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)
4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yep.  And in the third one, they have manufactured a conflict of interest where none exists because the DA was banging one of her assistants.

So Trump isn't the only one who 'got off'?  I'll see myself out.

Edited by YGIFS
Posted
3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Nothing good is going to happen.  If anything, she's going to rule that Jack must be removed which will delay, delay, delay; just like dotard ordered.

Oh I will not be surprised if she goes rogue and rules that the SC is not constitutional or whatever.  And then the 11th circuit will slap her ass down, yet again, and she still won’t be removed from the case.

”you once again created a special exemption for the former President with no basis in legal doctrine. You need to recuse and let someone else handle this case”

Cannon:

Kevin Hart No GIF by Kevin Hart's Laugh Out Loud

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yep.  And in the third one, they have manufactured a conflict of interest where none exists because the DA was banging one of her assistants.

I’m still trying to understand this argument.  “Your honor, the prosecutor is a vegetarian and since I love steak they can’t possibly be allowed to be on this case where I murdered someone and I told a room full of people I was going to kill this person, then was caught with the murder weapon and the entire act of me killing the person is on video”.  

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

No prediction on the other shit but I think the immunity decision will be out this morning  and it will be a per curium affirmance. Such an absurd proposition.

Posted
8 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

It means "Your shit's all retarded and gay"  

it is centuries long precedent at the Supreme Court that we acknowledge our legal foundations from British Common Law.  And we know from British history of the Peasant’s Revolt. And we know of the young king’s promise that he would not take revenge, and that, as soon as the danger to the King had passed, he slaughtered the participants in the revolt or imprisoned them.  This precedent clearly supports the right of the sovereign/president to take revenge on the peasants who have angered that president.      

< Justices Thomas and Alito > 

“Sounds good to me!”

  • Haha 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, South Austin said:

1. So nobody in the Missouri Attorney General’s office knows anything about standing?

2. Please let the judge assigned to this lawsuit bring the sanctions hammer down like in the bullshit election contests, so we can add this fuckstick to the FAFO list.

the last time missouri filed suit with questionable standing it was allowed.

Posted
8 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

Well I was wrong, no immunity decision today. It's going to be a 4 pager and the delay feels very much political.

What's the hurry?

Posted
12 minutes ago, &#x27;stache said:

Well I was wrong, no immunity decision today. It's going to be a 4 pager and the delay feels very much political.

July 2nd, man. Them holding it for as long as possible was obvious from the moment they took the appeal. 

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

July 2nd, man. Them holding it for as long as possible was obvious from the moment they took the appeal. 

Season 1 Rachel GIF

Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

So in one case, the Supreme Court is dragging their feet on the question of "Is it cool for a president to commit all the crimes he wants?", and in this one, Judge Dipshit is hearing arguments on whether or not it was legal in the first place to appoint a special counsel? 

Yes. All to enable a fascist to gain power and money 

Posted
1 hour ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

I’m still trying to understand this argument.  “Your honor, the prosecutor is a vegetarian and since I love steak they can’t possibly be allowed to be on this case where I murdered someone and I told a room full of people I was going to kill this person, then was caught with the murder weapon and the entire act of me killing the person is on video”.  

I don’t get it either. Seems like another thing that the media has just accepted as an actual issue, kinda like the self-pardoning mentioned above. Both of them were on the same side and working towards the same outcome, right? I would absolutely agree it could be a problem if they were on opposing sides of the issue, but that’s not the case here. Who cares if they were banging? Maybe it’s unprofessional, but it’s not illegal afaik, and I don’t see how it has any impact on the legitimacy of the case or the alleged crimes. How does “they were fucking” have any relevance here at all? Is there some underlying issue that I’m missing? Like, they were conspiring together to hide exculpatory evidence or something?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I don’t get it either. Seems like another thing that the media has just accepted as an actual issue, kinda like the self-pardoning mentioned above. Both of them were on the same side and working towards the same outcome, right? I would absolutely agree it could be a problem if they were on opposing sides of the issue, but that’s not the case here. Who cares if they were banging? Maybe it’s unprofessional, but it’s not illegal afaik, and I don’t see how it has any impact on the legitimacy of the case or the alleged crimes. How does “they were fucking” have any relevance here at all? Is there some underlying issue that I’m missing? Like, they were conspiring together to hide exculpatory evidence or something?

Something about Willis profiting from it. 

Posted
32 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I don’t get it either. Seems like another thing that the media has just accepted as an actual issue, kinda like the self-pardoning mentioned above. Both of them were on the same side and working towards the same outcome, right? I would absolutely agree it could be a problem if they were on opposing sides of the issue, but that’s not the case here. Who cares if they were banging? Maybe it’s unprofessional, but it’s not illegal afaik, and I don’t see how it has any impact on the legitimacy of the case or the alleged crimes. How does “they were fucking” have any relevance here at all? Is there some underlying issue that I’m missing? Like, they were conspiring together to hide exculpatory evidence or something?

In the history of this country, I seriously doubt co-counsels working long late hours have ever had sex.

I crack myself up.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
24 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Boy, they sure did rule quickly when Colorado tried to keep Trump off the ballot. 

Well, because you see, there was an election coming up, so they wanted to get out in front of it.  I don't think there's anything big coming up later this year.  Like an election.  Where the voters should be informed if they have a choice between a 34 time convicted felon or many many many more convictions.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

What's the hurry?

In a normal world, having him rant on why he should have complete immunity to commit all crimes would be helpful closer to the election to prove how utterly incompetent he is for the job, but 80 million people will just nod along and go to the polls for him, so it won't make a shit.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
On 6/18/2024 at 7:05 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Get Katie Porter or Jared Moskowitz in charge of messaging.  They have a knack for boiling big complex stuff down to something simple fairly quickly.

Porter needs a job.  

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 hours ago, kevwun said:

Is the hearing this morning the one where if Cannon fucks it up, she might get removed from the case?  I remember our resident lawyers speculating that one of the upcoming ones had the potential to be a big enough screw up to justify it.

The key thing is if she makes a ruling that either terminates the case or is sufficiently prejudicial to the government to warrant an appeal. While it is not a certainty, it is conceivable that the 11th Circuit remands the case to a different trial judge. I believe they have the power to do that and recent revelations show that the "local" judiciary has concerns about the appearance and her competence to handle the case. 

 

Posted
16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well, because you see, there was an election coming up, so they wanted to get out in front of it.  I don't think there's anything big coming up later this year.  Like an election.  Where the voters should be informed if they have a choice between a 34 time convicted felon or many many many more convictions.  

There is a tangible difference though. The Colorado case would have taken him off the ballot entirely.

While there is an election coming up, the immunity issues don't keep him on or off the ballot. His trial and conviction is a data point most of us would like to have, but it is only a data point and the reality is that conviction won't make a shit. 

Posted
21 hours ago, C-Man said:

You’re delusional if you don’t think he’s going to do exactly this if he’s convicted and still wins in November. If he gets re-elected, all kinds of shit we’ve never seen in this country is gonna go down.

That's what happens during the process of a  democracy turning into a theocracy/dictatorship. All sorts of things start happening that had never even been thought possible before. 

We're in the shit right now. If humans and recorded human history is still around in the year 2124 they'll be looking at us as the generations that destroyed the United States the way we look at the era of Nero

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

There is a tangible difference though. The Colorado case would have taken him off the ballot entirely.

While there is an election coming up, the immunity issues don't keep him on or off the ballot. His trial and conviction is a data point most of us would like to have, but it is only a data point and the reality is that conviction won't make a shit. 

This defense of SCOTUS is bullshit, man.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

In the history of this country, I seriously doubt co-counsels working long late hours have ever had sex.

it’s just like actors and actresses working together on a movie. The long hours together every day never lead to sexy time.  It is known. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

it’s just like actors and actresses working together on a movie. The long hours together every day never lead to sexy time.  It is known. 

Counterpoint:  The actors won't bill for it

Posted
49 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This defense of SCOTUS is bullshit, man.

Not really a defense.

There IS a tangible difference.  They delivered the decision the day before the Colorado primary.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a tangible difference though. The Colorado case would have taken him off the ballot entirely.

While there is an election coming up, the immunity issues don't keep him on or off the ballot. His trial and conviction is a data point most of us would like to have, but it is only a data point and the reality is that conviction won't make a shit. 

They had a chance to take the case months ago and refused.

If it was a question of Biden’s immunity then they already would’ve ruled against him. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BevoAbyss said:

Sadly, it will not matter who takes the lead for the Democrats. That’s because the Dems will never ever confront — in any serious way — the most broken and malignant segment of American consciousness, which is infecting politics and every aspect of culture. 

And that malignancy is Christian Fascism. Because they believe “God" has their back with a divine plan for America, they are empowered with arrogance and ignorance on epic scales, which fuels the racism, hatred, and complete idiocy and anti-science nonsense.

Oh, sure, billionaires and corporate corruption are significant problems, but they are in second place. And the rich are often empowered by the same Christian fanatics, such as those that worship Trump. Dems will criticize the ultra rich, but not the ultra religious. As Catholics, AOC and Newsom ain’t taking on religion in any meaningful way. 

I don’t think there are nearly as many Christian fascist types as it seems, but I do think they exert an oversized influence on a lot of things (especially when they fuck with school boards and local races).  I look at all the MAGA nuts in my family (East Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Missouri), and I look at the folks we know from my wife’s old (Southern) Baptist church, and MAGA nuts I’ve worked with or related to friends of mine, and there should be some prime candidates in that bunch, but they aren’t crossing the line into foaming-at-the-mouth Christian nationalist/fascists.  In fact some of them have been slowly drifting away, but that’s all anecdotal (I still consider it a decent sample size over a wide geography and demographic base).  I will say that folks you can point at and say “yep, definitely a Christian fascist” are loud as hell.

There’s not much you can point to as a reason for the Christian fascists other than they’ve always been around but now they are organized and talking to one another and have the ears of some politicians. There is not a single defining moment you can point to with these people, it’s just an accumulation of batshittery that is now on public display.

But I think I think something happened nationally in November of 2008 that spooked some folks, and here in Texas something has been quietly happening over the last 15 years that has some folks on edge.

I think racism is a lot more prevalent, even if it’s more subtle and/or subconscious, and I think it’s a bigger problem.  For instance, it may not be blatant, but I do not think it’s a coincidence in Texas that as whites have not only lost the majority, but are now below %40, that Republican leaders are increasingly trying to take over the elections, schools, and policing in the largest cities.  Your typical white Texan may not even realize they make up less than 40% of the state, but your politicians do - every so often they deal with a lot of demographic data (elections). Now, I’m not saying for instance that Greg Abbott hates Hispanics or other minorities, but I think Greg Abbott (and other Texas leaders) is aware that as they pass up whites, and as more hit voting age as whites decline as a percentage of voters, that he knows Texas will be in play.  There’s no other reason to go after things like voting and education unless you are concerned about the numbers in the future, and the only thing that is concerning for Republicans in those numbers are the percentages of whites dropping in the numbers over time.

edit: some can and should argue that being afraid of losing an election doesn’t make one racist, and it doesn’t, but if you do things that affect certain groups in order for you to try and remain in power, than you are a racist.

Edited by atomheartbevo
Posted

It's funny that this alleged incompetence keeps benefitting one side over and over.  Kinda like how my firm has never, ever accidentally overpaid a commission.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
22 hours ago, C-Man said:


Just pointing it out for the Surly law dogs in the back. (ducks) emoji1787.png

Gonna save you a spot on the elevator, insurance man!

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...