Jump to content

'stache

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12422
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by 'stache

  1. 16 minutes ago, Josef Pwag said:

    There is a good chance the ACC melts down and the XII is just an island. No doubt, they will be squeezed out of the real playoffs by the B1G and SEC over time. The XII needs to crown its own annual champ and come to terms with being a feeder system for the 2 remaining power conferences. 

    Nah, the XII as is or with a few ACC leftovers will always have a few spots in the CFP. Only way the programs are left out is if the top 16-20 break off which will also leave the bottom halves of the BIG and SEC behind. 

  2. I think a G5 playoff to determine who gets the CFP spot makes sense financially, the only downside being to the highest ranked champion who has to play additional games to get the spot. Anything that adds meaningful postseason games is a plus. The G5 vs P4 bowl games are meaningless and the best players just opt out anyway, only the better G5 players looking to make an impression before entering the portal have any incentive to play.

    If we’re tiering the conferences, it seems to me that there are 4 levels, not two. Big/Sec, ACC/XII, MWC/AAC/Sunbelt, MAC/CUSA. The last one, CUSA especially, feel like a division below (despite Liberty’s odd success). But a G5 playoff format makes sense either way as long as they’re playing for the CFP spot. If it’s all the teams that didn’t get the CFP spot, it’s just football NIT, barely seems worth it.

  3. 12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

    it’s hard to count all of the cases I have won by employing the affirmative defense of “scam”…

    The Bluebook citation to “Legal Scholars” is day one material at my law school.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 2
  4. 41 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    “The Legal Scholars call the case a scam.”

    Oh. The legal scholars do, do they.

    Not "legal scholars," but "Legal Scholars," capitalized, so it's probably legit.

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Haha 1
  5. 45 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

    image.thumb.png.c6a33c4e462812ca3358a3b7e396378c.png

    Holy Shit, Mussolini has a granddaughter who holds elected office in Italy? What the actual fuck? Is there a Jane Hitler serving in the German parliament too? 

    • Haha 8
    • Drool 1
  6. 1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    He'll agree to some sort of bullshit plea deal in the courtroom, then go into the hallway and immediately contradict whatever he just agreed to, and nothing will ever happen after that.

    Which is why none of these prosecutors would ever agree to a plea. It is known that even if he was capable of admitting to stuff in court, he'd immediately dispute it outside the courtroom. It's one of those things that happens when you act like a shithead you're entire life, nobody ever believes you're capable of basic shit, like entering into a plea. 

  7. Is she trying to make some kind of joke, or is she full dementia? All a jury needs to see is how 26 years ago she was fat as fuck and no way anyone could find a way to fuck her fat fucking ass in that dressing room. Maybe it was Billy Bob Thornton from Bad Santa. Did she shit right for a week?

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  8. 29 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

    I’m more surprised that so far 23% of respondents think Trump will die or become incapacitated within 8 months.

    That was my response, but didn't notice it was limited to 2024. I think he will die, one way or another, after he loses the election, but before any of his convictions become final, most likely sometime in 2025.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 1 minute ago, ultimaton said:

    Does being on record even matter anymore? MAGA and Trump's reality is whatever he says it is at any given moment - and no pesky little thing like an admission of guilt in a court of law is going to change that. 

    True, it would mean nothing for his fanbase, but there is no way in hell Trump would allocute in the way required to sustain a plea. He would insert all sorts of nonsense like a five year old arguing with his parent. 

    "Do you admit that you called the Georgia Secretary of State and asked him to find additional votes?"

    "Yeah, because there really were more votes, and I won, so I admit that the election was stolen." 

    No court anywhere would accept that nonsense as part of a plea. He's physically incapable of speaking truth without adding nonsense.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  10. 3 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

    i voted that because of this.  nothing of consequence happens, he loses election.  that answer was the closest to what i thought would happen.    

    Do you think he'll plea out for no consequences, or win all of his trials for no consequences? I don't see any possibility of a plea or not guilty verdicts in all of his cases. I know we all want to see him rot in a cell like a common criminal, but that's just not feasible for a former president. His consequences will be far lighter than we all want, like house arrest or something like that, but he's not going to get not guilty verdicts or a plea.

  11. 26 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

    This screams mid-tier CFB team.

    Things like the 5280 on the helmet was new hotness a decade ago.  just awful

    With the white helmets, looks like UTSA.

  12. Legimately curious, the leader by far so far is that he'll plea and lose the election. What on earth makes anyone think he'd agree to any sort of plea? They would require him to admit committing crimes on the record. Also, the possibilities are far more than listed. I think the most likely is that he's convicted of one or more of the crimes he's charged with and either sentenced to no jail, or home confinement, in which he can still run, but will lose a close election. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  13. The two on the bottom left look the same and are fine. The rest are hideous. That red horn helmet in particular, and the random new H, just dumb. They need a new logo in general, imo.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 17 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

    Uh, I read that the opposite way. A judge asking for testimony under oath in connection with a sanction hearing is rarely a good sign for the person being sanctioned. It isn't a free out. It is an opportunity for Trump to dig himself a deeper hole. And, at least in my experience, when the judge asks for this, the judge is going to be asking some questions as well. This isn't a one shot free of cross examination. No way in hell I'd like Trump on the stand if I were his attorney. 

     

    5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Well, Trump isn't going to say he felt he wasn't violating the gag order while under oath and then claim otherwise.

    But, maybe the judge is laying the groundwork for a subsequent violation?  "We already discussed how you were violating the order, but I let you off the hook because you felt you weren't violating it.  You just did it again."

    Sounds to me like he'll ask Trump if he truly believed he was not violating the gag order. Trump will say yes, he truly believes it was fair game. Judge will say, well it's not, I'm telling you right now, on the record, that if you repeat that conduct you'll be sanctioned not only for it, but for every violation that is currently alleged." Of course, he'll do it again, so the real meat will be to see what happens then. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. Context is the overriding factor, and while some may be complicated, most are not. My observation has been that there are Latinos from big cities raised in predominantly Black areas (or fairly even Black and Hispanic) and they have a shared culture, which can include Latinos using the n-word in a similar manner. There are also some areas where street gangs have created a divide and Latino street gangs use the term derogatively. Like the guy in the video says, if you're on the inside, its part of the culture, if your on the outside, it's offensive. I've been in plenty of circles of Black people who use the word referring to their inside circle, but I'm no where near the inside enough to ever use it, and I probably wouldn't anyway. It's pretty darn easy to know whether you can use it yourself, if it's even a close question, the answer is no, don't say the word.

  16. Monkey Torture Enthusiasts is a terrible band name. I only browsed the article, would become seriously ill if it’s that much detail. CSB, one of my law partners joined the firm about 10 years ago from the DAs office. He shared that one of his assignments there was a highly publicized case of a couple that was fucking dogs and filming it for sick fucks on the internet. He was assigned to view every minute of every video and determine what snippets would be presented to the jury. Pretty sure I’d quit and become a plumber or something. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Rage+1 1
  17. 34 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    This is a dumb question, but that's never stopped me:  does the defendant have to be present for the entire proceeding?

    Criminal defendants have to be present for the entirely of their trials. Business defendants can change the representative who is present, which is why he wasn’t required to attend all of the business fraud case (I think I remember that correctly).

  18. On 4/9/2024 at 10:59 AM, CooterBrown said:

    At this point, I hope our regarded Legislature comes to realize that college athletics is the epitome of DEI.  College athletics participation needs to match our state's overall demographics otherwise it's just liberals winning.  

     

    I agree, all sports teams from universities in Texas should be majority white, because fairness. OU is close enough also, them too.

  19. Seriously, the Broncos have looked terrible since they changed, it’s like a remnant of the late 90s fad of way too complicated and dumb looking designs and dark color shades. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
  20. 31 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

     

    It's just astonishing to me that it has to be explained like this, like teaching to a five year old. It's so obvious why it's different, but even with this explanation, the people who need to understand will intentionally go out of their way to push back.

  21. 17 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

    image.png.eac7dff60fa3949d2da3194cfc5a29b7.png

    Again, I'm a layperson, but I do know how to put together a rational argument. I think the assertion that Trump is influencing the statement is a sound one. If these are good lawyers, I'd be shocked if they created this statement in a vacuum.

    Trump's basic defense against any accusation is to call the accuser a "never-Trumper." He's a never-Bidener, should we discount everything he says? I see strong Trump influence on that tack. I don't see myself using that as an argument. The "very popular tv show" also sounds like a Trump phrase as he is obsessed with ratings and lying about them.

    Stormy made a life off these communications? She used "pure opportunism" to get Trump to fork over 6 figures? Huh? She's made money since on this story, so she must be evil. I still don't think that holds much sway in a trial. Who wouldn't cash in?

    * I love this last sentence. She knew nothing about the actual crimes alleged here. Well, Blanche, she can confirm she got paid off and anything she may have witnessed indicating why.

     

    It reads to me like a typical opening statement when you have a weak case, you have to at least try to give the jury reasons to not believe the witnesses against the defendant. Saying that she is "biased" against Trump is consistent with ordinary jury instructions that the jury is to be the sole judge of credibility of a witness and can take any "biases" into consideration. He just needs one to buy into it for a mistrial but it does not read like an opening statement of a party that has a strong basis for acquittal. If Trump had written it, the term "whore" and "slut" would be all over it, regardless of legal rules or decorum.  

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...