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

This is all very shocking. I asked a few pages back what the result would be when she started doing exactly this. These people are fucking nuts and aren't capable of abiding by those terms.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
Just now, RomaVicta said:

If she were a black man, she'd already be in the slammer. Some of this is the usual pussy-footing with affluent white defendents. I think there is reluctance humiliate persons of Trump and Powell's stature. That hesitation doesn't exist for others. 

It must come down to the visual pictures they have in their heads. It's easy to imagine a black man in jail. It's tragic to imagine Powell deprived of her wardrobe and subject to the commands of prison guards.

We need to get over that. Powell and other traitors are dangers to the country. Trump, of course, is the worst. They need to be in cells.

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Foosters said:

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

There are plenty of biases in the justice system, but they tend to be more subtle and subjective than post-plea treatment.

As a general proposition, a plea leads to a sentence, which may just be straight up imprisonment, or some form of probation, or a mixture.

If there's a violation of any probationary part, that leads to the consequences of violating probation, usually imprisonment, but has no effect on the plea.

ETA:  obviously not trying to tell Foosters anything, but elaborating on the point.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

If I'm using plurality wrong, which I'm still not convinced that I am, thanks for calling it out. I still think I'm supported by common usage. I see in the definition that the word is inappropriate outside of an election where the winner has the plurality. The first definition pulls the meaning to a slightly more general meaning, but you're techinically correct.

If it turns out I'm using if fine, I use it to connote a large portion less than half in the context of the body of voters, I do appreciate the discussion. I'm sure everybody else is rapt as well.

The problem is that Trump won the Electoral College in 2016.  He did not win a plurality of the popular vote.  Hillary Clinton did.

2016 Election Results Popular Vote Pie Chart

 

In 2020 Joe Biden won an outright majority in the popular vote.

So:

2016 Trump won EC Majority and Clinton won Popular vote plurality

2020 Biden won both EC and PV majority

Trump never won a plurality of anything unless you're talking about the Republican primary

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

I've often thought the percentage of EC votes was a curiously overlooked statistic.  Obviously it means nothing in the Constitutional sense.  But it's been a curious tracking device for quite awhile now. 

s.  

 

Posted
1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

I've often thought the percentage of EC votes was a curiously overlooked statistic.  Obviously it means nothing in the Constitutional sense.  But it's been a curious tracking device for quite awhile now. 

s.  

 

0a64e1ee-11a0-4123-92cc-4def8972ed59_tex

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Foosters said:

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

Ken Paxton has been under indictment since 2015.  Explain that, smart guy.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Native Horn said:

Not trying to shame a perfectly nice looking duck, but you sleep in a truck?

#drsuess

I know I shouldn't post drunk, especially in my truck. But here we are.

Edited by Walser
No
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I beg to differ.

 

 

Could you guys please upload it to her OnlyFans then so I could get paid?

Posted
1 hour ago, Foosters said:

No offense, but I regularly see statements like this on this thread "if she was poor," "if she was black" etc.

What are all of you basing these predictions on? Because as someone who is in a criminal court every day, this is not my experience. At all.

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

image.png.91043f16376e9efad980ce1dfe57e7ce.png

image.png.7256802f47acc7ba0fa6397c3edb90d3.png

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

image.png.4f58d1dfc28b73ad2b042b6182c43fb4.png

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

image.png.91043f16376e9efad980ce1dfe57e7ce.png

image.png.7256802f47acc7ba0fa6397c3edb90d3.png

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

image.png.4f58d1dfc28b73ad2b042b6182c43fb4.png

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

My statement was not a sweeping defense of the fairness found in the criminal justice system, nor was it to mean that Black men receive equal treatment under the law. 

My statement was in response to your post about Powell's public statements that she was coerced into a plea, but I had been seeing similar positions by other posters that this type of conduct would lead similarly situated defendants straight to the slammer.

In my experience, that is not the case. Defendants yelling at judges. Calling them "motherfuckers," "bitches," "spics" etc. I have seen defendants with social media accounts posting daily trial updates accusing judges and DAs of all sorts of illegal and untechnical behavior. DAs will bring this up to the courts, and it rarely results in more than a stern verbal admonition. I have seen protective orders, stay away orders, and other judicial orders ignored or marginally complied with. I could go downstairs this afternoon and probably see each of these in real time. They happen all the time, and they rarely, if ever, lead to someone getting locked up, unless the prosecutors file additional charges based on that conduct. 

 

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

^
Good points and my limited experience in the law can confirm.  I think a curious issue here though is this is somebody making veiled threats who used to be able to follow through with them with far more power than anyone else, and may be in a position to do it again.  But in the interim, they can call upon an army of millions to do their bidding with nothing more than a few dog whistle phrases online or at a rally.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

^
Good points and my limited experience in the law can confirm.  I think a curious issue here though is this is somebody making veiled threats who used to be able to follow through with them with far more power than anyone else, and may be in a position to do it again.  But in the interim, they can call upon an army of millions to do their bidding with nothing more than a few dog whistle phrases online or at a rally.  

 

I will agree that the defendant's influence and reach make this a far more compelling argument. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Who's going to examine Don for the state?   I hope it's a minority woman.  That will drive him nuts. 

Are drug dogs allowed to be in the court room?  Asking for a twitchy friend I want to say person?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's weird. I saw that the case intended to make Trump the last witness, but now it's going to be Ivanka?

take everything Bill Palmer says with a grain of salt, but this is his take/guess:

Quote

if Donald Trump was planning to just wait to see how Ivanka addressed certain matters and then parrot those same answers himself, now he won’t be able to do that. Donald will have to commit himself to certain answers under oath, without knowing what Ivanka will then say during her testimony.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

Well, that's one of the hazards of having to subpoena a non-party witness that lives out of state.  Unlike Vanky's arguments, she will have to testify even if she is no longer a party and no longer lives in NY, but the trial schedule will have to reasonably accommodate her travel.

Posted
34 minutes ago, locodos said:

so he goes to jail and she doesn't have to slurp mushroom soup once a week.

Is mushroom soup a euphemism for Jared’s cock?

Posted
8 hours ago, C-Man said:

Sidney Powell backtracking on guilty plea?
 

Well, the first time that I plea-dealed my qualifying was a shame
I started out way in the back and came back 'bout the same
Pulled her in the pit, couldn't look my daddy in the eye
He said, "If you quit now, Sydney, it's gonna haunt you all your life"
See, it ain't about the money or even being number one
You gotta know when it's all over, you did the best you could've done
And knowing that crazy's in you and you never let it out
Is worse than blowing any Trumpkin or any wreck you'll ever have
  • Drool 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Red Five said:

This is all very shocking. I asked a few pages back what the result would be when she started doing exactly this. These people are fucking nuts and aren't capable of abiding by those terms.

Yep, this was always going to happen. Take a plea deal, mail in an apology, tell MAGA that you tricked the librul judges, then continue the grift, knowing that the court is virtually powerless to do anything at that point.

And they'll never, ever, ever hurt Trump in any truly meaningful way by testifying against him--if it ever comes to that--because they aren't remotely credible and have shown that they'll say anything in the moment for self preservation.

Posted
16 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

image.png.91043f16376e9efad980ce1dfe57e7ce.png

image.png.7256802f47acc7ba0fa6397c3edb90d3.png

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

image.png.4f58d1dfc28b73ad2b042b6182c43fb4.png

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

 

images.jpeg

Posted
On 10/29/2023 at 4:39 PM, Macanudo said:

The sooner Americans wake up to the fact that corporations don't give a shit about them and have bought/paid for every member of Congress, the better. 

I had never heard of the Powell Memo before watching this.   50 years later, we're in deep shit.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
36 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

I had never heard of the Powell Memo before watching this.   50 years later, we're in deep shit.

 

This plus the Southern Strategy is the holy grail of modern day conservatism 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
19 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Appreciate the perspective and the Twice Horn upvote for it. No offense taken.

I'm surprised to hear an argument from a criminal lawyer stating that a white woman of a higher class would receive the same justice as a black man accused of the same crimes. I had not researched it as you suppose.

So, I went to google and entered this:

Is a black man more likely to be convicted than white person

Here's what you see on page 1:

image.png.91043f16376e9efad980ce1dfe57e7ce.png

image.png.7256802f47acc7ba0fa6397c3edb90d3.png

Then I realized we were talking mostly about sentencing, but I believe the above reflects why I wrote what I did above. 

I then entered the below into google:

Is a black man more likely to get harsher sentencing?

image.png.4f58d1dfc28b73ad2b042b6182c43fb4.png

 

With such vast evidence and research showing inequitable treatment for Black men, I don't think my statement is ill-founded. Is your evidence purely personal experience? Have I missed the point?

Thanks for leading me to look this up. I'd accepted it as true having made no effort to verify. I think what I found on google does verify my initial post that you object to.

Written without rancor.

It's not wrong, at all. 

But I think the most apt explanation for this is the subtle, maybe subconcious racism that still exists in our society.  Prosecutors, sentencing judges, even jurors are apt to believe that black men are more likely to have committed a more serious crime and deserve harsher punishment than a similarly situated white guy, or woman, for that matter.

Then you add in criminal legislation like the VCCLA  with its fairly obviously racially biased crack disparity, among other things, and the economic disadvantage suffered by black men, and you have a recipe for this.

The problem is that it is out of context.  There are a lot of "unpleasant" situations in the legal system (meaning outcomes you don't like because you have a deep interest in the outcome), that have nothing or very little to do with the problems that make the system inequitable.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not wrong, at all. 

But I think the most apt explanation for this is the subtle, maybe subconcious racism that still exists in our society.  Prosecutors, sentencing judges, even jurors are apt to believe that black men are more likely to have committed a more serious crime and deserve harsher punishment than a similarly situated white guy, or woman, for that matter.

Then you add in criminal legislation like the VCCLA  with its fairly obviously racially biased crack disparity, among other things, and the economic disadvantage suffered by black men, and you have a recipe for this.

The problem is that it is out of context.  There are a lot of "unpleasant" situations in the legal system (meaning outcomes you don't like because you have a deep interest in the outcome), that have nothing or very little to do with the problems that make the system inequitable.

Appreciate that. I started another post to point out that I'd indeed made a sweeping statement based on a general truth. @Foosters addressed the very specific context whence my statement emerged. I abandoned the post because I wasn't writing anything he didn't already know, we'd both made our points, and I'm not sure how interested anybody else was in further discussion.

On the issue of what happens in the specific case of what someone on parole says and does, I don't doubt y'all are correct. I'd expanded to the more general treatment of Black people which, I still believe, would be harsher in the actual sentencing rather than the carrying out of parole.

Thanks to you both. It's illuminating.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, locodos said:

So already some good is coming out of all of all this

Trump supporter indicted for threatening Fulton County D.A. and sheriff

An Alabama man has been indicted for making alleged threats against officials in Fulton County, Georgia, involved in the arrest and prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

A federal grand jury in Atlanta has indicted 59-year-old Arthur Ray Hanson II on charges of transmitting interstate threats to injure Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Fulton County Sheriff Patrick Labat over their connection to the arrest and prosecution of the former president. Trump's trial over alleged efforts to overturn the presidential election result in Georgia will take place next year.

Hanson made his first appearance in federal court in Huntsville, Alabama, and will be arraigned in Atlanta next month.

Prosecutors say Hanson called the Fulton County government customer service line twice on Aug. 6, 2023, leaving two voicemails — the first for Labat and the second for Willis.

"If you think you gonna take a mugshot of my President Donald Trump and it's gonna be ok, you gonna find out that after you take that mugshot, some bad [expletive]'s probably gonna happen to you," Hanson allegedly said in his message intended for the sheriff. "... I'm warning you right now before you [expletive] up your life and get hurt real bad."

In his messages for Willis, Hanson allegedly told her to "watch everywhere that you're going" and "there's gonna be moments when you're gonna be vulnerable," among other things.

Federal officials who investigated the case stressed the seriousness of the charges.

"Threats against public servants are not only illegal, but also a threat against our democratic process," said Keri Farley, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. "The FBI's mission is to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution. We take this responsibility very seriously and seek to punish those who engage in this type of criminal behavior, and to send the message that such conduct will not be tolerated."

Multiple individuals charged in the sprawling Fulton County case have now accepted guilty pleas, including Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell.

— Andy Triay contributed to this report 

 

FBI needs to farm these idiots hard

Speaking of MAGA death threats, this trial just started.

https://www.newsweek.com/abigail-shry-donald-trump-judge-tanya-chutkan-threat-1839133

Quote

"Mr. Shry believes that Defendant is a non-violent alcoholic. He testified that she sits on her couch daily watching the news while drinking too many beers. She then becomes agitated by the news and starts calling people and threatening them," Sheldon noted. "Mr. Shry stated that his daughter never leaves her residence and therefore would not act upon her threats."

 

Edited by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
  • Haha 4
Posted
Quote

"During consensual questioning, SHRY admitted that the phone number" which made the call "belongs to her and that she did in fact make the call to Judge Chutkan's chambers," the affidavit said. "SHRY stated that she had no plans to travel to Washington, DC or Houston to carry out anything she stated, adding that if Sheila Jackson Lee comes to Alvin, then we need to worry," the affidavit shows.

“If she comes to Alvin, and then to my house…and she brings a gun…..and she leaves it near me loaded….and Dancing with the Stars re-runs aren’t on…THEN SHE NEEDS TO WORRY!!”

IMG_1880.jpeg.02ca6eaf6e6496e33784d78bf654d29f.jpeg

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_1881.webp.6be4d5792a721ea6090ca57066f36def.webp

The story says she has two children, so I tend to believe this is fake news -because I’m not sure somebody would hit it twice. 

Dude.  That's an Alvin 8.

  • Haha 7


×
×
  • Create New...