Retired Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman files witness intimidation suit
- Thread starter butters
- Start date
Bud_Spencer
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,720
Did Trump and Rudy have the local donut shops stop making the bear claws that keep Vindman alive?
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,671
It's probably going nowhere.
Would it surprise you?
Philthy_Phil
I win !
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2021
- Posts
- 11,709
Ahahaha fuck trump and all his low IQ trumptards. Hang him from the tallest pole!
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
Just keep on being irrelevant and despicable. We know you will.
I'm sure Trump's lawyers filed briefs of similar length to get the election overturned, but they had nothing.
Bud_Spencer
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,720
Brazilians call it "stuffing the sausage" and it's exactly what you do when you don't have anything.
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
Don't have anything? Like most everything else with Trump, it all happened right out in the open.
What planet were you hatched on?
Bud_Spencer
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,720
I stand on my statement. This leaking lardbutt is going nowhere with this suit.
I hope it has legs and before the Trump coffers are all empty....I'm not sure if that 150 million war chest is accessible in lawsuits like this but one can hope.
The Trumps personal wealth is under serious risk...mostly due to ole dopey himself.
You don't doubt the allegations, do you? Nobody would, who pays any attention at all.
Bud_Spencer
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2020
- Posts
- 10,720
Oh no, absolutely not. You all have been straight down the middle on Trump. Just like with all of those Russia accusations and the scores of people who went to jail onthem. Spot-on,those. Ditto emoluments, 25th Amendment, etc. No, you all are the very picture of sobriety, reason and not being batshit insane at all.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 62,176
The amount of shit they did in the media publicly is evidence enough.....if anyone saw his testimony....he doesn't skimp on maticulousness
He has enough just with his firing.
Last edited:
Paul_Chance
The Watcher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2011
- Posts
- 21,800
So, because it's a slow day, I read this complaint (so you don't have to).
This isn't going to go anywhere.
First off, Vindman needs better lawyers, because the complaint reads like a press release - and a bad one at that. He's represented by Democracy Now (an advocacy group).
Second, they (in the complaint) cite authority under 42 USC 1985, which doesn't apply to the circumstances outlined in the complaint. Why? One simple line in the section - "If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States....".
As a complaint, it has two immediate problems.
First, a 42 USC 1985 suit only applies to a court of law (the Judicial Branch). Congress, though "court like" in its impeachment abilities, isn't a court. That's why there are entirely different sections of law dealing with congressional testimony. So either they didn't know this (hence he needs new lawyers) or they just didn't care (in which case, he needs new lawyers). That would be 18 USC (1512) - which is a criminal statue and has no "civil" teeth, meaning it's up to the DOJ to prosecute. So, most likely it won't make it through the first request for dismissal.
Second, the "teeth" of 42 USC (1985) are in 42 USC (1983), which establishes the right to file a civil suit - but then only if the actions taken were done under "color of authority". They don't even bother citing this authority because it clearly doesn't apply (or because they didn't know or care).
The combination of the two laws is a civil rights measure and the target (the person being sued) under both sections is the government. The law was devised and is used in those cases where a person, acting under color of authority (e.g. a cop, a judge, an elected or appointed official, or a full-time employee of the government acting in an official capacity takes the action. This is the set of laws that are used to sue "the government". Since the government gives itself qualified immunity, good luck there. (People do both file and win against the government - just not this kind of case.)
So, here is my cynical guess - Vindman has a book deal and needs publicity and Democracy Now needs fundraising. They've got a novel approach to interpreting the law here. (In my experience, Section 1983 and 1985 violations are filed by the DOJ - usually against some other branch of the government on behalf of the aggrieved party.)
There was a hint buried in the complaint that could potentially have some merit as a civil suit. In the complaint Vindman alleges that because he was called to testify before Congress the subsequent damages occurred (basically, the end of his career). So, he might have grounds for a suit against Congress. Which would basically not go anywhere because Congress handily excluded themselves from the law by limiting it to proceedings before the Judicial Branch.
Don't hang any hopes of bringing Trump Et. Al. to justice with this one.
This isn't going to go anywhere.
First off, Vindman needs better lawyers, because the complaint reads like a press release - and a bad one at that. He's represented by Democracy Now (an advocacy group).
Second, they (in the complaint) cite authority under 42 USC 1985, which doesn't apply to the circumstances outlined in the complaint. Why? One simple line in the section - "If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States....".
As a complaint, it has two immediate problems.
First, a 42 USC 1985 suit only applies to a court of law (the Judicial Branch). Congress, though "court like" in its impeachment abilities, isn't a court. That's why there are entirely different sections of law dealing with congressional testimony. So either they didn't know this (hence he needs new lawyers) or they just didn't care (in which case, he needs new lawyers). That would be 18 USC (1512) - which is a criminal statue and has no "civil" teeth, meaning it's up to the DOJ to prosecute. So, most likely it won't make it through the first request for dismissal.
Second, the "teeth" of 42 USC (1985) are in 42 USC (1983), which establishes the right to file a civil suit - but then only if the actions taken were done under "color of authority". They don't even bother citing this authority because it clearly doesn't apply (or because they didn't know or care).
The combination of the two laws is a civil rights measure and the target (the person being sued) under both sections is the government. The law was devised and is used in those cases where a person, acting under color of authority (e.g. a cop, a judge, an elected or appointed official, or a full-time employee of the government acting in an official capacity takes the action. This is the set of laws that are used to sue "the government". Since the government gives itself qualified immunity, good luck there. (People do both file and win against the government - just not this kind of case.)
So, here is my cynical guess - Vindman has a book deal and needs publicity and Democracy Now needs fundraising. They've got a novel approach to interpreting the law here. (In my experience, Section 1983 and 1985 violations are filed by the DOJ - usually against some other branch of the government on behalf of the aggrieved party.)
There was a hint buried in the complaint that could potentially have some merit as a civil suit. In the complaint Vindman alleges that because he was called to testify before Congress the subsequent damages occurred (basically, the end of his career). So, he might have grounds for a suit against Congress. Which would basically not go anywhere because Congress handily excluded themselves from the law by limiting it to proceedings before the Judicial Branch.
Don't hang any hopes of bringing Trump Et. Al. to justice with this one.
And if that weren't petty enough, they fired his brother too.
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
Right, the brother has a great case, if he brings one.
What was done was way beyond the pale of what is right in the United States. Lessons should be taught here.
Chernosoth
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2021
- Posts
- 5,869
Do you have a pic of him looking fat? In the pics I saw, he is slightly pudgy and generally not handsome, but he may be slimmer than the average middle aged American. If you insist on fat shaming, we can start with Trump, Bill Barr, etc.
EVERY time I log in, it's
butters -- Counsellor/Bidude -- pecksniff -- GothTalk -- KeithD -- Ill67
circle-jerking one another with repetitive nonsense.
Plus 90% forum spamming by the first 3, with threads.
Seriously.
pecksniff, ill, keithD used to be great posters.
Wtf happened to you guys?
untreated ocd?
butters -- Counsellor/Bidude -- pecksniff -- GothTalk -- KeithD -- Ill67
circle-jerking one another with repetitive nonsense.
Plus 90% forum spamming by the first 3, with threads.
Seriously.
pecksniff, ill, keithD used to be great posters.
Wtf happened to you guys?
untreated ocd?
Sean Renaud
The West Coast Pop
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Posts
- 59,403
I don't know Keith particularly well or Ill for that matter but Peck is/was a fantastic counter puncher. When all he is gets fed is absolute garbage he doesn't have much to work with. Its like Goth used to be a human being but now . . .well how do you argue with fee fees and white victimhood?
Philthy_Phil
I win !
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2021
- Posts
- 11,709
Emobo had suffered a brain injury years ago. With time we have seen the progressive negative effects it has had on him and us. I fell bad for his family and us.
KeithD
Virgin
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2012
- Posts
- 29,626
I don't think three out of that group have sunk to your level of inanity.
I also don't think any of us give a shit what you choose to think about it.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 62,176
I really don't understand the repetitive threads on the same subject matter. Whenever I find something interesting, there's usually already a thread on a similar or the same subject that I'll add it to. Ive noticed when I do start a thread, it quickly gets either pushed out of view or inundated with random blabber, typically unrelated and targeted.
That's why I typically tag them...it's my way of subtlety saying "another of the same shit"
Similar threads
