    It's kind of a fine line from a judicial perspective.  The actual affair and any details are actually irrelevant to the case, including whether it actually happened or not.  Even if it was proven conclusively that the affair did or did not happen, that would not affect the case.

    But the details are sordid and do not reflect well on the defendant, that is, are prejudicial to the defendant.  So, under Rule 4.06 of the New York Rules of Evidence, the admissibility of the gory details is limited.

    However, Stormy Daniels' credibility is at issue for matters not including whether the deed occurred, so, her story and the credibility thereof is at issue, which allows the prosecution some latitude in exploring the details in order to boost her credibility.

    But, the prosecution, being prosecutors, wants to get in the dirt on Trump any way they can.  

    We applaud this, because Trump, but it's a bit of dirty gamesmanship by the prosecution.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  12. 1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    Whether it's Trump or his lawyers potentially lying, but I don't think that would be perjury. Non lawyer opinion. But I could see it being contempt of court to lie to the judge about why you want a day away from court. And honesty, why in the world are we bending over backwards to allow Trump to see his son's graduation. This isn't rearranging a business meeting. It's a criminal court.

    However one thing that I would add for Trump's defense here is that he can do something in addition to attending Baron's graduation, including a MN fundraiser. Now if he ends up not attending the graduation, the judge should hammer him with a large contempt fine. And not a fine that would hurt most of his, but hurt someone of his supposed wealth.

    NY law seems to limit contempt fines to $1000 per occurrence. 

    It's strange, New York has these financial integrity laws like the subject of this prosecution and the Section 63 that underlies the civil case, but is lenient on things like this and has a double jeopardy statute that prevents federal and state prosecution for similar crimes. Some things hard on the rich others easy. 

  13. 12 hours ago, Captainant said:

    Is that not some kind of perjury if he said in court - while happening to be under oath - that he wanted that day off so he could go to his son's graduation? Seems like a pretty clear bait and switch against the court

    Probably not because for now it is a statement of intention  false as it may have been. There's almost no way to prove that a statement of intention was false when made,especially beyond a reasonable doubt. 

    As we get closer to the date, with other intentions becoming clear, he can be pinned down to a greater degree. And rather than a perjury prosecution, it's probably fodder for some kind of contempt citation as noted above. 

  14. 9 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

    I’m Methodist. Heard of all this shit - never seen it live, and I know tons of people, mostly of faith and diverse denominations at that. This is in no way mainstream. I’ve literally heard nobody discuss any of this. 

    When Gaza is discussed in church, prayers are offered for the conflict and everyone involved. 

    Yeah so am I but I know it is a very real thing.  Again, the dolts in the congregation may not know their church's thoughts on it, but their pastors do.

    As a Methodist, how often do you discuss "faith without works is dead" and the countervailing philosophies?  Do you have any idea which denominations subscribe to it and which explicitly deny it?

  15. 4 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

    Sizable segment?  I’d like to meet ONE of these people before their compound is stormed. Also, the “sects [that] do not believe that Jews are saved”, I’d like to meet one of these people. You guys are WAY overplaying that reason Christian support for Israel. 

    I don’t recall Dixon’s post being limited to nationalists. It appears it was. The last paragraph indicated it was mainstream Christianity. His post cannot be applied broadly to evangelicals. Not even close. 

    We're not talking about "Christian" support for Israel.  Quite the opposite, actually.  We're talking about fundagelical CINOs and their support for Israel.

    In a lot of ways, though, this is a theological issue like Arminianism or Calvinism, the trinity, etc.  A bunch of the dolts don't understand any of it, but their pastor tells em they're for Israel, so they are.

    And you are dead wrong if you believe that this is an uncommon, fringe belief.  You should familiarize yourself with premillenialism, dispensationalism, and Christian Zionism.  They are not mainstream Protestant beliefs, but then again, what is anymore?

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  16. 3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

    What is Bayh Dole

    It's an intersection of the Patent Act and the Food and Drug Act.  Except I'm wrong, it's Hatch-Waxman.  Named after a couple of old fools, anyway.

    What people often don't realize is that the FDA grants a lot of exclusivity by virtue of approval processes, before the patent system even comes into play.  One instance where they come together is that the filing of a new drug application, more commonly an amended new drug application as for a generic medication, gives a patent owner the right to sue for infringement before a product is commercially made, used, or sold, the normal conditions under which a patent suit can be filed.

    So it's actually rare for a generic or competitor to bring a product to market and have it taken off the market because of a patent infringement injunction.  They usually get hit before they even start making or selling.

     

     

  17. Just now, Rex Kramer said:

    lol did you just cite all those Bible verses focusing on one small part of Dixon’s post?  I have issues with all of it, including the notion that Christians even think about Jews going to hell, and why we typically support Israel, and that the rapture has anything to do with it. It’s a laughable post. 

    There is a sizable segment of fundamentalist Christianity whose support of Israel is based entirely on their eschatology, their doctrine of the last things.

    And, according to that eschatology, the existence of Israel, a Jewish state, is essential to the second coming of the Messiah.  And, those same sects do not believe that Jews are saved or have any particular interest in Jews other than the continued existence of the state of Israel, for the foregoing reason.

    The post you criticize was limited to White Supremacists and Christian Nationalists, it did not purport to explain anything about Christians more broadly.

    • Hook 'Em 3
  18. 2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

    https://www.empowerpharmacy.com/about/our-story/
     

    Houston based compounder also selling it

    This is where I think patent infringement litigation is going to come into play.  It doesn't actually usually come into play in the sense of taking products off the market, because under Bayh-Dole (I think, this gets a little hairy). the act of filing a new drug application (NDA) triggers infringement litigation between big pharmas, so the product hasn't even been approved for sale, yet.

    But I suspect these compounders are about to be hit with some litigation.

  19. On 5/2/2024 at 5:09 PM, TonyTexas said:

    Fair warning. Do not waste any time watching A Man in Full.  Based on a pretty good book by Thomas Wolfe but this is complete garbage. Jeff Daniels is the lead and is an absolute cartoon. 

    Well Charlie Croker was pretty much a cartoon. I'm rather enjoying it. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  20. The thing about Trump, if you take away the judgment of him personally and the threat he presents, is that he's just such a bizarre individual.  The combination of wealth, extreme narcissism, and stupidity means that he creates situations that have largely never before been encountered.  Especially when you consider that he has an audience that uncritically swallows every utterance.

    His treatment seems special, but it's like every "institution" he encounters doesn't quite know what to do with him.

    The law, or more accurately the Latin language, has a word for it/him:  sui generis.

    For example, the gag order.  Most criminal defendants don't get gagged, because they really have nothing to say and usually no platform to say it on.  There are plenty of defendants that are probably as crazy as Trump and have unhinged things to say about their court cases, but no one would listen or publicize it.  No one would argue that their crazed bloviation influences witnesses.

    Even most politicians, see Cuellar and Menendez, have little to say and don't want to say it except under carefully controlled circumstances (e.g. remarks prepared by counsel made in a short press conference).  Most defendants couldn't rely on 1A/political speech as a defense to the gag order or its application to them.  They wouldn't try to run for reelection in most cases and wouldn't make prosecution a central point of their campaigns.

    So, it's a lot of fun to speculate or argue that anyone else would have gotten hammered by now on things like the gag order.  But there really isn't a valid comparison to Trump.

    Although it's a factor, Trump's "wealth" and ability to hire counsel to push the limits for him aren't the sole reason everything is so weird around him.  He's just such a fucking weirdo is what it boils down to.

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 4
  21. 4 minutes ago, Horn80 said:

    Always amazes me there are fans that do scorekeeping.  Is that an OCD thing?

    As a player that rode the bench a lot and thus kept a lot of score, it keeps you very engaged with the game.

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...