Thursday Open Thread

UPDATE: Sorry, inadvertently scheduled two threads for this morning; please post to the other one instead.

Comments

[not guilty]

Following a 34 day evidentiary hearing, a judge in California has recommended that John Eastman be disbarred for, among other things, conspiring with Donald Trump to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24521265/sbc-23-o-30029-decision-trial.pdf

It's about time!

[Mr. Bumble]

Kangaroo "bar" court.

[not guilty]

The order here is the recommendation of the judge who conducted the evidentiary hearing and heard the proof. The decision will be made by the Supreme Court of California.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, what of the argument that John Eastman was a lawyer who provided legal advice, and nothing more than that. And BTW, his legal advice was rejected by VP Pence.

And who funded the NGO that filed the complaint?

The part to me that matters: As a lawyer, Eastman cannot lie to the Court. You recently cited the authority that stated there was a duty of candor, not just bare truth, to the Court (it was about The Smasher, heh). All bets are off if Eastman flat out lied to the Court.

[not guilty]

A lawyer's duty of zealous advocacy does not extend to aiding his client in criminal conduct. Judge Yvette Roland dealt with that at length in her order. For example, the order states at page 124:

While attorneys have a duty to advocate zealously for their clients, they must do so within the bounds of ethical and legal constraints. Eastman’s actions transgressed those ethical limits by advocating, participating in and pursuing a strategy to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election that lacked evidentiary or legal support. Vigorous advocacy does not absolve Eastman of his professional responsibilities around honesty and upholding the rule of law. While his actions are mitigated by his many years of discipline-free practice, cooperation,and prior good character, his wrongdoing is substantially aggravated by his multiple offenses, lack of candor and indifference. Given the serious and extensive nature of Eastman’s unethical actions, the most severe available professional sanction is warranted to protect the public and preserve the public confidence in the legal system.

[Commenter_XY]

I have some reading to do. 🙂

[not guilty]

One such complaint was filed on behalf of the States United Democracy Center, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization advancing free, fair, and secure elections. https://statesuniteddemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08.11.22_States-United-LDAD_Complaint-to-DC-ODC-re-John-Eastman_Final.pdf

I don't know who funds that organization, and I don't know whether there were other complaints regarding Eastman.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I can't speak to funding, but Obama has his fingerprints all over it.
Here's who runs it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_Eisen

[Dr. Ed 2]

Also see: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/article/states-united-berkeley-connection-at-new-bipartisan-center-protects-democracy-and-election-integrity/

They're the ones who want to subvert democracy, and the legal profession won't look too good when this is all over. Much like it didn't after Watergate. And what I would suggest to this spoilt brat is that not only is she a hypocrite but she's helping to create that which she's most afraid of.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I spell it "Kangaroo Kort" and it's why half the ciuntry has a growing contempt for the legal system.

Because you know the Dems did worse.

[Estragon]

Has it ever occurred to you that “half the country” does not, in reality, share in your… ahem… idiosyncratic views?

[NvEric]

Precluding a reasonable defense is a crime too.

Much is being found, has been found, will be found to exonerate all in their duty to ensure that honest elections are the standard, which the 2020 was most certainly not, nor a standard one by using known fraudulent and banned means to conduct elections. This dark stain will be hard to remedy and overcome without full examination of all evidence in an open court.

Numerical oddities fill that election to cause great and troubling concern for all Americans. To ignore and preclude valuable information candidly in any court is itself means for appeal and potentially disbarment of any and all lawyers and judges who acted contrary to the People's rights firstly, and trials for them secondly.

No doubt this Republic will weather the afront to the rights of being sovereign and exercising their inherent rights eventually.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In other words, even if the election wasn't stolen, the Dems did such an incompetent job of running it in their states that it becomes a distinction without a difference.

In such circumstances, then turning around and crucifying the lawyers representing the (purported) losing candidate is something truly out of a banana republic and something that people who believe in (small "d") democracy ought not be doing.

[Brett Bellmore]

“As stated by Earl C. and others, “there is no right way to do the wrong thing.””

This is not legal reasoning. Legal reasoning is ALL about procedure, if you do things the right way you should be able to do absolutely anything.

“Eastman made multiple patently false and misleading statements in court filings,”

Well, fine, nail him to the wall for any provably false statements. “Misleading”? Yeah, is anybody under the impression that lawyers can’t legally mislead?

“These statements, made with varying degrees of intent, were improperly aimed at casting doubt on the legitimate election results and support for the baseless claim that the presidency was stolen from his client”

And here we go off the rails again. Doesn’t freaking matter if the results were legitimate, or if the election wasn’t stolen. You’re allowed to cast doubt on the idea that the Sun rises in the East, if you want.

Yeah, and every day, defense lawyers go to court to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the case against their client, knowing damned well that their client is guilty as hell. Hopefully not not quite so often, prosecutors go to court trying to convince the jury of the guilt of a defendant they know damned well is innocent.

Our whole legal system rests on the notion that you’re allowed to make ANY case, that the law is about means, not ends, formal observance of procedure, not noble goals.

I find this opinion deeply scary.

[David Nieporent]

Brett is now an expert on legal ethics, too. And by "now" I mean "not."

[Bwaaah]

He makes a good point. And you, not.

[David Nieporent]

He makes a good point.

He does not. He does not grasp the difference between a defense attorney putting the state to its proofs and a plaintiff's attorney lying about the facts. Our legal system does not "rest on the notion that you’re allowed to make ANY case." A lawyer must have a good faith basis for the factual allegations and legal arguments he presents in legal filings.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The lawyer representing the Menendez brothers during one of their three trials stated that they did not shoot their parents -- instead, "they discharged shotguns in their direction." Fifteen 12 gauge rounds if I remember correctly.

And how about the OJ "Dream Team" and "if [the glove] doesn't fit, you must acquit"? ANYONE knows that a wet leather glove will shrink when it dries if you don't stuff it with paper -- particularly an uber expensive fancy glove like that one.

Or "hands up, don't shoot" -- none other than Eric Holder stated that was false, yet lawyers kept arguing it in their defense of rioters.

These were pretty clear facts -- that Brandon didn't steal the election, not so much,

[not guilty]

Lyle and Eric Menendez initially considered suffocating the parents with a pillow instead of using a shotgun. Then they realized they would then become known as the smothers brothers.

[Frank Drackman]

OJ’s glove actually fit pretty well. Last thing you need when you're slicing up 2 peoples is a loose fitting glove. I see lots of Surgeons slicing up peoples every day and they always have tight fitting gloves.

[Dr. Ed 2]

What David NoMind fails to understand is that a bifurcated standard of justice is not justice.

[Sarcastr0]

He also seems to be utterly ignorant of the facts of what Eastman is accused of.
Because contrary to his post, the court is indeed ‘nail[ing] him to the wall for any provably false statements.’:

“Count Two – Seeking to Mislead a Court (§ 6068, subd. (d)”
“Count Three – Moral Turpitude [Misrepresentation] (§ 6106)”

“Eastman’s sampling of alleged illegalities set forth in the six-page memo contained one which Eastman acknowledged to be false—his statement that Michigan mailed out absentee ballots to every registered voter contrary to statutory requirements. This statement was false because Michigan’s Secretary of State had mailed absentee ballot applications, not absentee ballots, to Michigan’s registered voters”

“In the memos, Eastman also stated, falsely, that “[t]here is very solid legal authority and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes…as Eastman knew before, during and subsequent to the time that he drafted and advocated implementation of certain of the January 6th scenarios, there was
no solid legal authority regarding this issue and the only legal authority upon which he relied in drafting the memo consisted of four law review articles”

“Eastman’s claims, in this proceeding, that he believed “the slates were legitimate as a matter of historical precedent” are unbelievable and not supported by the record.”

More and more MAGA on here have stopped bothering to read stuff, they just post based on what they feel it must say.
It's a shitty trend.

[Dr. Ed 2]

“Eastman’s sampling of alleged illegalities set forth in the six-page memo contained one which Eastman acknowledged to be false—his statement that Michigan mailed out absentee ballots to every registered voter contrary to statutory requirements. This statement was false because Michigan’s Secretary of State had mailed absentee ballot applications, not absentee ballots, to Michigan’s registered voters”

Sloppy but not inherently fraudulent because (a) mailing out the applications was contrary to Michigan law, (b) this included long-dead people born in the 1800s and (c) anyone who returned the form then got the absentee ballot. There was no independent verification that the person was even still alive, let alone still resided at the address. (There *is* the SSI death index…)

Conversely, if this is grounds for disbarment, a LOT of lawyers are going to be in trouble because I’ve seen worse than this. Way worse…

“In the memos, Eastman also stated, falsely, that “[t]here is very solid legal authority and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes…as Eastman knew before, during and subsequent to the time that he drafted and advocated implementation of certain of the January 6th scenarios, there was no solid legal authority regarding this issue and the only legal authority upon which he relied in drafting the memo consisted of four law review articles”

Again, I’ve seen a lot worse than this. A LOT of lawyers will be disbarred if this is the standard — it’s sloppy research but I’ve seen a lot of lawyers do a lot worse — and it isn’t like there was a precedent to the contrary.

“Eastman’s claims, in this proceeding, that he believed “the slates were legitimate as a matter of historical precedent” are unbelievable and not supported by the record.”

Hawaii, 1960 comes to instant mind -- and then if we want to look at some of the messier elections of the 19th Century.....

[Sarcastr0]

I’ve seen worse than this. Way worse…

Ed, you want to machine gun people. Your idea of what's good and bad is pretty fucked up and no standard for anyone to go by.

You also have no special insight, just made up facts as you try to second guess the court's factual findings based on unsourced ipse dixit (and continuing to ignore DMN's repeated explanations of why the 1800s thing is bullshit).

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ipse dixit my arse. One DA was prosecuting an undergrad for a 209A violation on the basis of the kids' ability to not only walk through a solid masonry wall, but one designed to stop a fire as the restaurant had been built as an auto dealership.

(To his credit, the judge was rather pissed when he finally realized that...)

That's just one "ipse dixit" for you to gaslight...

[Sarcastr0]

Your stories do not have credibility.

But the ipse dixit I was talking about was your 'analysis' of the case's factual findings. You just said stuff. No sources, just 'actually, Michigan absentee policy is XXX.'

Even if you hadn't been caught so often in flagrant factual failures, assertion is not an argument.

[Brett Bellmore]

"He also seems to be utterly ignorant of the facts of what Eastman is accused of.
Because contrary to his post, the court is indeed ‘nail[ing] him to the wall for any provably false statements.’:"

And, how exactly is that contrary to anything I wrote? I'm fine with him being nailed to the wall for provably false statements.

At the same time I find it deeply scary that he might be sanctioned for "casting doubt".

[Sarcastr0]

Your defense of him above was that this case is all about process and coy misdirection.

That's not actually true. Which you would know, if you ever read anything anymore.

[LawTalkingGuy]

"Our whole legal system rests on the notion that you’re allowed to make ANY case"

Lol this is not remotely true.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Donald Trump walks out and shoots someone in the middle of 5th Avenue. He's not entitled to a defense?

[David Nieporent]

He is entitled to a defense. He's not entitled to proffer a defense that has neither factual nor legal support, though.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

Our whole legal system rests on the notion that you’re allowed to make ANY case

I guess that's something a disaffected, antisocial, delusional, bigoted, autistic culture war casualty might believe . . . and even say aloud.

But it's pure bullshit. If Trump puts it in a can, Bellmore will buy some.

[John F. Carr]

I found out about the decision when I received an email in Eastman's name asking for a donation up to $1,500 to help him keep on fighting the system.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"I found out about the decision when I received an email in Eastman’s name asking for a donation up to $1,500..."

There is a larger issue here --- this the exact opposite of the 1960s.

Back then it was the conservatives who had big money behind them, and it was the progressives doing it with $5 & $10 bills. It was Nixon who had the major corporations and rich individuals of the day funding him -- and AG John Michell was essentially identical to Merit Garland in terms of tactics.

Just sayin...

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Save your Eastman legal defense money, clingers. You will want to have it for contributions to his snack fund at the prison.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wiki states “Eastman told Vice President Mike Pence in an Oval Office meeting, on January 5, 2021, that Pence had the constitutional authority to block the certification.”[emphasis added]

I don’t see how the California Bar has jurisdiction as he wasn’t in California when he did it.

I thought the protocol was for the local bar to hear it and then refer.

[not guilty]

"I don’t see how the California Bar has jurisdiction as he wasn’t in California when he did it."

Duh, because he is licensed in California. This is a bar disciplinary proceeding, not a criminal prosecution. (Although FWIW he could be criminally prosecuted in California pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a).)

[This Is The Zodiac Speaking]

Second!!

[Mr. Bumble]

Two open threads again.
Pick one?

[NvEric]

Double vision ?
Deja vu ?

[Mr. Bumble]

Which one will disappear (along with its comments)?

[not guilty]

In a podcast interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Ashleigh Merchant confirmed that he client Mike Roman turned down a very favorable plea offer -- a plea to a reckless conduct misdemeanor with probation, no jail time, no fine, and the likelihood of having the record wiped clean after one year of good behavior. https://www.ajc.com/news/breakdown/listen-the-trump-indictment-podcast-merchant-speaks-out/EK7AV3HPLJGAPDUBXQVE2VFDTI/?utm_cohort=evening_campaign_1-evening_cohort_1-07eb8e09dcef9dadffa6f1835dc2fd37c7d0ceb5a78c81807fc0c75ddc81d18e&utm_source=Iterable&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EveningRead&utm_content=9408744 (Discussion of the plea offer begins at 31:36.)

I surmise that such an offer was made pursuant to Georgia Code § 42-8-60, which provides for withholding any judgment of guilt and eventual exoneration and discharge of the defendant. Ms. Merchant said of Mr. Roman, "He says he didn't do it."

I wonder if she informed her client that he could offer to enter a "best interest" plea while still maintaining his innocence and declining to admit culpability pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970) ("An individual accused of crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the acts constituting the crime."). Accord: Goodman v. Davis, 249 Ga. 11, 16-17, 287 S.E.2d 26 (Ga. 1982). My question here is not rhetorical -- Ms. Merchant may well have discussed the possibility of an Alford plea with her client.

I am speculating here, but suspect that Mr. Roman is trying to set a trap here -- taking his chances on a jury trial while knowing that in the event of conviction he can play his ace in the hole by filing a collateral attack on the conviction claiming that he went to trial because he was incompetently advised to turn down the sweetheart plea agreement. See Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012). In these circumstances a defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice of counsel there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court (i.e., that the defendant would have accepted the plea and the prosecution would not have withdrawn it in light of intervening circumstances), that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer's terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed. Id., at 164.

[Mr. Bumble]

If the DA was offering such a great deal, why was he even indicted?

[not guilty]

Only the prosecutors can answer that, but assuming your question is genuine rather than rhetorical, I suspect that the proposed plea deal included a requirement of cooperation with prosecutors, including testimony against codefendants. Attorneys for the State may have regarded Mr. Roman's potential information and testimony as outweighing his culpability.

[not guilty]

IIRC Mike Roman was not among the persons that the Special Purpose Grand Jury recommended to be indicted. The plea offer to him may have been extended prior to the finding of the indictment.

[not guilty]

A U.S. District Court judge in California reportedly has expressed skepticism about Hunter Biden's claims of selective or vindictive prosecution regarding the tax charges against him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/03/27/hunter-biden-california-tax-case/

That is unsurprising. Has anyone not named Yick Wo ever obtained final relief from a criminal charge or conviction based on a claim of selective prosecution?

[David Nieporent]

Yes, but it's going to be reversed on appeal: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/21/us/politics/rise-above-selective-prosecution.html

[not guilty]

I am aware of that district court ruling in California. That is why I specified "final relief."

[Dr. Ed 2]

College has broken the $90,000 list price barrier.

Of course the average discount rate is 54% but it ain't worth even that.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/03/27/for-the-first-time-sticker-prices-for-some-new-england-colleges-exceed-90000/?p1=hp_primary

[ducksalad]

Plenty of good state schools under $8000/year before the discount, essentially free after the discount.

[Dr. Ed 2]

State schools aren't discounting -- only private ones.

A few years back, Forbes stated that it was cheaper for a middle class student to go to Amherst College than UMass Amherst.

[ducksalad]

By discounting I mean practices like the following (the place I work):

“Official” tuition and fees about $7500/yr. However, the school knows that on average any student with family income less than $100K probably can get at least that amount in financial aid from various sources that the university can go after with a FAFSA. So they advertise the tuition and fees as “free for an TX resident with family income under $100k”.

In a few cases, they can’t find the aid, so they cover the promise out of general funds.

There is literally no one (in TX) denied an education due solely to lack of tuition money. It’s lack of money to drive to school, pay rent, and eat that keeps people out.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Why no mention of how the Comstock Act makes mailing of abortifacients illegal?

[not guilty]

No mention of the Comstock Act by whom, and with what significance?

[not guilty]

I'll bite. Criminal prosecution under the Comstock Act is vanishingly unlikely.

According to the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, section 1461 of title 18 of the U.S. Code does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully. Because there are manifold ways in which recipients in every state may lawfully use such drugs, including to produce an abortion, the mere mailing of such drugs to a particular jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for concluding that the sender intends them to be used unlawfully.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/file/1560596/dl?inline

No plaintiff, no lawsuit.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"the mere mailing of such drugs to a particular jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for concluding that the sender intends them to be used unlawfully."

I don't see how one could possibly reach that conclusion.

It's a prescription drug which means that it has to be prescribed by a licensed practitioner, for something. While it can be prescribed "off label" for (e.g.) psychotic depression, the physician would have the burden of proving that -- much like the MDs who went to prison for prescribing massive amounts of Opiates.

Legally the user doesn't get a choice as to what to use a *prescription* drug for, the user can only use the drug for what it was prescribed for. (Haven't you read the fine print about how "Federal law requires..." on your prescription med containers?)

[not guilty]

Have you read the OLC memorandum? Yes or no? The reasoning is explained in detail.

[David Nieporent]

the physician would have the burden of proving that

In a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defendant.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As it was on the MDs who wrote the opiate scripts.

They still got convicted....

[Frank Drackman]

Most of the Rx's were for Opioids, not Opiates (there's a difference)
If you were a real Dr. you'd know

[Absaroka]

"Haven’t you read the fine print about how “Federal law requires…” on your prescription med containers?"

I just did, and it says federal law prohibits transferring it to someone else. Nothing about what the prescribee can do with it. What warnings are on yours?

You may be thinking of the warnings on pesticides. Don't mix pesticides and prescription medications.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"No plaintiff, no lawsuit."

Is the FDA allowed to violate Federal law?

[not guilty]

The FDA does not decide whom to prosecute under the Comstock Act. The DOJ does.

[Dr. Ed 2]

MIT sued for antisemitism....
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2024/03/07/lawsuit-filed-against-mit-accuses-the-university-of-allowing-antisemitism-on-campus/

[Commenter_XY]

Sally Kornbluth, Third of Three Elite Stooges, take note. It ain't over.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're right. Israel is likely to hang on a bit longer.

The reckoning approaches, clingers.

[Mr. Bumble]

They've "hung on" for 75 years against multiple attacks.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Let's see how they do -- and for how long -- without American military, economic, and political skirts to hide behind.

I predict a just result.

[bernard11]

And what do you expect that "just result" to look like?

[Commenter_XY]

Israel will certainly be around a lot longer than Hamas. 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That seems an even money proposition. Israel is going to fail slowly, then all at once.

[Nige]

It's going to be around longer than the thousands of children they're killing.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The question: How much longer?

Discussing this issue with younger, educated, non-wingnut Americans — the people who will be calling the shots in America — can illuminate that issue. Israel will change — quickly and severely — or . . . in the medium to long term, there will be no Israel.

[Frank Drackman]

there's a "reckoning" a' comin', allright, "Reverend"
more in the style of "Munich" than the Treblinka you'd like to see.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My theory on the Baltimore Bridge and why there were no protective Dolphins there.

Spiro Agnew was taking bribes as Maryland Governor, he was even still taking them as VeeP. The bridge was the final part of the 2-decade building of I-695 -- any 3-digit Interstate that starts with an even number connects twice to the root (2 digit) Interstate, in this case it connects to I-95 at both ends and goes around Baltimore.

But it's not numbered I-695 -- it's officially Maryland Route 695 -- because you couldn't charge tolls on Interstate Highways built with 90% Federal money. Hence a bridge authority and a place to place patronage hires and the rest.

So you kinda know there would have been bribery involved in a major highway project like this -- and the problem with bribery is that things tend to be overlooked. Like defensive dolphins (maritime guard rails) that would stop an errant vessel.

And why they didn't require tugs remain with vessels until they got below the bridge is beyond me. It was a full moon which means that the tides are higher & lower than normal -- cumulatively less than a foot but in a river that is a lot of water and this was an hour before low tide (2:20 that morning) so this would have been peak flow, and then the wind was blowing as well.

You could have some tricky navigation there, and then when your engine stalls.....

[Dr. Ed 2]

There will be some interesting liability coming out of this, as it is not a US flagged ship.

It used to be that liability was limited to the value of the wrecked ship and her cargo after the wreck, but that was before oil spills and it got changed. Not sure how that will play out here.

And then Brandon is talking Federal handouts for all the longshoremen who are out of work because of this. MORE inflation....

[Frank Drackman]

Why all the Secrecy about whoever was watching porn on his phone, I mean, "at the wheel" of the Dali???
Maybe I'm an Asshole, and the guy at the controls was some Whitey-White Smooth Smoothie, but if it was I think we'd already have his whole history.
My Sheckels are that it's someone with Dreadlocks and alot of ' in his name.
Again, why the mystery? we knew all about Sully before the NTSB tried to railroad him. Good thing Clint Eastwood was still alive to make a movie about it

Frank

[Krayt]

There is a vast difference between being an isolationist and saying we shouldn't get involved in Ukraine, and being some kind of tyrant suck-ass who hopes Ukraine loses, or that a tyrant has a right to expand territory, regardless of status of it, or that a tyrant should win, hopefully.

[Ed Grinberg]

Are you referring to anyone in particular?