Jump to content

A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]


Francisco 2.0

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Red Five said:

There is so much to choose from, but I think the Trumpism that drives me the most nuts is how he calls anything he doesn't like a hoax. It's like, that's so far from what the word actually means. 

Trump knows his supporters are dumb.  Maybe not Herschel Walker dumb, but dumb nonetheless. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

1) the election proximity policy only applies to opening an investigation, not continuing one that is ongoing;

2) you don't understand the "Socks case," which has little bearing on this, and no precedential value, quit taking legal advice from hacks like Fitton

3) and how were your 4th Amendment rights violated, criminal?

Also, what does it matter if it’s an election where he’s not on the ballot? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Red Five said:

There is so much to choose from, but I think the Trumpism that drives me the most nuts is how he calls anything he doesn't like a hoax. It's like, that's so far from what the word actually means. 

What most bothers me is that his followers continually fall for his obvious bullshit. It’s a hoax, it’s fake news, it’s a politically motivated witch hunt. Over and over and over and over again. Time after time after time. No one has ever been treated so unfairly. Oh woe is me.

After a while it should get old and tiresome. Any rational person can see the game he’s playing. But his followers aren’t rational people. They’re cultists. I thought people who considered George W. Bush to be a competent President were having an Emperors New Clothes experience but I never imagined anything like the sway Trump holds over people could ever be possible. He’s so obviously full of shit and a complete fucking moron.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

What most bothers me is that his followers continually fall for his obvious bullshit. It’s a hoax, it’s fake news, it’s a politically motivated witch hunt. Over and over and over and over again. Time after time after time. No one has ever been treated so unfairly. Oh woe is me.

After a while it should get old and tiresome. Any rational person can see the game he’s playing. But his followers aren’t rational people. They’re cultists. I thought people who considered George W. Bush to be a competent President were having an Emperors New Clothes experience but I never imagined anything like the sway Trump holds over people could ever be possible. He’s so obviously full of shit and a complete fucking moron.

It's really that simple. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in reading this from cnn.com

Quote

The Trump team wants the Supreme Court to put the release of the tax returns on pause while the justices consider whether to take up a case reviewing the lower court rulings okaying their disclosure.

The conservative justices have cover to delay the release of the tax returns.

And even if the House argued that the current House doesn't want to delay it to the future Congress, SCOTUS won't care. I assume that if/when the GOP takes over, they can effectively withdraw the IRS requests, and Trump's lawyers will argue the case(s) are unnecessary and SCOTUS will agree to drop the whole thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I could've sworn this had been taken up to the SCOTUS before.

The first time, SCOTUS said there's nothing illegal or wrongful about a House committee obtaining tax returns from the IRS, however, they left am opening in that the request had to be narrowly tailored to accomplish a legitimate legislative purpose, which was not something the lower courts had really considered, so that's the narrow issue being litigated here.

So, no, an ordinary person couldn't resist this the way Trump has, but as the (past) representative of the office of the President, he has "rights" that ordinary people don't have.  And, of course, he has the propensity and willingness to litigate expensive and futile questions, which most of us don't.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2022 at 2:46 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

What most bothers me is that his followers continually fall for his obvious bullshit. It’s a hoax, it’s fake news, it’s a politically motivated witch hunt. Over and over and over and over again. Time after time after time. No one has ever been treated so unfairly. Oh woe is me.

what baffles me is not just the lying and exaggeration, it's the over-exaggeration that makes the lie seem so obvious, and somehow makes people believe it more (though i guess there's no way of knowing that - i would assume they would believe either). 

we've all heard the whole "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it" nazi bullshit, which i always thought itself was a purposeful exaggeration for the sake of the saying.  but with the trump idiots, i guess it's true.

when you say you've done a lot for black people, some supporters can be like, yeah, i believe that.  but then you follow it up with, "i've done more for black people than anyone in the history of the world and i'm also the least racist person alive" wouldn't that trip some alarm bells and have you being like, hmm?  nope. 

"i actually won this election."  i'm sure a bunch of his supporters did and still do believe this.  "in fact, it was the biggest landslide in the history of organized elections."  i mean, i get what he's trying to do, but do his people really believe the original lie more with this added?  what kind of brain processes information that way?

i used this analogy a couple years ago, but if i was having a conversation about 2023 texas football and somebody on the coaching staff was like, "we're gonna be really good."  i'd be happy and want to believe it.  if he followed it up with, "in fact, you could probably say this will be the best texas team of all time, and probably one of the best, if not the best college football team ever assembled" i'd be like god dammit get the fuck out of here we're gonna suck, fuck it.

but not these salad forks, they're all in.

Edited by henrygandorf
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Where is this codified or enumerated?

You hire a bunch of people who went to law school and then claim privilege.  Executive or attorney client, or both, depending on what suits your needs at that particular moment in time.  And then when one doesn’t work out you claim the other.  And then you appeal, preferably before judges you appointed.  He certainly gets more leeway than I would if I decided to try to overthrow the government.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Where is this codified or enumerated?

It's called separation of powers.  Trump, and anyone else who is President, can protest actions by congress, or the judiciary, that intrude on executive functions.  It's the source of executive privilege and a more general constraint on how the branches can "interfere" with one another.  Similarly, congress and the judiciary can complain when the executive doesn't stay in it's lane, or congress v. judiciary, etc.

It's not actually written down anywhere, but it flows from the structure of the Constitution, which defines, in Articles I, II, and III, the powers of Congress, the President/Executive, and the Judicial branches and implicitly, at least, separates them.  And theres a good bit of history and political philosophizing about it and the related "checks and balances" that the founders clearly adopted in drafting the Constitution.

Article II, relating to the executive, is the shortest and least specific in enumerating the powers and limitations of the President.  Because all 44 prior presidents and the 46th have generally respected the office and "stayed in their lane," it hasn't been much of an issue.  But it's this lack of specificity that gives rise to the notion of "imperial presidency" and to the lack of accountability for Trump.

I read a bit of the briefing on the issue and one of the problems is that the Committee requesting the tax records said in the request that the purpose was to evaluate the Presidential Audit Program.  That's valid and "legal," and easily sustained by the courts.  However, the Committee Chair and some others have kind of "run their mouths" about the "real" or "ulterior" purposes of the request, like "investigating Trump's criminality."  Congress has no role in law-enforcement, only law-writing. and so that would be an unlawful purpose for obtaining his tax records.

EDIT TO ADD:  One of the reasons the lower courts said they won't look behind the stated purpose of the request/subpoena is that the statements of individual congresscritters are protected by the Speech and Debate Clause ala Lindsey Graham.  Also, the statements and motivations of individual congresscritters may differ from the motivation of the Committee and Congress as a whole, so the fact that individuals may have improper motivations is irrelevant.

The two lower courts have said that the evidence of an "ulterior," non-legislative purpose may be real and is "troubling," but that they legally need not "look behind" the stated purpose of the request, "evaluating the Presidential Audit Program."  So, that's really the narrow issue here and that is, do you take Congress' initial word for it, or look behind it to what they may really be doing.

Trumpco tried to press a similar issue with respect to the 1/6 Committee, but could never generate any evidence of an improper, law-enforcement type purpose.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's called separation of powers.  Trump, and anyone else who is President, can protest actions by congress, or the judiciary, that intrude on executive functions.  It's the source of executive privilege and a more general constraint on how the branches can "interfere" with one another.  Similarly, congress and the judiciary can complain when the executive doesn't stay in it's lane, or congress v. judiciary, etc.

It's not actually written down anywhere, but it flows from the structure of the Constitution, which defines, in Articles I, II, and III, the powers of Congress, the President/Executive, and the Judicial branches and implicitly, at least, separates them.  And theres a good bit of history and political philosophizing about it and the related "checks and balances" that the founders clearly adopted in drafting the Constitution.

Article II, relating to the executive, is the shortest and least specific in enumerating the powers and limitations of the President.  Because all 44 prior presidents and the 46th have generally respected the office and "stayed in their lane," it hasn't been much of an issue.  But it's this lack of specificity that gives rise to the notion of "imperial presidency" and to the lack of accountability for Trump.

I read a bit of the briefing on the issue and one of the problems is that the Committee requesting the tax records said in the request that the purpose was to evaluate the Presidential Audit Program.  That's valid and "legal," and easily sustained by the courts.  However, the Committee Chair and some others have kind of "run their mouths" about the "real" or "ulterior" purposes of the request, like "investigating Trump's criminality."  Congress has no role in law-enforcement, only law-writing. and so that would be an unlawful purpose for obtaining his tax records.

The two lower courts have said that the evidence of an "ulterior," non-legislative purpose may be real and is "troubling," but that they legally need not "look behind" the stated purpose of the request, "evaluating the Presidential Audit Program."  So, that's really the narrow issue here and that is, do you take Congress' initial word for it, or look behind it to what they may really be doing.

Trumpco tried to press a similar issue with respect to the 1/6 Committee, but could never generate any evidence of an improper, law-enforcement type purpose.  

Where does it say a past President retains any of the above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Where does it say a past President retains any of the above?

In this particular case, it started before he left office, and requests items from his term in office, and its purpose is to evaluate the "Presidential Audit Program."  

And, as we have seen, there is some residual protection that applies to a former President.  In the case of executive privilege, it's not much.

And, perhaps more importantly, Trump keeps losing.  The courts have said that he would lose even if he was still President.  What they haven't said is that all protection vanishes once he leaves office.  In certain circumstances, it would, as if congress had asked for these records after he had left office and for some valid purpose other than "evaluating the Presidential Audit Program."

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

And, as we have seen, there is some residual protection that applies to a former President.  In the case of executive privilege, it's not much.

I’m not sure a close reading of the constitution would lead one to conclude thusly 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m not sure a close reading of the constitution would lead one to conclude thusly 

Well, the courts have so held for at least 50 years.  To a certain extent, things that affect a former President can affect a current President, such as the specter of post-Presidency investigations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to feel really bad for twice horn when nothing ever happens to Trump, and he's forced to reckon with the fact that his beloved legal profession is not so honorable after all. It's going to be like when a kid finds out there's no Santa Claus. Wait, twice you know there's no Santa Claus right?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I'm going to feel really bad for twice horn when nothing ever happens to Trump, and he's forced to reckon with the fact that his beloved legal profession is not so honorable after all. It's going to be like when a kid finds out there's no Santa Claus. Wait, twice you know there's no Santa Claus right?

I have no particular love for the legal profession.  A lot of lawyers are complete assholes and dumbfucks.  There's problems with the system all over the place.

I suppose it's a thin line, but an "explainer" is not a defense.

I'll tell you one thing though, the legal system is the only thing working against Trump right now.  And it has worked against him in the past, as well, see the 1-59 election lawsuit record and the pretty consistent pouring out of his other bullshit lolsuits.  Trump is in a legal world where he's never been before.

His traveshamockery of a presidency has put some strain on things though.

And, if he's not indicted, it won't be because of the legal system, per se.  It will be a mostly political decision.  That beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof can be a bitch though, but I'm sure you're not advocating for getting rid of that.

Short of some death event, it's about all we got.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, C-Man said:

That's a temp thing too. Maybe we get Ladybugs-like result there too? (Who am I kidding?)

Indeed it is.  And Kagan gave a temporary hand up to Kelli Ward. It's becoming clear on these sorts of things that grant of these temporary "administrative" stays doesn't have much to do with the outcome.

Trump really hasn't won anything with his name in it/on it at SCOTUS.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...