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, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Very telling that even Ronna McDaniel is being cautious with her statements today regarding that Michigan phone call. You can only imagine what other conversations some of them had that and how they stay up at night worried about the 5am "knock" on the door by the FBI.

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I really, really just want one conversation to happen.  The one between Ronna, with her legal counsel present, and an AUSA, in the DOJ offices.  "Ronna, so here's the thing.  You can flip and sing like a canary, or you can go to prison.  The choice is yours.  I'll give you ten minutes to talk about it with your lawyer, after that, the deal is off the table, because the guys and I are gonna head out to lunch in a few - there's this new sandwich place that Ed's been raving about, says they use those really good italian sweet pickled peppers.  So, anyway...tick-tock."

I've wondered how she's been able to keep her position, given that the GOP fell completely to pieces on her watch - Lost the House, Senate, and then White House, while over 1,000 Republicans are facing charges from their assault on the Capitol.

I'm guessing she's been in on a lot of these types of conversations, and the Republican leadership *had* to keep her within the "family" so to speak, or risk her spilling her guts.  And I would assume that somebody with her power/reach, would make sure to have their asses covered, which means she would have receipts.

Posted
4 hours ago, Slacks said:

So, for me, these have been the two questions:

1. Was Jan 6 an insurrection or rebellion?

Many will say they believe it was. Many will say they believe it was a giant protest. Neither Insurrection nor rebellion are defined in federal law. 

2. If J6 was an insurrection or rebellion, did the President incite, set on foot, assist, or engage... or give aid or comfort thereto?

Whatever it was, some will say they believe he incited it. Some will say he did not. It does not appear that he "set on foot". He didn't appear to assist or engage. And I don't recall any evidence of aid or comfort to those who were involved (I may just not be aware.) 

 

And the uncertainty of what it was and his involvement is why media outlets say 'believe'. We all saw what we saw, but since we've never seen it before, it is subjective. Media corporations can't say it was it was a thing (yet). Saying it was a thing, saying he incited it, and then having a Court rule otherwise would likely shut down a network. That libel / slander lawsuit would be settled for billions. 

I think attempting a coup is insurrection, yes. And the attempted coup had more aspects than the J6 domestic terrorists (a designation which does have a definition.) One aspect was Trump pressuring Pence to not perform his Constitutional duty. The phone call Trump made to R senators, whipping votes against certifying the election results was another. As were the calls made to the GA AG, and now, apparently, to MI.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I think attempting a coup is insurrection, yes. And the attempted coup had more aspects than the J6 domestic terrorists (a designation which does have a definition.) One aspect was Trump pressuring Pence to not perform his Constitutional duty. The phone call Trump made to R senators, whipping votes against certifying the election results was another. As were the calls made to the GA AG, and now, apparently, to MI.

It's never not amazing that he's on tape demanding that state officials fabricate their vote count so that he could win, and he wasn't impeached for that. 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

But I have been assured repeatedly that the supreme court isn't trying to help trump. 

No you haven't.

You have been told that, to date, they have not.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

No you haven't.

You have been told that, to date, they have not.


roberts and the far right justices are saving it all for the only decision that matters

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

I'm guessing she's been in on a lot of these types of conversations, and the Republican leadership *had* to keep her within the "family" so to speak, or risk her spilling her guts..

  Speaker Ryan: 'What's said in the family stays in the family.'

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

roberts and the far right justices are saving it all for the only decision that matters

My thought as to what’s happening behind the chambers doors: the question of whether the prosecution of a main candidate for POTUS is “election interference” is a political one. A stupid and dangerous one, but still a question. Courts HATE to decide political questions, generally. So, to avoid that, this court is making a bet…and like all bets, it carries risk. If Trump loses the election, then the political question goes away: prosecute him to your heart’s content. That’s what they’re hoping for. But if he wins, then the stakes of the legal question just got incredibly high. It’s not a terrible bet, but the negative outcome if the bet was bad are much higher than the negative consequences of ruling today.
TLDR; the court is hoping that the problem just goes away when Trump loses.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


My thought as to what’s happening behind the chambers doors: the question of whether the prosecution of a main candidate for POTUS is “election interference” is a political one. A stupid and dangerous one, but still a question. Courts HATE to decide political questions, generally. So, to avoid that, this court is making a bet…and like all bets, it carries risk. If Trump loses the election, then the political question goes away: prosecute him to your heart’s content. That’s what they’re hoping for. But if he wins, then the stakes of the legal question just got incredibly high. It’s not a terrible bet, but the negative outcome if the bet was bad are much higher than the negative consequences of ruling today.
TLDR; the court is hoping that the problem just goes away when Trump loses.

… Or if he drops dead from being massive pile of shit 

  • Like 1
  • Drool 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

TLDR; the court is hoping that the problem just goes away when Trump loses.

I think that this is the right take.  Now, if the Court in a swing state eliminates Donnie from the ballot in 2024, you will likely see many of those furrowed SCOTUS brows leap into action.   I truly do not believe what I’m about to say, but there’s a small chance that they would not mind other states knocking him off the ballot to avoid a Trump presidency - and their sitting on their hands is a way to let the process accelerate and to remove their fingerprints on that ultimate political result without SCOTUS having an active hand in any decision determining the election outcome. 

Why do I think the second position as possible? The denial of the Jack Smith Writ was unanimous.   You would think that the court’s more liberal members would put up a fuss, or at least alert the world of impending skull-fuckery about to occur.  But that decision was unanimous, even though making SCOTUS decide immunity was widely seen as benefiting Jack Smith.

I confess to being confused over the unanimous denial.   I wish I was a fly on that wall

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No you haven't.

You have been told that, to date, they have not.

Seems like clarifying an Amendment is something for which they have standing, so to speak. Can we now drop they idea the court has not helped Trump? Inaction is a choice. It is something that is done. A decision made.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Seems like clarifying an Amendment is something for which they have standing, so to speak. Can we now drop they idea the court has not helped Trump? Inaction is a choice. It is something that is done. A decision made.

Well, not that I'm really all that inclined to support this court, but, remember, the immunity issue is due to be argued at the US appeals court on Jan 9, and Chutkan's ruling is likely to be affirmed, meaning his immunity defense doesn't hold water.  This will of course be immediately appealed, but that will be the real litmus test.  If the SC either refuses to hear the case of affirms the U.S. Appeals Court affirmation, then this isn't all that much of a thing.  Additionally, under that timeline, as I understand it, the trial date would not move.  So while the media is portraying this as if the world were falling in, I'm not buying, at least not yet.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted
16 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well, not that I'm really all that inclined to support this court, but, remember, the immunity issue is due to be argued at the US appeals court on Jan 9, and Chutkan's ruling is likely to be affirmed, meaning his immunity defense doesn't hold water.  This will of course be immediately appealed, but that will be the real litmus test.  If the SC either refuses to hear the case of affirms the U.S. Appeals Court affirmation, then this isn't all that much of a thing.  Additionally, under that timeline, as I understand it, the trial date would not move.  So while the media is portraying this as if the world were falling in, I'm not buying, at least not yet.  

Which indeed might explain the reason behind the unanimity in denying Jack’s writ now. 

Posted

 

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I really, really just want one conversation to happen.  The one between Ronna, with her legal counsel present, and an AUSA, in the DOJ offices.  "Ronna, so here's the thing.  You can flip and sing like a canary, or you can go to prison.  The choice is yours.  I'll give you ten minutes to talk about it with your lawyer, after that, the deal is off the table, because the guys and I are gonna head out to lunch in a few - there's this new sandwich place that Ed's been raving about, says they use those really good italian sweet pickled peppers.  So, anyway...tick-tock."

AF1QipMiahdJydBckzFSY6FDvVGZE92IhIzkZeBQ

Posted
22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Which indeed might explain the reason behind the unanimity in denying Jack’s writ now. 

What indication is there that this was unanimous? In the final analysis, it's a cert petition that takes four to grant. 

 

If you assume that the liberals all want to grant, which may not be a good assumption, they'd need one more. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Seems like clarifying an Amendment is something for which they have standing, so to speak. Can we now drop they idea the court has not helped Trump? Inaction is a choice. It is something that is done. A decision made.

This has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. 

This is presidential immunity arising in the January 6 case. 

And it's not like they won't review it, they just won't review it right now. 

I have never said they never helped trump. They helped him plenty of times when he was in office. 

They just have not, until now, helped him with his post- presidential problems. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well, not that I'm really all that inclined to support this court, but, remember, the immunity issue is due to be argued at the US appeals court on Jan 9, and Chutkan's ruling is likely to be affirmed, meaning his immunity defense doesn't hold water.  This will of course be immediately appealed, but that will be the real litmus test.  If the SC either refuses to hear the case of affirms the U.S. Appeals Court affirmation, then this isn't all that much of a thing.  Additionally, under that timeline, as I understand it, the trial date would not move.  So while the media is portraying this as if the world were falling in, I'm not buying, at least not yet.  

Shit in one hand and hope in the other and let me know which one fills up first. I have zero doubt the supreme court will find a way to continually delay trumps court dates. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Red Five said:

Now I'm no lawyer, but I think what's happening here is that Lisa Rubin has big tits. Feel free to correct me on the specifics, surly lawdogs. 

(DDD Dad furiously googling for images of Lisa Rubin). 

Posted
24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What indication is there that this was unanimous? In the final analysis, it's a cert petition that takes four to grant. 

I should’ve more correctly said that there were no dissents from the denial.    And while I forget where I read that, the fact that no one has mentioned a dissent in this rather newsworthy denial probably means none was authored.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Quote

Courts HATE to decide political questions, generally. So, to avoid that, this court is making a bet…and like all bets, it carries risk.

So Jon Edwards should have just stayed in the race to decrease his chances of prosecution? We make a president immune to the law, and those running aren't subject to equal treatment, except in certain cases where family members of politicians are subjected to exceptional punitive scrutiny and charges. 

 

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

Shit in one hand and hope in the other and let me know which one fills up first. I have zero doubt the supreme court will find a way to continually delay trumps court dates. 

I get the emotional feel to that, but they've done nothing on this that really helps him or hurts him of yet.  The media pumping up that this is something otherwise is bullshit.  To me, this is more of a procedural matter than it is anything else.  It's not as if they've granted him some sort of stay until the next session, all they have said with this is that right now they are going to let this play out in the usual process of going to US Appeals Court and then to them.  There is every reason to believe that part of the reason the did that is because of the time proximity given that its going to happen so soon.  

No one, no court, no one, has delayed the trial date at this point.  That doesn't mean that can't happen, but all the doomsday media would have you believe that is the case, and frankly it isn't.  

So while I certainly understand the frustration, and want this bastard to rot in prison as soon as possible, sometimes we have to let it play out.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
13 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

So while I certainly understand the frustration, and want this bastard to rot in prison as soon as possible, sometimes we have to let it play out.  

Ah, well, nevertheless

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I get the emotional feel to that, but they've done nothing on this that really helps him or hurts him of yet.  The media pumping up that this is something otherwise is bullshit.  To me, this is more of a procedural matter than it is anything else.  It's not as if they've granted him some sort of stay until the next session, all they have said with this is that right now they are going to let this play out in the usual process of going to US Appeals Court and then to them.  There is every reason to believe that part of the reason the did that is because of the time proximity given that its going to happen so soon.  

No one, no court, no one, has delayed the trial date at this point.  That doesn't mean that can't happen, but all the doomsday media would have you believe that is the case, and frankly it isn't.  

So while I certainly understand the frustration, and want this bastard to rot in prison as soon as possible, sometimes we have to let it play out.  

It is procedural, and it's not the shadow docket, per se. 

They have, or at least six of them, decided to let it run its normal course.  I suspect even the liberal judges (assuming they actively want to fuck Trump), have some qualms about not letting it run through the DC Circuit first.  It is conceivable that they quickly deny cert if they're content with the DC Circuit's analysis.  Some have predicted that will happen in the Blassingame civil immunity case.

But here's the problem:  Trump cannot be tried with an immunity question pending on appeal.  Nor can he be subjected to discovery, but then criminal defendants aren't really subject to discovery.  In any event, if the appeal remains pending on March 4, or near it, the trial date will move.

I am reasonably certain that the DC Circuit will resolve the case in late January or February, before March 4.  Petitioning for cert does not automatically stay the return of jurisdiction to the trial court, thus freeing the case for trial. But the DC Circuit could rule that it should in this case.

Even if they had granted cert and expedited the briefing and oral argument, I'm not sure the Supremes, any of them at any point in history, would resolve it before March 4.

The trial date will move, it's virtually guaranteed.  The question is, how far.

It's a freak show, baby baby on the dance floor.  Freak. Show.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is procedural, and it's not the shadow docket, per se. 

They have, or at least six of them, decided to let it run its normal course.  I suspect even the liberal judges (assuming they actively want to fuck Trump), have some qualms about not letting it run through the DC Circuit first.  It is conceivable that they quickly deny cert if they're content with the DC Circuit's analysis.  Some have predicted that will happen in the Blassingame civil immunity case.

But here's the problem:  Trump cannot be tried with an immunity question pending on appeal.  Nor can he be subjected to discovery, but then criminal defendants aren't really subject to discovery.  In any event, if the appeal remains pending on March 4, or near it, the trial date will move.

I am reasonably certain that the DC Circuit will resolve the case in late January or February, before March 4.  Petitioning for cert does not automatically stay the return of jurisdiction to the trial court, thus freeing the case for trial. But the DC Circuit could rule that it should in this case.

Even if they had granted cert and expedited the briefing and oral argument, I'm not sure the Supremes, any of them at any point in history, would resolve it before March 4.

The trial date will move, it's virtually guaranteed.  The question is, how far.

It's a freak show, baby baby on the dance floor.  Freak. Show.

Quick question for you on this.  Is it possible their plan is to expedite the immunity decision after US Appeals Court decision, and that this was relayed to special counsel via today's decision.  Obviously, nothing in writing on that.  As bad as this SC is, I think that is a reasonable line of thought.  I realize the law doesn't work that way under ordinary circumstances, but this is extraordinary.  

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Quick question for you on this.  Is it possible their plan is to expedite the immunity decision after US Appeals Court decision, and that this was relayed to special counsel via today's decision.  Obviously, nothing in writing on that.  As bad as this SC is, I think that is a reasonable line of thought.  I realize the law doesn't work that way under ordinary circumstances, but this is extraordinary.  

Well, assuming Trump loses at the DC Circuit (a very good assumption, btw), he has some dilatory options.  One is to ask for rehearing, then rehearing en banc (the full court).  Those would be denied with quickness, but would soak up a couple of weeks. 

Trump then has 90 days, either from the entry of judgment or the denial of rehearing by the DC Circuit to petition for cert.  I am not sure there is any way to force him to expedite.

Assuming DC Circuit decides in early February, and rehearings are disposed of by mid-February, Trump will have until May to petition for cert.  One might assume it would be taken up and granted expeditiously and a shortened briefing schedule perhaps established, but even then, we're probably at the end of the October 2023 term and it wouldn't be resumed until October 2024.

So, yeah.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I think politically the Democrat should focus on the shit stain of a Justice Clarence Thomas and his obvious corruption. They need to keep banging that drum and formally seek impeachment.   For one, you want GOP elected officials to defend the indefensible.   Also, at some point there needs to be a motion to recuse Thomas due to his traitorous bitch wife’s participation in the matters before the Court, and everything that can be done to help create a better record and have that succeed should be a priority.  

Plus, unlike some other party spats, it really is hard to defend a justice complaining about not making enough - and then GOP versions of George Soros giving him all of that money while he sits on cases his bagman sugar daddies have an interest in, and then rules in their favor.   I get that the cult followers won’t care, but I think you can get traction from about everybody else.  I would want every Senate and Representative debate to include a discussion of impeaching Thomas.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

So Jon Edwards should have just stayed in the race to decrease his chances of prosecution? We make a president immune to the law, and those running aren't subject to equal treatment, except in certain cases where family members of politicians are subjected to exceptional punitive scrutiny and charges. 

 

Is there any argument to be made that given the multiple exceptions, all are equal under the eyes of the law? 

Posted
5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. 

This is presidential immunity arising in the January 6 case. 

And it's not like they won't review it, they just won't review it right now. 

I have never said they never helped trump. They helped him plenty of times when he was in office. 

They just have not, until now, helped him with his post- presidential problems. 

Thanks for clarifying. I was mistaken.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, assuming Trump loses at the DC Circuit (a very good assumption, btw), he has some dilatory options.  One is to ask for rehearing, then rehearing en banc (the full court).  Those would be denied with quickness, but would soak up a couple of weeks. 

Trump then has 90 days, either from the entry of judgment or the denial of rehearing by the DC Circuit to petition for cert.  I am not sure there is any way to force him to expedite.

Assuming DC Circuit decides in early February, and rehearings are disposed of by mid-February, Trump will have until May to petition for cert.  One might assume it would be taken up and granted expeditiously and a shortened briefing schedule perhaps established, but even then, we're probably at the end of the October 2023 term and it wouldn't be resumed until October 2024.

So, yeah.

The thing that's most bothersome from a time perspective here is the 90 days Trump has to petition for cert.  Followed by a lengthy pendency at SCOTUS.

But, after seeing George Conway on CNN (bright fucker he is), something occurred to me.

The mandate returning jurisdiction to the trial court ordinarily issues seven days after judgment/opinion.  Once that happens, Chutkan is free to send him to trial.

Trump, however, can move to stay the mandate pending a cert petition.  Part of the winning argument there is that the cert petition presents a substantial question.  The DC Circuit is probably going to disagree that it is a substantial question and maybe condition staying the mandate on a quick cert petition filing.  At which point, Smith can jump in and beg the Court to take it up quickly if they take it up at all.  Or they could refuse to stay it altogether, forcing Trump to the Supreme Court on an expedited schedule.

So, maybe there's more hope than I thought.

March 4 is still out, though, most likely.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Posted
18 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Does withholding aid to the gvt = aiding the insurrection?  Or would they be separate and distinct acts as defined by a court?

not engaging the NG on his own or when called to do so by pelosi/shumer most certainly aided the Maga side and is very affirmatively provable that he had the means to do so and refused the direct request. 

If only there was something in the oath of office about defending the Constitution. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But here's the problem:  Trump cannot be tried with an immunity question pending on appeal.  Nor can he be subjected to discovery, but then criminal defendants aren't really subject to discovery.  In any event, if the appeal remains pending on March 4, or near it, the trial date will move.

The trial date will move, it's virtually guaranteed.  The question is, how far.

Keep going, I know you can figure this one out. 
 

Totally not doing him any favors, right?

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, assuming Trump loses at the DC Circuit (a very good assumption, btw), he has some dilatory options.  One is to ask for rehearing, then rehearing en banc (the full court).  Those would be denied with quickness, but would soak up a couple of weeks. 

Trump then has 90 days, either from the entry of judgment or the denial of rehearing by the DC Circuit to petition for cert.  I am not sure there is any way to force him to expedite.

Assuming DC Circuit decides in early February, and rehearings are disposed of by mid-February, Trump will have until May to petition for cert.  One might assume it would be taken up and granted expeditiously and a shortened briefing schedule perhaps established, but even then, we're probably at the end of the October 2023 term and it wouldn't be resumed until October 2024.

So, yeah.

Petition for cert won’t deprive the trial court of jurisdiction though.  DC court would have to issue a stay wouldn’t it?

Posted
12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am reasonably certain that the DC Circuit will resolve the case in late January or February, before March 4.  Petitioning for cert does not automatically stay the return of jurisdiction to the trial court, thus freeing the case for trial. But the DC Circuit could rule that it should in this case.

Even if they had granted cert and expedited the briefing and oral argument, I'm not sure the Supremes, any of them at any point in history, would resolve it before March 4.

The trial date will move, it's virtually guaranteed.  The question is, how far.

It's a freak show, baby baby on the dance floor.  Freak. Show.

I just saw the story on this in my Washington Post feed. I'm outraged. It's become more common as this shit gets treated as business as usual. Thanks for your interpretation, by the way. Always appreciated.

The sequence of my responses 

- I read the headline that the SC wouldn't speed this up. Motherfuckers are trying to help him. After reading legal commentary on here, I think it's part anti-republic bias and hidebound determination to stick to procedures when you don't have to.

- I note the date of the decision. Friday before Christmas weekend. Outrage. This is a political move. Am I to believe that this little bomb was dropped on the universally chosen day for releasing shameful news due to normal procedure? What a coincidence! Amazeballs.

- Okay, I read most of the article. Smith makes the argument about the unique nature and implications of this prosecution. You know, petty shit like a threat to the republic which, if proven to exist (watching it on TV isn't really persuasive at all because that evidence needs to pass through the intestine of proceedings to be acknowledged. Of course!) I see no reason not to have the Supreme Court deal immediately with it's part in checks and balances. 

- I read the arguments of Trump's crack legal team:

 

image.png.7d32b5420b9514957cebe851cac44848.png

image.png.a095ff8f8c6587aae490f04b0129acbc.png

It's too important not to be expedited. This isn't to put the pressure of rushing on the defense. A judge has determined the trial date and the defense has that time no matter this ruling. (I'm not a lawyer. I do, however, have something of a brain.) 

2  This doesn't invite comment from the highest court? If this were a serious assertion, how could one not comment that it has gravity? If the court does not take it seriously, they should state that as well. I think the silence is calculated not for neutrality but to support the Trump teams claim by not laughing it out of the court. That's not legal procedure? The date of release. The failure to opine are political moves. Fuck petty procedure so long as it doesn't damage a defendant's right to a fair trial. 

3  No shit there's compelling inference of partisan motivation. Were Trump's guys giving big irony winks to the slime the GOP has put on the bench? I laughed out loud. There is no doubt of an abundance of partisan motivation in the whole procedure. It's just not Smith.

Maybe the district court doesn't take a long recess for the holidays. Maybe they tend to the business of the republic. Rule by the first week in January.

The SC doesn't put the decision about hearing the case through the usual cumbersome process. Get right down to it. rule by the first week in February. Fuck, rule by the third week in January.

How is that crazy?

Usual procedures? Fuck that. I don't see how the defense is damaged by this.

Worrisome precedent? Sure, every president that tries to overthrow the government will be able to use this or be subject to it. So? We expecting a lot of this sort of thing?

 

The GOP and their appointees to various places in government including federal court seem bent on proving that government doesn't work as it is. Secretaries undermine their agencies. Congress ceases to be about policy and obstructionism becomes a strangely tolerated policy. Now we have outright misuse of House Committees.

Let's see, that's two branches. Oh yea, the judiciary. They contentedly give the appearance that everything is slow and maybe you won't get justice.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. As the great Congressman Adam Schiff said in his speech in the first impeachment trial:

“Well, let me tell you something,” Mr. Schiff went on, his forefinger jabbing the air for emphasis. “If right doesn’t matter, if right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is. It doesn’t matter how brilliant the framers were. Doesn’t matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is.” If “right doesn’t matter,” he concluded, “we’re lost.”

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
Keep going, I know you can figure this one out. 
 
Totally not doing him any favors, right?

I haven’t had a criminal case go to trial at/on the first setting in 18 years of practice.
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, scottsins said:


I haven’t had a criminal case go to trial at/on the first setting in 18 years of practice.

Represent a lot of presidents accused of leading an insurrection, have you?*

 

 

*Couldn't resist the snarky tone. Struck my ear as funny. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...