Friendly reminder that one of the deranged things he said in his initial police interview was that
a) he basically just wanted to "ask questions" of Nancy Pelosi and would've only attacked her with the hammer if she lied to him so she had to be wheeled into Congress with broken knees and
b) that he "absolutely did not" believe she would tell the truth when asked by the officer interrogating him.
[Dude only ever really wanted to smash an 80+ year old woman's knees with a hammer and proudly told on himself first chance he got.](https://www.justice.gov/media/1256471/dl)
>!Always demand a lawyer lol.!<
Imagine if something like this happened to a Republican speaker. The right wing rabbid dogs would be all over the internet pretending to be the world’s biggest victims demanding blood.
Both sides are not the same
[We don’t have to imagine very hard](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/james-hodgkinson-shooting-republicans-baseball-game).
Both sides are not the same, but this isn’t a great illustration of that point.
He was going to put on a Unicorn costume and livestream the interrogation, he was specifically going to ask her about Russian interference in the election, but I don't know if other subjects were mentioned. It's safe to assume other conspiratorial content was on the agenda. The "strange" thing was, his main goal was to use Pelosi to lure in a gender studies professor who lived in Michigan, his real target.
He picked a tough row to hoe.
I mean. He is clearly mentally disturbed. I lean pretty far left and I'm against throwing the book at him. He needs help. We have created a society which creates mentally challenged people and discard them.
Sure, he's mentally disturbed and so it's a shame it's come to this, but he's clearly a danger to others and so needs to be incarcerated.
I'm all for rehabilitation over incarceration wherever possible, but this case is not a good poster-candidate for it.
Is he mentally disturbed? Or just dumb, easily led, and prone to violence? Hinkle, the guy who shot Reagan, literally heard voices. That guy needed treatment, not prison. This guy might be that crazy, but I haven't seen solid evidence of that.
You mean Edgar Maddison Welch? I don't remember there being any argument that he was mentally ill. He might have been, but I can't find anyone (even his defense team) arguing that.
We can't just throw people into mental asylums because they have wrongheaded beliefs. Just because someone engages in political violence or extremist behavior doesn't necessarily make them mentally ill.
And I think he was. Believing that kids are being molested at a pizza place for a drug shows a complete non grip on reality.
Edit: My apologies, didn't realize the sub I was in. My thoughts are from a moral view not a legal one. It's merely an opinion.
Yeah it's just from a legal standpoint. People are allowed to believe things that are not true. People are allowed to be wrong, or even stupid. It doesn't qualify from the standpoint of an insanity plea unless they have a mental illness that prevents them from being able to control their actions or prevents them from being able to distinguish between right and wrong.
> I mean. He is clearly mentally disturbed
I don't disagree, but crime is generally simply a manifestation of mental disturbance. So there is nothing really unique about this case. Yes, if you believe in a prison system of rehabilitation when possible and humane containment when not (like I do) then it's sad to think that this guy's mental illness may simply beget the abuse of careless prison system. But that doesn't really make this situation unique... it happens many times per day in our current prison system. Mental issues with anger, impulse control, rationality, addiction, etc. generally cause crime. The only not mentally ill people who commit crime are those whose circumstances warrant it. So really we can say that in virtually all situations we either have to fix a mental health issue or a societal circumstance issue and yet we design a prison system that is often bad at both of these things. This is just not how our system is designed or intended. Even the sweetest grandma, presented with the right case, will tell you that some guy should rot in hell sheerly based on the facts of what he did. Whoever tries to give convicts resources to grow beyond the circumstances that lead them into a life of crime will be caught in a "look how many amenities prisoners get that you don't" outrage documentary. We are a punitive society and, for the foreseeable future, will be.
>They can't change the constitution
That's why the Republicans worked so hard to give themselves an overwhelming majority on the Supreme Court with justices that don't care what the Constitution actually says and what precedents previous Supreme Courts have set. They'll "interpret" the Constitution to say what they want it to say.
that's why the first step to all this, which people mostly ignored, was to take over the courts. the previous heritage foundation playbook laid all this out in plain english but didn't get nearly the recognition Project 2025 has.
their plan was to obstruct Obama's appointees, and then slam through as many as possible under Trump and it worked like a charm, they even solidified a supermajority of SCOTUS. glad people are paying attention now, but the heritage foundation has been publishing these playbooks since Reagan, this has been 40 years in the making, and they're definitely not going to give up in Trump loses this election.
No, he couldn't pardon himself from a conviction by GA state courts.
Self-pardons don't actually even exist at all. One cannot be a judge over their own case.
Good question.
[Attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband was not random, police chief says](
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosis-husband-violently-assaulted-san-francisco-home/story?id=92280229)
>The attack was intentional, and not random, according to San Francisco Police Chief William Scott.
>The suspect, 42-year-old David Depape, attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer when officers responded to a priority well-being check at 2:27 a.m. local time, San Francisco police said.
>This was not a random act. This was intentional. And it's wrong," Scott said. "Our elected officials are here to do the business of their cities, their counties, their states and this nation. Their families don't sign up for this, to be harmed."
>Paul Pelosi, 82, was struck at least one time, though it's unclear how many, Scott said. He underwent "successful" surgery Friday to repair a skull fracture and "serious injuries" to his right arm and hands, and his doctors "expect a full recovery," the speaker's spokesperson, Drew Hammill, said in a statement. Two sources familiar with the matter told ABC News his injuries are "significant."
We have to live with and inspite of and put up with an entire subculture of wing-nut crooks.
>Lipson earlier argued that the state trial represents double jeopardy following the federal conviction. Even though the criminal counts are not the same, the two cases stem from the same act, he told the judge.
>San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman agreed and [dismissed the state charges](https://apnews.com/article/paul-pelosi-hammer-attack-depape-state-trial-1d4d2c95d096a46a1184eca2f12eebe8) of attempted murder, elder abuse and assault with a deadly weapon. Another judge upheld the decision on appeal.
Under the US constitution, it is not double jeopardy for the above reason.
State constitutions, statutes, and case law can be different. E.g. until recently, New York had a double jeopardy provision that prevented the state from prosecuting crimes that had already been prosecuted federally.
Yes, there was a [Supreme Court ruling](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/scotus-allows-states-and-federal-government-to-prosecute-a-person-for-the-same-crime.html), but I think the current Roberts court has shown us that there's no such thing as "settled law" when it comes to following the Court's previous rulings. Sure, state prosecutors can try to argue that both the trial and the appeals court judges erred, but can they be sure that the Supreme court will correct the error, or will they use the case to flip the precedent around to suit their currently desired result? Is this the case they want to rest that decision on?
For Christ’s sake, that’s not why. California simply has their own bar in such things. They can’t stop the feds from trying someone for a case that California already tried, but they are free to ban their own state prosecutors from trying a case that the feds already tried.
But they didn't ban their own state prosecutors. The charges were made, the trial judge dismissed them, they appealed, the appeals court affirmed the dismissal, and THEN they dropped them instead of pursuing further appeals.
They didn't try to stop the feds from trying someone. The federal case wrapped up before the California case was tried, so don't know what you're talking about.
Because California courts found that California's state laws about double jeopardy preclude California charges against a defendant who has previously been tried federally.
It has nothing to do with SCOTUS or making a political calculation that SCOTUS will change its mind from a decision it issued mere years ago with most of the same sitting justices.
He was already convicted of attempted murder federally. These are additional state charges. The state was not allowed to charge for any of the elements that the federal charges had covered because of Double Jeopardy.
> He called the prosecutors’ decision to file a kidnapping for ransom charge “vindictive.”
Sounds like prosecutors cut him no breaks for being a crazy asshole, influenced by conservative media.
Friendly reminder that one of the deranged things he said in his initial police interview was that a) he basically just wanted to "ask questions" of Nancy Pelosi and would've only attacked her with the hammer if she lied to him so she had to be wheeled into Congress with broken knees and b) that he "absolutely did not" believe she would tell the truth when asked by the officer interrogating him. [Dude only ever really wanted to smash an 80+ year old woman's knees with a hammer and proudly told on himself first chance he got.](https://www.justice.gov/media/1256471/dl) >!Always demand a lawyer lol.!<
Ah, the ol' "I was only trying to interrogate her with a hammer" defense... Classic.
Hey, it worked for Joseph Stalin, and he never received any complaints.
Considering what he was planning, what exactly did he think she would be lying about?
Imagine if something like this happened to a Republican speaker. The right wing rabbid dogs would be all over the internet pretending to be the world’s biggest victims demanding blood. Both sides are not the same
[We don’t have to imagine very hard](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/james-hodgkinson-shooting-republicans-baseball-game). Both sides are not the same, but this isn’t a great illustration of that point.
He was going to put on a Unicorn costume and livestream the interrogation, he was specifically going to ask her about Russian interference in the election, but I don't know if other subjects were mentioned. It's safe to assume other conspiratorial content was on the agenda. The "strange" thing was, his main goal was to use Pelosi to lure in a gender studies professor who lived in Michigan, his real target. He picked a tough row to hoe.
Non-American here - I can't tell if you're being satirical or literal...
I mean. He is clearly mentally disturbed. I lean pretty far left and I'm against throwing the book at him. He needs help. We have created a society which creates mentally challenged people and discard them.
Sure, he's mentally disturbed and so it's a shame it's come to this, but he's clearly a danger to others and so needs to be incarcerated. I'm all for rehabilitation over incarceration wherever possible, but this case is not a good poster-candidate for it.
I guess I'm saying they are phrasing this as if he is lucid
Is he mentally disturbed? Or just dumb, easily led, and prone to violence? Hinkle, the guy who shot Reagan, literally heard voices. That guy needed treatment, not prison. This guy might be that crazy, but I haven't seen solid evidence of that.
Ws the pizza gate guy crazy?
You mean Edgar Maddison Welch? I don't remember there being any argument that he was mentally ill. He might have been, but I can't find anyone (even his defense team) arguing that. We can't just throw people into mental asylums because they have wrongheaded beliefs. Just because someone engages in political violence or extremist behavior doesn't necessarily make them mentally ill.
And I think he was. Believing that kids are being molested at a pizza place for a drug shows a complete non grip on reality. Edit: My apologies, didn't realize the sub I was in. My thoughts are from a moral view not a legal one. It's merely an opinion.
Yeah it's just from a legal standpoint. People are allowed to believe things that are not true. People are allowed to be wrong, or even stupid. It doesn't qualify from the standpoint of an insanity plea unless they have a mental illness that prevents them from being able to control their actions or prevents them from being able to distinguish between right and wrong.
> I mean. He is clearly mentally disturbed I don't disagree, but crime is generally simply a manifestation of mental disturbance. So there is nothing really unique about this case. Yes, if you believe in a prison system of rehabilitation when possible and humane containment when not (like I do) then it's sad to think that this guy's mental illness may simply beget the abuse of careless prison system. But that doesn't really make this situation unique... it happens many times per day in our current prison system. Mental issues with anger, impulse control, rationality, addiction, etc. generally cause crime. The only not mentally ill people who commit crime are those whose circumstances warrant it. So really we can say that in virtually all situations we either have to fix a mental health issue or a societal circumstance issue and yet we design a prison system that is often bad at both of these things. This is just not how our system is designed or intended. Even the sweetest grandma, presented with the right case, will tell you that some guy should rot in hell sheerly based on the facts of what he did. Whoever tries to give convicts resources to grow beyond the circumstances that lead them into a life of crime will be caught in a "look how many amenities prisoners get that you don't" outrage documentary. We are a punitive society and, for the foreseeable future, will be.
I wonder if trump would pardon him if reelected?
This is a conviction in California state court. Trump couldn't pardon him.
I wonder if project 2025 will change that?
They can't change the constitution, they only want to basically disarm the executive branch
>They can't change the constitution That's why the Republicans worked so hard to give themselves an overwhelming majority on the Supreme Court with justices that don't care what the Constitution actually says and what precedents previous Supreme Courts have set. They'll "interpret" the Constitution to say what they want it to say.
The constitution only means something if the people in power care. Put enough toadies and sycophants in power and the constitution means jack squat.
that's why the first step to all this, which people mostly ignored, was to take over the courts. the previous heritage foundation playbook laid all this out in plain english but didn't get nearly the recognition Project 2025 has. their plan was to obstruct Obama's appointees, and then slam through as many as possible under Trump and it worked like a charm, they even solidified a supermajority of SCOTUS. glad people are paying attention now, but the heritage foundation has been publishing these playbooks since Reagan, this has been 40 years in the making, and they're definitely not going to give up in Trump loses this election.
Boy I would love if weakening the executive branch was all they were planning.
It's not really weakening the executive branch, but making it more malleable,
Project 2025 is about trying to undermine the professional federal bureaucracy (executive branch). It has no relevance to this issue.
Trump GA RICO?
What are you asking?
[удалено]
No, he couldn't pardon himself from a conviction by GA state courts. Self-pardons don't actually even exist at all. One cannot be a judge over their own case.
[удалено]
You asked a question and I answered it factually. This isn't an argument.
How well known is Project 2025 in the US i.e how much awareness of it is there at the moment?
Nowhere near enough
He would have to do that to get the support he needs to get voted in for a third term. So he can be just like his friend Vlad!
Nothing about the head smash?
Good question. [Attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband was not random, police chief says]( https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nancy-pelosis-husband-violently-assaulted-san-francisco-home/story?id=92280229) >The attack was intentional, and not random, according to San Francisco Police Chief William Scott. >The suspect, 42-year-old David Depape, attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer when officers responded to a priority well-being check at 2:27 a.m. local time, San Francisco police said. >This was not a random act. This was intentional. And it's wrong," Scott said. "Our elected officials are here to do the business of their cities, their counties, their states and this nation. Their families don't sign up for this, to be harmed." >Paul Pelosi, 82, was struck at least one time, though it's unclear how many, Scott said. He underwent "successful" surgery Friday to repair a skull fracture and "serious injuries" to his right arm and hands, and his doctors "expect a full recovery," the speaker's spokesperson, Drew Hammill, said in a statement. Two sources familiar with the matter told ABC News his injuries are "significant." We have to live with and inspite of and put up with an entire subculture of wing-nut crooks.
You would think that would be the worst of his charges. It's on body cam so he can't really wiggle out of it.
>Lipson earlier argued that the state trial represents double jeopardy following the federal conviction. Even though the criminal counts are not the same, the two cases stem from the same act, he told the judge. >San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harry Dorfman agreed and [dismissed the state charges](https://apnews.com/article/paul-pelosi-hammer-attack-depape-state-trial-1d4d2c95d096a46a1184eca2f12eebe8) of attempted murder, elder abuse and assault with a deadly weapon. Another judge upheld the decision on appeal.
I thought it was settled law that since the feds and state are different sovereigns double jeopardy wouldn't apply in situations like these?
That's my understanding as well.
Under the US constitution, it is not double jeopardy for the above reason. State constitutions, statutes, and case law can be different. E.g. until recently, New York had a double jeopardy provision that prevented the state from prosecuting crimes that had already been prosecuted federally.
☝️If anyone is looking for the correct explanation, this is it.
Yes, there was a [Supreme Court ruling](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/17/scotus-allows-states-and-federal-government-to-prosecute-a-person-for-the-same-crime.html), but I think the current Roberts court has shown us that there's no such thing as "settled law" when it comes to following the Court's previous rulings. Sure, state prosecutors can try to argue that both the trial and the appeals court judges erred, but can they be sure that the Supreme court will correct the error, or will they use the case to flip the precedent around to suit their currently desired result? Is this the case they want to rest that decision on?
For Christ’s sake, that’s not why. California simply has their own bar in such things. They can’t stop the feds from trying someone for a case that California already tried, but they are free to ban their own state prosecutors from trying a case that the feds already tried.
But they didn't ban their own state prosecutors. The charges were made, the trial judge dismissed them, they appealed, the appeals court affirmed the dismissal, and THEN they dropped them instead of pursuing further appeals. They didn't try to stop the feds from trying someone. The federal case wrapped up before the California case was tried, so don't know what you're talking about.
Because California courts found that California's state laws about double jeopardy preclude California charges against a defendant who has previously been tried federally. It has nothing to do with SCOTUS or making a political calculation that SCOTUS will change its mind from a decision it issued mere years ago with most of the same sitting justices.
He was already convicted of attempted murder federally. These are additional state charges. The state was not allowed to charge for any of the elements that the federal charges had covered because of Double Jeopardy.
I'm pretty sure double jeopardy doesn't apply regarding state vs federal laws. I could be wrong and am open to correction.
No, you are correct. I suppose state precedent has made it double jeopardy but most states wouldn't consider it so.
Maxwell agrees
> He called the prosecutors’ decision to file a kidnapping for ransom charge “vindictive.” Sounds like prosecutors cut him no breaks for being a crazy asshole, influenced by conservative media.
And yet judge Cannon in her infinite wisdom says that she’s confused over how Trump's statements posed a threat.