The War Room Bet Thread V3

[waiguoren]

If indirect funding isn't one of the forms of indictment that would count either way, what would be one that counts?

If the indictment indicates that Trump was deliberately funding the hacking (directly or indirectly), then @PolishHeadlock wins.

If the indictment accuses Trump on some sort of financial crime like money laundering, and some of the laundered funds ended up funding the GRU or Russian agents, then you as mod can use your discretion. Obviously if it's only an indictment for money laundering and the funds traveled between a convoluted string of 5 shell companies then I would at least expect a null ruling.

The spirit of the bet is: @PolishHeadlock wins if Mueller accuses Trump of committing a crime in order to encourage Russia to hack DNC/DCCC/Clinton office or to secure the fruits of that hacking. So perjury wouldn't count, but deliberately funding the hacking (directly or indirectly) would.

Edit: see comment below

 

[waiguoren]

Simple perjury (like Bill Clinton perjuring himself over Monica) wouldn't count and would be a win for me.

Perjury to conceal funding or other concessions for the hacking or to obtain the hacked e-mails would count, and @PolishHeadlock would win.

It would have to be spelled out clearly in the indictment that Trump lied in order to conceal the fact that he offered concessions for hacks or the hacked e-mails. So an indictment like Flynn's would result in a win for me.

 

[Lead]

Roe V. Wade will be overturned within 18 months of the new Supreme Court Justice being named.

Me: For
@IGIT: Against

2 month sig bet

@Lead

heya HomerThompson, Mr. President,

either way, i win.

if Roe vs Wade isn't overturned, you'll have to insert this into your sig;

12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump

that's my ode to Bernie supporters who were basically anarchists and had no actual grasp on policy. all they wanted was someone who would take up residence on Pennsylvania avenue and start breaking things.

if Roe vs Wade is overturned, then i get to witness the self destruction of the Republican Party - which is also fine with me.

- IGIT

My bad. I still need to finalize it but wanted to get some clarity before. I'll get it sorted out soon.

@Quipling

I need some guidance on this one. Is a statement like that good enough to have a clear decision on a bet? For example, could the court overturn only portions of Roe v. Wade or would it be the entire ruling? Also, could the court overturn or rule on a new case which subsequently overturns Roe v. Wade but doesn't officially state they did so in the decision? I just need to know what issues I could run into here with calling this one.

Yeah all of that stuff could happen. The last isn't too likely, but its possible to "gut" roe by allowing various barriers (or, more accurately, gut Casey).

You can include language about expressly overruling Roe, either in full or in part. I'd also throw Casey v. PP in there, since it gives Roe some substance.

Edit:. I'm concerned about the wording. Confirmation is probably the appropriate term.

So if you were to rephrase the statement they should bet on, how would you word it?

Quipling. Did you have a clear statement we could use on this?

So I'm falling behind on some of these.

Homer/ IGIT- would you both be okay with the statement being the court makes it possible for individual states to outlaw abortion? To me, that would be a return of a pre-Roe v. Wade era. I'm just trying to capture the true spirit of the bet you guys are trying to make here. Let me know.

 

[Lead]

@PolishHeadlock , do you have any thoughts on what waiguoren said here before I try narrowing this down more? Were you interested in the bet when you originally saw it?

If the indictment indicates that Trump was deliberately funding the hacking (directly or indirectly), then @PolishHeadlock wins.

If the indictment accuses Trump on some sort of financial crime like money laundering, and some of the laundered funds ended up funding the GRU or Russian agents, then you as mod can use your discretion. Obviously if it's only an indictment for money laundering and the funds traveled between a convoluted string of 5 shell companies then I would at least expect a null ruling.

The spirit of the bet is: @PolishHeadlock wins if Mueller accuses Trump of committing a crime in order to encourage Russia to hack DNC/DCCC/Clinton office or to secure the fruits of that hacking. So perjury wouldn't count, but deliberately funding the hacking (directly or indirectly) would.

Edit: see comment below

Simple perjury (like Bill Clinton perjuring himself over Monica) wouldn't count and would be a win for me.

Perjury to conceal funding or other concessions for the hacking or to obtain the hacked e-mails would count, and @PolishHeadlock would win.

It would have to be spelled out clearly in the indictment that Trump lied in order to conceal the fact that he offered concessions for hacks or the hacked e-mails. So an indictment like Flynn's would result in a win for me.

So what I'm getting here is:
1. There has to be an indictment of Trump
2. The indictment has to at least accuse Trump of committing a crime to help Russia with the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack
3. The indictment has to claim Trump offered concessions to Russia

Are you saying 2 AND 3 are required for Polish to win or it could be either?

 

[HomerThompson]

So I'm falling behind on some of these.

Homer/ IGIT- would you both be okay with the statement being the court makes it possible for individual states to outlaw abortion? To me, that would be a return of a pre-Roe v. Wade era. I'm just trying to capture the true spirit of the bet you guys are trying to make here. Let me know.

That sounds good to me, and is how I saw the bet. As long as @IGIT is good with it, we have a bet.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

@PolishHeadlock , do you have any thoughts on what waiguoren said here before I try narrowing this down more? Were you interested in the bet when you originally saw it?





So what I'm getting here is:
1. There has to be an indictment of Trump
2. The indictment has to at least accuse Trump of committing a crime to help Russia with the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack
3. The indictment has to claim Trump offered concessions to Russia

Are you saying 2 AND 3 are required for Polish to win or it could be either?

Let me go back to the original discussion to remind myself

 

[Lead]

That sounds good to me, and is how I saw the bet. As long as @IGIT is good with it, we have a bet.

Good

When you say the new supreme court justice being named, do you mean when Trump first announced his pick? In other word, if this pick makes it to the court, the end of the best at most would be 04/09/2020?

 

[waiguoren]

@PolishHeadlock , do you have any thoughts on what waiguoren said here before I try narrowing this down more? Were you interested in the bet when you originally saw it?





So what I'm getting here is:
1. There has to be an indictment of Trump
2. The indictment has to at least accuse Trump of committing a crime to help Russia with the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack
3. The indictment has to claim Trump offered concessions to Russia

Are you saying 2 AND 3 are required for Polish to win or it could be either?

For @PolishHeadlock to win:

1. There has to be an indictment of Trump
2. The indictment has to accuse Trump of committing a crime to EITHER

a) cooperate with/help Russia carry out the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack

or

b) offer Russia concessions (policy, money, etc) in exchange for the fruits of one of the hacks above

 

[PolishHeadlock]

For @PolishHeadlock to win:

1. There has to be an indictment of Trump
2. The indictment has to accuse Trump of committing a crime to EITHER

a) cooperate with/help Russia carry out the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack

or

b) offer Russia concessions (policy, money, etc) in exchange for the fruits of one of the hacks above

If the indictment is vague (e.g., policy concessions were offered but Mueller can't confirm that it was in exchange for anything) then the bet is null.

Bet accepted @Lead

 

[HomerThompson]

Good

When you say the new supreme court justice being named, do you mean when Trump first announced his pick? In other word, if this pick makes it to the court, the end of the best at most would be 04/09/2020?

When his new pick is confirmed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Simple perjury (like Bill Clinton perjuring himself over Monica) wouldn't count and would be a win for me.

I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't perjury require materiality to the case?

 

[Lead]

When his new pick is confirmed.

1. The exact statement the bet is premised upon
2. Stance each poster is taking in regards to the statement
3. The date the bet will be decided
4. The reward/punishment for the winner/loser
5. The duration of the reward/punishment before I will post it.
6 (OPTIONAL) A situation which makes the bet void that isn't clear with the content in 1 & 2. This needs to be very clear if included.
Once, you both are in agreement, tag me so I can add it.

@HomerThompson v. @IGIT
1. Within 18 months of Trump's new justice being appointed, the supreme court will allow individual states to outlaw abortion.
2. @HomerThompson - For, @IGIT - Against
3. Tentatively 18 months once the Trump justice is confirmed (will updated when this happens)
4. Signature bet
5. 2 months
6. If Trump isn't able to get an appointee confirmed, the bet is null

@IGIT @HomerThompson

Please quote this with an okay for it to be finalized. If you have issue with what's above, let me know so I can adjust it.

 

[HomerThompson]

@HomerThompson v. @IGIT
1. Within 18 months of Trump's new justice being appointed, the supreme court will allow individual states to outlaw abortion.
2. @HomerThompson - For, @IGIT - Against
3. Tentatively 18 months once the Trump justice is confirmed (will updated when this happens)
4. Signature bet
5. 2 months
6. If Trump isn't able to get an appointee confirmed, the bet is null

@IGIT @HomerThompson

Please quote this with an okay for it to be finalized. If you have issue with what's above, let me know so I can adjust it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@HomerThompson, you know I love you, but I think you have a pattern of expecting things to move faster and more sharply than is probably justified (I guess just faster than I think they'll move).

 

[HomerThompson]

@HomerThompson, you know I love you, but I think you have a pattern of expecting things to move faster and more sharply than is probably justified (I guess just faster than I think they'll move).

You have a funny definition of "justified", my friend.

:sniper:

 

[Lead]

For @PolishHeadlock to win:

1. There has to be an indictment of Trump
2. The indictment has to accuse Trump of committing a crime to EITHER
a) cooperate with/help Russia carry out the DNC/DCCC/Clinton office hack
or
b) offer Russia concessions (policy, money, etc) in exchange for the fruits of one of the hacks above

If the indictment is vague (e.g., policy concessions were offered but Mueller can't confirm that it was in exchange for anything) then the bet is null.

Bet accepted @Lead

This part concerns me
"If the indictment is vague (e.g., policy concessions were offered but Mueller can't confirm that it was in exchange for anything) then the bet is null."
By confirm, are you saying his evidence doesn't hold up to criticism or that if he flat out indicts Trump and says in the indictment, Trump offered concessions, Polish wins? I don't want to have to make a judgment call on whether Mueller made a good case or not for policy concessions with the indictment or not. I can easily call it if we are going with what the indictment is for (whether we agree or disagree with his evidence for it). I understand you are trying to steer clear of an indictment that you find off topic (which these investigations can often make) and I'm glad we are narrowing it down. I just need it to be more objective now and I think that what be with what is mentioned in the bold. Thoughts?

Also, I want to clarify the null zone of this best. It sounds like no indictment is a clear win for you. Indictment on something not related to what we are currently narrowing it down to would be a null bet? And then, an indictment under the criteria we finally agree to is a Polish win. Am I getting this right with where the null area should be?

 

[Lead]

@HomerThompson, you know I love you, but I think you have a pattern of expecting things to move faster and more sharply than is probably justified (I guess just faster than I think they'll move).

@Imbrued Esculence

 

[waiguoren]

@HomerThompson, you know I love you

 

[senri]

 

[waiguoren]

I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't perjury require materiality to the case?

Technically yes, but "materiality" can be very nebulous. US v Brown laid out the definition. It's safer to be explicit when designing bets.