Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 lol which brainiac attorney authored that? First of all - “justice”? Second, I’ve been a trial attorney for a lot of years and never told a judge, especially in writing, “come on. You’re being unfair”

That email chain gives me hope.  That, indeed, is how the Honorable Rhinestone Cowboy does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This is the type of stuff you would normally read in a pro se  brief from a sovereign citizen

My text messages to friends and family have better grammar and syntax than this official correspondence to a judge while defending a former POTUS. Wild stuff.

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

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Completely disagree. He’s not a mastermind. He just was angrily telling his attorneys what they should say in closing and when he was told “we can’t do that” he threw a fit and tried to do closing himself 

He wanted to testify without being cross examined.  He will not have that opportunity.

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

6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This is the type of stuff you would normally read in a pro se  brief from a sovereign citizen

I would bet every cent I own that Trump wrote or dictated that.  

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

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=_PLUS_cASZsP0hNiBQOHYbw_PLUS_TPQ==&system=prod

The email exchange between Trump's attorneys and the Judge regarding his decision to testify.  Just when you think the simulation is all out of ideas, they come up with this!

 

You get what you don’t pay for(allegedly). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Keef said:

I would bet every cent I own that Trump wrote or dictated that.  

Or - Habba Dabba Do was listening during the blow job - and faithfully acted as scribe to Doddard’s bloviation on the subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Judge wanted no part of Orange glob spewing word salad( drenched in ranch) and accordion hands. 

But he handled it well by telling him he would let him if he agreed to be bound by the rules.  Then, after getting called Judge meanie-pee-pee-doo-doo, he denied the motion.  It was a nice ballet.

 

It's not unike Burns is going to fire Lenny, but he gives Lenny the illusion that he might get his way.

 

 

Edited by dcbc
  • Drool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My text messages to friends and family have better grammar and syntax than this official correspondence to a judge while defending a former POTUS. Wild stuff.

Jesus Christ on a cracker, what kind of broken brained person doesn’t capitalize their correspondence with a judge. Is that by design?

Then several emails into the thread he decides to start?
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BearSchlong said:


Jesus Christ on a cracker, what kind of broken brained person doesn’t capitalize their correspondence with a judge. Is that by design?

Then several emails into the thread he decides to start?

I noticed that.  I assumed that the lower case was from a phone, but still.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I noticed that.  I assumed that the lower case was from a phone, but still.  

Heard a talking head prognisticate that it was a copy/paste job within the emails from things sent to Kise from Trump or other lawyers.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be other indications coming:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-businesses-received-millions-foreign-entities-presidency-house/story?id=106106433

A new report by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee documents more than $7.8 million in payments from at least 20 foreign governments — including China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar — to businesses owned by then-President Donald Trump during two years of his presidential term.

 

  • Prepare your anus 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

There should be other indications coming:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-businesses-received-millions-foreign-entities-presidency-house/story?id=106106433

A new report by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee documents more than $7.8 million in payments from at least 20 foreign governments — including China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar — to businesses owned by then-President Donald Trump during two years of his presidential term.

 

Because Congress has never acted pursuant to the Emoluments Clause, this is neither a crime nor any kind of civil infraction.  The only thing that can be done is sue for an injunction against further violations, if that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Apparently, dotard and his legal team haven't filed a single document of discovery in the documents case.  

Criminal defendants have virtually no discovery obligation.  It's mainly testifying expert discovery.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because Congress has never acted pursuant to the Emoluments Clause, this is neither a crime nor any kind of civil infraction.  The only thing that can be done is sue for an injunction against further violations, if that.

JFC, it's like we want a corrupt piece of shit to run our country.  We sure as hell don't care to hold them accountable. 

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

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

JFC, it's like we want a corrupt piece of shit to run our country.  We sure as hell don't care to hold them accountable. 

Congress has never had any balls when it came to ethics legislation.  Especially one side of the aisle.

But yeah, I have said all along that we don't really have a robust set of laws applying to presidential and other "official" misconduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because Congress has never acted pursuant to the Emoluments Clause, this is neither a crime nor any kind of civil infraction.  The only thing that can be done is sue for an injunction against further violations, if that.

The fuckin constitution has a thing called the "emoluments clause", I would like to think that's in play to enforce some accountability, and that the constitution just a weapon for the far right supreme court to take away more civil rights. 

But this is the 2020s who am I kidding? The worst and most corruption friendly thing possible will continue to happen. 

Edited by Captainant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A new report by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee documents more than $7.8 million in payments from at least 20 foreign governments — including China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar — to businesses owned by then-President Donald Trump during two years of his presidential term.

This sounds really bad, and I hate that I'm saying this, but... meh.  We already know that he kept his businesses, including his hotels, and that foreign diplomats frequently stayed at his DC and NY hotels. 

It's shady, for sure.  I just don't see the breaking news aspect of it.

 

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

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Well, at least the attack ads will be very easy to make for this.

Okay, so I'm sure y'all know that I'm the last person to make excuses for Trump.  And yes, even if you interpret what he said the way I think it was meant to be interpreted, it's still bad because it creates a gray area as to what exactly he is being compensated for (which is why the emoluments clause is absolute -- you don't take anything from a foreign power, period).  BUT, what Trump was saying was that he did not take any foreign money in exchange for some favors as president.  Rather, he is saying that they paid money to businesses, and got real and legitimate value (they got hotel rooms, meals, etc.)  It was an exchange for goods and services that had nothing to do with the office of president.

Again, I'm not saying I BELIEVE him.  And of course, we all know that the choice of the Saudis to book all their rooms at the Trump hotel instead of the W or whatnot was absolutely intended to funnel money to Trump, he knew it, and they WANTED him to know it.  I'm just saying that his statements quoted above aren't QUITE the "smocking gun" that the quote makes out in isolation.

Trump has given us plenty of ammo.  Let's not overextend ourselves.

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

Fuck that, undecided voters are stupid. Run a million commercials showing Republicans bitching about Hunter taking money from China and then show Trump admit he was "doing services" for China and took money for doing so. There's no need to overthink this. Regardless of his explanations, which he'll blubber out like a moron, that will be politically effective with a substantial number of undecided voters.

ETA: Brisket, you're playing the Nancy Pelosi "no we have to wait for the real smoking gun to impeach him for something" game that made it look to most people like everything he did before he tried to extort Zelensky was actually ok. They should attack him on every fucking ground. Make his dumb ass play defense.  

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Fuck that, undecided voters are stupid. Run a million commercials showing Republicans bitching about Hunter taking money from China and then show Trump admit he was "doing services" for China and took money for doing so. There's no need to overthink this. Regardless of his explanations, which he'll blubber out like a moron, that will be politically effective with a substantial number of undecided voters.

ETA: Brisket, you're playing the Nancy Pelosi "no we have to wait for the real smoking gun to impeach him for something" game that made it look to most people like everything he did before he tried to extort Zelensky was actually ok. They should attack him on every fucking ground. Make his dumb ass play defense.  

I'm just saying that the quote from him doesn't give us anything, and creates room to argue.  I suggest sticking with the simple facts: Trump happily accepted millions of dollars from foreign governments while he was president, in plain violation of the Constitution.  The law prohibits that for a very good reason: because that money can be a bribe.  Trump violated the Constitution's prohibition on taking bribes from foreign countries.  Trump is bought and paid for by foreign countries -- he doesn't care about you, or America.  "Trump puts America LAST"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm just saying that the quote from him doesn't give us anything, and creates room to argue.  I suggest sticking with the simple facts: Trump happily accepted millions of dollars from foreign governments while he was president, in plain violation of the Constitution.  The law prohibits that for a very good reason: because that money can be a bribe.  Trump violated the Constitution's prohibition on taking bribes from foreign countries.  Trump is bought and paid for by foreign countries -- he doesn't care about you, or America.  "Trump puts America LAST"

In any other reality there's no need for a court to get involved, the voters would throw him to the trash heap. But this is the darkest timeline, his numbers just get better.

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

Just now, 'stache said:

In any other reality there's no need for a court to get involved, the voters would throw him to the trash heap. But this is the darkest timeline, his numbers just get better.

Because the malfeasance, and him getting away with it, proves how powerful he is, getting one over on "the man."

Remember how much of America (well....non-black America) was shocked when the OJ acquittal verdict was announced, and lots of black people openly celebrated it?  That wasn't because they were happy that OJ killed Nicole and Ron.  They were happy because one of them, a people who had gotten the shitty end of the stick in the justice system over and over and over, got one over on that very justice system.  The fact that everyone knew OJ murdered two people was functionally irrelevant to their thinking; it was all about the fact that in SPITE of the evidence being against him, he beat the system.

For MAGAts, it's similar.  They hate "the system/the deep state."  No, they really don't even know what it is (at least black Americans had a pretty firm grasp on the justice system of the police and the courts, and how they had been fucked by them for a long-ass time).  So, the fact that their guy can openly and blatantly violate laws, rules, and norms, and "the system/the deep state" can't seem to stop him only makes him MORE of their hero.

That is also why it is imperative that the rule of law crush him, and grind him to fucking dust.  Above-board, in the open, and by-the-book.  He's a fucking criminal with contempt for our laws.  Treat him as such, and get the fucking result.

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

Just now, wildcat09 said:

It's a damn shame the trial for the easiest case against him won't start until 2025.

Has Aileen Cannon even gone to work in the past few months?

Well, she's certainly been doing her job.  "Her job" being defined as "make sure Trump doesn't go to trial this year."

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

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Okay, so I'm sure y'all know that I'm the last person to make excuses for Trump.  And yes, even if you interpret what he said the way I think it was meant to be interpreted, it's still bad because it creates a gray area as to what exactly he is being compensated for (which is why the emoluments clause is absolute -- you don't take anything from a foreign power, period).  BUT, what Trump was saying was that he did not take any foreign money in exchange for some favors as president.  Rather, he is saying that they paid money to businesses, and got real and legitimate value (they got hotel rooms, meals, etc.)  It was an exchange for goods and services that had nothing to do with the office of president.

Again, I'm not saying I BELIEVE him.  And of course, we all know that the choice of the Saudis to book all their rooms at the Trump hotel instead of the W or whatnot was absolutely intended to funnel money to Trump, he knew it, and they WANTED him to know it.  I'm just saying that his statements quoted above aren't QUITE the "smocking gun" that the quote makes out in isolation.

Trump has given us plenty of ammo.  Let's not overextend ourselves.

Yeah, it's a little bit inherent to the type of business(es) he owned before the presidency.

Do we go so far as to require divestiture of hospitality or any other business that could be patronized by foreigners or others to curry favor with the administration?

Does it matter if the business is not so obviously owned by POTUS (i.e. not named Trump?).  

And, I suppose at least some of the businesses have a fairly fixed revenue (name license) that isn't wholly dependent on the volume of revenue and patronage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...