Chucking Trump etc off Twitter after Jan 6 provides key data for misinfo experiment After convicted criminal and twice impeached former president Donald Trump and 70,000 other accounts were booted from Twitter following the January 6 riots, the spread of misleading information on the platform fell. Perhaps it is common sense, but the finding is backed by a peer-reviewed paper published in the scientific …
Perhaps he'd have been happier if the story lead off with the truth?
Instead of "After convicted criminal and twice indicted former president Donald Trump"
you should have written "After 34 times convicted felon and twice impeached former president Donald Trump" ...
Just a thought.
"you should have written "After 34 times convicted felon and twice impeached former president Donald Trump" ...
Just a thought."
Bill Clinton was impeached as well and lied about what happened.
There's a good chance the Trump convictions will be overturned on appeal so don't put too much emphasis on the outcome of that case.
Not that great a chance based on the evidence presented, which was in fact in the public view for quite some time. Even if it gets tossed for procedural mistakes not the merits he's still a criminal, for which the public has full knowledge. It may keep him out of jail or prison, but it shouldn't change how we treat or discuss him. And he isn't a first time offender, he is a serial offender who represents a threat to the seated government, and incited a mob to attack both Republican and Democrats alike. More importantly Trump openly attacked both the press and the general populace when they showed up to protest him, under the thin guise of a photo op where he limply raised an upside down bible for bonus disrespect.
He could try to sue individuals that speak out against him for slander/libel of course, but he'd lose and wind up paying the other sides costs to re-litigate his failed cases in court. He'd also probably get fined for a slap suit to boot. And since he can't be trusted to open his mouth in court without committing perjury his defense council will have their hands tied.
That is one of a long list of reasons you shouldn't go on a public crime and corruption spree while in high office. This is just the first of a long list of convictions waiting for him. The blood is in the water and the less bold prosecutors are circling. And the bolder ones will be happy to pound on him in court all through the period between the elections and when the new president gets sworn in,
For bonus points the Republicans working with him are at real risk of getting mixed up in his criminal conspiracy, and interstate wire fraud was always popular with the Fed. Funny how Trump installed members of his family in charge of the RNC and the fund raising platform the party essentially mandated under McConnell. RICO charges and federal prison may be waiting for those that had their hand to far in the cookie jar. And republicans like me will be happy to keep pointing the press and the cops in the right direction. These idiots can't keep their mouths shut when they are with their own kind.
Though the party and I will be parting ways for a while if they put that clown at the head of the ticket at the convention. Bill Clinton made me a Republican, Trump and the RNC/RCCC may make me go independent.
Not that great a chance based on the evidence presented, which was in fact in the public view for quite some time. Even if it gets tossed for procedural mistakes not the merits he's still a criminal, for which the public has full knowledge. It may keep him out of jail or prison, but it shouldn't change how we treat or discuss him.
Problem is that isn't the way the law is supposed to work. If the conviction(s) are overturned on appeal, then Trump is not guilty of those charges. If you then continued to refer to him as a convicted felon, he could sue you for defamation and would win. Of course that won't matter to the far-left because they're already convinced Trump is guilty and we should be moving swiftly on with the hanging.
Meanwhile, in other news, Congress has referred Hunter and James Biden to the DoJ for lying to Congress. On top of the existing charges Hunter faces for firearms offences and tax evasion.
For bonus points the Republicans working with him are at real risk of getting mixed up in his criminal conspiracy, and interstate wire fraud was always popular with the Fed.
What 'criminal conspiracy?' I realise conspiracy theories are prevalent amongst the far-left, but what are you referring to? Currently the only offences charged are false accounting. That was for writing a cheque to his subsequently convicted lawyer 3 months after he was elected. How can the payment be considered evidence of 'election interference' when that happened after the election? Plus 'the Fed' already had ample opportunity to charge election interference and declined because they found no case. If NYC had a better case, they would have used it, but instead had to create a novel legal strategy to charge Trump with... something.
Which bizarrely means that depending on the outcome of any appeals, the prosecutors and any people who assisted them might find themselves facing their own charges of election interference for running with this show-trial.
Oh. And that Georgia thing? Appeals court ordered a stay on that one, so.. oops.
Always interesting to see the Russia simps siding with the 34 time convicted Trump
It's also interesting to see anonymongs imagining Russia everywhere! They're in the dossier! They're in the laptop! They're in the Blessed Hilary's personal mail server! Everywhere!
Strange the way politics works. Trump gets convincted. Trump sets fundraising record. Meanwhile, Biden holds up a donation for $3.50 with a genuine $3 bill, and says the people love him as well.
I'm ignoring the disgusting ableist slur you used as an insult.
However, you've a long history of simping for Russia in these forums and have regularly spewed pro Russian propaganda here, even stuff thats been widely and comprehensively debunked months and years before you regurgitated it so calling you a Russia simp and watching you side with Trump really does give extra credence to the proven claims of Russian election interference .
I'd suggest it's safe to assume you've done the same on other forums including twitter, you're part of the misinformation problem.
I'm ignoring the disgusting ableist slur you used as an insult.
Obviously you're not because you're referencing it. Or something. I'm not entirely sure what. Do share, so I can attempt to join in your faux outrage.
However, you've a long history of simping for Russia in these forums and have regularly spewed pro Russian propaganda here, even stuff thats been widely and comprehensively debunked months and years before you regurgitated
Ah, I get it now. You still think the Biden laptop, Steele Dossier, Hilary 'hack', Hamiliton 68 dashboard etc were really Russian, and not DNC propaganda.
...and watching you side with Trump really does give extra credence to the proven claims of Russian election interference.
And this is how conspiracy theories are born..
I'd suggest it's safe to assume you've done the same on other forums including twitter, you're part of the misinformation problem.
I'd suggest it's safe to assume you have a particulary vivid imagination and a slim grasp of reality. I futher suggest that it's safe to assume you have no evidence to support your accusation, but just as with your strange ideas wrt justice, you don't really understand the difference between evidence and misinformation.
What is absolutely hysterical is watching these MAGA cultists following Trump, the self-proclaimed communist dictator lover, all the while proudly claiming to be Republicans.
Somewhere, Tailgunner Joe is spinning fast enough to light up the entire shoreline of Lake Michigan ... even though that old shyster was the prototype for the modern GOP.
Would it be right to say that overturning the conviction for procedural rather than evidentiary reasons just gets him another trial?
I.. think so? IANAL but this seems to cover it-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause
Jeopardy does not attach in a retrial of a conviction that was reversed on appeal on procedural grounds (as opposed to evidentiary insufficiency grounds), in a retrial for which "manifest necessity" has been shown following a mistrial,
So I'm thinking the weird part. Appeal judge strikes the original conviction because elevating the false accounting charges to felonies requires attempting to conceal another crime. As I understand it, this is the way this is usually charged, ie the crime plus the false accounting. This is the first time it's been used without charging that crime, but instead arguing it and possibly not allowing the defence to challenge it. So the appeal judge may strike the convictions, but order a retrial to include the underlying crime(s). So this time, try the case as election interference or election finance, plus the false accounting.
But this is also the justice part. It seems funamentally wrong that someone can be convicted of a felony, without the actions that cause it to become a felony being charged. I'm also not a fan of the way US prosecutions can create multipliers. So Cohen pays Daniels, Trump pays Cohen, it gets booked as legal expenses. So my simple brain, that seems like it should be one crime, not 34.
"So my simple brain, that seems like it should be one crime, not 34."
Perhaps type into DDG the simple question "What are the 34 felonies that Convicted Felon Donald Trump was convicted of?"? I'll bet you will find a long list of articles that will answer any and all questions, presented in language that even a non-lawyer can understand.
Or is that too difficult for self-confessed simpletons?
Or is that too difficult for self-confessed simpletons?
A true simpleton wouldn't know that Trump isn't technically a "convicted felon" until the judge enters a judgement of guilt, which hasn't been done yet. That hasn't happened yet, so any articles are still just specualtion. The court has sent a letter saying someone on the jury might have leaked the verdict to a cousin, who then posted on FaceMelta. If so, the judge may declare a mistrial, or Trump defence may call for a mistrial. Or the cousin may have simply been making stuff up.
Or appeals may reverse the result and then the conviction is overturned and vanishes. Then another aspect I'm curious about, namely what sanctions or charges the prosecution and judge could face. And I'm also curious about the pre-sentencing interviews the Bbc's just reported on given Trump has his own jet and could be considered a flight risk. July 11th could be fun. Plus there are the other show trials ongoing. One might test the limits of Presidential immunity, which is another weird thing. That only applies to 'official duties' but is something that sounds like it should be limited. So no daily briefings with tea, biscuits and ritual sacrifice provided.
Self-confessed simpletons just run with whatever pablum the MSM feeds them though. Guilty! Can we get on with the hanging now?
"A true simpleton wouldn't know that Trump isn't technically a "convicted felon" until the judge enters a judgement of guilt, which hasn't been done yet."
You really do like to display your ignorance, don't you?
At the current moment in time, Convicted Felon Donald Trump has been a convicted felon since the moment the jury came back with the first of not one, but 34 counts of guilty. That is reality, and a matter of public record, and it matters not what armchair lawyers on the Internet have to say on the subject.
What may confuse you is that sentencing is in the future, July 11th to be precise. Regardless, Donald Trump is right now, today, a convicted felon. Pie in the sky future fantasies of the MAGA-cult do not change that, not even a little tiny bit. Their hero/saint/god is a convicted criminal.
"someone on the jury might have leaked the verdict to a cousin, who then posted on FaceMelta."
The post was made by an idiot who describes itself as a "professional shitposter". Do the math(s).
The rest of yours is misdirection, waffling, conspiracy, lies and other bullshit much loved by the MAGA-cult, and not worth replying to.
At the current moment in time, Convicted Felon Donald Trump has been a convicted felon since the moment the jury came back with the first of not one, but 34 counts of guilty. That is reality, and a matter of public record, and it matters not what armchair lawyers on the Internet have to say on the subject.
Not armchair, but actual.
What may confuse you is that sentencing is in the future, July 11th to be precise.
Didn't confuse me at all given I mentioned it. But I'm sure an expert and well informed person such as yourself can cite the actual judgement?
"Not armchair, but actual."
You mean one of the "actual lawyers" employed by convicted felon Donald Trump? The lawyers who, to date, have failed to win a single case for him? Seriously, find a case dating back to the flurry of lawsuits he filed while still in office claiming "election fraud". Can you remember a single case that these lawyers have won in that time frame?
For extra points, how many of said lawyers are now doing jail time (or due to report to jail)? How many more will follow? Any bets?
"can cite the actual judgement?"
What I can or cannot do has no bearing on things. What matters is what the Court in New York has to say. Go look it up for yourself, it's available on their web site.
Also, the actual judgement has been broadcast all over the MSM. It matters not what your opinion is about the MSM ... but think about it (if you are capable): Would the extremely litigious Donald Trump allow them to broadcast "Convicted Felon Donald Trump" headlines all over the world WITHOUT him filing defamation lawsuits against each and every one of them if it were not true? Remember, this is the man who owes somewhere around a billion dollars to various people for defaming them. Don't you think he'd try to get some of that money back if he were able?
You mean one of the "actual lawyers" employed by convicted felon Donald Trump?
Nope,
Seriously.. watch this video-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u23t__ysVjU
Where a Yale law professor walks you through the case, and also explains the 34 charges, which the prosecution effectively argued was one crime. The video's good because it provides a simple explanation of the law and the issues with this case.
For extra points, how many of said lawyers are now doing jail time (or due to report to jail)? How many more will follow? Any bets?
Objection, relevance. But didn't one of the witch hunters run into a few legal troubles after it was discovered she'd hired her lover?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_election_racketeering_prosecution
As of June 2024, the case is paused while the Georgia Court of Appeals decides whether to disqualify Fani Willis.
What I can or cannot do has no bearing on things. What matters is what the Court in New York has to say. Go look it up for yourself, it's available on their web site.
Sure it has bearing. Yes, what matters is what the Court has to say. So the jury reached a verdict and found Trump guilty. The judgement has not yet been made, so is not yet available on the Court's website.
Jellied is correct. A judge could toss out a jury's findings and it's not "official" until the verdict is "entered" which is usually the next step that's followed by a sentencing hearing if the verdict is officially guilty. The discrete steps are not usually considered by anybody but attorneys and judges as it's a rare case where a judge will overturn a jury without very strong cause. Every step of this case is going to be fought tooth and nail. There's no question that it will be sent up for appeal and every appearance of impropriety will have to be investigated. An appeals court may agree that being convicted with covering up a crime where no crime has been adjudicated is not appropriate. It could be sent back down for re-trial, done properly the next time or dismissed with prejudice so it's dead.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Would it be right to say that overturning the conviction for procedural rather than evidentiary reasons just gets him another trial?"
There might be another trial, but the charges also have some very serious defects as in, nobody has ever been tried for what was being accused. One of these days I'll get my head around the what's of the charges, but it's very convoluted. There may also not be another trial if the charges aren't viable. It might also all be moot if Mr Trump is re-elected.
Bill Clinton is no longer in politics. In fact, none of the Clintons are in politics, and haven't been for a long time. Certainly not in this election cycle. Why are you still babbling about ancient history?
Oh, yeah, that's why. Misdirection noted. Typical.
During the meanwhile, Convicted Felon Donald Trump is right now, currently, a convicted felon. With over a hundred other indictments (and counting) waiting to be resolved.
Except Clinton didn't get done feloneously for lying. He didn't get done for trying to buy Lewinsky off (he never tried either, to anyone's knowledge).
Trumpet did. And he paid off Daniels, via his lawyer, under the guise of some business expense. And the lawyer turned on him and dobbed him in. Funny how this only happens to Trumpet, and no other politician on the other side of the aisle... Maybe it's Trumpet, not the other side of the aisle, that's the problem.
"He didn't get done for trying to buy Lewinsky off "
What gets forgotten is not that "I never had sex with that woman", but that he instructed Monica to lie to investigators on another matter and that's what was the basis for the impeachment. What Bill got up to with women other than his wife on the occasions when it was consensual is a private matter. I'm not that bothered if Mr Trump tried to bury hush money in the accounting and it really isn't a problem if it's accounted for properly for tax purposes.
I'm not that bothered if Mr Trump tried to bury hush money in the accounting and it really isn't a problem if it's accounted for properly for tax purposes.
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of things was that if this is all it was then the law would not have been greatly interested either - it would have been a misdemeanour (and I think that the statute of limitations on that offence had also expired). However, when what was being hushed up was another offence then that raised the stakes and made the improper accounting a felony as well.
The prosecutor successfully made the case that the improper accounting had taken place and was linked to another offence.
"The prosecutor successfully made the case that the improper accounting had taken place and was linked to another offence."
The problem is that other offense was not named (no bill of particulars) and untried as well so the conviction was an after-the-fact offense of something that was Mr Trump was never charged with.
"Bill Clinton was impeached as well and lied about what happened."
Clinton was impeached for being not just a scumbag but a lying scumbag.
For Trump "lying scumbag" is just the base level of existence, he was impeached for inciting a mob to violently overturn a fairly arrived at democratic result*
"There's a good chance the Trump convictions will be overturned on appeal"
Possibly, for some procedural reason, but certainly not for the substantive facts, which are clear: The 'hush money' was for his campaign not his personal life since it was part of an extensive plan to catch and kill stories that would negatively affect his campaign. The money was paid outside of the umbrella of regulated campaign financing, meaning Trump violated campaign finance laws. And he clearly cooked his books to disguise campaign finance as legal expenses.
"don't put too much emphasis on the outcome of that case"
I wouldn't either, especially as it's the least worrisome of all his legal troubles. "Inciting a riot" and "Conspiring to overturn election results" are rather more serious issues, although he has managed to bog those down in procedural delays.
*incidentally, for those blathering about stolen elections, Trump as president had overall final responsibility for enforcement of federal election rules and in many of the contested states, the state-level electoral committee was republican, and they still certified his loss.
For Trump "lying scumbag" is just the base level of existence, he was impeached for inciting a mob to violently overturn a fairly arrived at democratic result*
Uhuhuh. And yet when the video footage from Jan6th was prised out of the 'committee', it mostly showed people ambling around inside the Capitol with the police looking on. Well, apart from the unarmed Ashli Babbitt who was executed while trying to climb through a broken window. Or the evidence that Trump offered and encouraged Washington's mayor to accept help from the NG, but was refused. Oh, and then all those 'fiery, but mostly peaceful protests' where all those far-left protestors called for the removal of Trump because Hilary woz robbed!
The 'hush money' was for his campaign not his personal life since it was part of an extensive plan to catch and kill stories that would negatively affect his campaign.
Uhhuh. Except the 'hush money' was paid after he'd won the election.
The money was paid outside of the umbrella of regulated campaign financing, meaning Trump violated campaign finance laws. And he clearly cooked his books to disguise campaign finance as legal expenses.
That's a novel interpretation that manages to include time, space and the law. It also includes facts not in evidence, which was a point the Democrat's judge made clear when he refused to allow a defence witness to explain it wouldn't have been a violation of campaign finance laws at the time anyway. Again 'the Fed', as in FEC looked at this but found no case. Bragg (Harmony) looked at this and presumably didn't think so either given Trump wasn't charged. Just lots of alluding to 'underlying crimes' that allowed statute barred misdemeanors to become 'felonies'.
"Inciting a riot" and "Conspiring to overturn election results" are rather more serious issues, although he has managed to bog those down in procedural delays.
aka the legal system, which obviously has no place in the 'international rules based order' the far-left keeps harping on about. Oh for the old days in the Southern Democrats, when all you needed for a trial was a rope and a stout tree..
"Uhhuh. Except the 'hush money' was paid after he'd won the election."
ORLY??? Except that the payment was made to Daniels on 27th October 2016 which, if memory serves, falls BEFORE November 5th on any given year. This starts to call into question the validity of said election if Trump had, as you claim, already won it before the date of the official election. Are you genuinely claiming that Trump was involved in widespread election fraud in 2016? Reading your other posts I honestly didn't see that curveball coming.
ORLY??? Except that the payment was made to Daniels on 27th October 2016 which, if memory serves, falls BEFORE November 5th on any given year.
Do try to keep up. Which payment do you think you are talking about? Trump never paid Daniels, remember.. Just one of those curiousities. A week in politics is obviously a very long time when it comes to 'election influence'. Not that that really matters given the charges related to book keeping, which I guess would have been EVEN MOAR SERIOUS! if the entries were made long before the transactions occurred. I wonder what the charges would have been if the transactions had been entered as 'paying off blackmailer'?
And testimony was given that the money was paid to Daniels, by Cohen, to keep schtum on the understanding that Trump would repay Cohen - which he did, disguising it as payment for legal services.
Do you really believe it is sensible to believe that you can evade the law by simply agreeing to pay people back after the event or via a third party.
If Trump had paid Cohen for legal expenses not connected with his campaign then there woud have been no crime. The prosecution made the case, supported by corroborated testimony and evidence, that the payments were for the purposes of his campaign, which violated campaign funding laws and thus the falsifying of business records became a felony (rather than a misdemeanour). Trump's defence did not manage to discredit the prosecution's argument and/or evidence nor did they provide a credible alternative explanation.
The prosecution made the case, supported by corroborated testimony and evidence, that the payments were for the purposes of his campaign, which violated campaign funding laws and thus the falsifying of business records became a felony (rather than a misdemeanour).
Let's wait and see what the appeals court(s) say, shall we? There were no charges of violating campaign funding laws and when the defence tried to call a witness to explain it didn't violate funding laws, the judge refused to allow that witness. No linked crime, no felonys.
"No linked crime, no felonys."
That's the very confusing part and where analysts comments are saying the logic used to prefer the charges is very strange. I am left with an impression that the case against Mr Trump was so tenuous that it was hard to see how it was even allowed to go forward.
"And testimony was given that the money was paid to Daniels, by Cohen, to keep schtum on the understanding that Trump would repay Cohen - which he did, disguising it as payment for legal services."
That would be hard to prove without a smoking gun and wasn't even tried so legally, it has no bearing.
That would be hard to prove without a smoking gun and wasn't even tried so legally, it has no bearing.
Prosecution tried that with Cohen's short phone call to Trump's security guy which apparently discussed someone who was stalking Cohen, and allegedly was when Trump approved payment. But that's hearsay, and Cohen's not exactly a reliable witness. On which point I kinda hope Avenatti ends up getting called as a witness on appeal.
"Uhhuh. Except the 'hush money' was paid after he'd won the election."
Nope, the money paid to Stormy to buy and kill the story was before the election, to ensure that it wouldn't negatively affect Trump in the immediate aftermath of 'grab them by the pussy'. Trump repaid Cohen after the election, but Cohen's original payment was on behalf of Trump's campaign.
...but Cohen's original payment was on behalf of Trump's campaign.
So what you're saying is Cohen made the entry in Trump's accounts, and before Trump cut the cheque Cohen? How's that work? The offence so far is a bookeeping entry should have been 'blackmail payment', not 'legal fees'..
@Jellied Eel
"So what you're saying is Cohen made the entry in Trump's accounts, and before Trump cut the cheque Cohen? How's that work? The offence so far is a bookeeping entry should have been 'blackmail payment', not 'legal fees'.."
Didnt the person who wrote the entry also testify that he did it without consulting with Trump as to what it should come under? It does seem weird to try someone for a crime but nobody knowing what the crime is until after the final closing statement of the defence.
I doubt either of the two cases will hold against appeal and the others have all stalled.
Didnt the person who wrote the entry also testify that he did it without consulting with Trump as to what it should come under? It does seem weird to try someone for a crime but nobody knowing what the crime is until after the final closing statement of the defence.
We still don't really know what the crime is, which is problematic as the prof explained. Plus no crime was charged, and the jury was given a choice of 3 options, so if any juror picked different options, the verdict wasn't really unanimous. Seems a bit of a mess. Plus the judge was a democrat donor, the DA elected on a 'Get Trump' platform, a former DNC lawyer left his senior job with the DoJ and moved to NY to prosecute this case for.. reasons.
Biggest problem is the way everything's become so polarised and politicised and the way justice might have become lawfare. Clinton did much the same thing with the payments for the Steele dossier being booked as legal expenses, when they should have been campaign finance. FEC fined her, NY didn't bother to prosecute even though that happened in NYC as well. So if it's one law for the Dems and another for Republicans, that isn't how justice is supposed to work.
Anon: “Congrats, you've turned into Ars Technica...sorry to say. bye.”
One for The Onion surely, that whole article was a parody wasn't it and he forgot to mention Kiwifarms /s
-------
Get with the Washington Blob, Elon and all your legal and financial woes will evaporate.
Since they closed down the Right side of the spectrum accounts and they apparently accounted for only 25% of the usual garbage, can we then surmise that the remaining 75% of garbage comes from Left side of the spectrum accounts ?
PS : Since everything is apparently a spectrum nowadays I'll remain in the fitting.
The nonsense is cross-spectrum, from what I can see ... although to be fair, the Rightwingnuts tend to repeat the outright lies that the MAGA[0] faction are prone to deliver, whereas the Leftwingnuts tend more to the "lies by omission" side of things.
[0] MAGA: Muppets Annoying Genuine Americans; Moto: I can lie more outrageously than you can!
The nonsense is cross-spectrum, from what I can see ... although to be fair, the Rightwingnuts tend to repeat the outright lies that the MAGA[0] faction are prone to deliver, whereas the Leftwingnuts tend more to the "lies by omission" side of things.
On the plus side, one bit of 'misinformation' can finally be put to bed. Remember Hunter Biden's laptop, and all the claims that that was 'Russian misinformation'? That was entered into court in Hunter's trial yesterday with a statement that the contents were real and unaltered. ISTR that misinformation campaign being kicked into high gear just before the last election.. wonder if that could possibly be considered election interference?
entered into court in Hunter's trial yesterday with a statement that the contents were real and unaltered.
I haven't been following the trial, but how can you certify that the contents are 'real and unaltered' when a third party (outside of the repair shop) has had access to it? Has the defense certified it?
I wouldn't certify the contents of my own laptop if a stranger had unsupervised access to it.
but how can you certify that the contents are 'real and unaltered' when a third party (outside of the repair shop) has had access to it?
Which third party are you thinking of? I realise a lot of mud has been slung regarding this laptop, but there seems to be a clear enough chain of custody between Biden, the shop and when the FBI took custody for it to be entered into evidence.
Has the defense certified it?
I don't know. Also IANAL so not up on the finer points of evidence, but I'm assuming they had the opportunity to challenge it, or they might be waiting until further into the trial to challenge evidence produced from it. Or because the case seems pretty clear cut, trying some alternative argument. Or failing that, there's always the Presidential pardon for his very fortunate son.
The problem is the broken chain between "biden" and "FBI". Custody was clearly broken, and thus the laptop has never been valid evidence in any court of law here in the US. Except perhaps the court of public opinion, and of course the Clown Court in Congress, which has spent the last 3+ years trying to prove something, anything, and failed miserably at every step of the way, all the while doing absolutely nothing positive for the people who voted them into power. Lovely.
And besides, what difference does it make? If Hunter broke the law, throw him in jail. Who gives a fuck?
"there's always the Presidential pardon"
The President has already stated that he will not pardon his Son if it comes to that, so stop it already. It makes you look sillier than usual.
It's admissibility isn't black and white, it just open's a theoretical challenge on parts of the contents that aren't independently verifiable. Which is why HB's team has already acknowledged the accuracy of many of the items on it that have come up over the years.
To my knowledge they haven't challenged any of them on grounds they were fabricated or tampered with. There just wasn't as much there as the special council was hoping for, and that many up on the hill and in the conservative press were alluding too.
I do agree he isn't likely to get pardoned. The charges are not worth the political heat, and he isn't likely to do serious time even if they can make the conviction stick. But considering the number of mentally challenged gun owners up on capitol hill, I'd advice let the system handle this. Judge not lest ye be... Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...
Plenty of these bozo's are in similar jeopardy once public records and peoples social media feeds get checked. Remember when you couldn't go through a confirmation hearing without getting questions about if you had an undocumented nanny?
At least not by normal forensic/evidentiary standards. The chain of custody before it was handed over to LE isn't independently verifiable, and thus no concrete way to tell what was changed, by who, and when before the first untainted LE image of it.
That only really matters for academic discussion as the contents of the laptop were broadly validated in public information ages ago. The only thing that fell apart is Hunters plea deal. So it will go to trial and a jury will make their case. Hunter B's defense team had plenty of chances to refute the contents in prior actions, so nobody act surprised if they stick to the same line. The provenance isn't clear but the contents are believed accurate, probably more accurate then either Biden's memories at this point. That's not new news.
I also doubt Biden is dumb enough to drop a pardon for this, though we will see if he pulls the same stuff that so many presidents have done on their way out the door. We have certainly seen much worse people let off for more serious charges(I say that to denounce it, not imply it's ok because both parties have done it. Ban the practice and make it a felony to pardon someone you have a conflict of interest over, let a judge or a review panel handle it impartially if the President/Governor is conflicted.)
Let the (former) crackhead do his stretch if he's convicted. We need to stop treating the silver spoon set like they deserve better than the rest of us. Plenty of people doing longer stretches for even more minor crimes, but at the end of the day, be those gloating on capitol hill right now should be careful. That paperwork is pretty visible, and lots of them haven't been that careful with their firearms or their paperwork. And the current rules up on capitol hill are apparently that it's fair game to go after family members, which may backfire for some of the clowns dancing around the dumpster fire up in D.C.
The provenance isn't clear but the contents are believed accurate, probably more accurate then either Biden's memories at this point. That's not new news.
What might be new news is all the hype around 'election interference'. Blinken as Biden's campaign manager at the time asked CIA Director to write the infamous '51 Intelligence Agents' letter saying it was Russian misinformation. Wait.. Had 'all the earmarks of a Russian disinformation campaign'. A distinction some of them are already making now when asked why they lied about it. And of course creating a misinformation campaign when knowing the laptop was real, well, that might be considered election interference. Charges haven't been brought for that. Yet.
But such is politics. If one side plays dirty, don't be suprised if the other does as well.
Which third party are you thinking of?
I thought I'd read that the repair shop owner gave access to the laptop to Trump operatives who then contacted the FBI. It appears he actually copied data and sent it to various people, one of which is associated to Rudy Giuliani. But I'd guess anything on it is tainted unless it can be proved it wasn't altered. IE. the data that matches the iCloud backup.
Also IANAL so not up on the finer points of evidence, but I'm assuming they had the opportunity to challenge it, or they might be waiting until further into the trial to challenge evidence produced from it.
A clarification here; the physical laptop itself has been entered as evidence. It's only a prop. It's only purpose is to set the stage for the introduction of it's contents, which may be contested.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/hunter-biden-s-silver-laptop-shown-to-courtroom-during-gun-trial/ar-BB1nDWfN
"Biden has never confirmed the authenticity of the contents of the laptop and has waged a lawsuit against its top disseminators, claiming the laptop contents was illegally hacked and manipulated. He has also signaled he may plan to raise chain of command issues with it at his trial."
And it will be interesting to see how it relates to checking a box on the gun purchase form.
> "The study... ...shows that the sudden decision to deplatform 70,000 misinformation traffickers in response to the violence at the US Capitol on 6 January 2021 "reduced circulation of misinformation by the deplatformed users as well as by those who followed the deplatformed users."
People who don't have Twitter accounts tweet less than people who do. Film at 11:00
Because that's what the "study" is. Its just the usual politically motivated sociology masquerading as scholarship. But now with python. And fancier infographics. Much fancier.
Look up the CV's and publication history of the founders and senior people at NuLabs. Just the usual sociology / poli sci / humanities bollocks you find published by the half-wits that have infested these departments for the last five decades. When you were in uni which depts did all the really stupid people gravitate towards?...
Repeat after me. All academic sociology is bollocks. All academic poli sci is bollocks. And in the case of US universities (but not UK) all academic history is total bollocks.
Dont believe. Just trying reading some of the papers and academic books these people produce. They make Enver Hoxha's books look like works of towering genius. If you ever want a good laugh most of Hoxha's (supposed) literary works is now online. Its just as totally bonkers as Radio Albania circa 1981. But still saner than almost all contemporary academic sociology and poli sci. Talk about trickle down marxism.
Note to self. Must read Malcolm Bradbury's "The History Man" again. Its been a while.
Got a whole box of really nice bikkies in front of me right now...
So I guess no one here has actually read any academic sociology / poli sic / history recently. There was plenty of first rate sociology texts up till the 1960's. Some first rate poli sci texts in the US until the 1990's. And a bit later in the UK. Academic history started to collapse in the 1960's in the US and the last worthwhile texts were written when the previous generation retired in the 1990's. In the UK its hanging in there. Barely.
But the recent stuff. Complete and total garbage. When compared to the often very high standards of scholarship of previous generations. To those of us who are familiar with the Soviet Marxist literature of previous eras what is so noticeable about the current lot is just how third rate they are intellectually. Real bottom of the barrel stuff. At least the Soviet era literature was often produced by some really first rate minds.
As for any of the "studies" people. The old toilet cubicle graffiti found in universities in the 1960's and 1970's still very much applies. Written above a bog roll dispenser - Sociology/Studies Degree - Please Take One.
So this particular "paper" - the academic scholarship equivalent of that horrible single ply institutional toiler paper. That nasty waxy stuff. Event worse than using torn up newspaper strips.
Hasn't stopped misinformation, just reduced it on one platform. If the media won't call out blatant falsehoods because of the source then it doesn't really matter what twitter did, and Musk allowed loads of them back as well.
Case in point this week, "I never said lock her up" said Trump on a Fox News show, and of course none of the hosts called him on it. Plenty of others did though.
Plenty of it over here too, especially when OFCOM is so toothless. One "news" channel almost exclusively hosted by members or sycophants of one of our political parties.
The BBC, ITN (who produce the news for ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5) and Sky News all do at least attempt to be politically neutral and maintain balance, how good a job of that they do rather depends on your point of view though.
Here in the States, with the exception of Fox news*, all other major television media seem to have a jobs pipeline with one political party. Telling me that people who were lifelong Democratic political operatives suddenly become non-partisan, objective journalists overnight just because they now work for ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, or NBC is not believable.
(* the rule applies to Fox, but it's the a different party -- the GOP)
Authoritarianism 101 is to erode trust in the established systems, which includes the free press. Those foolish enough to believe anything such people are say are also likely to reject anything said by what would be considered reliable sources by most people.
The problem is even worse in some countries, Facebook for example was widely condemned and had to apologise for not properly moderating posts relating to Myanmar, a country where internet access isn't that widespread and access to Facebook is often free with their largest mobile carriers, to the point that many people considered Facebook "the internet" there as that was all they had access to. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#Public_apologies There are also plenty of other examples on that link of similar fake stories on Facebook.
The problem is that the "free press" is very often not actually that free anymore. Most newspapers really do have a noticeable bias and it's also not uncommon to find even large papers and news media missing by miles on certain issues following some badly vetted "expert" who turns out to be a moron. (The sensationalism around the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear incident following the Tohoku earthquake for instance, the 737-MAX saga, the spillway problems at Oroville lake/dam, the current kerfuffles in Gaza/Israel/Palestine and Ukraine to name but a few things)
In the US the vast majority of media is owned by 6 conglomerates (National Amusements, Disney, TimeWarner, ComCast, NewsCorp and Sony). How "free" is this press really? Or is the "free" press that a lot of people are being convinced to trust actually an extension of the authoritarianism.
ISIS did not exist until Obama let go the Sunni Iraqi that Bush had illegally imprisoned. But these angry young Iraqis had no money, weapons, or jobs anymore. Suddenly they had new Toyota trucks, and lots of new weapons. So where did they get all this stuff from? When we look at what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi, apparently it was to have a CIA annex full of cash and weapons, for absolutely no reason. The coincidence is very suspicious.
Regarding the "felony"
So we have a out of statute of limitations administrative law misdemeanor subsequently elevated uniquely to a retrospective criminal law felony by the state legislature.
Which not only goes against all Common Law principals but is unconstitutional.
We have a City DA prosecuting who campaigned in an noncompetitive election that "he would put Trump in prison, law or no law".
Which is a Federal felony. And unconstitutional.
He also raised $10M for a campaign that basically cost nothing. He gets to keep the money.
You have a judge who throws out all standard court procedure and process and makes stuff up as he goes a long. The fact that he is very politically active Democratic and his daughter raised millions to "put Trump in jail" I'm sure had nothing to do with his decisions in court. Then he gives directions to the jury that they are to find Trump guilty no matter what the evidence. The last time the US had kangaroo courts like this was in the Southern states just after the Civil War. Which did such immense damage to any hopes of reconciliation.
And the judge decided that the evidence by the head of the FEC was inadmissible. Because the head of the FEC stated under oath that under FEC rules there was no offense. Because the papers in question to be filed were due after the election was held. Not before.
Yeah, sure, he's a "felon". He is many many things but thats not one of them.
If you are going to have a show trial at least do it with some basic legal competence. Like Stalin did in the 1930's. The verdict was pre-ordained but the Soviet judges were sticklers when it came to scrupulously following legal procedures and process. Unlike some judges in the Banana Republic of NYC. Which recently elected one of the Central Park rapists as a Council Member. For the 9'th District. Of course. So no surprises there.
You want secret payments that influenced an election. Rev Wright anyone? If you read any of his sermons before they were scrubbed from the internet it was money very well spent by the Obama campaign. They made Louis Farrakhan look like an all sweetness and light cuddly moderate.
Now to the Hunter Biden trial. Were what was the "fake laptop" in 2020 is now the key material evidence in the trial. Like the $20M+ paper trail to Pop.
You mean they never covered that part of the story in the Guardian, BBC or NYT. I wonder why. Did not pass scrutiny with those "fact-checkers" perhaps.
Its funny how the people who call everything they dont like "Fox News" seem to watch far more Fox News than people like me who have never watched it. Ever.
The use of the term "Fox News" is one of those left wing low information idiot markers. Of which you are obviously one. Let me guess .You think what they talk about on "Democracy Now" is objective news. That Daily Kos has deep insightful analysis. And KPFA in Berkeley / Paciffica Radio are not complete and total nut cases. When not playing music.
Got it.
So tell me exactly which one of those statements I wrote is factually incorrect?
All the keys ones, especially the FEC evidence, (and all the others too) can be found in multiple primary sources. Heard of those? Primary sources. Of course not. There is this website called google that allows you to find them quite easily.
So if its not in the Guardian, NYT or on the Beeb then it must not be true. Despite their long history of fabricated stories and scandals. Although in the case of the Guardian you can never tell if its just another of their profoundly slanted / made up stories or just their typos taken to a whole new level of incoherence.
Have n't you be paying attention. The problem with everything you seem to rubbish as "conspiracy theories" is that for the last decade or so they have this disturbing tendency to have more substance in fact than the narratives of those who claim to be the only source of "objective truth" who say they are "misinformation"
Wuhan lab? Hunters Laptop? Steele Dossier? and so on and so on.
There is no one more profoundly misinformed (and conceited) than the snide supercilious bien pensant. Maybe try following stories to primary sources and discover just how threadbare your political world-view narrative really is. You might learn something.
As for the KoolAid. You'll never guess how Jim Jones paid for the KoolAid. Partly with the money stolen from the City of San Fransisco funds acquired when Jones got a City position due to the political influence of Nanci Pelosi political mentor Phil Burton (Nanci was his office manager) and Moscone and Milk. Which is why they got offed by Dan White. A few weeks after Jonestown.
Now there's a story that will never be covered by the Guardian. Although the Observer got most of the key details correct in 1978. But thats back when the Observer had real reporters. The last of those left around 2014.
Get back to us when you actually know what you are talking about.
Now there's a story that will never be covered by the Guardian. Although the Observer got most of the key details correct in 1978. But thats back when the Observer had real reporters. The last of those left around 2014.
There's a better one building. Biden just told the world he's known Putin for over 40yrs. He didn't like him then, and he doesn't like him now. So that would be back in the '80s, when Biden was a Senator, and Putin a KGB intelligence officer. I do hope Biden remembered to file those contact reports..
> Then he gives directions to the jury that they are to find Trump guilty no matter what the evidence.
Since you headed your post "Just a reminder, you know, facts"... for anyone interested, of course, the court transcripts are online and the judge's summing up can be read in full here, https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/5-29-2024.pdf
"It is not my responsibility to judge the evidence here. It is yours. You are the judges of the facts, and you are responsible for deciding whether the Defendant is guilty or not guilty."
The nonsense that is US politics makes one wonder whether el Reg. would have been wiser to have remained .co.uk. :)
UK politicians are just as much rubbish as the US ones but few in the UK take any of them and their ratbag ideas seriously - least of all the scoundrels themselves.
The UK voter is unlikely to bring up Corbin or Blair being as it were cold porridge but the Septics are pointlessly dredging up equally ancient history. Next up the failings of tricky Dickey, FDR and Andrew Jackson will be thrown into the miasmal phantasmagoria of US politics.
Recently when Dan Quayle came up in conversation (unsurprisingly about potatoes), I realised that for eight years he was one heartbeat from being President - "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy." Unfortunately none now are... and the heartbeats less certain. ;)
Another of these articles? Again I must wonder if the accounts were spreading lies (forget the mal/mis bull) or what platforms were told to label as lies.
There seems to be a lot of over excitement at this getting Trump thing. In the war of attrition against this one man it has taken some serious rigging to temporarily convict him of anything even if the only crime identified from the latest trial is embezzlement by Brags leading witness.
I am guessing watching the lawfare efforts failing one after another has only made these fools desperate leading to the crazy actions in these trials. Seems to have been one hell of a fund raiser for Trumps campaign though.
More 'Lawfare'. Hmmm?
You mean the 'plea deal' that shocked the judge? The one that would have immunised the Fortunate Son against past, present and future crimes far more effectively than a covid shot? But justice is finally being done, and the $1m+ a year Burisma lawyer's learning you can't break the law. Some are of course saying it's unfair, and the Bbc is, of course offering favourable coverage. But next up, his tax evasion followed by Hunter and Jame's Biden's dubious business dealings. Oh, and then the whole '10% for the big guy' issue.
Obviously none of that is as serious as an ex-President paying off a blackmailer and not booking it as blackmail payments.
Curious how the sentenceing will go though. Biden's defence was he was in rehab when he fraudulently and feloniously fondled a firearm. So might be hard to argue any kind of diminished responsibility due to being a junkie crackhead given his defence was he was straight at the time. And especially when he was a high flying, multi-million dollar lawyer who obviously should have known better, especially given the 'Big Guy's anti-gun and anti-drug stances that put tens of thousands of Hilary's 'ordinary Americans' behind bars. Not the cocktail bars the Dems' are used to frequenting, probably on expenses. But Hunter's also finding out that hookers'n'blow aren't allowable business expenses.
Then again, like Trump, Hunter hasn't yet been convicted and does have the right to appeal. Options are probably more limited, eg Trump could argue selective prosecution. His case is virtually unique though, well, other than the non-prosecution of Hilary for the same crime. Hunter will probably find lying on firearms forms is far more common, as are prosecutions, and probably custodial sentences. Plus the Dems are tough on gun crime.. aren't they?
How come "The Big Guy" has not quashed Jnr's case nor pardoned him? Hmmm? Thought Biden controlled the courts...? (Unlike Trump who hands out pardons to his crooked friends.)
Magapologists crying about Trump not being convicted of "real" crimes. The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating.
But am surprised that the usual RWNJ ammosexuals are not crying about Biden Jnr's 2nd Amendment rights being stepped on.
@AC
"How come "The Big Guy" has not quashed Jnr's case nor pardoned him?"
Pardon what? He has only just been found guilty and not yet sentenced. Add to that how Hunter will then be facing more charges from other investigations and 'The Big Guy' may have an ongoing problem as the unprecedented 'get out of jail free' sweetheart deal designed to protect him from all of this was rejected by the judge.
"Magapologists crying about Trump not being convicted of "real" crimes. The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating."
What crime?-
The case which used a law designed to protect the customer (Trump) from banks being misapplied to attack Trump in a case where there was no criminal, no victim and all testimony from all sides explained to the 'know it all' judge that everything was above board.
Or the Bragg show with his witness confessing to an actual crime (embezzlement), nobody knowing what the crime being charged is, a jury that didnt have to agree what Trump did wrong, the actual witness who wrote the entry explaining he did it without consulting Trump, being told it is not a federal case but then it magically is, and of course trying a federal case in a state court because Bragg and others had looked into this and deemed there nothing to prosecute.
"But am surprised that the usual RWNJ ammosexuals are not crying about Biden Jnr's 2nd Amendment rights being stepped on."
While some fringe group might, Hunter was heavily under the influence of drugs which is why it is illegal to be in possession of the firearm and quite a serious condition which impairs his judgement severely in the use of such a tool.
I would also add that Hunter is being charged with an actual crime and the jury unanimously found him guilty under a heavy weight of actual evidence.
To be fair, there were actual crimes with Trump. Sort of. So false accounting is a crime, even though without the 'underlying crime', it's just a misdemeanor that should have been statute barred. But this is the challenge for the US (and probably UK) in fixing the justice system and people's faith in it. Do crime, get prosecuted equally under the law. There shouldn't be any '2-tier' justice system where the chosen can escape punishment. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Well, give or take people's ability to pay for a good lawyer.
But the situation might get worse. The Dems have opened the gates to playing fast & loose with the law. Republicans can act in kind, especially given there appears to be a lot of shady stuff going on with the Bidens. But it's also a bit cruel. Joe Biden's health seems to be getting worse by the week, so whether he's really going to run for re-election. That's starting to look like elder abuse, and perhaps he should be put out to pasture where he can do the ex-President thing and make money legally.
It's real jail time for the MAGA nutbags and traitors!
LOCK THEM UP! LOCK THEM UP!
You point out just what total garbage almost all current social science "scholarship" is based on many many decades of actually reading the literature and out swarms the downvoters by the legion to shout down any who might have the temerity to point out that this particular academic emperor has no clothes. Like 90% plus of "misinformation researchers" being self identified left / hard left politically and when you factor in their almost 100% very privileged socio-economic background they reflect maybe 5% of the general population. Yeah, sure, their value judgments (which is what research in this area mostly is) will be unbiased and objective.
Could it be that as the tech business now has so many who are creditailzed (but not necessarily competent) that this just reflects the fact that the business is now full of tech kiddies who have yet to grow out of the adolescent virtue signalling Cobynite / Bernie Bros politics they picked up in college / uni as part of the social conformity that comes as part of the package. A phase most will eventually grow out of as real life teaches them the hard way just how delusional this politics actually is. The politics of trust fund babies, the young and the clueless, and the eternally bitter people consumed by jealously. Or when much older, just the plain stupid who never learn
Me, I'm voting Trump. Just like all the working class / blue collar people I know personally. All of us old school New Deal Democrats. A party that has finally died with recent death of Joe Lieberman. RIP. Gives us a half way reasonable candidate and we would all vote otherwise. Like pretty much any of the Democratic Party front runners before the party nomination process was seriously gamed using Super Delegates in 1992 and there has nt been a competitive primary season since.
Oh well. Back to tending my garden. Although not on the bank of the Bosperous
Yeh im sure trump really cares about the blue collar workers.
So tell me hows the free medical care going ?
maternity leave ?
paid 6 week holidays ?
Im sure a billionaire really cares about you and your friends, im mean he obviously became a billionaire by giving his money away to all his workers in his long life.
It's incredible how many people swallowed that nonsense. A self-styled billionaire real-estate tycoon promises to fight for the little guy, "drain the swamp" and stop "political dynasties" like Bush 1 & 2 and Clinton 1 and attempted 2, then immediately gives jobs to his daughter and son in law and now daughter in law (head of the RNC)
Americans critique NK, C and R for their propaganda, but they are blind to their own home grown propaganda.
9 / 10 Americans are completely blind to the utter bullshit from American media, movies and basically online. Even job websites like glassdoor are full of brainwashing ceos are your friend bullshit. Im sure more people in NK admit they are surrounded by propaganda bullshit, than americans.
I've been an El Reg reader and supporter for the better part of 2 decades. The overtly political bent your 'writers' have taken of late is distasteful and inappropriate for a tech news site. As such, and with no joy in my heart, your revenue from my visits is blocked.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
