NAACP sues Trump and Giuliani after Jan. 6 riots

[moxy 1,051]

2 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Regardless, for this lawsuit to go anywhere, the accusers have to show fairly definitive proof there was some sort of collusion between the parties being sued.  The Dems led by Adam Schiff spent four years trying to prove Trump/Russian collusion to no avail, and even the vaunted DC insider Mueller could not find anything in two years.  If they have the proof here, then I am not sure why this is not being referred for criminal prosecution rather than going the route of a civil lawsuit. 

Well, Schiff's team proved collusion. Senate Republicans just refused to convict. Mueller's report was extremely damning, and to use Mueller's own words, "Trump was not exonerated by my report." But whatever. We know impeachment is a political process, and politics won that day. I accept that the President was not convicted.

 

In any case, you're correct that the accusers must show proof. If these suits go forward, this will be in a real court of law where real standards of evidence and ethics apply. From the article:

 

Quote

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday morning in Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that Trump and Giuliani, in collaboration with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, conspired to incite the riot to keep Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election. It claims they did so in violation of the Ku Klux Klan Act, a Reconstruction-era statute designed to protect both formerly enslaved African Americans and lawmakers in Congress from white supremacist violence.

I'm not sure what the legal difference (if any) between collusion and collaboration is, but they will have to prove Trump collaborated with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in violation of the Ku Klux Klan act.

[moxy 1,051]

I asked a lawyer friend who used to frequent VJ about the legal definitions of collusion and collaboration. Her response:

 

Quote

Collaboration and collusion do not have legal definitions. The charge in that NAACP suit is about conspiracy, which does have a definition. Conspiracy is the agreement between two or more people to work towards a criminal goal. Modernly, there must be an act taken in furtherance of the conspiracy. If the crime is completed, the charge of conspiracy does not merge.

 

On conspiracy between Trump and the Proud Boys/Oath Keepers (which I mentioned I wasn't sure how you prove):
 

Quote

There are different kinds of conspiracies. There's hub and spoke where one person is at the center directing several others. And chain, where there's no center, but everyone is working in concert on their own bit of one conspiracy.

 

So (my words, not hers) it seems like there doesn't actually have to be a nefarious smoke-filled room where all the actors meet to commit the conspiracy. As long as it can be proven that each of these entities acted in the furtherance of a specific goal towards a specifically agreed end, even if they didn't outright plan it out step by step, that's all that is needed. I think there's a lot of evidence of this nature.

Edited February 17, 2021 by moxy

[Dashinka 24,687]

1 hour ago, moxy said:

Well, Schiff's team proved collusion. Senate Republicans just refused to convict. Mueller's report was extremely damning, and to use Mueller's own words, "Trump was not exonerated by my report." But whatever. We know impeachment is a political process, and politics won that day. I accept that the President was not convicted.

 

In any case, you're correct that the accusers must show proof. If these suits go forward, this will be in a real court of law where real standards of evidence and ethics apply. From the article:

 

I'm not sure what the legal difference (if any) between collusion and collaboration is, but they will have to prove Trump collaborated with the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in violation of the Ku Klux Klan act.

Schiff proved collusion?  Are you speaking of the first impeachment?  If so, I don't think that Russian collusion was covered at that time.  Now Schiff kept going to the media saying he had the goods on the Russian/Trump collusion, but for some reason he never revealed it except for going back to the adoption meeting in Trump Tower.  The Mueller report was loaded with spin to justify their partisan work, but showed nothing because if it did, the Dems would not have hesitated to impeach him at that time.

[Dashinka 24,687]

28 minutes ago, moxy said:

I asked a lawyer friend who used to frequent VJ about the legal definitions of collusion and collaboration. Her response:

 

 

On conspiracy between Trump and the Proud Boys/Oath Keepers (which I mentioned I wasn't sure how you prove):
 

 

So (my words, not hers) it seems like there doesn't actually have to be a nefarious smoke-filled room where all the actors meet to commit the conspiracy. As long as it can be proven that each of these entities acted in the furtherance of a specific goal towards a specifically agreed end, even if they didn't outright plan it out step by step, that's all that is needed. I think there's a lot of evidence of this nature.

If that is the case, then why wasn't Bernie Sanders sued for conspiracy when his ardent supporter tried to assassinate members of Congress?  Regardless, we will see what happens, but this lawsuit seems more like the Gorilla Glue Girl's lawsuit. 

[moxy 1,051]

6 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Schiff proved collusion?  Are you speaking of the first impeachment?  If so, I don't think that Russian collusion was covered at that time.  Now Schiff kept going to the media saying he had the goods on the Russian/Trump collusion, but for some reason he never revealed it except for going back to the adoption meeting in Trump Tower.  The Mueller report was loaded with spin to justify their partisan work, but showed nothing because if it did, the Dems would not have hesitated to impeach him at that time.

I'm speaking of the first impeachment.

 

I guess we read different Mueller reports.

[moxy 1,051]

4 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

If that is the case, then why wasn't Bernie Sanders sued for conspiracy when his ardent supporter tried to assassinate members of Congress?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Maybe there's no basis for suing a person just because one of their supporters is crazy?

 

The NAACP seems to think they have standing to litigate. I'll let others who are more versed in the law weigh in.

[Crazy Cat 42,026]

19 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

They may not win, but I would love Trump to take the stand and explain why he sat there and cheered on the rioters on TV and didn't give a tinkers dam about the lives of the VP or others at the Capitol.

Why would he like under oath??? This lawsuit is just silly.....

Edited February 17, 2021 by Lucky Cat

[Dashinka 24,687]

28 minutes ago, moxy said:

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Maybe there's no basis for suing a person just because one of their supporters is crazy?

 

The NAACP seems to think they have standing to litigate. I'll let others who are more versed in the law weigh in.

I agree, suing Bernie Sanders would have been just as frivolous as this lawsuit.

[moxy 1,051]

7 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I agree, suing Bernie Sanders would have been just as frivolous as this lawsuit.

I think equating a lone shooter to inciting thousands of rioters to insurrection might not be an accurate comparison.

 

But hey, if the suit is without merit, then it will be tossed. If the NAACP can't prove their case, then they will lose. As I said earlier, this is happening in the legal system where standing and evidence actually matter.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

7 hours ago, moxy said:

I asked a lawyer friend who used to frequent VJ about the legal definitions of collusion and collaboration. Her response:

 

 

On conspiracy between Trump and the Proud Boys/Oath Keepers (which I mentioned I wasn't sure how you prove):
 

 

So (my words, not hers) it seems like there doesn't actually have to be a nefarious smoke-filled room where all the actors meet to commit the conspiracy. As long as it can be proven that each of these entities acted in the furtherance of a specific goal towards a specifically agreed end, even if they didn't outright plan it out step by step, that's all that is needed. I think there's a lot of evidence of this nature.

That is one smart attorney.

6 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

Why would he like under oath??? This lawsuit is just silly.....

How would you know if you haven't delved into the details of the case?

[moxy 1,051]

7 hours ago, Lucky Cat said:

Why would he like under oath??? This lawsuit is just silly.....

He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and lied about that. So what's one more?

[TBoneTX 45,778]

On 2/16/2021 at 2:23 PM, Dashinka said:

lawyers make a bunch of money

A man poked his head into a lawyer's office.  "How much do you charge for a consultation?" he asked.

"$900 for 3 questions," said the lawyer, without looking up.

"$900 for 3 questions?!" asked the man.  "Isn't that rather steep?"

"I don't think so," said the lawyer, again not looking up.  "And what is your third question?"

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

11 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

A man poked his head into a lawyer's office.  "How much do you charge for a consultation?" he asked.

"$900 for 3 questions," said the lawyer, without looking up.

"$900 for 3 questions?!" asked the man.  "Isn't that rather steep?"

"I don't think so," said the lawyer, again not looking up.  "And what is your third question?"

Do we have a rule about recycling the same joke in one month per poster? Apparently not.

[Ban Hammer 13,465]

3 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Do we have a rule about recycling the same joke in one month per poster? Apparently not.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

38 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

10 of 10