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
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Don't forget, Joe Biden has dementia and is a criminal mastermind.

I hope you will note my personal prestidigitation and/or protest, sir.

  • Haha 1
Posted

It is with great and reticent protestation that I hereby declare the 2020 election to be stollen.  Doth thou protestation, Mercutio of the kilometer system's equator?  Yours, truly and surrepticiously...Donald J. Trump

Posted

The 2 mutually exclusive claims that doesn't even faze MAGA. "We can't go to trial till April 2026 cuz the evidence is taller than the Washington Monument. Also, the evidence was destroyed. In the insurrection case. Not the Mar-A-Lago case where the FBI planted evidence on me that I had every right to take." 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

Oh! That's what happened to all the evidence. Liz Cheney destroyed it. 

Edit: Which is odd, because a few weeks ago he was going to present all of the evidence, until his attorneys told him it might help put him in prison. He must have found the destroyed evidence. Then it was destroyed again. 

People take this person seriously. 72 million people voted for him for president. 

I’ve asked a lot of Trump supporters I know why he won’t present the evidence he claims to have, and none of them can seem to come up with a reason.

1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

I think she gave it to Paxton, who burned it in the dumpster behind the AG's office.

If you are talking about Angela Paxton, and if you mean her wedding album burning in the dumpster, yes.

Posted
1 hour ago, Goredho said:

For the ridiculous number of lawyers in the room..

Has the "dog ate my exculpatory evidence" defense ever worked?

Cannon would allow it 

  • Haha 3
Posted
58 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Can any of y’all say you’re sure he didn’t have someone push melania down some stairs then bury her on a golf course for special tax treatment? 

It would be something if he pulled the ID channel go to move, took out a big life insurance policy on her and suddenly she had an "accident".  I've seen that a few times there, and have learned that deranged people under financial stress will often do the darnedest things.   

Posted
If you are talking about Angela Paxton, and if you mean her wedding album burning in the dumpster, yes.
I was referring to the literal dumpster fire behind Paxtons office right around the time of the impeachment announcement.
Posted
17 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Melania disappearing off the face of the earth post-election was the most predictable thing ever.

She hasn’t filed for divorce like some (many?) on here insisted she would do as soon as Trump left office. No, that gold digger is in it for the long haul and whatever pot of gold she thinks is waiting for her when Trump finally croaks. I assume she still appears by his side at Mar-a-Lago as required. That’s part of her job. She’s an accessory and when Trump wants to be seen with her, I think she’ll be seen. But I’m also sure that the charges he’s facing over the hush money he paid Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about their affair complicates things. In the end, though, it probably just ups Melanie’s price.

She’s still in on the grift. Back in Dec. of 2021 she launched her own NFT.

IMG_9087.thumb.jpeg.3f5aadfaedbbe1bec46e730fa267e7b9.jpeg

And in July we learned that, also in 2021, Trump’s Super PAC paid her $155,000 for a “speaking engagement.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/us/politics/melania-trump-payment.html

Posted
45 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

She hasn’t filed for divorce like some (many?) on here insisted she would do as soon as Trump left office. No, that gold digger is in it for the long haul and whatever pot of gold she thinks is waiting for her when Trump finally croaks. I assume she still appears by his side at Mar-a-Lago as required. That’s part of her job. She’s an accessory and when Trump wants to be seen with her, I think she’ll be seen. But I’m also sure that the charges he’s facing over the hush money he paid Stormy Daniels to buy her silence about their affair complicates things. In the end, though, it probably just ups Melanie’s price.

She’s still in on the grift. Back in Dec. of 2021 she launched her own NFT.

IMG_9087.thumb.jpeg.3f5aadfaedbbe1bec46e730fa267e7b9.jpeg

And in July we learned that, also in 2021, Trump’s Super PAC paid her $155,000 for a “speaking engagement.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/us/politics/melania-trump-payment.html

That's way up from her old $300 an hour rate.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted

Brennan on Deadline White House basically saying Russia/Putin are going to help get trump elected and we should all prepare ourselves for that actually happening. 

 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Brennan on Deadline White House basically saying Russia/Putin are going to help get trump elected and we should all prepare ourselves for that actually happening. 

 

Well, let's be prepared for them doing everything possible to help Trump.

But actually winning is going to take more than that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Brennan on Deadline White House basically saying Russia/Putin are going to help get trump elected and we should all prepare ourselves for that actually happening. 

 

This is shocking news. No way Russia would ever help trump. 

Bro, I like you, but that is about as obvious as watching aggy lose on Saturday. We all know it’s going to happen. Acting surprised that Russia is going to help trump? 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This is shocking news. No way Russia would ever help trump. 

Bro, I like you, but that is about as obvious as watching aggy lose on Saturday. We all know it’s going to happen. Acting surprised that Russia is going to help trump? 

I mean, I'm not personally surprised. I still think there are people who don't believe that that would happen (again). *cough*

  • Haha 2
Posted
27 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Brennan on Deadline White House basically saying Russia/Putin are going to help get trump elected and we should all prepare ourselves for that actually happening. 

Won’t be the first time. 

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I mean, I'm not personally surprised. I still think there are people who don't believe that that would happen (again). *cough*

They’re called idiots. Like Anastasis

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Pancho said:

Brennan on Deadline White House basically saying Russia/Putin are going to help get trump elected and we should all prepare ourselves for that actually happening. 

 

Bro, sweatergawd, if Putin can defeat 60% of America, but can't defeat Ukraine, we are fucked. 

I mean, we might be anyway, but still. 

  • Like 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Pancho said:

Brennan on Deadline White House basically saying Russia/Putin are going to help get trump elected and we should all prepare ourselves for that actually happening. 

 


Yup. I think the Saudis will help, too. And possibly the Chinese, but in subtle ways.

I was reading about Charlie Wilson earlier. Charlie had a brass plaque on which were emblazoned the last words of Abdur Rahman Khan, emir of Afghanistan from 1880 to 1901: "My spirit will remain in Afghanistan even though my soul will go to God. My last words to you my son and successor are: Never Trust the Russians."

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
59 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Yup. I think the Saudis will help, too.

Saudis are already helping Trump by cutting oil production to drive up the price of gas which could drive up inflation as transportation costs increase.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

image.png.ce90c150b0d324d4b7a01d1d2ee338f7.png



If Trump has hundreds of millions of dollars of cash on hand, why doesn't he pay back the 600k he still owes the City of El Paso for security provided at his rally a few years ago. Not to mention all the other towns he still owes money to.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

Over-inflating your net worth by billions of dollars while under indictment for over-inflating your net worth as you wage a media campaign to overstate your net worth in order to raise money to increase your net worth and detract from business decisions that undercut your net worth.  That totally commonplace thing that billionaires do?

I mean, at this point---you almost have to respect the man for how bold he mistreats his moronic acolytes.  

  • Drool 1
Posted

I haven’t been paying attention lately, but did I hear correctly that Mark Meadows asked the federal court who found that it had no removal jurisdiction  to stay the implementation of its rulings until the 11th circuit can rule?

If so, then can somebody tell me how a court with admittedly no jurisdiction has the authority to stay any rulings?

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I haven’t been paying attention lately, but did I hear correctly that Mark Meadows asked the federal court who found that it had no removal jurisdiction  to stay the implementation of its rulings until the 11th circuit can rule?

If so, then can somebody tell me how a court with admittedly no jurisdiction has the authority to stay any rulings?

Channel 9 Television GIF by Celebrity Apprentice Australia

Posted
6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I haven’t been paying attention lately, but did I hear correctly that Mark Meadows asked the federal court who found that it had no removal jurisdiction  to stay the implementation of its rulings until the 11th circuit can rule?

If so, then can somebody tell me how a court with admittedly no jurisdiction has the authority to stay any rulings?

Ha good question.  And, it would be a stay of a state court, which would be . . .  problematic.  But, the Anti-Injunction Act does permit stays of state court proceedings in aid of federal court jurisdiction, even when it is questionable.

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ha good question.  And, it would be a stay of a state court, which would be . . .  problematic.  But, the Anti-Injunction Act does permit stays of state court proceedings in aid of federal court jurisdiction, even when it is questionable.

that was my question. How can there be a stay in aide to federal court jurisdiction when the courts already ruled there is none.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

that was my question. How can there be a stay in aide to federal court jurisdiction when the courts already ruled there is none.

I think that's what "even when it is questionable" goes to

Posted
2 hours ago, Horndog said:

Interesting wrinkle in the Meadows appeal. The 11th Circuit has asked for briefing on whether the removal right applies to former officials or only current officials. If only current, dotard and the rest have no path to removal. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/13/mark-meadows-federal-appeals-court-georgia-case/70840974007/

i’m not sure where this is going. I guess you could argue that if the individuals are no longer government employees, or acting under a current government employee, then the state criminal action does not actively interfere in any current running of the federal government, which removes the need for federal court intervention via removal. 

if that is the thinking, I guess they could argue that like a diversity jurisdiction case, you look at the time of the filing of the case to see if all the parties are non-diverse.  The fact parties move in or out of state after the filing does not invalidate a diversity removal that was proper at the time of the initial lawsuit filing.

……So maybe a criminal action filed while someone was still acting under color of federal law as a member of trumps staff could be removed to federal court, but could not be removed to federal court after Trump and the individual were no longer federal employees at the time of the indictments. 

Other than the above brain fart, I have not thought about this at all, and I’m kind of surprised by the question from the 11th circuit

Posted
5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 

Other than the above brain fart, I have not thought about this at all, and I’m kind of surprised by the question from the 11th circuit

Here is the excerpt from the Order.  They are pointing out that a separate provision expressly includes the person's status at the time the action accrued.

In certain circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) permits “any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity,” to remove a civil action or criminal prosecution from state court to federal court. Does that statute permit former federal officers to remove state actions to federal court or does it permit only current federal officers to remove? Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), with 28 U.S.C. § 1442(b) (permitting removal of “[a] personal action commenced in any State court by an alien against any citizen of a State who is, or at the time the alleged action accrued was, a civil officer of the United States and is a nonresident of such State . . .”).

Posted
Quote

“at the time the alleged action accrued“

i’m not sure how that is interpreted, but I’d guess the field has been plowed enough for someone to give us a good guess.   #teamsitandrotingeorgia

Posted
3 hours ago, Horndog said:

Interesting wrinkle in the Meadows appeal. The 11th Circuit has asked for briefing on whether the removal right applies to former officials or only current officials. If only current, dotard and the rest have no path to removal. 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/09/13/mark-meadows-federal-appeals-court-georgia-case/70840974007/

That has been a question all along that has not been addressed. Also exactly what is an official. 

Posted
22 hours ago, DixonHur said:

Saudis are already helping Trump by cutting oil production to drive up the price of gas which could drive up inflation as transportation costs increase.

Yep. Hurts Biden and helps Putin. That’s a win-win for Trump. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 9/12/2023 at 8:23 PM, DixonHur said:

This guy can't stop admitting to crimes...um, that's called fraud, you know, the crime she's indicting you for.

Excuse me good sir. Clearly you are not familiar with Disclaimer Clause and protective language doctrine 

  • Haha 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Excuse me good sir. Clearly you are not familiar with Disclaimer Clause and protective language doctrine 

 

Don't forget the Presidential Records Act, which somehow protects Trump, but does not protect Biden.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...