Jump to content
harcourt™

American Politics and Trump End Times Haha Fuck Everything Faygo Not Fascism Thread

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Moon said:

I'm really struck by how flat footed Trump has been in his handling of this news cycle. Trump can usually play the media and cry fake news and everyone forgets about the controversy of the day. But he keeps allowing it to linger by responding to it constantly. 

 

trump already can't handle personal criticism at all, and that coupled with the truly absurd amount of publicity this is getting seems to have baffled him

 

also I kind of have a hunch that everything or most everything in the book is accurate and trump is panicking that someone was able to get all of this information so easily

 

9 minutes ago, Palo said:

Book says Kushner refers to his father as daddy in front of others which got a laugh outta me

 

grown men using "mommy" or "daddy" is already supremely unsettling but it's downright horrifying when someone as powerful as kushner does it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"[Ivanka] described the mechanics behind it to friends: an absolutely clean pate—a contained island after scalp reduction surgery—surrounded by a furry circle of hair around the sides and front, from which all ends are drawn up to meet in the center and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray."

 

:goldblum:

psycho, Jenks and banh mi like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Palo said:

scalp reduction surgery

 

i looked this up

 

yikes

 

 

Quote

 

Well, scalp reduction surgery is only really used nowadays for treating extreme cases of alopecia or traumatic burns. In that context, the fact that Trump apparently had the treatment simply to mediate hair loss is quite shocking. However, scalp reduction was all the rage in the 1980s. Stevenson believes the precise procedure Trump undertook was called the Fleming/Mayer Flap, where a piece of the scalp is found with hair on and then it is cut on three sides to create said flap. This sliver of skin is then twisted, pulled and forced into a new position on the hairline where the faulty follicles are.

You are basically stretching the hairy part of your scalp over to the parts that have no hair - a stomach-churning concept that is now widely discredited.  The most common modern practice merely involves taking hair follicles from the back of your head, a scarless procedure with relatively no downtime. "He would have been in bed for a number of weeks, in chronic pain," Stevenson predicts.  "It would be like going to get root canal work in the late 1970s. I can imagine he has persisting pain or even permanent nerve damage."

 

 

Jenks, psycho and Palo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone around him strangely comforted by the fact that he doesn't read so he might never know what they actually think of him even though it's all in a current bestseller. still whining at rupert on the phone, who can't believe it. hope hicks hiding tears while locked in the room with him.

lukin? likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Palo said:

 

Intent is an element of plenty of crimes. I'm not done with the book, but it seems to be painting him in a light where a collusion case would lack mens rea 

 

Is there generally a legal distinction between

 

knowing you are committing an act that is a crime, or an act that is a crime will be committed due to your actions, but not knowing said act is a crime

 

and

 

knowing you are committing an act that is a crime, or an act that is a crime will be committed due to your actions, while knowing said act is a crime

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to this layman that there are two (conflicting?) ideas at play here. [Intent], and [ignorance of the law]. Can't he have intent (or mens rea) while also being ignorant of the law? Where he needs intent (or mens rea) to be guilty, but at the same time, ignorance of the law doesn't prevent his guilt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, I am a damn ass buddy said:

 

Is there generally a legal distinction between

 

knowing you are committing an act that is a crime, or an act that is a crime will be committed due to your actions, but not knowing that act is a crime

 

and

 

knowing you are committing an act that is a crime, or an act that is a crime will be committed due to your actions, while knowing that act is a crime

 

 

 

 

 

It seems to this layman that there are two (conflicting?) ideas at play here. Intent, and ignorance of the law. Can't he have intent (or mens rea) while also being ignorant of the law? Where he needs intent (or mens rea) to be guilty, but at the same time, ignorance of the law doesn't prevent his guilt?

 

Yes there are very narrow exceptions where ignorance of the law can excuse guilt but that wouldn't apply here. Mens rea ties to the act itself. So if you didn't know you were doing the action itself a key element could be missing. You can certainly have the intent to do an act without knowledge of the illegality and still be guilty of a crime. 

Pregnant Chad likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book (quarter way through)  isn't painting him as ignorant of the law, they're painting him as a borderline vegetable who doesn't really know what any of his appointees are up to at any time. I think a strict construction would still find him negligent and therefore culpable, but if that ends up being the case against him it'll be harder to win imo. 

Pregnant Chad and John McClane like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Palo said:

The book (quarter way through)  isn't painting him as ignorant of the law, they're painting him as a borderline vegetable who doesn't really know what any of his appointees are up to at any time. I think a strict construction would still find him negligent and therefore culpable, but if that ends up being the case against him it'll be harder to win imo. 

 

That sucks, but at least it's not totally ruling out his culpability.

 

And, I guess it would be harder than usual for his defense to use that incompetence strategy? Like, the lawyers would probably have to get some kind of waiver to go against Trump's instructions, if he doesn't want to go with a mentally incompetent argument?

 

And if watching LAW & ORDER has taught me anything, it's that evidence like "he is the President" and "all these powerful legislators and other people say good things about his acumen" would be pretty hard to refute in a competence hearing. Not impossible, but not so easy. Especially when the crime is political and we have all this "evidence" of his political acumen. Or maybe that's all not so relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, I am a damn ass buddy said:

 

That sucks, but at least it's not totally ruling out his culpability.

 

And, I guess it would be harder than usual for his defense to use that incompetence strategy? Like, the lawyers would probably have to get some kind of waiver to go against Trump's instructions, if he doesn't want to go with a mentally incompetent argument?

 

And if watching LAW & ORDER has taught me anything, it's that evidence like "he is the President" and "all these powerful legislators and other people say good things about his acumen" would be pretty hard to refute in a competence hearing. Not impossible, but not so easy. Especially when the crime is political and we have all this "evidence" of his political acumen. Or maybe that's all not so relevant?

 

Yeah he might fire lawyers that tell him to lean into being too stupid. It also wouldn't be an incompetence hearing. It would be in trial when they're presenting evidence for and against each element they would say the intent was not there because he wasn't directing or aware of the actions of his appointees. It ultimately would be difficult to prove the intent. 

 

The good news I guess is that the book isnt the type of evidence that would make it to a courtroom, but is just a tool to sway public opinion. 

psycho and Pregnant Chad like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I am a damn ass buddy said:

 

Is there generally a legal distinction between

 

knowing you are committing an act that is a crime, or an act that is a crime will be committed due to your actions, but not knowing said act is a crime

 

 

 

Yeah...when you're a peasant you get convicted :thumbsup: 

 

When you're coated in millions of dollars...maybe that's a different story

ihaveproblems‽ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×