Since the bet is already locked in, something getting cited by Trump’s attorney doesn’t mean anything. It’s whether it actually carries any weight with the court. People cite dumb, irrelevant shit all the time in pleadings. So, good bet, but it doesn’t justify your hysteria if you win.
With a bump up in the top rate to offset, sounds great
1 Like
You need to listen to the recent episode of Amicus about how a large majority of the evidence cited by SCOTUS judges in the past several years is 100% factually wrong and very often the evidence they cite makes the opposite claim the judge thinks it does.
I really wish we lived into the world you think we do were facts matter but all the evidence points to the opposite being the case. I guess if that is hysteria then so be it.
It’s possible they cite it, but assuming it turns out to be debunked with no evidence supporting it (which I think is the overwhelming favorite), I don’t see why they would bother. His lawyers are actually competent, so only way is if Trump forces them to cite it (which is possible, but I suspect they instead choose to focus on actual evidence rather than random crap).
I think Clovis is maybe going too far, but it’s not exactly a crazy claim to say the judge amplified misinformation here.
Like, if some rando posted the same thing on Unstuck or any dark corner of the internet, there’s no chance the judge would have called a hearing about it. He did it because it was on the court’s facebook page, which seems like a pretty dubious reason to me.
And even then, if the claim had been written in broken english or had been written by a user named MAGA4LYFE or something, again I highly doubt he would have called a hearing about it. He did it because it was on the court’s page and because the claim seemed potentially legitimate.
So yeah, I dunno, doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to do a few minutes of research and then just let it go when you find out the guy is a self-professed shitposter and that the post was, in fact, not legitimate.
1 Like
It’s an even more fun bet because we’ll all be dead from the heat death of the universe before Trump exhausts all of his appeals and the case is finally “resolved”.
1 Like
It’s a non zero chance they can make an actual mountain out of nothing, but I’d take the no bid deal side.
Also the court really doesn’t have any options. Any delay by the court probably has more probability of mistrial than the actual post.
1 Like
Maldonado Name Meaning
Spanish and Portuguese:
“nickname from a compound of mal ‘badly’ + donado ‘given, endowed’ (past participle of donar ‘to give, to bestow’), or directly from Latin male donatus ‘ill favored’.”
4 Likes
You sure about that? Someone posted an interview with Blanche that basically went down like this:
Interviewer: So why didn’t you call X,Y, and Z as witnesses, it seems like they could have given testimony that would have helped Trump
Blanche: Yeah, well the prosecution should have called those witnesses
Interviewer: Why should they help you?
Blanche: The prosecutors are supposed to try to find the truth.
Interviewer: Ok, but if they don’t call them, you could still call them right?
Blanche: Nah, that was the prosecution’s job.
I’m paraphrasing, but only a little bit.
This isn’t the Supreme Court.
It wasn’t “released” it was posted on a public FB page and the right wing was already aware of it. My understanding is at that point the judge ordered the hearing, which is a public record and at the very least MidasTouch made a video on it.
FFS man, can you stop saying the court released it. They released nothing. It was already out in the public.
This has been pointed out to you by multiple people, multiple times. One might consider your persistence in referring to it as such as obtuse. Possibly.
We already covered this but thanks.
As has been pointed out, the judges job is not PR or messaging.
Whether he amplifies a message should be of approximately zero concern here. He wants to make sure justice is done. The best way to do it is just follow the process and dismiss it appropriately. This dude has been judging for a while. It would seem that he would know what to do in this spot. Doing what you suggest as also should seem like it could open an even bigger door to defense counsel shenanigans.
That’s not quite right. It was a confusing answer, but it makes legal sense.
His response was “because we live in America where the burden of proof is on the prosecution.” It’s a common defense tactic to call almost no witnesses and just point out the weaknesses in what the evidence the prosecution presented.
If the prosecution doesn’t call key witnesses (or present various bits of evidence), it’s again common to use that in your argument about the weakness of the prosecution’s case. Basically, point out to the jury that there are holes in the prosecutions evidence that they had the power (and again the burden) to fill, but they choose not to. You try to get the jury to infer that the prosecution didn’t call these witnesses because their testimony would have not been helpful.
Calling them yourself is risk, since then the prosecution gets to cross, which is much more advantageous - especially when the witness is likely to be not compliant with the prosecution.
So you balance the benefit to calling them, vs that risk and the ability to use the prosecution’s failure to call them to support your argument that the prosecution did not meet their burden.
1 Like
So, let me get this straight. If Merchan didn’t call the hearing, you are sure they they wouldn’t cite it? Why not?
Now I know why Martin Maldonado is so bad at baseball
Yeah, I get all of that, and honestly that would have been a fine answer. The clip I saw didn’t really include anything like “Well we didn’t call them because while they could have said stuff that helped, on prosecution cross they could have said even more stuff that hurt us.”
Obviously he can’t put it that bluntly, but if he said something to that effect somewhere in the interview, then I retract my criticism.
Was the post already getting lots of attention? Legitimately asking as I was not following closely. If so, then I agree it’s a tough spot. Not sure what’s appropriate in that case.
But if not, then I don’t agree with your line of thinking. As I pointed out in my last post, the judge would not have called a hearing if the same post were written on Unstuck by TRUMPSBIGDONG69. So he was already exercising judgment into the legitimacy of the post.
If you want to argue he shouldn’t take into account the amplifying of misinformation, then ok. Not sure I agree but I understand that argument. But I definitely think it’s the judge’s job to judge the legitimacy of the post and not waste everyone’s time if it’s clearly not legitimate. He’s already doing that by not calling a hearing for every wackadoodle claim posted online about the case.
1 Like
I think there was some attention and then there was reporting on the hearing and then it really blew up. What is impossible to know is how big it would have gotten if Merchan did not call the hearing.
You really can’t compare this to a random post on unstuck since this was on the courts Facebook page. Even if Merchan is 100% sure it’s bullshit, it seems like calling the hearing is the right move to make sure the verdict sticks. That’s what I’m most concerned with. There is so much Trump bullshit out there. This extra bit isn’t going to change the mind of anyone on the matter. But just ignoring it or independently investigating it could blow up spectacularly.
1 Like