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


Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He's pushing 80. How many big fat 80 year-old people do you know? He's on the clock. 

His parents lived to 93 and 88, when medical technology was not where it is today.  We are stuck in the living world with this piece of shit for at least 10 more years.

Posted
2 hours ago, The Royal We said:

Why would he have any reason to believe such a virtuous and honest man like Dotard would mislead him about such a thing!?

He didn't that's why Christina Bobb signed the attestation. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Funny that Corcoran would say such things to limit the legal exposure of Corcoran. 

Actually, what Corcoran apparently did was dictate 50 pages worth of notes over the entire MAL episode, detailing things like Trump's facial expression.  I think moreso than his testimony, these notes were delivered up to the prosecution as a result of the crime-fraud penetration of the privilege.

Corcoran and the government both were told in no uncertain terms that the "storage room" was the only place such presidential records were kept.

Apparently Habba is on the shit list because she swore up and down in the NY AG civil case that all of Trump's premises had been thoroughly searched and no one ever noticed any classified documents.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

that awkward moment when you remember the moment you "declassified the documents" by thinking it silently in your mind, but actually said the "mind thinking" part out loud.  Into a recording device.  That the Feds have.  Regarding the second hottest region on the planet right now in terms of warfare.  

Holy shit.  This is a fucking simulation.  Best thing I can make up is a Taliban Office Space parody, the rest of this is just fucking insanity.  I think up bizarre, impossibly scenarios to derisk for a living and I couldn't invent this shit if you gave me a pound of Junior's coke and 60 days in Bali.  We're not even to the indictment phase yet and this shit is beyond the pale even for Trump.  

Wish we could get the non-CR's to explain this to me.  

Posted

They have him dead to rights on this. Does it really matter what he said two years ago about whatever crazy shit he believes he can and can't do? 

Posted
32 minutes ago, Red Five said:

They have him dead to rights on this. Does it really matter what he said two years ago about whatever crazy shit he believes he can and can't do? 

Idk, but twicehorn is the guy I go to if I want to hear about how the justice system will disappoint us 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
  • Drool 1
Posted

to be fair to twicehorn, he would have a point that releasing such damming stuff like this would certainly taint a jury pool that's already gonna be a huge pain in the ass to summon and charge without prejudice as it stands now.  

I mean, the voir dire is gonna read like a fucking Christopher Guest mockumentary at this point.

Defense attorney, "Have you any advanced knowledge of this case against President Trump?"

Juror #7, "Well I heard a tape of his on the news about these documents we're hear for in this courtroom today."

Defense attorney, "But you have no personal bias one way or the other and did not vote in any Presidential elections since 1996.  Correct?"

Juror #7, "No, I'm apolitical.  It's just that....I mean.....he literally said he took the documents, he knew he shouldn't, he kept them hidden, told people he couldn't share them because of their classification level, and they were about sensitive military operations that put U.S. service members lives at risk and as a veteran myself, I found that disturbing."

Defense attorney, "But not as disturbing as Hunter Biden's laptop.....ISN'T THAT TRUE SIR?!?!?!"  

This whole thing really is gonna come down to calendars.  Watch.

  • Haha 2
Posted

It's sort of surprising he didn't issue an executive order to have Carl's Jr take over the cafeterias at all Federal Prisons while he had the chance.  

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Idk, but twicehorn is the guy I go to if I want to hear about how the justice system will disappoint us 

All along, I've been telling you how you meticulously prepare a case to nail a defendant.  I'm not sure how they found this or when, but this case is going to be more airtight than Stormy Daniels in a BBC gangbang.

You do not seize the document with a search warrant, indict, and go into court telling a jury "he had the documents and he's not a good-faith actor" so you must convict.  You do your goddamndest to foreclose any defense the POS might offer and a gullible jury might bite on.

At this point, though, Smith may just be gilding the lily.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Haha 3
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

It’ll be a very quick trial

 

what does the DoJ plea deal look like ?

Standard DOJ guidelines for a plea is that it must be to the "highest" (worst statutory penalty) offense in the indictment absent extraordinary circumstances (like a ruling of inadmissibility of a key piece of evidence).  So, you can likely bet on that.

Some details that are subject to negotiation might be aspects of sentencing, as in what guideline factors the government will or won't argue or will agree don't apply, or, the applicable sentencing range, or, in a somewhat extraordinary case, the actual sentence.

54 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I fully expect the DOJ to schedule a trial for this in January of 2025

Judges set trial dates, not DOJ.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

she swore up and down in the NY AG civil case that all of Trump's premises had been thoroughly searched and no one ever noticed any classified documents.

spacer.png

I never specified that the thorough search was for classified documents. I just said it was a thorough search. So I feel pretty safe here. After all, I am a lawyer. The search was actually for a ketchup packet that President Trump mislaid. And it's true that no one noticed any classified documents or a gold bar with the imprint of the House of Saud.

 

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted

Maybe I'm just numb, but why is this worse than any of the other 9000000000 things he's been "caught" doing?  I won't believe anything will come of this until that motherfucker is swinging from a rope or behind bars.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Maybe I'm just numb, but why is this worse than any of the other 9000000000 things he's been "caught" doing?  I won't believe anything will come of this until that motherfucker is swinging from a rope or behind bars.

Because they have the EVIDENCE.

Your belief that he's guilty of innumerable crimes doesn't count for shit in a court of law.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because they have the EVIDENCE.

Your belief that he's guilty of innumerable crimes doesn't count for shit in a court of law.

We have EVIDENCE of him on a recorded call to the Georgia Sec of State telling him to commit election fraud too.  I know that is still ongoing, but that seems like more of a slam dunk to me than this.

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

We have EVIDENCE of him on a recorded call to the Georgia Sec of State telling him to commit election fraud too.  I know that is still ongoing, but that seems like more of a slam dunk to me than this.

No way. The people on a jury can still subjectively decide that wasn’t tampering. It’s just how he talks. In This recording he admits that he knew he had documents, he admits he knew they weren’t declassified. He directly contradicts his own sworn statements. 

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Standard DOJ guidelines for a plea is that it must be to the "highest" (worst statutory penalty) offense in the indictment absent extraordinary circumstances (like a ruling of inadmissibility of a key piece of evidence).  So, you can likely bet on that.

Some details that are subject to negotiation might be aspects of sentencing, as in what guideline factors the government will or won't argue or will agree don't apply, or, the applicable sentencing range, or, in a somewhat extraordinary case, the actual sentence.

Judges set trial dates, not DOJ.

And what is a reasonable expectation of a trial date after an indictment? How Lu b time will they need to mount a defense? I’m guessing it’s going to get damn close to Nov 2024.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Because they have the EVIDENCE.

Your belief that he's guilty of innumerable crimes doesn't count for shit in a court of law.

smokey-and.gif
 

smokey-and-the-bandit-comedy.gif

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 8
Posted
13 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

We have EVIDENCE of him on a recorded call to the Georgia Sec of State telling him to commit election fraud too.  I know that is still ongoing, but that seems like more of a slam dunk to me than this.

No, you don't.  You have evidence from which you can infer that he wanted the SecState to commit election fraud.  But you don't have him saying "commit election fraud."

And that's important, because Trump would argue that when he wanted to Raffensberger to "find" another 11,000 votes, he was referring to votes that he believed had been undercounted due to technical failures with Dominion's machines, or Democratic shenanigans in Fulton County, or Jewish space lasers.  Whatever.  To conclude that Trump was telling the Georgia SecState, you have to disbelieve what Trump says and make an inference.

Here, all you have to do is believe what Trump says.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

We have EVIDENCE of him on a recorded call to the Georgia Sec of State telling him to commit election fraud too.  I know that is still ongoing, but that seems like more of a slam dunk to me than this.

It's not.

We'll see what evidence Fani Willis develops to support the inference that it was something malignant or malicious and we still have no idea really what crimes he might have committed, but I guess we'll find out.

It is somewhat alarming that there seem to be more leaks out of Smith's investigation than out of Willis'.  As badly as we want information about the cases, leaks are not good, and could even jeopardize the cases.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

No, you don't.  You have evidence from which you can infer that he wanted the SecState to commit election fraud.  But you don't have him saying "commit election fraud."

And that's important, because Trump would argue that when he wanted to Raffensberger to "find" another 11,000 votes, he was referring to votes that he believed had been undercounted due to technical failures with Dominion's machines, or Democratic shenanigans in Fulton County, or Jewish space lasers.  Whatever.  To conclude that Trump was telling the Georgia SecState, you have to disbelieve what Trump says and make an inference.

Here, all you have to do is believe what Trump says.

Or even give the fat piece of shit the benefit of the doubt.

What's wild to me, though, is how his attorneys intend to defend him without him taking the stand and spinning some bullshit like the above.  I guess they just make the argument in closing:  "The state proved to you that Donald Trump asked him to find 11,000 votes, but they didn't tell you or give you any evidence to figure out what he meant by "find."  Finding votes is not against the law; you won't be instructed that to find votes is illegal."

Posted

Those of you who are lawyers have reasons for not wanting (or if you're a prosecutor, wanting) a defendant to take the stand.

Which of those reasons apply to Trump here, assuming competent attorneys work for him?

Posted
2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Get a rope ready …

 

EVERYONE WHO HEARD THE TAPES SAID IT WAS A "PERFECT MEETING!" WHAT ABOUT HUNTER AND THE "LAPTOP FROM HELL" WHILE YOUR FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS PERSECUTED? GREATEST WITCH HUNT IN HISTORY!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

EVERYONE WHO HEARD THE TAPES SAID IT WAS A "PERFECT MEETING!" WHAT ABOUT HUNTER AND THE "LAPTOP FROM HELL" WHILE YOUR FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS PERSECUTED? GREATEST WITCH HUNT IN HISTORY!

That will definitely be happening. 

  • Haha 2
Posted

Yes, I think I get the (almost night and day) standards of state and fed cases. Or maybe I don't. It does seem odd how every other semi-plausible possible explanation must be eliminated when it comes to Trump but Crystal Mason gets 5 years for acting on the advice of an election worker.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Yes, I think I get the (almost night and day) standards of state and fed cases. Or maybe I don't. It does seem odd how every other semi-plausible possible explanation must be eliminated when it comes to Trump but Crystal Mason gets 5 years for acting on the advice of an election worker.

The Crystal Mason case is a very bad analogy. 

It's a very simple statute:

A person commits an offense if the person:

(1)

votes or attempts to vote in an election in which the person knows the person is not eligible to vote;

Granted, there is a state of mind in that one must knowingly vote (it wasn't some kind of accident) and know they aren't eligible to vote.

You can question the bringing of the case under the circumstances, and the sentence in the case at the statutory maximum, and you can question the jury's conclusion that she knew she was ineligible to vote.

But it's a simple case to attempt to prove.  There's no subtlety to it at all.  The feds, however, probably would not have brought that case if they didn't have some fairly solid proof from which the jury could infer that she knew she couldn't vote and did it anyway.  The mixed state of information delivered to Mason by various players probably should have created a reasonable doubt as to her guilt and the feds would have recognized that and not brought the case.

And, in fact, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, no friend of defendants, has held that her conviction must be reexamined because the state must prove that she KNEW she was ineligible.  This is a result the feds want to avoid at all cost, so they are rooting all around for evidence of Trump's intent.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

votes or attempts to vote in an election in which the person knows the person is not eligible to vote;

Asking an election worker for assistance when trying to vote and acting upon that election workers' advice doesn't clear Mason of the Trump Every Semi-Plausible Possible Explanation Before Prosecution bar?

Really?



×
×
  • Create New...