This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As I said earlier, you're putting too much credence in the idea that the presence or absence of a case that fits some exact criteria is going to be some kind of showstopper for one side or the other. The entire issue is incredibly complicated and I'm not claiming that this is a slam dunk, just that there's a credible enough argument that this isn't going to get dismissed outright and that anyone who accepts money from this organization needs to be on alert that litigation is likely and they may end up getting tied up in it and eventually forced to pay the money back. What we have here is a settlement that seems to violate various basic ethical canons and raises significant constitutional questions, and the policy implications of this going forward could be wide ranging. So while I'm not necessarily saying the people who receive the money won't eventually win, you can certainly expect that a future administration will protect its interests, and their arguments won't be unreasonable.
Not at all. Because the issue is not whether the government would win in this situation. The issue is whether there is any kind of precedent for such a lawsuit. If you had pointed to a few precedents, I would have agreed that probably it would not be an escalation.
However it seems you are unable to point to a single case -- in the entire history of American jurisprudence -- where (1) the government has settled a claim; and (2) later, under new leadership, gone back and attempted to void the settlement on the grounds that there was a conflict of interest and seek to recoup any monies paid out.
I think it's an open question. Because if a future administration escalates along the lines you propose, it invites further escalation once the Republicans are back in power. For example, there are legal settlements which have been cited in this discussion thread which settlements are ethically questionable. A hypothetical Republican administration might decide to seek to have those settlements voided and force anyone who received money as a result of those settlements to pay the money back with interest.
My best guess is that a future Democratic administration would be more interested in getting spoils for its own allies than in opening up that can of worms.
By the way, I believe I had asked you previously if you were able to identify any precedent for your (apparent) claim that for a conviction under the wire and/or mail fraud statutes, the government must show that the perpetrator actually defrauded a victim. I take it that you are unable to do so?
I think we just have different conceptions of what counts as escalation. The point of such a suit isn't to punish people for supporting Trump, but to make the United States whole. It's my opinion that this collusion has perpetrated a massive fraud on the United States, and that condoning this behavior will be more escalatory, because it acts as an implicit license for anyone to do it. So there are three options. The first is the one that I would consider the most escalatory, which is that the government would cede the legality of Trump's actions. Then, when they can't get an appropriation from congress, the president will just sue the government and instruct the attorney general to settle for however much money he's asking for. Then he can establish his own execitive agencies or NGOs to act as a shadow bureaucracy that distribute the benefits for purely political reasons. I don't think either one of us believe that this would be perfectly legal or constitutional for any administration to do, regardless of whether or not you can find some caselaw that specifically prohibits it. The second option is closer to what I think you would consider the deescalatory option which would be to let Trump off the hook, and then get congress to pass a law specifically prohibiting it.
The problem with this approach is that it suggests that Trump's above the law. Consider the following example: Suppose I come up with a novel fraudulent scheme, the result of which is that you lose a significant sum of money. You approach the district attorney, who tells you that based on the general principles of fraud what I did was probably illegal, and he has good arguments, but since there's nothing on-point regarding this specific scheme, he's not going to prosecute. He recommends that you write your congressman. This is especially bad in Trump's case because you're effectively saying that a government that will claw back an extra $50 bucks they overpaid Uncle Milt in his SS check will let 1.8 billion in theft slide because Donald Trump is a political figure and they don't want to escalate. The third option is that you litigate under the theory that what Trump did was illegal and you're simply restoring the status quo. Trump is certainly wealthy enough to cover the legal defenses of everyone involved, but we all know the chances of that happening.
BTW, I apologize for not answering your question the previous times you ask it, but if I get busy and don't look at it a while I'll forget what I was talking about and it will take an inordinate amount of time to retrace my steps. To answer your question, no, there is no precedent saying that, and there is actually precedent saying the opposite. But part of the point I am trying to make about the law, that non-litigators don't always understand, is that there are requirements and then there are requirements. Legally speaking, no, the case will not be dismissed. But just because a case survives dismissal doesn't mean that it's good enough to take to a jury, and for a fraud case such as this you will realistically need to show a victim. The cases that say you don't need a victim are ones where the defendants were so obviously involved in a fraudulent scheme that there was no question that they were trying to mislead people. The SPLC fraud allegations are so remote that it's harder to make that argument. To give you an example from what I do, I represent defendants. Theoretically, I don't have to prove anything, just show that the plaintiff didn't prove his case. But realistically I am not going to win if I don't present evidence. Even if a witness doesn't say something in his deposition, I'm going to ask about it anyway, because counsel will take the stance that since he didn't specifically deny it he's going to assume it's true, and I'm more worried about convincing counsel than convincing a jury.
And does this principle apply to ALL settlements in which there was a "conflict of interest" or "collusion"?
Thank you for admitting that you were wrong.
Looks to me like you are weaseling here. Anyway, if you are going to claim special expertise as an attorney, you really should be ready to let people verify your credentials.
Does the same reasoning apply to the fraud civil suit against Trump brought by the NY AG?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link