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 (edited)
7 hours ago, Rimbo said:

461b2a307a380135eb43005056a9545d.jpg.78e4c57b3881c4654bb44fc41c3bbbf8.jpg

Berkeley Breathed representing.  

8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Not seeing this anywhere else. Doesn’t mean it’s not legit.

They were commenting on this on Dateline: White House

Edited by Bullneck
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The reason I think Cannon is galactically stupid is not limited to the fact that she is bungling the law so badly.

If she wants to throw the case for Trump, this is among the most unwieldy, obvious, and obviously appealable and reversible ways to do it.  And if that is her plan, she apparently is too stupid to realize it.  

All this will do is delay the case.  There are subtler, more discretionary, and unappealable ways to do that.

She hasn't fucked this thing up yet, but if she persists on her current course, she's going to get another public spanking from the 11th Circuit.

I'm worried about that double jeopardy thing. 

When is Jack Smith going to ask to have her removed?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

I'm worried about that double jeopardy thing. 

When is Jack Smith going to ask to have her removed?

Good point. I was thinking in terms of her using this procedure to boost an attempt to dismiss the indictment on these counts. 

If she just flat fucks the jury instructions and that results in an acquittal, we will all be holding our dicks. 

Posted
41 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Well no shit

3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Leopards Eat Face Party 

This is going to be a fun one to point out to (R) relatives, but causally like “ I think it’s great the Republican Party is directing political donations to Trump’s legal problems rather than down-ballot campaigns, because anybody against that is against Donald Trump and not a real Republican anyways.”

George Soros is getting his money’s worth having Trump people destroy the RNC and turning it into an ATM to pay Trump’s personal bills.

  • Haha 2
Posted
On 3/19/2024 at 10:31 AM, Brisketexan said:

Man....Cathy Lee in her prime was 80s-riffic.

apiqm974r__35244.1625607302.jpg?c=2

My brother and I were watching the show and I said to him, "she's pretty".  His response was, " she's not pretty, she's a fox!'

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Good point. I was thinking in terms of her using this procedure to boost an attempt to dismiss the indictment on these counts. 

If she just flat fucks the jury instructions and that results in an acquittal, we will all be holding our dicks. 

In all fairness, I'll be holding my dick either way 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, texasdago said:

My brother and I were watching the show and I said to him, "she's pretty".  His response was, " she's not pretty, she's a fox!'

She’s magically babe-liscious 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

OK, you asked . . .

  Hide contents

image.thumb.png.a1cfddbdc08ba9cf68217786452710b1.png

 

Sooo…we don’t know. Oh well. I assumed since there was an autocomplete that there would be something on the other end. (And that you would’ve already checked them out, natch.)

Posted
10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The reason I think Cannon is galactically stupid is not limited to the fact that she is bungling the law so badly.

If she wants to throw the case for Trump, this is among the most unwieldy, obvious, and obviously appealable and reversible ways to do it.  And if that is her plan, she apparently is too stupid to realize it.  

All this will do is delay the case.  There are subtler, more discretionary, and unappealable ways to do that.

She hasn't fucked this thing up yet, but if she persists on her current course, she's going to get another public spanking from the 11th Circuit.

 

9 hours ago, The Dog said:

rumor is that two of Cannon's clerks just quit.

 

9 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

How much will Cannon be able to delay the case due to the staff shortage?  She has to have time to hire and train replacements, right?

Can we rename Calvinball 

image.png.99df0f9b7d1863c27c7b488c498e3ba9.png

to Cannonball?

Spoiler

 

 

Posted
5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

If she just flat fucks the jury instructions and that results in an acquittal, we will all be holding our dicks. 

And what exactly are we looking at in this situation?

Posted
6 hours ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

lulz

 

Trump is going to school Republicans on how he was able to bankrupt a casino.  He should also have his own megachurch; the cross fits right into the first initial of his last name. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

He should also have his own megachurch

Please don't say that out loud again.  That absolutely is the strongest play for him.  It's already a religious experience for his ilk, and I don't even want to imagine a reality with him on TV (more than he is now) with people sending him tax exempt money instead of in a cell talking about crawdads and (deconstructed) hamburders.

 

 

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
7 hours ago, C-Man said:

And what exactly are we looking at in this situation?

If she gave really bad/wrong jury instructions that force the jury to acquit on the classified information counts, we're looking at acquittal with no remedy. 

However, that would not affect the obstruction counts, where the evidence is maybe even stronger. 

The problem is that the government indicted on the section of 793 that requires that the defendant lack authority to possess the classified information in the first place, while they could have alleged the section that doesn't require that. 

She appears to want to instruct the jury that the PRA may initially have made his possession of these documents rightful, even after they had left the white house.  And they have to make a finding on that. 

The PRA does no such thing. 

My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
26 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Please don't say that out loud again.  That absolutely is the strongest play for him.  It's already a religious experience for his ilk, and I don't even want to imagine a reality with him on TV (more than he is now) with people sending him tax exempt money instead of in a cell talking about crawdads and (deconstructed) hamburders.

I have another perspective. After Trump destroys the Republican party, maybe he should destroy the Church?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Drool 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I have another perspective. After Trump destroys the Republican party, maybe he should destroy the Church?

Honestly he already has destroyed "the church". There's been so many schisms in the last few years over trumpian culture war grievances, not to mention the outright campaigning that happens regularly from the pulpit. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If she gave really bad/wrong jury instructions that force the jury to acquit on the classified information counts, we're looking at acquittal with no remedy. 

However, that would not affect the obstruction counts, where the evidence is maybe even stronger. 

The problem is that the government indicted on the section of 793 that requires that the defendant lack authority to possess the classified information in the first place, while they could have alleged the section that doesn't require that. 

She appears to want to instruct the jury that the PRA may initially have made his possession of these documents rightful, even after they had left the white house.  And they have to make a finding on that. 

The PRA does no such thing. 

My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

So is the only option for the Government to seek mandamus relief?  The judge has no discretion to misstate the law to the jury, and you've just made a good case for inadequate appellate remedy.  It would mean more delay, but that beats the alternative.  I know they aren't actually jury instructions at this point, but just looking down the road.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

There's been so many schisms in the last few years

Those schisms always were there.  He just made them feel more at home in the light of day.  Aside: we left our UMC church after twenty years when it split off to the Global Methodist Church in 2022.  

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, dcbc said:

So is the only option for the Government to seek mandamus relief?  The judge has no discretion to misstate the law to the jury, and you've just made a good case for inadequate appellate remedy.  It would mean more delay, but that beats the alternative.  I know they aren't actually jury instructions at this point, but just looking down the road.

Yeah I don't know what interlocutory appeal options the government may have. 

Because she denied the vagueness motion to dismiss, but not the PRA, I initially thought this was some gambit to paint the government into a corner on it, making it easier to dismiss the indictment.

But the "extended" idea of her giving really bad/wrong jury instructions didn't initially occur to me. 

One thing I believe I have seen is that despite the federal civil practice of lengthy and detailed jury questions, federal criminal questions are short and singular, generally. 

Here is an example of the questions in an espionage act case.  https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/5c5cdc7f03

And here's what the instructions look like in a different case.  https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/2f9194cd67

 

 

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

My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

So you believe she is not only stupid, but also corrupt?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, SaucyJack said:

So you believe she is not only stupid, but also corrupt?

It's either one, the other, or both.  I don't think neither is an option.

 

Optimistically, I tend to think that she was appointed for her loyalty as opposed to her potential as a skilled jurist and that she's in way over her head in this case, i.e., doesn't know what the hell she's doing.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Member when that would get you labeled as hysterical? I member. 

I have never not contended she is apparently stupid af.  So stupid in fact that it camouflages any corruption and makes it damn near impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
8 minutes ago, dcbc said:

It's either one, the other, or both.  I don't think neither is an option.

 

Optimistically, I tend to think that she was appointed for her loyalty as opposed to her potential as a skilled jurist and that she's in way over her head in this case, i.e., doesn't know what the hell she's doing.

She has most of the right creds, except judicial experience.  I think I noticed she spent substantial time in the appellate section of the US Attorneys office, so she may be taking what my first mentor called a "law review" approach to trial issues that really aren't that juicy or complex.

Posted
49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If she gave really bad/wrong jury instructions that force the jury to acquit on the classified information counts, we're looking at acquittal with no remedy. 

However, that would not affect the obstruction counts, where the evidence is maybe even stronger. 

The problem is that the government indicted on the section of 793 that requires that the defendant lack authority to possess the classified information in the first place, while they could have alleged the section that doesn't require that. 

She appears to want to instruct the jury that the PRA may initially have made his possession of these documents rightful, even after they had left the white house.  And they have to make a finding on that. 

The PRA does no such thing. 

My initial read was that she was attempting to use this process to make it easier to grant Trump"s motion to dismiss on the PRA. 

But she could just be girding up to give bad jury instructions. For which the government has no remedy except to dismiss the case before a jury is sworn and bring it again. In that event, doing jury instructions early like this helps the government. If they were done after the jury was sworn as is more conventional, the government would have no remedy at all. 

 

Bring it again and get a different judge? 

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

She has most of the right creds, except judicial experience.  I think I noticed she spent substantial time in the appellate section of the US Attorneys office, so she may be taking what my first mentor called a "law review" approach to trial issues that really aren't that juicy or complex.

She should take a "review the law" approach

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Bring it again and get a different judge? 

 

 

Who fucking knows.  Smith played the venue choice straight as an arrow to begin with:  he went to the closest division within the SD Fla to Trump with a virtual certainty that she would get the case.  I don't think he had to go by division, he could have filed anywhere in SD Fla and let Trump try to contest it.

Obviously, he wouldn't want anything to do with Cannon again.

Then again, he may be able to straighten her out on this and minimize any harm.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Those schisms always were there.  He just made them feel more at home in the light of day.  Aside: we left our UMC church after twenty years when it split off to the Global Methodist Church in 2022.  

Yep. I’ve made real money litigating church property fights over schismatic splits/departures.
America has a long history of “conservative” wings of churches pitching a fit and breaking off…and being on the wrong side of history.
They broke off over slavery (pro slavery southern churches broke off).
They broke off over ordaining women (anti-women conservative churches broke off).
They’re breaking off over acknowledging gay people are not the devil (anti-gay conservative churches are about done breaking off).
The Trumpism schism, to the extent it hasn’t already happened, is happening.
Wrong side of history. Every time.
  • Hook 'Em 7


×
×
  • Create New...