Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
51 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Looks kinda like Beulah Balbricker

Have you seen this prick?  

 

Judges would have also accepted 'Mushroom Donna' or 'Rubenesque Ruby' 

Posted
17 hours ago, YGIFS said:

He’s a piece of shit but I think many of y’all underestimate how smart Tucker really is and how much he played/dumbed down for his audience.  He’s gonna get a little more fast and loose to seem like the edgy right wing commentator who isn’t afraid to mix it up with his own side.  And a MAGA acolyte is gonna put a round through his bow tie and right quick. 

image.jpeg.2aa53eb411874047e32aceb143f27380.jpeg
 

Posted

 

On 5/17/2023 at 4:16 PM, atomheartbevo said:

 

The 16 presidential records, which were subpoenaed earlier this year, may provide critical evidence establishing the former president’s awareness of the declassification process, a key part of the criminal investigation into Trump’s mishandling of classified docum

 

I have been told numerous times that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. So why does it have to be proven that he was "aware" that just classifying them with his perfect and beautiful mind is illegal?

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
6 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

My favorite was Brad Raffensberger.

He had the nerve to not comply when Trump ordered him to break the law!

Posted

I love that Seth is last on the list. So the writer’s room is going down the names for easy jokes and they get to the bottom, “uh boss, happy early Christmas.”

Posted
5 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

There were actually about 500 people on the list.  Colbert and Kimmel were on it, too.   The best part is that Jimmy Fallon apparently wasn’t listed, so now he has to cope with the realization that he’s the only late night host whose jokes are so hacky they don’t even offend Russia.

That's there's even a 0.00000001% chance this is just a list of names supplied the Rooskies by Trump is fucking hilarious.

steve-buscemi-list.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

The 16 presidential records, which were subpoenaed earlier this year, may provide critical evidence establishing the former president’s awareness of the declassification process, a key part of the criminal investigation into Trump’s mishandling of classified docum

 

I have been told numerous times that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. So why does it have to be proven that he was "aware" that just classifying them with his perfect and beautiful mind is illegal?

 

 

 

Many crimes require proof of a specific intent, not just a general intent to engage in whatever conduct constitutes the crime.

It's often said that specific intent is the intention to commit a or the crime in question, but that's not really accurate.

For example, this is 18 USC 793(d), the defense information statute we think Trump might get charged with:

d)

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
 
The bolded is a little bit of extra intention required to meet the elements of proof of the crime.  That element of "willfully retain" could be avoided if Trump could credibly say he didn't know he had it, or he didn't think it was classified because he declassified it.  Of course, the statute doesn't even require the material be classified.
 
 
Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

So if everything he just grabs automatically becomes declassified, this means Ivanka's vagina is no longer top-secret?  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

So if everything he just grabs automatically becomes declassified, this means Ivanka's vagina is no longer top-secret?  

I'm not sure it ever was in the first place....

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
3 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

Hey Verizon,

Maybe you should stop showing your Seth Meyers commercial during every damn break. Do you really want an international fugitive to be the face of your company?

Now that's a brag. 

Posted

Donald Trump upon reading that ^^^, "NO JEAN!  You can't triple stamp a double stamp!  You can't!  Forget no erasies!  You can't triple stamp a double stamp."  

The Judge, "Let me guess, Mr. Trump...you'd like to claim you took the comments about her with you after the CNN town hall and therefore they didn't happen and cannot be used against you?"

Donald Trump, "Uh, if that's a thing, let's go with that then..."  

  • Haha 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

GIF by NHL

Oooohhh, that alludes to something.

Apparently, in her original suit, the defamatory statements were made in 2019 during the Trump presidency, which exposes those claims to operation of the Westfall Act.  Then, that suit was amended during the appeal to include statements Trump made in 2022, out of office, that are not subject to the Westfall Act.

So, the current verdict doesn't appear to be subject to some form of reversal due to operation of the Westfall Act.  That's very nice.

But the 2019 claims were on appeal on application of the Westfall Act until just before the trial on the 2022 claims, and were sent back to the trial court.  So that's still pending and what she would apparently add the latest round to.

Otherwise, I was seriously wtf'ing about amending the lawsuit when a judgment has just been entered on a jury verdict.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, safe sex said:

Please write out your post again, but not for lawyers.

There's not really any way to simplify it.

As a general proposition, you can't "reopen" or amend a lawsuit on which judgment has been entered as would be the case here.

There were some pieces of the lawsuit that didn't go to trial last month and they still remain pending, as more or less a separate lawsuit.  It's that one that would be amended.

But the important part, really, is that the recently entered verdict can't be attacked by the Westfall Act, which holds that federal officials have immunity/can't be sued for actions undertaken while in office.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Liability_Reform_and_Tort_Compensation_Act_of_1988

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's not really any way to simplify it.

As a general proposition, you can't "reopen" or amend a lawsuit on which judgment has been entered as would be the case here.

There were some pieces of the lawsuit that didn't go to trial last month and they still remain pending, as more or less a separate lawsuit.  It's that one that would be amended.

But the important part, really, is that the recently entered verdict can't be attacked by the Westfall Act, which holds that federal officials have immunity/can't be sued for actions undertaken while in office.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Liability_Reform_and_Tort_Compensation_Act_of_1988

So, talk to me like I have serious mental deficits and have been making my way through life on a combination of false bravado and glib humor. Did Trump fuck himself royally in his own prolapsed rectum by renewing the defamation out of office?? It seems like he may have... <littlegirlcrossingherfingerssohard.gif>.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, safe sex said:

The Westfall of it all was the confusing thing there. Thanks.

Some further clarity on this after digging around some more.

Carroll filed a first lawsuit, based on the 2019 defamatory statements while Trump was in office.  Trump's DOJ moved to apply the Westfall Act, and Kaplan refused, provoking the appeal.

Carroll then filed a second lawsuit, based on 2022 defamatory statements when Trump was not in office.  That lawsuit was also amended to include civil sexual assault claims when NY amended its sexual assault statute of limitations and gave those whose claims were barred under the shorter limitations period, like Carroll for her 25 year old claims, a year to file their claims.

It's the second lawsuit that we had the trial on.  The first one was still hanging out there on appeal.  Curiously, the Biden DOJ took and supported the Trump position on the Westfall Act instead of dismissing the appeal (probably not that curious as it favors federal employees generally and possibly Biden in particular).  That one just came back to the trial court during the trial.

So, there's a second lawsuit out there concerning the 2019 defamation that can be amended to include the latest rounds of heinous bullshit from Trump.  

There's not going to be much in the way of compensatory damages, but punitives could get interesting because he clearly has not been punished or deterred sufficiently.



×
×
  • Create New...