Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Holy shit! Watching the news right now, and it is breaking that the grand jury returned a no true Bill in a DOJ redo trying to indict Leticia James.

Of course they will try again, but I think you can put a fork in the selective prosecution roast when they try again.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Holy shit! Watching the news right now, and it is breaking that the grand jury returned a no true Bill in a DOJ redo trying to indict Leticia James.

Of course they will try again, but I think you can put a fork in the selective prosecution roast when they try again.

I'm guessing the difference may be reviewing exculpatory evidence with the grand jury.

Or maybe they've been exposed to the shitshow.

Posted (edited)
On 11/24/2025 at 2:53 PM, The Dog said:

 


What a totally normal endorsement for degreed and licensed professions:
 

We believe the surgeon in this case, Lindsey Halligan, is not only extremely qualified…but she was in fact legally allowed to practice in the state….

 

We believe the bridge engineer in this case, Lindsey Halligan, is not only extremely qualified…but she was in fact legally licensed to design in the state….

 

Edited by Dnaguy
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Holy shit! Watching the news right now, and it is breaking that the grand jury returned a no true Bill in a DOJ redo trying to indict Leticia James.

Of course they will try again, but I think you can put a fork in the selective prosecution roast when they try again.

Inb4 the supreme Court rules "fuggit, dawg. Let em play"

Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Inb4 the supreme Court rules "fuggit, dawg. Let em play"

You mean the same peeps who said that the Texas gerrymandering was okey-doke?  

IMG_0405.gif.da5c33d862069f0afeebf145598f4116.gif

I read something the last month or so that said that the large increase in Hispanic voters for Trump was a part of the GOP calculation in gerrymandering, and that if the Hispanic percentage went back to Biden2020/Obama election numbers,  that the new gerrymandered districts will not be automatically a GOP win. 

Is there any truth to that, or somebody wish casting?

Posted
29 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I read something the last month or so that said that the large increase in Hispanic voters for Trump was a part of the GOP calculation in gerrymandering, and that if the Hispanic percentage went back to Biden2020/Obama election numbers,  that the new gerrymandered districts will not be automatically a GOP win. 

No idea, but I would imagine that voting for the Leopards Eating Faces party and then discovering the leopards are eating their faces may make at least a decent percentage of them reconsider. 

I'm sure Miller has Trump convinced that all these people being deported were voting early and often for the Democrats.

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

You mean the same peeps who said that the Texas gerrymandering was okey-doke?  

IMG_0405.gif.da5c33d862069f0afeebf145598f4116.gif

I read something the last month or so that said that the large increase in Hispanic voters for Trump was a part of the GOP calculation in gerrymandering, and that if the Hispanic percentage went back to Biden2020/Obama election numbers,  that the new gerrymandered districts will not be automatically a GOP win. 

Is there any truth to that, or somebody wish casting?

There was always going to be a degree of danger (whether the GOP recognized that or not). In order to create more GOP friendly districts, they had to gerrymandered a lot more of them even more tightly; making the margin for a win smaller than before.

So something like a 5 point swing statewide could give narrow margins wins to the Dems in districts the GOP was counting on threading the needle.

ie: their predictive math might be off. So, you know, expect a big push for voter suppression by the GOP if the worm turns this upcoming summer.

 

 

 

Edited by yoladu
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Holy shit! Watching the news right now, and it is breaking that the grand jury returned a no true Bill in a DOJ redo trying to indict Leticia James.

Of course they will try again, but I think you can put a fork in the selective prosecution roast when they try again.

Did Halligan present to the grand jury or did another DOJ official?

There is also the possibility that a more experienced and impartial AG lawyer did not put 100% effort into this. Anyone in any profession knows that they can perform the any job to a satisfactory level but not at a full effort. 

Posted
56 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Did Halligan present to the grand jury or did another DOJ official?

There is also the possibility that a more experienced and impartial AG lawyer did not put 100% effort into this. Anyone in any profession knows that they can perform the any job to a satisfactory level but not at a full effort. 

IMG_5565.thumb.png.cd68f30c50c689e67adf4160eae1d886.png

  • Haha 2
Posted

Trump just pardoned someone who brought an insane amount of illegal drugs to America. And he pardoned hundreds of people who spent the afternoon of 1/6 beating up cops who were trying to defend our Capitol. But here, by god, he's gonna get Leticia James for committing the crime of.... um.... well I think she bought a house. 

And this is still mostly being covered like it's a legit investigation. Which is just fucking crazy, but we don't really have journalists anymore I suppose. And a third of the country wouldn't listen anyway.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

Apparently, the third attempt to indict James has failed. So Trump is not doing selective enforcement on James, they are just repeatedly trying to indict her even though that’s not how DOJ has ever worked.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Apparently, the third attempt to indict James has failed. So Trump is not doing selective enforcement on James, they are just repeatedly trying to indict her even though that’s not how DOJ has ever worked.

He can't let a Black woman defeat him.

Posted
3 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

He can't let a Black woman defeat him.

I think most grand jurors know that Trump did the exact same thing on several Mara Lago area home purchases, so they aren’t going to indict her if they can’t indict Trump too

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I think most grand jurors know that Trump did the exact same thing on several Mara Lago area home purchases, so they aren’t going to indict her if they can’t indict Trump too

Here's a question I don't know the answer to.  Petit jurors are instructed to avoid media relating to their cases and are often sequestered to avoid that and other external influences.

Grand jurors sit for longer periods than most petit jurors, and are charged with evaluating numerous cases, not just one.  Therefore, it would be difficult and impractical to make any attempt to isolate them from media.  So, I don't think they are, at all.  But I don't know for sure.

As we have discussed In other context, details of criminal investigations before indictment are usually kept pretty quiet and a grand jury drops out of most cases post-indictment.  So, in a general case, media exposure isn't that big a deal.

But it would surely seem that the media coverage of the first indictments and attendant shenanigans would make it very difficult to secure an indictment in any of these cases unless you were able somehow to assemble a purely pro-Trump grand jury.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I think most grand jurors know that Trump did the exact same thing on several Mara Lago area home purchases, so they aren’t going to indict her if they can’t indict Trump too

I'm not even clear what she did. If she were renting the property out, I'd kind of understand. By all accounts, it is a second home that she is letting a family member use. I think there are a lot of second home owners that have done the same. 

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm not even clear what she did. If she were renting the property out, I'd kind of understand. By all accounts, it is a second home that she is letting a family member use. I think there are a lot of second home owners that have done the same. 

The alleged lie is that she stated it would be a "secondary home."  https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/read-full-letitia-james-indictment-charges/

But, that doesn't have some plain meaning, rather it has what seem to be FNMA conditions attached to it.  And those conditions changed right before she signed.  https://selling-guide.fanniemae.com/sel/b2-1.1-01/occupancy-types

One of the key factors seems to be whether it becomes or is a rental property, but that's ok too under certain circumstances.

In any event, the definition is not so clear that it can be said that she intended to deceive at the time she signed it.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

In any event, the definition is not so clear that it can be said that she intended to deceive at the time she signed it.

Proving intent to deceive beyond a reasonable doubt is one of the most difficult things to achieve as a prosecutor.  And here we don’t have dozens (or hundreds) of transactions approved by the same corporate representative - a case where pure numbers of transactions would lead a reasonable juror to say that the person approving that had to have knowledge of the falsity of the statement in question.    

With an individual, you could have a situation where someone was going to reside in the house, and after they signed the closing papersone of her family members needed a place. So she let that family member live there.   Any one of us in that position would do the same thing, and the change in behavior would not be fraudulent or malicious, but an entirely reasonable and normal thing.



×
×
  • Create New...