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
58 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

It's amazing when you tell lie after lie after lie that these lies ultimately become some kind of twisted "truth"

 

28 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Man who uses social media to threaten, mock and troll people upset someone used social media to troll him

The ultimate snowflake

Posted
4 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

 

So, Maga, are you donating to pay damages to his rape victim or for the legal bills for being a traitor to the Constitution?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
35 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Attorney: "A lot of people believe there were problems with the 2020 election."

Because Dotard has been screaming that since 2015 and a lot of people are fucking morons. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Ari Melber roasting Eastman's attorney on TV right now.  

Attorney: "A lot of people believe there were problems with the 2020 election."

Melber; "A lot of people believe in ghosts.  And horoscopes."

Dammit!  Now the Democrats lost the ghosts and horoscope demographic…

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Stilicho said:

I am finding, on my ridiculous journey through a state law school at 40, that a whole bunch of "educated conservatives" are anything but. They hate just as hard as the rubes and generally have more money and "prestige" to throw around.  

Also, it's time to stop assuming everyone that has an undergrad has actually been "educated" and thus can be appealed to via empathy or compromise. It's no secret that "schools" are pumping out "conservatives with credentials". See aggy enrollment / graduation numbers.

That's one of the disappointments I'm come to realize as well.  There are a lot of damaged people with money and education who only use it to reinforce their own biases.  

Sad, really.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

That's one of the disappointments I'm come to realize as well.  There are a lot of damaged people with money and education who only use it to reinforce their own biases.  

Sad, really.

 

Trash is trash, means or no means.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Red Five said:

Dotard's attorney with the big tits today said that Jack Smith is "scared", and thus the protective order. 

I thought he fired Rudy

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
7 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He cuts a deal to drop out of the race and to never run for political office again.  

Season 2 Lol GIF by Insecure on HBO

 

also why do people want him to not be able to run anymore?  i want him to run 3-5 more times.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, henrygandorf said:

Season 2 Lol GIF by Insecure on HBO

 

also why do people want him to not be able to run anymore?  i want him to run 3-5 more times.

Because of the possibility that the Democrats will, yet again, nominate someone with the charisma of wet cardboard, assume the electorate will coronate them without putting effort into a real campaign, and we'll end up with that bastard as president again.

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Because Dotard has been screaming that since 2015 and a lot of people are fucking morons. 

Judge-  “Defendant.  You yelled fire in a crowded theater when you knew there was none.  This caused a stampede injuring dozens of people.  Do you have anything to say in your defense?”

Defendant-  “Well your honor, by the end of the evening lots of people believed there was a fire so….”

Edited by Horn Dog
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Because of the possibility that the Democrats will, yet again, nominate someone with the charisma of wet cardboard, assume the electorate will coronate them without putting effort into a real campaign, and we'll end up with that bastard as president again.

the electoral math is just not there for him.  it was barely there in 2016 and took a minor miracle along with absolutely historically weird circumstances. 

things have gone way downhill for him since in a variety of ways, so no, he will not win the presidential election in 2024.  if he somehow is president in 2025, it's because of a coup, and i don't really know what that looks like, because the states we need are "protected", but who the hell knows.  it would literally have to be some succession shit where several of the voting places got blowed up or something.

that said, once he loses in 2024, 2028 makes me nervous assuming trump is out of the way.  if he's still in the way, i still feel very comfortable.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)

Seems like the protective order dispute was fairly good-faith, although I'm sure one motivation was to delay discovery.  In their response, Trumpco was whinging about not getting a full 14 days to respond to the motion.

But, it appears that the gubmint has the upper hand here.

The fundamental dispute is that the government wanted all discovery information to be categorized as "Sensitive," and subject to restrictions on dissemination.  Trumpco wanted only that truly Sensitive to be so designated.  That would be a reasonable position in a civil litigation, where these kinds of orders dealing with trade-secret technical, or non-public finanancial information would be "Sensitive," or, more accurately "Confidential" or "Confidential-Attorneys Eyes Only."

But the government points out that there really aren't many legitimate uses for criminal discovery, sensitive or otherwise, except trying a case in public, and there are policies and rules against doing that.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, gernblansten said:

Based on what? Can you identify any specific litigation to support this statement? 

When’s the last time anything of substance has stuck to him or significant judgements levied against him ?

Someone in his circle knew what they were doing when they appointed cannon in the court close to his residence

 

hopefully we finally see justice served against him 

Edited by tx 3 putt
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

When’s the last time anything of substance has stuck to I’m or significants judgements were levied against him ?

Fallacious question. He's never been indicted on federal criminal charges before. So the answer is "never." But then, for the same reason, he's never gotten away with it, either.

Edited by Rimbo
Posted
Just now, Rimbo said:

Fallscious question. He's never been indicted on federal criminal charges before. So the answer is "never." But then, for the same reason, he's never gotten away with it, either.


hopefully it works out this time 

Posted
12 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

When’s the last time anything of substance has stuck to him or significant judgements levied against him ?

Someone in his circle knew what they were doing when they appointed cannon in the court close to his residence

 

hopefully we finally see justice served against him 

image.jpeg.5afaac2049b30819e5b605f84fa913f3.jpeg

 

  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seems like the protective order dispute was fairly good-faith, although I'm sure one motivation was to delay discovery.  In their response, Trumpco was whinging about not getting a full 14 days to respond to the motion.

But, it appears that the gubmint has the upper hand here.

The fundamental dispute is that the government wanted all discovery information to be categorized as "Sensitive," and subject to restrictions on dissemination.  Trumpco wanted only that truly Sensitive to be so designated.  That would be a reasonable position in a civil litigation, where these kinds of orders dealing with trade-secret technical, or non-public finanancial information would be "Sensitive," or, more accurately "Confidential" or "Confidential-Attorneys Eyes Only."

But the government points out that there really aren't many legitimate uses for criminal discovery, sensitive or otherwise, except trying a case in public, and there are policies and rules against doing that.

he's going to try this case on truth social and on cable news regardless.  that's been the gameplan for weeks, same as the mueller report - tell the public what you want and assume (rightly so) that they won't take the time to read it.

they want to avoid sharing documents in discovery that trump will simply turn around and bullhorn across social media.  they think he'll do this because he's done exactly that a bunch of times.  every time he's been indicted or about to be or had his place searched, he was the one who broke the story.  so here's my question - what if he just lies about what he's being given?  even under protective order, i would assume that only covers things that are actually in discovery.  he's been lying about this case since the jump, so why stop now?

"we were just sent boxes of discovery and it's plain as day, they are prosecuting me for speaking and violating my first amendment rights blah blah.  we went through all their in-evidence and non-sources and no-conspirators and realized they have nothing on me because your favorite president trump (i refuse to capitalize the way he would) did nothing wrong!  sad!"

would that be a violation of the order, or is it only a violation if he reveals stuff actually in discovery?  i think he's probably in the clear here.

 

(a similar thing happened in "the insider" which you should probably rewatch)

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Drool 1
Posted

On the earlier comment today stating that trump was a master of the court system, he only is when his opponent is weak. As when trump refused to pay vendors. In those cases, trump would counter sue because he knew he was the larger shark.  There isn’t anything larger than the DOJ.

the biggest hurdle for the DOJ is finding an impartial jury. Only takes 1 quiet Trump supporter to find him not guilty regardless of the evidence.

Posted
the electoral math is just not there for him.  it was barely there in 2016 and took a minor miracle along with absolutely historically weird circumstances. 
things have gone way downhill for him since in a variety of ways, so no, he will not win the presidential election in 2024.  if he somehow is president in 2025, it's because of a coup, and i don't really know what that looks like, because the states we need are "protected", but who the hell knows.  it would literally have to be some succession shit where several of the voting places got blowed up or something.
that said, once he loses in 2024, 2028 makes me nervous assuming trump is out of the way.  if he's still in the way, i still feel very comfortable.

Swing state legislatures run by Republicans: giphy.gif
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:


Swing state legislatures run by Republicans: giphy.gif

Won’t affect 2024. Those swing states all have either Dem legislatures, split legislatures or Dem governors/AG/SOS to stop those shenanigans.  Georgia is the only one they can fuck with and they didn’t even do that successfully in 2020 or 2022

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
36 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

he's going to try this case on truth social and on cable news regardless.  that's been the gameplan for weeks, same as the mueller report - tell the public what you want and assume (rightly so) that they won't take the time to read it.

they want to avoid sharing documents in discovery that trump will simply turn around and bullhorn across social media.  they think he'll do this because he's done exactly that a bunch of times.  every time he's been indicted or about to be or had his place searched, he was the one who broke the story.  so here's my question - what if he just lies about what he's being given?  even under protective order, i would assume that only covers things that are actually in discovery.  he's been lying about this case since the jump, so why stop now?

"we were just sent boxes of discovery and it's plain as day, they are prosecuting me for speaking and violating my first amendment rights blah blah.  we went through all their in-evidence and non-sources and no-conspirators and realized they have nothing on me because your favorite president trump (i refuse to capitalize the way he would) did nothing wrong!  sad!"

would that be a violation of the order, or is it only a violation if he reveals stuff actually in discovery?  i think he's probably in the clear here.

 

(a similar thing happened in "the insider" which you should probably rewatch)

No, that wouldn't violate the protective order.  It's a good point, and I kind of alluded to it earlier, that he's not mentally capable of digesting the evidence and using it to his own benefit.  It's easier for him to just make shit up.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Only takes 1 quiet Trump supporter to find him not guilty regardless of the evidence.

Nope. A single juror voting "not guilty" results in a hung jury. If that juror won't budge, then judge can declare a mistrial. DOJ can start the whole trial over again with a whole new panel of prospective jurors.

Edited by Foosters
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

74% of the US population believe in a fairytale about a magical being 

30% believe in ghosts

12% don’t believe in the moon landing 

10% are flat earther’s

Humans are simple, dumb, and cruel. 

We deserve everything coming.  And that right soon.

Posted
1 hour ago, henrygandorf said:

he's going to try this case on truth social and on cable news regardless.  that's been the gameplan for weeks, same as the mueller report - tell the public what you want and assume (rightly so) that they won't take the time to read it.

they want to avoid sharing documents in discovery that trump will simply turn around and bullhorn across social media.  they think he'll do this because he's done exactly that a bunch of times.  every time he's been indicted or about to be or had his place searched, he was the one who broke the story.  so here's my question - what if he just lies about what he's being given?  even under protective order, i would assume that only covers things that are actually in discovery.  he's been lying about this case since the jump, so why stop now?

"we were just sent boxes of discovery and it's plain as day, they are prosecuting me for speaking and violating my first amendment rights blah blah.  we went through all their in-evidence and non-sources and no-conspirators and realized they have nothing on me because your favorite president trump (i refuse to capitalize the way he would) did nothing wrong!  sad!"

would that be a violation of the order, or is it only a violation if he reveals stuff actually in discovery?  i think he's probably in the clear here.

 

(a similar thing happened in "the insider" which you should probably rewatch)

Which is exactly why he should be detained in jail and deprived of access to social media while awaiting trial. All the reasons are there the judiciary is just too scared. Can't shy away from racism. It only gets worse. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Your Mom said:

74% seems high there.  It has to be less than half by now doesn’t it?  

I think it's down around there for organized religion but there are many non practicing people who still believe in a "higher power" of some kind. I would say 50% of my little liberal bubble of friends would identify this way.

Also the ghost people have to be a 90% overlap with the god people right? 

Edited by seven
Posted
7 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Which is exactly why he should be detained in jail and deprived of access to social media while awaiting trial. All the reasons are there the judiciary is just too scared. Can't shy away from racism. It only gets worse. 

People in the United States are not detained pretrial because of pretrial publicity they generate, no matter how bad.

That really would be a First Amendment violation.

What happens in the United States is that a defendant runs his or her mouth, eventually gets a gag order from the judge, gets fined for violating it in increasing amounts, and maybe ultimately jailed for a short period, possibly repeatedly.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What happens in the United States is that a defendant runs his or her mouth, eventually gets a gag order from the judge, gets fined for violating it in increasing amounts, and maybe ultimately jailed for a short period, possibly repeatedly.

Counterpoint:  The United States has faced several vile, deranged, dangerous and damaging pieces of shit as defendants throughout the years.  They have never faced Donald J. Trump and his sizable cult of personality, consisting of well over half of a political party, members of the judiciary, several media outlets, a public willing to bankroll his legal costs and his own means of dissemination of his words (Truth).  

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Good piece on the Nauta/Woodward conflict-of-interest issue. https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/4140372-trumps-facing-more-than-one-conflict-in-his-classified-documents-case/

This is the good observation:

Quote

Let’s put it this way: Woodward is unquestionably an honorable lawyer. I do not doubt that he has obtained Nauta’s formal consent to his representation, following extensive disclosure, which Nauta will confirm in court. Conflicts of interest, however, often have their greatest impact below the surface, subtly distorting judgment, clouding insights and blunting acuity, in ways that the lawyers and clients themselves do not appreciate or perceive. 

That is a very real thing, before you even get to the issue of Trump paying all the witnesses' attorneys fees.

But a subtext that I think the right is going to blow up soon is that it may take Woodward off Nauta's case and increase the likelihood that he flips, which is apparently what happened with Yuscil Taveras.  That could be a very real motivation of the government here to pursue this.

The sort of amusing thing here is that the conflict of interest issue does deprive Nauta of the "lawyer of his choice," but it never really was his choice to begin with.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Counterpoint:  The United States has faced several vile, deranged, dangerous and damaging pieces of shit as defendants throughout the years.  They have never faced Donald J. Trump and his sizable cult of personality, consisting of well over half of a political party, members of the judiciary, several media outlets, a public willing to bankroll his legal costs and his own means of dissemination of his words (Truth).  

 

 

 

 

As tempting as it may be to change the rules for a piece of shit like Donald Trump, that's not how it works:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Fallacious question. He's never been indicted on federal criminal charges before. So the answer is "never." But then, for the same reason, he's never gotten away with it, either.

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

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

Also a bit of an explainer/recap on the grand jury thing in the Mar A Lago case.

Remember, this all started as a dispute with NARA over Presidential Records.  Trump finally coughed up the 15 boxes and NARA discovered the classified information, which it then immediately turned over to the National Security Division at DOJ, because even NARA has no business holding classified information.  NARA and NSD are in DC.

DOJ then used a DC grand jury to issue a subpoena for any remaining documents, and we know how that went.

It seems like the DC grand jury may also have issued the subpoenas for the surveillance video, but we don't know for sure.

At some point, the investigation shifted from DC to SD Fla and the indictment was ultimately returned by a grand jury in SD Fla.  I'm pretty sure that means that the Floriduh grand jury heard testimony from all the witnesses of the facts set out in that indictment.  Maybe some transcripts from DC proceedings were used in lieu of live witness testimony, I don't know.

As has been discussed, the investigative ability of a grand jury typically terminates upon issuing an indictment in a case.  For example, the defendant in a case comes up with a new witness.  The government can't drag that witness before a grand jury just to get their testimony under oath before trial. 

An exception exists when new charges and/or defendants may be added to the case by a superseding indictment.  That process presumably would return to the original indicting grand jury, assuming it is still empaneled (grand juries expire periodically and are dissolved).   I suppose the line gets blurry sometimes as to whether the government is using a grand jury to investigate new charges/defendants versus investigating an already-indicted case, with the latter being at least somewhat "dirty pool" if not flat unlawful.

The issue appears to be that in the Woodward/Nauta thing, testimony from Woodward-represented witnesses before a DC grand jury was cited to show the conflict of interest with Nauta, thus raising an issue perhaps of the government "forum-shopping" the investigating grand jury between DC and Florida.

The grand jury rules and statutes don't appear to address this situation, that I can find, and cursory research hasn't yielded any case law on it.  So, I have no idea what's legit and what's not.  Guess we're finna find out by the briefing.

Hopefully, it's completely on the up and up and the government can justify its actions.  But prepare your anus for a lot of shrieking from Trumpco.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Hopefully, it's completely on the up and up and the government can justify its actions.  But prepare your anus for a lot of shrieking from Trumpco.

Sure is fortunate for trumpco that a fedsoc baby judge that's either an idiot or a hack with only four criminal jury verdicts on her judicial record just so happens to get this case of such gravity! It sure would be nice if the judge tamped down on the trumpco shrieking instead of stoking and legitimizing that dumpster fire, but alas. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Sure is fortunate for trumpco that a fedsoc baby judge that's either an idiot or a hack with only four criminal jury verdicts on her judicial record just so happens to get this case of such gravity! It sure would be nice if the judge tamped down on the trumpco shrieking instead of stoking and legitimizing that dumpster fire, but alas. 

As a matter of perspective, baby judges exist and sometimes you get em.  It's just reality.  And there are super-shitty non-baby judges too, and sometimes you get them.

I'm not sure even non-shitty, non-baby, non-partisan judges feel like they can tamp down on extrajudicial shrieking.  You don't see it from Engoron in Manhattan.  You probably won't see much of it from Chutkan, either.

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...