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
20 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

She's not only Trump's attorney, lap-dog, and fluffer.  She apparently is also a busy dental hygienist.  

  • Haha 3
  • Drool 2
Posted
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

 

 

5cac2a0e-103d-489a-8199-f363c612809f_tex

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

She's made what ought to be a fairly routine matter into a month-long fight. How many more routine matters turned months-long fights before we're looking at a trial date some time in 2026?

 

And if this were the only criminal case against him, I might consider possibly being worried about this.

And then I'd note the many options Jack Smith has if Cannon does anything that might legally cross the line that e.g. TwiceHorn has so kindly mentioned many, many times, and stop worrying about it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

The day before Super Tuesday.  

That's hot.  

The primary is already over. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I know that.  You know that.  But can you imagine the fucking theatrics on that Monday-Wednesday within the GOP?  Trump, standing trial for attempted insurrection and the overthrow of the Republic at its Seat of Government, probably opens the trial with some insane rambling or insult to the Judge...while the rest of the field and FoxNews have to pretend like it's still "Super Tuesday" and go through the campaign motions.  Everybody that's running sticks with it through Super Tuesday, especially with the way their calendar sits this cycle.  I mean that night of the first debate with Trump talking to Tucker about surrendering the next day...that was one thing.  I saw/heard people I knew were Trump supporters kinda shrink a bit because of the shitshow of a field combined with that mugshot.  March 4 & 5 will be that 100x fold.  How in the fuck do they spin something like that?  Or maybe it's the launch point for somebody else.  tehehehehe

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

5cac2a0e-103d-489a-8199-f363c612809f_tex

 

 

And if this were the only criminal case against him, I might consider possibly being worried about this.

And then I'd note the many options Jack Smith has if Cannon does anything that might legally cross the line that e.g. TwiceHorn has so kindly mentioned many, many times, and stop worrying about it.

Is there anything in life you haven't ever felt absolute certainty about?

Posted
4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

But can you imagine the fucking theatrics on that Monday-Wednesday within the GOP?

I could go watch the smaller monkeys fling their shit at each other at the zoo while all the spectators are busy watching the big gorilla sitting by himself in the corner. It’s about the same thing. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
3 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

Love me some Adrian Tchaikovsky 

Almost done with the third book of this series

Posted
4 hours ago, TexasEd said:

On the removal questions there are too many catch 22s for it to go through.  Thinking about it in a logic flow.

A. Was this in the role of the office of the President? No, it was part of a campaign for president not part of the duties of a sitting president.

B. Was it political, Yes, it was part of the campaign for re-election See above.  

C. Was it election related? Yes, and the laws governing the conduct of elections are state laws and he was charged with state crimes.

D. Was it part of their jobs in government? No, none of their government job descriptions include re-election.  If they do things in furtherance of re-election using government resources that is a violation of the Hatch Act.  This is a separate Federal crime that is not charged in this indictment.  You want another charge?

Meadows testifying at the evidentiary hearing on this.  He is answering questions like "What would you say you do here?"  Well, Bob...

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Is there anything in life you haven't ever felt absolute certainty about?

I'm certain of nearly nothing. But I know that playing the probabilities favors the informed.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I'm certain of nearly nothing. But I know that playing the probabilities favors the informed.

I think if you were actually informed (say, if you were a lawyer) you'd feel a lot less certain.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i had a secret meeting in the basement of my brain

It's a common fetish, for a doting man, to ballerina on the coffee table cock in hand

/roger stone

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)

Jay Bratt, who is not only one of the documents prosecutors, but the head of the National Security Division of the DOJ had a meeting in March with some Biden admin underling about something. Someone so important that they are no longer employed by the government. Because she's going to law school. Clearly a Biden surrogate telling the DOJ what to do. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Haha 6
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jay Bratt, who is not only one of the documents prosecutors, but the head of the National Security Division of the DOJ had a meeting in March with some Biden admin underling about something. Someone so important that they are no longer employed by the government. 

That's what the far right does: turn an innocuous, banal and mundane...thing into a DEFCON 1 scandal. Why else does anyone here think that Fox host used the phrase "terrorist fist jab?"

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jay Bratt, who is not only one of the documents prosecutors, but the head of the National Security Division of the DOJ had a meeting in March with some Biden admin underling about something. Someone so important that they are no longer employed by the government. Because she's going to law school. Clearly a Biden surrogate telling the DOJ what to do. 

And this was coming from Dotard, who is, famously, a stickler for protocol. 

He also seems to think Jack Smith was working on this two plus years before he was appointed as special counsel. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's what the far right does: turn an innocuous, banal and mundane...thing into a DEFCON 1 scandal. Why else does anyone here think that Fox host used the phrase "terrorist fist jab?"

Wanted to re-read the NY Post article talking about it.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/26/biden-staffers-met-with-special-counsel-jack-smiths-aides-before-trump-indictment/

It contains this galaxy brain statement:

Bratt is not the only Department of Justice connection to a Trump indictment.

JFC.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jay Bratt, who is not only one of the documents prosecutors, but the head of the National Security Division of the DOJ had a meeting in March with some Biden admin underling about something. Someone so important that they are no longer employed by the government. Because she's going to law school. Clearly a Biden surrogate telling the DOJ what to do. 

This is an epically dumb fake story. I don't care if it was Biden's chief of staff, I'm pretty sure it's not that unusual for a DOJ boss to meet with people from the administration. Do the magats know that DOJ is in the executive branch? 

  • Drool 1
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Wanted to re-read the NY Post article talking about it.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/26/biden-staffers-met-with-special-counsel-jack-smiths-aides-before-trump-indictment/

It contains this galaxy brain statement:

Bratt is not the only Department of Justice connection to a Trump indictment.

JFC.

It’s the NY Post.  It’s a print version of Fox News.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Posted
2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

It’s the NY Post.  It’s a print version of Fox News.

It's actually probably dumber.  Well, check that. because of my proclivity for print news, I see more NYP than Fox.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
7 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I think if you were actually informed (say, if you were a lawyer) you'd feel a lot less certain.  

The only thing I've called people out upon is not "OMG I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG," but rather, when people are presented evidence and ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview.

I can handle that once or twice... it is, after all, how human brains work... but when we get past half a dozen or more times, where people just see the evidence and their eyes glaze over and they just pretend it isn't there...

I mean, I tell you I'm certain of nothing, and you say I should be "less certain." How can I be less certain than nothing?

Ever hear the phrase, "Every accusation is a confession?"

Posted
This is an epically dumb fake story. I don't care if it was Biden's chief of staff, I'm pretty sure it's not that unusual for a DOJ boss to meet with people from the administration. Do the magats know that DOJ is in the executive branch? 

WTAF do they think was going on with Barr and Clark and their ilk in Trump’s admin?
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, C-Man said:


WTAF do they think was going on with Barr and Clark and their ilk in Trump’s admin?

From the outside you can’t understand it. From the inside you can’t explain it.

Also, you’re being very generous using the word “think” when referring to maga.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 hours ago, Rimbo said:

I mean, I tell you I'm certain of nothing, and you say I should be "less certain." How can I be less certain than nothing?

You know what I'm uncertain of?   "Turbo Fucked"   What even is that? 

I'm ashamed to say I've given this some thought.  The best I can come up with is that this is just farting on the down stroke. 

Spoiler

Don't do it

Spoiler

Then I picture Donald on Stormy and the sounds of wet flatulence and wheezing.

Spoiler

I told you not to click it

 

 

 

  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

On the one hand, they've got a fuck-ton of PAC money.

But on the other hand, they spend an inordinate amount of time on this kind of stuff that can't be worth more than six figures.  For a family of a billionaire, it's mighty interesting that they hyper-focus on things like fucking t-shirts.  Makes me wonder about their actual financial situation.

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

Makes me wonder about their actual financial situation.

He’s supposedly a billionaire but got a bail bondsman. He buried his ex wife on a golf course for tax benefits. These are not actions of someone who has fuck you money 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

It took him two years of post-presidency grifting to scrape together enough cash to replace one engine on his 757.  Granted, those things are expensive...but if you're a multi-billionaire, shouldn't be a big issue.  Like one of us replacing our tires.  

He's also had his private banking status revoked in New York.  Maybe he got a new, more discrete one in Florida, but I somehow doubt it.  Only reason you'd want to privately bank Trump's personal wealth is to be associated with him for business purposes but they're not allowed to do that.  He's literally the only billionaire I've ever heard of who doesn't have a boat or a family office or a charitable foundation.  Only one.  

  • Like 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

On the one hand, they've got a fuck-ton of PAC money.

But on the other hand, they spend an inordinate amount of time on this kind of stuff that can't be worth more than six figures.  For a family of a billionaire, it's mighty interesting that they hyper-focus on things like fucking t-shirts.  Makes me wonder about their actual financial situation.

I don't know about their personal finances but the PAC is definitely going broke due to legal fees. Once these trials fire up it's going to get even worse. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...