Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by James Lacey

As far as I can tell, only Rich is.

I suppose I ought to have said, who with any credibility at all is getting hysterical?

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

$45.2 million in punitive damages.  Hahahahaha. 

I wonder if it will stick: 

"In Texas, there are statutory limits on punitive damages, with a per-defendant cap of two times the amount of economic damages, plus the amount of noneconomic damages found by the jury—the latter part not to exceed $750,000. The trial judge may reduce the punitive damages given those caps, and Jones’ attorneys said immediately after the verdict that they would file a motion to reduce the punitive award.

“We do not believe punitive damage caps are constitutional as applied to our case and will certainly litigate that issue if necessary,” Mark Bankston, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, told Bloomberg Law."

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/bankruptcy-law/alex-jones-ordered-to-pay-extra-45-million-in-punitive-damages

Jones must be a TX resident?  Not sure why the plaintiffs would choose to bring their case in Texas, if other jurisdictions were available.  I think I saw that other cases are pending in MA and CT, which would probably be more plaintiff friendly states.

Jim

Replying to James' meme: "But her Emails!"

Hi James:

I just re-read Comey's press release concerning his report to the DOJ about Clintons email practices.  https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

I thought then, and I think now, that the FBI tee'd up a slam dunk case for the prosecution of Secretary Clinton.  I think you disagree, but I can not remember why.  I think we both agree that any mid-level bureaucrat who did what Clinton did would have the book thrown at her.  The DOJ took a pass on prosecuting Clinton.  No one was surprised.

With regards to Trump's boxes of documents, the content of what they find is going to matter a lot.  If for example, Trump is shown to have been involved in organizing Jan 6, then maybe they can use that to prosecute him for an appropriate crime.  But if the documents they seize or seized are just typical, albeit classified documents, I do not see how the DOJ can prosecute for "merely" mishandling classified information.  It is undeniable that Clinton did that too.  If the DOJ chooses to prosecute Trump for the same thing, then how can the allegations of partisanship and bias be refuted?

Recognize that I would prefer that they both be prosecuted for any crimes committed and  hopefully both consigned to the dustbin of history.  Curious if you see a distinction between Trump/Clinton, such that would justify prosecuting Trump, when Clinton was not, assuming that they do not find a smoking gun of a different crime in Trump's tranche.  Jim

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Another example of the right can't do the funny. 

It's turning out to be an awful day for Trump. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled he has to turn over his tax returns to the House Ways & Means committee today.

I don't know what they were looking for, but there is no way the DOJ would do this for a weak or marginal case. They had to know what they were looking for and that it was there. They will pay a heavy price for this if it is a weak or marginal case. I'm guessing they had inside information regarding what was there and knew what they were after. Someone turned on Trump.

I agree with this James.  This is the potential "smoking gun" I was referring to in my previous post.  If there is no smoking gun, I think Trump skates, and has been extremely empowered by his opponents.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

My understanding is, after listening to the same concerns expressed/discussed on MSNBC last night, is that Clinton did not have the "intent" to withhold classified materials whereas Trump, even after months of negotiations with his team, continued to knowingly do so.

That sounds a lot like spin to me.  Clinton's intent is easily deduced when she authorized the private server and used bleach bit to wipe the contents.  Still, no need to reargue the Clinton case. 

If the DOJ prosecutes Trump for merely the Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material:   https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924  then I think that lawyerly arguments over intent are not going to clear the DOJ/FBI of appearing biased.    

On the contrary, if James's suspicions pan out and they found something damning in Trump's documents, then all bets are off.  I am not claiming that the FBI found evidence of malfeasance by Clinton above or beyond just mishandling classified information.  

Heaven help us if they can not pin something nefarious on Trump after this haul, because this raid and the hearings are emboldening and empowering him bigly, if nothing sticks.  

Originally Posted by James Lacey

They, the  DOJ,  better have something significant, or this will only serve to better his chances in 2024 or give Trump MAGA politics a resurgence most of us would rather not see.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Well, we don't live in a perfect world, do we? I never thought George W. Bush would have misled us on WMDs in Iraq, but he did. I never thought a sitting President would have an affair with a 24-year-old intern and lie about it on national television. I never thought Reagan would sell arms to Iran to aid the Contras. I never thought John Edwards would father an illegitimate child and use campaign money to try and hide the affair. All of these things that did happen sound fantastical. If the FBI and DOJ committed an egregious blunder by executing this raid, I would be disappointed but not surprised.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

What makes something funny is hard to define, but generally speaking, for something to be funny, it has to point out some absurdity or contradiction. I agree with Jim M. There is nothing inconsistent about Hunter's laptop being in Trump's safe. I suppose it would be unexpected, but why would Trump hide it? And why would that be silly or funny? I don't see it.

I thought Greg's post was funny enough to elicit a chuckle.  It is at least as funny as the "But her emails" meme.  To me  (Emphasis intentional)  I'd guess that both of these are likely to be objectively funnier to the intended target audience.  D's in the "But her Emails" case or Rs in the "Hunter's Laptop" case.  Neither is genuinely LOL funny in my opinion.  If someone thinks one or the other meme is "outrageously funny," I would see that as a political Rorschach, rather than any indication of actual funniness.  

Originally Posted by Greg Shaffer

The fake bewilderment doesnt look good on you Lacey......They were looking for wrong doing, they found a copy of Hunter's laptop data. They found some, just not what they wanted....simple stuff and it made me chuckle. I posted it here as I knew you guys would appreciate the "irony" and I see I wasnt disappointed

I thought the "now quit fixating on my ass" bit was funny.  Did you get that aspect of James's post?

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Well, I see those as political and personal choices and blunders but not ones subjected to legal review by an AG or a judge.  Both of the latter had to know the seriousness of what they they were authorizing before they acted and I believe they followed the law and the evidence before doing so...

This would be my default belief too.  But in this instance, there are a lot of people who really really really hate Trump at the DOJ.  One of them could plausibly have overplayed his or her hand before a federal judge.  This is the "Trumped up" evidence Greg alluded too.  Like James, I will be disappointed but not surprised if nothing real comes from this raid.

Frankly, as we sit here today, I feel it is far more likely that the DOJ took a swing and missed in this raid.  That is just my gut feeling, but it is what I feel.