We’re liveblogging the trial now – snark edition.
Livebloggers – Alex Norris, Matt Kupfer, Jon Muchin, and myself. We’ll be blogging in the comments.
This is a project unaffiliated with the petitioners, defense, judges, or whatever. We’re just providing an alternative, hopefully more hilarious liveblog here.
Check out Emily Dunning’s liveblog below for the “official Innermost Parts take”.
—
OK, so the petitioners (UJ-speak for prosecution) keep bringing up this claim that Lev and Alex didn’t recuse themselves when they brought up the SMR, and that its wrong, since they happen to be members of DFA. This line of reasoning is wrong. Lev and Alex are the Senators of the class of 2011 and represent the entire class. They were elected on a platform of, in part, supporting such events, and their votes are public. The Ayers event is open to the entire campus, and it’s entirely appropriate for the Senators representing Twenty Five Percent of the student body to have a say in that event.
Asking Lev or Alex to recuse themselves in these sorts of votes is like asking Ted Kennedy to recuse himself on Universal Healthcare votes because he has cancer.
Does anyone know anything about anything?
Problem – we can’t look at evidence from last year because Choon is gone.
(Sung to the tune of wu tang clan aint nuthin to fuck with
choon woon ha ain’t nothing to fuck with! choon woon ha ain’t nothing to fuck with! choon woon ha ain’t nothing to fuck with!
I think we’re experiencing the “pass the buck” on expertness problem.
Max Wallach: Ask a senator. Where are we going to find one here!?
Melman has quite the intelligent yet casual tone, i like it.
Choon Woo Ha apparently had a shadow website committee that no one can verify.
oh Chuong (sp) WE NEED YOU BACK!
The main problem in this case is no one is actually an expert on anything.
Melman takes the floor. Nipun doesn’t seem to understand the relevance of past Union projects/SMRs
And Nipun resumes his old role of standing up and sitting down.
The petitioners are popping up like gophers. Luckily, Chief Justice Kagan has a mallet.
Could you please act out article 9, section 1 in interpretative dance?
And the court is officially packed full.
and we’re on to the recusal debate. this should be good. Nipun helps Rachel read the document. Also Anna adds, “he’s not wearing shoes. does the witness ahve to wear shoes?
This is the world’s longest objection, ever.
Nipun “we have one line of theory” that says Alex and Lev are corrupt. Only one, no problem.
we should get a daisy, and decide things that way.
To object or not to object. That is the question. Who knows if we’ll ever hear the answer.
Alex Melman objects, but has no objection. Per say.
Nathan corrects Melman. we do want to object, we don’t want to object???
is this a personal email they’re submitting? that opens a can of worms.
the witness is describing the purpose of F-board. i don’t particularly understand the relevance of this.
Nipun, you’re losing the respect of your witness.
This would have been more impressive if the treasurer knew his job description from memory.
Hahaha good one Kay.
Nippun calls Max Wallach to the stand.
Max is the treasurer.
Nippun: “What are the constitutional requirements to be a treasurer?”
Max: “Requirements? Being elected.”
lol
We elect treasurers?
Nipun gets his moment to shine. Immediately asks a question that gets a laugh. Good for him.
Nipun stands up, and does not immediately sit down!!! new territory.
Laughing through the oath. Bad news.
And Nipun rises.
If all of this was to establish that Andy knew about a document, this is going to be a very long day.
I think Ryan’s trying to establish that when Lev went to the planning meeting with Andy Hogan, the event was still in the speculative stages, and therefore any evidence that the petitioners try to bring up in terms of “DFA and SDS didn’t plan to involve the union” is kinda dumb, because a lot of stuff happened since then.
Let Andy go to sleep. He’ll have to, I’m using his computer.
For the record, I saw Andy doing his laundry this morning.
Was there any planning at the planning event? Ryan works his way into Zen. Lev found “a space.” Weird.
Communication barriers. I like how Ryan can think of so many confusing ways to ask questions.
Stop objecting about relevance! Use something new, this one’s getting worn out.
Ryan objects: “Jamie is leading the witness.”
Rachel: “you were leading the witness just as much.”
Ryan: “well then he should have objected then.”
Ryan has a point, but this is why you don’t piss off the court
For the record, Andy lives next to me and is indeed very sick.
Apparently both sides are allowed to lead witnesses? Rachel just said so. Also laughing again. It’s a day for smiles.
Has Andy actually spoken during his testimony or is he just listening to counsel arguing?
Andy is being asked to act on an expert on everything student union, including something in existance last year when he wasn’t in the Union.
Jamie re-directs…Rachel laughs…are justices allowed to laugh? maybe ryan should object?
Everything in this hearing is irrelevant.
“hold on a minute” and then talked over her too….
I think this is why students go to law school before they jump up in court rooms.
Holy Shit Ryan McElhaney just said “hold on a minute” to Rachel. Not a good way to suck up to the court.
Apparently you aren’t allowed to ask the Chief Justice to “hold on.”
I wish I could take a shot every time someone says “veracity.”