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.
Nipun: Recusals are irrelevant because I can speculate on Lev and Melman’s motives for recusal.
(that is to say these minutes in particular)
the minutes might as well be heresay, average students don’t have access to them right now.
Justice Kagan agrees with me.
funny…i thought these people were REPRESENTATIVES doesn’t that make it our opinions that matter, AND NOT THEIR’S? just you know, i like democracy.
Are the Student Union minutes as accurate as the DFA minutes?
Ryan: “Did any constituents of Alex and Lev ask them not to recuse themselves?”
Brooks: “Yes, but their opinion is irrelevant.” (laughter) “legally! Legally irrelevant!”
Ziv quad not having representation is relevant in my opinion. If I was living in Ziv I could care. just saying.
I think andrew brooks just said my opinion (and several other students in the room) irrelevant.
THAT WOULD BE ME!!!
Annie Hodges looks beautiful in blue, I hope she gets pulled up to the witness stand soon.
Distilled Brooks: “In regard to the HopeFound project – the Union wasn’t involved before it gave HopeFound money. But wait it did. Because I talked about it with Aaron. Which made it a union project. But if Lev or Alex are involved with something, it’s not a union project.”
What?
does the actual club stand to benefit financially? it’s not like we’re buying pizza with this money.
The merits of the event are irrelevant, whether it affects Lev and Melman’s constituants is irrelevant, whether is has any benefit to Brandeis is irrelevant, what is relevant is whether the Student Union’s self made rules are followed. Great.
do we care what Andrew Brooks thinks? about recusal?
Ryan: “would the speaker benefit Lev and Alex’s constituents?”
Brooks: “Honestly, I don’t think it would.”
later:
Jamie: “objection, the actual identity of the speaker is irrelevant!”
Make up your mind, you guys!
i hope that made it into the official version. i think we’re quickly approaching Chicago 10 levels of laughs and ridiculousness.
Yeah merit isnt the only irrelevance here…
God bless you, Ryan McElhaney.
omg did we just manage to bring up Barney the Dinosaur in this court?
And Nippun objects! I think he was feeling left out.
it adds to resumes. that’s the purpose.
what’s the mission of the S.U.?
What is the purpose of the Student Union government? Objection: Irrelevant. Case closed.
Andrew Brooks mostly has a problem with giving money to groups of students. Individuals are fine.
Ryan is ripping Andrew Brooks apart right now.
aaron needed “senate volunteers” to work the event. I can just imagine senators handing out cocktails. maybe if Lev had asked Senators to act as Ayer’s security this wouldn’t be an issue.
Does Andrew Brooks act for Students for Justice in Palestine? jw
Let’s talk…Winter Gala..drinking, charity, pretty dresses, and tons of money, what’s not to love?
Are clubs endorsements like lobbying? Andrew: No.
“i act on behalf of all clubs” –says Andrew Brooks
love!!! thanks Ryan for bringing up the point of Clubs endorsing/sponsoring senators.
I was at the student union senate meeting that Brooks and Ansorge are talking about. Kay is right: Lev and Alex’s constituents said that they didn’t want their representatives to be silenced, and that their representatives were elected democratically in order to express their wishes, which they were doing.
Can anyone recall anything about recusals? Is there a doctor in the house?
Jamie pauses, and decides he’ll “hold that one back”
Respondents, if you were as good at objections as the prosecution this testimony wouldn’t be happening.
Brooks is taking the opportunity to attack Lev and Alex for not recusing themselves. What chutzpah. Lisa Hananiya made a good point last week – this is rather hypocritical: Andrew has voted on many senate resolutions and so on regarding Israel despite being the head of BIPAC.
Which is not a knock on Andrew, it’s perfectly fine for Senators to vote on these things: the school is so tight-knit that its hard not to have an interest in votes.
they decided to participate in the vote after the students in the room (THEIR CONSTITUENTS) asked them to vote on this issue on their behalf.
Andrew Brooks believes himself to be an expert on many things. (laugh)
every student (not senator) in the room at the time, spoke to support the Senate co-sponsoring the Ayers/King event(s)
can you characterize the debate for us? I can….it was full of personal attacks against Lev, Melman, and Ayers. also was full of ignorance as to Ayer’s history, titles, etc.
Characterize the debate: Objection hearsay? No?
Andrew Brooks “can’t force anyone to do anything” lol i’m oddly comforted by that statement.
It’s jon sussman, making a suprise appearance! I’s just like to say that Brooks looks so cute at his little desk. Not unlike a schoolboy.
Also, I’m worried that the court officers might be distracted by our beautiful and witty commentary…I like Julia’s skirt I might mention. Jordan has a very patriotic look going on.
So, the argument is that there was no student union involvement, but the major problem we’re discussing is student union involvement.
are they reading from the minutes? that I emailed Brooks and asked him for and he told me I couldn’t read them yet, before they get voted on of course.
anyone here from Ziv, how do you feel that you can’t take advantage of one of your votes on the senate.
The court standard of reading everything is being challenged.
also just to correct my own comment, Brooks made quite a point at last Sunday’s senate meeting that he choses to recuse himself because he thinks that is the morally correct choice.