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
15 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Listen here you little shit.

If we do what they do to stop them from doing it, we become them.

We built this system to be better than that; not just as a response to authoritarianism, but a weapon against it.

If it fails, they'll tear it down for us. Then we beat THEM up, take their fucking lunch money, and try to build it again.

But we don't "destroy the village to save it."

Fuck off with that defeatist bullshit. That defeatism is Trump's most powerful weapon against you. Fuck that guy, and fuck you too, ok?

You are over your handlebars my dude. I'm not saying we skip a trial and due process, but the contents of the classified material is not at issue here. Playing along with this bad faith delaying tactic is just being a useful idiot. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Where did the hard-on for this law clerk come from?

it's some conspiracy theory Trump came up with that he wants them to push. it's all a performance for an audience of one as they say.

Posted
7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

it's some conspiracy theory Trump came up with that he wants them to push. it's all a performance for an audience of one as they say.


all setting up their appeal, imo 

Posted
10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

it's some conspiracy theory Trump came up with that he wants them to push. it's all a performance for an audience of one as they say.

 

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


all setting up their appeal, imo 

it's what you do when you know you're about to get an ass whuppin

Posted
4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


all setting up their appeal, imo 

and the Judge is daring them to do so (they also admitted to it today):

After Trump lawyer Cliff Robert sought guidance as to what objections they can make about his law clerk's conduct, Judge Arthur Engoron promised to issue a written order. The resulting three-page order reveals the answer: none. 1/

iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDoc…
In the order, Engoron reviews the history with respect to Trump and his campaign’s online discussions about the law clerk, but notes his prior assumption that “such a gag order would be unnecessary upon the attorneys, who are officers of the Court.” 2/ 
But instead, he’s heard “on the record, repeated, inappropriate remarks” about the clerk “falsely accusing her of bias against them and of improperly influencing the ongoing bench trial” through her exchange of notes with the judge. “These arguments have no basis,” he writes. 3/ 
Noting that his communications with his staff are both confidential and a product of his “unfettered right” to consult with them, he tells Team Trump, in essence, he’s not going to change his conduct—and they’re not allowed to “continue referencing my staff.” 4/ 
They have their record, Engoron notes, and he’ll consider it “fully preserved” for the duration of the proceedings.” And now, he seems to encourage them, if you don’t like it, go file an appeal. 5/ 
But unless and until they prevail on such an appeal, his directive is clear: Do not “make any further statements about internal and confidential communications (be it conversations, note passing or anything similar) between me and my staff.” 6/ 
That directive applies both in and out of court, he clarifies, and “[f]ailure to abide by this directive shall result in serious sanctions.” FIN. 
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 3
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Bwahahahahahaa

 

You sort of have to believe this isn't the only Friday evening she's ever spent with duct tape over her mouth, right?  (Consensual, of course)

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Just now, BamaATL said:

You sort of have to believe this isn't the only Friday evening she's ever spent with duct tape over her mouth, right?  (Consensual, of course)

You might say this is one meaty gag order.

Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Right, I am just aiming to educate people a little bit about where all this "the law is an ass" stuff comes from.

And, on CIPA, I'm struggling to understand the issues and operation of it myself, but when I think I reach an understanding of it, I'll come and explain what I think I'm getting.

But, as mentioned previously, in a criminal case, the defendant generally gets everything the government intends to use against them.

Classified information cannot be given to defendants, so complying with the above is impossible without waiving all confidentiality/classification.  If the defendant can't be given anything, the case has to be dismissed.

CIPA tries to strike a balance, about which the parties are going to argue extensively.  The Reality Winner case, which as far as I know involved a single item of NDI, had some very extensive wrangling over CIPA, like months' worth and dozens of docket entries on that alone.

 

I have no working knowledge of CIPA, but I get the gist of its purpose.  And yes, defendant's usually get the government's "whole file" so to speak

 

That said, I understand the argument that the contents of the documents are unimportant.  Anything classified as "top secret" or "secret" means, by definition, that dissemination of such information would be harmful to national security (or to use the language of the 1940s statute, "national defense."  I also think the idea that something was "wrongfully classified" sounds like an end run on the process of classifying a document.  No collateral attacks.  Should have made that argument before you walked away with all those classified documents.  I would think that, to some extent, the government wants to the jury to see or understand the nature of the contents of the documents generally because it underlines the seriousness of the crime, i.e., if he absconding with nuclear secrets versus something more mundane, yet still classified.   

Posted
6 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

 

If I were a gambling man, I would have bet that Eric would have been a large puzzle piece in the downfall of this criminal enterprise.

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I also think the idea that something was "wrongfully classified" sounds like an end run on the process of classifying a document.  No collateral attacks.  Should have made that argument before you walked away with all those classified documents. 

Trump could have declassified every document before leaving office.  I don't think that would have given him carte blanche to RETAIN all those documents -- most of them surely weren't "personal" -- but it also seems that the extent of the crime would have been reduced.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Trump could have declassified every document before leaving office.  I don't think that would have given him carte blanche to RETAIN all those documents -- most of them surely weren't "personal" -- but it also seems that the extent of the crime would have been reduced.

Again, it would not have.

The crime is unlawful possession/retention of NDI.  There is a high overlap between classified information and NDI, but they are not perfectly interchangeable.  Especially for NDI that is not or no longer classified.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Trump could have declassified every document before leaving office.  I don't think that would have given him carte blanche to RETAIN all those documents -- most of them surely weren't "personal" -- but it also seems that the extent of the crime would have been reduced.

Retaining the documents, even after being notified, goes a long way to prove intent.  That's why when Biden or Pence are found to have documents and give them back immediately, they don't end up being indicted over it.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Again, it would not have.

The crime is unlawful possession/retention of NDI.  There is a high overlap between classified information and NDI, but they are not perfectly interchangeable.  Especially for NDI that is not or no longer classified.

It certainly would not have made the crime WORSE.  It's unknown by you or me if the extent of the crime would have been reduced -- I'd take the bet.

Posted

As a recovering lawyer who doesn't know anything about CIPA, let me offer something. I don't think we are talking about just giving copies of top secret documents to the defense. Probably they can satisfy CIPA with a combination of the titles/description of some docs, redactions, review by trump attorneys supervised in a scif of documents they have obtained clearance for, etc. Enough info to answer whether the doc was for national defense, but not the super secret stuff

Not just giving them back all the complete docs

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, texastough said:

As a recovering lawyer who doesn't know anything about CIPA, let me offer something. I don't think we are talking about just giving copies of top secret documents to the defense. Probably they can satisfy CIPA with a combination of the titles/description of some docs, redactions, review by trump attorneys supervised in a scif of documents they have obtained clearance for, etc. Enough info to answer whether the doc was for national defense, but not the super secret stuff

Not just giving them back all the complete docs

Correct, it seems.  

And the argument to the court is a little like negotiating:  at some point you ask for the moon, knowing you'll never get it, so it makes your fallback positions look more reasonable.

And, as seen above in NY, some of the court arguments have been playing to the audience of one much more than trying  to win anything.

Because there wasn't much record of Trump at trial, civil or criminal, I'm not sure how much mostly "straight" guys like Kise could really anticipate having to beclown themselves in open court, although it was in many ways predictable.  I'm wondering how much Kise is regretting this.  I also bet he's come damn close to blowing through that $3M RETAINERRRR.

Posted
50 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

You sort of have to believe this isn't the only Friday evening she's ever spent with duct tape over her mouth, right?  (Consensual, of course)

She's a silk scarf kind of lady.

F-CfnMLWYAAKkOT?format=jpg&name=medium

So was Eric doing a production of Little Lord Fauntleroy that day?

MV5BMTNjZjdiMmEtNmNmZS00OGNmLWEwMjEtZWY2

  • Haha 8
Posted
38 minutes ago, texastough said:

As a recovering lawyer who doesn't know anything about CIPA, let me offer something. I don't think we are talking about just giving copies of top secret documents to the defense. Probably they can satisfy CIPA with a combination of the titles/description of some docs, redactions, review by trump attorneys supervised in a scif of documents they have obtained clearance for, etc. Enough info to answer whether the doc was for national defense, but not the super secret stuff

Not just giving them back all the complete docs

Sounds like a "privilege log."

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

at some point you ask for the moon, knowing you'll never get it

You only have once chance to be unreasonable. 

Posted

Jfc, do people really think the "sexy" SBF sketch is an actual court sketch? I guess I believe that DT Jr believes that but I am hoping that people in general aren't as gullible.

For the record, this was one of the actual SBF sketches:

image.png.8b8cb16d915065ca7a82686edf9fc39c.png

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Jfc, do people really think the "sexy" SBF sketch is an actual court sketch? I guess I believe that DT Jr believes that but I am hoping that people in general aren't as gullible.

For the record, this was one of the actual SBF sketches:

image.png.8b8cb16d915065ca7a82686edf9fc39c.png

Needs a "furk!" word bubble.

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Correct, it seems.  

And the argument to the court is a little like negotiating:  at some point you ask for the moon, knowing you'll never get it, so it makes your fallback positions look more reasonable.

And, as seen above in NY, some of the court arguments have been playing to the audience of one much more than trying  to win anything.

Because there wasn't much record of Trump at trial, civil or criminal, I'm not sure how much mostly "straight" guys like Kise could really anticipate having to beclown themselves in open court, although it was in many ways predictable.  I'm wondering how much Kise is regretting this.  I also bet he's come damn close to blowing through that $3M RETAINERRRR.

Nothing like the feeling of when you feel secure enough as a lawyer to fire a client.  That discovery allowed me to practice law for @ 10 more years than I really wanted to. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
Nothing like the feeling of when you feel secure enough as a lawyer to fire a client.  That discovery allowed me to practice law for @ 10 more years than I really wanted to. 
Same, except I'm a Builder. Liberating indeed.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
54 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Jfc, do people really think the "sexy" SBF sketch is an actual court sketch? I guess I believe that DT Jr believes that but I am hoping that people in general aren't as gullible.

For the record, this was one of the actual SBF sketches:

image.png.8b8cb16d915065ca7a82686edf9fc39c.png

Is that a finger or his bottom lip? 

Posted
1 hour ago, Serak The Preparer said:

Jfc, do people really think the "sexy" SBF sketch is an actual court sketch? I guess I believe that DT Jr believes that but I am hoping that people in general aren't as gullible.

Stop Motion Smile GIF by LAIKA Studios

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
11 hours ago, The Dog said:
On 10/24/2023 at 6:32 PM, Gatorubet said:

I don’t know.   But I do expect the publisher to sue his ass for the money they gave him to write a book that turned out to be a whole lot of lies.  

Rimbo, I’m right once every 1,000 posts. 😂

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
Posted

I’ve only briefly followed the NY civil trial because I assumed that Trump would owe some back taxes and a penalty. Something that would hurt but nothing crazy.

Then today I read that NY may be able to take ALL profits earned from fraudulent activities, even from other properties not specifically involved in this case.  I believe a connection has to be made such as the proven fraudulent activity allowed them to buy another property that they later sold for X profit. Something about a unique NY law from the 1950s that Trumps lawyers were perhaps unaware.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I’ve only briefly followed the NY civil trial because I assumed that Trump would owe some back taxes and a penalty. Something that would hurt but nothing crazy.

Then today I read that NY may be able to take ALL profits earned from fraudulent activities, even from other properties not specifically involved in this case.  I believe a connection has to be made such as the proven fraudulent activity allowed them to buy another property that they later sold for X profit. Something about a unique NY law from the 1950s that Trumps lawyers were perhaps unaware.

It's called disgorgement, and yes, its happening.  

Posted
4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Something about a unique NY law from the 1950s that Trumps lawyers were perhaps unaware.

It could be a law that was passed last year and they might be unaware of it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Probably worth noting that the DC Circuit has administratively stayed Chutkan's gag order.  This is not a ruling on the merits, but just a stay until they can rule on whether a stay will remain in effect pending appeal.  So Trump can continue to talk shit for a few more days, at least.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/orders.nsf/25D0420D1689A77785258A5C00747328/$file/23-3190LDSN.pdf

Also worth noting that they have scheduled the entire appeal, including oral argument, to be finished by November 20.  A decision will follow presumably soon thereafter.

This is lightning, blazing, Mach 4 fast.  I'm not sure if it's because it's a gag order or kind of standard treatment for an interlocutory (before final judgment) appeal in a criminal case, which is typically a rare thing.

Hopefully, the DC Circuit contends with any other Trump appeals, mainly the presidential immunity one, similarly quickly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 11/3/2023 at 2:50 PM, dcbc said:

I perceive the blow back you get for some of your posts in this thread to be not inconsistent with the blow back Trump's lawyer's get from him when they try to tell him things he doesn't want to hear.  That reaction is pretty common with most clients when their lawyer tells them things they don't want to hear.  It gives me a few unpleasant flashbacks to that time early in my career when I had to deal with clients and explain to them how they would be better off not doing the things that caused them all the trouble in the first place.  It sucks having a client like that because you have to do a lot more work to continue to represent them but not run afoul of the rules yourself.  And there was no way I was going to break the law for anyone.  There's just some money you don't need to make.  But I digress.  The point is, when lawyers try to explain parts of the legal process to nonlawyers, particularly about the contortions the legal system will put itself through to ensure due process in a criminal cases where they defendant was caught in the bank holding the bag of money, it can result in some nasty reactions because most law-abiding people don't like criminals.  But these safeguards which protect us protect them as well, and for good reason.  Keep the posts coming.   

no other option sucking GIF

 

  • Haha 2
Posted

Thats Nice Reaction GIF by MOODMAN

Trump on Truth Soviet over the past few hours - reposting a bunch of meaningless polls, and then these gems:

Quote

Wow! Just found out that Corrupt and Racist Attorney General Letitia James of New York State is financially backed by George Soros. No wonder this “TRUMP CASE,” being presided over by a highly partisan and out of control Judge who found me guilty before the trial even started, wouldn’t allow a JURY, and said Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida, was worth only $18,000,000, when it is worth 50 to 100 times that amount, has become an embarrassment to the New York Judiciary. No new businesses want any part of this charade. WITCH HUNT!

Quote

Kim Reynolds told me that she was going to remain NEUTRAL because Iowa was, “Thank you President Trump,” FIRST IN THE NATION. She wanted to campaign with everyone. I told her that I should have “remained neutral” when she asked me to help her get elected, and that I didn’t want or need her to campaign with me. I am now 41+Points up in Iowa!

Quote

If and when Kim Reynolds of Iowa endorses Ron DeSanctimonious, who is absolutely dying in the polls both in Iowa and Nationwide, it will be the end of her political career in that MAGA would never support her again, just as MAGA will never support DeSanctimonious again. Two extremely disloyal people getting together is, however, a very beautiful thing to watch. They can now remain loyal to each other because nobody else wants them!!!

And he wants everybody to know that he personally kept Israel safe for four straight years.

Quote

“For four straight years under the Trump Administration, I kept America safe, I kept Israel safe, and I kept the entire world safe.” — President Trump in Kissimmee, Florida

He's reposting catturd2 who made the transition to TS

Quote

Back to reality ...

Every DeSantis online "influencer" has lost 80% of their engagements.
Trump influencers engagements have doubled or tripled.
Trump is dominating in the polls.
Trump's online team is dominating on X and Truth.
DeSantis is in free fall and won't recover.

Angry at Kim Reynolds

Quote

That’s because people don’t like disloyalty! I opened the position for Reynolds, so she became Governor of Iowa, by moving Terry Branstad to China as Ambassador. I then helped her when she was substantially down and losing to the Democrat Candidate, and worked hard to get her Elected, including an Endorsement and Big TRUMP Rallies. Very importantly, I was the sole reason that Iowa remained FIRST IN THE NATION. I was Strong on Ethanol, DeSantis voted against it, and other things bad for Iowa, like wanting to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Despite all of this, Reynolds remained Neutral on Endorsements, and she is now America’s most Unpopular Governor, and Ron DeSanctimonious is Second. That’s what happens when you are disloyal to those that got you there!

 

  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...