Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Ya’ll do not credit the grift $ from him running enough. 

 

He loves money, but he's always had money. I think part of him thinks he'll always find a way to make more money. 

Versus a late 70's piece of shit narcisist who's gotten away with everything his entire life without consequences...yeah, I don't think it's a stretch to say he thinks he's a fucking god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

 

I can, and probably have, fapped to this.

If you know, you know.

 

 

That's not just his goal. It's the GOP's goal. They've become a party centered around one man, and they know that they will never win another national election unless they take drastic action. So they're taking drastic action.

He's a sociopathic narcissist who's bedtime reading has been Mein Kampf. If you think it's a stretch to think that once tasking the power of the presidency, a fucking class A narcissist in his waning years wouldn't make the leap to thinking he's rightfully a King, I don't know what to tell you. And at this point, it's hard to know where Trump ends and the GOP begins. They can both want the same thing, they can both be true at the same time. 

59 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

So they weren't actually crimes, then.

Unless you've got evidence to show for these that nobody's ever seen before.

I mean, he did lose the case on rape, no?

This is a bad fucking take, and you're going to get drug for it, justifiably. You should mea culpa now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The guy is saying it's not a crime if it doesn't go to trial.  Please tell me you don't agree.

No, no, TwiceHorn has the right idea.

He's never gotten indicted on criminal charges and gotten away with it.

Yes, it's a crime either way. Obviously.

But "getting away with it" because you were never charged, and "getting away with it" because you beat the rap, are entirely different things.

There's a lot of y'all who are acting like they're the same thing: "Because he has never been charged with his crimes before, he will get away with it now that he has been charged" is such a stupid argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

He's a sociopathic narcissist who's bedtime reading has been Mein Kampf. If you think it's a stretch to think that once tasking the power of the presidency, a fucking class A narcissist in his waning years wouldn't make the leap to thinking he's rightfully a King, I don't know what to tell you. And at this point, it's hard to know where Trump ends and the GOP begins. They can both want the same thing, they can both be true at the same time.

So you basically 100% agree with what I just said, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rimbo said:

No, no, TwiceHorn has the right idea.

He's never gotten indicted on criminal charges and gotten away with it.

Yes, it's a crime either way. Obviously.

But "getting away with it" because you were never charged, and "getting away with it" because you beat the rap, are entirely different things.

There's a lot of y'all who are acting like they're the same thing: "Because he has never been charged with his crimes before, he will get away with it now that he has been charged" is such a stupid argument.

I think the more stupid argument is claiming you have to be charged for a crime to have occurred. But please tell everyone else how they are stupid

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Is this a bit?  

A crime doesn't require indictment to occur.  And, the rape case was civil.  The results do seem to go to the point that he raped her, which is . . . a crime.

 

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Are you really this fucking dumb? 

 

46 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The guy is saying it's not a crime if it doesn't go to trial.  Please tell me you don't agree.

 

6 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Stupid post is stupid

Yep. Neg away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

So you basically 100% agree with what I just said, then?

Or you were basically 100% agreeing with what I initially said, but you just chose to agree with me in a way that sounded like you were completely disagreeing with me? Ok then.

Did you hit your head or put on your Anastasis hat this morning?

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I think the more stupid argument is claiming you have to be charged for a crime to have occurred. But please tell everyone else how they are stupid

yeah, that was more stupid

but that doesn't make the other argument any less idiotic just because I said something even dumber 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The guy is saying it's not a crime if it doesn't go to trial.  Please tell me you don't agree.

I do agree, with you.   The original premise was that Trump was some kind of court wizard, which is patently untrue.

That evolved or devolved into whether he gets away with crimes, and with respect to uncharged crimes that is certainly true.  We shall see about the charged ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Well, tax evasion, fraud, and rape to name three.  Just because he has not been charged does not mean the crimes weren't committed.

Tax evasion was LABORIOUSLY laid out in a massive New York Times article. That alone should have spurred action by someone. I still don’t get why it didn’t. 

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

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Or you were basically 100% agreeing with what I initially said, but you just chose to agree with me in a way that sounded like you were completely disagreeing with me? Ok then.

Did you hit your head or put on your Anastasis hat this morning?

I literally can't find the thing I said in that block of text that you're disagreeing with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ.  @wildcat09 said, and I quote:

Quote

He’s actually been getting away with crimes his entire life.

He didn't imply that Trump had ever beaten the rap in criminal court.  He was clearly saying that Trump has committed many crimes over the years and has never gotten punished for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I literally can't find the thing I said in that block of text that you're disagreeing with.

Yeah, I missed the "Not" part of "not just his goal" in your ealrier post. I erad it as "THat's not what Trump wants, it's what the GOP wants." I was like WTF?

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

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Tax evasion was LABORIOUSLY laid out in a massive New York Times article. That alone should have spurred action by someone. I still don’t get why it didn’t. 

The one time I dealt with Federal law enforcement I was gobsmacked that they ration their efforts because essentially there is more crime than they can prosecute given their resources.   We had evidence of a crime committed by an employee giftwrapped in a nice little bow.  I remember being in a meeting with our outside counsel and Southern District Attorney and they basically turned us down cold.  "This is Miami, I don't have time for anything under $10million dollars."  She went on to say that the case was clear but difficult to convey to a jury and that it would take too much of their time for too small of a result"   She suggested trying to get the FBI interested in ecommerce aspect of the case.

tl/dr

  • Crime it up In Miami/Southern District
  • Keep it under $10mil
  • Make it too complex for a jury to understand easily
  • Profit

 

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

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah, I missed the "Not" part of "not just his goal" in your ealrier post. I erad it as "THat's not what Trump wants, it's what the GOP wants." I was like WTF?

Given the sloppiness in my posts thus far this morning, highly understandable.

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

13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Tax evasion was LABORIOUSLY laid out in a massive New York Times article. That alone should have spurred action by someone. I still don’t get why it didn’t. 

That particular tax evasion happened more than 20 years ago and limitations had expired.

Another example of NY County DA and USAO SD NY laying off the sack of shit.

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

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Jesus Christ.  @wildcat09 said, and I quote:

He didn't imply that Trump had ever beaten the rap in criminal court.  He was clearly saying that Trump has committed many crimes over the years and has never gotten punished for them.

Yeah, but it's not the same thing. Evading charges, and beating them after indictment, are entirely different animals.

Especially when the indictment comes from the federal government, notoriously conservative in what charges they levy, to keep that 99% conviction rate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, locodos said:

The one time I dealt with Federal law enforcement I was gobsmacked that they ration their efforts because essentially there is more crime than they can prosecute given their resources.   We had evidence of a crime committed by an employee giftwrapped in a nice little bow.  I remember being in a meeting with our outside counsel and Southern District Attorney and they basically turned us down cold.  "This is Miami, I don't have time for anything under $10million dollars."  She went on to say that the case was clear but difficult to convey to a jury and that it would take too much of their time for too small of a result"   She suggested trying to get the FBI interested in ecommerce aspect of the case.

tl/dr

  • Crime it up In Miami/Southern District
  • Keep it under $10mil
  • Make it too complex for a jury to understand easily
  • Profit

 

I'm curious why you went to SD Fla instead of Dade County?  Did you ever go to Dade County?

The feds really ought not be anyone's first stop for "reporting crimes" unless it's a very federal crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

It is like they are really trying to get the fuck slapped out of them.  What a fucking joke.  Is this enough to hold them in contempt?

Hardly.  

The judge is just going to pick a day, probably Thursday, and say tough shit on both lawyers being present.

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

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Good.

Also, they didn't say anything about Wednesday, so it will probably be Wednesday.

A protective order is really no big deal, just a procedural thing.  They can be modified later if they truly prove to be unworkable for some specific reason, which would place the burden on Trumpco to articulate some specific reason, which might be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That particular tax evasion happened more than 20 years ago and limitations had expired.

Another example of NY County DA and USAO SD NY laying off the sack of shit.

Can I get a tl;dr version of why some things have statute of limitations and some don’t?  Or why some are longer than others?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Can I get a tl;dr version of why some things have statute of limitations and some don’t?  Or why some are longer than others?  

It's not "Statute", okay?  It's "Statue"  !!!

Also, August 15th is first day of school.  So works fine for me for first day of Trump's death trial.  Kids will be in school so I can easily take up a serious heroin/mezcal addiction and be awake in time for bus drop-off.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

It's not "Statute", okay?  It's "Statue"  !!!

Also, August 15th is first day of school.  So works fine for me for first day of Trump's death trial.  Kids will be in school so I can easily take up a serious heroin/mezcal addiction and be awake in time for bus drop-off.  

I knew this was coming 

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

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Can I get a tl;dr version of why some things have statute of limitations and some don’t?  Or why some are longer than others?  

Just about everything has a statute of limitations.  The general, sort of average s/l is five years.

More serious crimes tend to have longer statutes, both because the investigation may take longer and to avoid criminals escaping prosecution.

Notably, rapey crimes and child sexual abuse crimes have been having their statutes of limitation extended, from a more typical five years to 20 or none.  NY extended their rape s/l to 20 years and also, for one year, let people like E. Jean Carroll, bring civil suits in cases where limitations had already expired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just about everything has a statute of limitations.  The general, sort of average s/l is five years.

More serious crimes tend to have longer statutes, both because the investigation may take longer and to avoid criminals escaping prosecution.

Notably, rapey crimes and child sexual abuse crimes have been having their statutes of limitation extended, from a more typical five years to 20 or none.  NY extended their rape s/l to 20 years and also, for one year, let people like E. Jean Carroll, bring civil suits in cases where limitations had already expired.

No SOL on murder, at least not in Texas.

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

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm curious why you went to SD Fla instead of Dade County?  Did you ever go to Dade County?

The feds really ought not be anyone's first stop for "reporting crimes" unless it's a very federal crime.

Oh we went to everybody, started off with the city, then county.  There was an internet aspect to the case and all the local authorities kept pointing us up the ladder.  They were all like "Yeah this is an issue, but we just don't have the resources for that sort of thing."    IIRC the employee stole about $4mil. of inventory/service and sold them on ebay and other online venues.  The only reason they eventually were charged is that one E level exec wanted a scalp and didn't care what it cost.  Hence retaining outside counsel to help shop the case to law enforcement.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statutes of limitations for crimes that wealthy people or members of Congress/state legislatures might get caught committing tend to be shorter than for crimes for which poor and minorities are disproportionately arrested. One guess as to why.

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

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The statutes of limitations for crimes that wealthy people or members of Congress/state legislatures might get caught committing tend to be shorter than for crimes for which poor and minorities are disproportionately arrested. One guess as to why.

This is what I was getting at. It’s fucking horseshit. If anything, white collar crime should never have an expiration.  That shit is so much more evil. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

No, no, TwiceHorn has the right idea.

He's never gotten indicted on criminal charges and gotten away with it.

Yes, it's a crime either way. Obviously.

But "getting away with it" because you were never charged, and "getting away with it" because you beat the rap, are entirely different things.

There's a lot of y'all who are acting like they're the same thing: "Because he has never been charged with his crimes before, he will get away with it now that he has been charged" is such a stupid argument.

Come On Wtf GIF

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't say they were.  Nor did he.

So the sentiment is, "Trump is going to get away with it again, even though this time is clearly different from every time before since he's actually indicted?"

Maybe it's just me, but that somehow makes even less sense.

I mean... neither "it's the same" nor "he always gets away with it even though he has never been indicted before when the government has a 99% conviction rate" make sense to me.

How do either of those make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

So the sentiment is, "Trump is going to get away with it again, even though this time is clearly different from every time before since he's actually indicted?"

Maybe it's just me, but that somehow makes even less sense.

I mean... neither "it's the same" nor "he always gets away with it even though he has never been indicted before when the government has a 99% conviction rate" make sense to me.

How do either of those make sense?

Go home, you're drunk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • blacklab changed the title to 45 indicated


×
×
  • Create New...