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:


Nothing’s as serious as the bloody flux. Unless it’s the consumption.

Somewhere, Lindsay Lohan’s taint is laughing at your naïveté

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
On 1/7/2024 at 9:12 AM, Red Five said:

I would say that sitting on his ass and refusing to do anything at all, for hours, as President of the United States, while the Capitol was under attack.... should count. 

In fact, he popped off to people who called him begging for help. "Well I guess they care more about the stolen election than you do, Kevin". And to this day he's talking about pardoning them all. So, yeah, it sort of looks like the 14th was written for him.

You would think that the obvious would count for something.

It can't even get an insurrectionist thrown in jail to await a verdict. It's the same for guys who steal state secrets.

The obvious must pass through the intestines of both-side TV news organizations (FOX isn't among that group), legal debate, and dishonest public discourse before it becomes actionable fact. I should say may become actionable fact; we all know what emerges from intestines isn't what entered them.

This seems to apply on a broader scale than just this unfolding governmental disaster.

Look at the fact of Climate Change. By the time it has emerged as some sort of muddied fact somehow still debated, the great snake like intestine has only just swallowed the current obvious fact of impending Climate Disaster. None of the intestines listed above can handle that obvious fact as though it were a fact. Too soon. 

It is very strange to watch emergent history as an American. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 1/7/2024 at 10:23 AM, Brisketexan said:


I’ve written good contracts on one yellow legal pad page on the hood of my truck. You will do x, and in consideration, I will do y, by z date. Yes, sometimes it’s specialized enough where you need lots of defined terms…so use your definitions section to make the meaning plain and clear.

You’re talking about dove hunting leases aren’t you. 

  • Haha 1
Posted

The more absurd the argument the more desperate you know he is.

 Although this is approaching the “corporations are individuals” level of desperation that Robert’s might just sign off on.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

I wonder what some of the Biden campaign ads will look like. "Hey, remember that time the president sent a mob to the capitol in an attempted coup? And refused to provide assistance for everyone there, including his Vice President? So, funny thing here, he didn't go to jail. And he's running for president again..."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I wonder what some of the Biden campaign ads will look like. "Hey, remember that time the president sent a mob to the capitol in an attempted coup? And refused to provide assistance for everyone there, including his Vice President? So, funny thing here, he didn't go to jail. And he's running for president again..."


All future ads should also include this ….

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:


All future ads should also include this ….

 

https://themessenger.com/news/donald-trump-bill-clinton-sex-tape-jeffrey-epstein-sarah-ransome-list-document-dump

Quote

Former president Donald Trump regularly had sex with a woman at Jeffrey Epstein's Manhattan mansion, and Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Richard Branson were caught on a sex tape by the financier, according to a victim who later recanted the claims.

The allegations were made by Sarah Ransome to a journalist, and unsealed in newly public court documents Monday.

The documents were part of a filing in which lawyers for law professor Alan Dershowitz sought to portray Ransome as a liar who contradicted herself and made outlandish claims.

Ransome later gave a victim impact statement in federal court at Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell's sentencing, in which she she described being trafficked by the pair.

In one undated email released Monday, Ransome said a friend described Trump’s sexual proclivities and alleged the woman regularly had sex with the former president at Epstein’s Upper East Side townhouse, according to court documents.

“She confided in me about her casual 'friendship' with Donald. Mr. Trump definitely seemed to have a thing for her and she told me how he kept going on about how he liked her 'pert nipples’,” the email read. 

“I also know she had sexual relations with Trump at Jeffrey's NY mansion on regular occasions as I once met Jen for coffee, just before she was going to meet Trump and Epstein together at his mansion,” it added. 

Ransome later recanted the allegation in an email to journalist Maureen Callahan, according to the records. 

“I have spoken to my family at some length this morning and I would like to retract everything I have said to you and walk away from this,” the October 2016 email states. 

Jeffrey Epstein and Bill Clinton are pictured in an undated photograph.Netflix

“I shouldn't have contacted you and I'm sorry I wasted your time. It's not worth coming forward and I will never be heard anyhow and only bad things will happen as a consequence of me going public and I know this to be true,” it adds. 

A Trump spokesperson slammed the claims.

“These baseless accusations have been fully retracted because they are simply false and have no merit," said Steven Cheung.

In another undated email, Ransome claimed her friend had sex with Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and billionaire Richard Branson — and video recordings of the trysts were made by Epstein at mansion.

“I personally can confirm that I have, with my own two eyes, seen the evidence of these sexual acts, which clearly identifies Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Richard Branson having sexual intercourse with my friend. I will be more then [sic] willing to swear under oath and testify in court over these sex tapes,” the email states. 

In 2019, Ransome told the New Yorker that the tapes were made-up. The fabrication was intended to raise intrigue into Epstein's affairs and to convince the financier himself that she had “evidence that would come out if he harmed me," she said.

Ransome's emails were included in a 2017 motion filed by Dershowitz to keep the allegations under seal. He contended the allegations were “deliberate lies.”

A spokesperson said previously said Clinton had no knowledge of Epstein's sex trafficking, and did not comment on the new claims.

Branson's Virgin Group also denied the claims. "We can confirm that Sarah Ransome's claims are baseless and unfounded. Ransome admitted that she had 'invented' the tapes," in a 2019 article in the New Yorker."

Prince Andrew has denied wrongdoing.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

At some point, one of the MAGA crazies is going to forego "swatting" and just straight-up attempt to assassinate Laetitia James, Chutkan, Fani Willis or Jack Smith.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
14 minutes ago, C-Man said:

At some point, one of the MAGA crazies is going to forego "swatting" and just straight-up attempt to assassinate Laetitia James, Chutkan, Fani Willis or Jack Smith.

I hope they don't. 

 

But I honestly don't think any of them is smart enough not to talk shit about it online ad nauseum first, before ordering supplies online and, otherwise, creating a rich, internet-history-roadmap ahead of time, so as to ensure being caught en route to the target.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

“ I could shoot a disabled Vet while banging an underaged girl and selling Top Secret info to Russia on 5th Ave. and they’d still vote for me…” 

 

* it should be noted that shooting a disabled Vet is most likely the one thing he hasn’t done listed above. 

Edited by Underdog
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂😂

 

That's gotta be satire, right?

I mean ... for one thing, he WAS told, and we have multiple records of it...

Posted
11 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That's gotta be satire, right?

I mean ... for one thing, he WAS told, and we have multiple records of it...

Legal loophole known as:

dumb and dumber thread GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That's gotta be satire, right?

I mean ... for one thing, he WAS told, and we have multiple records of it...

It's a desperate long shot, yes, but not an unheard-of motion to dismiss an indictment.

On a rare occasion, a criminal statute will be "stretched" far enough to encompass conduct no one really thought it would reach.  At that point, it can be said to be violative of due process because it didn't provide fair notice of what it rendered criminal.

This is, fairly obviously, not one of those rare occasions.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, safe sex said:

But still gotta wait weeks for that to be officially determined

All in the game, yo.  Unlike the appeal of the immunity defense, the case will proceed apace.

Posted

So even non lawyers know the old “ignorance of the law is no defense against breaking the law.”  What Trump is attempting then is that he was ignorant of his ignorance of the law so therefore, cannot be guilty?  
 

JFC, this is like playing chess against an easily agitated bonobo, with an assault rifle 

Posted
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

On a rare occasion, a criminal statute will be "stretched" far enough to encompass conduct no one really thought it would reach.

Just like South Austin’s mom…

  • Haha 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

So even non lawyers know the old “ignorance of the law is no defense against breaking the law.”  What Trump is attempting then is that he was ignorant of his ignorance of the law so therefore, cannot be guilty?  
 

JFC, this is like playing chess against an easily agitated bonobo, with an assault rifle 

Well, to reconcile this, we are all charged with knowledge of the law, whether we have actual knowledge of it or not.

However, when a law is so vague as to violate due process (either as the law is written or as it is applied), being charged with knowledge is of no help to the government because the essence is that the scope of the law is unknowable.

Posted

True.  But I to go back to the historical notion, which admittedly is not a terra firma legal foundation, that these portions of the constitution simply could not encompass shit like this.  They could not be that prophetic.  The concept of a “country” so damn new and ideologically vague, that leading a usurpation of one was beyond the pale.  
there are AI crimes that will be committed in a decade’s time that not even the most visionary IP attorney or judge can foresee.  But they must be held accountable for the very simple reason that we were not capable of forecasting such gross abuses.  
 

I’ve also noticed a marked pivot away from “can’t catch me, I’m running for President!” To “it all still falls under my prior role and executive privilege!”

Posted

"It would have to be and speedily be you know impeached and convicted before criminal liability", if not, all gravy. "In this extreme cases, you'd expect a speedy conviction and impeachment"

lol

  • Haha 2
Posted
16 hours ago, HOOKEM4 said:

George Costanza Seinfeld GIF

This works better with the Epstein stuff.

Lippman: It’s come to my attention that you took several trips to a sex island with a billionaire and had sex with numerous underaged girls.

Trumpstanza: was that wrong?. . .

Posted (edited)
Quote

According to Trump's lawyers, the President of the United States could order Seal Team Six to murder his political opponent and he would be immune from prosecution unless he was immediately impeached, convicted, and removed from office first 2/

I don't even understand how that could be tested.  What does "immediately" mean? 

Edited by jimmyjazz
Posted
1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

As long as a president has enough members of his own party in the House and Senate that will refuse to impeach and convict him, Trump's lawyers are arguing a president is free to assassinate his political rivals.

If you vote for the GOP, you're a piece of shit.

That is exactly what I was thinking. Just control the house or senate and you are free to kill whoever you like. Clean house. Wipe out the opposing party. Never face any consequences. I know Trump could easily believe this (maybe even do it), but his lawyer has to know better. Right?

  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1


×
×
  • Create New...