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
44 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Won’t someone rid me of these turbulent voting machines?

 

also they picked a district he won by > +20 to hack? 

They expected to win it by 70. That’s how you rig elections without folks noticing. You pad your own districts.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
30 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

As I understand it, Willis has knowledge of Trump's presence in the Oval Office when this plan to get county election officials to allow a peek under the voting systems hood was *successfully* launched.  That's gonna leave a mark.  He can assert that it was his campaign lawyers, that he had nothing to do with it, but if he was in the room and he knew of the plan, then his failure to put an end to it makes him complicit.  (Disclosure:  not a lawyer.)

Jimmy, talking about Misprision of a Felony.

Quote

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

This statute is not something they use a ton.   You can charge somebody with this if you want them to flip, but the max is three years in prison, and they probably won’t get that in a case not as straightforward as this one, with many moving parts.  Fuck, even if clearly criminal. 

As to which application, think about every single civil rights abuse/ cop killer/cop beating case you read about on Surly.   That would mean that every asshole cop who watched it and did not report their fellow cop would be charged with this felony. They aren’t.
 
But it is one of the reasons why I say that any  LEO being a non-criminal is almost impossible to find. Every single cop who watched another cop do something wrong and didn’t report it is - by federal criminal law definition - in violation of federal criminal law, even if never indicted. 
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
“Also, as in Manhattan, the corrupt DOJ is pushing hard, trying to keep Biden in office. The whole system is dishonest and broken.”
Not ambiguous that Jack Smith is “corrupt”.  As any judge presiding over a Trump criminal case is part of the criminal justice system, that must mean Judge Chutkan is also dishonest and broken.  There is a short video clip at some campaign speech where Trump declared he would not give up his free-speech rights.   Not sure of the date of that. Continually banging the drum saying that the DOJ is corrupt is an absolute attempt to taint the trial pool.  
Damn, I wish an Article III Judge would. 
 
 
 

Your confused on which indictment this is. Manhattan is Bragg, not Smith.
Posted
4 hours ago, Red Five said:

She's all eyes and tits. Wheelhouse. 

She’s got nice cheekbones too. She’s not a 10 but she’s fine enough. I’m in love with Nicolle Wallace and look forward to her return. But Alicia is a decent interviewer and she’s been a capable substitute during Nicolle’s absence. 

Posted
52 minutes ago, scottsins said:


It’s an interesting issue, because generally, there is no criminal responsibility for not acting to stop a crime that you are aware someone else is going to commit.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to know the slightest thing about law!

Seinfeld-Court.jpg

 

  • Haha 3
Posted

Wait, he has "conclusive" proof that he actually won the 2020 election, and that he should still be president? And two and a half years later hasn't shown it to anyone yet?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
47 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

“Also, as in Manhattan, the corrupt DOJ is pushing hard, trying to keep Biden in office. The whole system is dishonest and broken.”

Not ambiguous that Jack Smith is “corrupt”.  As any judge presiding over a Trump criminal case is part of the criminal justice system, that must mean Judge Chutkan is also dishonest and broken.  There is a short video clip at some campaign speech where Trump declared he would not give up his free-speech rights.   Not sure of the date of that. Continually banging the drum saying that the DOJ is corrupt is an absolute attempt to taint the trial pool.  

Damn, I wish an Article III Judge would. 

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Lurch said:


Your confused on which indictment this is. Manhattan is Bragg, not Smith.

You’re confused by the use of a simile 

Posted
2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I still can’t figure out why, if the courts and various state and local governments won’t take a look at all of this evidence and proof, that they don’t just release it to the public for us all to see how corrupt the system is that is protecting all of this election interference/fraud. 

At the very least, it should help bolster his defense when it’s presented at trial, right?  He’s gonna present it as his trial, right?!

Posted
28 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Wait, he has "conclusive" proof that he actually won the 2020 election, and that he should still be president? And two and a half years later hasn't shown it to anyone yet?

Two more weeks!

Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Isn’t that to protect people like neighbors watching a house get burgled from being held at fault for not attempting to stop it?

as opposed to someone acting criminally on your behalf with your knowledge of it?

RICO.  Eh?

Posted
31 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Wait, he has "conclusive" proof that he actually won the 2020 election, and that he should still be president? And two and a half years later hasn't shown it to anyone yet?


send in $19.99 to hear more !

Posted
40 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

dumbest series finale ever

you shut your whore mouth!  Larry David just got too clever and too loyal.  He wanted to find a way for more bit characters to come back on so they'd be due more residuals from the pending syndication deal, serving as trial witnesses was a good excuse for dozens of them to be in the same room at the same time.  Either that, or an orgy.  Which is basically kinda the same premise as Trump's trial.  A bunch of New Yorkers coming out of the woodwork to discuss what a piece of shit he is and then me, in real life, am going to join in on some kinda orgy after he's found guilty.  It's really very simple.  

Plus, Larry both embraced and despised the show's label as "being about nothing."  So his final denouement was to have the four of them put on trial for being about nothing, for doing nothing.  In the face of helping humanity with a small gesture, they chose nothing.  

Trump is about nothing.  He's a famous businessman who didn't really do any business.  He just put his name on shit for a fee and then helped drive those companies/products/properties into the fucking ground.  He's a famous parent who didn't really do any parenting to give of the most fucked up young Americans.  He's a famous sports franchise owner who didn't really do anything for his team.  He's a famous gameshow host who didn't really do anything but read a few lines off a teleprompter each week and then came up with a cute little hand gesture with his tiny clown hands.  He's a famous ex-President who didn't really do any Presidenting except nod and sign off on a list of judges and a stack of tax cuts.  He never really did anything his whole life but he's made a fantastic career and big name doing that nothing.  His achievements at being average to below average are so far above average, it challenges everything we know about averages.  And his knowledge of averages is just mean.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, Goredho said:

At the very least, it should help bolster his defense when it’s presented at trial, right?  He’s gonna present it as his trial, right?!

Here in the real world, at least in the civil litigation world, there are motions in limine to prevent substantiated shit like that from reaching the jury and confusing them.   So if this were a civil trial, there would be hearings in advance to determine if his proffered evidence is typical Trump lie bullshit, or has at least an arguable amount of meat on the bone. After 70 odd trials, his bullshit about the stolen election would never see a jury in a civil trial.

I would imagine that the scope of bullshit allowed as in a criminal trial is far greater - if a defense is that aliens came down and were the actual murderers, I guess a defendant might be allowed by a gleeful prosecutor to present it - on that defendants way to prison.   A worry here would be if Trump is allowed to present his completely false bullshit, as it would require the marshaling of forces to show that it’s false. That is a tremendous time waster (and money and evidence gathering resources), all of which deflects from the criminal issues at hand.     

This is really one of the big issues that I do not know how the courts will handle, and I’d love to hear from someone who practices in federal criminal Court, or criminal court in general, about the bounds of defense evidence submitted.   OTOH, the court may disallow some of the more easily disprovable as a lie bullshit, and Trump cannot put on his 2000 mules type bullshit. Which will make his followers cry that it is a rigged trial as the evidence of the rigged election is being suppressed by the deep state.

They will not reflect upon the fact that the impeachment prosecutors were prevented from putting on testimony or obtaining evidence. Because hypocrisy is Trump’s right.

Posted
1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

He never really did anything his whole life but he's made a fantastic career and big name doing that nothing. 

As far as I can tell, this is the model for social media influencers as well.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Wait, he has "conclusive" proof that he actually won the 2020 election, and that he should still be president? And two and a half years later hasn't shown it to anyone yet?

He hasn't gotten it back from Mike Pillow yet.

Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

dumbest series finale ever

Not even close. It's gotten better on repeats IMO. It's not great but I think it gets a bad rap. I love the very last scene with them in jail and George and Jerry start the discussion about the first button on a shirt can ruin the shirt. They ask each other if they've already talked about this before. They had -- in the very first scene of the series premiere.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Lurch said:


Your confused on which indictment this is. Manhattan is Bragg, not Smith.

“DOJ” “Whole System”.    But yeah, I was not a font of clarity there.

Posted
11 minutes ago, dcbc said:

He hasn't gotten it back from Mike Pillow yet.

Yeah, your mom got it back from Mike's Pillow.  Wait.  Hang on.  Dammit, I had something for this.  Give me two weeks.  

 

I know this has been talked about upthread, but I really just started picking up on it in the last week or so.  Everybody I know that loves Trump has suddenly gotten real fucking quiet.  It went from "Witch Hunt" or "False Indictments" to radio silence.  Maybe they're still clamoring on and on to their own like-minded circle.  But it got real marked in my world, which is very politically engaged, in the last 5-10 days.  I'm guessing it's a little of both---but what's y'all's take?  Is it some kinda Parallel Thinking where a lot of these folks are suddenly coming to the conclusion that he's probably done something so wrong, that they can't look the other way no matter what's done for them politically?  And/Or...are they finally so humiliated by the ruse that they will silently support him but no longer passionately defend him because to do so would be to debase themselves and risk damage to reputation (as if that's fucking possible).  I guess the third wild card is they figure between convictions or death, he actually won't wind up the nominee so they don't want to tie themselves to the sinking ship again.  I know polls say otherwise, but these are slightly more intelligent Republicans (I know, I know...oxymoron) that have two brain cells to rub together.  It's just the most hushed and writ-large than anytime since 2015.  For me anyway.  

I guess I'm a bit bummed out because it's gonna make my oxycontin-fueled prank calls to them after he's convicted and/or loses the election again much less fun and satisfying.  I mean it's just awkward when a relative or friend calls you to ask, "Did you shit on my front yard last night?"  And you laughing reply, "fuck yeah I did, as soon as they called Arizona again for Biden, I drove straight over!" And they mumble, "I didn't even end up voting, I was so disappointed in Trump."  And then you feel like an asshole like, "Shoot man, I'm sorry.  I guess I should have gathered you weren't into him any more since you're a good guy otherwise.  Now I feel bad.  Well, best to your family and the nation.  I'm sure you'll find another candidate someday to get excited about.  Also, I would not look under your front doormat if I were you." 

  • Haha 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Come At Me Bring It On GIF by Travis
 

 

IMG_6314.jpeg

To continue/berate the Seinfeld parallels…

attorney: “Mr Trump.  These veiled public threats to judges and prosecutors and their families is not wise.  If you continue this unethical behavior, I’ll be forced to resign as counsel.”

Trump: “resign?  But I’m not even really paying you.”

attorney: “and that’s what makes this so difficult.”  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
On 8/12/2023 at 5:31 PM, Covri said:
  Hide contents

IMG_1309.thumb.png.4cfe33d8cf94e74f29fdadff0a02c2ae.pngIMG_1310.thumb.png.44443dc88a616ef44a2615ed4d2df577.pngIMG_1311.thumb.png.cfcd44c0978e7dd0324e96f25dca49bc.pngIMG_1312.thumb.png.ab9523f0ae2cb2348e59c1814dc98f6f.png

🫣

I'll never be the same after viewing that, but you did "spoiler that shit."  I blame myself.

Edited by Bullneck
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I mean she still has one today. What this mess has taught me is that lawyers get a bad rap for a good reason. Your profession has taken 'a vigorous defense' and turned it into a free for all. And if I had a law license, I'd be mad as hell about the damage this is doing to my profession, not crowing that she'll finally lose her license upon conviction.
39B9E6A8-7AED-45F3-8F6F-13A8AFABAE16.gif.0f23a1c2e4416bda96390d9699bb05c0.gif
Twice just explained that it’s pretty cut and dried when there’s a felony conviction. As yet there is no felony conviction. This seems to offend you. You are also complaining about nothing being done after Twice posts actual pleadings from the actual proceedings to disbar her.   Which, I guess, means you do not really want a longer due process proceeding, just an instant disbarment when someone on a football forum demands a person lose their license.  (note: we all agree she should lose her license)
As I recall, you were also one of the people here whose perspicacity told you that Donald Trump would never be indicted by anyone.    We said these things take time.   Indictment Four drops this week.  
This is sort of like that.

Why does it take a felonly conviction?  That's the issue here.  

Posted

"She's an Obama judge!!!"

Well, yeah, he was president for eight years. He appointed a judge or two. You're bound to run into one every now and then, if you commit enough crimes.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Captainant said:

Goddamn every single disbarment is for mishandling of client funds or failing to be responsive to clients. Powell did neither of these things. I'd bet the SBOT finds a way to just oopsie whoopsie poopsie this one too, just like they already did. 

Well that has been pointed out several times. 

 

Exactly how many members of the Texas bar do you think are out there "subverting democracy" ? 

 

One of the problems here is that the Powell case is different from the usual disbarment proceeding. So it's testing the competence of the bars lawyers. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Why does it take a felonly conviction?  That's the issue here.  

 It doesn’t.  See the currently on-going disciplinary proceeding in Texas that does not involve a felony conviction as grounds. We seem to be talking past each other.

Posted
21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the problems here is that the Powell case is different from the usual disbarment proceeding. So it's testing the competence of the bars lawyers. 

image.gif.98cc8d5f1ed3b11c778f5e7aa2cc9fa4.gif

  • Haha 5
Posted
22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 It doesn’t.  See the currently on-going disciplinary proceeding in Texas that does not involve a felony conviction as grounds. We seem to be talking past each other.

She has already beaten the Texas bar once.  Ethical standards seem to be missing from your profession.  It's on you and the other members of the bar to have them put in place.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

She has already beaten the Texas bar once.  Ethical standards seem to be missing from your profession.  It's on you and the other members of the bar to have them put in place.

State bar associations are a joke.  They exist only to colect fees, harrass law studens over minor shit, and then immediately turn a blind eye to everything except stealing from IOLTA accounts the minute you're admitted to the bar.

  • Like 1
Posted
This statute is not something they use a ton.   You can charge somebody with this if you want them to flip, but the max is three years in prison, and they probably won’t get that in a case not as straightforward as this one, with many moving parts.  Fuck, even if clearly criminal. 
As to which application, think about every single civil rights abuse/ cop killer/cop beating case you read about on Surly.   That would mean that every asshole cop who watched it and did not report their fellow cop would be charged with this felony. They aren’t.   But it is one of the reasons why I say that any  LEO being a non-criminal is almost impossible to find. Every single cop who watched another cop do something wrong and didn’t report it is - by federal criminal law definition - in violation of federal criminal law, even if never indicted. 

Does conceal normally require more than just “know about it and not tell someone”?

ETA: I’m not sure that the case will even rely on this concept, since I would bet that Trump is on tape doing much more than just quietly listening and becoming aware of the plan. I’m sure that he is encouraging, assisting in planning, probably even forcefully taking credit for the whole plot, because that’s like his whole fucking deal.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Exactly how many members of the Texas bar do you think are out there "subverting democracy" ? 

Well you've got ted cruz and powell as members for starters, so at least two too many

Posted
37 minutes ago, Keef said:

State bar associations are a joke.  They exist only to collect fees, harrass law students over minor shit, and then immediately turn a blind eye to everything except stealing from IOLTA accounts the minute you're admitted to the bar.

Agree with first statement.  Get a DUI in Louisiana and its like you murdered babies while worshiping Baal. 

They are essentially petty small town prosecutors. Lawyers who really couldn’t quite make it in the private sector, but who are capable of winning shooting-fish-in-a-barrel cases like stealing from your IOLTA fund, not returning funds you didn’t earn…or getting DUIs.   IMO, naturally. 

 

Posted
29 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m talking about the ending in the show. Not the one you wrote for yourself where Tony dies. He didn’t die in the show. 

Oh Boy Here We Go GIFs | Tenor

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Does conceal normally require more than just “know about it and not tell someone”?

ETA: I’m not sure that the case will even rely on this concept, since I would bet that Trump is on tape doing much more than just quietly listening and becoming aware of the plan. I’m sure that he is encouraging, assisting in planning, probably even forcefully taking credit for the whole plot, because that’s like his whole fucking deal.

Misprision of felony per the common law was committed by simply knowing about a felony and not telling the authorities. But the current definition of the crime in federal law requires that the perpetrator make some affirmative act to conceal the crime that is not reported. So, in federal law, the crime has four elements:

  • Someone committed a complete felony;
  • The defendant has known about the felony’s commission;
  • The defendant has failed to notify a law enforcement authority of the commission of the felony, and
  • The defendant has taken some affirmative step to conceal the felony.

Concealing the felony would involve such acts as making false statements, hiding evidence, or harboring the criminal so law enforcement cannot locate them.

If your next-door neighbor knows some thing about a crime, he or she does not have a duty to report.   That said, if an investigator asks them something about it, and they do not answer truthfully, then they have actively concealed something. Unlike your neighbor, Law enforcement officers - or an attorney - or an elected official arguably have a duty to report what they know.    No DA will bother with a misprision case if they have evidence of obstruction.   My reference to cops is because they almost always participate in police reports and after action investigations, and very rarely tell the truth about what happened. It is not simply knowing and not telling that is the problem, it is knowing when you have a duty to disclose and fail to do it.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

She has already beaten the Texas bar once.  Ethical standards seem to be missing from your profession.  It's on you and the other members of the bar to have them put in place.

She hasn't beaten them yet, dumbass.

The Bar lost not because of a lack of ethical standards, but because the lawyers fucked up because they're not used to trying this kind of case or are otherwise general purpose dumbasses.

The legal profession is not going to permit summary disbarment; the lawyers are going to demand, and the Bar will be obligated to provide, excessive due process in disciplinary proceedings. Because the Bar is this high-minded institution, there's actually going to be as much or more due process than criminals get.

Also, you don't seem to sabe that it is virtually a constitutional right of lawyers and their clients to file shitty, borderline frivolous lawsuits.  I guarantee you couldn't differentiate what tort reformers call a frivolous lawsuit (bullshit) from what Powell filed.  You might be able to articulate some things, but you wouldn't have the first idea how to prove them.

It's not as simple as it seems. 

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...