Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Maybe... or, it's more common that one would think:
From a trial lawyer:
@Popehat
Follow Follow @Popehat
More
Ok. So. Why would the Manafort defense team not put on a defense, and how unusual is it?
It's not unusual at all. It's common. Here are some possible reasons why. /1
9:08 AM - 14 Aug 2018
304 Retweets 523 Likes Hank GreelySkeptical Dog
You cut the most interesting part.
Spoiler:
/11 And, let's bear in mind that we are in a historic, unique situation. Manafort may be counting on a pardon, in which case there's little upside to a defense.
But it's not unusual and one cannot CONFIDENTLY draw any conclusion from it.
/end
19 réponses 26 Retweets 209 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
25 minil y a 25 minutes
/10 ...the defense direct goes "did defendant ever say he was trying to hide money?" "no" Then the prosecution gets up and takes the witness through the eight skeevy things the defendant did suggesting consciousness of guilt. It winds up emphasizing the government's case.
3 réponses 12 Retweets 108 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
26 minil y a 26 minutes
/9 Finally, your defense may just suck. For every good thing your witnesses might say, they might have to admit four bad things on cross. This is not unusual when knowledge or intent are the issue at hand .......
5 réponses 12 Retweets 126 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
28 minil y a 28 minutes
/8 Plus, the government doesn't necessarily have to give you impeachment evidence about witnesses they aren't calling. Do they have something really horrific on your defense witness, and they're just hoping you'll call that person? Guess you'll find out, huh.
5 réponses 11 Retweets 142 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
29 minil y a 29 minutes
/7 This is especially true with skeevy/questionable defense witnesses. If you're unlucky they get up there, give you some marginal testimony, and then the AUSA gets up and joyrides them all over your case for an hour. Skeevy people do badly on cross.
8 réponses 15 Retweets 176 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
30 minil y a 30 minutes
/6 ...when you've already accomplished what you want (showing Gates to be a liar, for example), you need to be careful of trying to pile more on, because things can go wrong and you can lose what you accomplished.
1 réponse 11 Retweets 155 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
38 minil y a 38 minutes
/5 Next, one of the toughest things to learn as a trial lawyer is to sit down when you've gotten something done as well as it's going to get done. They may have accomplished on cross-examination everything they reasonably could in a defense case . . . .
20 réponses 22 Retweets 253 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
39 minil y a 39 minutes
/4 Another subtle problem with putting on a defense case is that it emphasizes when the defendant doesn't testify. Defendant isn't required to, prosecution isn't allowed to call attention to it, but juries notice.
1 réponse 22 Retweets 199 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
40 minil y a 40 minutes
/3 If your defense case is marginal anyway, resting is a way to convey to the jury a level of confidence that the government has nothing. It's a way to emphasize that it's the government's burden.
6 réponses 33 Retweets 277 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
41 minil y a 41 minutes
SituationRoomHat a retweeté Joshua Zive
/2 Remember it's the prosecution's burden to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. When the defense puts on a case, there's always a subtle tendency for the jury to start putting a burden on the defense, which you don't want.
SituationRoomHat ajouté,
Joshua Zive
@jczive
En réponse à @Popehat
This child of a criminal defense lawyer and FPD thanks you for yelling. One of the first things I learned from Mom about diff between TV and reality is that you don't call witnesses unless you need to-avoid risk of shifting the perceived burden of proof to the defense case.
2 réponses 37 Retweets 278 j'aime
Afficher cette discussion
SituationRoomHat
@Popehat
44 minil y a 44 minutes
Ok. So. Why would the Manafort defense team not put on a defense, and how unusual is it?
It's not unusual at all. It's common. Here are some possible reasons why. /1
Note the last possible explanations as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/14 16:55:32
About that Omarosa "scandal", I'm a bit surprised it seems so easy to tape stuff from the White House. I mean, they say the tape with Kelly and Omarosa was in the Situation Room. Isn't that place like top secret stuff in America ?
Sarouan wrote: About that Omarosa "scandal", I'm a bit surprised it seems so easy to tape stuff from the White House. I mean, they say the tape with Kelly and Omarosa was in the Situation Room. Isn't that place like top secret stuff in America ?
Situation Room is probably the most secured SCIF.
You're supposed to leave cellphones/recorders outside... but, if you're already vetted... not sure if they can stop you from bringing in a button or pen recorder.
It was well known what kind of person Omarosa was before she got into the WH, none of this should surprise anyone, especially inside the Trump crowd. Everyone involved is a scumbag, and none of these people are qualified to do the jobs they hold. Supposedly there was supposed to be a total blanket ban on all electronic devices in the West Wing, not just the situation room.
Yeah, Omarosa is a conniving, backstabbing, dishonest, attention seeking bloviator. So is Trump. That Omarosa however was able to secretly record Kelly in the Situation Room should be disturbing in the extreme, this administration is not capable of the basics of running the day to day operations of that office.
Omarosa should be facing charges if applicable. Whoever was in charge of security should not be employed in that sphere ever again anywhere. Kelly is obviously unable to manage that office and should be deeply personally and professionally embarrassed and resign. Trump manages to pick...the best people. Why anyone has any confidence in this administration to manage anything is beyond me.
Can anyone imagine a chief of staff under Obama or Bush allowing a B-list reality TV personality into a position to potentially record them in a secure area?
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Formosa wrote: Interesting, very interesting, you have basically said that to be a leftist you must be as far left as you, which is just false, politics is a spectrum and it’s not as black and white and you want us to believe, the Americans have every right to not want illegal imigrants flood their nation, they are under no obligation to take these people in just because they share a border, you as a far leftist may not believe in borders, I as a moderate leftist understand the need for a well defended border.
This is severely lacking in solidarity, one of the core leftist principles. Leftism means something. Socialism and anarchism alike are founded on the idea that all peoples are, ultimately, equal and that your function in the economic system is a greater commonality than the language you speak. So to balk at the impoverished because they come from another state is to divide the working class, to distance yourself from people whom you ostensibly share a common cause with.
I disagree, that is an absolutist view on it, you either agree or you don’t, I look at it with a more moderate view, I support equality but also understand that true equality is a utopian ideal that will never exist in a world with people who are so wildely different in terms of ability, view point and temperament, I dislike the idea of equality of outcome and collectivism, preferring a more individualistic way of life.
I suppose at worst you could call me centre left leaning.
Vaktathi wrote: It was well known what kind of person Omarosa was before she got into the WH, none of this should surprise anyone, especially inside the Trump crowd. Everyone involved is a scumbag, and none of these people are qualified to do the jobs they hold. Supposedly there was supposed to be a total blanket ban on all electronic devices in the West Wing, not just the situation room.
Yeah, Omarosa is a conniving, backstabbing, dishonest, attention seeking bloviator. So is Trump. That Omarosa however was able to secretly record Kelly in the Situation Room should be disturbing in the extreme, this administration is not capable of the basics of running the day to day operations of that office.
Omarosa should be facing charges if applicable. Whoever was in charge of security should not be employed in that sphere ever again anywhere. Kelly is obviously unable to manage that office and should be deeply personally and professionally embarrassed and resign. Trump manages to pick...the best people. Why anyone has any confidence in this administration to manage anything is beyond me.
Can anyone imagine a chief of staff under Obama or Bush allowing a B-list reality TV personality into a position to potentially record them in a secure area?
In the weird alternative universe called "the real world" it wouldn't be possible for a B-list reality TV personality to get elected president.
That being said, the Republicans have form in this regard. Reagan was a B-list film star, after all.
I suppose at worst you could call me centre left leaning.
Nope. Nothing you've said in this thread, and a couple others in off-topic, so much as suggest you're leaning left.
That's not a bad thing in itself, I'm center-right myself, though that probably makes me a hardcore leftist going with US standards, but people aren't going to take you seriously when there's such a gap between your claims, and your actual stance. Your recent quotes about "defending our culture" being a prime example.
Formosa wrote: Interesting, very interesting, you have basically said that to be a leftist you must be as far left as you, which is just false, politics is a spectrum and it’s not as black and white and you want us to believe, the Americans have every right to not want illegal imigrants flood their nation, they are under no obligation to take these people in just because they share a border, you as a far leftist may not believe in borders, I as a moderate leftist understand the need for a well defended border.
This is severely lacking in solidarity, one of the core leftist principles. Leftism means something. Socialism and anarchism alike are founded on the idea that all peoples are, ultimately, equal and that your function in the economic system is a greater commonality than the language you speak. So to balk at the impoverished because they come from another state is to divide the working class, to distance yourself from people whom you ostensibly share a common cause with.
I disagree, that is an absolutist view on it, you either agree or you don’t, I look at it with a more moderate view, I support equality but also understand that true equality is a utopian ideal that will never exist in a world with people who are so wildely different in terms of ability, view point and temperament, I dislike the idea of equality of outcome and collectivism, preferring a more individualistic way of life.
I suppose at worst you could call me centre left leaning.
All that "equality of outcome" boils down to is guaranteeing everyone food, healthcare and a place to live. Everything else is up to them. That's the point of communism. Making sure that everyone has their needs met so they can themselves work on wants. Currently we have to spend eight or more hours a day on needs and many of us don't even do anything worthwhile for our daily bread. Many of us don't even have our needs met.
Sanders "can't guarantee" Trump hasn't used the N-word
Just another day in what America is like now.
To be fair, you can't very well hold a press conference consisting of "who the feth knows what insane things he's said in the past or will say tomorrow". I wouldn't guarantee that he didn't say anything considering that Trump may very well be the most dishonest person to every hold this office and his word isn't really worth anything.
I mean, in any other world the person who hired someone wouldn't spend all this time talking about how she was so utterly unqualified to be hired in the first place.
Hardball ✔ @hardball .@Omarosa tells @KatyTurNBC that she has talked to Mueller's office, and "there was a lot of corruption," in the campaign and the administration. She says Trump knew about hacked emails before they were released.
1:23 PM - Aug 14, 2018 350 216 people are talking about this
...I know she's trying to sell a book and repair her image... but, jeez if Omarosa really does bring him down with this she has to say "you're fired" to his face or it doesn't count.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/14 20:36:46
Spinner wrote: Point of fact - there is no official language of the United States. English is the primary language spoken and written, but there's really no reason not to use other common languages in official paperwork and so forth.
And, in point of fact, you sometimes have idiosyncrasies like the largest Polish speaking city in the world being in the US.
The US is at its strongest when it has made other cultures her own, not when she has tried to bar the Irish/Germans/Chinese/Russians/Polish/Mexicans from coming to her shores.
I live in Maine - whitest of the white states - but Maine, historically, has had towns where French, Russian, and even Romany were the primary languages in use. (Maine is actually less diverse than it was at previous points in its history.)
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
From my personal experience and interactions with others, the loudest voices in support of an "official language" have come from the same group of people who are also pro "small government".
When Oklahoma voted on the State Question to establish English as the official language of the State of Oklahoma, I attended a voter forum where people talked about all the questions on the ballot that year. It ended up being a "small government" (aka: Tea Party) forum, and they fully supported making English the official language.
I asked a question that basically boiled down to: "The government gets the power from, and works for, the people. The government works for me, and you, and everybody else in this country. Shouldn't the government be forced to speak the language of the people, rather then forcing the people to speak the language of the government? Without us there wouldn't be a government to begin with, and we can't control 'our government' if they speak another language than us."
I was shouted down, which was no surprise to myself.
In a recent State House primary, Missouri Republicans pick an actual Nazi by nearly 25 points. A literal, Jews-caused-WW2, Hitler-was-right, Nazi. Fething hell.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/14 21:33:29
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
d-usa wrote: From my personal experience and interactions with others, the loudest voices in support of an "official language" have come from the same group of people who are also pro "small government".
When Oklahoma voted on the State Question to establish English as the official language of the State of Oklahoma, I attended a voter forum where people talked about all the questions on the ballot that year. It ended up being a "small government" (aka: Tea Party) forum, and they fully supported making English the official language.
I asked a question that basically boiled down to: "The government gets the power from, and works for, the people. The government works for me, and you, and everybody else in this country. Shouldn't the government be forced to speak the language of the people, rather then forcing the people to speak the language of the government? Without us there wouldn't be a government to begin with, and we can't control 'our government' if they speak another language than us."
I was shouted down, which was no surprise to myself.
The only reason I'd be in favor of English being the official language is if the US severely becomes a balkanized nation, which we're nowhere near in danger of at the moment. So... meh.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the citizenship application/test is only in english, which really should damper these sorts of movement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: In a recent State House primary, Missouri Republicans pick an actual Nazi by nearly 25 points. A literal, Jews-caused-WW2, Hitler-was-right, Nazi. Fething hell.
He's a loon, that the state GOP party has forcibly denounced him.
Goes to show, that the 'vetting' process isn't as strong as you'd like. (but, then again, my President is Trump) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/14 21:40:04
feeder wrote: In a recent State House primary, Missouri Republicans pick an actual Nazi by nearly 25 points. A literal, Jews-caused-WW2, Hitler-was-right, Nazi. Fething hell.
He's a loon, that the state GOP party has forcibly denounced him.
Goes to show, that the 'vetting' process isn't as strong as you'd like. (but, then again, my President is Trump) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, the party officials denounced him, but the actual members chose this piece of gak. It's fething disgraceful. At least Trump played a rich, successful guy on TV, so I can see how someone might fall for his BS. But this actual Nazi out and out rants about (((globalists))) on his weekly radio show. He's a low rent Alex Jones gakstain.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
feeder wrote: In a recent State House primary, Missouri Republicans pick an actual Nazi by nearly 25 points. A literal, Jews-caused-WW2, Hitler-was-right, Nazi. Fething hell.
He's a loon, that the state GOP party has forcibly denounced him.
Goes to show, that the 'vetting' process isn't as strong as you'd like. (but, then again, my President is Trump) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, the party officials denounced him, but the actual members chose this piece of gak. It's fething disgraceful. At least Trump played a rich, successful guy on TV, so I can see how someone might fall for his BS. But this actual Nazi out and out rants about (((globalists))) on his weekly radio show. He's a low rent Alex Jones gakstain.
Its like I said not all republicans are nazis, but most if not all nazis are republicans
feeder wrote: In a recent State House primary, Missouri Republicans pick an actual Nazi by nearly 25 points. A literal, Jews-caused-WW2, Hitler-was-right, Nazi. Fething hell.
He's a loon, that the state GOP party has forcibly denounced him.
Goes to show, that the 'vetting' process isn't as strong as you'd like. (but, then again, my President is Trump) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure, the party officials denounced him, but the actual members chose this piece of gak. It's fething disgraceful. At least Trump played a rich, successful guy on TV, so I can see how someone might fall for his BS. But this actual Nazi out and out rants about (((globalists))) on his weekly radio show. He's a low rent Alex Jones gakstain.
Its like I said not all republicans are nazis, but most if not all nazis are republicans
The Republicans try to use it as a way to do what you're doing, the "both sides" narrative.
Democrats overuse it at times but when you have y'know...people espousing their beliefs, wearing their iconography, etc it's hard to say "He's just economically anxious!" instead of "Well, that's a frickin' Nazi".
The Republicans try to use it as a way to do what you're doing, the "both sides" narrative.
Democrats overuse it at times but when you have y'know...people espousing their beliefs, wearing their iconography, etc it's hard to say "He's just economically anxious!" instead of "Well, that's a frickin' Nazi".
And they say the democrats do the same as what your doing... see how this gets us nowhere
See what happened over here a while back was the BNP, they had a media ban on them, they were called nazis (which was true) by the mainstream media but they were saying things that the general public agreed with, curb immigration, distrust of the EU and all that, so the general public voted a few of them into parliament because the public didn’t believe the media.
Then the media ban was removed, the head of the BNP went on national tv and everyone saw what the BNP was, the party support evaporated over night.
This is a very valid reason to not use the Nazi term callously and especially when it’s not true, because the real ones can slip through the gaps, over use of the word numbed the public to this very real threat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spinner wrote: I got a laugh as soon as I saw who was being quoted.
Good that was the point
Did you read the article though, clowns pretty nuts and he illustrated my point quite well, don’t call people nazis if they are not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/14 22:33:49
The Republicans try to use it as a way to do what you're doing, the "both sides" narrative.
Democrats overuse it at times but when you have y'know...people espousing their beliefs, wearing their iconography, etc it's hard to say "He's just economically anxious!" instead of "Well, that's a frickin' Nazi".
Agreed. Pre-Trump the term was abused, but especially after Charlottesville last year, I don't think that argument holds much water. Nazis are out and proud and just because some people like to claim AntiFa and their ilk are "Nazis" or "fascists" for "suppressing speech", AntiFa and the like aren't donning the icons and regalia of the Nazis. They aren't parading around with torches shouting "Jews will not replace us" and all the other crap that the legitimate Nazis are boldly doing in America since Trump's election.
I recall people twisting themselves in knots earlier this year trying to define Nazi, and arguing that even the people wearing swastikas or SS imagery weren't "actual" Nazis because they weren't part of the National Socialist German Workers Party. If we need to be that literal in the face of donkey-caves wearing swastikas then all is lost.
It isn't that hard. If a person isn't a Nazi sympathizer they wouldn't be caught dead wearing anything remotely related to those pricks (historical LARPing isn't a counter argument to my statement here, and I am not calling people who LARP WWII "Nazis"). A person wouldn't be quoting actual, historical Nazis' as memes and a person definitely wouldn't be tattooing Nazi icons on their body. The people who do those things are Nazis as far as I am concerned.
