Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    40485
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. As bad as "mainstream media" is, the much bigger problem is people like you explicitly trusting shitbags like Candace Owen on self-produced, self-moderated "media" like the above.
  2. No kidding. That seems like a complete slam dunk. And the articles all say they tried to reach an out of court solution. The fact that OP would cite a Candace Owens video about this, rather than credible sources, says a lot.
  3. I haven't read the WSJ article, but if they just said it purported to be from Trump and described it, I don't think there's any falsity or defamation there, let alone of a public figure. Having Trump say it's fake does not establish falsity or reckless disregard.
  4. Fair points all. Whatever one thinks about Garland/Biden, they ultimately indicted and prosecuted a highly political case in the January 6 mess. They also immediately indicted and prosecuted a somewhat less political case in the Maralago documents case. Child sexual abuse is not political (well at least not until Qanon got hold of it). It also tends to be prosecuted by true believer jihadists. If there had been a convictable case against Donald Trump, and I virtually guarantee some of those jihadists were looking for one, it would have been brought during the Biden Administration. ETA: maybe the better way to look at it is the Biden Administration was not going to bring a child sexual abuse case on weak evidence just to fuck with Trump. Can't say the same about Trump Administration. If they thought they could bring a chickenshit case against Bill Clinton, they'd do it in a heartbeat.
  5. Because you don't want an asshole like Trump in charge of monetary policy. End of discussion.
  6. Biden didn't do it because in the United States of America as it was once known, the government did not release criminal investigation materials except by indicting and trying targets of the investigation. Full stop. That's why the judges aren't going to release any grand jury materials. This is the way we've always done it. For better or worse, Joseph Robinette Biden followed the rules and norms of the United States of America. Releasing criminal investigation materials outside the context of a criminal trial was a non-starter for Biden and 44 of his predecessors. Dotard Jackleg Trump has no respect for the United States of America, its institutions, rules, and norms. He was always going to do this to curry favor with the QAnon MAGAts, that is, for political advantage, for himself, as usual. Until he figured out the shit was going to splash on him at least as much as anyone else.
  7. This is really nothing new. There have always been technocrats that think they ought to run the world and their technologies offer the solutions to mans ills. And they are usually completely full of arrogance and shit. I say always, I guess it's really been since the industrial revolution.
  8. Providing TV, either in-cell or in a community setting, is dang near a constitutional requirement. A lot of prisons are going to personal tablets for TV, games, education, even phone/video calls, because it a) keeps them occupied and b) community TVs are a source of fights. They aren't just hooked up to the open internet, though, they're controlled and its another profit center for the entities that sell them.
  9. I think a lot of people will be implicated far short of riding the Lolita Express or going to pedo island. But, depending on their political affiliation, will still be smeared with shit from one side or the other. Some of the people will well and truly deserve being smeared with shit, like Trump. Others a lot less so. And, it will all be inconclusive, just a complete barforama.
  10. We are currently clean on OPSEC
  11. Well, who's gonna prosecute once this information is let out? Who's gonna evaluate it? This whole shitshow is exactly the reason you don't release this kind of material to the general public. The only thing that makes it palatable for the rationals is that Trump might be implicated. But probably so will a bunch of otherwise decentish people.
  12. Because the people on facing book that are actual people (as opposed to bots) have no idea who Pedro Pascal is, because they're dustfarts fwd; fwd; fwd;ing pearl clutchers about immigrants and trans.
  13. Not sure if serious. Are you aware of how Trump treats the Department of Justice, the courts of the United States of America, and the Attorney General, among other institutions?
  14. It's not though. It's more like a curiosity, provoked and tended by a bunch of insane MAGAts into a conspiracy theory that people like you are buying into now. If there were legit, convictable evidence that Trump committed child sexual abuse, he would have been prosecuted. There's not. There's just going to be a bunch of people with various connections to Epstein, and a bunch of really dubious witnesses and accounts and it's just going to be an endless shitstorm of conspiracy theories involving Trump, Clinton, Gates and God knows who else.
  15. And after the defendant is long dead and most of the participants. That's not a part of the rule, per se, but is as a practical matter.
  16. So, our back and side yards are well enclosed and we let our boys roam them mostly at will. Their murderous tendencies, if any, are thus restrained. Last night, I was trying to coax Wheezer to come in the house so we could go to bed. In the course of that "negotiation," I looked down to the far end of the side yard and saw something moving. Turned out to be an opossum that beat a hasty retreat under the fence. Wheezer ran toward it, but stopped about halfway. And at that point, Wheezer did not want to come in, so I let him play for a bit. After about 15 minutes, I went back out and Wheezer was acting like he had caught something, usually a bug, that he had pinned with his paws and he was looking down at it. As I got closer, I saw some dark fur, and I was like oh shit and it was a fairly big patch of fur so I thought it was a pretty hefty rat. Then I saw the tail and realized it was a young opossum that seemed to be, well, playing possum. I didn't see any injuries or blood so I distracted Wheezer and was kind of chasing him a few steps here and there and I looked back and the young opossum had stood up and I guess was preparing to flee. I managed to herd Wheezer into the house and hopefully saved the young marsupial. It seems that playing possum was the perfect move because Wheezer is young enough that hunting and playing are the same thing (as if they ever really grow out of it) and by not reacting to his actions, Wheeze was just kind of looking at it instead of swatting and biting. Seems maybe the first opossum I saw might have been Mama chasing after a youngun that Wheezer subsequently found.
  17. According to this docket sheet, which should be accurate, there was no motion to dismiss, and Bond moved, alone (not jointly), to dismiss with prejudice. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/57676123/Bond_v_Roe The one motion was that Bond asked that the returned summons be sealed. The suit is styled Bond v. Roe to protect her identity. But a summons would have to have her actual name and address on it and the executed or returned summons would state where, how, and who was served with the suit. So that was for her benefit, not his. Curiously, however, the docket states that the motion to seal was opposed. That don't make no sense. The parties had agreed a couple of times to push off the joint scheduling conference and the defendant had not answered. That tends to mean they're actively talking. A settlement is most likely because he dismissed it with prejudice, meaning he can't bring it again if circumstances change. Before a defendant answers, the plaintiff has the unilateral right to dismiss a suit and to choose whether to do it with or without prejudice. By doing it with prejudice, the high likelihood is that some form of accommodation was reached. Even if the lawsuit had been shown to be a frivolous, sanctionable, flaming piece of shit, you'd still dismiss it without prejudice absent a settlement.
  18. Couple of points of order. This is a civil defamation suit, so there isn't a guilty client, and if anyone in this ends up "guilty," it will be the defendant, ie the chick. Of course, Bond might be guilty in the criminal case, but that's not the matter in question here. I'm not a big fan of using the term "guilty" in connection with civil suits. Given that the burden of proof in most of them is more likely than not, and the plaintiff is a private party rather than the government, the term "guilty" or "guilt" carries an implication that doesn't really belong in a civil suit. And, although you jest, it's probably worth remembering that even the guilty deserve and are entitled to a defense. The current regime should be a stark reminder that the government is not always a benign entity and it is at its most powerful against the individual in the context of a criminal proceeding.
  19. Estimates are $2-4K per hour for a Blackhawk. A Shithook is about $11k per hour.
  20. Do you think DNI Gabbard is or will actually do anything to restrain misbehavior before FISC?
  21. Guy is crazy as a shithouse rat. https://x.com/FeelsGuy2003
  22. Enjoyed the first book. Little ways into the second and I have this nagging fear that it's gonna be a little too MMPORGy for me.
×
×
  • Create New...