Trump Leaving Office Poll (Part 2)

[Mongrel]

people only understand 100/0, 50/50 and 0/100.

I don't think I can overstate how impressed I was several years ago, on discovering that kids are now learning basic probability starting at GRADE 1, which is the right move on soooo many levels.

[Friday]

I maintain that not understanding basic probability and statistics is one of, if not the absolute worst, thing to lack in education/the people of a country. It has measurable, very real deleterious impact on people's lives in a myriad of almost impossible to fully convey ways.

Like, just for one example of thousands, the State Lottery.

Not knowing history is probably second place or as bad.

[Mongrel]

Not knowing history is basically trying to function as an amnesiac on a social level.

Though in practice the problem is more typically analogous to people who misremember things or have selective memories. Regardless, your critical decision-making abilities are impaired to some degree in all cases.

[nosimpleway]

Yeah but have you seen those people without any critical thinking skills

they seems so happy, so sure of themselves

[Thad]

Silver is one of those guys whose reputation would have been a lot better off if he'd never signed up for Twitter, but I'll still got to bat for his skill at crunching numbers and explaining what they mean.

That said -- and he'd be the first to admit this -- his model is built on historical data and therefore it's at a disadvantage in the face of unprecedented events. I agree that his model didn't underrate Trump's chances in 2016, but a whole lot's happened since then and it did significantly underrate Democrats' chances in 2022.

There's also been a lot of reporting that the polls were wrong, by people who stubbornly refuse to understand what polls are for and what margin of error is. The polls weren't wrong. To the point of Silver's forecast model, if you pull up the 2022 forecast and compare the different models (use the "Pick a Model" button on the lefthand side to switch between them), you'll find that the polls-only model looks a lot more like the final result than the "deluxe" model, and somewhat more like the final result than the "classic" version.

Historical models can't show us the effect that, say, the Supreme Court overturning Roe or the likely GOP nominee being indicted for trying to overthrow the government will have on the election. Polls can, but as always they're a snapshot of a moment in time, the farther out from the election they are the less likely they are to be accurate, and the appropriate way to interpret a "lead" of within three points is not a lead at all but a dead heat.

[KingRoyal]

10 more indictments in Georgia

If he gets one more then the next one is free

[Mongrel]

Mugshot's out. Lots of fakes, memes, etc. but I'm pretty sure this is the real one. EDIT: Yes this is it.



TBH that's as not-awful as he's looked in a long time; can't help but wonder how many sympathizers he has among the Fulton cops with a result like this.

[Crick]

Weirdly underwhelming

[Thad]

TBH that's as not-awful as he's looked in a long time; can't help but wonder how many sympathizers he has among the Fulton cops with a result like this.

I mean, they're cops, so I'm sure it's a nontrivial number, but a mugshot's not hard to prepare for.



In Trump's case it actually *is* pretty much the same face he makes in every picture, from Apprentice promos to his presidential photo.

The photos where he looks worse are, generally, photos where he's not posing for the camera. We'll see how he looks during the trial. (The federal trials won't be televised, but it sounds like the Georgia one will be.)

[Yoji]

Not much of anything, but I felt I had to share:

[Mongrel]

Incidentally, it's nice to see MC Frontalot kicking around and having fun.

[Thad]

Judge holds Giuliani liable in Georgia election workers’ defamation case and orders him to pay fees

Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Giuliani, said in a statement that the judge’s ruling “is a prime example of the weaponization of our justice system, where the process is the punishment.

Giuliani later clarified, "But in a bad way."

[Thad]

Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks, insurers as he built real estate empire

Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling Tuesday in a civil lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.

[...]

Beyond mere bragging about his riches, Trump, his company and key executives repeatedly lied about them on his annual financial statements, reaping rewards such as favorable loan terms and lower insurance premiums, Engoron found.

Those tactics crossed a line and violated the law, the judge said, rejecting Trump’s contention that a disclaimer on the financial statements absolved him of any wrongdoing.

[...]

Engoron’s ruling, in a phase of the case known as summary judgment, resolves the key claim in James’ lawsuit, but six others remain.

[Thad]

Here's the decision. I haven't read most of it yet, just skipped to the orders at the end. Sanctions for Trump's lawyers, and an order for "dissolution of the canceled LLCs". I'm seeing this reported in some corners as saying the Trump Organization will be dissolved, but I'm going to wait for clarification before I say that with any certainty; CNBC says

It is not clear whether Engoron's decision means the Trump Organization and related entities will have to completely cease doing business in New York or whether the companies can be legally reconstituted later.

Worth repeating that this is all pretrial. This is what Trump's getting hit with before the trial even starts. This is the stuff he hasn't denied.

[Grath]

GBL § 130 is what allows you to do business in New York, so I believe that "the canceled LLCs" would include the Trump Organization LLC. (He tried to move his businesses to a new entity registered in Delaware last year, they said "ha ha ha nice try fucko" and appointed a judge to monitor any attempts to shell game assets around.)

[Grath]

Akiva is, in particular, a New York lawyer specializing in commercial law.

Edit, 12:40 EDT: This thread is a good translation from "pissed off judge" to common English.

Usable threadreader version here.
tl;dr "the Trump team is apparently so out of good arguments that they are recycling bad ones, and the judge is calling them on it with the relish of a badly-treated lover cataloguing their partner's sexual inadequacies."

[Thad]

Here's the decision. I haven't read most of it yet, just skipped to the orders at the end.

Still working my way through it but if you like benchslaps you'll get a kick out of this one.

Things you probably don't want to see in a judge's response to your motion: a reference to Groundhog Day.

[Thad]

Sanctionable Conduct for Frivolous Motion Practice

In response to both OAG's request for a preliminary injunction and to defendants' motions to dismiss, this Court rejected every one of the aforementioned arguments. In rejecting such arguments for the second time, this Court cautioned that "sophisticated counsel should have known better."[5] However, the Court declined to impose sanctions, believing it had "made its point."

Apparently, the point was not received.

One would not know from reading defendants' papers that this Court has already twice ruled against these arguments, called them frivolous, and twice been affirmed by the First Department.

[...]

Defendants' conduct in reiterating these frivolous arguments is egregious. We are way beyond the point of "sophisticated counsel should have known better"; we are at the point of intentional and blatant disregard of controlling authority and law of the case. This Court emphatically rejected these arguments, as did the First Department. Defendants' repetition of them here is indefensible.

[5] The Court even went so far as to caution that the "arguments were borderline frivolous even the first time defendants made them."

(Citations omitted; emphasis in original.)

[Mongrel]

[Thad]

It's a little anticlimactic when, after several pages of excoriating their conduct at length, the judge gets to the actual sanctions and it's all "And so every attorney who signed these briefs is hereby fined...seventy-five hundred dollars."

Like, I paid my lawyers $6500 last month, and I'm just some schlub in a penny-ante estate dispute. $7500 is pocket change for these guys.

But courts award sanctions against attorneys so rarely that this is still notable.

And I haven't finished the thing yet so maybe there's more. And even if there's not, maybe there will be referrals to the bar before this is all over.