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
34 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Allegedly."  You forgot that very important word.  I "allegedly" did those things.  And you wanted to be my lawyer.  Sheesh.

I didn’t expect the woman’s daughter in this hypothetical situation to lawyer up and go to the media.

Posted
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No one really knows why Cannon is doing what she's doing.  So, that's not knowledge, that remains speculation.  I never said Cannon wouldn't fuck it up, I speculated that the reason was that she's a dumbfuck ill-suited to handle a trial like this moreso than in the bag for Trump.  He speculated the other way.

We still don't know, know.

Oh ffs.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
On 5/24/2024 at 6:51 AM, Hermanator said:

You're just constantly full of shit. You've been here saying the whole thing is working exactly as it's supposed to when we have one judge intentionally delaying a trial in Florida and the fucking Supreme Court intentionally dragging their feet to delay his trial in DC. It's pure fucking corruption and I, for one, am tired of your constant bullshit. 

Just shut your lawyer cunt ass up already. 

IMG_2753.jpeg.9504c5efc4d5956af8113ca52e499900.jpeg

Your heart is certainly in the right place on Cannon and SCOTUS, But you need to work a little bit more on your reading comprehension and memory.

Posted

Evidence wise, I think they proved it, but no jury is going to convict a former President of boring finance violations. I’m betting hung jury.

Posted
2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Evidence wise, I think they proved it, but no jury is going to convict a former President of boring finance violations. I’m betting hung jury.

He's found guilty on 32 of 34 all by Friday.  Problem is, he'll be sentenced in October and free to walk pending appeal, which will take over a year.  He'll be dead by then.  

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

He's found guilty on 32 of 34 all by Friday.  Problem is, he'll be sentenced in October and free to walk pending appeal, which will take over a year.  He'll be dead by then.  

Why 32 and not all 34?  There's no material difference in the 34 checks corresponding to the 34 counts.

Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Why 32 and not all 34?  There's no material difference in the 34 checks corresponding to the 34 counts.

Just a guess, nothing more.  I've noticed over the years when a prosecutor charges with a shit load, typically a couple of things don't stick entirely.  

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

Just a guess, nothing more.  I've noticed over the years when a prosecutor charges with a shit load, typically a couple of things don't stick entirely.  

Finding him not guilty on some (or several) charges can also be a negotiation chip for some wavering MAGA sympathizing juror who hesitates finding Trump guilty on all, but needs a bone thrown to him or her to get guilty votes on the others. 

As a former bailiff who sat outside the door overhearing the deliberations, disabuse yourself of the notion that they are in there employing nothing but logic and a desire to follow instructions. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Link to Gator saying the WHOLE THING is working EXACTLY as it’s supposed to?
I did say exactly that about the Stormy trial. I never said that about the others.  As mad as we all are about how things are turning out, it is understandable to get some of my babbling mixed up.
The people here who thought that all the trials could be completed and Trump jailed before the election were always massively delusional. 
Everybody hates it when Twice tells them all the reasons that it was very difficult to conclude it all by November and that likely things would be delayed.  But he was not wrong about that. 
Everybody’s minds are already made up, but I just want to leave everyone with the not so surprising concept that there can be more than one reason for something.
A Judge can be stupid, inexperienced, over her head and panicking - and also be a Trump fan with no problem delaying the trial if it helps her - and also does a solid for the guy who appointed her.  The easiest way for her to not fuck up in an embarrassing way and get bench slapped again by the 11th Circuit is to push everything down the road.   Does this help Trump?  Abso-fucking-lutely!  Could she also have a selfish reason to delay making decisions that she obviously is inept in making decisions - in front of the whole world - while it is closely watching and so far excoriating her?  Yeah, I think so.    
Could she see slow playing everything as a means to avoid criticism and embarrassment, Jack asking the 11th circuit to take the case away, etc., and concluding that putting the brakes on everything until maybe Trump gets elected again will stops the trial and save her…. and maybe get her appointed to a circuit court? Also, yes.
FWIW, that is my take. it does not have to be a 100% either or thing.  Feel free to stab away.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

disabuse yourself of the notion that they are in there employing nothing but logic and a desire to follow instructions. 

They’re typical Americans right? No one is thinking that

Posted (edited)
On 5/24/2024 at 10:39 AM, wildcat09 said:

No. I'm fairly sure every lawyer that posts here but TwiceHorn thinks Cannon is pretty openly in the tank for Trump. He seems to have mostly quit giving her the benefit of the doubt, but is still rationalizing his error with this "we can't REALLY know what she's thinking" stuff. Which, c'mon man. 


jack smith was over matched vs cannon from day 1. she knew her job, and has executed it to T. I guess smith had faith in the impartial judicial system ? Hubris ? 
 

 

Edited by tx 3 putt
Posted
4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


jack smith was over matched vs cannon from day 1. she knew her job, and has executed it to T. I guess smith had faith in the impartial judicial system ? Hubris ? 
 

 

image.jpeg.239338f6bd872b253cbc8e10f934071b.jpeg
 

ok. Right about now you are thinking to yourself “how did he wind up here?”

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

As a former bailiff who sat outside the door overhearing the deliberations

Lol now your stanning of our busted ass justice system makes a bit more sense. 

Posted
2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

He's found guilty on 32 of 34 all by Friday.  Problem is, he'll be sentenced in October and free to walk pending appeal, which will take over a year.  He'll be dead by then.  

From your lips to God's ears.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, BamaATL said:

He's found guilty on 32 of 34 all by Friday.  Problem is, he'll be sentenced in October and free to walk pending appeal, which will take over a year.  He'll be dead by then.  

200.gif

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

Evidence wise, I think they proved it, but no jury is going to convict a former President of boring finance violations. I’m betting hung jury.

it’s going to be a hung jury.  they only need one Republican voter on the jury. and the chances are very night that there are several.  
 

would you trust any person who votes for Republicans in 2024 to do the right thing, ever? I wouldn’t.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:


jack smith was over matched vs cannon from day 1. she knew her job, and has executed it to T. I guess smith had faith in the impartial judicial system ? Hubris ? 

Seriously, what exactly was Jack supposed to do differently than he did? I guess he could’ve shot Trump, but I believe that’s against DOJ policy. 

There are rules and precedent for most everything in law, and that includes recusing a federal judge. No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because a lawyer thinks the judge might mess up.  No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because a lawyer has a gut feeling that the judge is in the tank for the other side.   No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because the judge got one or two things wrong in pretrial proceedings.   It is even less likely with a brand new judge who has very little experience.

You can accuse Jack of hubris if you could explain to me exactly what he could’ve done differently in this situation - because you insinuate that he could have done something and didn’t because of hubris.  

IMG_2757.jpeg.cb67a6f3e216de30b6dc3260e06115e7.jpeg

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Seriously, what exactly was Jack supposed to do differently than he did? I guess he could’ve shot Trump, but I believe that’s against DOJ policy. 

There are rules and precedent for most everything in law, and that includes recusing a federal judge. No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because a lawyer thinks the judge might mess up.  No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because a lawyer has a gut feeling that the judge is in the tank for the other side.   No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because the judge got one or two things wrong in pretrial proceedings.   It is even less likely with a brand new judge who has very little experience.

You can accuse Jack of hubris if you could explain to me exactly what he could’ve done differently in this situation - because you insinuate that he could have done something and didn’t because of hubris.  

IMG_2757.jpeg.cb67a6f3e216de30b6dc3260e06115e7.jpeg


Bring the case to the dc courts ?

the original crime took place in dc 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because a lawyer has a gut feeling that the judge is in the tank for the other side.   No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because the judge got one or two things wrong in pretrial proceedings.   It is even less likely with a brand new judge who has very little experience.

Justice system would be better if they would.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

There are rules and precedent for most everything in law, and that includes recusing a federal judge. No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because a lawyer thinks the judge might mess up.  No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because a lawyer has a gut feeling that the judge is in the tank for the other side.   No court of appeal will affirm a recusal because the judge got one or two things wrong in pretrial proceedings.   It is even less likely with a brand new judge who has very little experience.

 

I think the important lesson here is to be rich and powerful when you crime. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
32 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Justice system would be better if they would.

The problem here is you do not consider the fact that the Maga team would also be allowed the same rights in your new justice system.  Trump thinking someone will be unfair is grounds to recuse the judge..   We would have no Stormy trial at all. We would have no trials ever because he would be recusing everybody on just “feels” and “wants”.   It is natural for everyone to consider their side’s interests when you have an asshole like Trump violating the law at will.  But you have to step back and flip it to the other side taking advantage of the same things you want to take advantage of, and it becomes less attractive.  

You do not fix a court system by making it unfair and partisan.  This is why Trump has the advantage right now.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Captainant said:

Lol now your stanning of our busted ass justice system makes a bit more sense. 

We will never know what makes a bit more sense to you, because your garbled word salad is typically bereft of a point.  

But the gators and the horns won their super regionals today, so all is pretty, pretty good.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I appreciate the insight from the lawyers on the board and think people should ease up on them for giving their opinions on what they expect to happen and how the court system works for better or worse.  However, I think we can all agree that a judge should not take the case of the person who appointed them. It is bad optics, even if they are unbiased and many will be biased and that is why it should not be a thing, especially with the current hyper politized appointments that are happening where your willingness to inject politics into decisions and  your ability to serve for decades are more important than if you would make a fair and knowledgeable judge.

  • Like 1
Posted
11 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Just a guess, nothing more.  I've noticed over the years when a prosecutor charges with a shit load, typically a couple of things don't stick entirely.  

I agree that juries are apt to "compromise" on occasion.  But they usually do so on what most would agree would be the weaker charges or claims in a case.

Each of these 34 counts is virtually identical, so I don't see much room for that.  

And yeah, jury deliberations often are not what we'd call logical or even wholly rational.  However, in the grand scheme of things, they tend to get things more right than wrong.  And I think the perception of illogic and irrationality comes from advocates and observers who have become so "vested" in their case that they can't see how another, more neutral, entity (whether judge or jury) might view the case.

Lawdogs are often puzzled and outraged by decisions of judges and juries, at least initially, but in the fullness of time, those decisions become more acceptable and rational-seeming than in the heat of battle.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

I disagree that the strategy is "ingenious."  Rather, it's obvious and predictable, but is being more effective than I'd hoped.

But I can't read the whole post/thread because fuck Twitter.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
12 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

The problem here is you do not consider the fact that the Maga team would also be allowed the same rights in your new justice system.  Trump thinking someone will be unfair is grounds to recuse the judge..   We would have no Stormy trial at all. We would have no trials ever because he would be recusing everybody on just “feels” and “wants”.   It is natural for everyone to consider their side’s interests when you have an asshole like Trump violating the law at will.  But you have to step back and flip it to the other side taking advantage of the same things you want to take advantage of, and it becomes less attractive.  

You do not fix a court system by making it unfair and partisan.  This is why Trump has the advantage right now.

No, you still have to go through the process and a decision made based on the merits of the arguments (laughable I know, but allow me to join your fantasy world of a perfect justice system for a moment.  As things stand now, you can’t even try.

Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

How would a dress EJC didn't produce "show negative"?

Yeah, the "dress showed negative" is one of the weirder things he's posted.  And that's saying something.  First thing that popped in my head was that internet dress deal from a few years ago where some people saw it as blue stripped and others saw it was white stripped.  But it was actually a "negative" space color trick.  And the simulation keeps going on and on.  

Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

How would a dress EJC didn't produce "show negative"?

He was deemed liable for using his finger, right?  So what would they be testing for anyway, bronzer and Big Mac sauce?

  • Haha 2
Posted
53 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

He was deemed liable for using his finger, right?  So what would they be testing for anyway, bronzer and Big Mac sauce?

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, tbone_ said:


Also easily the biggest whining pussy.

And the most self-centered. Using a Memorial Day post not to honor our fallen soldiers, but to make it all about himself and his grievances.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Art Vandelay said:

And the most self-centered. Using a Memorial Day post not to honor our fallen soldiers, but to make it all about himself and his grievances.

There is no other way possible for the Orange Fucktard.

Posted (edited)

And he's literally co-opted an actual holiday in Memorial Day as his Festivus where he airs his bullshit grievances.  We're about 3 hours away from him making Eric try to pin him and then we just get to pretend we still live in the United States.  I mean, Melania even looks a lot like Jerry's two-face girlfriend on the porch.  What in the fucking fuck is happening?  God bless the fallen men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces.   

How much can bullshit and disrespect can the MAGA nation tolerate?  I know that some of them get off on the torment and disrespect, but there's gotta be a couple million that have just fucking had it up to here with this guy.  

Edited by YGIFS
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

"happy" Memorial Day?

Trump understands Memorial Day and Veterans Day about as well as Musk understands free speech and the First Amendment.

To Trump, it’s just a banking holiday.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

i find the idea that Cannon is delaying Trump's trial due to executing a brilliant plan brilliantly to be... dubious

She's an idiot in the impossible position of having to treat her criminal hero fairly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

First time here and I may regret it :). Did a search and could not find this linked, but the outage may have borked search.

Hartman as Trump in 1990.  The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

i find the idea that Cannon is delaying Trump's trial due to executing a brilliant plan brilliantly to be... dubious

She's an idiot in the impossible position of having to treat her criminal hero fairly.

Ummm…… that is not really “brilliant” - and has like one moving part: continue shit so she can’t fuck it up more and Trump can’t get convicted before the election.  



×
×
  • Create New...