Jump to content

The ABF Classic Film Series: Prince of Darkness (1987) Thread


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, achilles return said:

i mean, i'm willing to be corrected by an attorney that specializes in appeals. @The Monarch, am i making a mistake in assuming the biden administration is not forced to invoke executive privilege and appeal the ruling?

JFC, dude.  Read the f’ing article.  It’s related to executive privilege, but they are NOT invoking executive privilege.  It seems like you’re now blindly defending something that you didn’t even bother to inform yourself about.  

I already explained this and posted the relevant text from the article.  It’s about when an executive official can be forced to give a deposition.  That’s not some casual thing that any plaintiff can demand.  That would hamstring the entire executive branch because anyone could file a lawsuit and demand a deposition.  Imagine hundreds of lawsuits and every cabinet officials having to give hours or days of deposition for every one of them.

There are legal requirements for forcing executive officials to give depositions and there are limits to what can be asked (executive privilege).  The Biden administration is simply saying that the plaintiffs did not meet those legal requirements to force Devos to give a deposition.  The plaintiffs must show in court, for example, that the testimony is critical and that they have no other means of getting the same information.  That’s it.  That’s all they are arguing, according to the article.

But again, it’s really disturbing that you’re in here defending something that you didn’t even bother to look up when the text of the article was posted for you to read and there were several summaries and explanations about the legal arguments being made.  It really should cause people to question your judgment and credibility that you couldn’t take the 5-10 minutes to read up on this before jumping in to defend something you apparently don’t even understand.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jesus christ dude, does it really need to be pointed out to you that "i don't care how legitimate the 'legal' argument is" without any of the surrounding context doesn't magically become "you hate Devos and will attack Biden for anything that is on her 'side'"?

my point was that the legal legitimacy is not actually relevant to my argument - that the biden administration had a choice. 

it is obvious that you understand this at some level because you go on to tell us why it's somehow terrible legal precedent to allow former cabinet officials become unduly burdened with the audacious task of having to give legal testimony on a subject to which they were deeply involved in. 

which, ok, if you want to defend the choice, that's fine, it's your prerogative as one of the thread's primary liberal defenders - but don't sit there and gaslight me with strawman after strawman about my own words.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

JFC, dude.  Read the f’ing article.  It’s related to executive privilege, but they are NOT invoking executive privilege.  It seems like you’re now blindly defending something that you didn’t even bother to inform yourself about.  

I already explained this and posted the relevant text from the article.  It’s about when an executive official can be forced to give a deposition.  That’s not some casual thing that any plaintiff can demand.  That would hamstring the entire executive branch because anyone could file a lawsuit and demand a deposition.  Imagine hundreds of lawsuits and every cabinet officials having to give hours or days of deposition for every one of them.

There are legal requirements for forcing executive officials to give depositions and there are limits to what can be asked (executive privilege).  The Biden administration is simply saying that the plaintiffs did not meet those legal requirements to force Devos to give a deposition.  The plaintiffs must show in court, for example, that the testimony is critical and that they have no other means of getting the same information.  That’s it.  That’s all they are arguing, according to the article.

But again, it’s really disturbing that you’re in here defending something that you didn’t even bother to look up when the text of the article was posted for you to read and there were several summaries and explanations about the legal arguments being made.  It really should cause people to question your judgment and credibility that you couldn’t take the 5-10 minutes to read up on this before jumping in to defend something you apparently don’t even understand.  

alright, i'm tired of your condescending ********

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, achilles return said:

i mean, i'm willing to be corrected by an attorney that specializes in appeals. @The Monarch, am i making a mistake in assuming the biden administration is not forced to invoke executive privilege and appeal the ruling?

First, i'm not overly familiar. Second, I don't think this is an appeal, but rather DOJ joining in a motion to block a deposition in district court. No, DOJ is not required in any way to join in the defense of an ex-cabinet member. Having a "legitimate" legal argument does not mean it is a virtuous argument or one that should be championed by an administration purportedly committed to transparency. So sure, to the extent the current administration wants to defend and/or extend protections to ex-cabinet officials in a way that might benefit them later and there is some legal basis for it, that would be "legitimate," but that does not make it ipso fact a decision that must be made or that is above criticism. There seem to be some other legal quirks here as well that are a bit odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, achilles return said:

jesus christ dude, does it really need to be pointed out to you that "i don't care how legitimate the 'legal' argument is" without any of the surrounding context doesn't magically become "you hate Devos and will attack Biden for anything that is on her 'side'"?

my point was that the legal legitimacy is not actually relevant to my argument - that the biden administration had a choice. 

it is obvious that you understand this at some level because you go on to tell us why it's somehow terrible legal precedent to allow former cabinet officials become unduly burdened with the audacious task of having to give legal testimony on a subject to which they were deeply involved in. 

which, ok, if you want to defend the choice, that's fine, it's your prerogative as one of the thread's primary liberal defenders - but don't sit there and gaslight me with strawman after strawman about my own words.  

Says the guy who apparently doesn’t even know what’s being discussed here.  Talk about gaslighting!

Former or current status does not change executive privilege.  

And AGAIN, there are legal requirements that plaintiffs must meet in order to force someone like Devos — current or former status — to give a deposition.  The Biden legal argument is about those requirements.  

But you already said that “I don’t care how legitimate the ‘legal’ argument is”.  So you’ve pretty much made clear where you’re coming from.  You don’t care whether the legal argument is legitimate or not.  You hate Devos and that’s all you need to know to take a position on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Monarch said:

First, i'm not overly familiar. Second, I don't think this is an appeal, but rather DOJ joining in a motion to block a deposition in district court. No, DOJ is not required in any way to join in the defense of an ex-cabinet member. Having a "legitimate" legal argument does not mean it is a virtuous argument or one that should be championed by an administration purportedly committed to transparency. So sure, to the extent the current administration wants to defend and/or extend protections to ex-cabinet officials in a way that might benefit them later and there is some legal basis for it, that would be "legitimate," but that does not make it ipso fact a decision that must be made or that is above criticism. There seem to be some other legal quirks here as well that are a bit odd.

And most importantly, Biden is NOT defending Devos’ policy of denying loan forgiveness.  The entire filing is about when current/former officials can be forced to give a deposition.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eatcorn said:

There are infinite legal arguments people can make in any situation that they can choose NOT to make. The Biden administration is choosing to intercede.

That's the whole point.

The point is that the original tweet falsely made it seem like Biden was defending Devos’ policy.  They’re not.  The entire filing is about legal requirements to give a deposition.

Does anybody really think that BO saw the article and said, “gosh, well legally there might be legitimate arguments in this case about executive officials giving depositions, but the Biden administration did not have to join and could have let the legal process play out, which probably would have been preferable even if there are unique circumstances here that could have implications for his executive officials, therefore I’m going to post this tweet.”

Is that seriously what you think he was doing with that tweet?  Be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, achilles return said:

i'm glad someone can see the point i was making

I’m being very serious here.  I honestly don’t think you know what point you were making about this.  I mean, you thought that Biden was invoking executive privilege in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

And I’m tired of you jumping into the middle of a discussion to defend something you don’t even understand.

**** off dude

seriously

you're not the arbiter of discussion, the thread boss, or whatever

people can jump and out of any discussion they want to

they can post whatever tweet they want

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, achilles return said:

**** off dude

seriously

you're not the arbiter of discussion, the thread boss, or whatever

people can jump and out of any discussion they want to

they can post whatever tweet they want

 

People can post whatever they want, even if it’s utter bull**** and false.

And other people can call bull****.

Funny enough, YOU are acting like the thread boss here by telling me that I don’t have a right to respond to people’s posts or call bull****.  You act like nobody has the right to respond to other people’s posts, even though that’s what you’re doing right now with my posts.  Isn’t it ironic?  Don’t you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, achilles return said:

and you thought obama raised the minimum wage

seriously

**** off

Since the minimum wage increased during his first year, yes I did.  It was an honest mistake.  

Far different from vehemently defending something you don’t understand, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The point is that the original tweet falsely made it seem like Biden was defending Devos’ policy.  They’re not.  The entire filing is about legal requirements to give a deposition.

Does anybody really think that BO saw the article and said, “gosh, well legally there might be legitimate arguments in this case about executive officials giving depositions, but the Biden administration did not have to join and could have let the legal process play out, which probably would have been preferable even if there are unique circumstances here that could have implications for his executive officials, therefore I’m going to post this tweet.”

Is that seriously what you think he was doing with that tweet?  Be honest.

The Biden Admin could let the court situation proceed. They've chosen not to. I think that's lame. So does AR. 

I'm sure BO had some super snarky cool-guy, above-the-fray Twitter point to make. I don't get why you can't let that stuff go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Leon Troutsky said:

People can post whatever they want, even if it’s utter bull**** and false.

And other people can call bull****.

Funny enough, YOU are acting like the thread boss here by telling me that I don’t have a right to respond to people’s posts or call bull****.  You act like nobody has the right to respond to other people’s posts, even though that’s what you’re doing right now with my posts.  Isn’t it ironic?  Don’t you think?

no, it is not that weird that i happen to think the thread is better of with more @Corn Pop tweets and less posts from you whining about them

turns out i want more good things and less bad things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, eatcorn said:

The Biden Admin could let the court situation proceed. They've chosen not to. I think that's lame. So does AR. 

I'm sure BO had some super snarky cool-guy, above-the-fray Twitter point to make. I don't get why you can't let that stuff go.

Look back at the conversation.  I was responding to a person who quoted BO’s tweet, and I was pointing out that the tweet was deceitful.

AR is defending the tweet saying there is nothing wrong with it and that it’s accurate.  

This is about BO’s tweet.  Not AR’s (recently acquired) view about the lawsuit.  He’s the one who jumped my *** for responding to the deceitfulness of the tweet and he’s the one who continues to defend the tweet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, achilles return said:

no, it is not that weird that i happen to think the thread is better of with more @Corn Pop tweets and less posts from you whining about them

turns out i want more good things and less bad things

Right, you like seeing people post bull**** and deceitful tweets and you rush to defend those tweets whenever anybody points out their falsehoods.  You want a bunch of propaganda (as long as it’s leftwing propaganda) and don’t want people fact checking it.

That’s why you’ve lost almost all credibility in my view.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also should point out that the DOJ not joining in the defense on a motion to quash would not mean they are somehow giving up on the principle at stake necessarily. That whole thing could end with a trial court order, creating no new precedent. Indeed, even if they lost on that motion, that would be a discussion to be had: whether it is worth it to eventually appeal that decision and risk creating some bad precedent, at least in the 11th circuit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, eatcorn said:

The Biden Admin could let the court situation proceed. They've chosen not to. I think that's lame. So does AR. 

I'm sure BO had some super snarky cool-guy, above-the-fray Twitter point to make. I don't get why you can't let that stuff go.

 

Just now, The Monarch said:

Also should point out that the DOJ not joining in the defense on a motion to quash would not mean they are somehow giving up on the principle at stake necessarily. That whole thing could end with a trial court order, creating no new precedent. Indeed, even if they lost on that motion, that would be a discussion to be had: whether it is worth it to eventually appeal that decision and risk creating some bad precedent, at least in the 11th circuit

And here’s the crux of this issue, @eatcorn...if BO, AR, or anyone else had posted what @The Monarch just posted then I wouldn’t have said a word.  

I responded to a deceptive tweet by BO that falsely made it seem like Biden was defending Devos’ policies.  That’s it.  AR is the one who rushed to defend that tweet and said that he doesn’t care whether there’s a legitimate legal argument or not.  

And @The Monarch, I appreciate your insight on this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Mr. Hoopah! changed the title to The ABF Classic Film Series: Prince of Darkness (1987) Thread

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...