Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I regret the misogyny, but it seems we have a whole new batch of synonyms for cunt:  Hawley, Cruz, Comer, Jordan.  The GQP is certainly expanding the vocabulary.

On one thread I decry wanton cruelty in prisons then I read about these monsters and can't imagine, in my wrathful being, a cruelty I don't want visited upon them. 

I wouldn't have these terrible things done to them, but I can't deny the existence of those dark desires. They are threats to the underpinnings of everything I value.

No rope for Josh if he were drowning.

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

14 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

So judges can just throw out charges? Then what use is the grand jury?

Yes.  To indict.

If the indictment doesn't meet the the law's requirements, the judge can (and should) dismiss it.  Here, that means they'd need to go back to that grand jury (if they haven't already been dismissed) or empanel a new one to issue a new indictment.  

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

14 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

So judges can just throw out charges? Then what use is the grand jury?

You mean people who have thoroughly studied the Constitution can protect a defendant’s rights?

Then why do we have prosecutors?

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes.  To indict.

If the indictment doesn't meet the the law's requirements, the judge can (and should) dismiss it.  Here, that means they'd need to go back to that grand jury (if they haven't already been dismissed) or empanel a new one to issue a new indictment.  

i didn't realize there was an opportunity to do this before the trial started. thanks for the learnin'

2 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

You mean people who have thoroughly studied the Constitution can protect a defendant’s rights?

Then why do we have prosecutors?

that wasn't my question, but you do you.

1 minute ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

yes, if -- for instance -- defendants claimed the indictment didn't give proper notice of the charged conduct for those offenses. Not sure how it went down here 

guess I sorta assumed all the t's had been crossed and i's dotted in this instance considering who the defendant was

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

9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

So judges can just throw out charges? Then what use is the grand jury?

Yes, judges can dismiss entire indictments.  In theory, a grand jury is a firewall against spurious charges, but their only standard is "probable cause that an offense was committed," which is very low.

The standard for dismissing charges or an entire indictment is something like the facts alleged by the indictment do not support or evidence the commission of a criminal offense.

Haven't read the order, but seems the allegations of solicitation were skimpy on the facts of exactly how the officials in question were to have violated their oaths of office.

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

9 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

i didn't realize there was an opportunity to do this before the trial started. thanks for the learnin'

that wasn't my question, but you do you.

guess I sorta assumed all the t's had been crossed and i's dotted in this instance considering who the defendant was

There are lots of opportunities for pretrial motions in both criminal and civil proceedings.  If you watch "Law & Order" the defense lawyer always dramatically hands a blue packet of papers to the prosecutor and says, "motion to dismiss" or "motion to suppress", etc., with an argument that charges should be dismissed for one or another reason (such as an insufficiently detailed indictment or information, or that evidence a confession should be suppressed or excluded).

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, judges can dismiss entire indictments.  In theory, a grand jury is a firewall against spurious charges, but their only standard is "probable cause that an offense was committed," which is very low.

The standard for dismissing charges or an entire indictment is something like the facts alleged by the indictment do not support or evidence the commission of a criminal offense.

Haven't read the order, but seems the allegations of solicitation were skimpy on the facts of exactly how the officials in question were to have violated their oaths of office.

so is this an instance where the prosecution wanted to levy as many charges as possible and see what sticks? would it have not been better to just focus on the low-hanging fruit? was this a mistake? oversight? oopsie? how big of a deal is this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so is this an instance where the prosecution wanted to levy as many charges as possible and see what sticks?

Hard to say.  Possibly but more likely they thought the indictment they presented met the legal requirements, and the judge simply disagreed.

Quote

would it have not been better to just focus on the low-hanging fruit?

Again, hard to say.  It all would depend on what they chose to present to the jury.  Having it dismissed before the trial potentially limits the evidence that the prosecutors can present (if, for example, the alleged conduct supporting those charges doesn't relate to the remaining charges), but the jury never hears about those charges and so if the other charges that remain are strong they could convict on those (and then sentencing would be based on the remaining charges).  For sentencing purposes it wouldn't really matter unless the jury or court (whoever is doing the sentencing in GA state court) decides to impose sentences of consecutive jail time versus concurrent.

Quote

was this a mistake? oversight? oopsie? how big of a deal is this?

Again, hard to say on all of this.  I don't know what the remaining charges are and what the potential sentences are for them.  It might be a big nothingburger or it could be significant.

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

4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

guess I sorta assumed all the t's had been crossed and i's dotted in this instance considering who the defendant was

That’s what happens with mob justice/partisan lawfare in a rush to convict a political candidate. The thirst for blood supplants any consideration of the victim’s Constitutional rights, let alone whether he/she is guilty, let alone if any crime was actually committed.

If Nathan Wade and Fani Willis’ conduct and lies in affidavits and interrogatories (civil and criminal), abuse of IOLTAs, and undisclosed trips to the White House as revealed in the past three weeks should have resonated quite loudly, these ignorant and arrogant oafs are political pawns of Biden’s White House and Jeff DeSantis.

The White House puppet masters are well aware this case is doomed on appeal as a violation of the defendant’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The goal is simply to get media coverage from the indictments, a six-week show trial during the campaign, a conviction by a partisan jury, and the opportunity for pundits to ask out loud if Trump will be watching election returns from jail.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

That’s what happens with mob justice/partisan lawfare in a rush to convict a political candidate. The thirst for blood supplants any consideration of the victim’s Constitutional rights, let alone whether he/she is guilty, let alone if any crime was actually committed.

If Nathan Wade and Fani Willis’ conduct and lies in affidavits and interrogatories (civil and criminal), abuse of IOLTAs, and undisclosed trips to the White House as revealed in the past three weeks should have resonated quite loudly, these ignorant and arrogant oafs are political pawns of Biden’s White House and Jeff DeSantis.

The White House puppet masters are well aware this case is doomed on appeal as a violation of the defendant’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The goal is simply to get media coverage from the indictments, a six-week show trial during the campaign, a conviction by a partisan jury, and the opportunity for pundits to ask out loud if Trump will be watching election returns from jail.

 

 

tumblr_nt2xvhzuUb1uckizbo1_400.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

That’s what happens with mob justice/partisan lawfare in a rush to convict a political candidate. The thirst for blood supplants any consideration of the victim’s Constitutional rights, let alone whether he/she is guilty, let alone if any crime was actually committed.

If Nathan Wade and Fani Willis’ conduct and lies in affidavits and interrogatories (civil and criminal), abuse of IOLTAs, and undisclosed trips to the White House as revealed in the past three weeks should have resonated quite loudly, these ignorant and arrogant oafs are political pawns of Biden’s White House and Jeff DeSantis.

The White House puppet masters are well aware this case is doomed on appeal as a violation of the defendant’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The goal is simply to get media coverage from the indictments, a six-week show trial during the campaign, a conviction by a partisan jury, and the opportunity for pundits to ask out loud if Trump will be watching election returns from jail.

 

 

hilarious

thanks for the laugh

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

That’s what happens with mob justice/partisan lawfare in a rush to convict a political candidate.

 

 

If this is a rush, I don't want to see what it looks like when they take their damn time. January 6th was three damn years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so is this an instance where the prosecution wanted to levy as many charges as possible and see what sticks? would it have not been better to just focus on the low-hanging fruit? was this a mistake? oversight? oopsie? how big of a deal is this?

As I said, haven't read the order.  These are what I would think to be rather core charges, including that Trump and Meadows solicited/importuned Raffensberger to violate his oath of office by finding 11,000 votes.  That appears to be count 28 of the indictment, which can be found here at page 87.

The allegations are pretty robust, factually, except in one respect:  how the conduct violates the oath of office.  f The oath of office for Raffensperger can be found here, around page 30.  It requires that he swear to uphold the Constitutions of the US and of Georgia, but curiously not the laws of either.

So, it would appear the charges needed some nod to how asking Raffensperger to fine 11,000 votes violates his oath of office.  Which I suppose would include upholding the constitution's equal protection clause guarantee of the franchise and any such parallel provision of the Georgia constitution, which might include Art II, Section I.

So, they needed something like this:  solicited the Secretary of State to violate his oath of office by "finding" 11,000 presumably fictitious votes, thus disenfranchising Georgia voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution and similar provisions of Article II of the constitution of the State of Georgia, which the Secretary swore to uphold in his oath of office.

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

7 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I see GRUHorn has ventured out of the fanni Willis thread to spew his brand of Russian propaganda elsewhere. It was only a matter of time. 

Is GRUHorn?  I have found the use of "IOLTA," which is afaik a uniquely Texas term describing lawyer trust accounts, to indicate more than a passing familiarity with lawdogdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is GRUHorn?  I have found the use of "IOLTA," which is afaik a uniquely Texas term describing lawyer trust accounts, to indicate more than a passing familiarity with lawdogdom.

Fits all the hallmarks. Beard IP seems like Christy. Start date was Feb 23 so not a long time poster but someone who came here with plenty of familiarity upon registering to come straight here to the CR and start spouting shit. 

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

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Fits all the hallmarks. Beard IP seems like Christy. Start date was Feb 23 so not a long time poster but someone who came here with plenty of familiarity upon registering to come straight here to the CR and start spouting shit. 

If you read it as Bear Dip it is clear that it is indeed Monkey Vape, Donkey Cigar, Turkey Chew, (I think there was another animal / tobacco but I can't be assed to remember). To his partial credit, he isn't trying hard to disguise himself. 

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

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is GRUHorn?  I have found the use of "IOLTA," which is afaik a uniquely Texas term describing lawyer trust accounts, to indicate more than a passing familiarity with lawdogdom.

IOLTA is not uniquely a Texas term.  I actually did some work for the NAIP (National Association of IOLTA Programs) when I practiced in Florida many years ago (although to be fair in FL it's referred to as IOTA).

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

Yeah, I was gonna say.  Anecdotal, but some legal work I did in NY, PA, and IL...they all used that term "IOLTA"   It's actually more of a banking term in many senses, but certainly not unique to Texas.  Could be a community property state versus non-community property.  People forget the legacy of Spanish law on everything from our titling to water to banking.  Then you got the fucking Napoleonic shit in Louisiana.  Don't get me sharted on Hawaii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reality Check said:

That’s what happens with mob justice/partisan lawfare in a rush to convict a political candidate. The thirst for blood supplants any consideration of the victim’s Constitutional rights, let alone whether he/she is guilty, let alone if any crime was actually committed.

If Nathan Wade and Fani Willis’ conduct and lies in affidavits and interrogatories (civil and criminal), abuse of IOLTAs, and undisclosed trips to the White House as revealed in the past three weeks should have resonated quite loudly, these ignorant and arrogant oafs are political pawns of Biden’s White House and Jeff DeSantis.

The White House puppet masters are well aware this case is doomed on appeal as a violation of the defendant’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The goal is simply to get media coverage from the indictments, a six-week show trial during the campaign, a conviction by a partisan jury, and the opportunity for pundits to ask out loud if Trump will be watching election returns from jail.

 

 

Shouldn’t you be making videos about flat earth or “chemtrails” 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reality Check said:

That’s what happens with mob justice/partisan lawfare in a rush to convict a political candidate. The thirst for blood supplants any consideration of the victim’s Constitutional rights, let alone whether he/she is guilty, let alone if any crime was actually committed.

If Nathan Wade and Fani Willis’ conduct and lies in affidavits and interrogatories (civil and criminal), abuse of IOLTAs, and undisclosed trips to the White House as revealed in the past three weeks should have resonated quite loudly, these ignorant and arrogant oafs are political pawns of Biden’s White House and Jeff DeSantis.

The White House puppet masters are well aware this case is doomed on appeal as a violation of the defendant’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The goal is simply to get media coverage from the indictments, a six-week show trial during the campaign, a conviction by a partisan jury, and the opportunity for pundits to ask out loud if Trump will be watching election returns from jail.

 

 

Go fuck yourself, you worthless cunt. 

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

1 hour ago, Reality Check said:

That’s what happens with mob justice/partisan lawfare in a rush to convict a political candidate. The thirst for blood supplants any consideration of the victim’s Constitutional rights, let alone whether he/she is guilty, let alone if any crime was actually committed.

If Nathan Wade and Fani Willis’ conduct and lies in affidavits and interrogatories (civil and criminal), abuse of IOLTAs, and undisclosed trips to the White House as revealed in the past three weeks should have resonated quite loudly, these ignorant and arrogant oafs are political pawns of Biden’s White House and Jeff DeSantis.

The White House puppet masters are well aware this case is doomed on appeal as a violation of the defendant’s right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The goal is simply to get media coverage from the indictments, a six-week show trial during the campaign, a conviction by a partisan jury, and the opportunity for pundits to ask out loud if Trump will be watching election returns from jail.

 

 

Stupidity Are You Stupid GIF

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

If this is a rush, I don't want to see what it looks like when they take their damn time. January 6th was three damn years ago. 

Interesting that Trump wasn't targeted in any of these four jurisdictions criminally and two jurisdictions civilly until he announced his run for president, isn't it?

  • Fuck You 32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Interesting that Trump wasn't targeted in any of these four jurisdictions criminally and two jurisdictions civilly until he announced his run for president, isn't it?

Not really.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Reality Check said:

Interesting that Trump wasn't targeted in any of these four jurisdictions criminally and two jurisdictions civilly until he announced his run for president, isn't it?

You mean when he announced his run a full two years (Nov 16, 2022) before the actual election? A full eight months earlier than he did in 2016 (Jun 16, 2015) to try and use the "I'm a presidential candidate" excuse as a reason he can't be prosecuted?

Edited by FirstTimeCaller
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...