*Edited* DeSantis vs Trump

[Horn6721]

This is not the Bee. Need to look up the word hypocrite in Spanish

" Mexico’s pro-migration government is threatening to retaliate against Florida’s pro-American governor, Ron DeSantis, whose campaign-trail border policies are putting him on a collision course with Mexico’s president.
The Government of Mexico emphatically condemns the practice of transporting migrant persons from states bordering Mexico toward other parts of the United States with electoral and political ends … Legal and diplomatic measures will be explored,” said the June 8 statement from Mexico’s foreign ministry.
"Mexican Government Threatens DeSantis for Anti-Migration Policies

 

[utahorn]

The Government of Mexico emphatically condemns the practice of transporting migrant persons from states bordering Mexico toward other parts of the United States

Does the Mexican President not understand geography? Florida does not border Mexico.

BTW, in Texas and other border states, we should be able to do as WE see fit with those who cross our borders illegally, not the Mexican government or the cartels. These people are not being mistreated. If they were, they would stop coming.

Don't know if anyone noticed this but when DeSantis was in Arizona, look at the flags behind him. They represent the border Nation and several States - United States, Texas, Florida, Arizona and New Mexico. No California flag. Intentional?

 

[ViperHorn]

The difference is that the defense will have more say so as well on who goes on the jury. Judge Cannon won't allow a fiasco to what we've seen in the D.C. courts. Man, those seditious conspiracy trials were a joke.

Great it it happens, but do not count on it if the judge wants to keep his job and out of trouble. The documents were in Trump's possession; he says he cleared the security, but the US claims that there is no record of that while he was President. That is the hurdle. It will be even bigger if the defense cannot win on that argument.

The issue with Biden is no one looked, and Merrick Garland has given him a pass.

 

[utahorn]

The documents were in Trump's possession; he says he cleared the security, but the US claims that there is no record of that while he was President.

A dog ate the records? Novel argument.

I keep electronic and physical records of my important transactions. Did Trump and his legal team do the same? I hope so.

 

[Mr. Deez]

It says on "e" that "could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" just like the others.

It doesn't say "intent" but it does seem to imply it. "Has reason to believe.."

Sounds similar, but it's a pretty different and much lower kind of standard. Proving intent requires proving Trump's actual subjective motivation - what was in his head. That's hard to do without a smoking gun. "Reason to believe" is more objective. You don't have to prove his motivation or anything he actually believed - only what there was reason for him to believe. That's a lot easier to do.

 

[Garmel]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

That's fine, but you're in my wheelhouse on this issue. It's like me disagreeing with you on porn or boob jobs.

 

[Garmel]

That's fine, but you're in my wheelhouse on this issue. It's like me disagreeing with you on porn or boob jobs.

True, but I'm also capable of reading and interpreting like any other human being.

 

[Mr. Deez]

True, but I'm also capable of reading and interpreting like any other human being.

And I'm capable of looking at porn and boobjobs, but nobody is going to trust my judgment over yours.

 

[Garmel]

And I'm capable of looking at porn and boobjobs, but nobody is going to trust my judgment over yours.

Whatever

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
That was pretty weak.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mr D
That was pretty weak.

Hold on. What was weak? Because I wonder if we're talking past each other and don't want either one of us misconstrued.

 

[guy4321]

Does the Mexican President not understand geography? Florida does not border Mexico.

Looks like they touch to me!

 

[Horn6721]

We all agree you likely have more legal knowledge than Garnel since we know you are since you have told us you are.
But to say Garmel has more knowledge than you on porn and boob jobs based on jokes posted is weak.

 

[Mr. Deez]

We all agree you likely have more legal knowledge than Garnel since we know you are since you have told us you are.

But that's sorta the point. He's not agreeing with that. He's taking issue with me on something that involves and requires legal knowledge (interpreting a criminal statute). And that's ok, but it would be like me taking issue with mchammer on engineering (which I'm pretty sure is his profession). I'm free to do it, but I'd be pretty reluctant.

But to say Garmel has more knowledge than you on porn and boob jobs based on jokes posted is weak.

That's actually the funny part. He has taken on the role of the Hornfans resident pervert, so we fun with that.

 

[Garmel]

But that's sorta the point. He's not agreeing with that. He's taking issue with me on something that involves and requires legal knowledge (interpreting a criminal statute). And that's ok, but it would be like me taking issue with mchammer on engineering (which I'm pretty sure is his profession). I'm free to do it, but I'd be pretty reluctant.

You just can't let it go, can you? It's probably not hard to find many lawyers that would agree me. If it meant to say negligence it would be say it. Only one section mentions negligence and that's it.

I'll be sure when you try arguing with me about election fraud I will shut you down because of your lack of knowledge on the subject and trust me your knowledge of technology and how easy fraud is to do is bad.

 

[mchammer]

But that's sorta the point. He's not agreeing with that. He's taking issue with me on something that involves and requires legal knowledge (interpreting a criminal statute). And that's ok, but it would be like me taking issue with mchammer on engineering (which I'm pretty sure is his profession). I'm free to do it, but I'd be pretty reluctant.

Ooh, I’ve been waiting for the day when you do! Though to be fair, some facets of engineering is about trade-offs, so like economics how you weight various outcomes is project and/or society dependent.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Mr. Deez]

It's probably not hard to find many lawyers that would agree me.

Not trying to be a dick, but yes, it would be hard. I'm not saying it's a pure negligence standard. Honestly, it's a fairly unique standard that doesn't cleanly fit any of the usual common law culpable mental states. However, it's very clearly not intent or anything like intent.

I'll be sure when you try arguing with me about election fraud I will shut you down because of your lack of knowledge on the subject and trust me your knowledge of technology and how easy fraud is to do is bad

I'm not shutting you down at all. We can discuss it all you want, and I'm happy to explain my rationale if you'd like. And I don't claim to know or understand election technology, but I don't argue those points either, because it's not in my area of expertise.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Ooh, I’ve been waiting for the day when you do! Though to be fair, some facets of engineering is about trade-offs, so like economics how you weight various outcomes is project and/or society dependent.

I don't know diddly dick about engineering. You could literally just make up a bunch of gibberish, and I'd have no idea.

 

[Garmel]

No, it wouldn't be hard. You really need to dial back the ego, Deez. You've pulled this crap over and over here and it gets old. I remember you and Husker talking down to all of this about the Russian Collusion stuff. Mchammer and I tried to tell you that there were serious issues but you wouldn't listen. Then you had the audacity to tell us we were lucky. lol. Your precious law degree didn't help you, did it? You can take your snob **** elsewhere.

 

[mchammer]

No, it wouldn't be hard. You really need to dial back the ego, Deez. You've pulled this crap over and over here and it gets old. I remember you and Husker talking down to all of this about the Russian Collusion stuff. Mchammer and I tried to tell you that there were serious issues but you wouldn't listen. Then you had the audacity to tell us we were lucky. lol. Your precious law degree didn't help you, did it? You can take your snob **** elsewhere.

Garmel, please note Deez is a lawyer. I work with lawyers every day when working on contracts. You take the good with the bad. I appreciate having a legal view on this board. Lawyers also like being argumentative and when possible, throw their dicks around. It’s what lawyers do.

One last point. There is plain reading of the law and/or contract and then there is precedent. Us non-lawyers can read plain language, but we know nothing about precedent. The latter is important because arguments become real when there is a real trial and people could go to jail.

 

[Horn6721]

Mr D
The point is you demean Garmel with the porn bit.
Your point about your view on this particular issue is valid.
Don't weaken it with a demeaning characterization.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

If all of the Republican presidential hopefuls except Trump participate in the debates, one of them is going to take a flyer and call Trump out in very simple, but stern terms. That will be the Republican candidate.

I think this will be Christie. He's of the same brash mold as Trump just with more self-control. I think Christie sees a lane as the man willing to "call it straight" and hopes to catch on if DJT indictments turn base sour on DJT. He'll be one of the guys that can say "I said it first".

 

[Garmel]

Garmel, please note Deez is a lawyer. I work with lawyers every day when working on contracts. You take the good with the bad. I appreciate having a legal view on this board. Lawyers also like being argumentative and when possible, throw their dicks around. It’s what lawyers do.

One last point. There is plain reading of the law and/or contract and then there is precedent. Us non-lawyers can read plain language, but we know nothing about precedent. The latter is important because arguments become real when there is a real trial and people could go to jail.

Oh, I appreciate his legal takes here. However, I tried to leave the argument with "the agree to disagree" part then he responds with the "this is my wheelhouse" reply. There is zero need for that.

If there is precedent he should have pointed it out.

 

[Garmel]

I don't want any hard feelings between us, Deez but dial that stuff back, okay?

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

This type of rhetoric is not helpful. When asked about DJT's appointments, Desantis said.."Well, actually, I would say we’ll do better than that. I mean, I respect the three appointees he did, but none of those three are at the same level of Justices Thomas and Justice Alito. I think they are the gold standard, and so my justices will be along the lines of a Sam Alito and a Clarence Thomas. And in Florida, I inherited a very liberal state supreme court, maybe the most liberal in the country, very activist. But I was able to replace three of the four liberals my first month in office with conservative justices. I’ve since been able to make a number of appointments since then. So we now have the most conservative state supreme court in the country." Declaring that you are aiming to set conservative justices does harm to the process and institution. I know that judges matter and that he is making a "i'm more conservative" appeal to the base, but big picture matters here. If we want to fight against court packing in the future, you can't run around saying that your intent is to appoint conservatives.

 

[theiioftx]

I do not see what is wrong with differentiating between himself and Trump wherever he can. I think most conservatives would site Scalia and Thomas as the "gold" standard. Neither were appointed by Trump (nor was Alito). In a way, he simply tried to capitalize on a strength of Trump's while stating he can do better. But I guess each his own.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

I do not see what is wrong with differentiating between himself and Trump wherever he can. I think most conservatives would site Scalia and Thomas as the "gold" standard. Neither were appointed by Trump (nor was Alito). In a way, he simply tried to capitalize on a strength of Trump's while stating he can do better. But I guess each his own.

IMO, it matters if when we lose all three leg bodies at the same time. The wheel is already in motion for the Dem's to pack the court. Adding fuel to their justification is a long term losing strategy. saying things like "originalist" or "not activists" might work, but out right stating your intent to be appointing "conservative" justices gives validity to their claim of the court being political. The rhetoric should always focus on "congress makes laws, judges make rulings based on actual law....not legislate from the bench"

 

[theiioftx]

Oh I get what your saying now. Very valid point.