Rud Istvan
Charles sent me some recent information from a Harvard climate lawfare conference and asked me to comment.
I have expanded it to a more general discussion.
Lawfare has come into the general lexicon since Trump came down the elevator. It is the idea of weaponizing the legal system against opponents. There may or may not be any substance to the lawfare; often just the (expensive) process is the intended punishment. The Georgia felony indictment of Trump and 18 ‘coconspirators’ concerning the obviously questionable 2020 Georgia election result is the most recent example.
Climate lawfare has come in two distinct, so far failed tranches; the Harvard Law School conference (a summary is available at corpgov.law.harvard.edu) newly proposes a third. Plus there is the newly decided Montana children’s case that is an outlier peculiar to Montana.
Tranche 1 was based on Harvard professor Naomi Oreskes 2010 book Merchants of Doubt. Its premise was that fossil fuel companies ‘knew’ about the climate crisis they were creating, just like Big Tobacco knew cigarettes caused cancer and covered it up for decades. In reality, there is no comparison, because it was medically shown in the UK in the 1950’s that smoking caused lung cancer.
Despite the IPCC and now AR6, no one has ever shown that CO2 is causing a climate crisis. And every ‘climate disaster’ supposed to have happened by now hasn’t. Sea level rise did not accelerate as Hansen predicted in 1988. Arctic summer sea ice did not disappear by the mid 2010’s as Wadhams predicted. Despite USNPS signage to the contrary (disappeared the winter of 2020 while the park was closed), Glacier National Park still has glaciers. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, alarmists met with Oreskes the summer of 2012 at Scripps to map out a lawfare campaign. This is their conference summary report.
But it was several years before Massachusetts AG Mura Healy finally filed the first “Exxon knew” lawsuit. NY, NJ, and several other states followed.
To date, all are mired in procedural disputes about whether the cases should be consolidated into one federal case, or left in multiple state courts. SCOTUS recently declined to hear Exxon’s federal consolidation appeal, so the several suits will remain in state courts.
This will be expensive for Exxon, but futile for the plaintiffs. Because Exxon has more than adequately demonstrated that it ‘didn’t know’.
Tranche 2 was 30+ so far failed attempts starting in 2018 to hold various fossil fuel companies liable for climate damages under the ‘public nuisance’ doctrine.
Without being over lawyerly, a public nuisance suit arises when the annoyed sues the nuisance for actual damages, or injunctive relief if there aren’t any actual damages but they are ‘imminently plausible’. None of these have gone anywhere. For example, Delaware v. BP America filed in 2020 faces a BP motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Now some EU law professors have proposed (at Harvard Law) a third tranche based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The HLS idea is to sue for ‘unjust climate enrichment’.
This doctrine lives in a grey area between torts (public nuisance is technically a tort) and contract law. It is frequently referred to as ‘quasi contractual obligations’. It usually arises from a lack of lawyering, so proposing it’s use as lawfare is certainly novel. The doctrine has three elements:
- A benefit received by a defendant.
- At plaintiff’s expense.
- Where it would unjust to retain the benefit without compensation.
There are two common types of state court cases.
One is where a written contract should have been in place but wasn’t. For example, a painter verbally agrees to paint a house for a few thousand dollars. Under the Uniform Commercial Code, the value is such that a written contract should be in place. Verbal isn’t enforceable. The painter buys the paint and paints the house. Then the homeowner refuses to pay because there was only a verbal agreement. The homeowner is unjustly enriched.
The other is where a couple lives together and commingles finances. Then there is a ‘divorce’. One sues the other (usually the poorer sues the richer) claiming unjustly enriched by the relationship. Messy. There are actually lawyers (hopefully not from Harvard Law) who advertise specializing in this mess.
So now junior EU law professors are proposing suits based on ‘unjust climate enrichment’. Their legal reasoning is at best sketchy. They say climate stability, like clean air and water, has long been recognized as public property. (This is NOT true. In the US the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act established those public rights by legislation in the early 1970’s. There is as yet no Climate Stability Act.) Then they argue climate polluters (carbon pollution, by which is really meant CO2) are making enormous profits off the asserted climate crisis, which comprises ‘unjust climate enrichment’ and new lawfare grounds.
This idea is goofier than Merchants of Doubt and public nuisance. It doesn’t logically work at all. Exxon makes a legal profit selling the public gasoline. Ford makes a legal profit selling the public ICE vehicles. The PUBLIC is the one unjustly enriched by enjoying the enabled driving convenience!
Finally, since it is current and topical, we have the very recent outlier ruling in favor of Montana children who sued the state for enabling fossil fuel extraction. Montana has very little natural gas extraction, and only a modest amount of crude oil from the Williston Basin. But it is the US #1 producer of steam coal from the Powder River Basin.
The state court ruling is based on the Montana state constitution (MSC), and almost certainly does not apply elsewhere. The MSC A2 (inalienable rights) §3 specifically includes “the right to a clean and healthful environment”. MSC A9§1 provides “The state SHALL maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment for present and future generations.”
I don’t think the outlier ruling means much in terms of future Montana action. Ironically, despite A9§1, Libby Montana is home to the US largest asbestos contaminated Superfund site thanks to decades of mining asbestos contaminated vermiculite And Montana has done nothing about it. And a Libby clinic was just fined $5 million for submitting false asbestos injury claims.
I do conclude that the courts in general are much too forgiving of clearly abusive breaches of legal process. Maura Healy knew to a practical certainty that she would never suffer any consequences for filing an abusive lawsuit.
Ditto maybe Fani Willis in Georgia. But, GA does have a statute enabling financial redress for malicious prosecution. Early days, but there is hope. If Meadows and Trump get this removed to federal court (an apparent easy move under current federal law), then Fani is toast in GA under GA law. One of the less well off defendants should take her down. Maybe Rudi or Sidney.
“But, GA does have a statute enabling financial redress for malicious prosecution.”
I didn’t know that.
We should get something like that on the federal level. 🙂
One thing I should have put in the draft post, but inexplicably didn’t. The reason for the delay between 2012 lawfare plan and 2018 ‘EXXON knew’ lawfare was several investigative subpoenas from MA and NY seeking internal EXXON documents. These kept getting quashed by TX courts (EXXON is based in TX) on grounds of faulty probable cause per 4A. MA and NY simply could not show probable cause for their subpoenas. Finally MA AG Healy filed on faith, assuming she would find the smoking gun on discovery.
Only realized the explanatory omission after Charles posted it.
From the article: “unjust climate enrichment”
I would say that falsely claiming there is a climate emergency and then profitting from that situation is “unjust climate enrichment”.
The People ought to be suing the windmill and solar builders for “unjust climate enrichment”.
Anyone who thinks that the ability to travel, by the masses, constitutes an “Unjust Climate Enrichment” ought to try walking or even bicycling from Santa Rosa to work in San Francisco on a daily basis. Many can’t afford to Live in the cities in which they work and need to commute from someplace more affordable
We’ll all live in 15 Minute Cities or government will build inexpensive, comprehensive and universal transportation systems that will allow us all to live in suburbia and commute to our jobs in the city.
Was this not part of the screenplay for “Mystic Pines”..?
Plus you will own nothing and be happy, like a hermit
You like trams, metro cars and trains rumbling through your neighborhood?
Then there are the citizens who would be dispossessed by the transportation companies so they can install rail tracks and overhead electric lines or the deadly 3rd rail on the ground.
Or have your water aquifers drained so they can dig underground systems?
All the commuter transportation systems require fossil fuels for their energy.
Industrial engines require industrial quality electricity.
Apparently some sarcasm is just too obscure.
Exactly correct.
But, the people were brainwashed/scare-mongered ahead of time, so the false enrichment gets a legal pass and continues in full force, especially after the Biden handlers’ inflationary INFLATION REDUCTION ACT.
It was misnamed as part of the brainwashing regime.
THE ACTUAL COST WAS GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED BY A FACTOR OF THREE
Probably intentionally underestimated. That’s the only way they could get it passed.
From the third paragraph of the above article:
“The Georgia felony indictment of Trump and 18 ‘coconspirators’ concerning the obviously questionable 2020 Georgia election result is the most recent example.”
“. . . obviously questionable 2020 Georgia election result . . .”??? Really? Only for those who don’t believe in an objective reality.
” ‘Georgia recertified its presidential election results on Monday, again finding Joe Biden as the winner following three counts of ballots‘, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said.”
— https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/07/politics/georgia-recount-recertification-biden/index.html
(December 7, 2020; my bold emphasis added)
Three counts of ballots, the last two under increased scrutiny from many news organizations and election officials . . . and yet the final result remained unchanged, Joe Biden won the Georgia presidential election.
BTW, to bring the felony indictment (with its 41 separate counts) against Trump and his coconspirators, the Georgia department of justice had to convince the majority of 23 grand jurors of the merits (aka likely truth) of the individual charges based on presented evidence.
The “investigation” was Raffensperger reaffirming his original decisions. No independent review of registrations, or mail-in ballots was ever done.
Georgia, among other states, got rolled by the “get out the vote” Magic Mail-in Ballot Machine, and failed to take action to prevent that abuse, and refused to admit any fault after the fact.
No. One recount of the 2020 Georgia presidential election results required a hand recount of all ~5 million votes . . . it was not simple a matter of Raffensperger reaffirming his “original decisions”, whatever the heck that means. And no single person did the recount, let alone without supervision.
Tom, I’ll just gently ask YOU to provide the evidence substantiating your assertion there was “abuse” of the “Magic Mail-in Ballot Machine”.
You see, facts matter.
Hand recounting accepted illicit ballots does not prove them illicit.
Huh? . . . nor does such prove them not to be illicit.
I any event, the documentation (I won’t go so far as to demand “proof”) that ANY of the recounted ballots were “illicit” is found exactly where???
This, coming from a lawyer (one swore to be an “officer of the court”)?
Sending the Republican watchers home, locking the door then pulling out boxes of ballots from under the table hardly shuts, legitimate.
Got any FACTS to go with that?
TrollYouSo — I like the sound of this.
Simple mind, simple pleasures
That’s right. If the Democrats cheated and dumped huge amounts of votes for Biden in the middle of the night, a recount won’t discover that, all a recount will discover is how many votes each candidate got. It says nothing about whether those votes were illegal or not.
That’s right. If the Republicans cheated and dumped huge amounts of votes for Trump in the middle of the night, a recount won’t discover that, all a recount will discover is how many votes each candidate got. It says nothing about whether those votes were illegal or not.
Are you a chat bot?
No. It is you who is hallucinating.
Irony alert.
Do you actually claim Joseph Robinette Biden jr got significantly more votes than Obama, even in Black communities?
92% nationwide turnout is very suggestive that a lot of people were “voted”, not actually voting themselves.
“…all a recount will discover is how many votes each candidate got” or
…all a recount will discover is how many ballots were marked for each candidate.
It all depends on how you define “vote.”
And a team of election workers who stayed after “counting” was officially stopped to process ballots pulled from under a table. They are caught on video running and rerunning the same ballots many times.
You made a mistake posting this to a lawyer who has followed this closely. A few proven facts to set you straight:
Trump’s wisely cancelled the next Monday presser that would have documented all this. Save it for court proceedings, where it will be devastating to the ‘conspiracy’ prosecution for a sitting uninfluenced jury.
None of those “facts” have been shown true in court. Ruby Freeman and her daughter have been cleared of any wronging. While “Rudy Giuliani conceded in a court filing that he made false statements when he said two Georgia election workers mishandled ballots during the 2020 election.” (see https://www.npr.org/2023/07/26/1190173929/rudy-giuliani-georgia-election-workers )
Similarly True the Vote is also currently being sued for failing to produce evidence to support its claims. While multiple investigations have found that Georgia’s election was fair and the count was accurate.
Trump has most likely cancelled his press conference because his lawyers have persauded him that lying in public again about the elections is not the best look when you are on trial for trying to steal the election. If there was any evidence of widespread fraud it would have surfaced by now and would have resulted in victories in court.
No, there was and is a concerted effort by Democrats and some Republicans, and some Courts to ignore the evidence.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a lawsuit filed by Texas and other States against States that were violating their own election laws, and Texas and those supporting them thought that these violations were serious enough to call on the U.S. Supreme Court to tell the affected States to abide by their State election laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court is the only entity that can hear a dispute between two U.S. States, yet the U.S. Supreme Court, in a matter of this high importance, refused to hear the case. Or I should say Chief Justice John Roberts refused to hear the case. The no-good so and so!
Run away from your responsibilities, John. I think Roberts was afraid he might get criticized by the radical Democrats if he heard the case. What about the FISA Court abuses, John? What about the leak of the decision to overthrow Roe v Wade? What are you doing at the U.S. Supreme Court, John? Answer: Harming the nation.
So everyone, including the U.S. Supreme Court is running away from even talking about the 2020 election, and they want the rest of us to shut up and accept the outcome, as though it was legitimate. Sorry, that’s not going to happen. There is no doubt there were enough questionable votes in swing States to have thrown the election to either candidate. The thing we don’t know is for who these questionable votes were cast. They should have been thrown out and not counted in the first place.
We have a LOT of cowardly people in the political classes, in both parties.
If Trump gets elected again, I expect there will be a very detailed investigation of everything that has gone on since Trump was a candidate to the present including investigating Hillary and Obama and Biden and Comey and all their underlings.
We want to expose the assault on the U.S. Constitution by the radical Democrats since Obama was elected. He is the one who weaponized the Executive Branch and he is the one who deserves the most scrutiny. He and his ilk are trying to steal our country out from under us.
God Willing, the criminal, radical Democrats will be exposed for what they are.
They don’t have to be shown in court in order to be true.
No court has agreed to hear these cases yet.
Because they were NEVER presented in court—the judicial branch refused to do their jobs and routinely tossed lawsuit and lawsuit on grounds of “no standing” (which is not in the US Constitution).
Your assertion of certain “facts” being proven without providing hard evidence of such is quite telling.
I await your references/links to your claimed “facts” as they have been established by any court of law in this country, acknowledging your claim to be a lawyer and that it is typically a jury (sometimes only a judge) that turns presented evidence into legal factual findings.
I am unaware of any election case that was settled on the facts, laches and standing are the courts punting. 92% turnout is literally incredible, as was some six standard deviations increase in turnout in Wisconsin. Party spin, anyone?
I cannot decipher your first sentence . . . in fact, what you’re trying to communicate in your whole post.
Laches is dismissing a case as being too late, standing is a general damage that has to be shown to sue.
As you probably already know, and are feigning ignorance. I tend to doubt the sincerity of anyone pushing a “ Nothing to see here, move on” narrative of the 2020 election.
Election fortification was admitted to.
Tom Halla wrote:”I am unaware of any election case that was settled on the facts”
You don’t know what Tom means by that?
Quote Tom’s full sentence, as posted, and perhaps you’ll see what baffles me.
Then again, perhaps not.
I think Tom subsequently gave a good explanation of what he was saying. So you shouldn’t be baffled now.
Words used in courts often have judicially determined meaning. Common usage of that word is meaningless in court; i.e., if the judge is legitimate.
He doesn’t want to know.
Yep, he’s pushing an agenda, hard.
He’s got his NPR talking points and the same mentality as their most fervent religious disciples.
I personally watched the eyewitnesses present what they saw to the state legislators, including Georgia. That you dismiss them with a flip of a hand indicates to me that you are not an honest person.
I never made or posted a statement wherein I “dismiss eyewitnesses”, in any manner.
Reading comprehension 101.
What I’ve maintained is that following the indictments (rendered by the majority of empaneled grand jurors upon hearing evidence presented by Federal and State prosecutors in the separate cases pending), it will then be jurors in upcoming criminal trials that will establish the truth of the evidence as presented in those specific trails. Said evidence to be presented by both the prosecution and the defense.
Thus, the logical fallacy of your strawman argument is just that.
“Your assertion of certain “facts” being proven without providing hard evidence of such is quite telling.” — TrollYouSo
Try again.
You imagine that eyewitness testimony cannot be wrong and thus is “factual” and “proves” anything in a court of law?
Pity.
“Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts
. . . Eyewitness testimony is fickle and, all too often, shockingly inaccurate”
— https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
There are many other well-researched references available on the Web that conclude the same thing.
There weren’t one or two eyewitnesses, there were scores, in multiple states. There were so many who wanted to tell what they saw that the state legislature committees had to limit who could talk.
And then there were the 2000 mules who most definitely were not human eyewitnesses.
And how many times should Ruby Freeman and her daughter be allowed to vote?
10x?
1000x?
5000x?
50,000x?
You really should worry about the “fact” that Ruby Freeman has been proved to have voted in the Georgia election approximately 1 million times . . . I’m sure that was all in the news, although the evil powers-that-be have since wiped it away and, thus, I cannot provide a reference for such at this time.
Clown.
Not surprising that you found it amusing.
As I’ve replied separately: simple mind, simple pleasures.
🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡
Most of us spotted that! 🙄
Fascinating – as a resident of a country separated from the US by a common language, I am trying to keep up with this, and evidently struggling. Your definition of “legal factual findings” has a hole in it the size of the Hoover Dam imho; who is “legally” responsible for deciding what is admissible as fact? Could it be the ( political appointee, and politically motivated ..Judge )?
If facts and information, gathered and assessed in a legally watertight fashion and totally relevant to the case, are not allowed by the Judge to be presented to the Jury – how on this earth is any decision/finding “legal factual” – sure on the “evidence presented”, but never where crucial evidence is never allowed to be so…….? Are US juries able to determine if the Law is just as is the case in the UK; can a US jury effectively censure the Judge if they become aware of information that is withheld that might affect their “beyond all reasonable doubt” judgement ( I concede that is a can of worms..)?
Voter fraud, especially postal voting fraud has been proven in the UK – and no meaningful changes have been made to date that I am aware of except voter ID which has been criticised in certain quarters as kind of unworkable ( and that fraud has been more prevalent in certain ethnic populations as reported ); have there been any meaningful Democrat led complaints where they allege Republicans have committed voter fraud?
“have there been any meaningful Democrat led complaints where they allege Republicans have committed voter fraud?”
No, it’s all one way. Democrats don’t even alledge Republican voter fraud.
Thank you for asking.
In the US legal system, in most* contested legal matters, it is the responsibility of the empaneled jury of persons to make the finding of the “facts in the case” based on the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense during the trial, and only based upon that presented evidence. Thus, in rendering their final verdict, the majority of the trial jurors are the ones deciding what evidence is basically “factual”. Each and every jury* member is sworn in at the start of a trial to the effect that they understand this responsibility they have.
If you are instead asking who is legally responsible for deciding what evidence is allowed to “admitted” as evidence for a trial, that is the ultimate decision of the presiding judge in the particular trial . . . but this is often a contentious (pre-trail, in closed chambers) process worked out between the judge and the prosecution attorneys and defense attorneys and usually includes “discovery” results obtained by both sides).
*There are certain lower level courts (e.g., small claims courts, other civil or criminal courts) wherein both the plaintiff and defendant agree to waive their right to a jury trial, and in these situations it is the presiding judge in their case that establishes “the facts in the case”.
Finally, in the USA, it is the right of either side that does not prevail in a criminal trial to file a legal appeal of the jury’s verdict based on the argument that certain evidence was improperly/illegally excluded (for whatever reason, including bias by the trail judge) from the trial. Such appeals have to find a sympathetic ear within the judicial system to go forward, again based on presented evidence.
And as long as the target is DJT, you are ok with clogging the courts with garbage prosecutions.
Canada?
England?
Australia?
Mexico? Spanish or English spoke here.
Antarctica?
Iceland?
Greenland?
Tasmania?
New Zealand?
“Save it for court proceedings”
Yes, that’s going to be interesting.
Trump gets discovery. I wonder what Trump will discover? 🙂
By now, most of the records have shredded, burned, and erased with a cloth.
I forget which Executive branch agency was recently found to have “accidentally” erased all the files that a congressional committee had just requested under a subpoena.
All the video evidence from Georgia is still out there, no way to “cleanse” it away.
“By now, most of the records have shredded, burned, and erased with a cloth.”
There’s that. The Democrats in the House of Representatives saw to that. Right after Republicans won the majority in the House, but before they took office, the Democrats in the House, who have thousands of hours of video of the Jan 6 riots, and have interviewed thousands of people about the incident, and they all of a sudden destroyed all this evidence. Somebody ought to go to jail over this. If Trump gets elected, maybe we can do something about all of this criminality among the radical Democrats.
Even so, with the Democrats doing everything they can to hide the truth, just like Joe Biden did/does, but as always, the truth will out eventually, if we ask enough questions.
Joe thought he could hide his criminal financial dealings. Not so fast, Joe! Not so fast, radical Democrats!
Failure to supply records known to have been in possession of individual before the court usually end up pissing off the judge who can prefer contempt charges.
It was the J6 committee that claims to have deleted exculpatory information, videos and papers in their possession.
Personally, I’d love to see the J6 prosecution team brought up on charges of deleting evidence.
Only the prosecution gets to present evidence to a Grand Jury.
The trial jury gets to hear both sides.
Exactly . . . that is the way the judicial system works! Innocent until proven guilty.
However, the win/lose record of federal and state indictments that progressed to verdict in jury trials would seem to indicate a defendant in such a situation is in deep do-do when facing such.
Good luck Donald and coconspirators . . . you’re gonna need it in Georgia.
You mean “innocent until proven Republican.”
I thought it was worth noting that when the Georgia prosecutor was asked if she had coordinated her case with the federal government, she refused to answer.
If I were a prosecutor and a reporter accused me of colluding with the feds on Trump’s case, and I did not collude, then I would say with a loud voice, that, no, I did not collude or coordinate this case with anyone.
But she didn’t do that. What are we to make of that?
Quite simple . . . she chose to not answer a question, as was her perfect, legal right. After all the question was NOT asked in a court of law with her being swore in for testimony, was it?
Or perhaps you think she was obligated to follow what you assert you would have done? . . . ROTFLMAO!
Have YOU ever refused to answer a question?
That’s your answer? I think you are avoiding the question.
Why wouldn’t she just say no, when asked that question? It’s easy to do. And she should have answered it, considering the gravity of what she is doing and the implication of the question.
I do not know. Unlike you, I don’t claim to be a mind reader.
I’ll just note that Mark Levin, a Fox News host, with a very good legal mind, asked the same question yesterday that I asked about her refusal to answer. Mr. Levin came to the conclusion that she *is* colluding with the federal government because she refused to answer the question.
I haven’t gone that far, not being a mindreader, but I think her actions are very suspicious. As I say, a simple “no” would have been easy for her to say, and was a very pertinent question given the circumstances. But she didn’t say no.
BTW, I note—quite amusingly—that it is you who is refusing to answer the question that I put directly to you: “Have YOU ever refused to answer a question?”
Hmmm . . . what are you trying to hide? What are you guilty of? What are we to make of that?
Who are “we”, TrollYouSo?
Off hand, I can’t think of a case where it was necessary for me to refuse to answer a question.
I think there are situations where I would refuse to answer such as about personal things, but if I were a Georgia prosecutor, trying to jail a former president and current presidential candidate, and was asked a question which bears on the whole situation, and I wasn’t guilty of colluding, then I would answer that question. And would be a little bit irritated that a reporter was questioning my integrity.
But the Georgia prosecutor would not defend her own integrity. She remained silent, and the doubt remains.
This is the way a Liar behaves.
Fortunately, in the US judicial system, the voir dire process screens for jurors having pre-conceived notions—such as yours—about the way people are “supposed to act” and “the way liars behave”. This is an attempt to maximize fairness to both the defense and the prosecution sides in the court trial.
I can only hope such process would declare you unfit for jury service . . .
Why are you trying to cover for the dingbat DA who illegally leaked grand jury information?
I would likewise hope that voir dire process would declare you unfit for jury service . . .
Uh.
Most judges do not allow infinite refusals for jurors.
Otherwise, in Atlanta the defendants would refuse a majority of dingbat leftists.
In court or when interviewed under oath, never.
The same should hold for prosecutors speaking to the public as a matter of law, which Fani was doing, as the court official IN CHARGE!
She’ll be up for impeachment and disbarment after the faux trial.
The fact that heavily Democrat districts rarely find Republicans innocent, not withstanding.
Any facts to go with that statement?
You’re either another idiot with a bad case of TDS, or working as a shill for marxo-democrats.
And no, you don’t know RICO law, despite all the smoke and fluff you throw up. The GA case is likely the weakest of all four!
Explain how the 40+ page indictment was (illegally) leaked to the outside BEFORE the grand jury even met…
There are bad people everywhere . . . or didn’t you know?
This is even more absurd than the several excuses generated by the GA DA for the illegal grand jury leak, with which you seem to have no problem.
Please state for the record if you are a registered Democrat.
You first . . . please state for the record if you are aware of the stupidity of making such a post in a public forum.
Explains why it believes the Prosecutor can refuse to answer direct questions of merit.
Apparently proof given to 186no’s question.
In spite of MSM surface gloss, Donald Trump and the others already have all the luck they need.
The whole Georgia mess is absurd. Even corrupt judges will incur troubles if they try to allow such ridiculous charges.
Final results of the Grand Jury vote were posted by the State of Georgia Clerk BEFORE the vote was taken. So much for presented evidence. So much for your silly little process. Cheers –
Got any reference/link to support what you assert as being an actual fact?
It certainly invites the question: how could the Grand Jury vote be posted (and be accurate) before the Grand Jury actually voted.
Do you image that at least 12 of the 23 Georgia grand jurors are involved in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice??? Wow . . . just WOW!
My advice: don’t drink any more of the Kool-Aide. Cheers.
There’s an old saying that a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.
The prosecutor gets to only the facts that support his/her case. The prosecutor presents the jury with his/her interpretation of the evidence, without anyone to point out how ridiculous those interpreations are.
The prosecutor gets to instruct the jury on his/her interpretations of how the law should be read, without anyone present to let the jury know how full of s**t the prosecution is.
You seem to feel that an all Democrat grand jury indicting a well hated Republican, proves something. It doesn’t, other than the fact that you are doing a good job of seeing what you want to see.
Please provide the reference or document that establishes factually the Georgia grand jury that indicted Donald Trump and 18 coconspirators were all Democrats.
Unless and until you can do such, you need to dismount your high horse.
Um, hello, TrollYouSo! This is Fulton County Georgia!
Yes you are an idiot, this was widely reported in the news on Monday. And like every good little shill, you try to hide behind the kook-aide meme.
Good boy, here’s a bone…
Funny a wide-ranging search of the Web does not reveal ANY news on Monday—or even up until now—concerning ToldYouSo. 🙂
But thank you for revealing to all, with your ad hominem attack, the enduring wisdom of Socrates:
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
/pats head/ — have another bone.
““When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.””
A good description of the behavior of human-caused climate change alarmists.
They can’t argue the merits, so they attack the messenger.
It’s also a good descripiton of radical Democrat behavior.
Human-caused climate change alarmists and radical Democrats have a lot in common.
Here you go, TrollYouSo:
1:55 PM CDT the indictment is illegally leaked and then hastily removed from the web:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/breaking-corrupt-fulton-county-court-website-briefly-posts/
7:00 PM CDT the grand jury “votes” on the exact same document as the leak:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/developing-trump-indictment-watch-reporters-swarm-fulton-county/
A Fox reporter confronts the marxo-democrat operative:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/boom-fox-reporter-confronts-fani-willis-this-afternoons/
And the court clerk gives multiple asinine excuses:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/wow-fulton-county-clerk-comes-up-new-excuse/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/just-fulton-county-clerk-releases-new-statement-leaked/
Ahhh . . . thegatewaypundit.com . . . you cite that well-known, skilled investigative reporting, unbiased, widely acclaimed blog (I mean, just look at the name!) as the source, and the only source, supporting your absurd claims.
It figures.
And here you expose how you are a consumer of Fake News-only.
Did you miss the part where FOX News probed that dingbat Soros-installed DA about the leak?
No surprise that you still don’t have any problem with how these treasonous criminals behave.
Well-done on your Attacking the Messenger Fallacy, also.
Here’s another article for you to ignore in your TDS-driven rage:
https://themessenger.com/opinion/the-flaw-in-trumps-georgia-indictment
As I wrote before, this dingbat DA doesn’t know anything about RICO laws.
“Ahhh . . . thegatewaypundit.com”
See?! Attack the messenger.
Did you forget what Socrates said about losers in a debate?
I didn’t attack thegatewaypundit.com . . . I told the truth.
And I don’t find it at all strange that you cannot discern the difference.
Liar.
And you continue to dance around the fact that your dingbat GA DA illegally leaked grand jury information.
It bear repeating,
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
It is on responsible and factual news sites, forget, MSM and X.
The posting matched exactly to the Grand Jury vote that occurred after the list was posted to the internet.
Hauling in the clerk, citing their responsibilities and offense in posting the charges should get her to reveal who ordered her to prepare those charges, before the Grand Jury voted.
A Georgia Senator has already prepared impeachment charges against Fani.
“BTW, to bring the felony indictment (with its 41 separate counts) against Trump and his coconspirators, the Georgia department of justice had to convince the majority of 23 grand jurors of the merits (aka likely truth) of the individual charges based on presented evidence.”
Did you happen to see the Georgia grand jury foreman? She is as crazy as a loon. She went on CNN a couple of months ago and gleefully refused to answer about whether she thought Trump had been proven guilty of something or not, but you could tell by her deameanor that she thought Trump was toast. She was teasing up with a possible indictment. And how many grand jury foremen go on CNN and talk about the cases they are hearing before any verdict is reached? She is the only one I know of.
People running grand juries don’t have to present all the evidence to a grand jury, just the cherry-picked points they want to get across.
As they say, a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. It’s a one-sided affair. The defendant gets no chance to defend himself.
I recall watching video of a poll worker in Georgia feeding the same set of ballots through a counting machine over and over. She put the documents in the top of the reader, and the documents were read, and then collected in a tray at the bottom of the machine. And instead of putting a new batch of ballots in the machine to have them counted, the poll worker took the ballots that had already been counted and put them back in the machine to be counted again.
Trump says he has evidence. He was going to present it to the public in the last few days but his lawyers have convinced him to wait until this comes to trial to present his evidence.
Oh, now I see. The discussion has devolved down to the equivalent of phrenology.
I should have seen that coming. Mea culpa.
Oh, yeah, according to you she was one of the 12 people that needed to be convinced that the indictments should be issued . . . or do you think she was such a “loon” as to exercise mind-control over the other 11? This too.
Yep, probable TDS here…
DEFINITELY!!!
Ignores the many inconveniences many brings up in the thread because this is a Trump hater thus prejudiced from the start.
Remind me to ask him about Russian Collusion a la Adam Schiff and Rachel Madcow, the Alfa Bank hoax, and the illegal FISA warrants.
“Oh, yeah, according to you she was one of the 12 people that needed to be convinced that the indictments should be issued”
She didn’t need to be convinced. She already had Trump convicted.
You wouldn’t want this goof determining your fate. She is not a serious person. And yes, I can tell that by watching her.
Rud, do precedents not establish law to deal with the multiplicity of failed law suits against Exxon et al re global warming? Does the defendant have to keep defending himself until every tactic devised has failed. If so, l citizens of ordinary means could be brutalized by a litigious complainant.
You are correct—you could be, and Trudeau in Canada is proving the case.
Short unfortunate answer, generally US no. Even the constitutional double jeopardy protection doesn’t work if one charge is federal and the other is state for the same act. As with Trump ‘J6’.
Good summary, Rud. I remember working in Montana, with my son and friend with me. We examined an artisanal underground gold mine. The old miner asked the two boys: what do you call ten thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?…..A good start.
My mother died of lung cancer (1980) while my father lived. He quit smoking at age about 43, mother never could. Everyone understood smoking was a health hazard.
As I recall, the heads of the tobacco companies denied that smoking was addictive.
While I know of many people that died of smoking, I can’t come up with a single name of a person that has died of anthropological climate change.
Scientific studies show extreme weather event-related deaths have been declining. Even if a causal relationship between CO2 and extreme weather events (Leftist climate change) could be established using scientific methods (experimentation, not models) there is no damages to compensate.
Define “clean.”
Yes, that’s the underlying problem with many of these legal scams, IMO.
The complainants haul in their own green ‘experts’ to tell the court what is true or not. And the courts seem to too often swallow it, hook, line, and sinker.
On top of that, claims are made into the unprognosticatable future (if unprognosticatable could be a word in the English language).
Basically, that boils down to taking a possible small effect now and projecting out to infinity some time in the future, assuming that nothing else would ever change.
It’s like the foolish economic reparations claims in certain other fields which don’t need mentioning in more detail. Thus if my great great great great grandparent was unjustly denied some economic benefit then if compound interest at a few % per annum is totalled up, I am possibly owed a sum greater than the total federal budget deficit.
These arguments are clearly insane but many courts seem increasingly willing to entertain insane arguments.
” Define ‘clean’ “
‘Barack Obama’ – per Joe Biden: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”
Nice job Rud.
That is so obviously hypocritical and in my view unconscionable, how they go on using FF every day and yet these frothing marxists want to shake down big oil for a pot of gold, while at the same time crying that Big oil is getting rich off of the little people. Do I have that right? It takes a thief…er…marxist.
A minor point but Wyoming is by far the leading producer of steam coal.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/coal-production-by-state.html
1990 Clean Air Act amendments that mandated low SO2 cuts to stop bogus acid rain.
Rud, Interesting that you mentioned asbestos. It has killed many people; contrasted with so called climate change which has killed none. Of course cold in particular and to some extent heat.. Microscopically the asbestos particles look like tiny golden wood screws. They have been implicated in mesothelioma. I have had a couple of cases come to autopsy. Steve McQueen died of that disease.
WHICH form of asbestos? (There are three. two of which are harmless).
My comment on this
1. It was a possible mistake to include the CA cases against Trump. It is a small distraction on the issues of lawfare even if accurate.
2. These cases appear to be constantly produced in a sort of antagonist/adversary approach to decision making. A judge, a jury, if used, with no real scientific understanding lack of knowledge; how do these people make real determination other than on their perceived predispositions?
Most/if not all are created based solely on hyperventilation, by the pseudoscientific populace hunting for something to back ‘their truth’ and grab that pot of gold.
The Nigerian money scams seem more profitable than these legal fights.
Solar activity like spots, winds, and flares plus the earth’s inclination causes climate change and nothing else. This is an attempt to control us- don’t believe the lies
It is not difficult to show that, in the atmosphere, water vapor molecules have been increasing more than 5 times faster than CO2 molecules. They are both measured and a little arithmetic does the rest. This demonstrates that burning fossil fuels is less than even a minor contributor to climate change and makes moot the question of what Exxon did or did not know. Further analysis shows that increased ghg (other than water vapor) has no effect on climate.
Also, IPCC Section 7.2.4.2 Radiative processes in the stratosphere asserts “When the CO2 concentration is increased, the increase in absorbed radiation is quite small and increased emission leads to a cooling at all heights in the stratosphere.”
Therefore, increased CO2 probably counters planet warming.
The analysis is at https://energyredirect3.blogspot.com
“makes moot the question of what Exxon did or did not know”
One can’t know something that isn’t true.
Exxon did not know anything because there is no evidence that CO2 does what climate change alarmists claim it does. Not way back when, and not today.
So if a government increases taxes due to claimed climate impacts, and then doesn’t use the entire amount on climate mitigation, it is “unjust enrichment”?
Any money spent on “climate mitigation” is unjust enrichment.
Rud,
Thanks for the article. However, I believe lawfare has been in use within the climate alarmism community long before Donald Trump came down the escalator. One of its well-known practitioners would sue someone with whom he disagreed, and cause said defendant to expend time and money on his/her defense, only to have the plaintiff drop the case just as discovery was to begin. You know who I mean.
“You know who I mean.”
Mmm? Am I right?
“There is as yet no Climate Stability Act.” – if enacted “Unicorn Recognition Act” will surely follow.
Dear Rud,
interesting summary!
Aw. .when I saw the topic of this article here on WUWT I misunderstood the intention and even after your clear first sentences I kept reading with a particular idea in my mind..
“For example, a painter verbally agrees to paint a house for a few thousand dollars.”
Is along that idea.. Aren´t we seeing plenty of unjust promises and statements from people in the climate discussion who make money from it?
Even the income from a daily government or university job should depend on telling the truth about their research!?
For example we have Mann not correcting his influential but wrong 1998 publication.
Could that be an unjust enrichment examle against the people of USA or at least his university?
Companies getting billions from taxpayers for unreliable and difficult to use electricity, at large environmental costs, seem to fit the concept of “unjust enrichment” especially well.
Well.. I am sorry, but I disagree.. you cant really blame the companies, some of them quite openly stating that they do not really believe these measures are sustainable, but are in for the financial incentives!
=> nothing untruth or unjust about it!
Here also the same climate scientists enriching themselves personally seem responsible IMHO, telling untruths to politicians generating the framework to enable these changes in the energy market.