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
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

*Aileen.

Regardless of the judge, what I said is broadly true.  A murder case, despite having an intent element, just relies, typically, on eyewitnesses and actions that pretty clearly evince the requisite intent.

Murder?  Didn’t they just find the guy with a gun?  Isn’t that 25% of Florida and also Texas?

Posted
2 hours ago, Foosters said:

I asked this before, and didn't get an answer:

Did Ryan Routh ask for a continuance?

Continuing to ask about a continuance. 

Somebody answer this man!

  • Haha 1
Posted

Lulz Cannon finally getting her reward for her ratfucking

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-tossed-trumps-classified-docs-case-list-proposed/story?id=114997807

A proposed personnel roster circulating within Donald Trump's campaign and transition operation lists Aileen Cannon, the federal judge who threw out Trump's classified documents case, as a possible candidate for attorney general, multiple sources familiar with the matter have told ABC News.

Cannon's name appears on a document reviewed by ABC News titled "Transition Planning: Legal Principals," which lists potential staffing for the White House counsel's office, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and U.S. attorneys' offices, as well as proposed candidates for the top legal positions within multiple government agencies, should Trump be reelected.

The document was drafted by Trump's top advisers with input from Boris Epshteyn, who oversees Trump's legal team and is one of Trump's most trusted advisers, sources familiar with the matter said.

Cannon's name appears second after former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, according to the document reviewed by ABC News, which includes nearly a dozen potential candidates for attorney general. Cannon's name was added to the list well after the classified documents case was thrown out over the summer, the sources said.

  • Rage+1 5
Posted
17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lulz Cannon finally getting her reward for her ratfucking

https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-tossed-trumps-classified-docs-case-list-proposed/story?id=114997807

A proposed personnel roster circulating within Donald Trump's campaign and transition operation lists Aileen Cannon, the federal judge who threw out Trump's classified documents case, as a possible candidate for attorney general, multiple sources familiar with the matter have told ABC News.

Cannon's name appears on a document reviewed by ABC News titled "Transition Planning: Legal Principals," which lists potential staffing for the White House counsel's office, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and U.S. attorneys' offices, as well as proposed candidates for the top legal positions within multiple government agencies, should Trump be reelected.

The document was drafted by Trump's top advisers with input from Boris Epshteyn, who oversees Trump's legal team and is one of Trump's most trusted advisers, sources familiar with the matter said.

Cannon's name appears second after former SEC Chairman Jay Clayton, according to the document reviewed by ABC News, which includes nearly a dozen potential candidates for attorney general. Cannon's name was added to the list well after the classified documents case was thrown out over the summer, the sources said.

In a functional legal system, this would be enough to get that case taken from her when her dismissal is ultimately overruled. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

In a functional legal system, this would be enough to get that case taken from her when her dismissal is ultimately overruled. 

In a functioning society people would reject this abject corruption as disqualifying 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)

Cannon has a lifetime appointment and is already set being incompetent and essentially unfireable. Why would she give that up for an at most 4 year appointment? Seems a better quid pro quo request would be a promotion to the 11th Circuit (after she’s done saving him at the trial court). I think Garland took the chance expecting 8 years under Biden but even if Kamala replaces him I can see her reappointing him to the bench. Say what you will about his tenure as AG he was a good judge. Cannon doesn’t have that.

Edited by 'stache
  • Like 1
Posted
Cannon has a lifetime appointment and is already set being incompetent and essentially unfireable. Why would she give that up for an at most 4 year appointment? Seems a better quid pro quo request would be a promotion to the 11th Circuit (after she’s done saving him at the trial court). I think Garland took the chance expecting 8 years under Biden but even if Kamala replaces him I can see her reappointing him to the bench. Say what you will about his tenure as AG he was a good judge. Cannon doesn’t have that.

This is all true if we’re thinking rationally. Then again, her judgment skills are….questionable. Or maybe they aren’t?
Posted

Eh, I would think time as AG could lead to some pretty sweet partnerships or consulting agreements.  She makes $200K as a judge, and although she and her husband are moderately wealthy, I would think she could top that salary by a wide margin in private practice.  That might not be her thing, though.

Posted
6 hours ago, 'stache said:

Cannon has a lifetime appointment and is already set being incompetent and essentially unfireable. Why would she give that up for an at most 4 year appointment? Seems a better quid pro quo request would be a promotion to the 11th Circuit (after she’s done saving him at the trial court). I think Garland took the chance expecting 8 years under Biden but even if Kamala replaces him I can see her reappointing him to the bench. Say what you will about his tenure as AG he was a good judge. Cannon doesn’t have that.

Kamala had better replace Garland.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
9 minutes ago, kevwun said:

She is going to want her own AG.  I would bet she's not a fan of Garland on top of that.

I think its a safe bet to wager she has opinions on how good judges are at understanding prosecuting.  

Posted
7 hours ago, 'stache said:

Say what you will about his tenure as AG he was a good judge.

I really don’t give a shit. He can be the best judge since Judge Reinhold, he can still get fucked. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 4
Posted
8 hours ago, 'stache said:

Cannon has a lifetime appointment and is already set being incompetent and essentially unfireable. Why would she give that up for an at most 4 year appointment? Seems a better quid pro quo request would be a promotion to the 11th Circuit (after she’s done saving him at the trial court). I think Garland took the chance expecting 8 years under Biden but even if Kamala replaces him I can see her reappointing him to the bench. Say what you will about his tenure as AG he was a good judge. Cannon doesn’t have that.

Because money. If you were attorney general of the US, you could immediately get a job as a partner with profit sharing at a major firm where you make between $2-8M a year, plus undisclosed fees for speaking engagements at Fed Soc events and the like as a private individual. 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

So what's the timeline --if any-- for the 11th circuit to rule on her dismissal of the docs case?  Do they need several more months on this

They had it on an expedited basis, with Trump's brief due in September.  Trump moved to extend that a month, and Smith did not oppose.

Appellee's brief due October 25, 2025.  Government's reply due 21 days later. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68955302/united-states-v-donald-trump/

I'd imagine they have oral argument in December and a ruling by January.  Educated guesses only.

EDIT TO ADD:  I said it was expedited because the appeal was noticed on July 8, and the briefing schedule putting the government's brief due August 27 is pretty fucking swift.  HOWEVER, the briefing dates stem from ordering and receiving the record from the trial court, as you probably know.  On July 24, the government certified that all documents were on file.

Because this is an appeal of a discrete order, I guess there isn't much record on appeal and the transcript of the hearing is mostly irrelevant because it was non-evidentiary.  So maybe just going fairly fast on that alone.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
200.gif
 
Phone call from Egypt? With the POTUS on the other end of the line? WTF?!?!

See, he got a whole package from Egypt. $10 million. A burner phone. And some delicious shawarma…which was totally wasted on him because it’s not a hamberder.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's a great piece of evidence, right there.  And demonstrates the kind of digging you have to do to prove a case like this beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure am glad we waited FOUR FUCKING YEARS for this information to reach the public. Wow the gears of justice are really fucking saving us from fascism! Maybe they'll have a fucking court case for his shit by 2030 and can try his corpse. 

Fucks sake. Justice delayed is justice denied. I don't know why you're so happy about this shit not being used to put the man behind bars. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 3
Posted

The strange thing about the burner phone routed thru Egypt is that the call happened will before Trump's infamous call to Raffensperger in Georgia, which was presumably on an official line.

Posted

Totally normal for the President of the United States to use burner phones and fake electors to try to rig an election.  I guess after he was sending shit to Putin he figured it was all good.  

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Sure am glad we waited FOUR FUCKING YEARS for this information to reach the public. Wow the gears of justice are really fucking saving us from fascism! Maybe they'll have a fucking court case for his shit by 2030 and can try his corpse. 

Fucks sake. Justice delayed is justice denied. I don't know why you're so happy about this shit not being used to put the man behind bars. 

Fucking stop.

I am fairly sure that is grand jury testimony.  It is therefore secret and also probably a couple of years old, at least.  The criminal process proceeds largely out of public view until the trial.

Clearly, they have this evidence, they've had it, and they are using it against him.  They just didn't show it to you before and a bizarre procedural oddity under which the prosecution has to go on record with its evidence before trial is the only reason you're seeing this.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They just didn't show it to you before and a bizarre procedural oddity under which the prosecution has to go on record with its evidence before trial is the only reason you're seeing this.

Lol you think there's actually gonna be a trial and things won't just be indefinitely delayed

My complaint is that we're two weeks away from the election and the delay of the trial has delayed the public receipt and accountability for his crimes. It's a failure and embarrassment to lawyers and the legal system

Edited by Captainant
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

My complaint is that we're two weeks away from the election and the delay of the trial has delayed the public receipt and accountability for his crimes. It's a failure and embarrassment to lawyers and the legal system

Well, as usual, you want to waive whatever protections we offer defendants in our criminal system because you don't like the defendant.

One of those protections is we don't air incriminating evidence until trial when the defendant has the opportunity to defend him or herself. Other than what's legally necessary to support an indictment and for the government to respond to pretrial motions, such as this.

These rules are concocted for YOUR benefit, and mine, should we ever run a foul of the criminal justice system.

No prosecutor anywhere has a duty or obligation, quite the contrary, to publicly air evidence prior to trial.  If not for the immunity ruling, you would never have seen this evidence, until trial.

The trials have been delayed, and that sucks, but that's not an automatic excuse to start airing grand jury testimony.

Addendum:  "Justice delayed is justice denied" is such a useless phrase.  The very nature of due process of law is delay.  Once you introduce the concept of due process, delay is inevitable.  Then you get into unanswerable questions like how much is too much?  Is the 21 year delay in executing Robert Roberson too much due process?

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The trials have been delayed, and that sucks, but that's not an automatic excuse to start airing grand jury testimony.

The trials have been delayed nearly 3.5 years.  There is no sane reason this shouldn't have gone to trial already.  And spare me "due process."   This has been criminally slow.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

The trials have been delayed nearly 3.5 years.  There is no sane reason this shouldn't have gone to trial already.  And spare me "due process."   This has been criminally slow.  

Slow is the nature of criminal trials, if you are a defendant that has the means and desire to enforce your rights.  The "means" part is a different discussion, though.

Posted

So some would have the justice system ignore procedure and violate a person's rights by publicizing evidence pre-trial in ADDITION to the ridiculously slow pace of the process?

I think of what my Dad used to say:  "two wrongs something something"

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So some would have the justice system ignore procedure and violate a person's rights by publicizing evidence pre-trial in ADDITION to the ridiculously slow pace of the process?

I think of what my Dad used to say:  "two wrongs something something"

My issue is not with the grand jury evidence.   It that this has taken over 3 fucking years.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So some would have the justice system ignore procedure and violate a person's rights by publicizing evidence pre-trial in ADDITION to the ridiculously slow pace of the process?

I think of what my Dad used to say:  "two wrongs something something"

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying these trials should have happened fucking years ago. It's outrageous that the public is just now learning these facts that should have been driving this URGENTLY to trial. 

 

Y'all's okey-doke with the legal system taking it's sweet ass time is infuriating. It's not acceptable, and the delay for years is going to be an indelible stain on our democracy and judiciary 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So some would have the justice system ignore procedure and violate a person's rights by publicizing evidence pre-trial in ADDITION to the ridiculously slow pace of the process?

I think of what my Dad used to say:  "two wrongs something something"

They are two separate problems, yes.

But they're not necessarily wrong.  Just "wrong" as applied here.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Y'all's okey-doke with the legal system taking it's sweet ass time is infuriating. 

I'm not okey-doke with it at all.  Why would you suggest that?

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying these trials should have happened fucking years ago. It's outrageous that the public is just now learning these facts that should have been driving this URGENTLY to trial. 

 

Y'all's okey-doke with the legal system taking it's sweet ass time is infuriating. It's not acceptable, and the delay for years is going to be an indelible stain on our democracy and judiciary 

Well, again, the reason the trials have taken so long is first, the nature of the crimes is such that exhaustive investigation was required (1/6 anyway, not so much the documents case brought with all deliberate speed).  Second, prosecuting a former president raises questions that have never been answered before.  Even had we had a more favorable Supreme Court, these questions would still have had to be answered and delay inheres to that process.

And, even had we somehow reached trial verdicts in very short order, the outcome would remain uncertain pending appeals of these very same issues.

So, yeah the delay sucks. but more broadly speaking, I don't think the opposite proposition would be very appealing outside of these cases.

In retrospect, even had the cases been brought in 2021, there was ZERO chance of final convictions before the election.  And more people could have and should have predicted that so you could have collectively prepared your anus.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not okey-doke with it at all.  Why would you suggest that?

Because whenever anyone expresses frustration with the multi-year delay before starting fucking justice actions, the only response the surly lawyers have is "criminal trials are always slow, we can't violate the sanctity of the process!" Which conveniently ignores the CHOICE by a bunch of dickless lawyers to WAIT TWO FUCKING YEARS to start prosecuting a fascist for attempting his fascist coup. 

The constant misrepresenting of "well you're just as bad as THEM if you want things to move faster" feels like the legal community just doesn't give a fuck and thinks waiting years to open a file is acceptable. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In retrospect, even had the cases been brought in 2021, there was ZERO chance of final convictions before the election.  And more people could have and should have predicted that so you could have collectively prepared your anus.

Oh so since things will take a while, we just shouldn't fucking do a thing? I don't care if the trial would have still been in motion without yet reaching a verdict. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FUCKING HAPPENING AT ALL! The public accountability and visibility and paper trail into his traitorous actions would have been out there years ago. 

I don't understand why you think that doesn't matter and isn't a historic low water mark for our """justice""" system. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Because whenever anyone expresses frustration with the multi-year delay before starting fucking justice actions, the only response the surly lawyers have is "criminal trials are always slow, we can't violate the sanctity of the process!" Which conveniently ignores the CHOICE by a bunch of dickless lawyers to WAIT TWO FUCKING YEARS to start prosecuting a fascist for attempting his fascist coup. 

The constant misrepresenting of "well you're just as bad as THEM if you want things to move faster" feels like the legal community just doesn't give a fuck and thinks waiting years to open a file is acceptable. 

Oh, fuck off.  It's as if you never read my posts until you want to pitch a hissy fit.  And I'm not a fucking lawyer.  (I'm not sure which is the bigger insult.)

By the way, this study suggests (at the state level) the average time to trial for a felony is ~ 9 months, so yeah, several years is seemingly a problem.

 

image.png.ba7301e8bc2391142ecbc4d41395d430.png

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...