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
29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Michigan is a great law school.  So is Texas.  I know dumbass lawyers from each place.  The admissions process can only screen for so much.  Some dipshits get through.  And once you are IN such a law school, there are two things that are really hard to do: end up in the top 5%, and end up in the bottom 5%.  But there are people who end up in each slot.

The person who finished number two at my law school class had a hard time getting hired.   Because of her class rank and 4.0, she had several clerking jobs at prestigious firms, all of which ended rather prematurely when they found out she had not one lick of common sense and was a detriment if she spoke to a client, as she would ask questions that were so moronic she was a threat to their business.

She married her high school sweetheart and moved to some town with one traffic light in North Louisiana.   I’m here to tell you that nobody spent more time in the library than she did, with an array of study guide material in front of her at all times -  and her memory was good enough she could regurgitate an “A” on every test.  

No attorney I knew in law school would think of retaining her or referring a case to her IRL

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

The person who finished number two at my law school class had a hard time getting hired.   Because of her class rank and 4.0, she had several clerking jobs at prestigious firms, all of which ended rather prematurely when they found out she had not one lick of common sense and was a detriment if she spoke to a client, as she would ask questions that were so moronic she was a threat to their business.

She married her high school sweetheart and moved to some town with one traffic light in North Louisiana.   I’m here to tell you that nobody spent more time in the library than she did, with an array of study guide material in front of her at all times -  and her memory was good enough she could regurgitate an “A” on every test.  

No attorney I knew in law school would think of retaining her or referring a case to her IRL

We had one just like this.  On top of it, she was gorgeous.  Blonde.  Huge tracks of land that she couldn't wait to accentuate with Angora sweaters as soon as the temps dropped to a balmy 75.  Trying to make conversation with her at parties was excruciating.  I now realize she must've been on the spectrum.  You literally could not have a conversation with her that wasn't about the last quiz, what the answer to a given problem was, quoting scripture and verse.  Listen tits McGhee, we just spent all day studying.  Now I just want a beer and to gaze into the middle distance.  

Edited by Chad Fuck
Posted
1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

We had one just like this.  On top of it, she was gorgeous.  Blonde.  Huge tracks of land that she couldn't wait to accentuate with Angora sweaters as soon as the temps dropped to a balmy 75.  

Where’d she make Partner? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

We had one just like this.

There are several at every law school---smart enough to get the grades and foot in the door but not enough baked-in common sense and hustle to be of any use to anyone else.   

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

The person who finished number two at my law school class had a hard time getting hired.   Because of her class rank and 4.0, she had several clerking jobs at prestigious firms, all of which ended rather prematurely when they found out she had not one lick of common sense and was a detriment if she spoke to a client, as she would ask questions that were so moronic she was a threat to their business.

She married her high school sweetheart and moved to some town with one traffic light in North Louisiana.   I’m here to tell you that nobody spent more time in the library than she did, with an array of study guide material in front of her at all times -  and her memory was good enough she could regurgitate an “A” on every test.  

No attorney I knew in law school would think of retaining her or referring a case to her IRL

I don’t think there’s a class or substitute for common sense.  I’ve had lots of employees over the years who worked for me….some extremely book smart and others with good common sense….I sometimes wonder if common sense, if you had to choose one, would be the way to go.

Posted
On 10/27/2024 at 2:11 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Well, again, you seem to revert to wanting to change the rules for a given defendant.

Having to rely on the justice system to cure us of Donald Trump was never going to be an efficient or expeditious way of doing so.  I think it ultimately will result in trials and convictions that are affirmed on appeal and become final.  It just won't happen on a timeline that meets current wants or expectations.

Mitch McConnell could have stopped all of this….what a pussy.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
14 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Mitch McConnell could have stopped all of this….what a pussy.

He's not a pussy.  A craven old power hungry asshole maybe.  Not a pussy.

Posted
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the good thing about reassignment is that the 11th Circuit is a conservative court whose chief judge didn't have a problem slapping Cannon around a little bit

Man, he showed her.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted

Lawyers have a financial interest in dragging it out.   Our government was foolish to not have disqualifiers for criminals from taking the highest seats of power.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Lawyers have a financial interest in dragging it out.   Our government was foolish to not have disqualifiers for criminals from taking the highest seats of power.

Well, in a criminal case, it is usually the defendant in whose interest it is to drag something out.

Also, ironically, speed in litigation dramatically raises costs, especially for defendants who want/need to actually prepare a defense. If nothing else, speed compresses the timeframe in which massive legal costs are incurred. People bitch about lawsuits taking forever to resolve but are rarely willing to pay to expedite them.

In some cases, speed to trial will cause the parties to forego some of the less-likely avenues of pursuit, but not often if the parties are equally financed.

Posted
16 hours ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Mitch McConnell could have stopped all of this….what a pussy coward.

FIFY

He had multiple chances to get rid of him, and he didn't. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
21 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

We had one just like this.  On top of it, she was gorgeous.  Blonde.  Huge tracks of land that she couldn't wait to accentuate with Angora sweaters as soon as the temps dropped to a balmy 75.  Trying to make conversation with her at parties was excruciating.  I now realize she must've been on the spectrum.  You literally could not have a conversation with her that wasn't about the last quiz, what the answer to a given problem was, quoting scripture and verse.  Listen tits McGhee, we just spent all day studying.  Now I just want a beer and to gaze into the middle distance.  

Chad, dude.....your pictures are not showing up. I mean she has to be online somewhere - so post the link, Facebook, Insta, OF, Martindale
you know there are rules

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Chad, dude.....your pictures are not showing up. I mean she has to be online somewhere - so post the link, Facebook, Insta, OF, Martindale
you know there are rules

I can't even remember her name.  And this was pre me having a cell phone, much less a cell phone with a camera.  What I do remember was...

image.png.2b8a7c69adb036c87cedc91ff71633ca.png

^None of this was true, but for the title. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in a criminal case, it is usually the defendant in whose interest it is to drag something out.

Also, ironically, speed in litigation dramatically raises costs, especially for defendants who want/need to actually prepare a defense. If nothing else, speed compresses the timeframe in which massive legal costs are incurred. People bitch about lawsuits taking forever to resolve but are rarely willing to pay to expedite them.

In some cases, speed to trial will cause the parties to forego some of the less-likely avenues of pursuit, but not often if the parties are equally financed.

So are you considering expedited cases vs normal and also considering stalling tactics?  I imagine that if we were looking at a 2D plot, with Y-axis cost, and X-axis time, that it would have a U shaped plot where expedited cases would be higher, normal would be lower, and stalled/delayed would be higher (granted this is a subjective and relative descriptor as a comparison to the adjacent timeframes)

Posted
1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

I can't even remember her name.  And this was pre me having a cell phone, much less a cell phone with a camera.  What I do remember was...

image.png.2b8a7c69adb036c87cedc91ff71633ca.png

^None of this was true, but for the title. 

Pics of any hot chick with large breasts would be acceptable. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
26 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Pics of any hot chick with large breasts would be acceptable. 

It is important we know whether the scales of justice tip left or right.

Posted
On 10/30/2024 at 1:21 PM, Chad Fuck said:

We had one just like this.  On top of it, she was gorgeous.  Blonde.  Huge tracks of land that she couldn't wait to accentuate with Angora sweaters as soon as the temps dropped to a balmy 75.  Trying to make conversation with her at parties was excruciating.  I now realize she must've been on the spectrum.  You literally could not have a conversation with her that wasn't about the last quiz, what the answer to a given problem was, quoting scripture and verse.  Listen tits McGhee, we just spent all day studying.  Now I just want a beer and to gaze into the middle distance.  

Transgender attorney Stephanie Mueller, 70, puts on busty display in  skintight outfit during court hearing

  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in a criminal case, it is usually the defendant in whose interest it is to drag something out.

Also, ironically, speed in litigation dramatically raises costs, especially for defendants who want/need to actually prepare a defense. If nothing else, speed compresses the timeframe in which massive legal costs are incurred. People bitch about lawsuits taking forever to resolve but are rarely willing to pay to expedite them.

In some cases, speed to trial will cause the parties to forego some of the less-likely avenues of pursuit, but not often if the parties are equally financed.

Maybe it’s just me, but when the fate of democracy is at stake, I don’t consider that an appropriate time to start pinching  pennies. 

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

Pics of any hot chick with large breasts would be acceptable. 

Like it's even possible for anyone to just find a picture of a hot chick with large breasts when it's not Sears catalog Christmas season.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Like it's even possible for anyone to just find a picture of a hot chick with large breasts when it's not Sears catalog Christmas season.  

....not if the R's have their way.

Posted
2 hours ago, gernblansten said:

Like it's even possible for anyone to just find a picture of a hot chick with large breasts when it's not Sears catalog Christmas season.  

breast big boobs GIF

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

Trump will end the federal prosecutions against him.

That should be seen domestically and worldwide as the most corrupt political act in the history of the United States of America.

If you're really not guilty, you should want a trial.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Trump will end the federal prosecutions against him.

That should be seen domestically and worldwide as the most corrupt political act in the history of the United States of America.

Dude. This is some pretty sad wish-casting, even for this place. People. Do. Not. Care. He'll just be ending the "political witch-hunts."

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump will end the federal prosecutions against him.

That should be seen domestically and worldwide as the most corrupt political act in the history of the United States of America.

If you're really not guilty, you should want a trial.

That will be followed up by jailing his political adversaries.  Then he'll go after any powerful business leaders who've spoken against or opposed him.  That's when we'll start getting the deportation camps that will hold not only minorities but common people like us who have a digital record of opposing him.

I don't know what happens after that, hopefully I'll be dead. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, aggie08 said:

Dude. This is some pretty sad wish-casting, even for this place. People. Do. Not. Care. He'll just be ending the "political witch-hunts."

The word "should" was doing a lot of lifting there.  And I said worldwide.

Imagine any other world leader terminating prosecutions against him or her by fiat.

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump will end the federal prosecutions against him.

That should be seen domestically and worldwide as the most corrupt political act in the history of the United States of America.

If you're really not guilty, you should want a trial.

Lol think he's even gonna get sentenced in a couple weeks? I fucking DOUBT he will receive any sort of sentence

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The jury that is the American people have spoken. Fuck all your bullshit lawfare.  The verdict is not guilty.  

Dude, you're a lawyer, you know damn well the cases against him have teeth, real teeth in an unbiased system.  All of his motions to dismiss as political or selective prosecution were denied, even by Aileen Cannon.

You can quibble about prosecutorial discretion in bringing the cases, but once they have survived motions to dismiss (Cannon's notwithstanding, and which did not invalidate the charges), the only legitimate way out for anyone is trial.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dude, you're a lawyer, you know damn well the cases against him have teeth, real teeth in an unbiased system.  All of his motions to dismiss as political or selective prosecution were denied, even by Aileen Cannon.

You can quibble about prosecutorial discretion in bringing the cases, but once they have survived motions to dismiss (Cannon's notwithstanding), the only legitimate way out for anyone is trial.

He screamed as the alligators tore him to pieces. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The jury that is the American people have spoken. Fuck all your bullshit lawfare.  The verdict is not guilty.  

Lol youre great at overlooking genuine crimes, just like you do in church while children get molested right?

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

Dude, you're a lawyer, you know damn well the cases against him have teeth, real teeth in an unbiased system.  All of his motions to dismiss as political or selective prosecution were denied, even by Aileen Cannon.

You can quibble about prosecutorial discretion in bringing the cases, but once they have survived motions to dismiss (Cannon's notwithstanding, and which did not invalidate the charges), the only legitimate way out for anyone is trial.

They were political prosecutions. Nothing more.  The American people agree. Lawfare backfired big time.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 8
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dude, you're a lawyer, you know damn well the cases against him have teeth, real teeth in an unbiased system.  All of his motions to dismiss as political or selective prosecution were denied, even by Aileen Cannon.

You can quibble about prosecutorial discretion in bringing the cases, but once they have survived motions to dismiss (Cannon's notwithstanding, and which did not invalidate the charges), the only legitimate way out for anyone is trial.

I would like to see if Fani Willis found the 11k votes yet.  Also, maybe Trump will add Biden to the classified documents case for a class action claim.

Edited by Balcones
  • Fuck You 2
Posted

When do they make their decision?

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-ask-new-york-appeals-court-toss-nearly-500-mln-civil-fraud-judgment-2024-09-26/

 

Members of the five-judge panel on the Appellate Division - the mid-level state appellate court hearing arguments in Trump's appeal - appeared concerned about possible overreach by James.

Two of the judges interrupted Judith Vale, the lawyer arguing for New York, during her opening statement to ask if there were any other examples of the state suing over private business transactions between sophisticated parties under a law aimed at protecting market integrity.

"Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace," Justice David Friedman told Vale.

"We don't have anything like that here," Friedman added, saying that nobody "lost any money."

Posted
7 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

The jury that is the American people have spoken. Fuck all your bullshit lawfare.  The verdict is not guilty.  

Frank, you seem to be a good spokesperson for the alternative reality of the majority.

What do you prefer as the outcome of the legal matters?

What is better for your majority?  Not what is better for Trump.   What best supports your belief system?

Would you prefer that all of the matters just simply stall out, with no further action taken, and all of the matters erased from the legal and historical record?

Or do you prefer the ceremony, pomp and pageantry of actual court proceedings where all of the legal matters are formally adjudicated to their full conclusion, i.e. show trials with real juries that all declare "NOT GUILTY"?

Or something else?

Can we get this on the record, from you, at this time?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Hagbard Celine said:

Frank, you seem to be a good spokesperson for the alternative reality of the majority.

What do you prefer as the outcome of the legal matters?

What is better for your majority?  Not what is better for Trump.   What best supports your belief system?

Would you prefer that all of the matters just simply stall out, with no further action taken, and all of the matters erased from the legal and historical record?

Or do you prefer the ceremony, pomp and pageantry of actual court proceedings where all of the legal matters are formally adjudicated to their full conclusion, i.e. show trials with real juries that all declare "NOT GUILTY"?

Or something else?

Can we get this on the record, from you, at this time?

The prosecutors should dismiss them.  And the ones who ran for election on a platform of "getting Trump" should be disbarred.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 4
Posted
The jury that is the American people have spoken. Fuck all your bullshit lawfare.  The verdict is not guilty.  

How far do you extend that logic? Is it your position that nothing Trump has done in the past matters? He’s inherently not guilty of everything due to this election result?

What about his sexual assault trial? Was that “bullshit lawfare” as well? Do you believe he didn’t sexually assault E. Jean Carroll or do you simply not care if he did?

Is there any criminal act that Donald Trump could commit and deserve to be held accountable, or would you consider him above the law at this point?
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The prosecutors should dismiss them.  And the ones who ran for election on a platform of "getting Trump" should be disbarred.

Your answer indicates there are at least 2 groups of legal enemies.

Those who ran for election on a platform of "getting Trump", and other prosecutors who did not run for election on a platform of "getting Trump".

Which prosecutors fall in to the former category?

 

Edited by Hagbard Celine
Posted
3 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

Is there any criminal act that Donald Trump could commit and deserve to be held accountable, or would you consider him above the law at this point?

Frank, I would also like to hear what is best for the majority of our citizens with regards to the National Security documents felonies.

This particular litigation is different than anything else of which Trump stands accused.   What does the majority want to see happen to the documented photographic evidence of the National Security documents in Trump's possession 993 miles from the last place they could have legally been possessed by Trump?

Should this evidence be stricken from the historical record and should Trump issue a Presidential Decree against the electronic possession of copies of this evidence?  Like Ramses having Moses' name stricken from all pylons and obelisks?

Or should this evidence be declared "immune" under the Supreme Court ruling?  And in this case, should the litigation simply be erased, as if it never happened?

Or again, does the majority want to see show trials?

Or, something else?

Posted

DOJ moving to wind down Trump criminal cases before he takes office

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna178930

Quote

Justice Department officials have been evaluating how to wind down the two federal criminal cases against President-elect Donald Trump before he takes office to comply with long-standing department policy that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted, two people familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

The latest discussions stand in contrast with the pre-election legal posture of special counsel Jack Smith, who in recent weeks took significant steps in the election interference case against Trump without regard to the electoral calendar.

But the sources say DOJ officials have come to grips with the fact that no trial is possible anytime soon in either the Jan. 6 case or the classified documents matter — both of which are mired in legal issues that would likely prompt an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, even if Trump had lost the election.

Now that Trump will become president again, DOJ officials see no room to pursue either criminal case against him — and no point in continuing to litigate them in the weeks before he takes office, the people said.

“Sensible, inevitable and unfortunate,” said former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News contributor. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks at the Justice Department on Sept. 27.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

How Trump’s legal jeopardy has unfolded over the past year, in terms of both the criminal charges and his sweeping election victory, is unprecedented.

The sources said it will be up to Smith to decide exactly how to unwind the charges and many questions remain unanswered. Could the prosecutions resume after Trump leaves office or would they be time-barred? What happens to the evidence? What about the two other defendants charged with helping Trump hide classified documents? Will the special counsel write a report, as special counsels usually do?

The sources say all those issues require study and research.

At the same time, Trump’s legal team is weighing its own next steps for how to resolve the outstanding federal cases in his favor now that he is the projected winner of the election. The ultimate goal is to get all the federal and state cases wiped out completely — the strategic call is how best to accomplish that task, according to a person familiar with the discussions. 

If the Trump side, for example, moved again in court to dismiss the charges in Washington related to election interference, then the Justice Department could use its legal response to explain its position on not moving forward with that case.

Trump’s New York criminal case presents different challenges with a felony conviction and sentencing hearing scheduled for Nov. 26. The immediate goal of Trump’s legal team is to get that postponed indefinitely or otherwise dismissed. 

The Georgia election interference case against Trump remains tied up on appeals over ethical issues surrounding the district attorney.

“The American people have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again," Trump Campaign Spokesman Steven Chung said in a statement. "It is now abundantly clear that Americans want an immediate end to the weaponization of our justice system, so we can, as President Trump said in his historic speech last night, unify our country and work together for the betterment of our nation."

Special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., in 2023.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images file

The DOJ’s thinking on Trump’s federal cases flows from a 2000 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which affirmed a Watergate-era conclusion that a prosecution of a sitting president would “unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the presidency.”

“In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’” the memo concluded, quoting the earlier conclusion.

The practical reality of Trump’s electoral victory Tuesday is that he is unlikely ever to face legal consequences in relation to the serious federal criminal charges brought against him by career Justice Department prosecutors working with career FBI agents.

Some commentators have said the charges were arguably more serious than the conduct in the Watergate scandal that cost Richard Nixon the presidency and left him banished from politics.

In the case accusing Trump of conspiring to illegally overturn the 2020 election, he is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

In the classified documents case, he is charged with willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, lying to investigators and withholding documents in a federal investigation.

“The idea that you could win an election to avoid justice just cuts so deeply against my expectations for our legal system and for our politics too,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney and NBC News contributor. “But the voters have spoken, and that’s where we are.”

She added that it has never been a foregone conclusion that Trump would be convicted — that would be up to a jury.

“What bothers me so deeply is that he’s avoided the quintessential part of American justice — letting a jury decide, based on the evidence.”

 

  • Rage+1 3


×
×
  • Create New...