Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Lord Dave

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 308  Next >
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: December 01, 2023, 09:29:50 PM »
Well a deposition regarding potentially illegal activity should probably be done in private. If anything illegal was done then the names Hunter Biden has to mention should probably go to law enforcement or the Congressional Sergeant at Arms rather than speak the names in public and tip off a potential criminal who thought that they were safe or that they wouldn't be pointed out, and cause people to destroy records and documents in a mad panic.

Among its powers, the House performs law enforcement functions and has powers to arrest people who defy their orders. If you are called by the House to testify in a private deposition, you should probably do what they say.

Again, sounds like an excuse.  Especially for a fishing deposition since no illegal activity has yet been found or charges brought.  Republicans have nothing to charge him on and this is purely a ploy to drum up either something they can use in sound bites for the election or a despirate hope that they can get him to admit to something illegal.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: December 01, 2023, 06:31:02 AM »

So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public.  Wonder why?

Any insights Tom?

If you ever watch a public congressional testimony a good percentage of the responses to the questions are "I can't mention names in public" or "I can't disclose that in this public setting" and that somehow passes for an answer.

It sounds like they want a private deposition and are also open to a public one at a future date as well.

Since the investigation is about foreign entites outside US jurisdiction, Joe Biden, and Hunter Biden... Not sure what names they could mention that shouldn't be public.  That sounds like an excuse. 

As for the future: is that before or after they release edited, out of context clips?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden
« on: November 30, 2023, 05:24:13 PM »

So "We need transparency" Republicans really really don't want Hunter Biden's testemony to be public.  Wonder why?

Any insights Tom?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 27, 2023, 08:33:21 PM »
You are mainly just claiming things like it is possible that someone doesn't scream when they are raped. This possibility does nothing to erase that red flag.

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable. If you were to go and rape a woman in a store bathroom tomorrow against her will how likely is it that the woman will scream for help? Very likely, obviously.

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.
Rates of screaming is minimal.  Its not "improbable" its "typical".  You're thinking like a man.  You're tough and your fight or flight typically turns to fight.  So you'd scream.  You'd claw and bite and do anything to stop it.

But a woman?  A quiet plea.  A silent prayer it'll be over soon.  Because that man CAN and WILL hurt you.  And no one is gonna believe you.

Also, rape is rarely "man pushes woman to the floor suddenly and shoves his dick into her.".
Its usually more subtle.  A pushy makeout session that turns more agressive until you can't stop him.

A knife or a threat of violence.

An unwanted touch that doesn't stop from someone you know will be trusted more than you.  Who would believe Donald Trump, a man who can have any woman, would do this to you?  No one.  "And if you scream, I'll ruin your life." And you know those aren't empty words.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 18, 2023, 07:54:41 AM »

Big takeaway:
The judge ruled Trump did engage in insurrection but also ruled that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to presidents.

This is an unfortunate blow to future cases.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 14, 2023, 10:59:24 PM »
Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.
You know damn well he does.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 14, 2023, 07:07:29 PM »
Trump *was* Very rich.
And he got away with it because they were bluecollar crimes that could be paid away.  But then he went into politics and too many eyes are on him now.

But hey, we have Tom's prediction.  I look forward to seeing how it pans out but I suspect he won't go to jail.  It would be too easy for him to make it politically motivated and cause a riot or three.  Maybe.  Depends on how his supporters feel about missing work.

Anyway, now we know that if you wanna do crime, run for office first.  Then its a witch hunt if you're caught!

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 14, 2023, 01:21:42 PM »
Look guys.
Tom is gonna say 'i told you so' if Powell has nothing.
If Powell has damning testemony, he'll dismiss it as fake or lies or whatever.

Actually, what Tom and the Maganoids don't understand is that Kraken Lady ALREADY testified on video. If she changes her testimony on the stand at this point, the video of her proffer will still be shown in evidence and she will be facing all the original felonies.

As traitors go, Ellis is very different than Kraken Lady in that she seems genuinely remorseful and understands what a dumbass she was for believing anything from the Trump people.

Yes but we haven't seen that video so its irrelevant.
I'm also not talking about changing the story.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 14, 2023, 12:30:52 PM »
Look guys.
Tom is gonna say 'i told you so' if Powell has nothing.
If Powell has damning testemony, he'll dismiss it as fake or lies or whatever.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 07, 2023, 04:36:16 PM »
"Do you guys gain an ounce of humility when all this hard evidence against Trump, which you always assume to exist in abundance before you have the facts, turns out to be garbage? This is all obviously just a fantasy wish of yours to 'get trump' more than anything. How could you possibly know that Trump has committed all of these criminal acts you have alleged over the years if you were not there? You do not know, which is why this is a fantasy."
The most hypocritical paragraph Tom has ever written.

Have ya seen that data proving the election was stolen yet, Tom?

But yeah, your analysis is flawed.  If sydney Powell doesn't attack the prosecution, she risks being attacked by Trumpers (like you).  She's milking what she can before her testemony comes out.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 03, 2023, 07:26:23 AM »
Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully. There could be a number of reasons that agreement was given. Maybe they initially overcharged her and gave her this standard truth agreement as a hail mary. Sidney Powell is certainly not acting like she flipped on Trump, judging by her continuous attacks on the prosecutors after this agreement -

"Sidney Powell pushes claims that 2020 election was rigged and prosecutors 'extorted' her after she pleaded guilty to election interference"


"On her social-media accounts, Powell has continued to push claims that the 2020 election was rigged and that prosecutors in Georgia who brought the criminal case against her were politically motivated."


"Powell's newsletter promoted a claim that Willis 'extorted' her guilty plea"


"Since her guilty plea, the newsletters have urged her followers to "hold fast." They told supporters to read and share articles and YouTube videos that argue her guilty plea was 'extorted' and amounted to a blow to Willis, the Fulton County district attorney."


"Powell's followers were directed to the same Federalist article again in her Monday newsletter. It also cited an Epoch Times article quoting Trump's attorney Steve Sadow, who said Powell pleaded guilty only because of 'pressure' from Willis."


"Ronald Carlson, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law, told Insider that Powell's comments were unusual for a cooperating witness who was likely to be asked to testify on behalf of the prosecution at a trial.

'Usually, after a guilty plea, the defendants do not want to rock the boat,' Carlson said."

So what you're saying is that you will only believe her testemony if it is positive for Trump.  Got it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: November 02, 2023, 11:29:05 PM »
Sydney Powell signed a deal to testify truthfully. That is all. Secret behind-the-scenes deals that she flipped on Trump is purely in your imagination based on what you are assuming happened between Powell and the prosecutor. A close associate of Sydney Powell insists that she has not "flipped":

Yes.  She agreed TO TESTIFY.  So no sneakily taking the 5th and not testifying truthfully.  Not answering is not testifying truthfully, after all.  Now here's a question: Will you believe her testemony?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 31, 2023, 10:40:28 AM »
Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

Ha! I really stuck in your craw, huh?

For the record, though, no I didn't, but it's so sweet that you went off on a wild, irrelevant (and long-winded, you really put thought into it) tangent based on a misunderstanding of something I wrote, and I've barely even contributed to this particular discussion!!

Well, what else is he gonna do?  Talk about how Trump is gonna release all that election data and get the results overturned in court?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 31, 2023, 05:10:54 AM »
Nobody here claimed that prosecutors directly represent the victims of crimes. ???

People did argue here that we should just assume what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does based on "common sense".

In the example given it shows that everyone is wrong about who a prosecutor represents:

    "If you stop a person on the street and ask who brings charges against defendants in victim related cases, almost everyone will say the victim."

    "Prosecutors represent the State of Indiana, and only they can bring charges, not victims. In all reality, once a crime has been reported, the victim loses any control over whether or not charges get brought or not and if they get dismissed. People are often shocked by this fact."

If most people are so shocked and surprised at who prosecutors really represent and how they function, how is it a valid argument to tell me that you are right about prosecutors based on (your) common sense and that all references which oppose your narrative are wrong, including statements by lawyers, attorneys associations, and academic papers?

Yes and?
Also notable distinction is this doesn't apply to civil matters.  Civil matters don't involve the state prosecutor's office.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 28, 2023, 04:16:02 AM »
We have an adversarial legal system, and the prosecution is absolutely, 100% in opposition to the defendant in any given criminal trial. That's not a creation of movies, it's the reality, and whatever lofty platitudes you can find online about how the ultimate duty of prosecutors lies with abstract concepts like justice do not change the facts about how prosecutors go about their business every day. Lawyers do not call witnesses to the stand or question them because they themselves are looking for more information about the case. They already know what information the witness asks. They already know the answer to the questions they ask. It's their job to know these things. The witnesses they call and the questions they ask are designed to convince the jury of a specific narrative - that the defendant is guilty, in the prosecution's case, or that the defendant is not guilty, in the defense's case.

I believe Tom is only using the word "prosecutor" in the context of "Federal Prosecutor" and not a more general "the prosecution lawyer".

So in that case, their job is to create and present a case against a defendant who has been accused by a federal agency of a crime.

They are also the ones who ultimately decide to prosecute or not based on collected evidence.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 27, 2023, 11:56:25 AM »
Even if that were true about making it easier to compel people to testify, none of it suggests that those people have agreed to "flip" or testify negatively on Trump. They have only agreed to testify truthfully in the agreement.
And why the utter fuck would a deal be made with them if what they had to say was going to exonerate Trump? Holy shit, dude? The mental backflips you do to argue black is white are ridiculous.

Did you read any of the quotes provided? A prosecutor's duty is to the truth, not to convict anyone.

Where does it say that Powell agreed to turn against Trump or testify negatively against Trump.
Such plea deals are a common strategy used by prosecutors to get accomplices to testify against the real target (in this case, Donald Trump).


In a criminal case the prosecutor will often make a plea agree-
ment with an accomplice of the defendant. Under these tradition-
ally sanctioned agreements the accomplice receives a reduced
sentence in return for full and truthful testimony during the defend-
ant's trial. In recent years, some prosecutors have further condi-
tioned the accomplice's reduction in sentence upon the defendant's
indictment or conviction or the prosecutor's satisfaction with the ac-
complice's testimony.

I took a look at that document:

"A number of state courts have censured bargains conditioned upon a witness's agreement to testify in a particular manner and have overturned the resulting convictions on both due process and policy grounds."

A deal can't be made to testify in a particular manner. So such deals are made with nothing more than a hope or assumption that the truth is in your favor. These deals are not an agreement for the witness to "flip" or "turn against" anybody.

Read the bolded in that quote:

Currently, about ninety percent of all criminal defendants plead guilty, and an unknown but substantial percentage of these defendants agree to testify against their co-defendants or co-conspirators in return for prosecutorial leniency. If the accomplice does not testify fully and truthfully, the prosecutor may refuse the leniency promised in the bargain. Courts sanction these "traditional" accomplice plea agreements and recognize them as a proper exercise of prosecutorial authority.

The bargain is only revoked based on grounds of truth, not because you testified in any particular manner. "Testifying against" in that sentence may mean that you are subpoenaed to testify in a particular case that is accusing someone of something. The agreement of the plea agreement is just to testify truthfully and nothing more.

The document you posted actually goes on at length to show what a plea deal really is. It is just encouragement to testify truthfully. That document says that prosecutors are officers of the court to encourage the truth, not to get people to testify in a certain way for convictions:

Prosecutors, whose duty is to seek justice rather than convictions90, should not place the desire for convictions ahead of the pursuit of unbiased testimony. Buying testimony with conditional leniency tips the scales of justice by inviting perjury.

Courts have rejected plea bargains which are contingent on testimonies that lead to arrests:

United States v. Bareshs is the only recent case in which a federal court deemed a plea bargain agreement so conducive to perjury that it tainted the testimony beyond any possibility of redemption. In Baresh, the contingent plea agreement provided the witness with a pardon and permission to keep assets obtained with his narcotics profits if his testimony led to the arrest and indictment of two specified defendants. If the testimony did not lead to arrest and indictment, however, the witness probably would receive a fifteen-year sentence even if he told the full truth. The district court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that the witness's devastating and totally uncorroborated testimony against a defendant whom the government had originally doubted it could indict was so unreliable that its admission violated the defendant's due process rights.

Courts have rejected plea deals that are contingent on the government's satisfaction:

The defendant in Dailey argued that the contingent accomplice agreements violated his due process rights because the agreements required more than full and truthful testimony. Two of the three agreements contained a promise for full cooperation in return for a recommendation of a sentence not to exceed twenty years. Furthermore, depending upon the value of the witnesses' testimony, the prosecution could recommend a sentence of only ten years. The agreement with the third witness consisted of a four-month stay of sentencing, the possibility of a further stay, and the potential for government support on a motion for sentence reduction. These last two benefits depended upon the value or "benefit" of the information to the government as determined by the prosecutor. The district court noted that the agreements required more than full cooperation by the witnesses because otherwise the provisions concerning the ten-year sentences and the further stay of sentencing would be superfluous. Therefore, the district court concluded that the prosecutor provided the witnesses with incentives to lie by conditioning further rewards upon the government's satisfaction.

Contingent plea agreements which elicit a particular testimony usurp the jury's role of determining guilt:

Because prosecutors already have the ability to obtain truthful testimony through traditional plea bargains, contingent agreements can only serve the purpose of eliciting particular testimony which the prosecutor wants to introduce at trial. The obvious danger of this practice is that the prosecutor ignores the principle that all persons are assumed innocent until proven guilty and instead usurps the jury's role of determining guilt.

When the prosecution makes a plea bargain agreement, they are just guessing at the extent of the witnesses' knowledge:

Because the prosecution does not know the extent of a witness's knowledge, the prosecutor must make a subjective decision whether to confer or withhold the benefits of the bargain.

It is wrong think that a plea deal means that someone has "flipped" against someone. The plea agreement is merely meant as additional encouragement to tell the truth, which again you are already required to do.

The role of a prosecutor is a role which has duties to society, to the alleged victim, and to the defendant suspected of the crime:

In criminal cases, prosecutors are responsible for representing not only the interests of society at large, but also those of victims of crimes. They also have duties to other individuals, including persons suspected of a crime and witnesses.

Prosecutors have a very unique role: Prosecutors represent society—all of the members of
society, including victims and defendants.
In this regard, prosecutors have a duty to ensure
the fairness of criminal proceedings. The United States Supreme Court noted in Berger v.
United States:

"[The prosecutor] is the representative not of an ordinary party to a
controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as
compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in
a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be

Because of this role, the ethical standards imposed upon prosecutors are extraordinary;
prosecutorial misconduct is not tolerated.

Then its clear, isn't it?
If all they want is the truth, then the truth is that Trump comitted crimes and if those truths are not presented in court by the people closest to Trump, justice will not be served and the prosecution will have failed the American People.

Thank you for helping to prove that Trump is likely guilty of the crimes he's accused of.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 26, 2023, 08:52:14 PM »
This is interesting.  Validity is high tho not infallable.
You are a defendant in a criminal case – As an extension of the Fifth Amendment, any criminal defendant cannot be forced to testify in a courtroom.  You should definitely consult with an experienced federal criminal defense lawyer for San Francisco, CA.

As they are defendants, they wouldn't be required to take the stand, which I think is the main point of the plea deal, not the truthful bit.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 26, 2023, 03:35:41 AM »
Looks like another half dozen rats might be getting ready to jump ship.

At this rate, Trump will be the only one on trial.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 24, 2023, 08:49:56 PM »
And another pleads guilty.

Weird.  You'd think all these lawyers wouldn't need to do that if what they did was perfectly legal and the election was stolen.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 24, 2023, 01:34:33 PM »
Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.
Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment.
You don't tell the truth or give testemony if you plead the 5th.  Kinda the whole point.

A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.
Lets cut to the chase, shall we?
I'll ask you to quote the law.
You'll refuse, likely atating something about 'do your own research'
I'll say the burden of proof is on you.
You'll say its on me and probably insult me.

You need someone to prove to you that prosecutors cannot ignore or violate the US Constitution?
You've shown nothing of substance.  All you've shown is an oath to support the constitution.  No where does it say that a plea deal can't require the defendant voluntarily waive their rights.

But you suck at law, so its not surprising.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 308  Next >