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
2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

But the fact that it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it won’t.

Plus, if you want to leverage as much as possible out of him, you make him sweat it out a little closer to the deadline.  I don't know if the Saudis (or Trump for that matter) is as concerned with appearances of impropriety or the need for secrecy as your run-of-the-mill sociopaths might be.

Posted
4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If that were true, shouldn’t at least one of her questionable decisions serve to benefit the prosecution’s effort to see this trial to a speedy conclusion and not help Trump delay and muddy up the process? Just one?

If the playing field was level, sure. But in a criminal case where the parties are roughly equally resourced, the field is tilted against the government, which has the burden of proof and a tall one at that. 

And, you can't say at this point whether this favors or disfavors Trump. She has made multiple CIPA decisions, all under seal, none of which the government has appealed, so they are presumably in the government's favor.  Let's hope she didn't fuck those up in a way that gives Trump a solid appeal. 

This latest is just stupid. For now, it's neither here nor there, pro or con. Just stupid. It may be a precursor to a giant mistake/attempt to favor Trump or it may work out in the end. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Plus, if you want to leverage as much as possible out of him, you make him sweat it out a little closer to the deadline.  I don't know if the Saudis (or Trump for that matter) is as concerned with appearances of impropriety or the need for secrecy as your run-of-the-mill sociopaths might be.

They chopped up a journalist and didn’t really even try to hide it and the entire world basically ignored that, so no, they aren’t particularly concerned with appearances of impropriety.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 4
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

They chopped up a journalist and didn’t really even try to hide it and the entire world basically ignored that, so no, they aren’t particularly concerned with appearances of impropriety.

Yeah, that's not accurate.  They tried like hell to hide it, but they got caught by the ole' Apple Find My Phone Trick.  Between the phones and CCTV cams it's bad time to be a teen or a group of Boomer assassins! Am I right?

Quote

On 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident journalist, was killed by agents of the Saudi government at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey.[4][5] Khashoggi was ambushed and strangled by a 15-member squad of Saudi operatives.[6][7] His body was dismembered and disposed of in some way that was never publicly revealed.[8] The consulate had been secretly bugged by the Turkish government and Khashoggi's final moments were captured in audio recordings, transcripts of which were subsequently made public.[9][6][10]

The New York Times reported in June 2019 that Saudi government engaged in an extensive effort to cover up the killing, including destroying evidence.[7] By 16 October, separate investigations by Turkish officials and The New York Times had concluded that the murder was premeditated and that some members of the Saudi hit team were closely connected to Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.[11]

Oh and don't forget these little details

Quote

The next day, Middle East Eye reported that, according to an anonymous Turkish source, the killing took about seven minutes and forensic specialist Salah Muhammed al-Tubaigy, who had brought along a bone saw,[86] cut Khashoggi's body into pieces, while Khashoggi was still alive, as he and his colleagues listened to music.[87] The source further claimed that "Khashoggi was dragged from consul general Mohammad al-Otaibi's office at the Saudi consulate ... Tubaigy began to cut Khashoggi's body up on a table in the study while he was still alive," and "There was no attempt to interrogate him. They had come to kill him."[86]

 

Edited by locodos
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
6 hours ago, Rimbo said:

They're all missing the real issue here.

The #1 rule of buying someone out is they have to stay bought.

If you think the person is going to flake out or turn on you after you buy 'em? Better off spending that money elsewhere.

That's why the Saudis, Musk, etc haven't spent a dime to help him. (And Putin has his own problems.)

Bingo, if they give him cash now, say he wins…he’ll obviously perpetuate the grift as soon as he is able and move on to another benefactor.

Also, if he doesn’t do what is asked what recourse would they have? He won’t be impeached (seen that twice now), he won’t die (we aren’t that lucky), he gets got (no one would do that, repercussions would be too immense). 
 

There’s no way to control him, everyone’s seen that already.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 3/7/2024 at 1:52 PM, dcbc said:

But don't get me started on the Cult of Garner and his convincing lawyers to put citations in the footnotes.

That’s where you put them when you don’t want anybody to look at em. And sometimes that’s helpful. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

It would appear that Trump is facing those "consequences" some of y'all have been waiting for.

He had a major meltdown on Truth social last night. 

and it continues this morning:

image.thumb.png.3568533b0dfca38f80eb138347c5582c.png

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

MAGA dolts are now saying Trump's "8th amendment rights" are being violated (that's cruel and unusual punishment for those like me who don't remember anything from school). 

I thought he was rich you fucking goobers?

  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
13 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Amazing doesn’t strike me as the most correct adjective 

There is apparently only one other adjective in American usage, incredible

My favorite use of that one is by newsmedia: incredibly believable, incredible accuracy, incredibly reliable source.

It's amazing how incredible it all is.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
6 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Plus, while everything with Trump is transactional, it’s all on his terms - you give him money, he gives you what he wants to give you, which may not be what you want. Just ask all of the contractors who have taken him to court, the January 6 idiots who end up with jail time and felony records while he fundraisers off of them, the people who relied on his failed businesses for a paycheck,  etc.

I recall that he offered one attorney to whom he owed more than a million dollars a racehorse. Trump said it was a great racehorse, so I'm sure it was.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I recall that he offered one attorney to whom he owed more than a million dollars a racehorse. Trump said it was a great racehorse, so I'm sure it was.

what about the limited edition Trump NFTs?

Posted
15 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I recall that he offered one attorney to whom he owed more than a million dollars a racehorse. Trump said it was a great racehorse, so I'm sure it was.

The horse is likely closer to being glue than a champion. 

Posted
1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

There is apparently only one other adjective in American usage, incredible

My favorite use of that one is by newsmedia: incredibly believable, incredible accuracy, incredibly reliable source.

It's amazing how incredible it all is.

What was that show in the 80’s like half-science, half reality show “It’s/That’s Incredible”??

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, The Dog said:

MAGA dolts are now saying Trump's "8th amendment rights" are being violated (that's cruel and unusual punishment for those like me who don't remember anything from school). 

I thought he was rich you fucking goobers?

They clearly aren't familiar with Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the imposition of a life sentence without parole for fraudulently obtaining an aggregate of $230 (spread across three separate offenses) under the Texas recidivism statute did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.  If that's not C&UP, very little seems to be.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

What was that show in the 80’s like half-science, half reality show “It’s/That’s Incredible”??

The most incredible thing on That’s Incredible was John Davidson’s hair.

That and somebody thought to pair Fran Tarkenton up with Davidson and Cathy Lee Crosby.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

MAGA dolts are now saying Trump's "8th amendment rights" are being violated (that's cruel and unusual punishment for those like me who don't remember anything from school). 

I thought he was rich you fucking goobers?

It's also "excessive fines," so not quite as foolish as it initially seems.  Still foolish af, though.

Posted
24 minutes ago, dcbc said:

They clearly aren't familiar with Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the imposition of a life sentence without parole for fraudulently obtaining an aggregate of $230 (spread across three separate offenses) under the Texas recidivism statute did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.  If that's not C&UP, very little seems to be.

The excessive fines portion of the 8th actually has a bit of vitality these days in the context of civil forfeiture.

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

There is apparently only one other adjective in American usage, incredible

My favorite use of that one is by newsmedia: incredibly believable, incredible accuracy, incredibly reliable source.

It's amazing how incredible it all is.

It means more than credible.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The excessive fines portion of the 8th actually has a bit of vitality these days in the context of civil forfeiture.

It seems like, in this case, the civil penalties have a pretty straight-forward, dollar-to-dollar correlation to the conduct.  So I'd guess it would be a pretty steep hill on appeal, all else being equal.  I haven't seen too many winning appellate arguments arising out of the 8th Amendment and don't recall seeing anything on the civil forfeiture side of things (not that that means anything).

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, dcbc said:

It seems like, in this case, the civil penalties have a pretty solid, dollar-to-dollar correlation to the conduct.  So I'd guess it would be a pretty steep hill on appeal, all else being equal.  I haven't seen too many winning appellate arguments arising out of the 8th Amendment and don't recall seeing anything on the civil forfeiture side of things (not that that means anything).

and they can use his and his lawyers' words against him (thanks again Alina!)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
49 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

*ole Donny will wriggle out of this one, nevertheless 

Politically he'll fundraise off of this (but it will all go to legal fees). So yeah he's "getting away with it" only in the sense it fires up his crazy base. 

Legally and financially?

He's fucked.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

 

image.thumb.png.3568533b0dfca38f80eb138347c5582c.png

No, this is how the system works.

And someone who's spent more hours in court than most lawyers knows it.

You fat fucking con.

Edited by TexArcher
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, dcbc said:

They clearly aren't familiar with Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that the imposition of a life sentence without parole for fraudulently obtaining an aggregate of $230 (spread across three separate offenses) under the Texas recidivism statute did not amount to cruel and unusual punishment.  If that's not C&UP, very little seems to be.

On Rummel- I tend to think Potter Stewart was right about that one. The policy was stupid and unjust to Rummel personally, but the procedure that produced the outcome, and the law, which IIRC Rummel did not challenge, was tolerable to the constitution. Or at least that’s the gist what I remember from reading his concurrence 30 years ago.

At any rate the appeals court got it right- a few months later a new trial was ordered, he wisely plead guilty and got time served. 
The constitution isn’t always the answer. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's also "excessive fines," so not quite as foolish as it initially seems.  Still foolish af, though.

 

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The excessive fines portion of the 8th actually has a bit of vitality these days in the context of civil forfeiture.

Why do I get the sense that @TwiceHorn is preparing us for some inevitably bad outcome and the orange shitstain is going to somehow wriggle out of this mess (again).

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, C-Man said:

Why do I get the sense that @TwiceHorn is preparing us for some inevitably bad outcome and the orange shitstain is going to somehow wriggle out of this mess (again).

chill out jethro he's been saying for a while that the fine will likely be reduced. 

remember Trump struggled to post the bond for the Carroll judgment. even if this one is cut in half he's likely screwed.

The real question is whether or not he starts selling assets for the bond because James has said she WILL start going after his shit starting Monday.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

Why do I get the sense that @TwiceHorn is preparing us for some inevitably bad outcome and the orange shitstain is going to somehow wriggle out of this mess (again).

I am worried about one thing on the fine.  The basis for it was the difference between loan terms with Trump's personal guarantee and without.  A more precise, and unknowable, measure would have been the difference in terms with a personal guarantee with Trump's accurate wealth disclosed versus the inflated wealth.

Also, quite a bit of loan activity was outside the statute of limitations, starting with the closing of all of them.  The "bad acts" within the statute of limitations were continued submission of false SFC as a loan requirement.   So, an even more precise calculation would have been loan terms had Trump not lied on SFC and those that he did.  In other words, how would the lenders have adjusted the loan, post-closing, had his true condition been known.   Both of these I think may be substantial frailties in the judgment.

The part about the 8th Amendment is just woolgathering.  The initial post referred only to cruel and unusual punishment, which is probably not the pertinent part of the 8th Amendment, and, as was pointed out, virtually nothing is cruel and unusual.  But, in some contexts, the excessive fines portion may have some teeth.  Whether that is here or not is a different story.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

and they can use his and his lawyers' words against him (thanks again Alina!)

I'm now curious whether they made any objection at trial or in post-trial motions that the civil penalties amounted to disproportionate punishment under the 8th Amendment.  I don't know about NY state, but you have to preserve that issue in Texas.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

Why do I get the sense that @TwiceHorn is preparing us for some inevitably bad outcome and the orange shitstain is going to somehow wriggle out of this mess (again).

Well, his response was to my post about a criminal sentence for a relatively minor series of offenses.  He was pointing out that the "penalty" language in the 8th Amendment applies to civil matters, such as forfeitures.  I imagine a lot of that may be quite applicable in federal drug cases and asset seizure/forfeiture.  I seem to think that even if this gets reduced on some basis, the nature of the case and the specific dollar amounts proven will make it pretty straight-forward to uphold against an 8th Amendment challenge. 

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

Not that I mind Trump getting tagged with a $83.3 million fine for defaming E. Jean Carroll, but how was that amount calculated?

Here's the verdict form.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/280/carroll-v-trump/

The actual calculation is done by the jury in a black box, but usually by adopting a number proposed by one side or the other.

The amounts:

General compensatory damages:  7.3M

Cost of reputation repair: 11M

Punitive damages:  65M

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am worried about one thing on the fine.  The basis for it was the difference between loan terms with Trump's personal guarantee and without.  A more precise, and unknowable, measure would have been the difference in terms with a personal guarantee with Trump's accurate wealth disclosed versus the inflated wealth.

The part about the 8th Amendment is just woolgathering.  The initial post referred only to cruel and unusual punishment, which is probably not the pertinent part of the 8th Amendment, and, as was pointed out, virtually nothing is cruel and unusual.  But, in some contexts, the excessive fines portion may have some teeth.  Whether that is here or not is a different story.

I was using "cruel and unusual" as a catch-all for the 8th, for what it's worth.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Well, his response was to my post about a criminal sentence for a relatively minor series of offenses.  He was pointing out that the "penalty" language in the 8th Amendment applies to civil matters, such as forfeitures.  I imagine a lot of that may be quite applicable in federal drug cases and asset seizure/forfeiture.  I seem to think that even if this gets reduced on some basis, the nature of the case and the specific dollar amounts proven will make it pretty straight-forward to uphold against an 8th Amendment challenge. 

Agreed.  As long as not insanely punitive, probably withstands 8th Amendment challenge.

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

Here's the verdict form.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/280/carroll-v-trump/

The actual calculation is done by the jury in a black box, but usually by adopting a number proposed by one side or the other.

The amounts:

General compensatory damages:  7.3M

Cost of reputation repair: 11M

Punitive damages:  65M

Thanks.  Do/can punitive damages scale with means?

Posted
22 hours ago, tbone_ said:


They’re smart enough to know he’ll welch and fuck them too when it come time to pay up.

If you are Russia or Saudi Arabia or whoever, you don't loan Donald Trump half a billion with the idea he'll pay you back with interest.  You pay him half a billion to be himself and damage, perhaps destroy, the post WWII U.S. leviathan.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I'm now curious whether they made any objection at trial or in post-trial motions that the civil penalties amounted to disproportionate punishment under the 8th Amendment.  I don't know about NY state, but you have to preserve that issue in Texas.

Yup. Surely it made it into post-trial motions if not briefing on the damages.  But with habba Dabba do, who knows.  Kise probably got it right.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man....Cathy Lee in her prime was 80s-riffic.

apiqm974r__35244.1625607302.jpg?c=2

Yeah, uhm, I'm just gonna have to disagree with you, there.

That looks incredible in any decade.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
On Rummel- I tend to think Potter Stewart was right about that one. The policy was stupid and unjust to Rummel personally, but the procedure that produced the outcome, and the law, which IIRC Rummel did not challenge, was tolerable to the constitution. Or at least that’s the gist what I remember from reading his concurrence 30 years ago.
At any rate the appeals court got it right- a few months later a new trial was ordered, he wisely plead guilty and got time served. 
The constitution isn’t always the answer. 
Fair enough. But the point remains that the 8th Amendment rarely is the basis for a winning argument on appeal in a punishment context.
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...