This week in lawfare
-
@Horace said in This week in lawfare:
The weight of online punditry that's come across my feed seems to think the Bolton indictment is pretty serious.
Well I've certainly been wrong many times before, although admittedly I look at an awful lot less online punditry than most people.
@Doctor-Phibes said in This week in lawfare:
@Horace said in This week in lawfare:
The weight of online punditry that's come across my feed seems to think the Bolton indictment is pretty serious.
Well I've certainly been wrong many times before, although admittedly I look at an awful lot less online punditry than most people.
I forgive you for not being in tune with online punditry, but I'm not sure what your assumptions about the Bolton case are based on, other than "if Trump did it, it's stupid".
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in This week in lawfare:
@Horace said in This week in lawfare:
The weight of online punditry that's come across my feed seems to think the Bolton indictment is pretty serious.
Well I've certainly been wrong many times before, although admittedly I look at an awful lot less online punditry than most people.
I forgive you for not being in tune with online punditry, but I'm not sure what your assumptions about the Bolton case are based on, other than "if Trump did it, it's stupid".
@Horace said in This week in lawfare:
I forgive you for not being in tune with online punditry, but I'm not sure what your assumptions about the Bolton case are based on, other than "if Trump did it, it's stupid".
It's been a pretty reliable method for predictions thus far.
My assumption is mainly based on the fact that I'd be a little surprised if somebody as smart as Bolton would set himself up for this. Obviously coupled with Trumps history of vindictive and petty behaviour, which nobody is likely to deny.
-
@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.
