Joyce, you write the best zingers! Here's a keeper: "Ultimately, the best approach if you don’t want to be tried with someone is not to commit crimes with them." Thanks for helping us through the legal jungle.
While I will join in thanking Joyce, it is appropriate to make clear why the gratitude. Joyce, you are providing great insights for people like me who know nothing about the intricacies of such court case. Even where there is clarity there are always more questions than answers as we wait for the next shoe to drop or to learn about how the dynamics might play out with a cast of RICO defendants and a mix of judges with talents and nuanced perspectives.
“providing great insights for people like me who know nothing about the intricacies of such court case“
I offer a sort of a lateral similarity; what Joyce does is explain how the rules of a game (the laws) are applied as well as how they may be interpreted differently from one judge to another. This is very similar to what an official/ referee does regarding the rules in his/ her sport.
If you hold at a sports rule book and look at the amount of information in it you might be shocked and likely a bit overwhelming by the sheer volume. For example two sports rule books that I am familiar with are 800+- pages long. For the casual observer the subtle details and nuances about how the rules are applied can be confusing if not completely lost. Here Joyce explains the details and nuances about how a rule and/ or rules (law/ laws) are and/ or may be applied. And like the plethora of rules in a sports rule book, knowing each and every one and how they will or may be applied is next to impossible without years and years of experience. And as Joyce has and continues to explain to us, how a judge decides to apply “the rules” (the law) can vary from judge to judge. It’s the same for sports officials.
For sports officials there is another aspect of how a rule may be applied for a given situation. This other aspect is described as having a “feel for the game”. As Joyce has shown different judges’ “feel for the game” can and does vary. All judges do not apply the rules in exactly the same way (eg: the recent sentencing of the various Proud Boys). In some situations it may be “black and white” in others more gray. Judges will no doubt disagree with their peers about how they do and/ or did apply the rules (the law).
Joyce does an excellent job explaining to us ‘mere mortals’ how to read a rule (law), understand it’s meaning, and how it might or might not be applied by the “referee”/ the judge. Reading her explanations is for me much like explaining to a fan in the stands the actual wording of a rule and how the ref is interpreting and applying it in a given situation. We (the fans) might not always agree with the ref (the judge), but being better informed gives us a deeper more well rounded understanding of what’s taking place before our eyes. It makes us better “fans” so to speak.
As I re-read what Joyce has written tonight, and put it together with others' comments, and video, and call backs, it begins to show a size many felt but couldn't define when the orange pustule took office. It was always his intention to be the fascist 'mercan Kim Jong Un figure with hundreds of thousands marching and saluting him, goose stepping their hearts out and cower if he lifted his eyebrow at them. This feeling of dread SO many have had was absolutely right, but legally, you can't convict someone before they do something. The something these raging seditionists and feral thieves nationwide did was in concert. No mistaking that, now that the legal minds are working overtime to reconstruct it. I take it as a national service that all honest and faithful journalists and lawyers, judges and court officials are doing right now. It's humbling to see the narrow margin by which we did not wake up on the losing side of a coup.
I need to regain confidence that my vote WILL be counted and won't be subverted in some way. These court cases are restoring my belief that we won't lose that privilege, that confidence, here. I haven't missed a vote in my entire life, and I sure as hell won't miss any upcoming!! VOTE!!!
Joyce, your opening paragraph had me smiling throughout the whole piece. The image of them all fighting to be “severed” from each other was equally amusing. Of course, this is no laughing matter and your explication of what is going on is always vital to appreciating these legal shenanigans. I am looking forward to the proceedings and think it is GREAT it will be televised for all to see. Thank you!!!
"Cameras in Courts!" - essential to disempower the gaslighters / Flat Earthers / Trump cultists / election deniers and empower persuadable Independents and Republicans to reject Trump forever.
Only problem is none of those people will watch. They have no interest in the truth and they’ll never admit to being wrong. But you’re right - it may sway a few independents. 🤞
Forget about changing those whose identity is cloaked by falsehoods they either can't see or deliberately cling to out of some sense of warped power. I think their disempowerment happens when uncertain people see how things actually work, and begin to question what they've been hearing, and what the gaslighters et all have to say loses credibility. It has steadily been happening for a while now, and my sense is that we are on the verge of a significant shift. The other thing we have to do, though, is stop calling people by demeaning names and looking down our noses at them. Leave them room to change, just in case. No point in closing doors when someone might walk through them- especially because by shutting doors through namecalling, we're including a lot of people who don't deserve to be demeaned.
There's more to hear and more to be brought to light of course, however, the best part of the motions for severance is the Kleig light it blasts on all the scrambling rats in all the corners. We are about to witness the gymnastics of panic in a court of law. I have a huge curiosity about the Judge tomorrow, and have my fingers crossed that he's as insightful and knowledgeable as I hope he is.
Thanks always Joyce. Please give your beautiful sweet shepherd an ear scratch for me.
I could collect all of your posts over the past months and collate them into a very good textbook. Thank you so much for sharing the fruits of your years of study and real-life experience. Much respect.
Also: am I correct that, at least in Georgia, to charge and convict under RICO does not require direct communication between two co-defendants? Asking for a friend.
The name of the offense sort of gives it away: racketeering does not necessarily mean that everyone involved is in contact with everyone else - Just that they all were involved in the same activity. People who are involved with racketeering are often linked through other people involved, and all evidence that supports the charge could be applied to any of the defendants. I am fascinated by Chesebro's frenetic list of all the ways in which he was not connected to Powell. That is one nervous man. It makes me want to know just why exactly he feels the need to be so thorough in his denial of knowing her. (Legally, it makes no difference, and surely he knows that, so why the histrionics?)
Thank you, Joyce, for preparing and sharing this information with us. Chesebro may claim he has not personally met or communicated with Powell, but they shared the same Trump fostered conspiracy theory that the election was 'stolen' and they both worked with Rudy Giuliani to push forward their individual false propositions. Chesebro may have been a lone wolf with a legal theory without a construct when he first strategized overcoming a Wisconsin deficit of some 20,000 votes. But very soon thereafter, Chesebro's proposition for substituting fake electors for valid electors gained steam in Trump's camp, through Giuliani. And Chesebro's theory was helped along with a Powell fostered perception of rigged voting machines that duped substantial numbers of the American public into believing an election was stolen through purposely rigging voting machines. Chesebro used Powell's nonsense to rationalize his false theory and strategy of replacing valid electors with fake electors in a total of seven states. It's very thin that he would claim he wants separation from Sidney Powell because he hasn't personally met her or had a direct communication with her. They worked on the same project from the same QAnon rabbit hole. Different shifts?
Joyce, you write the best zingers! Here's a keeper: "Ultimately, the best approach if you don’t want to be tried with someone is not to commit crimes with them." Thanks for helping us through the legal jungle.
That's why mama always told you not to hang around with certain people. Birds of a feather flock together.
That line cracked me up too!
I like that line so much I just posted it on my Facebook page, with attribution of course.
Laurie - you took the words that were going to be typed by my keys. Joyce...that line was a true LOL! Best zinger in a long time!
While I will join in thanking Joyce, it is appropriate to make clear why the gratitude. Joyce, you are providing great insights for people like me who know nothing about the intricacies of such court case. Even where there is clarity there are always more questions than answers as we wait for the next shoe to drop or to learn about how the dynamics might play out with a cast of RICO defendants and a mix of judges with talents and nuanced perspectives.
Thank you. Yes! “We are in this together.”
“providing great insights for people like me who know nothing about the intricacies of such court case“
I offer a sort of a lateral similarity; what Joyce does is explain how the rules of a game (the laws) are applied as well as how they may be interpreted differently from one judge to another. This is very similar to what an official/ referee does regarding the rules in his/ her sport.
If you hold at a sports rule book and look at the amount of information in it you might be shocked and likely a bit overwhelming by the sheer volume. For example two sports rule books that I am familiar with are 800+- pages long. For the casual observer the subtle details and nuances about how the rules are applied can be confusing if not completely lost. Here Joyce explains the details and nuances about how a rule and/ or rules (law/ laws) are and/ or may be applied. And like the plethora of rules in a sports rule book, knowing each and every one and how they will or may be applied is next to impossible without years and years of experience. And as Joyce has and continues to explain to us, how a judge decides to apply “the rules” (the law) can vary from judge to judge. It’s the same for sports officials.
For sports officials there is another aspect of how a rule may be applied for a given situation. This other aspect is described as having a “feel for the game”. As Joyce has shown different judges’ “feel for the game” can and does vary. All judges do not apply the rules in exactly the same way (eg: the recent sentencing of the various Proud Boys). In some situations it may be “black and white” in others more gray. Judges will no doubt disagree with their peers about how they do and/ or did apply the rules (the law).
Joyce does an excellent job explaining to us ‘mere mortals’ how to read a rule (law), understand it’s meaning, and how it might or might not be applied by the “referee”/ the judge. Reading her explanations is for me much like explaining to a fan in the stands the actual wording of a rule and how the ref is interpreting and applying it in a given situation. We (the fans) might not always agree with the ref (the judge), but being better informed gives us a deeper more well rounded understanding of what’s taking place before our eyes. It makes us better “fans” so to speak.
I hope this sports analogy helps.
Very well put!
As I re-read what Joyce has written tonight, and put it together with others' comments, and video, and call backs, it begins to show a size many felt but couldn't define when the orange pustule took office. It was always his intention to be the fascist 'mercan Kim Jong Un figure with hundreds of thousands marching and saluting him, goose stepping their hearts out and cower if he lifted his eyebrow at them. This feeling of dread SO many have had was absolutely right, but legally, you can't convict someone before they do something. The something these raging seditionists and feral thieves nationwide did was in concert. No mistaking that, now that the legal minds are working overtime to reconstruct it. I take it as a national service that all honest and faithful journalists and lawyers, judges and court officials are doing right now. It's humbling to see the narrow margin by which we did not wake up on the losing side of a coup.
VOTE 2024 is our slogan.
I need to regain confidence that my vote WILL be counted and won't be subverted in some way. These court cases are restoring my belief that we won't lose that privilege, that confidence, here. I haven't missed a vote in my entire life, and I sure as hell won't miss any upcoming!! VOTE!!!
haven't stopped feeling dread.
I have felt that dread since Tuesday, November 8, 2016.
Nodding vigorously. Still at hope and fear, myself.
And just now, the orange pustule loses to E. Jean YET AGAIN. Robbie has set quite a standard of winning for her client, hasn't she? I'm joyous.
Joyce, your opening paragraph had me smiling throughout the whole piece. The image of them all fighting to be “severed” from each other was equally amusing. Of course, this is no laughing matter and your explication of what is going on is always vital to appreciating these legal shenanigans. I am looking forward to the proceedings and think it is GREAT it will be televised for all to see. Thank you!!!
More popcorn please.
That’s my line🤣🤣🤣
😂🥹😅
"There is no honor among thieves."
Criminals do not smell better as a bouquet
Love that image!!
And holding our noses
"Cameras in Courts!" - essential to disempower the gaslighters / Flat Earthers / Trump cultists / election deniers and empower persuadable Independents and Republicans to reject Trump forever.
Only problem is none of those people will watch. They have no interest in the truth and they’ll never admit to being wrong. But you’re right - it may sway a few independents. 🤞
Is it possible the truth is just not much fun?
Not entertaining enough?
Still trying to figure out Trump’s appeal to so many.
It’s all about “owning the libs” imo
They may watch just to see their orange messiah though...
One can hope 🤞The deprogramming has to start somewhere. A televised trial might be just the thing to snap a few voters back to reality.
Forget about changing those whose identity is cloaked by falsehoods they either can't see or deliberately cling to out of some sense of warped power. I think their disempowerment happens when uncertain people see how things actually work, and begin to question what they've been hearing, and what the gaslighters et all have to say loses credibility. It has steadily been happening for a while now, and my sense is that we are on the verge of a significant shift. The other thing we have to do, though, is stop calling people by demeaning names and looking down our noses at them. Leave them room to change, just in case. No point in closing doors when someone might walk through them- especially because by shutting doors through namecalling, we're including a lot of people who don't deserve to be demeaned.
Thank you. We indeed can express ourselves without name calling - and leave the door open for reunions.
Plus, we sound as bad as Trump and many MAGAs. I've stopped watching Rick Wilson of The Lincoln Project bc of his name-calling.
Yeah, the Lincoln Project has turned out to be a disappointment in many ways.
There's more to hear and more to be brought to light of course, however, the best part of the motions for severance is the Kleig light it blasts on all the scrambling rats in all the corners. We are about to witness the gymnastics of panic in a court of law. I have a huge curiosity about the Judge tomorrow, and have my fingers crossed that he's as insightful and knowledgeable as I hope he is.
Thanks always Joyce. Please give your beautiful sweet shepherd an ear scratch for me.
It is due process, not the denial thereof, which these defendants fear. They broke the cookie jar and left crumbs all over the House floor.
Thank you Joyce. PS. Your haircut is great!
Wait! I missed the haircut!
Missed it, too
I could collect all of your posts over the past months and collate them into a very good textbook. Thank you so much for sharing the fruits of your years of study and real-life experience. Much respect.
Also: am I correct that, at least in Georgia, to charge and convict under RICO does not require direct communication between two co-defendants? Asking for a friend.
The name of the offense sort of gives it away: racketeering does not necessarily mean that everyone involved is in contact with everyone else - Just that they all were involved in the same activity. People who are involved with racketeering are often linked through other people involved, and all evidence that supports the charge could be applied to any of the defendants. I am fascinated by Chesebro's frenetic list of all the ways in which he was not connected to Powell. That is one nervous man. It makes me want to know just why exactly he feels the need to be so thorough in his denial of knowing her. (Legally, it makes no difference, and surely he knows that, so why the histrionics?)
Thank you thank you thank you Joyce !!! Awesome !!!
🎼🎵🎤🎸 “I’ve Never Been To Coffee
County, Georgia” by Joyce
Vance.
In my pickup truck with a TRUMP flag flying and an AK 47 at my side.
And you are sharing this exciting tidbit of personal info because.......??
I think Sally is adding lyrics to Joyce’s country song 🎶?
Watch out for a new number one hit song 😻
How can we watch the proceedings? Is there a C-SPAN equivalent for this court? Or streaming on YouTube, or ???
my understanding is it will be on Judge Scott McAfee's YouTube page: https://www.youtube.com/@judgescottmcafee/streams
Thank you. Just looked and it's just under 1 hr & 26 minutes. Choose "2023.09.06 Motions Hearing 23SC188947"
I’m joining the chorus of thank you comments this evening.
Thank you for your steady hand, calm voice, insight and expertise.
Thank you Joyce, I'll be here throughout, guided by your expertise. I'm with Laurie. I can't wait for more of your zingers!
Thank you, Joyce, for preparing and sharing this information with us. Chesebro may claim he has not personally met or communicated with Powell, but they shared the same Trump fostered conspiracy theory that the election was 'stolen' and they both worked with Rudy Giuliani to push forward their individual false propositions. Chesebro may have been a lone wolf with a legal theory without a construct when he first strategized overcoming a Wisconsin deficit of some 20,000 votes. But very soon thereafter, Chesebro's proposition for substituting fake electors for valid electors gained steam in Trump's camp, through Giuliani. And Chesebro's theory was helped along with a Powell fostered perception of rigged voting machines that duped substantial numbers of the American public into believing an election was stolen through purposely rigging voting machines. Chesebro used Powell's nonsense to rationalize his false theory and strategy of replacing valid electors with fake electors in a total of seven states. It's very thin that he would claim he wants separation from Sidney Powell because he hasn't personally met her or had a direct communication with her. They worked on the same project from the same QAnon rabbit hole. Different shifts?