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
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Hell, I went through a brief libertarian-ish phase (fuck you, I also wore parachute pants back in the day, bad decisions that are absolutely age-appropriate are kinda my thing.....shit, wait, does that mean I'm about to dump my wife for a bimbo and start driving a Vette?  I fucking hate Corvettes).

It's just another completely deranged and unrealistic worldview that doesn't account for human nature at all, and presumes we'd have all the prosperity, stability, and safety that we presently have.....magically, I guess, because they sure as hell wouldn't have come along in LibertarianStan.

I kind of figured you as and IROC guy.  

  • Like 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

The last time I ventured to the scat site before it shut down I reviewed some of my posts from 15 years ago.... I'm surprised I had any friends then. 

Well I don't like you

  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

The last time I ventured to the scat site before it shut down I reviewed some of my posts from 15 years ago.... I'm surprised I had any friends then. 

But do you have friends now?

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, longhornmatt said:

And the delusional idiots are actually the benign libertarians, or even the ones who might be young and on the journey to snapping out of it. 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Hell, I went through a brief libertarian-ish phase

52 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

To be fair, if you were to write down all the stupid things I believed in graduate school and compressed it down, it would overflow Surly's database.

People CAN change their beliefs, if they want to.

A lot of people went through a libertarian phase (especially here in Austin, which was kind of ground-zero for it in Texas), and it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of former Republicans went through such a phase after they bailed on the GOP

Suspicious Monkey GIF by MOODMAN

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

The last time I ventured to the scat site before it shut down I reviewed some of my posts from 15 years ago.... I'm surprised I had any friends then. 

I can't even say I'm real comfortable with the gibberish I posted yesterday. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 6
Posted
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

YARN | Ah, no, no, she's looking at me | Counting Crows - Mr. Jones | Video  clips by quotes | 02cdf5ef | 紗

Well, if it wasn't clear to me before, I certainly believe Counting Crows is just about the dorkiest band ever.

(In contention:  Gin Blossoms)

Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, if it wasn't clear to me before, I certainly believe Counting Crows is just about the dorkiest band ever.

(In contention:  Gin Blossoms)

Did you know that beating up a fan of the Counting Crows or Gin Blossoms is treated by the police in the same manner as if you'd beat up a human being?

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Did you know that beating up a fan of the Counting Crows or Gin Blossoms is treated by the police in the same manner as if you'd beat up a human being?

It's because of all these protected classes, man.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Scheiss Meister said:

I read this and immediately had the image of a good fart inflating the pants like a balloon.

I thought of the 1st episode of CYE, "The Pants Tent".

Posted

On a more substantive note, of the recent flurry of motions Trump filed in DC, one of the more futile was to strike the allegations in the indictment relating to the events of January 6.  Chutkan poured that one out in three pages.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656604/158/united-states-v-trump/

As her opinion and order make clear, the standard for striking such material from an indictment is rigorous, and Trump came nowhere close to meeting it.

Of possibly more interest is how the government responded to the motion, which is probably said better here than I can. https://www.npr.org/2023/11/17/1213480816/trump-special-counsel-case-jan-6  Good analysis that the government is prepared to nail his ass to the wall on every bit of this.

Nail gun used in servo robbery

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Drool 1
Posted
17 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, if it wasn't clear to me before, I certainly believe Counting Crows is just about the dorkiest band ever.

(In contention:  Gin Blossoms)

Duritz banged more top-shelf ass than anyone this side of Derek Jeter, so I'm not going to call them dorky.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Duritz banged more top-shelf ass than anyone this side of Derek Jeter, so I'm not going to call them dorky.

why not? chicks dig dorky dudes

ask me how I know

  • Like 1
Posted
17 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, if it wasn't clear to me before, I certainly believe Counting Crows is just about the dorkiest band ever.

(In contention:  Gin Blossoms)

Bare Naked Ladies

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ten Bears said:

So you're saying its the Cadillac of motions?

Technically speaking, it was the Cadillac of responses.  Trump's motion, the government's response.

But they were quite adamant that they would prove "knowing lies" about the election and an intent to provoke the crowd to march on the Capitol and disrupt the electoral count.  That kind of thing tends not to be posturing:  they set out what they think they can really prove.

  • Like 2
Posted
Well, if it wasn't clear to me before, I certainly believe Counting Crows is just about the dorkiest band ever.
(In contention:  Gin Blossoms)

Fuck you, man, I like the Gin Blossoms and I’m not a dor…..wait….shit.
  • Haha 2
Posted
52 minutes ago, Hawndoh said:

I don't know if you'd call them dorky or nerdy, but They Might Be Giants would be considered the top of the list.

They have some great songs though

They Might Be Giants are fucking awesome

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

I think, and the law eagles can correct me if I'm wrong, but the case was just about could Trump be on the ballot for the primary. And the argument goes that the RNC can nominate whomever they want even if he engaged in an insurrection. Now who is going to stop him from being on the actual election ballot in November is a different question.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

I think, and the law eagles can correct me if I'm wrong, but the case was just about could Trump be on the ballot for the primary. And the argument goes that the RNC can nominate whomever they want even if he engaged in an insurrection. Now who is going to stop him from being on the actual election ballot in November is a different question.

Ahhhhh. So the plaintiffs will just refile for the general?

Posted
30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Ahhhhh. So the plaintiffs will just refile for the general?

Yeah, there's no state action in a primary.  A party doesn't even have to hold a primary.

But it seems once we're talking Secretaries of State or other officials putting him on the ballot, looks like he'll initially be taken off, pending appeal.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 11/17/2023 at 5:28 PM, jimmyjazz said:

Well, if it wasn't clear to me before, I certainly believe Counting Crows is just about the dorkiest band ever.

(In contention:  Gin Blossoms)

news-anchor-negged.gif

  • Haha 1
Posted

Listening to the oral argument in Trump’s gag order appeal to the circuit court on MSNBC on the way into work.  Their orange client will like their argument just as much as the court will hate it.

Using a technical legal term, Trump and his counsel are getting Uber Fucked. From the questioning, it seems highly unlikely that he’s going to win his appeal and get the gag order overturned.  You have a panel of two Obama appointees and one Biden appointee. So when Trump loses, even though it was because Doddard’s counsel have a really stupid argument and a horrible client who says threatening things and sics his army of regarded cult members on people he dislikes on the reg, they will trumpet that the mean Democratic judges are going after Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
On 11/20/2023 at 9:35 AM, Gatorubet said:

Listening to the oral argument in Trump’s gag order appeal to the circuit court on MSNBC on the way into work.  Their orange client will like their argument just as much as the court will hate it.

Using a technical legal term, Trump and his counsel are getting Uber Fucked. From the questioning, it seems highly unlikely that he’s going to win his appeal and get the gag order overturned.  You have a panel of two Obama appointees and one Biden appointee. So when Trump loses, even though it was because Doddard’s counsel have a really stupid argument and a horrible client who says threatening things and sics his army of regarded cult members on people he dislikes on the reg, they will trumpet that the mean Democratic judges are going after Trump.

I didn't listen, but I have read some coverage.  I think the gag order will stay in place, but might be narrowed some.  The judges weren't buying Trump's argument completely, but I think they were a bit skeptical of the government's position in spots too.  Caveat, as always, with the difficulty of sussing a ruling from oral argument questions.

And, I don't put much stock in who appointed the judges.  Outside of Trump appointees, and a few outliers from GWB, most of them are just going to do the judge thing.

Some good discussion here. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/three-appellate-judges-two-hours-and-a-first-amendment-conundrum

Posted

On a related note, perusing lawfare, which is a really fantastic source for things Trump and others, I came across this.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/m.-evan-corcoran-s-attorney-client-privilege-in-florida

It's a discussion of why the DC District Court's order piercing attorney-client privilege on the crime fraud exception may not bind, or even persuade Cannon (her proclivities aside).

For one thing, it's an order of another, co-equal district court.  I thought it had been fully appealed to the DC Circuit, but apparently not, they just declined to stay the order and did not hear a full appeal on the merits.  Even if the DC Circuit had, its ruling would not be binding on a court in the 11th Circuit, just highly persuasive.

But the main issue, according to the article, is that it's not the same party, so issue preclusion (res judicata species) does not apply.  I suppose that's technically true in that the witness was Corcoran, not Trump, but everything seemed to indicate that Trump's attorneys were there asserting his interest in the privilege, including the abortive appeal.  And, of course, the privilege is Trump's not Corcoran's to waive or otherwise lose.  That would seem to make him the "real party in interest" even if he wasn't technically the one before the grand jury or before the courts.

I am intrigued by this issue, because it seems like if Corcoran's notes and testimony are excluded from the MAL trial, the obstruction case gets a bit harder.  Maybe not with the separate DeOliveira/surveillance issue.

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I didn't listen, but I have read some coverage.  I think the gag order will stay in place, but might be narrowed some.  The judges weren't buying Trump's argument completely, but I think they were a bit skeptical of the government's position in spots too.  Caveat, as always, with the difficulty of sussing a ruling from oral argument questions.

And, I don't put much stock in who appointed the judges.  Outside of Trump appointees, and a few outliers from GWB, most of them are just going to do the judge thing.

Some good discussion here. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/three-appellate-judges-two-hours-and-a-first-amendment-conundrum

My comment that he is fucked was really addressing the fact that I do not see the gist of the gag order being overturned. I could see them tweak it some.

Quote

She notes that  the Supreme Court’s conception of even the clear and present danger test is still that it is a balancing test that requires consideration of the weighty constitutional interest in protecting the integrity of a criminal trial as well as the First Amendment interests of the defendant. 

Sauer responds that Brown guarantees the defendant “absolute freedom” on core political speech.

“So there is no balance,” says Judge Millett. She adds that calling it “core political speech” begs the question of whether it is in fact political speech or whether it is speech “aimed at derailing or corrupting the criminal justice process.” Sauer responds that Trump’s campaign speech is “inextricably entwined” with freely responding to the entire election interference prosecution. 

Trumps lawyer may not have thought that answer through entirely. He is essentially arguing that you can corrupt the criminal justice process as long as you do it in a stump speech. I don’t think that is going to fly.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...