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
Just now, C-Man said:


Not sure why more don’t put him on Ignore. I’ve got him and a few others like Balcones and the usual 3-4 suspects “hidden” from my view. Helps my mental health.

I don't know why I was so resistant to the ignore function for so long. Probably some dumb internet posturing of "that means they win" or something rather than simply improving one's experience on Surly. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, C-Man said:


Not sure why more don’t put him on Ignore. I’ve got him and a few others like Balcones and the usual 3-4 suspects “hidden” from my view. Helps my mental health.

I don't put anyone on "ignore" because it interests me to see what people - even idiots or spewers of disninfo - have to say just to see what folks on the other side of the hill may be up to.  Sure enough, if I see it here, within about a day I start hearing in from the usual fellow travellers in real life.  It's as predictable as the changing of seasons.  It's doesn't really bother my mental health, it's more a form of amusement.  Like having a chuckle at the proverbial monkey fucking a football.

Edited by Chad Fuck
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I too laugh at our 3rd quarter performances

I mean.....actually CALLING the play of "monkey fucks the football" is the part that blows me away each 3rd quarter I watch.  It's really something.

Posted
On 12/19/2024 at 7:53 PM, TwiceHorn said:

And, it don't make a shit, because none of this was getting to trial even without this self-inflicted headshot.

Sounds like a well functioning justice system to me. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

The same people who scream "I'm an alpha!" without knowing that doesn't always mean what they think it does, and  if they were the big dog, they wouldn't need to tell anyone. They'd just be.  

IMG_3858.gif.d1c40dd84f7c9ca5ea2da871192e8d49.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Another reminder that impeachment is, by design and execution, political in nature and not legal.

As we recall, the GOP majority Senate would not allow either witnesses nor exhibits in the impeachment trial.    That alone should’ve been a minor tip-off that it was not a judicial proceeding.

Posted
1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Sounds like a well functioning justice system to me. 

We've discussed that it's slow, because it's underfunded and understaffed with judges.

Posted
31 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

As we recall, the GOP majority Senate would not allow either witnesses nor exhibits in the impeachment trial.    That alone should’ve been a minor tip-off that it was not a judicial proceeding.

And a reminder what happens when you make the rules up as you go along to fit the situation as some majority may view it.

Posted
On 12/22/2024 at 1:59 PM, TwiceHorn said:

You know damn well this result, like all of them, had no bearing on the underlying merits of the case or even the prosecutorial discretion in bringing them.

Fani Willis is a dumbass and OLC 24-0222 is what it is.

It would be handy if you could just point to the result as making sense rather than having to resort to "you know damn well" this is bullshit.

Posted
On 12/23/2024 at 6:40 AM, Frank Drebin said:

Those won't hold up either.  Your prosecutions and lawfare have backfired to the point they make post 1939 Aggie football look competent.

what would you call Trump's 60+ lawsuits where he sought to illegally throw out the votes of American citizens?

Not lawfare?

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Foosters said:

what would you call Trump's 60+ lawsuits where he sought to illegally throw out the votes of American citizens?

Not lawfare?

Yknow, now that Trump has finally STFU about rigged elections -- because he won -- he needs to be hammered relentlessly on why this wasn't a rigged election this time.

FUCKING HAMMERED.  For his entire term.  If he's so fucking concerned about "election integrity," why the fuck isn't he still barking about "irregularities"?  

Fucking fuck this guy in his fucking face.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

So when does the re-appeal happen?

No "reappeal."  He can try to go to the Supreme Court, but even they will decline cert.  

This also means that the second trial result will also be affirmed.

Jury verdicts are very difficult to overturn on appeal, but there are three areas that can be fruitful:  insufficient evidence, the trial judge's evidentiary rulings, and the instructions to the jury.  Trump had some plausible appeal points on the first two, so this is very good news.

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

Yknow, now that Trump has finally STFU about rigged elections -- because he won -- he needs to be hammered relentlessly on why this wasn't a rigged election this time.

FUCKING HAMMERED.  For his entire term.  If he's so fucking concerned about "election integrity," why the fuck isn't he still barking about "irregularities"?  

Fucking fuck this guy in his fucking face.

Well, it's almost like him and the entire party and their voters are disingenuous liars that only care about team over country.  But that's only been obvious for a decade.  So I could be wrong.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Well, it's almost like him and the entire party and their voters are disingenuous liars that only care about team over country.  But that's only been obvious for a decade.  So I could be wrong.

 

giphy (1) (3).gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh, no.

No jail time.  He should be sentenced to spend community service time with his neck beard evangelical followers. He’d really hate that.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted

Feels like all of these cases are racing to get something done or documents released by Inauguration Day while Trump is trying to delay. Unsure why they didn't have more urgency over the last 2 months ago. I see SCOTUS punting on the issue by saying everything must stop.

Posted
3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I see SCOTUS punting on the issue by saying everything must stop.

RVs don’t fill up with gas all by themselves, Buddy

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Satchel said:

Sentencing is tomorrow. They’d better hurry.

Aileen "Cunt" Cannon will come up with something.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Sentencing is tomorrow. They’d better hurry.

I think a stay is probably appropriate so we can determine if Greenland’s law will apply.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I think a stay is probably appropriate so we can determine if Greenland’s law will apply.

That, or as someone has already mentioned, they’ll go forum shopping Albuquerque, New America.

  • Like 1
Posted

I will give Amy coney Barrett credit for following precedence by not putting the president-elect above the law, but is that how far we’ve fallen that we are reduced to praising a scotus justice for following the law?

Of course others will pay for all of these rulings. SCOTUS allows the sentencing and case reports to be released, then trump will go after Liz Cheney or whatever. He’s a child.

Posted
On 1/3/2025 at 3:38 PM, Gatorubet said:

No jail time.  He should be sentenced to spend community service time with his neck beard evangelical followers. He’d really hate that.

Was hoping for the DP. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


You know why.

What's somewhat surprising to me is what a toady Gorsuch is proving to be, while Coney Barrett much less so.  Alito and Ruckus are hopeless. 

  • Rage+1 4
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What's somewhat surprising to me is what a toady Gorsuch is proving to be, while Coney Barrett much less so.  Alito and Ruckus are hopeless. 

All true.  There's a good article in the NYT today about how infrequently SCOTUS sides with the orange stain.  Sided with Biden 54% of the time, 42% for that fucking guy.

Quote

A Rebuke to Trump Provides a Telling Portrait of a Divided Supreme Court

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/us/supreme-court-trump-hush-money.html

Edited by Chad Fuck
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

All true.  There's a good article in the NYT today about how infrequently SCOTUS sides with the orange stain.  Sided with Biden 55% of the time, 42% for that fucking guy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/us/supreme-court-trump-hush-money.html

Yeah, like I have been saying, they need some more ideological reason to side with Trump.  I am surprised at that stat, though.  But I am quite sure the Biden administration is better with this whole law and governing thing than Trumpco.

That whole Muslim ban thing is a great example.  I'm sure this Court would have gone right along with it if Trumpco could have just gotten its shit together from a rulemaking perspective.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, like I have been saying, they need some more ideological reason to side with Trump.  I am surprised at that stat, though.  But I am quite sure the Biden administration is better with this whole law and governing thing than Trumpco.

He is.  And for tfg, the lawyers are just minions to go do his bidding, as are all others, regardless of the law.  Over and over he's picked battles he was bound to lose just to have the fight.  I suspect Biden (or really, his appointed cadre) are better clients who actually hear the "counsel" part of counselor.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, like I have been saying, they need some more ideological reason to side with Trump.  I am surprised at that stat, though.  But I am quite sure the Biden administration is better with this whole law and governing thing than Trumpco.

That whole Muslim ban thing is a great example.  I'm sure this Court would have gone right along with it if Trumpco could have just gotten its shit together from a rulemaking perspective.

They did go along with it, they just sent his lawyers back to write the plan in ink instead of crayon first. 

I haven't read the op-ed because I will never again pay the Times a single penny, but I'm guessing it ignores the fact that a lot of their rulings "against" Trump still aided him, such as their rulings in his tax return case that didn't say he and his accountants never had to cooperate, but gave him plenty of opportunity to delay until after the election.  I also wouldn't be surprised if it ignores another crucial fact, which is that this court has one more Republican on it and one fewer Democrat than it did when he was last in office. 

Posted (edited)

Sentenced to unconditional release.

Edit: make that “unconditional discharge.” After a felony conviction, with aggravating factors. Absolutely no remorse from the convicted felon.

Might as well rename the DoJ. Ain’t no justice when the rich and powerful cannot be held to account.

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...