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)
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

One hundred percent.  The crimes alleged occurred in DC.

Even if there was a change of venue to Maryland or Virgitina, the DC Circuit retains appellate jurisdiction.

And with that said, I wouldn’t advise Trump on filing for COV. He’s not going to get more friendly juries in either of those states. Of course he probably has it in his tiny little mind that he can shift the venues of all his cases to Aileen Cannon.

Edited by hpslugga
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, evidence that she's probably more of a dumbass than anything else.

My concern is that it’s not by chance that she’s a dumbass. It’s because she was selected for her loyalty to Trump over her competence for the job. 

Posted

Do the people in his orbit ever fuck with him? It would be so easy. Like Homer Simpson.

"Mr. Dotard, I just spoke with the Supreme Court. They have thrown out all of your cases, because they said they're all bullshit."

"Great!" 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was gonna guess they did a SUM then divided by 13 (not 8 ) because of the 5 blank cells, but that leads to 5.01% . . . so, no idea.  Impressive, though.

I figured that you would want to weight the '20-23 SWING' by the number of voters to make something that can be averaged sensibly. Just averaging the raw values doesn't make much sense.

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Captainant said:

MAKING 

ATTORNEYS

GET

ATTORNEYS 

Are we going to reach legal inception, where Trump's attorney's attorneys need attorneys?

Edited by hookem2010
Apostrophes
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

I live in a really really blue city (ahem... Austin) but I'll volunteer to try to get people to register and vote.  Yes, we have great turnout in the county for national elections but we probably need more college students and lazy idiots to vote to help with state-wide elections.  Count me in.  I'll stand on the UT campus with a sign and voter registration cards.  "OU Sucks, Please register to vote"

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I know this is pure wishcasting, but maybe Ted is not out of the woods yet.

don't give me hope.gif

5 hours ago, Pancho said:

They have a backup plan. I think that’s been pretty clear.

image.gif.39141ffb1e4449a16b7ab93acd1c3362.gif

2 hours ago, Celery Man said:

t6n6g3j9ftka1.jpg

man, those titties tell me "yes!" but that face says "aw hell naw"

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Does he really not know how the judiciary works? 

 

he doesn't know how anything in the US government works, and he was the head of it for four years

Posted
Quote

I have no idea how on earth they're going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump actually believes he lost the election.

After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost at least 63 lawsuits[1] contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.[2] Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits were some appointed by Trump himself.[3]

Nearly all the suits were dismissed or dropped due to lack of evidence.[4] Judges, lawyers, and other observers described the suits as "frivolous"[5] and "without merit".[6][7] In one instance, the Trump campaign and other groups seeking his reelection collectively lost multiple cases in six states on a single day.[8] Only one ruling was initially in Trump's favor: the timing within which first-time Pennsylvania voters must provide proper identification if they wanted to “cure” their ballots. This ruling affected very few votes,[9] and it was later overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.[10]

Posted

Re: Puckering vs re-election likelihood...

First, Trump knows full well the polls don't show him beating Biden. He's repeating that over and over again as a foundation for the next coup attempt.

Second, when you do a risk analysis, you multiply the likelihood of something happening (on a 1-4 scale) times the severity (also 1-4). Then you sort by those numbers, and address the biggest ones.

The likelihood of Trump winning is low (1). The severity is very high (4). It would be catastrophic. So call that a 4. I'm not worried.

The likelihood of another coup attempt occurring AND succeeding is higher than that of him winning. Partially because we know for certain that they're going to try already. And because we know GOP controlled states are already making preparations for it. They're planning on it, they can see the mistakes they made the first time they tried it, and are going to try again now that they know some mistakes not to make.

The average Joe doesn't worry about such things because they feel unlikely. But look at the Republicans' behavior. They're going to do everything possible to stay in power. They've already tried a coup, and they're gearing up to make another one, this time with long-term planning.

And if that fails, they're going to try again and again and again. Because they know they've lost popular opinion, and this is the only way to stay in power now.

The severity is a 4, but the likelihood of success? I'd make it a 3. Call that a 12. That's stupid high.

So the next step is mitigation. What do we do to mitigate the risks?

Well, one thing we can do, and are doing, is do everything possible to increase voter turnout. First, we know it helps us. Second, it makes any coup attempt look more illegitimate.

How else can we defeat the upcoming coup attempt?

Posted

apologies for longcat

Just now, kevwun said:

His lawyers know he's fucked if that's the best they can come up with.

do they know, really? he's not exactly running with the A team here

Posted
6 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

Shot 

Chaser

 

i mean wait there's a fucking mypillowtv? and trump's attorney thinks they are important enough to give them an interview? 

hahajahahaha ok holy shit i'm done stop the ride i wanna go home

Posted
8 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

their defense is he didn't know he lost? so basically insanity? cool.

Not guilty by reason of extreme stupidity 

Posted
1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

How else can we defeat the upcoming coup attempt?

Well, there's the violent way, which I'd rather not have.  But I'm thinking that's about a 8-12 on your risk scale.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Does he really not know how the judiciary works? 

He probably thinks it has something to do with “the Jews.”

Edited by HornPhD
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

their defense is he didn't know he lost? so basically insanity? cool.

And, as others smarter than me have pointed out:

1. He absolutely did know, and

2. What he's guilty of doing, it doesn't matter if he knew or not

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Well, there's the violent way, which I'd rather not have.  But I'm thinking that's about a 8-12 on your risk scale.

Yeah, that's what happens AFTER the coup attempt succeeds.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

He was President of the United States, and was not given one piece of evidence that he actually won the election. That’s called “knowing”.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

their defense is he didn't know he lost? so basically insanity? cool.

I see everything that they are saying into cameras, and Trump demanding to move the trial to WV, or have the Supreme Court intervene as delay tactics.  I wouldn't put it past them to try for a mistrial, even though they would have to pay court fees.  But I'm not a lawdog, so my lack of court knowledge probably shows.  

Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

My concern is that it’s not by chance that she’s a dumbass. It’s because she was selected for her loyalty to Trump over her competence for the job. 

There's little evidence of that in her background.

The worst thing in her background is that she was a member of Fed Soc.  Leonard Leo doesn't concern himself much with district court appointees, so they're not typically demagogues.

If I had to guess, it would be that she was a brown woman with some conservative credentials and that's about it.  She was proposed by lil Marco, which makes sense.

She's quite young and quite inexperienced as an attorney for a US DJ.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The worst thing in her background is that she was a member of Fed Soc.  Leonard Leo doesn't concern himself much with district court appointees, so they're not typically demagogues.

 

At this point, being in the Fed Soc is bad enough imo

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted

Actually, is there a quality jurist that has come from the Fed Soc in the last 30 years? Like, you can point to this judge and you aren't going to find batshit rulings in their history?

Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Not guilty by reason of extreme stupidity 

guess this will test the theory of whether it's morally acceptable to execute the highly regarded

1 hour ago, HornPhD said:

He probably thinks it has something to do with “the Jews.”

Harry Potter Lol GIF by Sky

But in all seriousness, I doubt that man knows how ANYTHING works. Get him to explain how a plane flies. A literal 5th grader could tell you. He would not be able to.

Posted
1 hour ago, hookem2010 said:

Are we going to reach legal inception, where Trump's attorney's attorneys need attorneys?

south-park.gif

 

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

don't give me hope.gif

image.gif.39141ffb1e4449a16b7ab93acd1c3362.gif

man, those titties tell me "yes!" but that face says "aw hell naw"

 

he doesn't know how anything in the US government works, and he was the head of it for four years

There ain't nothin' wrong with Jackie Denardo's face but -- I get it, so does Frank

b181efb1-f354-4c1e-b390-cd8a8dd91acb_tex

 

13 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Dipshit steals other people's material:

 

1b925ae5-a08f-4661-9471-0bcc993146a5_tex

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, C-Man said:

south-park.gif

 

There ain't nothin' wrong with Jackie Denardo's face but -- I get it, so does Frank

b181efb1-f354-4c1e-b390-cd8a8dd91acb_tex

 

1b925ae5-a08f-4661-9471-0bcc993146a5_tex

i mean, there's better pictures of Jessica Collins out there, right?

0011634_150_215.jpeg

... or. ok, so she's David Lee Roth in drag.

 

still would

Posted
20 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

guess this will test the theory of whether it's morally acceptable to execute the highly regarded

I thought Texas had already replied in the affirmative?

Posted
1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

i mean, there's better pictures of Jessica Collins out there, right?

0011634_150_215.jpeg

... or. ok, so she's David Lee Roth in drag.

 

still would

Come on!  /Gob

image.png.66922c6a402aa659446da6ddef33e979.png

  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's little evidence of that in her background.

The worst thing in her background is that she was a member of Fed Soc.  Leonard Leo doesn't concern himself much with district court appointees, so they're not typically demagogues.

If I had to guess, it would be that she was a brown woman with some conservative credentials and that's about it.  She was proposed by lil Marco, which makes sense.

She's quite young and quite inexperienced as an attorney for a US DJ.

Was there possibly a way for Donald Trump to find out if she was a Trumper other than running the same internet searches you're running? It seems like he probably had access to more information than you do, and everything in his history shows exactly what he wanted out of appointees. Sometimes your ability to hyperfocus only on what's provable in a court of law is a positive, sometimes it's more of an inability to see obvious things that aren't immediately provable. 

Edited by Huckleberry
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's little evidence of that in her background.

The worst thing in her background is that she was a member of Fed Soc.  Leonard Leo doesn't concern himself much with district court appointees, so they're not typically demagogues.

If I had to guess, it would be that she was a brown woman with some conservative credentials and that's about it.  She was proposed by lil Marco, which makes sense.

She's quite young and quite inexperienced as an attorney for a US DJ.

I’d say the way she conducted herself the first time she handled a Trump case is some evidence for concern.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Bad is a quality 

Good sir, I'd appreciate it if you stopped reading my sex counselor's notes and sharing them with the world.  Thanks.

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Js1 said:

Texas needs a Dem win for anything to sort of spark a fire. I think that’s did it for Arizona and Georgia. 

Georgia did it through years of voter registration drives. It takes lots of people willing to see the long game and persist in their efforts over a number of years to make it happen.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2


×
×
  • Create New...