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
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Lemme fix that for you:

That's the play.  The Saudis, Russians, etc. will happily float a few hundred million on the chance that ends up being the winning bid to take full legal title to an actual president of the United States.  Shit, they'd be dumb NOT to take that flyer.

The first US President impeached twice, convicted of multiple crimes, and bone-sawed once.

  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, aggie08 said:

Kind of depressing that we have to go all the way to the Supreme Court to (hopefully) decide that, "No, nobody gets to do whatever the fuck they want without legal consequence."

ss15 GIF

  • Haha 3
Posted
48 minutes ago, Exposition said:

I'm not holding my breath for any clear resolution to his immunity claims. Most likely outcome is SCOTUS rules he doesn't have 'absolute' immunity, but a sitting President does have immunity from A,B,C,D scenarios. So Trump will keep ranting and using a defense that each of his cases falls under one of those scenarios. 

Wouldn't they only rule on the question before them? (I don't know exactly what that is.) Why would they interject and make a ruling they weren't asked about? Is this a thing? Wouldn't that pretty much be the Judicial becoming the Legislative and Executive?

 

Oooooooh... 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

While I agree, I do think it being heard and then shut down would put it to bed more than “well SCOTUS didn’t take it up so it’s actually not decided” 

Put it in the fucking books

They're going to Mazars this. They'll wait until the very last day to release an opinion that's something along the lines of "the president is not absolutely immune but is immune for X types of acts so before a trial can be held the district court must determine whether the coup qualifies as X," effectively punting the trial until next year.

  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They're going to Mazars this. They'll wait until the very last day to release an opinion that's something along the lines of "the president is not absolutely immune but is immune for X types of acts so before a trial can be held the district court must determine whether the coup qualifies as X," effectively punting the trial until next year.

counterpoint: Trump has given the deep state monied interests all he can give them on taxes and such, but if reelected he will cause all kinds of wars and international strife, which will be terrible for business.   Therefore, the conservatives on the court will hear their master’s voice - and put an end to Trump because he’s uncontrollable now - unlike before, and therefore he is no longer of used to them.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it until I’m arrested in my home for writing this and executed in the camp

Edited by Gatorubet
damn voice changes text as i hit send
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

Does this only affect the J6 case or also the documents case in Florida?

Does this also affect the civil cases against him or are those also covered by this?

It would only cover things that occurred while he was in office. So shouldn't cover MAL.  But, the government alleged the section of 793 that requires that he initially be wrongfully in possession of the docs before he refused to return them, which might have occurred while he was in office? I don't know. 

Civil immunity has already been dealt with and he has it to the extent the actions were within the outer perimeter of his official duties. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
I mean, I guess to the uneducated, unwashed observer, one might be excused for thinking he's going to get away with it, if you didn't understand the reasons why he was able to before and haven't understood why those reasons aren't here now.
But each day that passes is getting us closer and closer to the Find Out phase.
He got away with civil judgments by bullying smaller people. These are not civil judgments.
He got away with saying bullshit in the 2016 election because the Democrats' candidate was even worse, and even he didn't think he'd win.
He got away with impeachable offenses because his party controlled enough of Congress that any proceedings were doomed from the beginning.
BUT NOW...
There are criminal trials, and even the civil trials' plaintiffs aren't backing down.
There is a good President in the White House, who's beating him in every poll now.
The judges and prosecutors aren't fucking around (except for Fanni, but even she is getting away with it).
He. Is. Turbofucked. We've got some firm, very hard to overturn judgments. He's running out of money, his lawyers suck, and there is no white knight coming to save him; he stole all his political party friends' funds, the judges either are state-level, overseen by actual adults, or simply ruling against him because they have no choice.
The wheels are moving slowly, but there are just so many crimes, so many cases, so many judgments pending or otherwise, and he's got nothing left.
Turbofucked.

giphy.gif
  • Haha 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

 They've fully disgraced themselves and the court and ruined any remaining credibility they had. 

Here’s the thing: they don’t give a fuck.

While the NY Dems are worried about looking too partisan, the Republican Justices are ready to declare Donald Trump a King.

One side has concluded that winning is all that matters and it’s why we are a nation circling the drain.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Call me crazy, but it seems to be that it's at least equally possible that SCOTUS picked up the case to drive a final nail into the coffin of immunity, not to crown Trump King.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
On 2/27/2024 at 7:56 PM, locodos said:

Last time I was deposed, "on July15th  2017 at 2pm you had a meeting entitled 'Weekly Contract Compliance' can you tell us everything about this meeting and who was in attendance?"

A: "no, I don't recall this meeting"

Bob was there, does that refresh your recollection?

A: "no"

 

I wasn't hiding anything, it's just stupid to treat humans like perfect recall computers... we aren't.   They got all indignant, but what did you have for lunch on 7/15/2017?  It was lunchtime, does that refresh your recollection?

July 15, 2017 was a Saturday according to the googles.  That being the case, I had a hamburger and french fries for lunch.  Guaranteed.

  • Drool 1
Posted

JACK SMITH: “I’m not going to be able to convict him before November”

FANI WILLIS: “I’m not going to be able to convict him before November”

NATHAN WADE: “I’m not going to be able to convict him before November”

STORMY DANIELS: “hold my beer”

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
7 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Call me crazy, but it seems to be that it's at least equally possible that SCOTUS picked up the case to drive a final nail into the coffin of immunity, not to crown Trump King.

Crazy

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
5 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Season 2 Please GIF by Amazon Prime Video
 

Please MAGA, buy this to help with Trump’s legal fees   Don’t ask yourself how it will help, just buy it.

 

You should post that to the crypto 6sJ thread - they're always looking to hitch their wagon to go to the moon

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
12 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Call me crazy, but it seems to be that it's at least equally possible that SCOTUS picked up the case to drive a final nail into the coffin of immunity, not to crown Trump King.

Not at all necessary. Everyone knows it's a laughable question that only a shamelessly criminal clown would raise to delay proceedings. And the COA opinion is unassailable. There was a 0% lifetime chance of a circuit split on the issue. 

Face it, the SCOTUS sold out the country to do a favor to one man. Super cool that we have 4 completely unethical motherfuckers on the court who refuse to recuse™ despite having obvious conflicts and bias. 

Posted

i keep coming back to the order granting cert that said "answer the question of whether criminal liability can attach to official acts in office."

to me, that says that the opinion will come out answering the question yes or no (imo, no).  but what it won't answer is whether his acts were official acts.  that means we have another round of argument at the court to determine that (and appeals there).  i think that second issue will be what pushes trial beyond the election.

  • Rage+1 5
Posted
8 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i keep coming back to the order granting cert that said "answer the question of whether criminal liability can attach to official acts in office."

to me, that says that the opinion will come out answering the question yes or no (imo, no).  but what it won't answer is whether his acts were official acts.  that means we have another round of argument at the court to determine that (and appeals there).  i think that second issue will be what pushes trial beyond the election.

 

which is a win for dOTarD. Any delay is a win. Which is why they granted cert. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, Exposition said:

I'm not holding my breath for any clear resolution to his immunity claims. Most likely outcome is SCOTUS rules he doesn't have 'absolute' immunity, but a sitting President does have immunity from A,B,C,D scenarios. So Trump will keep ranting and using a defense that each of his cases falls under one of those scenarios. 

 

12 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Call me crazy, but it seems to be that it's at least equally possible that SCOTUS picked up the case to drive a final nail into the coffin of immunity, not to crown Trump King.

Yup, if Uncle Clarence and Grampa Sam can get three of the other shit gibbons to join them, they won't declare absolute immunity, but say they aren't sure whether his acts were presidential or that of a candidate and remand for a 3 year trial. I don't see them getting there though, it should be a per curium "Nobody is absolutely immune, stop breaking the law asshole" but you know at least two will use the opportunity to kiss the ring in extensive dissents.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i keep coming back to the order granting cert that said "answer the question of whether criminal liability can attach to official acts in office."

to me, that says that the opinion will come out answering the question yes or no (imo, no).  but what it won't answer is whether his acts were official acts.  that means we have another round of argument at the court to determine that (and appeals there).  i think that second issue will be what pushes trial beyond the election.

This man gets it.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

This is one of those things that keeps pissing me off even more the more I think about it. 

Yeah, I've doing my best for about a year to ignore that our Supreme Court is for hire, and their own bylaws make them completely immune to punishing for--and, frankly, encourage--their fealty to the highest bidder.

Posted
1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

i keep coming back to the order granting cert that said "answer the question of whether criminal liability can attach to official acts in office."

to me, that says that the opinion will come out answering the question yes or no (imo, no).  but what it won't answer is whether his acts were official acts.  that means we have another round of argument at the court to determine that (and appeals there).  i think that second issue will be what pushes trial beyond the election.

Exactly right. It's fucking unbelievable they're answering a broader question than is necessary to resolve this case. This question would only be appropriate if the facts were such that every single one of Dotard's criminal actions in the indictment could reasonably be seen as part of carrying out his duties as POTUS. Which is obviously not the case here. 

What a fuckin joke. 

Posted

You would think it would be in America's best interest to determine Dotard's innocence or guilt in the insurrection, considering that, you know, he's going to be one of two people in contention for the presidency in the election nine months from now. 

I mean damn. It's been over three years and there's a good chance the trial won't start until 2025, if at all. For a president trying to overthrow the government. This is so fucked up. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted

I can't even imagine how devastating and enraging this is for Smith's team. They've consistently been on the ball and keep getting rewarded with bullshit. 

History will frown on Merrick Garland for dragging his feet. Smith should've been appointed on inauguration day. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Yeah, I've doing my best for about a year to ignore that our Supreme Court is for hire, and their own bylaws make them completely immune to punishing for--and, frankly, encourage--their fealty to the highest bidder.

It’s been known - at least very much so by the SC itself.  Once again, the R’s are great at playing politics (also not coincidentally, complete assholes) and the D’s are a bunch of nice fools.  RBG should have retired and not fucked us for a whole generation.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Will Habba Dabba Doo be involved in these oral arguments?

If so, hilarious yet simultaneously what a kick in the pride balls for any attorney who has worn “presented oral argument to SCOTUS” as a badge of honor. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
16 hours ago, Rimbo said:

Call me crazy, but it seems to be that it's at least equally possible that SCOTUS picked up the case to drive a final nail into the coffin of immunity, not to crown Trump King.

my-sweet-summer-child-sweet-summer-child

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

This is one of those things that keeps pissing me off even more the more I think about it. 

I think we need a new law: Obstruction of the Obvious.

If there is verified and vetted video or audio of a person committing a crime that has been seen by the entire nation, that person shall forfeit rights of appeal during trial. Further, said person will face trial on the evidence presented in the aforementioned within three months of indictment. Such cases will be given priority in docket scheduling.

Said person will be remanded into custody of the jail or prison in the jurisdiction to await trial.

We pass this law for obvious reasons.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
30 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

my-sweet-summer-child-sweet-summer-child

I think we've established the boundaries of what we expect, here. Best-case expectation, a 50% chance they want to rule on a novel case just to make it absolutely clear. Worst-case expectation, they're delaying deliberately until after the election, and planning on ruling that presidents aren't immune, except for the specific things that Trump did.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

Is there more than one Maga Coin?  Because the one I found seems to not be worth that much, as in you would need a whole lot of them to make a single penny.

image.thumb.png.00f8152bee9a1c66b84c64bfdd371a8c.png

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Is there more than one Maga Coin?  Because the one I found seems to not be worth that much, as in you would need a whole lot of them to make a single penny.

image.thumb.png.00f8152bee9a1c66b84c64bfdd371a8c.png

Looks like there are 1 billion of them and in total they are worth $290k.

  • Haha 6
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Is there more than one Maga Coin?  Because the one I found seems to not be worth that much, as in you would need a whole lot of them to make a single penny.

image.thumb.png.00f8152bee9a1c66b84c64bfdd371a8c.png

Y axis scale doing heroic things here

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4


×
×
  • Create New...