Jump to content

A story about a pathetic man's downfall


Francisco 2.0

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

i’m glad we’re on the same team though.  Anyone who hates Trump as much as I is do a friend of mine. And they are entirely right to be angry and pissed off at a number of things. Still, there is a hell of a lot of magical thinking and ignorance being displayed, as they can’t differentiate between factual situations and nuanced laws leading to different rulings, and instead find it easier just to say it’s all rigged in favor of the rich.

The supreme court has been in the habit of issuing fact free rulings. Facts don't matter, and the points are all made up. You think the law matters? It's only so until one of the Supremes donors deigns differently. 

Turns out RV's spend real good!

 

It's not a refutation of facts, but an acceptance of their lack of standing in our brave new world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair points, all.  Most of what he's filing is perfectly reasonable and legal.  As are most of the rulings on them are, and will continue to be.  

Above the legalities which many of you are far more versed in civil procedure-wise than I (I did get an A in it but I think it's because my professor I thought a swung a different way, NTTAWWT).  There is good news and bad news here:

-There is no grand conspiracy, but running him ragged across four venues with all his campaigning, grifting, and pretending to run a "Real Estate Empire"...though he consciously thinks he's made of steel...it is taking a massive toll on him.  He will be dead sooner than we thought.  That's the good news.  

-The bad news, respect for a defendant's rights aside.  While the robustness of the schedule is admirable, downright sinister.  The calendar was not timed correctly.  They couldn't get started until 2022, but they should have seen some of his legal theatrics coming better than they did.  They should timed around it because we are getting awfully close to November for this sophomoric bullshit and his "I'm a political victim here!" will only serve to re-galvanize the 5-10mm previous voters of his that were likely gonna sit this one out to get up off the sofa and vote because, "Dammit, he was right all along!  They're still making him appear in court the Monday before Election Day, that's not fair!"  

I'll give them points for their coordination of intensity, but they fucked up the timing by a few months.  There's a 50/50 chance he's dead in Autumn/Winter or we're all living underground.  

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

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The supreme court has been in the habit of issuing fact free rulings. Facts don't matter, and the points are all made up. You think the law matters? It's only so until one of the Supremes donors deigns differently. 

Turns out RV's spend real good!

 

It's not a refutation of facts, but an acceptance of their lack of standing in our brave new world

I hear you and agree that Scotus is a disgrace. At least a few conservative justices are a disgrace. And by that I mean almost all of the conservative justices are a disgrace.

You are off the mark by believing that everything is for sale, and all courts are like the Supreme Court of the United States. A small example is I just read an opinion by the Louisiana Supreme Court which had to have been a gut punch to them politically. The legislators passed a law saying no matter how long ago it was, you can bring actions against bad priests and other sexual predators. In conservative red Louisiana, there is no reason for these elected GOP justices not to jump into that constitutionality challenge and gain points for the next election.

But the court examined the matter, and I think correctly ruled that it improperly brought to life causes of action that were dead, and that you would be depriving the defendants of the rights contained in their decades long expired status. 

That’s a lot of words to say that they stood on principle and the rule of law, and disregarded their political leanings and an easy politically favorable different outcome.

I was happy to see it.

We will all live to piss on Trump ‘s grave. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I truly don’t mean to frighten you, but I’ve been doing research with a Grand Mason to go through these issues.  Your mind will be blown.  It seems like rich people who have more money have an advantage in legal matters. With an unlimited budget, you can take a deposition of everyone who might possibly know anything.   If you’re poor, you can’t take that many depositions, and evidence that could help you might elude you because of resources.
It gets worse.
I have another friend who is plugged into all kinds of things, including some Jewish guy who has figured out a theory for the secret of everything.  I swear to God, I’m not not lying….but I’ve seen secret documents that show that rich people go to college more than poor people, and that more rich people become doctors and lawyers! It’s like they control all things having to do with health and the law!
And the more you dig deep the worse it gets. Just try to find somebody brave enough to do a correlation between wealth and number of vacation homes in the mountains and the beach. It all comes together.  I’m not sure who is the mastermind behind these things, but it sounds like foreign interference. 
I think I have stumbled on some dangerous information about influences from outside the country. Digging deep into the granular financial information of people, it seems like rich peoples’ kids are involved in a plot called “a semester abroad.”   I’m pretty sure it’s related to foreign countries, but I’m not sure how safe it is to dig deeper.

Anatole France said it better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I hear you and agree that Scotus is a disgrace. At least a few conservative justices are a disgrace. And by that I mean almost all of the conservative justices are a disgrace.

You are off the mark by believing that everything is for sale, and all courts are like the Supreme Court of the United States. A small example is I just read an opinion by the Louisiana Supreme Court which had to have been a gut punch to them politically. The legislators passed a law saying no matter how long ago it was, you can bring actions against bad priests and other sexual predators. In conservative red Louisiana, there is no reason for these elected GOP justices not to jump into that constitutionality challenge and gain points for the next election.

But the court examined the matter, and I think correctly ruled that it improperly brought to life causes of action that were dead, and that you would be depriving the defendants of the rights contained in their decades long expired status. 

That’s a lot of words to say that they stood on principle and the rule of law, and disregarded their political leanings and an easy politically favorable different outcome.

I was happy to see it.

We will all live to piss on Trump ‘s grave. 

If the majority of the defendants were drag queens instead of Christian pastors and youth ministers I bet the ruling would have gone the other way

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

And yet, this 78 year old man seemingly has never had an issue staying up past midnight, stressing over this or that.  He's the Antichrist, and nothing to date has ever harmed him.  

 

Fucking Sunday School:  why was I never warned the mark of the beast is a triple chin with fucking hamberber grease dribbling down it?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe you just missed a lesson or two because it seems fairly straight forward 

 

66f3f6eafccb96dc83b48c69a5d66030f81761a5

Ftr:

Revelation 13:16-17

New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

16 Also, it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be given a brand on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell who does not have the brand, that is, the name of the beast or the number for its name.

The chapter concludes with verse 18:

18 This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number for a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.

There’s a footnote to that:

”Other ancient authorities read six hundred sixteen

The full chapter:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation 13&version=NRSVUE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe you just missed a lesson or two because it seems fairly straight forward 

 

66f3f6eafccb96dc83b48c69a5d66030f81761a5

I'm trademarking "False Prohpet" today. Great band name. 

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

18 This calls for wisdom: let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number for a person. Its number is six hundred sixty-six.

Uh . . .

image.thumb.png.e63c143fbb984dbda7f99c178e7551e9.png

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2024 at 8:28 PM, Sawbonz said:

eta i guess it’s possible but I can’t believe healthcare law is the only area where intent to defraud is presumed 

Under the Louisiana civil code fraud is never presumed. Silence or inaction, without fraudulent intent, does not constitute fraud. Fraud cannot be predicated upon mistake or negligence, no matter how gross.

Obviously, Louisiana is only one state. I am actively involved in a bunch of cases against a manufacture.  Fraud is our only remaining available cause of action. You would not believe how difficult it is to get evidence sufficient to show fraudulent intent.  For example, It is well settled that fraud cannot be predicated on unfulfilled promises or statements as to future events.  And statements promissory in their nature and related to future actions, if not honored, do not constitute actionable fraud without evidence of intent.   

My earlier comments questioning whether or not some of the bond irregularities constituted fraud were not me minimizing or condoning the Trump teams behavior.  They were merely my opinion of how it would be difficult to prove fraudulent intent - as you cannot assume it.    

I admit to being ignorant of New York’s fraud, statutes and jurisprudence

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Under the Louisiana civil code fraud is never presumed. Silence or inaction, without fraudulent intent, does not constitute fraud. Fraud cannot be predicated upon mistake or negligence, no matter how gross.

Obviously, Louisiana is only one state. I am actively involved in a bunch of cases against a manufacture.  Fraud is our only remaining available cause of action. You would not believe how difficult it is to get evidence sufficient to show fraudulent intent.  For example, It is well settled that fraud cannot be predicated on unfulfilled promises or statements as to future events.  And statements promissory in their nature and related to future actions, if not honored, do not constitute actionable fraud without evidence of intent.   

My earlier comments questioning whether or not some of the bond irregularities constituted fraud were not me minimizing or condoning the Trump teams behavior.  They were merely my opinion of how it would be difficult to prove fraudulent intent - as you cannot assume it.    

I admit to being ignorant of New York’s fraud, statutes and jurisprudence

 

 

Imputation or presumption of a cause of action or offense, particularly the elements of an offense like fraud (usually requires clear and convincing evidence, etc.) poses pretty serious due process concerns in a criminal context, possibly civil as well.

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

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

but I think what's been illuminated is that this country's justice system is set up in a way that it plays right into the hands of the wealthy. The scales of justice are tilted toward the haves rather than the have-nots.

And I think Twice and the lawdogs (band name?) will say "No kidding, just like every other part of our society". 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I have all the respect for you, TwiceHorn and all the real lawdogs on this site. I think what has become painfully obvious to many of us non-attorneys is that while this is apparently following the law for the most part -- Cannon's fuckery aside -- but I think what's been illuminated is that this country's justice system is set up in a way that it plays right into the hands of the wealthy. The scales of justice are tilted toward the haves rather than the have-nots. This stands to reason because the system was set up -- and tweaked over the years -- by this wealthy, ruling class for the most part. Of course the rules will favor this sector of the public.

These cases against Trump are the highest-profile cases this country has ever seen. Period. There is a massive spotlight being shined on the system and it's forced many of us who don't live it day-after-day like y'all to take a 30,000-foot view and say, "Hey, this system fucking sucks in many ways." Hopefully, we will ultimately get where we need to get. Anything short of Trump convicted and in financial ruins is a loss for this country and the judicial system.

It is an inherently pay-for-play system.  I'm not sure how we escape that.  Public defenders are getting better in the criminal arena because of the spotlight you mention.  There are other areas, such as contingent-fee litigation, where little or smaller guys are getting top-notch, vigorous representation, but that's in pretty limited circumstances in civil cases.

Trumpco is milking available procedures for all they are worth, but it's not working very well outside of Cannon's court, as you note, even in the pretty short term.

One thing we have to acknowledge is that Trump is unprecedented in virtually every area that pertains to government institution and his abuse of same.  The institutions were unprepared for the likes of him.

In the courts, that lack of preparation takes the form of novel legal questions, so-called "issues of first impression."  As a corrupt former President, Trump has presented those in spades unfortunately.  But the judicial system has dealt with them better than other institutions of government.  As has been noted, courts are a fundamentally fact-based forum, where Trump's bullshit is far less likely to work than other fora.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

the highest court in the land would disagree with you

See, here's where you're wrong.  The Supreme Court has never really cared about facts.  Those get handled in the courts below.  It may be more obvious that the court is cherry-picking cases with certain fact patterns now that it is full-on activist, but that's the way it has always been.

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

21 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

He also geneuinely beleives it's fake news that not everyone loves him. It's all a minority of deep state actors keeping him from power and adoration.

These are the sick, deranged never-Trumpers who should never be listened to except for their appeals for mercy prior to secret execution.

Never-Bideners or never-Obama-ers are not sick or deranged. They should be in charge and are the only ones who should be investigating Trump or other GOPs.

It is known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

See, here's where you're wrong.  The Supreme Court has never really cared about facts.  Those get handled in the courts below.  It may be more obvious that the court is cherry-picking cases with certain fact patterns now that it is full-on activist, but that's the way it has always been.

And those lower courts don't give a shit about the facts of the cases that they're grooming to send to the supremes.

Citizens United. Kennedy v Bremmer. Shelby v Holder. 

I could keep naming cases that hinged on counterfactual findings in the district level that were carried and helpfully ignored every step along the way to the supremes.

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

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

You would not believe how difficult it is to get evidence sufficient to show fraudulent intent.

It's like people other than Trump try to hide their fraudulent intent.

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

3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Oh, God!  Down $1 per share at the open.  When will this end?  (Narrator: when trading is halted or it gets to $0).

image.thumb.png.b7ffa64a2a52eb83964ed8d561c5b764.png

image.png

Under 35. Going to be really difficult for bad actors to prop it up unless they just take it private.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

And those lower courts don't give a shit about the facts of the cases that they're grooming to send to the supremes.

Citizens United. Kennedy v Bremmer. Shelby v Holder. 

I could keep naming cases that hinged on counterfactual findings in the district level that were carried and helpfully ignored every step along the way to the supremes.

I thought the District Court (Panel) in Citizens United upheld the constitutionality of BCRA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is an inherently pay-for-play system.  I'm not sure how we escape that.  Public defenders are getting better in the criminal arena because of the spotlight you mention.  There are other areas, such as contingent-fee litigation, where little or smaller guys are getting top-notch, vigorous representation, but that's in pretty limited circumstances in civil cases.

Trumpco is milking available procedures for all they are worth, but it's not working very well outside of Cannon's court, as you note, even in the pretty short term.

One thing we have to acknowledge is that Trump is unprecedented in virtually every area that pertains to government institution and his abuse of same.  The institutions were unprepared for the likes of him.

In the courts, that lack of preparation takes the form of novel legal questions, so-called "issues of first impression."  As a corrupt former President, Trump has presented those in spades unfortunately.  But the judicial system has dealt with them better than other institutions of government.  As has been noted, courts are a fundamentally fact-based forum, where Trump's bullshit is far less likely to work than other fora.

 

My biggest gripe is everyone knows dotard’s strategy is delay, delay, delay by any means necessary. That said, why did Garland wait two fucking years to get going on this shit?  I’m not saying he had to have the investigation, trial and sentencing wrapped up in six months, but how long after Jan 6 was it before Smith got appointed?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

My biggest gripe is everyone knows dotard’s strategy is delay, delay, delay by any means necessary. That said, why did Garland wait two fucking years to get going on this shit?  I’m not saying he had to have the investigation, trial and sentencing wrapped up in six months, but how long after Jan 6 was it before Smith got appointed?

One year and 303 days after Joe’s inauguration.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

My biggest gripe is everyone knows dotard’s strategy is delay, delay, delay by any means necessary. That said, why did Garland wait two fucking years to get going on this shit?  I’m not saying he had to have the investigation, trial and sentencing wrapped up in six months, but how long after Jan 6 was it before Smith got appointed?

This is just my wild ass guess, but I think a lot of the old institutionalists thought it impossible that Trump could come back as a viable political candidate after J6.   A failure of imagination as to how much of a cult it actually was. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Whoa, let’s pump the brakes, because we are not all lawyers.

It's an average, man. Like how the average family has 2.4 kids; almost no one has four-tenths of a kid, even though EVERYONE does... on average.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This is just my wild ass guess, but I think a lot of the old institutionalists thought it impossible that Trump could come back as a viable political candidate after J6.   A failure of imagination as to how much of a cult it actually was. 

The old institutionalists are dumb af.  Most everyone on this here board knew he would come back like a roach.

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

2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

The old institutionalists are dumb af.  Most everyone on this here board knew he would come back like a roach.

I agree.

But I could see some of them thinking that he’s likely gone forever, but putting him on trial would give him a bully pulpit and platform to spread his infinite number of bullshit lies to his followers, all the while cementing the bona fides of his claims that he was being persecuted.   

I have no idea if they made that call for those reasons, but if they did, it was a fuck up. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, TeeDubya said:

Fucking Sunday School:  why was I never warned the mark of the beast is a triple chin with fucking hamberber grease dribbling down it?

 

13 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe you just missed a lesson or two because it seems fairly straight forward 

 

66f3f6eafccb96dc83b48c69a5d66030f81761a5

 

☝️

The only real difference between what I was taught and the reality is... O was taught we'd be easily fooled. But only the fools are. Never thought the antichrist would be so obvious.

 

6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_2544.thumb.jpeg.4e337864b630e65611e550f8dfc00d48.jpeg

“The cost of them roofies is too damn high!!!”

Bill Cosby GIF

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I agree.

But I could see some of them thinking that he’s likely gone forever, but putting him on trial would give him a bully pulpit and platform to spread his infinite number of bullshit lies to his followers, all the while cementing the bona fides of his claims that he was being persecuted.   

I have no idea if they made that call for those reasons, but if they did, it was a fuck up. 

This.  Mostly likely, it was a terrible, tactical miscalculation rather than misguided, wishful thinking.

Edited by dcbc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, re: money, money is not power.

If I may quote a comic bookstick figure lich, POWER ... is power.

Our society is somewhat egalitarian in that you can buy power with money, and anyone can potentially gain enough money to be able to buy quite a bit of power, but there are some very strict yet undefinable limits on how much power your money can buy. Even infinite money can't buy all the power.

Power is power.

What pisses off Trump is that he's believed all this time that money WAS power, and he's now finding out those limits. That's why he walks out of yet another court loss muttering "This isn't America!" Because he thought, in America, that money was power.

But money isn't power. Not even here. POWER is power.

Other countries have their own mechanisms. China's power, for 5 millennia, has been tied up in the bureaucracy; when Kublai Khan took over after his father "conquered," it was only by remaining subservient to the bureaucracy that he could reign. Repeat for every new conqueror, for every new revolutionary. Military might can get you most of the power, but not all.

And for all that time, if a Chinese person passed the civil service exam, no matter who you were, you became part of that bureaucracy, and from there you wielded power. Education could get you power, but not all the power.

Power is power. You can buy power with money, you can conquer power with armed forces, you can gain rank with education. But these are just effective but limited tools that hide the reality.

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

11 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Also, re: money, money is not power.

If I may quote a comic bookstick figure lich, POWER ... is power.

Our society is somewhat egalitarian in that you can buy power with money, and anyone can potentially gain enough money to be able to buy quite a bit of power, but there are some very strict yet undefinable limits on how much power your money can buy. Even infinite money can't buy all the power.

Power is power.

What pisses off Trump is that he's believed all this time that money WAS power, and he's now finding out those limits. That's why he walks out of yet another court loss muttering "This isn't America!" Because he thought, in America, that money was power.

But money isn't power. Not even here. POWER is power.

Other countries have their own mechanisms. China's power, for 5 millennia, has been tied up in the bureaucracy; when Kublai Khan took over after his father "conquered," it was only by remaining subservient to the bureaucracy that he could reign. Repeat for every new conqueror, for every new revolutionary. Military might can get you most of the power, but not all.

And for all that time, if a Chinese person passed the civil service exam, no matter who you were, you became part of that bureaucracy, and from there you wielded power. Education could get you power, but not all the power.

Power is power. You can buy power with money, you can conquer power with armed forces, you can gain rank with education. But these are just effective but limited tools that hide the reality.

200.webp

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Under 35. Going to be really difficult for bad actors to prop it up unless they just take it private.

Sitting at a shade under $34. Down 9.5% for the day.

It's only going to get worse.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

oots0657.thumb.gif.2b20b7c6aa48dd679712c0a14b08132c.gif

it's surprising how impactful a comic with stick figures and obscure D&D rules can be, dramatically, when well-written

if you're in a hurry, start from the third row

Edited by Rimbo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, C-Man said:

I have all the respect for you, TwiceHorn and all the real lawdogs on this site. I think what has become painfully obvious to many of us non-attorneys is that while this is apparently following the law for the most part -- Cannon's fuckery aside -- but I think what's been illuminated is that this country's justice system is set up in a way that it plays right into the hands of the wealthy. The scales of justice are tilted toward the haves rather than the have-nots. This stands to reason because the system was set up -- and tweaked over the years -- by this wealthy, ruling class for the most part. Of course the rules will favor this sector of the public.

These cases against Trump are the highest-profile cases this country has ever seen. Period. There is a massive spotlight being shined on the system and it's forced many of us who don't live it day-after-day like y'all to take a 30,000-foot view and say, "Hey, this system fucking sucks in many ways." Hopefully, we will ultimately get where we need to get. Anything short of Trump convicted and in financial ruins is a loss for this country and the judicial system.

I think @Gatorubet had an excellent post above, the wealthy have every advantage in our society, the legal system being just one of hundreds of examples. Any real fix will require an agreement among our people that maybe, just maybe, we can better regulate our form of capitalism. But 75% of our population would write you off as a dreaded "socialist." As a very narrow example, public defenders are criminally underpaid, so really promising lawyers rarely take those jobs, and the ones that do are way overworked with too many files. The solution is to hire a ton more public defenders and to pay them well. That requires more tax revenue. Guess what happens when someone dares suggest raising the marginal tax rate from 36% to maybe 39%, or somewhere above 40%, even though it would still be far less than the 90% rate during our countries most prosperous era? Especially when the pitch is to help poor people (you know lazy minorities who refuse to lift themselves up from their bootstraps and whatnot)? SOCIALIST! SOCIALIST! WOKE SOCIALIST! That's the country we live in today. There is no solutions that I can see ever getting any traction. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...