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

Holy shit, I forgot there was 16 of them.  I knew it was somewhere between 3 and Michigan's 21 actual EC votes, but thought it was much lower than 16.

Oh man, 16?  Absolutely we can have one murdered in prison or driven to suicide.  I mean statistically speaking with their age 'n shit, this is a no-brainer bet.  It's almost a Shawshank Redemption thing with the first night fishes.  We could almost make a reality show out of it and sell ad space.  

Posted
On 8/9/2023 at 1:06 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Brief skim of the motion is they just want to be able to talk to him in a secure facility at MAL or somewhere, no documents present.

 

On 8/9/2023 at 1:07 PM, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Let me guess---she's gonna rule that sure, Trump can have an SCIF in his ballroom.  

 

 

seems a reasonable request and remedy 

 

 

 
giphy-downsized-large.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
To be fair to Iowans, when I drive 600 yards from my home...I realize I'm in the dumbest fucking state save for maybe Florida.  We're just Mississippi Morons with oil money who can't wait to show off how fucking macho moronic we are.
West Austin Drivers are the worst and we really enjoy killing eachother in horrific fashion. Worst anywhere I've ever lived. It's insane out here.
Posted

Listened to a podcast that really gave me hope that Trump may finally go to jail.  Curious if any of the Surly legal eagles have thoughts on Legal AF--is it real or just LW law porn for the masses: 

 

 

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

Listened to a podcast that really gave me hope that Trump may finally go to jail.  Curious if any of the Surly legal eagles have thoughts on Legal AF--is it real or just LW law porn for the masses: 

 

 

Don't kid yourself, he's in about as deep a shit as anyone can possibly be.  

He has some possible outs and we tend to focus unduly on them.  And, of course, we unduly focus on the "teflon Don" bullshit.

The most "real" of those outs is that he wins the 2024 election and pardons himself.  Two things about that we don't talk about much.  First, if he had been indicted on January 7, 2021, there's a high likelihood that he could keep the appeal plates spinning until inauguration, so the delays don't matter, because that's on the table no matter what.  The second thing is how grotesque will be the optics of a convicted president pardoning himself, or worse shutting down the cases against him.  The GQP won't care most likely, but it's hard to know.**  That would constitute the gravest impeachment we've ever seen.

So, it's really important to get out and vote.

**He's damaging the fuck out of the GQP right now, so the composition of the Senate in 2025 is unpredictable as is the possibility of enough GQP Senators growing a pair to convict in an impeachment.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

The best judges.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/inside-one-egregious-mistake-from-trumps-florida-judge-aileen-cannon

 

Quote

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, whose pro-Trump bias and head-turning errors have raised questions about whether she should be overseeing former President Donald Trump’s criminal trial in Florida, made what appears to be another surprising mistake last year.

Now, a defense lawyer is seizing on her misstep to try freeing his client from prison—even though he was caught on tape violently throwing a courtroom chair at a prosecutor and threatening to kill him.

 

Quote

The blunder was simple and entirely avoidable. The federal judge told jurors they could find the man, Christopher Wilkins, “guilty or not guilty.” But then she handed jurors a verdict form that didn’t even have those options.

“How far does somebody have to go to school to say that a verdict form is supposed to say guilty and not guilty?” asked defense lawyer Jeffrey Garland. “That would be one of the more egregious versions of jury instruction error… it’s such a rare error.”

Garland formally filed an appeal on Thursday and hopes to overturn a case that’s as black-and-white as they come—on a technicality.

 

Quote

“This is the judge’s deal. This is nobody else’s deal. I’m gonna tell ya, I’ve done a lot of appeals, and I’ve got a pretty good winning record. This is a great issue,” he said. “For a guy who’s on tape throwing a chair in court, it’s pretty ‘not good’ behavior. It would have been simple. You have a trial, properly instruct a jury, give them a form, and the jury’s gonna do what the jury’s gonna do.”

Cannon’s short and controversial history on the bench is under a microscope, given that she is presiding over such an historic criminal trial: that of a former president facing prison time for mishandling classified records at Mar-a-Lago and lying to the feds in a coverup. Trump himself appointed her in his final months in office, yet she has not recused herself from the case.

 

Spoiler

Cannon first came to people’s attention last year, when Trump’s lawyers were chastened by a judge who accused them of trying to game the judicial assignment system in a brazen attempt to have her oversee a conspiracy-laden lawsuit against political rival Hillary Clinton.

But she gained notoriety when Trump sued to block the feds from investigating Mar-a-Lago and she was oddly assigned the case, despite being in a distant corner of the district far from Trump’s mansion. Cannon immediately began to issue bizarre orders that froze the investigation—until appellate judges told her to back off. A court screwup even exposed how she was bending over backwards to appease the man who appointed her.

But now she’s come under fire over her inexperience.

Last month, The New York Times discovered that Cannon has only handled four trials, collectively accounting for just 14 days in court—less than three weeks of experience before handling a potential turning point for American democracy. Last week, Reuters exposed how Cannon kept family members of an accused viewer of child sex abuse locked out of her courtroom during some of his trial in June, violating his Sixth Amendment rights to have a public trial—and somehow forgot to swear in the prospective jury pool, the most basic of mandatory procedures.

Now, The Daily Beast can confirm that Cannon made yet another round of gaffes during a two-day trial.

 

First the backstory: Wilkins, who had already served time behind bars, ran into problems while at a halfway house and got caught with guns. When a Fort Lauderdale jury eventually read his guilty verdict on the evening of Nov. 7, 2019, an enraged Wilkins grabbed his chair in the courtroom and flung it at the prosecutor across the room while yelling, “I’ll kill you when I catch you, boy!” A video camera and court reporter’s audio device recorded it all.

Fast-forward three years, and Wilkins found himself in court again, this time before Judge Cannon, for attacking the federal prosecutor.

The Daily Beast reviewed 500 pages of trial transcripts that show what went on during the two-day ordeal in January 2022. Prosecutors and Wilkins’ defense lawyer couldn’t agree on jury instructions—minor stuff, like whether to use “deadly or dangerous” rather than “deadly and dangerous.” But the judge surprised the lawyers when she came back with her own verdict form, which looked nothing like the kind given to jurors at a typical criminal trial.

Cannon’s draft asked: “Did the Government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant Christopher Tavorris Wilkins committed forcible assault against a federal officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon?” The listed options were either “yes” or “no.”

At the time in court, Wilkins’ lawyer objected, twice pointing out to the judge that “guilty/not guilty” is “the traditional nomenclature.”

Judge Cannon wouldn’t reconsider.

“So, I’m going to finalize the ultimate language, but I don’t see at this point anything legally incorrect about the manner in which the verdict form is drafted as to Count 1 or Count 2, although, I note your arguments in opposition, Mr. Garland,” she said, according to the transcript.

This isn’t a minor issue. In deciding to hand jurors that questionnaire, Cannon took a novel approach to something that’s fairly basic in criminal trials. For example, jurors in Washington were asked whether the right-wing MAGA fanatic Elmer Stewart Rhodes was guilty or not of seditious conspiracy for planning an armed revolt on Jan. 6, 2021. New York jurors checked off “guilty” when deciding that the lawyer Michael Avenatti had committed wire fraud and identity theft for stealing nearly $300,000 from his porn-star client, Stormy Daniels. Jeffrey Epstein’s right-hand woman, Ghislaine Maxwell, was sent to the clink after jurors selected “guilty” on a form that asked whether the socialite engaged in child sex-trafficking.

Yet, in her South Florida courtroom, Cannon chose to draft yes/no questions that read more like the kind of verdict form given to jurors when they consider specific elements of a crime.

“That’s her verdict form. There’s no ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty.’ The traditional format is ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty,’ as it was on the proposed form the government and I had created. We agreed on that. And she comes up with this. This is her creation. This is her baby. It’s kind of funny. It’s ridiculous,” Garland told The Daily Beast.

“Nowhere on this form is there any opportunity to find him ‘not guilty.’ What kind of trial is this? The judge said ‘guilty’ on a make-believe trial,” he said, quoting from a Reba McEntire country song.

Garland filed an appeal on Thursday to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta—the same judges who reversed Cannon’s decisions on Trump earlier this year.

Phone calls to Cannon’s court staff went unanswered on Thursday.

The Daily Beast reviewed this with several legal scholars, who universally noted that Cannon’s move here strikes them as odd.

“I’ve never seen anything like it. I am a law professor, and I found it cumbersome to read and follow,” said Elizabeth Taxel, who spent a decade as a DeKalb County public defender and now teaches at the University of Georgia. “It’s unclear to me why the court didn’t, out of an abundance of caution, include ‘guilty or not guilty.’”

Others noted that these kinds of “special verdicts,” as they’re called, are rarely used—and only in the most strange or complex cases. Columbia Law School Professor Daniel Richman noted how a Virginia jury in 2009 faced detailed questions when deciding to convict the disgraced congressman William Jennings Jefferson (D-LA). But even in that complicated case, in which jurors were asked whether the government managed to prove any of 12 different racketeering acts, they were still asked to decide if he was guilty or not.

“The primary role they play is guilt/non-guilt, and that ought to be specified. Perhaps for a matter of local practice in the Southern District of Florida, that’s not done here,” Richman said.

But if Cannon’s verdict is perceived to be unfair, he said, that’s on her.

“To the extent that she introduced a formulation that arguably prejudiced the defendant, that’s a kind of error,” Richman added.

Jenny Carroll, a professor at the University of Alabama’s law school, stressed that these types of jury forms are exceedingly rare. She pointed to at least one instance where it was used successfully: in convicting Zacarias Moussaoui, the French member of al-Qaeda known as the 20th hijacker of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States. But jurors were asked those questions during the second phase of a trial, and the questions related to aggravating factors to the underlying crime.

“It’s very unusual—super-unusual—which is why you’ve probably never seen one,” Carroll said. “Even within these specific verdict forms, you nonetheless end up with an ultimate question where the jury has to check ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty.’ And that’s what you’re missing on this form.”

All three law professors agreed that an appeal could venture into relatively unexplored territory and open up a spicy debate: What exactly is the role of the jury?

"What strikes me is, they have been asked to consider these bifurcated factual questions and to answer them ‘yes’ or ‘no’ without ever getting to the ultimate question: Should we conclude this person is culpable and should be punished as a criminal? Which is really what you’re asking when you say, guilty or not guilty,” Carroll said.

She summarized what she would say on a theoretical appeal.

“You, judge, took away some of the job of the jury. And you did it without any authority to do so. You’re an Article III judge, which has a lot of power, but you don’t have the authority to do this,” Carroll said. “The ultimate fact finder is the jury, and you took away the last question they're entitled to answer.”

Of course, this is based on a technicality. Jurors clearly concluded that Wilkins threatened to murder a law enforcement officer and committed forcible assault with a deadly or dangerous weapon. And as Wilkins’ own lawyer admits, the evidence in the case was pretty stark: video footage and recorded prison calls where he boasted about attacking his prosecutor. In that sense, Cannon’s error may seem trivial. But her refusal to use the proper legal terminology has introduced an avenue for appeal—while once again demonstrating that Cannon is comfortable playing fast and loose with hundreds of years of legal traditions.

As the judge overseeing the Department of Justice special counsel’s criminal case against Trump in Florida, every word she utters in court and each decision she makes will be closely scrutinized by the entire American legal society.

Already, law professors have criticized how she seemed to have gone out of her way to reveal the existence of an unknown grand jury investigation—which are typically kept secret—that’s outside South Florida and apparently still probing Trump’s actions. She’s also taken heat for scheduling his classified documents trial for May 2024, leaving the former president free to travel across the country in his bid to secure the Republican nomination during the bulk of the primary election season.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I love how their defense is "we didn't know!".  Um, get fucked traitors.

 This is advanced legal theory.  Two simple words: skip to :50

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

So, it's really important to get out and vote.



Just quoting this part again for, ya know, the future of our democracy, our country, and, in no small sense, our society.

(And it’s also a good reminder that the presidential election is only one part of the puzzle. Every election is nothing less than critical right now.)
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The second thing is how grotesque will be the optics of a convicted president pardoning himself, or worse shutting down the cases against him.  The GQP won't care most likely, but it's hard to know.**  That would constitute the gravest impeachment we've ever seen.

So, it's really important to get out and vote.

If the first part occurs, the protests of the 60s and the 2020s will look like child's play.

Very much yes to the second part so we can avoid that scenario.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, we always talk about "pardons," but there is something less in the form of clemency or a commutation of sentence. The feds call it a commutation and both pardons and commutations are forms of clemency.

Georgia apparently treats a commutation as a form of parole and only commutes death sentences.

So, he can't get pardoned, but he could get let out of prison way early.

If Trump is convicted in Georgia they will change the law immediately.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
29 minutes ago, Bookman said:

If Trump is convicted in Georgia they will change the law immediately.

Not so fast.  Actually, the constitution in Georgia is difficult to change, even with a super majority, which they don't have.  Combine that with vulnerable Republicans not being willing to put themselves further on the line, that's not realistic.  I don't know how this all ends, but I do know the notion of the Georgia Constitution being changed is very unlikely.  

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Not so fast.  Actually, the constitution in Georgia is difficult to change, even with a super majority, which they don't have.  Combine that with vulnerable Republicans not being willing to put themselves further on the line, that's not realistic.  I don't know how this all ends, but I do know the notion of the Georgia Constitution being changed is very unlikely.  

GQP will make some promises they have no intention of keeping to a few "on the fence" Dems.  Dems will join in on the fuckery and act all surprised when the promises are ignored.  Same old shit, different day.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

GQP will make some promises they have no intention of keeping to a few "on the fence" Dems.  Dems will join in on the fuckery and act all surprised when the promises are ignored.  Same old shit, different day.

Extremely unlikely.  In 2020, battleground Republicans in Georgia that tied themselves to Trump's wagon lost, a lot.  Ones that did well were generally distanced from his nonsense.  Further, the divide vs Democratic strongholds and Republicans is growing, with the math going strongly in our favor.  In order to push something like this thru (which Democrats have zero interest in entertaining), the rural Republican strong holds would have to concede something major for them to even consider it.  Yet can't just make a deal if you have nothing to offer.  Anything the Republicans would have to offer would yield even more power to the urban areas.  When you consider that the demographics are already against Republican interests in Georgia, they would only be accelerating the power shift against themselves.  Rural power players may say shit and talk a game, but in the end they won't even really attempt to reach across the aisle.  Their hope will be that this will give even shade to battleground areas to stay out of the fray, but that will be as far as it goes.  At the end of the day, the real power players know that seriously getting involved in trying to make this happen would be like doubling down on 4 when the dealer shows 18.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
9 hours ago, Born to Run said:
13 hours ago, YGIFS said:
To be fair to Iowans, when I drive 600 yards from my home...I realize I'm in the dumbest fucking state save for maybe Florida.  We're just Mississippi Morons with oil money who can't wait to show off how fucking macho moronic we are.

West Austin Drivers are the worst and we really enjoy killing eachother in horrific fashion. Worst anywhere I've ever lived. It's insane out here.

Tyler, Texas says hold my beer.  Purest cocktail of lunacy and dumbfuckery on the roads these eyes ever have seen.

Posted
42 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

GQP will make some promises they have no intention of keeping to a few "on the fence" Dems.  Dems will join in on the fuckery and act all surprised when the promises are ignored.  Same old shit, different day.

Making shit up is so fun and easy! 

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

Were those the ones on video, trying to get past security, saying that they were in fact the real electors? 

Edited by Red Five
Posted
1 hour ago, dcbc said:

Tyler, Texas says hold my beer.  Purest cocktail of lunacy and dumbfuckery on the roads these eyes ever have seen.

Tyler does suck.

South Austin sucks more.  My wife and I were driving south on Brodie yesterday and some dipshit pulled out from a driveway on the other side of the road, cutting through a long line a stopped traffic, completely invisible to us.  We came inches from t-boning her.  She was on her phone.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Here is the Federalist scholar paper link

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751

Abstract

Quote

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.

Full paper at the link

But the most important thing is State officials can disqualify Trump. There will be tons of lawsuits as you know Democrat states will and should do this

image.png.012db6e3ee8ce38adcf1d7d13230d9e4.png

image.png.9128286a8380ce3663ccf5df9eb20a17.png

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Don't kid yourself, he's in about as deep a shit as anyone can possibly be.  

He has some possible outs and we tend to focus unduly on them.  And, of course, we unduly focus on the "teflon Don" bullshit.

The most "real" of those outs is that he wins the 2024 election and pardons himself.  Two things about that we don't talk about much.  First, if he had been indicted on January 7, 2021, there's a high likelihood that he could keep the appeal plates spinning until inauguration, so the delays don't matter, because that's on the table no matter what.  The second thing is how grotesque will be the optics of a convicted president pardoning himself, or worse shutting down the cases against him.  The GQP won't care most likely, but it's hard to know.**  That would constitute the gravest impeachment we've ever seen.

So, it's really important to get out and vote.

**He's damaging the fuck out of the GQP right now, so the composition of the Senate in 2025 is unpredictable as is the possibility of enough GQP Senators growing a pair to convict in an impeachment.

Their take was that Jack has streamlined the process enough intentionally for the sake of a speedy trial.  They can also add charges to additional cases but there are over 100 charges against him already, and he isn't going to add to the indictments because he doesn't want to slow that process. As it is, Trump would have to beat all of his indictments--3 existing in firmly blue areas (DC, NYC and Fulton County, Georgia) which strains the possibility of Trump batting 1000.   He's sweating hard and his attorney orders are strictly delay, delay, delay.  

Additional indictments are coming against his accomplices, which will be filed separately.  

There's a whole section on Cannon that I'd have to re listen to get the gist correctly--don't want to wrongly discuss.  

It's an interesting listen, which I did late night while painting, so my handle on things is half assed.  However, when I look at the programming titles for their shows, it just seems to be click bait title porn to draw in ears, and I hate that.  "Hosted by MeidasTouch founder and civil rights lawyer, Ben Meiselas, national trial lawyer strategist, Michael Popok, and former Chief Assistant District Attorney of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Legal AF (Legal Analysis Friends) is a hard-hitting, thought-provoking look at this week’s most compelling developments at the intersection of law and politics."

 

Posted
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

(SIAP wanted to be sure the free NYT link was provided)

So what are the odds of this being enforced?  It would have to go to SCOTUS I assume?

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

some, I assume, are good people

 

image.thumb.png.e326fa51375e9dd983e234740b4055e8.png

A gaggle of Karens. Especially that first one.  Good god.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So what are the odds of this being enforced?  It would have to go to SCOTUS I assume?

It is going to happen. 

State official will not allow Trump on ballot because he is disqualified for providing “aid or comfort" to insurrectionists. 

Trump will argue he has never been convicted of insurrection. (even if he has been convicted of Jan 6 charges by then)

It will go all the way to SCOTUS

They will have to answer the legal questions of what constitutes "aid or comfort". Does it require a conviction in a court of law? Does it require a specific conviction of insurrection? 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, it's really important to get out and vote.

**He's damaging the fuck out of the GQP right now, so the composition of the Senate in 2025 is unpredictable as is the possibility of enough GQP Senators growing a pair to convict in an impeachment.

I don’t know how much he’s damaging the GQP right now, since many Republicans are not willing to buck him, and way too many embrace the chaos he’s creating and embrace their inner assholes.

But he’s damaging the brand for the future, which could be why Republicans in places like Texas are trying to make it hard for younger and urban people to vote.

I was a kid in the 80s, and I have somewhat rose-tinted glasses about Reagan,  but at the time, I thought he was amazing and somebody to look up to ( in know the outcomes of many of his policies). I was recently talking to a neighbor who was older, in grad school when Reagan took office, and his views as a 20-something back then, as well as those of his family and friends who were around the same age (or younger) were that Reagan had epic things planned and a real love for America, and many of them voted for him or became Republicans because of him, because he inspired them, and just felt like this macho guy straight out of central casting (for Bedtime for Bonzo).  

His grandkids and great nieces and nephews are all teens or in their early 20s, and he mentioned how for the past two years, all they’ve seen of Trump is him being angry and whining about how he’s being wronged, and just looking so incredibly pathetic and weak and crooked. Nothing inspiring at all. For a teen, he comes across as some asshole elderly person screaming at the clouds.  The elderly neighbor who threatens to call the cops if they cut across his lawn.  Biden comes across as the goofy grandpa.  

And there’s nobody in the pipeline to inspire the younger groups to want to vote Republican.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
49 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Sounds like good stuff from Chutkan in the hearing regarding a protective order in the J6 case. 

 

She did, however, force the gubmint to actually designate things Sensitive that are subject to the protective order, which is what Trump wanted.

Oh noes, she's in the bag!

  • Haha 3
Posted
Just now, Chopper said:

Interesting. Also it should probably have a warning that reading it may cause qnuts' heads to explode.

image.thumb.png.20c25f0daf69e313633cd9927bdb3a2a.png

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/10/trumps-truth-social-tipped-fbi-to-man-killed-during-arrest-attempt-for-biden-threats.html

Countdown until the orange dipshit preens about Truth Social being instrumental in thwarting an assassination attempt on Biden or Bragg or Jack Smith, etc, even though "we all know they deserve to die for their politically-motivated crimes against your favorite president!"

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I'm sure the FedSoc folks have the purest of intentions here. What they're doing is for the betterment of the country, right? It can't be that they've looked at all the numbers and have determined that Trump on the ballot means certain defeat in 2024, right? It can't be that Trump is potentially going to destroy the GQP before he's all finished, right?

yeah I was thinking the same thing - this story coming out isn't a coincidence IMHO.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

They will have to answer the legal questions of what constitutes "aid or comfort". Does it require a conviction in a court of law? Does it require a specific conviction of insurrection? 

 

Exhibit A, from the insurrectionists bedrooms

IMG_3503.thumb.jpeg.510c47e121fd70b3890ec52cdbc1159e.jpeg

  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1


×
×
  • Create New...