This week in lawfare
-
@Horace said in This week in lawfare:
Apparently, this investigation started under Biden. Or so the guy at my first link says.
The reason I don't watch much online punditry (other than having other things I'd rather do) is that most of them pull this kind of stuff out of their arses. Given time and inclination I'm sure I could find some other self-appointed experts who hold the opposite view.
We shall see.
-
@Horace said in This week in lawfare:
Apparently, this investigation started under Biden. Or so the guy at my first link says.
The reason I don't watch much online punditry (other than having other things I'd rather do) is that most of them pull this kind of stuff out of their arses. Given time and inclination I'm sure I could find some other self-appointed experts who hold the opposite view.
We shall see.
@Doctor-Phibes said in This week in lawfare:
@Horace said in This week in lawfare:
Apparently, this investigation started under Biden. Or so the guy at my first link says.
The reason I don't watch much online punditry (other than having other things I'd rather do) is that most of them pull this kind of stuff out of their arses. Given time and inclination I'm sure I could find some other self-appointed experts who hold the opposite view.
We shall see.
He was referencing a NYT piece when he said it. Which of course he could still be pulling out of his ass. My confidence that he wasn't pulling it out of his ass, exceeds my confidence that Bolton is too smart to be guilty of what he is accused of in the indictment.
-
-
Well I haven't done a bit of research on this particular dunk, and just to keep things interesting, I won't. But I just bet that she won't be bringing charges that weren't approved by the grand jury. I also bet that you haven't done any research about this story, and neither has jon. You just love the screenshot, suspiciously link-free. I am sure this link-free graphic is how it appeared on jon's Twitter feed. Such a great dunk. Just look at how Ax reads it. Apparently Comey is going to be charged with murder 1, or something. Because TDS.
-
I heard about the story this morning on a podcast. Halligan created a new charging document which differed only by removing the unaccepted charges. Then the foreperson and one other juror were shown the new document, and the foreperson signed it. It's unclear whether the foreperson knew the document was not the exact one considered by the full jury, but there's no intent to deceive here in any case. It was a clerical error. Halligan's lack of experience probably mattered.
-
The legal commentators I’ve read are pretty damn sure. I assume he’d rather have it dismissed and not pay six figures more for a jury trial.
@jon-nyc said in This week in lawfare:
The legal commentators I’ve read are pretty damn sure. I assume he’d rather have it dismissed and not pay six figures more for a jury trial.
Small price to pay for a guy who wrote "A Higher Loyalty", or whatever his book was called which dripped with sanctimony. He should probably put his money where his mouth is, and establish how factually innocent he really is. Maybe it'll cost him some small fraction of his profits from his clout-chasing book, profits enabled by the cultural phenomenon that is Trump.
