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
22 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree, but it's hard not to chuckle in a gallows way at the stupidity of the people who buy this...all you have to do is just extend the thought/statement to it's obvious conclusion:

I'm being indicted for YOU...for stealing classified documents and obstructing their return. I DID THAT FOR YOU...he announces to a bunch of stupid fucks who have no need or desire for classified documents. 

I voted for Biden. I like him just fine. Long, long, LONG before he gets to the point to where he's saying "I'm committing felonies for you": 

 

Season 2 Whatever GIF by Curb Your Enthusiasm - Find & Share on GIPHY

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree, but it's hard not to chuckle in a gallows way at the stupidity of the people who buy this...all you have to do is just extend the thought/statement to it's obvious conclusion:

I'm being indicted for YOU...for stealing classified documents and obstructing their return. I DID THAT FOR YOU...he announces to a bunch of stupid fucks who have no need or desire for classified documents. 

Plus, it's not winning any new supporters.  Anyone who buys that nonsense was lost long ago.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Plus, it's not winning any new supporters.  Anyone who buys that nonsense was lost long ago.

Pretty much

Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:


“Developing?”
Dude. He’s had the “only I can save you” song since 2014.

Yeah did anyone forget this 2016 RNC speech? "I alone can fix it"

Motherfucker has been that for a while now. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Gotta hand it to Trump---the "I'm being indicted for you" line is pretty powerful.   Whatever members of the cult might have been wavering; the constant delivery of that line from him is effective at reminding them that he's on their side.  Never mind how fucking deplorable that side actually is.

 

 

Screenshot2023-06-28084249.png.cedd4a9893820727fb6695604d7029ba.png

 

lol he wishes he was fake indicted. His problem of course is that he was real indicted 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


“Developing?”
Dude. He’s had the “only I can save you” song since 2014.


Yeah but now he's got the "sounds like Jesus"  "indicted for our sins"  line which will make him even more desirable to evangelicals.

"Martha, he's to be indicted for our sins, just like Jesus!"

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

The thing I'm enjoying most is that I think he is starting to understand he's in real jeopardy.  The increasingly frantic and impotent screeching to his base is just a bonus.

During the Obama years I always wondered how much more money the Rednecks had to keep buying ammo, That donor base of his has to tap out soon right?  

Posted
10 hours ago, Rimbo said:

I mean, they ARE trying him for possession. Thirty counts in the indictment are "you had things you weren't supposed to have" charges.

And there's another handful for obstruction.

In similar, related, but different breeds, Legal Eagle had a great video on the sentencing possibilities:

Again, willfully took them.  

Not to beat a dead horse, but the fact that Biden was in possession of some things in this garage is not enough for a charge that he knowingly (willfully) took classified documents.  The elements to prove this classified document criminal violation are not like possession of a weapon that has the serial number filed off. If you have an altered firearm in that manner, if you have it, you are guilty. It makes no difference if you knew it or not, if you were involved, or if you were totally and innocently unaware. That is the type of possession criminal charge that is different than this statute. Here, the intent in knowing that classified documents were kept is a necessary element.  The 31 counts in the indictment say he “did willfully retain” the documents.    Not simple possession of them. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, locodos said:

The thing I'm enjoying most is that I think he is starting to understand he's in real jeopardy.  The increasingly frantic and impotent screeching to his base is just a bonus.

He will eventually get to a point where he literally directs his followers to attack the people persecuting him. Maybe at that point the judge will ask him nicely to not have Jack Smith and his family murdered. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


Yeah but now he's got the "sounds like Jesus"  "indicted for our sins"  line which will make him even more desirable to evangelicals.

"Martha, he's to be indicted for our sins, just like Jesus!"

He did claim to be The Chosen One.

Posted
26 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:


Yeah but now he's got the "sounds like Jesus"  "indicted for our sins"  line which will make him even more desirable to evangelicals.

"Martha, he's to be indicted for our sins, just like Jesus!"

One of the more horrifying things I've learned since this pustule came on the scene is how many evangelicals we actually have in this country.  Fucking come on!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, locodos said:

The thing I'm enjoying most is that I think he is starting to understand he's in real jeopardy.  The increasingly frantic and impotent screeching to his base is just a bonus.

During the Obama years I always wondered how much more money the Rednecks had to keep buying ammo, That donor base of his has to tap out soon right?  

Those social security and disability checks come every month, they just stopped buying ammo and instead give it to dotard 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:
lol he wishes he was fake indicted. His problem of course is that he was real indicted 

 

eb43ce79-2384-4d4a-927e-1564711f0ab6_tex

 

Edited by dcbc
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

Had to hit you for the cycle 

it deserved at least one for not being terribly original... i think someone else even used that very joke earlier

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Red Five said:

Does it even matter? He isn't being charged with dissemination of the documents. 

Correct.

But if he keeps talking, he might talk himself into some new charges.

He's digging himself deeper and deeper.

Posted
47 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

One of the more horrifying things I've learned since this pustule came on the scene is how many evangelicals we actually have in this country.  Fucking come on!

I don't have a problem with evangelicals.

I have a problem with those who have abandoned anything resembling Christ in favor of Trump.

Which is, sadly, most of them. Once you require people to deny basic facts in order to be part of their club (evolutionary theory in particular, but anything from The Fundamentals - "you must accept these as true no matter what the facts say"), then you can get them to accept any lies you want.

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

He will eventually get to a point where he literally directs his followers to attack the people persecuting him. Maybe at that point the judge will ask him nicely to not have Jack Smith and his family murdered

Unlikely.

Posted
42 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I don't have a problem with evangelicals.

I have a problem with those who have abandoned anything resembling Christ in favor of Trump.

Which is, sadly, most of them. Once you require people to deny basic facts in order to be part of their club (evolutionary theory in particular, but anything from The Fundamentals - "you must accept these as true no matter what the facts say"), then you can get them to accept any lies you want.

Sagan said it best

"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder...."

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, locodos said:

Sagan said it best

"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder...."

Great book. I recommend it to anyone.

But I'm not taking about unprovable claims. I'm talking about claims that have been proven to be objectively false, and requiring people to believe in them.

You can believe in God without accepting lies. But that's exactly what The Fundamentals demanded people do.

Edited by Rimbo
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Great book. I recommend it to anyone.

But I'm not taking about unprovable claims. I'm talking about claims that have been proven to be objectively false, and requiring people to believe in them.

You can believe in God without accepting lies. But that's exactly what The Fundamentals demanded people do.

It’s not even about truth and lies, really. The elegance of religion is that most of them have a god or gods that can do anything, so anything can be explained away.  But those are beliefs. It’s when beliefs become truths that problems really bloom.

A person can believe the world is 4000 years old all they want and write off evidence to the contrary as a test of faith.  But when they decide that is not a belief but the truth, then they start telling others that what they believe or know is false.  And usually there are consequences attached to believing such falsehoods. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It’s not even about truth and lies, really.

No. Incorrect. It is exactly about truth vs lies. It is about deliberately choosing to believe in things that are objectively false and rejecting things that are objectively true.

I'm not describing some overall philosophical objection to religion, which seems to be what the rest of your vague word salad mental masturbation seems to be about.

I'm talking very specifically about American Fundamentalist Christianity, starting more or less with the publication of The Fundamentals in the 1920s, leading up to people literally believing in Donald J Trump as the Second Coming of Christ (and I truly wish I was making that up). And how we got to this point, where someone who is in nearly every conceivable way the opposite of what Christ stood for became a holy warrior for nominal Christians.

If you want to object to Christianity or religion in general, this is not the thread for it, and I'm not the person you want to argue with. There are plenty of Christians who find Trump to be appalling and anti-Christian; I go to church with them.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
12 hours ago, South Austin said:

And when Trump is questioned about whether there was a transfer order, and whether Santiago was in fact going anywhere, the judge will overrule the objection but state that the objection is noted.

But what if it’s a strenuous objection?

Posted
On 6/27/2023 at 8:04 PM, Irwin F Fletcher said:
On 6/27/2023 at 7:09 PM, Slacks said:
This is what I expected his defense to be. 
No video evidence means no evidence. 
The recording becomes nothing but public discourse. 

Except for all that first hand witness testimony.

So they're going to say they saw the document and can, without question, recall what exactly level of class it was... And they'll say 'I believe it said Top Secret' (they won't say they know for sure, because of they're wrong, it's potentially perjury.) 

And the cross examining defense lawyer is going to ask them what the title of the document was, and they won't recall... And there won't be a way to validate what they believe they saw. 

Burden of proof will have failed. 

I am not a lawyer...

Posted
did not read thread. ban username
LSU just scored Again as well. Rough week?


(Was rooting for Gator, despite all my Coon Ass kin, I tend to root for schools with higher literacy rates, and Florida is going to be one of the few " what you reading for" peers in the SEC.)
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
10 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

You could also read that post like he's blaming his supporters. "You guys enabled me to break the law with impunity now I'm screwed. Nice work, hayseeds!"

That's entirely too nuanced.   Both for Trump to be make and for his followers to even remotely understand.

Posted
So they're going to say they saw the document and can, without question, recall what exactly level of class it was... And they'll say 'I believe it said Top Secret' (they won't say they know for sure, because of they're wrong, it's potentially perjury.) 
And the cross examining defense lawyer is going to ask them what the title of the document was, and they won't recall... And there won't be a way to validate what they believe they saw. 
Burden of proof will have failed. 
I am not a lawyer...

Now do the other 36 charges.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
7 hours ago, Slacks said:

So they're going to say they saw the document and can, without question, recall what exactly level of class it was... And they'll say 'I believe it said Top Secret' (they won't say they know for sure, because of they're wrong, it's potentially perjury.) 

And the cross examining defense lawyer is going to ask them what the title of the document was, and they won't recall... And there won't be a way to validate what they believe they saw. 

Burden of proof will have failed. 

I am not a lawyer...

Or a reader, since you seem to have missed the 9 times on this thread before your last post explaining how this is completely irrelevant to the DOJ’s case. There aren’t trying to prove he had a classified document in his hand at that moment. The audio proves he understood that a process exists to classify documents, and therefore by not doing it with the documents he claimed previously he had, and moving them around and having his lawyers certify falsely he had lore documents, he was willfully obstructing. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
Posted
37 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Slacks being dense again? I'm shocked. 

He's just doing a Donald Trump version of his "we are gonna win" threads before we proceed to get beaten by double digits. 

Posted
12 hours ago, Slacks said:

So they're going to say they saw the document and can, without question, recall what exactly level of class it was... And they'll say 'I believe it said Top Secret' (they won't say they know for sure, because of they're wrong, it's potentially perjury.) 

And the cross examining defense lawyer is going to ask them what the title of the document was, and they won't recall... And there won't be a way to validate what they believe they saw. 

Burden of proof will have failed. 

I am not a lawyer...

The idea that a recorded admission isn't evidence is laughable. The idea that "beyond a reasonable doubt" requires absolute proof completely ignores the "reasonable" part of reasonable doubt. But ultimately none of this matters for the actual charges brought. They can prove he had classified documents. They can prove he knew they were classified. They can prove he not only refused to turn them over, but actively hid them from investigators and even his own lawyers. And, from the indictment and the audio tapes, I'd say they can come damn close to proving those things with absolute certainty, much less beyond any reasonable doubt. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Posted
13 hours ago, Slacks said:

So they're going to say they saw the document and can, without question, recall what exactly level of class it was... And they'll say 'I believe it said Top Secret' (they won't say they know for sure, because of they're wrong, it's potentially perjury.) 

And the cross examining defense lawyer is going to ask them what the title of the document was, and they won't recall... And there won't be a way to validate what they believe they saw. 

Burden of proof will have failed. 

I am not a lawyer...

image.png.f8bff03c2556769a418d689b12ff3532.png

  • Haha 6
Posted

Does he think they built the whole case around trying to prove what Trump was rustling around with on an audio tape?  That's not the crime, dude.  He clearly proves he understands that the declassification process is in fact, not a psychic endeavor.  And admits to having some, which are later physically found to be true.  And then lies about it.  Then obstructs NARA and FBI for over a year.  Those are actual crimes.  

Also, just wanna say the term "Raid" had kinda gone away for a few months and is now roaring back.  In a sea of dog whistles, that one bugs the shit outta me.  Because every single American who has ever watched a movie or a television set has roughly the same idea of what an FBI raid is in their minds.  Buncha guys in dark blue windbreakers with yellow FBI on the back smashing into a place with weapons drawn.  That's what every single red-blooded American thinks of.  This was a buncha FBI guys waiting in the lobby of a fucking golf course with no weapons, waiting for the lady at the counter to buzz them through after they called secret service to let 'em know they were walking down the hall.  If it was a raid, the Secret Service wouldn't take the time to ask for badges, they start blasting.  If the Secret Service opened fire on the FBI in the home of a former President, I'm pretty sure that may have made the news somewhere.  

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, The Dog said:

image.png.76c18ba0196f6ea92720695d28a39e90.png

Neither here nor there, but I was thinking of these two faces after seeing the pictures. I'm a big human: over 6 ft, fat, and broad-shouldered. I have resting dead-eyed psychopath face. My passport photo, where I put a happy thought in my mind for the camera, suggests that no country should allow me to enter.  I think Smith's resting face defines malice. Perfect for his job. On the podium announcing the indictment, he seemed like a regular guy.

As for the below, I don't want to start a wave of tired out vomit gifs or would/WNB posts. Not every photograph posted of a woman is an invitation for very heterosexually active males to prove their intense heterosexuality and very un-incel existence. All normal men have two back-up hard drives loaded with downloaded porn, cheesecake photos, and actresses in swimsuits. So, take a break this time. [ps It won't be funny if you do it anyway, but I know that won't stop you.]

I think still cameras love Susan Collins. She photographs so well that she looks more attractive and younger than her age.  Even the close-up below belies her actual appearance on video or live. I was surprised when I first heard her speak and saw her walking and talking. The difference like the woman Seinfeld was dating who looked drastically different in various lighting.

 

23 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

source.gif

 

Like I said, neither here nor there. I guess I just like the sound of my own voice in my head as I type. 

Edited by RomaVicta


×
×
  • Create New...