A #lawyer allied w/Trump first laid out a plot to use #FakeElectors to subvert the #2020election in a previously unknown internal campaign memo that prosecutors are portraying as a crucial link in how the Trump team’s efforts evolved into a #criminal#conspiracy.
…“I recognize that what I suggest is a bold, controversial strategy, & that there are many reasons why it might not end up being executed on #Jan6,” #Chesebro wrote. “But as long as it is one possible option, to preserve it as a possibility it is important that the #Trump-Pence electors cast their electoral votes on Dec. 14.”
Three days later, Chesebro drew up specific instructions to create #fraudulent electors in multiple states — in another memo….
The Texas Attorney General's office was once a quiet state agency that collected child support and defended the state in lawsuits. In the 90s, it became an incubator for the conservative legal movement. | Via The Texas Tribune
@Teri_Kanefield@GottaLaff@Bam Hi Teri, I read your "Trump’s Social Media Postings" and found it informative as usual.
I'm in the frustrated camp. I'll give you an analogy that you probably won't find satisfying that is part of my perspective that there's a problem with the legal process.
I'm a software engineer primarily. I have two postulates:
Software is a process with a set of rules, as is legal proceeding a process with a set of rules.
In software there's a notion of a "boundary condition", that is, some case that was not recognized before hand to be an issue and therefore not checked thereby yielding an unforeseen error condition.
Software exists in a collective/community with an expectation of use, as is a legal process within a societal use.
My premise, Trump is a boundary condition not addresses by the legal process rules and approaches. Trump has uncovered a bug in the legal system.
The big issue is that #Republicans want to make #amendment more difficult before a #ProChoice referendum hits the ballot next fall.
But in case you're fascinated by the legal/logical puzzle of using the amending clause of a constitution to amend the amending clause, I wrote a book about it in 1990.
Ten Reasons Why The Digital Personal Data Protection Law Doesn't Empower Citizens
Among the ten-point list of issues this Bill doesn't address is unchecked data collection by employees, the weakening of the RTI Act, and the sanctioning of a data protection board that will be beholden to those in power.
Demolitions As Collective, Illegal Punishment, With Mainly Muslim Properties Destroyed After Riots
Governments run by the Bharatiya Janata Party have demolished properties belonging almost entirely to Muslims after communal riots incited by Hindu extremists in four states over the past several months. Used as political capital, the demolitions are unlawful, denying as they do to citizens a host of rights, including the fundamental right to be heard. In most cases no notice is served, as many laws require and various court judgments have confirmed. (Article from April 2022)
New: #SpecialCounsel's office asks for the court to reject #Trump's #ProtectiveOrder arguments: "The defendant instead proposed an order designed to allow him to try this case in the media rather than in the courtroom."
udge Linda Hidalgo announced that she will be taking a leave of absence from work to obtain treatment for depression. As someone how has experienced depression, I know how difficult it is to discuss it openly when you are in the midst of an depressive episode. Yet, she did. I hope her statement will encourage others to seek help.
What's legal in a democracy is that which was indirectly decided to be an acceptable compromise by most of the people, in the limited way that a government can represent that. There is no moral force to it, nor should our representatives be seen as vanguards of our values. If the result is unacceptable to you, use empathy and reason. Educate voters regarding the system, the issues and how many are left behind. The alternative is dissolution or accepting rule by the most forceful minority.
@wjmaggos Catholics believe that the law does have moral force. It is wrong to break the law, though there are situations in which it is more wrong to follow it, in which case it is no longer morally binding.
"10.1 Customer Content. You or your End Users may provide, upload, or originate data, content, files, documents, or other materials (collectively, “Customer Input”) in accessing or using the Services or Software, and Zoom may provide, create, or make available to you, in its sole discretion or as part of the Services, certain derivatives, transcripts, analytics, outputs, visual displays, or data sets resulting from the Customer Input (together with Customer Input, “Customer Content”) [...]"
This is so broadly written ("other materials"?) that it isn't clear if they define "customer content" to include our use of their service for video conferencing. Their privacy policy does carve out "meeting, webinar, or messaging content" explicitly so why don't they also do so here?
And if they are making such claims about video conferencing (and all it includes) they are delusional if they think the TOS grants them sufficient rights to do so.