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)
1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, since Jerry Lewis did it on Labor Day weekend for decades, Steve Bannon  figured he might as well give it a shot:

 

 

 

 

spacer.png

Edited by TeeDubya
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
5 hours ago, The Dog said:

MOAR????

 

What am I missing here? I clicked through every link on those tweets and they're all for articles that are months old. The picture also says BBC News but there's nothing I can find from the BBC on any of that. I don't see any mention of investigations for bribes for pardons. 

Can you please start vetting this shit before dumping it here?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

image.gif.ae713fa03b99d673003691dcbeae698e.gif

What we're seeing is a lot of petty fights in Florida and DC about filing things under seal.  When something is filed under seal, the public can't see it, but the court can and the lawyers for each party can see it.

Things are filed under seal because they contain reference to confidential material, whether that be classified information, grand jury information, trade secrets, or sensitive financial information.  Although the general rule is that filings are public, filing under seal is fairly routine.

You rarely see fights break out between the parties over filing under seal, and if it happens, it's usually because someone filed something not under seal that should have been under seal; for example, containing the other party's sensitive information.

So, we have seen that Cannon is kind of a dumbass about filing under seal, unsealing or declining to accept under seal filings referencing grand jury material (we should all know by now that grand jury evidence and proceedings are super secret squirrel until the court presiding over the grand jury says otherwise).  Chutkan seems to be pretty sensible about it.

Also, the issue of Trump's extrajudicial statements may not be, apparently, teed up for consideration.  It is mentioned in passing in the government's response to Lauro's latest whinge.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/49/united-states-v-trump/

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I think this dumbfuck was at least half assed trying to stay on planet earth with his fraud until the Mueller investigation let him totally off.  In hindsight, it's hilarious that whatever restraint he had (very little), seems to have gone out the the window and now he's 1000x as fucked as if he would have been stopped back then.  God damn, what a shame. 

He shook down the Qatari government for a billion dollar bailout for Jared long before he buried the Mueller investigation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He shook down the Qatari government for a billion dollar bailout for Jared long before he buried the Mueller investigation.

Yep.  He wasn’t using the same clowns to pull all that off.  Rudy and that crazy lady pulled in when even Jared and his idiot daughter were like this is too much.  

Also, to the point above, look how sloppy.  There’s not emails, texts, etc etc constantly pouring out about his Qatari bullshit.  Say what you will but dumbfuck Jared seems to be a bit more buttoned up than Rudy and crew.  

Edited by ChiTownDoc
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, the issue of Trump's extrajudicial statements may not be, apparently, teed up for consideration.  It is mentioned in passing in the government's response to Lauro's latest whinge.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67656595/49/united-states-v-trump/

Yeah, that's what's frustrating about a lot of twitter posts. You read that tweet and think the Court will be hearing a motion that Trump is violating the protective order, and then you see the actual pleading and it's a throwaway line in a slap fight about sealed filing procedure.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

Yeah, that's what's frustrating about a lot of twitter posts. You read that tweet and think the Court will be hearing a motion that Trump is violating the protective order, and then you see the actual pleading and it's a throwaway line in a slap fight about sealed filing procedure.

It's possible that the sealed motion actually deals with that but we can't tell because sealed. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

"Cheung added that Trump "offered full cooperation with DOJ, and told the key DOJ official, in person, 'Anything you need from us, just let us know.'""

Full cooperation. UH HUH.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

Ok, so the big "surreply" filed by Stan Woodward in the Florida case on the Nauta/Taveras conflict issue is available.

More whiny shit.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/144/united-states-v-trump/

He is definitely doubling down on the exclusion of Yuscil Taveras as a witness against Nauta (and then ostensibly Trump).  

One curiosity is that he argues that proceeding before the DC Grand Jury as the government did diminishes the authority of Cannon over the proceeding.  Well, that's fucking bullshit, because she doesn't preside over the grand jury in Florida.  The Chief Judge does.  Doesn't matter if the GJ is in Florida, DC, or fucking Jackson Hole, she has no control over it.  He does not make a persuasive argument that the government did anything wrong.

So, although this is a highly collateral matter, a complete sideshow, this is Aileen Cannon's first big opportunity to fuck up the case by excluding Taveras' testimony.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ok, so the big "surreply" filed by Stan Woodward in the Florida case on the Nauta/Taveras conflict issue is available.

More whiny shit.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/144/united-states-v-trump/

He is definitely doubling down on the exclusion of Yuscil Taveras as a witness against Nauta (and then ostensibly Trump).  

One curiosity is that he argues that proceeding before the DC Grand Jury as the government did diminishes the authority of Cannon over the proceeding.  Well, that's fucking bullshit, because she doesn't preside over the grand jury in Florida.  The Chief Judge does.  Doesn't matter if the GJ is in Florida, DC, or fucking Jackson Hole, she has no control over it.  He does not make a persuasive argument that the government did anything wrong.

So, although this is a highly collateral matter, a complete sideshow, this is Aileen Cannon's first big opportunity to fuck up the case by excluding Taveras' testimony.

Is someone taking bets on this? I know which side I'd take.

Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ok, so the big "surreply" filed by Stan Woodward in the Florida case on the Nauta/Taveras conflict issue is available.

More whiny shit.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490071/144/united-states-v-trump/

He is definitely doubling down on the exclusion of Yuscil Taveras as a witness against Nauta (and then ostensibly Trump).  

One curiosity is that he argues that proceeding before the DC Grand Jury as the government did diminishes the authority of Cannon over the proceeding.  Well, that's fucking bullshit, because she doesn't preside over the grand jury in Florida.  The Chief Judge does.  Doesn't matter if the GJ is in Florida, DC, or fucking Jackson Hole, she has no control over it.  He does not make a persuasive argument that the government did anything wrong.

So, although this is a highly collateral matter, a complete sideshow, this is Aileen Cannon's first big opportunity to fuck up the case by excluding Taveras' testimony.

 

But is the potential fuckup appealable to the 11th?  And would another "you're a moron" ruling be likely to come back down?

Posted
2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Is someone taking bets on this? I know which side I'd take.

tbh she's equally likely to screw Trump as help him whether she intends to or not. she's dumb as a rock.

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

Ruh Roh

That's not new information.  That happened before and is the raison d'etre for the superseding indictment.

We knew he changed his testimony to implicate Trump and De Oliveira, which would avoid prosecution for perjury.  What we didn't know was that the government gave him a Non-Prosecution Agreement to enable that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

So Trump's first calls to 'Lock Her Up' regarding Hillary were about her private server in her NY home bathroom?  Now he's being flipped on by an IT guy who set up equipment and document storage in his Mar-a-Lago villa's bathroom after acquiring a penchant for supposedly flushing other classified documents down myriad White House bathroom toilets.  And the co-conspirator about to turn state's evidence shares the same name as the band that sang the song Trump danced with Ivanka to at her wedding reception "Heaven Must be Missing an Angel"-Tavares.  

You people of reasoned logic and letters---regale me again with lore of how we think, therefore we are.  Because we are 0's and 1's inside a simulation.  

Posted
2 hours ago, TexasEd said:

 

But is the potential fuckup appealable to the 11th?  And would another "you're a moron" ruling be likely to come back down?

Eventually, yes, as in after conviction or acquittal.  This would seem to lead directly to acquittal for DeOliveira and Trump on the surveillance tape obstruction because, as far as I know, it is the only direct evidence they've got.

But I don't believe there is any opportunity for an immediate/interlocutory appeal.   

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

@TwiceHorn, can you give a primer on how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment factors into all of this, if at all?

Quote

shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof

While perhaps implied, I didn't see the word "convicted" in the Amendment, so I was wondering if he could already be legally be barred from running.  I'm particularly interested in the "giving aid or comfort" aspect since he is actively working in the interests of those already convicted for Jan. 6th.

Thanks

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But I don't believe there is any opportunity for an immediate/interlocutory appeal.   

i’m not saying you’re wrong, but that would be odd. If it were a civil matter they’d just say, fuck it - retry the thing.   But an acquittal due to a ruling preventing a prosecution witness from providing key evidence crucial to the conviction would seem like something that would need to be addressed prior to acquittal and double jeopardy concerns. 

Edit: To be clear, once a jury is empaneled the judge is making all kinds of evidentiary rulings on the fly, and it falls however it falls. This would seem more like a criminal version of a pretrial motion in limine.   You would think procedurally that you could get relief from an appellate court before they teed it up.

Edited by Gatorubet
Posted
43 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

With what rule or standing could Woodward succesfully argue that Taveras not be allowed to testify against Turmp and/or Nauta?

The argument is this.  There's a conflict of interest because Woodward currently represents Nauta and formerly represented Taveras.  The conflict is that Woodward might not be able to or want to do what he should for one of them because of his duty to the other.

Now that he doesn't represent Taveras anymore, the potential conflict is mostly moot.  Where the conflict gets active again is when Taveras takes the stand and says Nauta and Trump wanted me to delete the surveillance video and they're lying if they say otherwise.

As Nauta's lawyer, Woodward would presumably cross-examine Taveras and attempt to prove he was lying or otherwise not credible.  Woodward can't do that because he can't act that adversely to a former client.  Moreover, he might know privileged information about Taveras from his prior representation that would either cause him to soft-pedal the cross, or violate Taveras' privilege.

So, there's multiple ways to solve this problem.  One would be to disqualify Woodward from representing Nauta.  The government doesn't seriously argue that because it's drastic and deprives Nauta of his (free, Trump-approved) counsel of choice. Another would be to have Woodward's co-counsel handle cross of Taveras.  She never represented him, but would have to basically state that she has not discussed Taveras or any privileged information with Woodward for that to be ok.

The most extreme way to deal with the conflict is to exclude Taveras entirely:  no testimony, no cross, no conflict.  Also no case for the government.

That would not normally be on anyone's radar except for this red-herring about grand jury misconduct.  The conflict is, if anyone's, Woodward's fault and secondarily Trump's for not getting each affiliated defendant a separate lawyer.  It sure as fuck isn't the government's fault.

So Woodward makes this half-ass argument that what the government did with the grand jury in DC was shady and that the conflict should be resolved and the government punished by excluding Taveras as a witness.

It's a bold argument.  It's also bullshit.

I'm glad I'm not a criminal defense attorney.  Making sketchy arguments like this tends to come with the territory of zealous representation.

21 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

@TwiceHorn, can you give a primer on how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment factors into all of this, if at all?

While perhaps implied, I didn't see the word "convicted" in the Amendment, so I was wondering if he could already be legally be barred from running.  I'm particularly interested in the "giving aid or comfort" aspect since he is actively working in the interests of those already convicted for Jan. 6th.

Thanks

No one knows.  It's never been used before.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The argument is this.  There's a conflict of interest because Woodward currently represents Nauta and formerly represented Taveras.  The conflict is that Woodward might not be able to or want to do what he should for one of them because of his duty to the other.

Now that he doesn't represent Taveras anymore, the potential conflict is mostly moot.  Where the conflict gets active again is when Taveras takes the stand and says Nauta and Trump wanted me to delete the surveillance video and they're lying if they say otherwise.

As Nauta's lawyer, Woodward would presumably cross-examine Taveras and attempt to prove he was lying or otherwise not credible.  Woodward can't do that because he can't act that adversely to a former client.  Moreover, he might know privileged information about Taveras from his prior representation that would either cause him to soft-pedal the cross, or violate Taveras' privilege.

So, there's multiple ways to solve this problem.  One would be to disqualify Woodward from representing Nauta.  The government doesn't seriously argue that because it's drastic and deprives Nauta of his (free, Trump-approved) counsel of choice. Another would be to have Woodward's co-counsel handle cross of Taveras.  She never represented him, but would have to basically state that she has not discussed Taveras or any privileged information with Woodward for that to be ok.

The most extreme way to deal with the conflict is to exclude Taveras entirely:  no testimony, no cross, no conflict.  Also no case for the government.

That would not normally be on anyone's radar except for this red-herring about grand jury misconduct.  The conflict is, if anyone's, Woodward's fault and secondarily Trump's for not getting each affiliated defendant a separate lawyer.  It sure as fuck isn't the government's fault.

So Woodward makes this half-ass argument that what the government did with the grand jury in DC was shady and that the conflict should be resolved and the government punished by excluding Taveras as a witness.

It's a bold argument.  It's also bullshit.

I'm glad I'm not a criminal defense attorney.  Making sketchy arguments like this tends to come with the territory of zealous representation.

No one knows.  It's never been used before.

Thanks for the explanation. After reading your summary, and considering Cannon, I assume it's more than even money that Taveras will be prevented from testifying. In fact, I don't see any other likely option. Disqualifying Woodward from representing Nauta actually seems more extreme than not allowing Taveras to testify, and if you're Woodward and his co-council, you have every incentive to not allow the co-council to cross Nauta. And I'm assuming even if she did, this would open things up to further appeals. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

i’m not saying you’re wrong, but that would be odd. If it were a civil matter they’d just say, fuck it - retry the thing.   But an acquittal due to a ruling preventing a prosecution witness from providing key evidence crucial to the conviction would seem like something that would need to be addressed prior to acquittal and double jeopardy concerns. 

Edit: To be clear, once a jury is empaneled the judge is making all kinds of evidentiary rulings on the fly, and it falls however it falls. This would seem more like a criminal version of a pretrial motion in limine.   You would think procedurally that you could get relief from an appellate court before they teed it up.

As far as I know, with the exception of CIPA, there's no statute equivalent to 28 USC 1292 authorizing interlocutory appeals or certification of issues for appeal in criminal cases. 

The collateral order doctrine in criminal cases is limited to  orders denying a Double Jeopardy Clause challenge, orders denying a Speech or Debate Clause challenge, orders denying a motion to reduce bail, and orders allowing for the forced medication of criminal defendants. 

The only thing the government might have is a writ of mandamus.

Posted
3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Thanks for the explanation. After reading your summary, and considering Cannon, I assume it's more than even money that Taveras will be prevented from testifying. In fact, I don't see any other likely option. Disqualifying Woodward from representing Nauta actually seems more extreme than not allowing Taveras to testify, and if you're Woodward and his co-council, you have every incentive to not allow the co-council to cross Nauta. And I'm assuming even if she did, this would open things up to further appeals. 

Letting co-counsel, so long as she hasnt' been tainted by communication with Woodward, cross Taveras is the "school solution" and the most reasonable outcome.  If Woodward deliberately tainted her by communicating all the Taveras privileged info, he's setting himself up for complete disqualification.

It should be noted that the DC Court found that Woodward did not do anything wrong or attempt to taint Taveras' testimony.  Even Taveras new Federal Public Defender said so.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Trump and his damn dei appointments amirite 

Ironically, I think she is more lil Marco's appointment than Trump's.  She checks many of the boxes academically and ABA rated her qualified, which seems something of a stretch.

But most importantly, she's a lil brown Colombiana/Cubana with a few right wing creds.  She's a pequena Tia Tomasa, or Tia Ruckus if you will.

Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Letting co-counsel, so long as she hasnt' been tainted by communication with Woodward, cross Taveras is the "school solution" and the most reasonable outcome.  If Woodward deliberately tainted her by communicating all the Taveras privileged info, he's setting himself up for complete disqualification.

It should be noted that the DC Court found that Woodward did not do anything wrong or attempt to taint Taveras' testimony.  Even Taveras new Federal Public Defender said so.

It’s insane, this guy‘s taint!

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, TexasHooch said:

Ruh Roh

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's not new information.  That happened before and is the raison d'etre for the superseding indictment.

We knew he changed his testimony to implicate Trump and De Oliveira, which would avoid prosecution for perjury.  What we didn't know was that the government gave him a Non-Prosecution Agreement to enable that.

IT workers at Mar-a-Lago

working the it crowd GIF

  • Haha 4
Posted
1 hour ago, YGIFS said:

So Trump's first calls to 'Lock Her Up' regarding Hillary were about her private server in her NY home bathroom?  Now he's being flipped on by an IT guy who set up equipment and document storage in his Mar-a-Lago villa's bathroom after acquiring a penchant for supposedly flushing other classified documents down myriad White House bathroom toilets.  And the co-conspirator about to turn state's evidence shares the same name as the band that sang the song Trump danced with Ivanka to at her wedding reception "Heaven Must be Missing an Angel"-Tavares.  

You people of reasoned logic and letters---regale me again with lore of how we think, therefore we are.  Because we are 0's and 1's inside a simulation.  

We are merely God’s reality show. The set ups are just getting lazier now. The show is jumping the shark.

Posted

Yeah, I dunno if the showrunner is Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammed, or Moses, or Vishnu.  But whoever it is, better get their shit together because we're about to get moved to Paramount Minus.   

Posted
6 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

 

As for how classified documents ended up in boxes, Trump "had a lot of boxes" in his bedroom, and when he was done reading a newspaper article or a classified document, he'd "throw them" into one of the boxes, according to Corcoran.

 

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit.

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

@TwiceHorn, can you give a primer on how Section 3 of the 14th Amendment factors into all of this, if at all?

While perhaps implied, I didn't see the word "convicted" in the Amendment, so I was wondering if he could already be legally be barred from running.  I'm particularly interested in the "giving aid or comfort" aspect since he is actively working in the interests of those already convicted for Jan. 6th.

Thanks

I'm not Twice or a lawyer, but what I've seen regarding this is that two things will occur:

1. A Secretary of State (of most likely a blue state) will disqualify Trump based on the 14th and refuse to put him on the ballot. Then that Secretary of State will be sued.

2. Someone will sue the Secretary of State (of most likely a red state) of a state that allows Trump to be on the ballot. 

Then this will go all the way up to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not the amendment applies to Trump. IMHO having a conviction helps this tremendously because even though it's not stated in the amendment it presents a much more "cut and dried" case for disqualification. 

And this is where it gets incredibly dicey for the GOP. Let's say that the Jan 6th trial concludes and Trump is found guilty. Then the Supreme Court agrees that he is ineligible based on that conviction. This will most likely occur after several GOP primaries have occurred and Trump has a big pile of delegates. In fact, he may even have clinched the nomination by this point. 

Now the GOP will have to figure out how to handle the situation or else not have a candidate on the ballot for president in 2024.

And that would be a disaster for the GOP as nobody would show up to vote for them as they would lack a top of the ballot candidate. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Your scenario sounds plausible and a reason for optimism.  But I prefer mine.  Everything you posted comes to fruition but his followers are encouraged to attend a "brokered convention" in Milwaukee, despite the legalities.  They are led to believe they can still "fight like hell" to keep him on the ballot/get him the nomination by any means necessary.  They are fed propaganda that the other leading nominee and his/her supporters are there to steal the election from Trump/MAGA nation just like the Democrats.  Only this time, it's even worse because they are doing it from the inside.  And those who are not with the leading delegate holder or Trump are ANTIFA/FBI plants.  So they are to show up, en force/en masse, armed to the teeth.  And when Trump is declared ineligible and his delegates released to the other primary leaders...they open fire on the whole lot.  You'd have to try really, really hard to not have hundreds and hundreds of deaths among this shitheap of humanity.  I mean, you don't even really have to try, they'll murder one another for hours without even being riled up.  FFL dealers can sponsor booths for re-ups.  Put this shitstain chapter of humanity on full display so we can then euthanize it once and for all.  1968 Chicago, but this time with AR-15's instead of beer bottles and middle fingers.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 2
Posted
36 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Lying to your own attorney strikes me as being the sort of thing that only the dumbest criminals try to do.

 

dumb-and-dumber-uh.gif

 

  • Haha 2
Posted

Does it need to "go all the way" if states can just directly sue other states in SCOTUS? That's what that Nate Paul subsidiary tried doing in 2020 on behalf of our state, right?

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

I'm not Twice or a lawyer, but what I've seen regarding this is that two things will occur:

1. A Secretary of State (of most likely a blue state) will disqualify Trump based on the 14th and refuse to put him on the ballot. Then that Secretary of State will be sued.

2. Someone will sue the Secretary of State (of most likely a red state) of a state that allows Trump to be on the ballot. 

Then this will go all the way up to the Supreme Court and they will decide whether or not the amendment applies to Trump. IMHO having a conviction helps this tremendously because even though it's not stated in the amendment it presents a much more "cut and dried" case for disqualification. 

And this is where it gets incredibly dicey for the GOP. Let's say that the Jan 6th trial concludes and Trump is found guilty. Then the Supreme Court agrees that he is ineligible based on that conviction. This will most likely occur after several GOP primaries have occurred and Trump has a big pile of delegates. In fact, he may even have clinched the nomination by this point. 

Now the GOP will have to figure out how to handle the situation or else not have a candidate on the ballot for president in 2024.

And that would be a disaster for the GOP as nobody would show up to vote for them as they would lack a top of the ballot candidate. 

Sounds about right.  However, I'm not sure how helpful a criminal conviction is of obstruction of an official proceeding.  We do have a criminal offense entitled insurrection, but I don't think anyone's ever been convicted.

The language  given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof comes pretty directly from the definition of treason in Article III.  And that then may well mean enemies in a declared war, not some vague enemies of the state.

The 14th Amendment could be the worst example of legislative drafting in all of our documents. RIght up there with the Second Amendment. Fucking horribly imprecise.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...