I'm not sure how that logic works.
I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."
Bilious bullshit.
Trump's "lawyers" won't offer any sort of defense.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
They will distract, deflect, distort and dissemble.
They'll engage in whataboutism and name-calling.
They'll call the trial "unconstitutional," even though the Senate decided it wasn't.
They won't engage with the facts.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
https://t.co/IKpBkDzahB
Trump's "lawyers" have said they only need one day (tomorrow) to defend Trump.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 11, 2021
My guesses for what they'll do:
Distract, lie, distort, and deflect.
1/11
Of course, he also referred to "incitement to resurrection," so it's hard to say.
There is no "due process" consideration in either a grand jury or a House Impeachment. That's not how it works. It's like saying you can't checkmate someone in chess without holding a straight flush.
https://t.co/KyCcL1HyOK
Schoen is pretending courtroom "due process" must be followed--after meeting with some of the jurors to plan strategy last night.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
More from Law
This issue was repeatedly highlighted bu Judge Totenberg:
Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”
Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:
“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”
This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”
Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”
Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.
She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“
Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”
Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
Dominion’s system “does not produce a voter-verifiable paper ballot or a paper ballot marked with the voter’s choices in a format readable by the voter because the votes are tabulated solely from the unreadable QR code.”
Witness explaining that on electronic ballots (QR code ballots), it's impossible to determine voter intent. The machine decides the intent, whereas, with paper ballots, a human can double-check the ballot. https://t.co/kkhamio2Je
— The Election Wizard (@Wizard_Predicts) December 30, 2020
Judge also found that Dominion's QR codes are NOT encrypted:
“Evidence plainly contradicts any contention that the QR codes or digital signatures are encrypted,”
This was “ultimately conceded by Mr. Cobb and expressly acknowledged later by Dr. Coomer during his testimony.”
Judge Totenberg said there was “demonstrable evidence” that the implementation of Dominion’s systems by Georgia placed voters at an “imminent risk of deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote,” which she defined as a “vote that is accurately counted.”
Judge Totenberg found that Dominion Systems inherently could not be audited.
She noted that auditors are severely limited and “can only determine whether the BMD printout was tabulated accurately, not whether the election outcome is correct.“
Totenberg stated in her ruling that a BMD printout “is not trustworthy” and the application of an Risk-Limiting audit (RLA) to an election that used BMD printouts “does not yield a true risk-limiting audit.”
Georgia used RLAs to claim no fraud...
The Supremacy Of The Shari’a- A Thread 🧵
The Shari'a Law has been a subject of inequitable prejudice for a long time, which we already know is false & illogical.
However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏
Let's debunk all the myths.
Harvard Economists point out how eradication of poverty in secular states is one of the pressing issues academics face.
In fact, around a billion people live in extreme poverty conditions under the notion of secularism.
https://t.co/gVp2jRtjqU
https://t.co/oZELY0BFrd
Contrary to secularism-Islam was extremely triumphant in this regard.
The Shari'a states successfully eradicated poverty by creation of a welfare society & the institutionalization of obligatory charity.
https://t.co/5xpQkQ6ZQb
https://t.co/KH1sl1omB5
https://t.co/38ak5CUK1L
A logical outcome of 0% poverty is 0% crime rates, as criminologists point out.
This can be explained by the theory of Synnomie, which explains 0% crime rates & ideal social order under the Shari'a.
https://t.co/QwtLB6xEFW
https://t.co/HskBa5qy4P
https://t.co/mklS6BIOL0
The Shari'a Law has been a subject of inequitable prejudice for a long time, which we already know is false & illogical.
However, as long as such claims are being made- we will have to falsify 'em.😏
Let's debunk all the myths.
Harvard Economists point out how eradication of poverty in secular states is one of the pressing issues academics face.
In fact, around a billion people live in extreme poverty conditions under the notion of secularism.
https://t.co/gVp2jRtjqU
https://t.co/oZELY0BFrd
Contrary to secularism-Islam was extremely triumphant in this regard.
The Shari'a states successfully eradicated poverty by creation of a welfare society & the institutionalization of obligatory charity.
https://t.co/5xpQkQ6ZQb
https://t.co/KH1sl1omB5
https://t.co/38ak5CUK1L
A logical outcome of 0% poverty is 0% crime rates, as criminologists point out.
This can be explained by the theory of Synnomie, which explains 0% crime rates & ideal social order under the Shari'a.
https://t.co/QwtLB6xEFW
https://t.co/HskBa5qy4P
https://t.co/mklS6BIOL0
Today the superior court will hear oral arguments in Midtown Citizens Coalition v. Municipality of Anchorage. "MCC" is an unofficial group that opposes the recall of Assembly member Felix Rivera. The question is whether the Muni properly certified the recall petition. #aklaw
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
Oral argument in scheduled for January 21 at 3 pm in this case & will be telephonic. To listen, call 1-800-768-2983, code: 2640561#. Alternate phone numbers if the toll-free number gives you trouble: 1-907-206-2349 or 1-913-904-9867 or 1-212-231-3884.
— Alaska Court System (@AlaskaCourt) January 20, 2021
Before posting the MCC v. MOA briefs, it's worth noting that the legal arguments made by Rivera's supporters parallel those made by Dunleavy in Recall Dunleavy v. State. Both Rivera and Dunleavy argued that their recall petitions should have been denied by election officials.
So let's play a game called "Who Argued It." Guess which politician, Rivera or Dunleavy, made the following arguments in court:
1. "The grounds for recall stated in the petition are insufficient as a matter of law, and therefore the petition should have been rejected."
2. "Even under Alaska’s liberal recall standards, courts have not hesitated to find petitions legally insufficient when those petitions did not contain sufficient factual allegations of unlawful activity to state sufficient grounds for recall.”
3. "The allegations must be sufficiently particular to allow the official a meaningful opportunity to respond . . . . [and] ensure that voters have the information they need to vote."
You May Also Like
1/ Here’s a list of conversational frameworks I’ve picked up that have been helpful.
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?
Please add your own.
2/ The Magic Question: "What would need to be true for you
1/\u201cWhat would need to be true for you to\u2026.X\u201d
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) December 4, 2018
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody: https://t.co/Yo6jHbSit9
3/ On evaluating where someone’s head is at regarding a topic they are being wishy-washy about or delaying.
“Gun to the head—what would you decide now?”
“Fast forward 6 months after your sabbatical--how would you decide: what criteria is most important to you?”
4/ Other Q’s re: decisions:
“Putting aside a list of pros/cons, what’s the *one* reason you’re doing this?” “Why is that the most important reason?”
“What’s end-game here?”
“What does success look like in a world where you pick that path?”
5/ When listening, after empathizing, and wanting to help them make their own decisions without imposing your world view:
“What would the best version of yourself do”?