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
8 hours ago, Red Five said:

Can you normally talk shit to the judge in the courtroom with no repercussions? His response to a warning from the judge was to insult the judge. All in front of the jury, I'm assuming.

“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Tough to draw any conclusions on what this means in this highly partisan country, but there has definitely been a clear shift from “I didn’t do anything wrong” to “it doesn’t matter if I did anything wrong.”

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Tough to draw any conclusions on what this means in this highly partisan country, but there has definitely been a clear shift from “I didn’t do anything wrong” to “it doesn’t matter if I did anything wrong.”

It’s the same script every time 

The next step is accusing Biden of insurrection 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s the same script every time 

The next step is accusing Biden of insurrection 

 

 

Or something like "I HAD TO LEAD THE INSURRECTION, BECAUSE I HAVE TOTAL IMMUNITY AND THE COUNTRY CAN'T SURVIVE BIDEN!"

 

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Red Five said:

"A president has to have total immunity!!"

Funny, it's never been a problem before. 

Exactly my thought.  We had 240 years of American history before Trump took office, but then the authority and decisiveness of the President was suddenly in danger of being "stripped and gone forever".  Huh.

  • Like 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Well, that settles it then!

-Thomas and Alito, probably.

 

Screenshot2024-01-18at5_58_18AM.thumb.png.53fa1b1b88dd4888f363cd26bfa21f5a.png

 

 

1280px-Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protes

 

Also, for most of us, it doesn't take years to determine what's good and what's bad.

  • Haha 2
Posted
4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Well, that settles it then!

-Thomas and Alito, probably.

 

Screenshot2024-01-18at5_58_18AM.thumb.png.53fa1b1b88dd4888f363cd26bfa21f5a.png

 

Just understand that by the standard that Trump advocates for above, the hypothetical that the DC Circuit asked can be answered definitively, along with all other extreme hypotheticals.  For example "full and total immunity," even for actions that "cross the line" would mean that President Biden could kill Donald Trump and bomb Mar A Lago to rubble....and would be completely immune to any prosecution for those actions.

And here's the thing....the SCOTUS may well issue that ruling.  It would be stupid, wrong-headed, and without any legal justification....but that won't stop this SCOTUS.  But Biden, being an actual human being with some respect for rules and norms, would not murder his political rival.

If Trump ends up back in the White House, he would not exercise any such restraint.  Anything goes, all bets are off, expect to see Americans put in camps, killed, etc., with zero repercussions because the MAGAT segment of the Senate will never vote to convict him in the required numbers even if the House impeaches.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s the same script every time 

The next step is accusing Biden of insurrection 

 

Well, pretty sure Nancy Pelosi has been accused of being at least partially responsible for the J6 attack of the Capital building.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

For example "full and total immunity," even for actions that "cross the line" would mean that President Biden could kill Donald Trump and bomb Mar A Lago to rubble

Ill Allow It GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
Well, pretty sure Nancy Pelosi has been accused of being at least partially responsible for the J6 attack of the Capital building.

…. for the peaceful riot. With the hostages who are currently imprisoned for no reason.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Red Five said:


…. for the peaceful riot. With the hostages who are currently imprisoned for no reason.

So now they’re not ANTIFA?

  • Haha 1
Posted

Yeah, why should she be held liable for some tourists who got lost looking for the gift shop?  Plus they were all ANTIFA and FBI false-flag operators anyway.  So what's to hold her to account for?  And even if she did, MTG will demand her release, Trump will pardon her, and Roger Stone will pay her legal bills.  So it's just a wash anyway...

Posted
4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Well, that settles it then!

-Thomas and Alito, probably.

 

Screenshot2024-01-18at5_58_18AM.thumb.png.53fa1b1b88dd4888f363cd26bfa21f5a.png

 

How does this reconcile with "LOCK HER UP!"?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Well, that settles it then!

-Thomas and Alito, probably.

 

Screenshot2024-01-18at5_58_18AM.thumb.png.53fa1b1b88dd4888f363cd26bfa21f5a.png

 

That is actually one of the more nuanced Trump screeds I have ever read.  

It does drive at the reasoning in support of an executive immunity, if overstating it substantially.

No fucking way he wrote it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

So, out of curiosity, I dug up the brief Trumpco filed in the appeal of the Carroll I verdict.  

The brief is here.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67373834/74/carroll-v-trump/

It was authored, apparently, by Todd Blanche, one of Trump's more serious attorneys, instead of Bob Dobalina Tacopina, who has withdrawn from appellate representation, or habba dabba do.

It does seem to make some fairly serious arguments that Judge Kaplan erred in admitting evidence in the first trial.  

The main issue is one that is a board favorite:  to what extent can "prior bad acts" be used as evidence to demonstrate that the bad act "at bar" or under consideration is something the defendant is just prone to do.

A corollary of it is that in sexual assault cases, both civil and criminal, the rules were loosened some years back to make such prior bad act evidence more easily admitted than before.

I don't know whether this brief will obtain reversal of the jury verdict, that's always an uphill climb, but it is a serious, non-frivolous piece of advocacy.  Somewhat unusual for Trumpco, but Todd Blanche appears to be "for real."

Posted
40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

For example "full and total immunity," even for actions that "cross the line" would mean that President Biden could kill Donald Trump and bomb Mar A Lago to rubble....and would be completely immune to any prosecution for those actions.

And here's the thing....the SCOTUS may well issue that ruling. 

You understand that both sides get to present their cases, and one side is going to point out the Biden example you just gave, right?

Posted

Ironically, the arguments in favor of immunity, of virtually any kind, are an explicit elevation of the government over individual rights in a way rarely encountered in the judicial system.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The more persuasive argument would be that if Trump is right then there's nothing stopping Biden from having the Republican members of SCOTUS killed.

Precisely. And they can point to Trump's own behaviors, riling people up against judges, as a clear example of what they'll be allowing.

Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ironically, the arguments in favor of immunity, of virtually any kind, are an explicit elevation of the government over individual rights in a way rarely encountered in the judicial system.

Funny enough, Trump did make the argument for QI.  

Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

or habba dabba do.

 

I love that

 

Also, what is the point of Trump comparing himself to a police officer when police officers are not explicitly above the law?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ironically, the arguments in favor of immunity, of virtually any kind, are an explicit elevation of the government over individual rights in a way rarely encountered in the judicial system.

That would be ironic if Trump were your typical "small government" conservative, but it's been fairly apparent for a while that he's anything but that, and neither are his most ardent supporters in Congress or among the laity.

I know you realize this, but it still bears repeating that Trump is an autocrat followed by authoritarian-minded people.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
20 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

You understand that both sides get to present their cases, and one side is going to point out the Biden example you just gave, right?

 

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Precisely. And they can point to Trump's own behaviors, riling people up against judges, as a clear example of what they'll be allowing.

And they.  Don't.  Care.  

Always bet on authoritarianism.  It's the side that doesn't give a FUCK about the rules.  It's kinda like how the smart bet is to bet on the team that holds on every play (since the refs don't call holding) vs. the team that plays by the stupid "rules."  "Rules" are for pussies.

Posted
3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Also, what is the point of Trump comparing himself to a police officer when police officers are not explicitly above the law?

They may not be explicitly above the law, but cops are practically above the law. That's good enough for trump - being authority figure pig that's above consequence is right up his alley

Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

And they.  Don't.  Care.  

Always bet on authoritarianism.  It's the side that doesn't give a FUCK about the rules.  It's kinda like how the smart bet is to bet on the team that holds on every play (since the refs don't call holding) vs. the team that plays by the stupid "rules."  "Rules" are for pussies.

It's kinda like how people in one forum on this site are apparently held to different standards of behavior than others for...some reason

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

Is toxic 2024’s new broad brush criticism for things we don’t like? I’ll agree woke was getting pretty worn. I still don’t get drip and refuse to assimilate that one into the lexicon. Trying to keep up.

Edited by Degenerate Gardner
Posted
13 minutes ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Is toxic 2024’s new broad brush criticism for things we don’t like? I’ll agree woke was getting pretty worn. I still don’t get drip and refuse to assimilate that one into the lexicon. Trying to keep up.

Toxic already had its moment a few years ago, but I guess imma is just catching up lmao

Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, bolverk said:

That would be ironic if Trump were your typical "small government" conservative, but it's been fairly apparent for a while that he's anything but that, and neither are his most ardent supporters in Congress or among the laity.

I know you realize this, but it still bears repeating that Trump is an autocrat followed by authoritarian-minded people.

It's not just Trump.  The irony is small, but it's there.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
58 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Funny enough, Trump did make the argument for QI.  

All immunity is really the same:  the privilege of the government or government officials to carry on unmolested by pesky individuals and their rights.

As I said, that was one of his more cogent screeds, if still off-base.

Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

And they.  Don't.  Care.  

Always bet on authoritarianism.  It's the side that doesn't give a FUCK about the rules.  It's kinda like how the smart bet is to bet on the team that holds on every play (since the refs don't call holding) vs. the team that plays by the stupid "rules."  "Rules" are for pussies.

You think they'd choose Trump's authoritarianism over their own health and safety? Interesting hypothesis.

I am betting that they would recognize that they are literally allowing any president to have people shoot them with a ruling in Trump's favor, and choose life.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think most of them would prioritize "live another day" over "give Trump absolute authority."

 

Posted
30 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

That's about what I figured would come out.

There is one thing that that particular analysis doesn't address, but may be addressed elsewhere.  And that is, to a greater or lesser extent, every filing Smith/the government makes imposes some degree of work on Trump's lawyers:  they don't have to respond, because of the stay, but they do have to expend some amount of energy on it.  That could rightfully be considered a "burden of litigation," which the inherent appellate stay protects against.

It's kind of an interesting question.  

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ironically, the arguments in favor of immunity, of virtually any kind, are an explicit elevation of the government over individual rights in a way rarely encountered in the judicial system.

To believe this is ironic would require believing that the Republican Party actually gives a shit about individual rights. Or that it's actually cared about them at any time in the last half century. You can't possibly still believe that. 

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

They may not be explicitly above the law, but cops are practically above the law. That's good enough for trump - being authority figure pig that's above consequence is right up his alley

And that's why cops LOVE Trump, btw. And will become his henchmen if he gains power again, the ones ensured with "disappearing" critics.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

To believe this is ironic would require believing that the Republican Party actually gives a shit about individual rights. Or that it's actually cared about them at any time in the last half century. You can't possibly still believe that. 

Well it is ironic in the sense that they continue to claim to be the party of small government and individual rights.  Whether you believe it or not.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I am betting that they would recognize that they are literally allowing any president to have people shoot them with a ruling in Trump's favor, and choose life.

Maybe I'm naive, but I think most of them would prioritize "live another day" over "give Trump absolute authority."

You're using logic.  Logic does not apply here.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Judge in GA case has set a 2/15 hearing about alleged misconduct by Fani Willis.

Assuming it’s not an evidentiary hearing I can’t imagine the court doing anything other than denying it 

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, texasdago said:

You're using logic.  Logic does not apply here.

Again: You do understand that the scenario I'm describing WILL BE PRESENTED TO THEM?

And, again, the fact that Trump has already encouraged people to attack judges, so that it's clear that this is a thing that will happen to them.

I'm not showing this to you to win an Internet argument; I'm showing you the sorts of things that those making the case against Trump are going to show SCOTUS directly if they're even slightly more competent than Habippityboppityboo.

Logic has nothing to do with what I'm saying. It's an emotional argument: "Do you, the members of SCOTUS, value your own lives?"

Pretending this won't be brought up or matter is just being deliberately obtuse.

You and Brisket have embraced defeatism for its own sake at this point.

Edited by Rimbo
Posted
20 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

You and Brisket have embraced defeatism for its own sake at this point.

I've just embraced the concept of "assume evil people will do evil things."  That assumption has a pretty goddamned good track record this past decade or so.  Not perfect.  But goddamn, a lot closer to perfect than anyone would like it to be.



×
×
  • Create New...