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
1 hour ago, TexasHooch said:

 

 

is Chris Hayes having a stroke or am I? That sentence doesn't parse at all!

 

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:


image.jpeg.0e622191d200f51ad28b34fddfa13756.jpeg

 

Not my thing but I’m not going to judge 

would

Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, snippets of investigations, and even jury trials, aren't the best way to inform the public of anything. Actually, maybe one of the worst.  We couldn't have even made the speculation we made without the work of the 1/6 Committee.  Oh, someone probably Pat Cipollone, was called to the grand jury, again  . . . . hmm . . . . interdasting.

Half of the country completely ignored the 1/6 Committee.

Cipollone obviously would have been one of the first witnesses subpoenaed by a grand jury, so I'm not sure why you're giving the J6C credit for unearthing the testimony of a WH counsel. 

Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Half of the country completely ignored the 1/6 Committee.

Cipollone obviously would have been one of the first witnesses subpoenaed by a grand jury, so I'm not sure why you're giving the J6C credit for unearthing the testimony of a WH counsel. 

Well half the country is going to ignore this, too, every fucking bit of it.  

The Committee put the story into a cohesive, pretty comprehensive format that we would have been clueless on until this indictment dropped.  We only understood the dribs and drabs about Smiths investigation that leaked out because of the Committee's work.  

We wouldn't have got the "we'll call you next time there's an oil spill" piece and still wouldn't have it.  

These trials will not be televised.  So, while I am normally skeptical of congressional investigations, I think 1/6 was extremely worthwhile.  And, it did give DOJ a bit of a dramatic dry run on how the story is perceived and where there by tygers and dragons.

Also, I kind of picked Cipollone at random as THE WHC, who was repeatedly called to the grand jury after having Trump's executive privilege claims poured out.  Those are the kind of snippets we got from Smith's "visible" investigation, and without the work of the Committee, we couldn't have made heads or tails of that.

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

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

He'd only get bail pending appeal if the judge thought he was likely to prevail and did not pose a flight risk or danger to the community. I don't think he'd get it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

He'd only get bail pending appeal if the judge thought he was likely to prevail and did not pose a flight risk or danger to the community. I don't think he'd get it. 

Well, the last two are the same as pretrial detention, so they weight up about the same.  It is fairly common for white collar defendants to remain free pending appeal regardless of the likelihood of success.  Holmes I think is a notable exception, but her convictions were straight up wire fraud, nothing kinky like honest services fraud or any of that.  

Posted
12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

It seems to me that arguing Trump's efforts to overturn the election were protected free speech is akin to arguing that armed robbery of a liquor store is legal because the thief held an open carry license.

I'm sorry sir I live in Texas. What is that?

  • Haha 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well half the country is going to ignore this, too, every fucking bit of it. 

Really?  If he's convicted and jailed, they're going to ignore that?

Posted
8 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Really?  If he's convicted and jailed, they're going to ignore that?

he means the trial itself

also, one-third. Not half.

Posted

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, it's worth noting that "a criminal conspiracy carried out on live TV" is some hindsight bias bullshit.  The elector scheme wasn't on TV.  The browbeating of Pence wasn't on live TV.   All the machinations preceding those things weren't on live TV.  And those things are tremendously important. 

Come on, we first heard of the elector scheme from Peter Navarro, confessing bragging in a TV interview; then WaPo found the Ted Cruz tape detailing it.  Pretty sure WaPo was also capable of digging up the story of how Pence was treated, too.  

Posted
2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Come on, we first heard of the elector scheme from Peter Navarro, confessing bragging in a TV interview; then WaPo found the Ted Cruz tape detailing it.  Pretty sure WaPo was also capable of digging up the story of how Pence was treated, too.  

It seems the entire country is almost completely immune to bad behavior at this point.  It's the Stockholm Syndrome writ large on a political level.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

he means the trial itself

 

Everyone knew that there would be no consequences for Trump from the J6C, so most people ignored it.  In a criminal trial, there may be consequences.

The J6C was a pre-season NFL game.  The trial will be a playoff game.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

So Trump said to Pence "You're too honest."  

Can you imagine George Washington or Abe Lincoln or Harry motherfuckin' Truman or Dwight Eisenhower saying those words to ANYBODY?

Bunch of lib cucks compared to the orange emperor God 

Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ha, this flew over my head too.  We all watched it for fuck's sake!

 

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Stephen Colbert No GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert

Yeah, speed typing.  That is a valid reply. 

That said, if you think watching J6 happen on tv gave the evidence sufficient to indict a President, then you might be agreeing with Larry, Darryl and their other brother Darryl. 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the last two are the same as pretrial detention, so they weight up about the same.  It is fairly common for white collar defendants to remain free pending appeal regardless of the likelihood of success.  Holmes I think is a notable exception, but her convictions were straight up wire fraud, nothing kinky like honest services fraud or any of that.  

I'm not so sure white collar status applies here, but maybe that's me.  Leading a criminal conspiracy with the intent of defrauding the US and Civil Rights violations seem to be far more than just run of the mill white collar crime.  I get him being released on OR before trial, especially considering that he is protected by the Secret Service, and in a sense babysat by them (though they can't stop him from publicly sowing more discord).  So yeah, I'm hoping he will be given a detention start date and have to report despite pending appeals.  Personally, I wish he were getting the Stewart Rhodes treatment starting Thursday and that he be remanded (I'd also like to see him sentenced at least as long as Rhodes as well).  That having been said, this is not my field, and even though I'd like that to happen, I don't believe it will.  

Then again, I also take some measure of comfort in the belief that this is the beginning of the charges and not the end, and there will be more; be it in this case or others heading his way.  Far more charges are coming for others, like Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Michael Flynn, etc; and all of them will have one over-riding thing in common, co-defendant and co-conspirator Donald Trump.  

Posted
54 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It seems the entire country is almost completely immune to bad behavior at this point.  It's the Stockholm Syndrome writ large on a political level.

IMG_0165.gif.c564e4b5e917d3f4102935ad19d07f74.gif

  • Haha 5
Posted
3 hours ago, CTC2 said:

 

Gee, that sure does remind me of the 2020 summer of love with federal agents deploying to cities against the wishes of their governor and mayor

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the last two are the same as pretrial detention, so they weight up about the same.  It is fairly common for white collar defendants to remain free pending appeal regardless of the likelihood of success.  Holmes I think is a notable exception, but her convictions were straight up wire fraud, nothing kinky like honest services fraud or any of that.  

I think this judge may take a different view than Cannon. I'm still not quite sure how a wealthy, powerful person who owns a jet, has  property and connections around the world,  and is facing the rest of his life in prison isn't a significant flight risk. 

And I really don't see how he's not a danger to the country until he's locked up. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Thinking about the events all in a big picture from Smith's point of view and wondering did he just checkmate Trump and Cannon on her attempts to stall?

It appears to me everything about the order and timing of this was deliberate. Hit with the documents case first because it would naturally take longer with the classified info involved but also because there was a good chance it would go to Cannon. Knowing full well that Cannon would want to stall Smith asks for a quick trial and says he can do it in 3 weeks from start to finish, fully expecting her to set a late date like May.

He waits until she plays her hand then hits back with this indictment in DC knowing the odds of getting a judge that will want to expedite it are much higher. With no classified info and seemingly tons of physical evidence I'm guessing Smith will push for a Jan 2024 start date and get it. That completely undercuts Cannon and her ability to stall Trump's reckoning in federal court. Smith gets to hit with the clearer and more likely to convict case first taking a ton of piss out of the documents case. 

Just seems like it was timed out intentionally and once again Trump and his cronies got pantsed. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
7 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Really?  If he's convicted and jailed, they're going to ignore that?

Look, my only point is, somewhat to my surprise, I think the 1/6 Committee and its work was valuable.

It would have been hard to have the 1/6 Committee and DOJ doing the same work simultaneously.

Feel free to disagree about the Committee.  But, it happened, and, for the most part DOJ had to stand down while it worked.

The other reality is this:  Even if the indictments came down a year ago, or a year and a half, I don't think it would change that much.  The cases would be on appeal right up until the election and any convictions would not be final.  And I don't think Trump would be in jail pending those appeals.

So, we'd be right about where we are now:  uncertain, and worried that Trump might still win the election.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Satchel said:

One important aspect of Jack Smith’s and Merrill Garland’s work that is often overlooked is how they are establishing a framework for dealing with the criminally wayward in the executive branch who push constitutional boundaries while undermining our democracy. Nothin like this has ever existed before in our history.

They're not really establishing a framework.  That's always been there in the form of the rule of law.

You can argue that applying the rule of law to former POTUS is a new aspect of that framework, given that it hasn't happened before, although it has come right close (Nixon but for the pardon, other high-level executive officials short of POTUS).

Whether it's the right thing to do might well be debated for decades into the future, like the Nixon pardon.

However, I do think the 1/6 prosecution, unlike the others, is pretty important in that constitutional integrity sense you mention.  The rest is just grimy criming.  Nixon was really more or less grimy criming.  I don't think any of the prior crimey presidential scandals have had this dimension to them.  

Posted
5 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I seriously don't understand why Pence is running at all. 

I assume he thinks it's his only shot.

Or, maybe he's just trying to cash out while he still has name-recognition.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Love that the right media is arguing that trump didn’t know what he was doing was illegal, and even trumps lawyer is saying that trump was just following his lawyers’ advice.  They seemed to jump over the fact that they now agree trump broke the law.

  • Like 4
Posted
21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Love that the right media is arguing that trump didn’t know what he was doing was illegal, and even trumps lawyer is saying that trump was just following his lawyers’ advice.  They seemed to jump over the fact that they now agree trump broke the law.

Oh it’s worse than that. They’re going out to the usual outlets claiming that this indictment is an assault on Trump’s free speech rights. And that tracks…if when you’re reading the indictment you shut your eyes when you turn to the…you know, pages. And that’s especially true with page 2 when the indictment specifically concedes the highlighted portion:

IMG_4234.thumb.png.b6207c6869cb361458b5855490b33e6d.png
 

Nowhere in the indictment is it possible to conclude that Smith is attempting to squash free speech. That’s a canard. It’s a straw man of the highest order. So of course they’re going to say that. And what will they not say? Well, you know, the stuff that actually is in the indictment. So they read into the indictment things it does not say, and they don’t read what it actually does say. Shocking, I know.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Oh it’s worse than that. They’re going out to the usual outlets claiming that this indictment is an assault on Trump’s free speech rights. And that tracks…if when you’re reading the indictment you shut your eyes when you turn to the…you know, pages. And that’s especially true with page 2 when the indictment specifically concedes the highlighted portion:

IMG_4234.thumb.png.b6207c6869cb361458b5855490b33e6d.png
 

Nowhere in the indictment is it possible to conclude that Smith is attempting to squash free speech. That’s a canard. It’s a straw man of the highest order. So of course they’re going to say that. And what will they not say? Well, you know, the stuff that actually is in the indictment. So they read into the indictment things it does not say, and they don’t read what it actually does say. Shocking, I know.

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. And if you tell them otherwise, they will not accept your facts.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. And if you tell them otherwise, they will not accept your facts.

It’s just a bunch of fancy lawyer talk for taking away muh rights, and infringing on Trump’s free speech. Why would I need to read it?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Look, my only point is, somewhat to my surprise, I think the 1/6 Committee and its work was valuable.

They presented a coherent and compelling narrative of the conspiracy, who knew what and when they knew it, and the gravity of what happened. 

This issue of conspiracy to overthrow the government and commit treason (lawyers, please keep reading) is not limited to being a legal issue. This treason can be discussed as such by citizens not constrained by the boundaries of what carries enough proof for conviction in court.

If we were limited by the language of the indictment, this whole incident would be reduced the abstract description of the criminal code. Conspircy to obstruct a government proceeding really doesn't cut it for a key term in the public discourse about Trump and his conspirators' wicked and traitorous actions.

The committee told the story of all of this and supported the story with evidence enough to be genuinely credible. I learned so much. I picked up phrases and witness accounts that were entirely new to me. I'm conversant in most of the story because of the committee.

Half didn't watch? Of course not. More than half of them won't be swayed by anything not fed to them by the defendant himself. However, those of the unwatching half who will discuss the incident can be indirectly exposed to the committee's work and swayed by that and the certainty of whomever tries to persuade them.

Informed public discourse is likely as important to a democratic republic as the rule of law. The former drives action; the latter keeps actions between the rails.

9 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Love that the right media is arguing that trump didn’t know what he was doing was illegal, and even trumps lawyer is saying that trump was just following his lawyers’ advice.  They seemed to jump over the fact that they now agree trump broke the law.

Excellent observation.

9 hours ago, ohchaucer said:


The underlying point to all of, well, everything is that nothing matters if Trump is elected in 2024. There is no armchair quarterbacking, hindsight, or prediction about anything at all that even slightly mitigates the fact that Trump will be the GOP candidate and therefore has a chance to become president - no matter what else happens. All the energy spent wondering “what if” should instead be spent laying foundations for an overwhelming voter turnout initiative for the good guys.

Beat him in 2024 is the only sure way to save our country.

I'd say to win a battle in the war to save our country. Remember, the problem is the electorate, a large plurality of which gives this malign bumbler his power.

image.png.5e640fbca3e2da4c6e0c9e82e5ac9dd2.png

It may be obvious or already have been illustrated, but the underlined suggests a great deal about the conspiracy. 

It's unlikely that that's an impromptu remark. It reflects conversations about a plot to invoke the Insurrection Act. This is where the focus and precision of an indictment proves to be of greater advantage than the overall story presented by the committee.

I think in this phrase we have the killing harpoon. The remark reflects discussions. That the speaker is a conspirator suggests this is the conversation had by the members of the conspiracy. A credible witness testifying that such discussions took place with Trump present would be a devastating stroke.

The harpoon would go deep and the prey would squeal and writhe to our delight.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. And if you tell them otherwise, they will not accept your facts.

The exact verbiage of such an exchange reads as follows:

”I believe what I believe because that’s what I believe. I believe that, and I’m not gonna believe what you believe because it’s not what I believe.”

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 2
Posted
7 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I seriously don't understand why Pence is running at all. 

You can make a lot of money with a failed Presidential bid.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted

Looks like I picked the wrong couple days to be away from the interwebs...

I did catch one of Trump's lawyers on CNN talking about the coming trial.  He on live TV said the trail should be moved from DC and one of his reasons given why Trump could get a fairer trail elsewhere was that DC was "very diverse".   Even the CNN talking heads looked a little stunned.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, dcbc said:

You can make a lot of money with a failed Presidential bid.

One of the few industries with even a barely noteworthy candidacy where you can land a multi million dollar book deal and future speaking engagements.  

 

In so far as the 1/6 committee was concerned, in my opinion it was absolutely necessary as a matter of course.  The idea being to show the American people what happened and why.  The problem is, people like us by that point were well aware, and it only reaffirmed our thoughts.  To the other people, they didn't believe it, and they never were going to believe it.  Did it push any in the undecided category to the truth, maybe, but I don't think there are a ton of people like that.  

So I get that it was necessary, but it's certainly frustrating understanding the reality of where we are.  I would have almost rather with skipped the precedent based nature of this and gone straight to charges.  At the same time, I understand we can't look at this entirely in our own horizon, a precedent has to be set for the future.  It's just frustrating.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. .

It's like Smith was prepared for this. Towards the beginning, "Now, of course, the defendant had the right to question the results.... HOWEVER...."

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

It's indicative of how nuts this world has become when I admit that it's taken me until today to realize that that dude is full on parody.

Have you heard about a certain youth coaching legend whose waterbed is fully paid off, and who is driving a fully-loaded Ford Taurus?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Have you heard about a certain youth coaching legend whose waterbed is fully paid off, and who is driving a fully-loaded Ford Taurus?

I have now.  What a world!

Edited by dcbc
  • Haha 2


×
×
  • Create New...