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, TwiceHorn said:

 

If the current scheme is unconstitutional, that has ramifications beyond Trump.  It is an important issue worthy of amicus consideration.

Such as the Hunter Biden case? 

Posted
26 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

simon cowell facepalm GIF

Man, being the lawyer representing Carroll must be amazing. Trump is helping build up a perpetual future revenue stream. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
35 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

It appears from the article that it may not have enough votes to pass even the House and is DOA at the Senate.

Not to mention a Biden veto.

Posted
17 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

So why is there a question if already answered?

It was answered by the DC Circuit. It doesn't mean other circuits can't rule differently. And ultimately SCOTUS would have final say if it got that far. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Horndog said:

Such as the Hunter Biden case? 

Among others, yes. Weiss/Biden I think is the only active Special Counsel currently.  

But, at the rate we're going, there may be more.  And, if the appointments are invalid, anyone prosecuted/convicted by a Special Counsel may have some kind of redress.

Posted
24 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I don't know who Bradley Moss but he said letting third parties opine in this particular instance is ridiculous: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/politics/cannon-trump-special-counsel-hearing/index.html

"“The fact these motions are even being entertained with a hearing is itself ridiculous. That third parties are being allowed to opine at the hearing is absurd,” Bradley Moss, a national security law expert based in Washington, DC, told CNN.

 

6s7qav.png?a475848


if Trump wins, next Supreme Court justice. If the R’s control the Senate

Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This particular thing was going to have to happen (a hearing on Trump's motion to dismiss**) regardless.  Letting amicus argue isn't really a big deal in terms of time-wastage.  And actually probably increases the likelihood she gets it right.

**In federal civil cases, hearings on motions are relatively uncommon.  The judge usually decides on the briefs.  Hearings seem to be more common in criminal cases.

If she fucks this up, the government will undoubtedly appeal and the weight of authority such as it is seems to favor the government on this, as set out in Seligman's brief.  That may be the golden opportunity for the 11th Circuit to remand it to another judge.  Thousands of complaints have been leveled against her to the 11th Circuit Judicial Council, but most of them are not actionable. https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/03/politics/cannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17175189455410&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F06%2F03%2Fpolitics%2Fcannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump%2Findex.html It has become clear, if it wasn't before, that there is a public perception of her that undermines the judiciary.

I would also like to appear on this motion as a non-party how do I do that? I am happy to submit a brief provided that the court accepts MS-Paint

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
 
200.gif

I think it’s funny that he’s not even bothering to change the tense, so that it might remotely make sense. I’m reasonably sure that at this point he knows who she is.
  • Haha 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It was answered by the DC Circuit. It doesn't mean other circuits can't rule differently. And ultimately SCOTUS would have final say if it got that far.

To elaborate, we have 12 regional circuit courts of appeal that hear appeals from district courts in groups of states, First through Eleventh and DC.  The DC Circuit only hears things out of DC District Court.  The Fifth Circuit hears things out of Texas. Louisiana, and Mississippi. And so on and so forth.

A precedent from one regional circuit is not binding on another one, but is influential, at least.  The DC Circuit is highly influential on matters politico-government-constitutional because it hears more of them than any other court.

At times, the various circuits come up with pretty different interpretations and applications of the same law.  If/when that happens, a case raising that law or issue may be prime for review by the Supreme Court, "to resolve a circuit conflict."  It's one of the best reasons for the Supreme Court to take a case.

Because this is in Florida, the 11th Circuit will have to decide it.  They are pretty conservative, but it didn't help Trump in the special master case.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Red Five said:


I think it’s funny that he’s not even bothering to change the tense, so that it might remotely make sense. I’m reasonably sure that at this point he knows who she is.

I think it's entirely possible Dementia Don has completely lost all memory of EJC. That doesn't mean he didn't rape her.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I would also like to appear on this motion as a non-party how do I do that? I am happy to submit a brief provided that the court accepts MS-Paint

That might be the only file format Cannon's court accepts

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

 

When it comes to E. Jean Carroll and this bill proposal............

There's a "Remainder?  Rejoinder?  I don't even know her!" joke in here somewhere if Brisket has the courage to do what's right.  

Posted
33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Abramson is full of shit.  She did not "let third parties into a criminal case."  They are not parties.  They are amici curiae, and yes, those are allowed to brief, and sometimes argue, in ALL KINDS OF CASES, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CASES - there is an actual ABA article on this from a few years ago (as in, pre-dating this case) noting that yes, amici curiae appear in criminal cases, including in trial courts.  And the family relationship of a lawyer to another lawyer is also not something courts take into account absent other circumstances - it's not a conflict of interest, per se.

Not excusing Cannon at all here - I think the fix is in, and I think she'll fuck this up.  But Abramson is flat-out wrong, and it does us all a fucking disservice when dissenting voices are so fucking wrong that I can only conclude they're being purposefully dishonest.

Probably should refer Abramson to many of entities like the ALCU doing the same. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

They are amici curiae, and yes, those are allowed to brief, and sometimes argue, in ALL KINDS OF CASES, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CASES - there is an actual ABA article on this from a few years ago (as in, pre-dating this case) noting that yes, amici curiae appear in criminal cases, including in trial courts. 

 

That sounds Dutch-ish.  Not sure if Dutch, but can we risk it? 

Posted
45 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

That sounds Dutch-ish.  Not sure if Dutch, but can we risk it? 

There are only two things I hate in this simulation.  People tolerant of Donald Trump’s crimes.  And the Dutch.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If other lawyers want to weigh in on the case, they should speak directly with Trump's lawyers or the special counsel, depending on their view. I don't see how a court can operate by  randomly choosing 3rd parties to address the judge.

If the 3rd party lawyers want to join the Trump team, then do so officially. Or be called as an expert witness from the Trump side, and be allowed to be cross examined.

thats-not-how-this-works-thats-not-how-a

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Abramson is full of shit.  She did not "let third parties into a criminal case."  They are not parties.  They are amici curiae, and yes, those are allowed to brief, and sometimes argue, in ALL KINDS OF CASES, INCLUDING CRIMINAL CASES - there is an actual ABA article on this from a few years ago (as in, pre-dating this case) noting that yes, amici curiae appear in criminal cases, including in trial courts.  And the family relationship of a lawyer to another lawyer is also not something courts take into account absent other circumstances - it's not a conflict of interest, per se.

Not excusing Cannon at all here - I think the fix is in, and I think she'll fuck this up.  But Abramson is flat-out wrong, and it does us all a fucking disservice when dissenting voices are so fucking wrong that I can only conclude they're being purposefully dishonest.

Hell, the ACLU appears regularly in criminal cases as amici curiae.  This isn't fresh powder we're skiing.

 

ETA:  Although I will say that it is somewhat unusual for amicus appearance at the trial court level.  Typically they file briefs and seek to get oral argument time on appellate issues, and their requests to appear are usually based on whether the issues are of great public importance.  I solicited several amici to brief a recent SCOTX case I had.  /csb

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, C-Man said:

He’s gonna walk away Scot-free on everything except the NY case isn’t he?

Yes, but don't sweat the small stuff. He's going to move the seat of imperial government to Trump Tower and imprison or behead all of us writing ill of him on the internet.

  • Like 2
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Just now, softlynow said:

Yes, but don't sweat the small stuff. He's going to move the seat of imperial government to Trump Tower and imprison or behead all of us writing ill of him on the internet.

Many more news days like today and I might welcome it

Posted
4 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Many more news days like today and I might welcome it

I saw that the man who punched Steve Buscemi was charged with felony assault. I'd say that's a positive development. What I know of Buscemi is he's not an asshole like a lot of our celebrities.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
41 minutes ago, C-Man said:

He’s gonna walk away Scot-free on everything except the NY case isn’t he?

I am shocked at your take here.  You are plowing new ground. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
48 minutes ago, C-Man said:

He’s gonna walk away Scot-free on everything except the NY case isn’t he?

The Grim Reaper is our only hope, and if you've seen Trump recently, he might not be that far away. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I saw that the man who punched Steve Buscemi was charged with felony assault. I'd say that's a positive development. What I know of Buscemi is he's not an asshole like a lot of our celebrities.

so that trial start date will be some time in 2026, amirite?

 

Edited by yoladu
Posted

I drove past a house in a quiet suburban neighborhood today flying an upside down American flag with a big TRUMP 2024 TAKE BACK AMERICA banner across their front porch

Robin Williams Thats The Good Stuff GIF

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, yoladu said:

so that trial start date will be some time in 2026, amirite?

 

Defendant is a pleb. Trial starts at 7:00 am, sentencing at 7:30. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 hours ago, softlynow said:

Yes, but don't sweat the small stuff. He's going to move the seat of imperial government to Trump Tower and imprison or behead all of us writing ill of him on the internet.

Just in case I would like it entered in the record that I am actually a Chrispy/Donkey Cigar sock.  Fuck you Donnie!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, softlynow said:

I saw that the man who punched Steve Buscemi was charged with felony assault. I'd say that's a positive development. What I know of Buscemi is he's not an asshole like a lot of our celebrities.

He definitely is a good guy. I am friends with the guy who played Buscemi’s butler on season two of Boardwalk Empire. He said working with him was a great experience and he was so kind to everyone on set.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Just in case I would like it entered in the record that I am actually a Chrispy/Donkey Cigar sock.  Fuck you Donnie!

 

IMG_1273.gif

Posted
5 hours ago, Celery Man said:

I drove past a house in a quiet suburban neighborhood today flying an upside down American flag with a big TRUMP 2024 TAKE BACK AMERICA banner across their front porch

Robin Williams Thats The Good Stuff GIF


No doubt that 20 years ago the occupant was railing against flag burning because it was disrespectful.

Posted
2 hours ago, UpperWestside said:

He definitely is a good guy. I am friends with the guy who played Buscemi’s butler on season two of Boardwalk Empire. He said working with him was a great experience and he was so kind to everyone on set.

Oh, fuck him!  Mr. Pink doesn’t in tipping. 

  • Haha 2
Posted

No doubt that 20 years ago the occupant was railing against flag burning because it was disrespectful.
He still is. He hasn't given a second thought about how his Made-in-China-Trump-faced-American flag may be the same as flag burning. He thinks it's making the flag better.
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
14 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Everytime he talks about her, her lawyer should just automatically file.  Fuck him.  He is an idiot.

He’s like my kids - they talk themselves into deep shit and then when it’s pointed out to them, they double down and won’t shut the fuck up.

8 hours ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

The Grim Reaper is our only hope, and if you've seen Trump recently, he might not be that far away. 

If more reporters would ask him to declassify the Epstein files…



×
×
  • Create New...