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
15 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

You don’t show up in the third quarter of a football game thread commenting on shit from the first quarter because you’re watching the game late on the dvr?

Awkward Season 4 GIF by The Office

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Posted

None of your many lawyers on the call hinted at wrongdoing because they were in fucking shock.

"Did he just instruct the Secretary to find the exact same number of votes as he lost by?"

-Yeah, should we stop him?

"I dunno, I'm kinda dying to see where this goes..." 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)

Not only did he instruct them to falsify the vote count in their state, but he also threatened them with potential bad things happening to them if they didn't. 

He does this bizarre thing, that reminds me of how five year-olds think. He says what he did, and then follows it up with "... and I did absolutely nothing wrong and anyone will tell you that!"

"I went to the guy's house and took out my gun and shot him dead, then I left. And I did absolutely nothing wrong and any lawyer will tell you that!"

Edited by Red Five
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

Guess he got a call from Fani:

 

"STRONGLY FEEL" that's I think all new.  Lawyer talk. 

ETA:  seriously, I don't recall him ever casting "stollen" or "rigged" in the form of an opinion or anything less than unadulterated fact.  I have to guess that his lawyers have told him that it may be to his benefit to be able to recast that as a strongly held opinion, rather than an unsupported fact, or lie.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, mdmost said:

Stollen has to be a bit now or he's f'ed it up so many times that autocorrect doesn't bother. 

This.  I think he really thinks it is spelled this way.

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

"STRONGLY FEEL" that's I think all new.  Lawyer talk. 

ETA:  seriously, I don't recall him ever casting "stollen" or "rigged" in the form of an opinion or anything less than unadulterated fact.  I have to guess that his lawyers have told him that it may be to his benefit to be able to recast that as a strongly held opinion, rather than an unsupported fact, or lie.

If he were a normal client yes, but you're kidding yourself if Trump actually has the ability to take and act upon advice from his attorney.

  • Haha 2
Posted
On 6/29/2023 at 4:35 PM, Dahobbs said:

Well, if I had access to the classified documents, I'm pretty sure I could figure what classified document or documents on war with Iran he was pointing to, not that I think proving the contents of that particular document matters. 

How do you prove it. You showing classified docs in court? Which ones? 

Posted
19 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Then why the fuck bother posting? You don’t show up in the third quarter of a football game thread commenting on shit from the first quarter because you’re watching the game late on the dvr? 

I'm going to do exactly that... And I'm going to drink from your beer the next time I see you. 

You read all of these posts in CR? I mean some of these are a lot of words. 

  • Haha 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, Slacks said:

I'm going to do exactly that... And I'm going to drink from your beer the next time I see you. 

You read all of these posts in CR? I mean some of these are a lot of words. 

Yeah man, I’m a reader. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Slacks said:

How do you prove it. You showing classified docs in court? Which ones? 

1) As stated previously, it doesn't matter for the charges he faces. 

2) I play his audio recording describing the document and then hand the jury the document matching the description. 

I don't know why this is hard for you. Yes, that is proof. The thin veneer of "no, no no, I wasn't really talking about this document that matches up exactly to what I was talking about" isn't going to work. If you think that isn't proof, you're holding the prosecution to a higher burden of proof than the law requires, and you should be disqualified as a juror. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

The double L is a message to JFK Jr….it’s on!

See, in drop 4,329, Q uses the letter "L" 3 times....so, if we look at drop 3, Q uses the letter "L" 5 times.  When you put 2 and 5 together, you get 35.  If you add them together, you get 8.  35-8.  The EXACT score of the game between Palunsky High School and West Otter Fork High School, played exactly ONE week before JFK was assassinated.

It couldn't be any clearer!  Do the research, it's all right there!

  • Haha 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

1) As stated previously, it doesn't matter for the charges he faces. 

2) I play his audio recording describing the document and then hand the jury the document matching the description. 

I don't know why this is hard for you. Yes, that is proof. The thin veneer of "no, no no, I wasn't really talking about this document that matches up exactly to what I was talking about" isn't going to work. If you think that isn't proof, you're holding the prosecution to a higher burden of proof than the law requires, and you should be disqualified as a juror. 

So you're declassifying the document? 

Posted
14 minutes ago, Slacks said:

So you're declassifying the document? 

No. But, honestly, I don't know what the process is for submitting this sort of stuff to the jury. I am however sure there is a way to do it. Again, none of that fucking matters because you don't need to do any of that for the charges he is facing. 

Why are you harping on this stupid point? 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No. But, honestly, I don't know what the process is for submitting this sort of stuff to the jury. I am however sure there is a way to do it. Again, none of that fucking matters because you don't need to do any of that for the charges he is facing. 

Why are you harping on this stupid point? 

I have done a little reading on CIPA procedures.

Some options are:

  • declassify the document and show it to the jury straight up
  • redact the document
  • prepare agreed-upon summaries

And some of this even may apply to defense attorneys depending on the clearance they get and the level of the documents.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

At this point those have to be scrapped anyway right? Who knows how many people have seen them? The military has to assume they are compromised. They probably don’t want to declassify, but you could redact and show them to a jury fairly effectively I would think.

Posted
34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have done a little reading on CIPA procedures.

Some options are:

  • declassify the document and show it to the jury straight up
  • redact the document
  • prepare agreed-upon summaries

And some of this even may apply to defense attorneys depending on the clearance they get and the level of the documents.

If the magats are right, and Biden has completely corrupted every facet of government to suit his evil purposes, the dotard's lawyers would never get security clearance. 

Posted

One of the talking heads said shortly after the charges were posted that the govt likely had a larger selection of docs to choose from and only made charges with the ones in the sweet spot of 1) sufficiently damning and 2) capable of being at least somewhat exposed to the defendant, lawyers and jury. #1 would exclude something trivial like a daily travel schedule and #2 would exclude something like foreign agent identifiers

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

"STRONGLY FEEL" that's I think all new.  Lawyer talk. 

ETA:  seriously, I don't recall him ever casting "stollen" or "rigged" in the form of an opinion or anything less than unadulterated fact.  I have to guess that his lawyers have told him that it may be to his benefit to be able to recast that as a strongly held opinion, rather than an unsupported fact, or lie.

He was probably like, wait, wait, if I just say I feel, I can say all the crazy stuff I was too cautious to say before.

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

1) As stated previously, it doesn't matter for the charges he faces. 

2) I play his audio recording describing the document and then hand the jury the document matching the description. 

I don't know why this is hard for you. Yes, that is proof. The thin veneer of "no, no no, I wasn't really talking about this document that matches up exactly to what I was talking about" isn't going to work. If you think that isn't proof, you're holding the prosecution to a higher burden of proof than the law requires, and you should be disqualified as a juror. 

Plus, it also all can be used to prove intent to retain.  I have to imagine that in cases like this, a prosecutor almost always would have to rely on circumstantial evidence (which is evidence, that's why evidence is in the phrase) to prove intent.  Here, there is quite a bit of direct evidence on that element.  There is no reasonable doubt.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have done a little reading on CIPA procedures.

Some options are:

  • declassify the document and show it to the jury straight up
  • redact the document
  • prepare agreed-upon summaries

And some of this even may apply to defense attorneys depending on the clearance they get and the level of the documents.

Another option, wait for Trump, while on the witness stand (I can dream) unprompted to pull a copy of the document out of his pocket and read it to the jury, closing with "this is my bag, baby."

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Slacks said:

So you're declassifying the document? 

How many times does he have to tell you this?

Quote

Again, none of that fucking matters because you don't need to do any of that for the charges he is facing. 

 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

How many times does he have to tell you this?

 

If it's mentioned in the indictment at all, the bastardized legal word of the day is "surplusage."

Edited by dcbc
Posted
1 hour ago, dcbc said:

If it's mentioned in the indictment at all, the bastardized legal word of the day is "surplusage."

Sounds like we agree the recording is a nothing to the case. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Slacks said:

Sounds like we agree the recording is a nothing to the case. 

No.  Sorry.  It's significant.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Can we move on.  This has to be a bit.  He thinks the case is hinging on proving what trumP is waving around on the tape.  Okay; you got jack Smith dude.  Trump Was jostling about the instructions to the he apprentice board game.  There’s video.  Pack it up; let’s go home.  Cancel the case. 

Posted
He was probably like, wait, wait, if I just say I feel, I can say all the crazy stuff I was too cautious to say before.
Yes, my crazy ex learned that in "therapy." "I feel like I hate your guts; I feel like I'm entitled to not half, but all your shit, I feel like I should get full custody and alimony." it wasn't very effective for her, but we should give dotard a chance here to hone this new measured speach craft. "I feel like I should be allowed to commit murder, rape and treason as often as I want". It just might bring decorum to acceptable levels.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Sounds like we agree the recording is a nothing to the case. 
Stop fucking that chicken. Or start a Slacks wants to keep fucking this Trump Audio Tape that is a bit part of all his admitted crimes chicken thread. Maybe workshop the title though.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
9 hours ago, Slacks said:

Sounds like we agree the recording is a nothing to the case. 

It literally is evidence of his intent. Which is the most difficult thing to prove in a case like this. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/07/01/trump-2020-election-arizona-governor-doug-ducey/

 

Quote

In a phone call in late 2020, President Donald Trump tried to pressure Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R) to overturn the state’s presidential election results, saying that if enough fraudulent votes could be found it would overcome Trump’s narrow loss in Arizona, according to three people familiar with the call.

Trump also repeatedly asked Vice President Mike Pence to call Ducey and prod him to find the evidence to substantiate Trump’s claims of fraud, according to two of these people. Pence called Ducey several times to discuss the election, they said, though he did not follow Trump’s directions to pressure the governor.

 

Quote

The extent of Trump’s efforts to cajole Ducey into helping him stay in power have not before been reported, even as other efforts by Trump’s lawyer and allies to pressure Arizona officials have been made public. Ducey told reporters in December 2020 that he and Trump had spoken, but he declined to disclose the contents of the call then or in the more than two years since. Although he disagreed with Trump about the outcome of the election, Ducey has sought to avoid a public battle with Trump.

 

 

Quote

Ducey described the “pressure” he was under after Trump’s loss to a prominent Republican donor over a meal in Arizona earlier this year, according to the donor, who like others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations. The account was confirmed by others aware of the call. Ducey told the donor he was surprised that special counsel Jack Smith’s team had not inquired about his phone calls with Trump and Pence as part of the Justice Department’s investigation into the former president’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, the donor said.

 

Spoiler

Ducey did not record the call, people familiar with the matter said.

Now out of public office, the former governor declined through a spokesman to answer specific questions about his interactions with Trump and his administration.

“This is neither new nor is it news to anyone following this issue the last two years,” spokesman Daniel Scarpinato said in a statement. “Governor Ducey defended the results of Arizona’s 2020 election, he certified the election, and he made it clear that the certification provided a trigger for credible complaints backed by evidence to be brought forward. None were ever brought forward. The Governor stands by his action to certify the election and considers the issue to be in the rear view mirror.”

A spokesman for Trump declined to respond to questions about the call with Ducey and instead falsely declared in a statement that “the 2020 Presidential election was rigged and stolen.” The spokesman said Trump should be credited for “doing the right thing — working to make sure that all the fraud was investigated and dealt with.”

It is unclear if Ducey has been contacted by Smith’s office since meeting with the donor. Investigators in the special counsel’s office have asked witnesses about Trump’s calls with governors, including the one to Ducey, according to two people familiar with the matter. It is unclear if prosecutors plan to eventually bring charges or how the calls figure into their investigation. Prosecutors have also shown interest in Trump’s efforts to conscript Pence into helping him, according to witnesses and subpoenas previously reviewed by The Washington Post.

Trump phoned the governor’s cellphone on Nov. 30, 2020, as Ducey was in the middle of signing documents certifying President Biden’s win in the state during a live-streamed video ceremony. Trump’s outreach was immediately clear to those watching. They heard “Hail to the Chief” play on the governor’s ringtone. Ducey pulled his phone from out of his suit jacket, muted the incoming call and put his phone aside. On Dec. 2, he told reporters he spoke to the president after the ceremony, but he declined to fully detail the nature of the conversation. Ducey said the president had “an inquisitive mind” but did not ask the governor to withhold his signature certifying the election results.

But four people familiar with the call said Trump spoke specifically about his shortfall of more than 10,000 votes in Arizona and then espoused a range of false claims that would show he overwhelmingly won the election in the state and encouraged Ducey to study them. At the time, Trump’s attorneys and allies spread false claims to explain his loss, including that voters who had died and noncitizens had cast ballots.

After Trump’s call to Ducey, Trump directed Pence, a former governor who had known Ducey for years, to frequently check in with the governor for any progress on uncovering claims of voting improprieties, according to two people with knowledge of the effort.

Pence was expected to report back his findings and was peppered with conspiracy theories from Trump and his team, the person said. Pence did not pressure Ducey, but told him to please call if he found anything because Trump was looking for evidence, according to those familiar with the calls.

A representative for Pence declined to comment.

In each of the calls, Ducey reiterated that officials in the state had searched for alleged widespread illegal activity and followed up on every lead but had not discovered anything that would have changed the outcome of the election results, according to Ducey’s recounting to the donor.

After learning that Ducey was not being supportive of his claims, Trump grew angry and publicly attacked him.

It is unclear if Ducey and Trump had additional conversations. Publicly, the governor said the state’s election systems should be trusted, even as Trump and his allies sought to reverse his loss.

 

In Arizona, Trump and his attorney, Rudy Giuliani, called then Speaker of the House Rusty Bowers (R) on Nov. 22, 2020. They asked the speaker to convene the legislature to investigate their unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud, which included that votes had been cast en masse by undocumented immigrants and in the names of deceased people. Weeks later, on Dec. 31, 2020 the White House switchboard left a message for the chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Clint Hickman, seeking to connect him with Trump. The supervisor, a Republican, did not return the call.

Trump and his allies made similar appeals to officials in Michigan and Georgia. On Jan. 2, 2021, Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) and said he wanted to undo his loss there by finding additional votes. The next night, the White House switchboard left Hickman another voice mail seeking to connect him to Trump. Hickman did not call back.

Investigators with Smith’s office interviewed Raffensperger this week, and they interviewed Giuliani last week. “The appearance was entirely voluntary and conducted in a professional manner,” said Giuliani spokesman Ted Goodman.

More than half a dozen past and current officials in Arizona contacted by Trump or his allies after his defeat have either been interviewed by Smith’s team or have received grand jury subpoenas seeking records,according to four people familiar with the interviews. Those interviewed include Bowers, the former Arizona House speaker, and three current members of the governing board of Maricopa County, the largest voting jurisdiction in the state that affirmed that Biden won.

Spokespeople for Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (D), told The Post this week that their offices have not received correspondence from Smith’s team seeking records about the 2020 election. The Arizona Secretary of State’s office received a grand jury subpoena dated Nov. 22, 2022, that sought information about communications with Trump, his campaign and his representatives, according to an official familiar with the document but not authorized to publicly speak about it.

During his time as governor, Ducey navigated a hot-and-cold relationship with Trump. Ducey, who struck a more conventional approach to governing, was slow to embrace Trump during his first bid for the White House. The two men warmed to each other, and amid the pandemic and Trump’s second bid for the White House, Ducey campaigned for him.

But after Ducey certified Arizona’s election results, affirming the wins of Biden and other Democrats, Trump ridiculed him on social media: “Why is he rushing to put a Democrat in office, especially when so many horrible things concerning voter fraud are being revealed at the hearing going on right now … What is going on with @dougducey?”

That same day, allies of the president gathered in Phoenix to air unproven claims of widespread fraud and claim that state lawmakers could reject the will of voters. Giuliani attended the event, along with Republican lawmakers and activists; Trump dialed in.

The president invoked Ducey repeatedly in the days that followed, according to an archive of his tweets. On Dec. 3, Trump asked if “allowing a strong check of ballots” in Arizona would “be easier on him and the great State of Arizona.” On Dec. 5, Trump wrote that Ducey and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) “fight harder against us than do the Radical Left Dems.”

A week later, Trump attacked the men again, asking “Who is a worse governor?” He labeled them “RINO Republicans” and baselessly claimed that “They allowed states that I won easily to be stolen.”

Ducey, long eyed by national Republicans as a formidable candidate for the U.S. Senate, passed on a 2024 bid after his standing with the Trump base cratered after Trump’s attacks. After leaving office in January, he was a fellow at the Sine Institute of Policy & Politics at American University, where he spoke about the policies he enacted while in office. Earlier this month, Ducey announced that he is leading a free-enterprise focused political action committee, Citizens for Free Enterprise.

 

Posted
55 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

It literally is evidence of his intent. Which is the most difficult thing to prove in a case like this. 

Eggzachary.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/29/2023 at 4:49 PM, TwiceHorn said:

It has been reported that the Iran doc is not among those cited in the indictment and forming the bases of the 793 violations, and that no one can find it.

So, yeah, that tape is not going to help convict him of any single count of the indictment, but it does evidence that he knew he had classified information, knew he shouldn't have it, and didn't give a fuck.  

 

But we don't know what's on the document. We suspect what's on the document, but it's uncertain, so

I don't know.

Third base!

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2


×
×
  • Create New...