Tomorrow's Twitchy: "LOL!!! "@kumbuckitz6969" just OWNED Mueller's Trial Materials on Twitter And It's HILARIOUS!"
Tomorrow's Vox: "Mueller's Trial Witness Opening Brief: An Explainer On How Hearings In Federal Circuit Court Work Under The Federal Procedure Codes"
[That one is obscure but trust me it's really mean]
Tomorrow's Reason: "Why There Should Be An Unregulated Market For Witness Testimony To Achieve Optimal Factfinding"
Tomorrow's InfoWars: "Do Any of These Witnesses Even Exist? I Shouted At The Keurig In The Break Room To Find Out."
Tomorrow's New York Times: "In The Manafort Witness Waiting Room, Still Firm Support For Trump"
Tomorrow's ZeroHedge: "How Federal Courts Prevent Public Scrutiny Of Trials By Banning Cane Swords And Capes"
Tomorrow's Breitbart: "We Will Pay You A Dollar If You PLEASE Click on This Manafort Story"
Tomorrow's Salon: "Mueller's List Does Not Note Each Witness' Preferred Pronoun, And That's Not Okay"
Tomorrow's Seth Abramson: "How The Manafort Trial Proves That Manafort Is On Trial 1/78"
Tomorrow's Tucker Carlson: "Which Manafort Witnesses Have Gypsy-Sounding Names? I Asked Fabio."
Tomorrow's Alan Dershowitz: "How The Constitution Gives The President's Former Campaign Chairman Retroactive Permission To Commit So-Called Tax Fraud"
Tomorrow's Laurence Tribe: "How Judge Ellis Could, By Giving The Right Jury Instruction, Make Hillary Clinton President Again"
Tomorrow's Buzzfeed: "Choose Three Vajazzle Designs To Determine Whether Paul Manafort Is Guilty Or Not Guilty"
Tomorrow's Daily Wire: "Bullied And Betrayed: How SJWs Mocked My Manafort Take, And My Long Road To Recovery"
Tomorrow's Jordan Peterson: "Succubi In The Jury Box: How Allowing Women To Decide Manafort's Fate Will Hasten The Collapse of Western Civilization. Plus Fortnite Tips!"
Tomorrow's Intercept: "What Goes On In Judge Ellis's Chambers? We Asked His Secretary, Who Told Us, Begging For Confidentiality Because She Has A Child Who Needs Medicine."
Tomorrow's Variety: "Statistically, At Least Several Manafort Witnesses Have Probably Not Been Sexually Abused By A Director or Producer"
Tomorrow's Judge Jeanine Pirro: "The Manafort Witnesses, Oathbreakers And Nation-Destroyers, Shall Writhe In A Lake of Cleansing Fire When I Come Into My Rightful Power"
Tomorrow's Slate: "We Did The Math. A Pathetic 9 of Mueller's 35 Manafort Witnesses Are Women. What This Says About the Glass Ceiling."
Tomorrow's Cosmopolitan: "Manafort Jurors Should Know How To Bring Themselves To Climax Using Just This Toilet Brush When Their Boyfriends Are In Rehab Aagain"
Tomorrow's President of the United States: "Paul Manafort is a classy guy. The Eighth Commandment says you have a right to a jury of your PEERS but most of those people in the jury pool look like LIBERALS and LOSERS. SAD! #MAGA#TARRIFS#NOCOLLUSION"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
/2 See, he penned a screed about the manliness of Kavanaugh and the sissyness of Democrats. It turned some heads.
/3 Then, in the face of turbulence, he retconned it, adding to the post asserting that it was satire in the style of Jonathan Swift, and condemning students for being ignorant of Swift and Horace and such satirical luminaries.
An imbecile named Mitchell Langbert, employed (possibly as a prank) by Brooklyn College, wrote a strivingly douchey blog post. Can he be fired, as many urge? A mini-lawsplainer. /1
/2 Langbert, as is currently fashionable in some circles, wrote a belabored "oh come one everyone did that" post about Kavanaugh's alleged youthful behavior. It's what you'd expect from an average-literate Redditor. People are, understandably, repulsed.
/3 So. In analyzing whether the school may (never mind the philosophical question of SHOULD) fire him, we need to look at two things.
The first thing is any contract -- union or individual -- he has with the school. Many such things place restrictions on termination.
OK, Graham is a toad, but this is a (smug) reference to Democratic attacks on Clinton accusers in 1998 (Carville used that line to denigrate Paula Jones), and it's more than a little dishonest to clickbait it as if it's not.
/2 I mean, Graham still comes off looking awful, because he IS awful, and his defense of Trump's dickbaggery is feeble. But let's not be dishonest (or historically illiterate, not sure which).
/3 And, by the way, don't miss the absolutely fantastic Season Two of Slow Burn covering the Clinton impeachment, including unsparing looks at how badly some of his accusers were treated. I thought it was impossible to loathe Bill Maher more, but I was wrong!
A reminder from last month: evasive and non-responsive answers, even if misleading, aren't perjury. It's hard to prove perjury. [That's not to say that such evasion or dishonesty is right, or that it ought not be taken into account in evaluating someone.]
/2 Example: even if you accept the premise that Kavanaugh knew damn well he was the character in Mark Judge's book, this exchange is likely evasive and non-responsive rather than perjury.
(I think he knew, and it's dishonest, but not legally perjury.)
Sometimes people talk as if witness credibility is objective/universal/definite/constant -- as if you can show factor X, then it's clear/certain/confident the witness is lying or telling the truth.
It's not. It's subjective, cultural, indefinite, and changing. /1
The law recognizes this. Much of the law of evidence is designed to limit irrational but sincere responses to witnesses.
Take Federal Rule of Evidence 610, which many states copy.
/3 FRE 610 says "Evidence of a witness’s religious beliefs or opinions is not admissible to attack or support the witness’s credibility." In other words, you can't cross-examine someone saying "isn't it true you're a Jew," then argue they shouldn't be trusted because of it.
Today I celebrate a life: that of my grandmother, Annette Doyle, who passed today at just under 101. A life well-lived and an example to me. Here’s her favorite family picture. The photographer made a rude noise that alarmed the dog, and hilarity ensued. My is mom back left. /1
/2 I was blessed to have a chance to say goodbye yesterday and to help take care of her needs today. That is, after all, what this whole ridiculous business is about: that we’re here for each other, care for one another, and live in memory.
/3 I heard a great story about her today I hand them before. 1945, grandpa was coming back from the Pacific, due in SF port. She stowed mom with her parents and reserved a room at their favorite hotel in SF. But how to find him, to meet him?