Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    13,152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. To be fair, that is pretty typical. Taking things out of order is the atypical way to approach it.
  2. The motion is really something. It does spend a little bit of time directly addressing the issue of sufficiency of the partial bond coupled with ongoing monitoring. But mostly it regurgitates Trump's position that nothing was done wrong, there were no victims, and no evidence that any financial statements were false.
  3. This is the start of the cyborg revolution.
  4. Amazing. I like how the article takes that as a real thing and not an indication that the poll is fatally flawed. Polling just doesn't work if the population doesn't want it to work.
  5. The point I was making is that those ideas reference/are derived from some objective point of reference. Mathematics is based upon an observed relationship, not a mere flight of fancy. To those that believe in natural rights, they too have an external reference point.
  6. No, no it isnt. Do you think gravity existed before we thought of the concept? Do you the relationship between a circle's circumference and diameter existed before we termed it pie? Or do you think reality isn't a thing except to extent perceived by a sentient being?
  7. So? It is still useful context. And again, what relevance does any of that have to Trump?
  8. It isn't clear from the record we have why the May 2023 answers were provided. Had it been the subject of motion practice to force an answer or a resolve an objection, I would have expected that information to be included in the disqualification motion since it could add to the argument (e.g., "he didn't answer until forced to by the court"). The fact that the rog answers weren't verified suggests to me that this was not in response to a court order and is rather a supplementation of a continuing interrogatory response, and that is suggested in the motion when it notes several times that the interrogatories were continuing and the answers were part of a supplementary discovery. It is also conceivable that these interrogatories were updated by Wade's attorney without a ton of thought about whether they required an update for the period after the filing of the divorce petition. Also, this response listed in the motion's attachments provides some clarity as to how an interpretation of "the course marriage, including the period of separation" may naturally include the pre-divorce filing conduct without necessarily implicating post filing conduct: Ultimately, whether Wade took an aggressive legal stance in his divorce proceedings is entirely irrelevant to whether Trump or the other defendants are denied a fair trial. None of this suggests that Wade or Fani perjured themselves during their testimony. None of it suggests that Fani substantially benefited from Wade's appointment or from the prosecution of the defendants.
  9. This seems to be a distinction without a difference in terms of the conversation. The point is that what underpins the "idea" is something objectively real and not dependent upon any sentient being having a conception of them.
  10. That may be true. But I'd still execute on any such company I could find that Donald had a ownership interest in. At worst, you've gummed up the works for operation of Donald's various businesses and created shareholder liability if those businesses attempt to do something to the detriment of the now seized ownership interests. Ultimately, Donald has control over all of these, so if you pull the thread enough, I think you'd ultimately get everything.
  11. Yes, that is what I said (or what I meant to say despite the weird against/exist word replacement).
  12. This seems close: Math isn't an idea we created. It is a set of relationships that we discovered. Those relationships against irrespective of whether anyone has any idea about them.
  13. The crime doesn't appear to be based upon a national broadcast in the sense that underlying information wasn't obtained through a broadcast. I'd agree that First Amendment issues here should protect this conduct AND I agree that accessing and disclosing data that is being transmitted openly on the internet (even if unintentionally) shouldn't be a crime. But, as the law is written, it is a crime. And the allegations go farther and suggest an intentional breach requiring gaining unauthorized access to user credentials (although this part is strongly denied by the defendant's lawyer). Whether the First Amendment protects this sort of activity isn't clearly established as far as I know. So yes, not prosecuting this as a crime merely because you like the political results would be partisan. But I would love it if the DOJ established a policy that such activity would not be prosecuted on the basis of the belief that it is protected first amendment activity.
  14. Isn't mathematics a decent enough analogy? It is self evident that 2+2 = 4. Whether or not any particular person or authority would accept that answer, it remains true. Natural rights, at least for their proponents, are similar. The right is inherent in sentience. A legal right is a different concept and depends upon a referenced legal structure. A natural does not require any separate structure other than existence. Your practical concerns may have some merit, but I don't find the rest of your argument terribly compelling.
×
×
  • Create New...