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
10 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Weismann on MSNBC with the money observation: Trump has now been indicted for criminal conduct he did prior to being elected, his criminal conduct while he was President, and his criminal conduct after he left office.  

The hitherto unknown POTUS criminal Hat Trick. 

tenor.gif?itemid=5662253&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I just want to say how fucking INSANE it is that we have to sit here and watch people try to justify any of this.

If I were a person on camera on any rational news network, I would not be able to not bury my head in my hands and just scream out, "WHAT THE FUCK ARE WE TALKING ABOUT!?!?!"

The Republican argument is fully irrational, disingenuous, and insane.  The media needs to (and I've been saying this since 2016) call people LIARS and FRAUDS.  We cannot continue down this path of "huh, well, maybe..."  NO!  This is fucking nuts.  Fuck these people.

Mental gymnastics 

Posted

This is probably a real reach, Double Jeopardy wise, but can a criminal law-dawg opine whether the elements of inciting an insurrection and sedition are so significantly different than the current charges - so that after this conviction, Trump could later be charged with his insurrection formenting?

It was entirely correct not to charge Trump with sedition or insurrection, as any charge that bars him from running for POTUS again would be seen as purely vindictive, and for a political purpose….like he bloviates all the time.  So I guess in my fever dream, after a few trials and convictions to show everyone what a piece of shit he is, and after a Democrat is elected in 2024, we do J6 Boogaloo, the revisit. 

It sort of looks like the more serious charges would be precluded, because the elements of his current charges appear pretty much lesser included offenses-ish.    But I don’t know shit about criminal law

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

As much as I'd love it to be Thomas, it most certainly has to be Bannon.

 

 

Bannon needs to remain free so he could grift the MAGAts some more. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


I love Watters question of “how are you gonna prove he knew there was no election fraud?” What. A fucking. Choad. The fucking indictment (and that’s just the indictment, there’s a lot more than that) is page after page of EVIDENCE that Trump 1) knew exactly that, and was told over and over and over again, and 2) he never had any contrary FACTS (that is, facts that actually supported fraud).
Trump had person after person telling him “sir, the moon is not made of cheese. It isn’t. We’ve had astronauts go there, they verify that it’s not made of cheese. There is zero evidence that it is made of cheese.” And Watters is asking “oh yeah, we’ll how can you prove that Trump knew the moon isn’t made of cheese?!?!” I mean, maybe their defense is “everyone knows he’s such a complete fucking moron that he wouldn’t believe water is wet even as he’s drowning in it.” Ok. Cool. Hook ‘em.

I think Smith has secured the cooperation of one or two within Trump’s orbit who will testify to the fact that he privately acknowledged losing the election.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
32 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Weismann on MSNBC with the money observation: Trump has now been indicted for criminal conduct he did prior to being elected, his criminal conduct while he was President, and his criminal conduct after he left office.  

The hitherto unknown POTUS criminal Hat Trick. 

It's a Presidential Switzer Slam!

 

  • Haha 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This is probably a real reach, Double Jeopardy wise, but can a criminal law-dawg opine whether the elements of inciting an insurrection and sedition are so significantly different than the current charges - so that after this conviction, Trump could later be charged with his insurrection formenting?

It was entirely correct not to charge Trump with sedition or insurrection, as any charge that bars him from running for POTUS again would be seen as purely vindictive, and for a political purpose….like he bloviates all the time.  So I guess in my fever dream, after a few trials and convictions to show everyone what a piece of shit he is, and after a Democrat is elected in 2024, we do J6 Boogaloo, the revisit. 

It sort of looks like the more serious charges would be precluded, because the elements of his current charges appear pretty much lesser included offenses-ish.    But I don’t know shit about criminal law

 

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2383 Rebellion or Insurrection

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384 Seditious Conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Insurrection would probably not be charged because there are serious doubts that the statute excludes activity protected by the First Amendment, in a general case, and is thus unconstitutional.

The "by force" part of seditious conspiracy probably excludes Trump unless he gets closely connected to the individuals applying force or attempting to, e.g. Oath Keepers.

Obstruction is a 20 year felony, so "serious" is rather a matter of perspective.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

You know, I think I'd be ok with this sort of justice system if whenever someone was dead to rights on something, they at least got a broadside on the jaw from a waffle iron.  Like, immediately.  Oh, you were caught on camera?  WANG!  

Ok, now go get your trial.  

kabong-el-kabong.gif.feb2f59b346fa56eccf0b443526172da.gif

  • Haha 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So no government entity should be able to punish anyone for anything they say? The first amendment is that broad, is it?

“Like I said to that lady, ‘take off your clothes and don’t make me have to use this pistol.’   It’s my right as an American to have free speech. How dare you,Jack Smith, deprive me of my free speech …you are unethical!”

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


I love Watters question of “how are you gonna prove he knew there was no election fraud?” What. A fucking. Choad. The fucking indictment (and that’s just the indictment, there’s a lot more than that) is page after page of EVIDENCE that Trump 1) knew exactly that, and was told over and over and over again, and 2) he never had any contrary FACTS (that is, facts that actually supported fraud).
Trump had person after person telling him “sir, the moon is not made of cheese. It isn’t. We’ve had astronauts go there, they verify that it’s not made of cheese. There is zero evidence that it is made of cheese.” And Watters is asking “oh yeah, we’ll how can you prove that Trump knew the moon isn’t made of cheese?!?!” I mean, maybe their defense is “everyone knows he’s such a complete fucking moron that he wouldn’t believe water is wet even as he’s drowning in it.” Ok. Cool. Hook ‘em.

  • Trump appeared to privately concede that he lost the election three days before January 6.

  • In a meeting with Gen. Mark Milley, Trump said "it's too late for us" and "we're going to give that to the next guy."

  • According to special counsel Jack Smith's indictment, Trump had been informed that Inauguration Day was fast approaching.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-told-top-military-advisor-232732121.html

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It's a shame that it took the Committee hearings spoon feeding this shit to Garland before he got off his ass and appointed Smith to get after it.

 

Once this is over, if Biden or another D is elected, Garland needs to step down and Smith needs to be AG.

Pffft.

Garland doesn't control Alvin Bragg or Fani Willis, and, looky here, all these indictments are rolling in about the same time.

Maybe, just maybe, it takes some time to put together a criminal case.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 4
Posted
7 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

How will we be able to differentiate his clothes from his skin?

I don’t think federal inmates are allowed to spray-on tan.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
8 hours ago, hornmpa96 said:

I can’t wait for the day when I see Donald Trump making a court appearance in handcuffs and an orange jumpsuit. 

I want to see him wind up like Ohio Republican House Speaker Larry Householder, who was convicted of a $60 Million bribery scheme, and got sentenced to 20 years behind bars.

IMG_6625.thumb.jpeg.16aca46f54bdc5bd859f6b84f5345ad4.jpeg

(If Trump were to win the election, I’d fully expect him to pardon Householder. Not because the two of them are connected at all, just because Trump has a soft spot for Republican corruption. And just to “own the libs.”)

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pffft.

Garland doesn't control Alvin Bragg or Fani Willis, and, looky here, all these indictments are rolling in about the same time.

Maybe, just maybe, it takes some time to put together a criminal case.

Or... he sat on it for over a year. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/report-says-doj-resisted-investigating-trumps-role-in-jan-6-for-over-a-year

Do you believe the states of New York and Georgia have the same level of resources available as the feds?

Your stanning for Garland is annoying.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Pence has stuff to say: 

As Americans, his candidacy means less attention paid to Joe Biden's disastrous economic policies afflicting millions across the United States and to the pattern of corruption with Hunter.
 
Yeah, things are really falling apart economically.  And Hunter's dong.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/02/trump-judge-tanya-chutkan-00109342?nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=0000014e-f0fd-dd93-ad7f-f8fde5bf0000&nlid=630318

 

 

Quote

When Judge Tanya Chutkan presides over the new criminal case against Donald Trump, it won’t be her first time tangling with the former president and his lawyers.

In fact, the U.S. district court judge already dealt the ex-president one of the most significant legal blows of his lifetime, triggering perhaps the greatest deluge of evidence about his bid to subvert the 2020 election — a scheme for which he now stands charged with serious crimes.

 

 

Quote

The Obama-appointed jurist ruled in fall 2021 that the House Jan. 6 select committee could access reams of Trump’s White House files — a ruling that was subsequently upheld by an appeals court and left undisturbed by the Supreme Court. That evidence — call logs, memos, internal strategy papers and more from the desks of Trump’s most trusted advisers — became the backbone of the committee’s evidence and shaped much of the public’s understanding of his effort to seize a second term he didn’t win.

Much of that evidence resurfaced Tuesday in special counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment of Trump, which referenced call logs and White House records that were already familiar to Americans who tracked the Jan. 6 committee proceedings. Chutkan was randomly selected Tuesday to preside over Trump’s latest criminal case, his third in the last four months.

 

 

Quote

“Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President,” Chutkan wrote in her 2-year-old ruling, a rebuke that is sure to echo as she prepares to preside over the newest criminal case against the current GOP frontrunner for the presidential nomination in 2024.

Chutkan, 61, was born in Kingston, Jamaica, and came to the U.S. for college as a teenager, attending George Washington University and then law school at the University of Pennsylvania. She spent more than a decade as a public defender in Washington, D.C. She later worked for the law firm Boies Schiller & Flexner before being confirmed as a federal trial judge in Washington in 2014.

 

Spoiler

Chutkan has avoided some of the most pointed criticisms of Trump that some of her colleagues on the federal bench in D.C. have delivered as they’ve sentenced defendants who participated in the Jan. 6 mob that attacked the Capitol as part of Trump’s bid to remain in power. Judge Reggie Walton has called Trump a “charlatan.” Judge Amit Mehta has said Jan. 6 defendantswere “pawns” of Trump and his allies. Judge Amy Berman Jackson has chastised Republicans for refusing to level with Trump about the 2020 election.

“It is not patriotism, it is not standing up for America to stand up for one man — who knows full well that he lost — instead of the Constitution he was trying to subvert,” Jackson said at a sentencing last year.

But Chutkan has delivered some of the harshest sentences to Jan. 6 defendants and made her disgust and horror over the attack clear, lamenting the prospect of renewed political violence in 2024 and noting that no one accused of orchestrating the effort to subvert the election had been held accountable.

“You have made a very good point,” she told Jan. 6 rioter Robert Palmer at his December 2021 sentencing, “that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged.”

“The issue of who has or has not been charged is not before me. I don’t have any influence on that,” she said. “I have my opinions, but they are not relevant.”

But Chutkan also said that reality wasn’t a reason to go easy on those who bought into the election lies and acted upon that belief.

“The people who planned this and funded it and encouraged it haven’t been charged, but that’s not a reason for you to get a lower sentence,” she said. “I have to make it clear that the actions you engaged in cannot happen again. Every day we’re hearing about reports of antidemocratic factions of people plotting violence, the potential threat of violence, in 2024.”

Chutkan has alluded more specifically to Trump in other Jan. 6 sentences, including her first — to misdemeanor defendant Carl Mazzocco, who Chutkan said “went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country.”

During those early months of the Jan. 6 investigation, Chutkan also staked out territory that some of her colleagues were reluctant to tread: She pointedly rejected the equivalence some defendants were drawing between violence adjacent to Black Lives Matter protests and the riot at the Capitol.

One Trump-appointed judge, Trevor McFadden, had raised sharp questions about whether Jan. 6 defendants were being treated more harshly than people accused of similar conduct during the summertime violence of 2020.

“I think the U.S. attorney would have more credibility if it was even-handed in its concern about riots and mobs in this city,” McFadden said at the time.

Chutkan, while sentencing a defendant in a different case, appeared to allude to her colleague’s remark, before saying she “flatly” disagreed.

“People gathered all over the country last year to protest the violent murder by the police of an unarmed man. Some of those protesters became violent,” Chutkan said of the protests and rioting that followed George Floyd’s death. “But to compare the actions of people protesting, mostly peacefully, for civil rights, to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores a very real danger that the January 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy.”

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
6 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

“Like I said to that lady, ‘take off your clothes and don’t make me have to use this pistol.’   It’s my right as an American to have free speech. How dare you,Jack Smith, deprive me of my free speech …you are unethical!”

I really enjoy informing bank tellers how they can survive the next few minutes. Gotta love Merica. 



×
×
  • Create New...