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
7 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Should a case, whether civil or criminal, rise to the threshold of threatening our Republic, let any and all appeals, or legitimate questions before the court, be decided post haste by the appropriate court, up to and Including SCOTUS. 

That's interesting.  Let's expound on the "threatening our democracy" definition outside of what we're now dealing with which surely would qualify.  We need a definition that survives all constitutional vaguness and overbreadth challenges. 

 

But this is a good start.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
One can sense that the system sucks without having the answers to fixing it.  I mean, we're lay people, we just have a sense of justice and that something about the justice system sucks if this guy can't ever get punished.  (Various financial hand slaps don't count.)
I tend to agree.  And if you want to continue to complain, be my guest.  But I'll still point out that it's not productive or that it doesn't make for interesting reading after a while.  Maybe we need a "The system is Broken" thread? I'd read it.

Posted
33 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I think it's just that the posts seem to preponderate heavily toward "the system is shit" and not so much of how the system should be rethought.  Without the how, it's just complaining, and to the extent that it's valid, it's pretty tiresome to read.  That doesn't mean some of us who are pretty familiar with the judicial system don't agree.  How to fix a "broken" system is a more interesting and useful discussion.

image.png.b6435781d8759b612fd51752c372e4c2.png

4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

That's interesting.  Let's expound on the "threatening our democracy" definition outside of what we're now dealing with which surely would qualify.  We need a definition that survives all constitutional vaguness and overbreadth challenges. 

 

But this is a good start.

Yeah, apparently we don't have any laws on the books to define what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 so we can't charge him appropriately and the XIV Amendment used to be self executing but according to this SCOTUS it isn't anymore.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Yeah, apparently we don't have any laws on the books to define what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 so we can't charge him appropriately and the XIV Amendment used to be self executing but according to this SCOTUS it isn't anymore.

 

We made it through 200 plus years without a person like the orange shit-stained gibbon being elected president.  And honestly, if the orange shit-stained gibbon was elected 20 40, 60 or 100 years ago, the senators and representatives who love their country and honor their oath would have impeached his ass.   

It is after all a bit much to ask the judicial branch to save the country from the legislative branch and its absolute betrayal of their oath. That was not something many people foresaw.  I still have problems, wrapping my head around how this happened so quickly, in a decade, and the only thing I can think of is that we elected a black man as President.

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

Me, everytime this Chicken-Little talk starts up again:

 

7782da0b-a5b2-4e49-9914-493d57a3f572_tex

 

 

It's not that I don't have the same worries/concerns.  But I will vote for the good guys in November and try to get others to do the same.  That is what I (and most of the rest of us) are able to do.  Apart from that, "Bitch, chill; be cool." 

I'll go all the way to the other side. We MUST defeat Trump in November and THEN lock him up. If the latter happens first, it will give his team everything they need to win the election.


Martyrdom is fucking powerful.

That's why it's so incredibly important that the courts dot every i and cross every t.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
I'll go all the way to the other side. We MUST defeat Trump in November and THEN lock him up. If the latter happens first, it will give his team everything they need to win the election.

Martyrdom is fucking powerful.
That's why it's so incredibly important that the courts dot every i and cross every t.

This. Lose a second time by a record margin, dipshit. Then go to jail, broke.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

This. Lose a second time by a record margin, dipshit. Then go to jail, broke.

Trump is always one step ahead. He has already booked a hotel in Crimea for his election headquarters.
Posted
2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so the system is working as designed, is what you are saying. what others are saying is that system is shit and needs to be rethought. both can be true.

Can be, yes. The problem here is that folks really, really want to skip the whole "innocent until proven guilty" mess. That they think Trump is somehow getting a benefit of the doubt no other person would get. Or that he doesn't DESERVE even the standard benefit of the doubt.

The problem is that the minute you skip a step in a rush to throw the guy away, you make a martyr out of him. And the second you do that, you LOSE.

They're already accusing the entire judiciary of being rigged, that these are kangaroo courts, a witch hunt. The worst thing we can do is give them any evidence to support that.

Fortunately, most of these prosecutors and judges get that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

We made it through 200 plus years without a person like the orange shit-stained gibbon being elected president.

Andrew Jackson says "hi"

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
so the system is working as designed, is what you are saying. what others are saying is that system is shit and needs to be rethought. both can be true.

Cool. Propose a new rule that would alleviate the current problems.
Posted
Should a case, whether civil or criminal, rise to the threshold of threatening our Republic, let any and all appeals, or legitimate questions before the court, be decided post haste by the appropriate court, up to and Including SCOTUS. 

Ok. So we have a separate preliminary hearing on the “threat to the republic” legal standard? What burden of proof should be used and should that question go to a jury or nah?

What would be the elements to meet that burden? Only POTUS elections? Does the timing relative to an upcoming election matter? What if the defendant is not yet the named nominee for said election?
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It's been noted here before with respect to "the rule of law" (the judicial branch of the government), but really, it's true for both of the other branches (legislative and executive): our system of government is built on a foundation of mutual agreement (I'll follow the rules, and so will you) and trust.  It just is.  It's one of the things that makes it really great....when it works.  It is also a thing that makes it vulnerable.

 

If only there were a whole profession with super high barriers to entry and published, widely understood and adopted rules for professional conduct and discipline that could do something about that.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
Posted

For your enjoyment

Judge in Trump hush money case quashes last-minute defense subpoena

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's criminal hush money case quashed a last-minute subpoena by defense lawyers Friday, writing that the former president's request was the "very definition of a fishing expedition."

Trump's lawyers last month subpoenaed NBCUniversal for materials related to their documentary about adult film star Stormy Daniels, which was scheduled to be released one week before the case's original trial date of March 25.

Daniels is expected to testify at trial about the hush money payment she received in 2016 for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump that the former president has long denied. Trump has pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with the payment, which Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen made to Daniels just days before the 2016 presidential election.

Jury selection for the trial is scheduled to get underway April 15 in New York City. The former president has denied all wrongdoing.

Defending their subpoena to NBCUniversal, Trump's lawyers argued that the requested records would "establish collusion between NBCU and Daniels" to release the documentary "as close to the start of the trial as possible to prejudice Defendant and maximize their own financial interest."

In his ruling Friday, Judge Juan Merchan quashed the subpoena and described Trump's arguments as "purely speculative." Evidence submitted by an NBC executive demonstrated that Daniels lacked control over the timing of and material included in the documentary, Merchan concluded.

"Because Defendant's claims are purely speculative and unsupported, his subpoena and the demands therein are the very definition of a fishing expedition," Merchan said.

"The Court has considered Defendant's explanation for seeking this court's permission to rifle through the privileged documents of a news organization and finds that he has not shouldered the very heavy burden necessary to overcome NY civil rights law," the judge wrote.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If only there were a whole profession with super high barriers to entry and published, widely understood and adopted rules for professional conduct and discipline that could do something about that.

You mean....rules that are just like our overall Rule of Law, our Legislative rules and procedures, and the laws and rules governing the Executive branch?  Like those rules?  All of which, when you finally get down to it, presume some modicum of good faith and trust?

That's my point.  All of it -- ALL OF IT, THE WHOLE FUCKING REPUBLIC -- is just an agreement.  When enough participants revoke their consent to operate under that agreement, it's over.  When a critical mass opt out of the rule of law, it's the rule of the gun.  That's my whole point.  The rules governing lawyers are just imaginary shit printed on disposable paper, just like EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOVERNS SOCIETY.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

You mean....rules that are just like our overall Rule of Law, our Legislative rules and procedures, and the laws and rules governing the Executive branch?  Like those rules?  All of which, when you finally get down to it, presume some modicum of good faith and trust?

That's my point.  All of it -- ALL OF IT, THE WHOLE FUCKING REPUBLIC -- is just an agreement.  When enough participants revoke their consent to operate under that agreement, it's over.  When a critical mass opt out of the rule of law, it's the rule of the gun.  That's my whole point.  The rules governing paper are just imaginary shit printed on disposable paper, just like EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOVERNS SOCIETY.

I certainly agree that we're running out of firewalls. 

Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

I certainly agree that we're running out of firewalls. 

And maybe you can understand the immense frustration of people who have built their entire lives and careers on navigating known and knowable rules, now being told the fucking rules of the game are Calvinball.  There have been quite a few occasions when I am simply unable to give my clients sound advice, to tell them what the likely outcome of a situation is.  I can literally ask the question "what would be the most popular outcome on Fox News?", and that's what will fucking happen.

The problem with the fucking authoritarian shitbag Trumpists is that they want to change the rules to have just one rule: "the most powerful group does whatever the fuck it wants."  The problem is, they're so fucking dumb and short-sighted that they can't even conceive of the reality that even if they are the dominant group today, they won't be the dominant group forever.  And once you've made "he who has the power does what he wants" the rule....and you've spent the past several years cruelly imposing your will on everyone else....well, payback is a fucking BITCH.

All the MAGAs are doing is guaranteeing lots of pain and blood....their own included, eventually.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And maybe you can understand the immense frustration of people who have built their entire lives and careers on navigating known and knowable rules, now being told the fucking rules of the game are Calvinball.  There have been quite a few occasions when I am simply unable to give my clients sound advice, to tell them what the likely outcome of a situation is.  I can literally ask the question "what would be the most popular outcome on Fox News?", and that's what will fucking happen.

The problem with the fucking authoritarian shitbag Trumpists is that they want to change the rules to have just one rule: "the most powerful group does whatever the fuck it wants."  The problem is, they're so fucking dumb and short-sighted that they can't even conceive of the reality that even if they are the dominant group today, they won't be the dominant group forever.  And once you've made "he who has the power does what he wants" the rule....and you've spent the past several years cruelly imposing your will on everyone else....well, payback is a fucking BITCH.

All the MAGAs are doing is guaranteeing lots of pain and blood....their own included, eventually.

I'm always pleased, particularly here in my dotage, that my practice involves little to no politics and minimal human misery, pain, and suffering.

Posted
1 hour ago, scottsins said:


Ok. So we have a separate preliminary hearing on the “threat to the republic” legal standard? What burden of proof should be used and should that question go to a jury or nah?

What would be the elements to meet that burden? Only POTUS elections? Does the timing relative to an upcoming election matter? What if the defendant is not yet the named nominee for said election?

Nah, we employ the loosest standard imaginable and grease wheels. Burden of proof becomes what is a conceivable circumstance. .After all, my proposal does nothing but speed up answers to questions, and infringes not one iota on a defendant, but is (preferably actionably)* proactive in protecting the Republic. INAL; call the hounds and hunt.

*Meaning that unnecessary delay is pure FA,, and FO stars with removal.
 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm always pleased, particularly here in my dotage, that my practice involves little to no politics and minimal human misery, pain, and suffering.

hmm, i should give that a shot

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Future lawsuits ….

 

Well, we can unpack this ball of insanity over the weekend.  But a few initial thoughts:

0:40 mark.  How the fuck do you sue a private university endowment?  You can certainly sue an actual institution, but does the smartest businessman ever not understand how endowments are almost categorically-are run by OCIO's/managers?  Like you can sue the University of Texas for lack of safety or promoting hazing.  Or you can sue UTIMCO if you feel they've purposely mishandled assets or engaged in fraud.  But you can't sue UTIMCO because it supports "wokeness" or some questionable courses or allowing anti-Israeli demonstrations or whatever.  How the fuck does his team not now that?  There are literally thousands of examples across the nation, both public and private.  

1:16 mark.  What the fuck is "Nanchent History?"  

1:43 mark.  Can someone tell me about any U.S. university or college offers degrees in "Jihadism"? 

I mean, I know this guy's a fucking idiot, but there had to be one person on his team with a 90 IQ that proof-read this transcript and thought, "Yeah, I don't know sir if we should go with 'college courses in terrorism.'  "

 

Edited by YGIFS
  • Haha 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Can someone tell me about any U.S. university or college offers degrees in "Jihadism"? 

1) I am not aware of such thing.

2) Had such a course been on offer back in my college days, and had I assessed that for some reason, it was full of hot coed ass....I'd have signed up.  I'd at least have stuck with it till the add/drop deadline.

Because college Brisket was a pretty linear thinker.

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

1) I am not aware of such thing.

2) Had such a course been on offer back in my college days, and had I assessed that for some reason, it was full of hot coed ass....I'd have signed up.  I'd at least have stuck with it till the add/drop deadline.

Because college Brisket was a pretty linear thinker.

Yeah, I think I ass-essed I should add and drop my jihadzz to this hot coed.  Ah, dammit.  I had something for this.  

Posted
3 hours ago, tbone_ said:


This. Lose a second time by a record margin, dipshit. Then go to jail, broke.

You've been reading my letters to Santa.

Posted
10 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Well, we can unpack this ball of insanity over the weekend.  But a few initial thoughts:

0:40 mark.  How the fuck do you sue a private university endowment?  You can certainly sue an actual institution, but does the smartest businessman ever not understand how endowments are almost categorically-are run by OCIO's/managers?  Like you can sue the University of Texas for lack of safety or promoting hazing.  Or you can sue UTIMCO if you feel they've purposely mishandled assets or engaged in fraud.  But you can't sue UTIMCO because it supports "wokeness" or some questionable courses or allowing anti-Israeli demonstrations or whatever.  How the fuck does his team not now that?  There are literally thousands of examples across the nation, both public and private.  

1:16 mark.  What the fuck is "Nanchent History?"  

1:43 mark.  Can someone tell me about any U.S. university or college offers degrees in "Jihadism"? 

I mean, I know this guy's a fucking idiot, but there had to be one person on his team with a 90 IQ that proof-read this transcript and thought, "Yeah, I don't know sir if we should go with 'college courses in terrorism.'  "

 

You do know that it doesn't matter if those points are factual and no one on his staff cares if the are or not.  It's only supposed to be inflammatory.  At some point, you have to understand that pointing out/worrying about factual errors is a waste of your time. 

I spent some time yesterday fact checking a Closeted Trumpkin, he just got upset and angry... (he tells me he's not political, but has trump memes on his phone)  I called him out on it...  I did not change his mind at all.  It was really mad/saddening, at some point soon I'm just going stop spending any time with him.

One funny/sad exchange... He was talking about being proud of the rebel flag, and "it is our heritage!"  He thought it was wrong that people disrespected their memory... "They fought and died for this country" 

my response... "they were fucking traitors who fought to destroy the US."  Then he changed the subject to something equally stupid and sad.

  • Like 4
Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If only there were a whole profession with super high barriers to entry and published, widely understood and adopted rules for professional conduct and discipline that could do something about that.

Realtors?  Chiropractors?

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You mean....rules that are just like our overall Rule of Law, our Legislative rules and procedures, and the laws and rules governing the Executive branch?  Like those rules?  All of which, when you finally get down to it, presume some modicum of good faith and trust?

That's my point.  All of it -- ALL OF IT, THE WHOLE FUCKING REPUBLIC -- is just an agreement.  When enough participants revoke their consent to operate under that agreement, it's over.  When a critical mass opt out of the rule of law, it's the rule of the gun.  That's my whole point.  The rules governing lawyers are just imaginary shit printed on disposable paper, just like EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOVERNS SOCIETY.

 

1*b5-0IPjuBrd4otMLVgJ8wA.gif

 

Ixnay on the isposableday aperpay

 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm always pleased, particularly here in my dotage, that my practice involves little to no politics and minimal human misery, pain, and suffering.

Me, too.  And work for elected officials.  And I check my personal politics at the door when I do my job because politics has no place in the interpretation of the law.  It's also why I push back at the notion that the overall system is broken.  Ain't nothing broken leaving my desk.  It might be "wrong."  Occasionally it has been declared as such by some guys and gals down in Austin.  But even when it's declared "wrong," it's not emblematic of a broken system.

Edited by dcbc
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
Just now, locodos said:

You do know that it doesn't matter if those points are factual and no one on his staff cares if the are or not.  It's only supposed to be inflammatory.  At some point, you have to understand that pointing out/worrying about factual errors is a waste of your time. 

I spent some time yesterday fact checking a Closeted Trumpkin, he just got upset and angry... (he tells me he's not political, but has trump memes on his phone)  I called him out on it...  I did not change his mind at all.  It was really mad/saddening, at some point soon I'm just going stop spending any time with him.

One funny/sad exchange... He was talking about being proud of the rebel flag, and "it is our heritage!"  He thought it was wrong that people disrespected their memory... "They fought and died for this country" 

my response... "they were fucking traitors who fought to destroy the US."  Then he changed the subject to something equally stupid and sad.

Yeah, I know it's not gonna switch any voters from his side to Biden's.  I just have to laugh because it's becoming more and more apparent that he's in massive cognitive decline because of everything that's circling around him over the past year.  We can easily see what's happening.  He's insisting upon these bizarre messages in video/rally/tweet form.  Say what you will about the moral abyss of his staff, somebody there has to know most of this stuff is complete bullshit but he then tells them they're going through it anyway.  And that's the icing on the cake---when somebody is clearly on decline from stress, bad health, and sleep deprivation insists they are fine and ignores health...that's when they are fucked.  Particularly when you combine it with narcissistic sociopathy and old age.  Nobody is gonna switch their vote, but stuff like this does two things that are net gains:  It proves he is dying faster than people thought (humblebrag, I called this awhile bag).  And it may cause a few million of his middle 1/3rd of voters to to think, "Oh this fucking guy, I just can't anymore."  And they stay home.  Straight ticket old-school GOP'ers gonna pull 25 million levers.  Sadistic MAGA lunatics gonna pull 25 million voters.  More and more shit like this could just be enough of to get a few of that middle 25 million to stop holding their nose and say "Nope, Biden sucks and is old.  And maybe our guy is too.  I don't care enough about the local Justice of the Peace election.  Just gonna work through lunch that day...  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

And maybe you can understand the immense frustration of people who have built their entire lives and careers on navigating known and knowable rules, now being told the fucking rules of the game are Calvinball.  There have been quite a few occasions when I am simply unable to give my clients sound advice, to tell them what the likely outcome of a situation is.  I can literally ask the question "what would be the most popular outcome on Fox News?", and that's what will fucking happen.

The problem with the fucking authoritarian shitbag Trumpists is that they want to change the rules to have just one rule: "the most powerful group does whatever the fuck it wants."  The problem is, they're so fucking dumb and short-sighted that they can't even conceive of the reality that even if they are the dominant group today, they won't be the dominant group forever.  And once you've made "he who has the power does what he wants" the rule....and you've spent the past several years cruelly imposing your will on everyone else....well, payback is a fucking BITCH.

All the MAGAs are doing is guaranteeing lots of pain and blood....their own included, eventually.

Without saying who (obviously), what sorts of clients/cases are these.  I'm obviously in a different part of the state (different world, let's face it), but I don't tend to see a lot of a political undertones on much of what we see around here.  That is to say, what kind of civil cases get an obvious yea or nay from the MAGA juror?

Edited by dcbc
Posted
4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Without saying who (obviously), what sorts of clients/cases are these.  I'm obviously in a different part of the state, but I don't tend to see a lot of a political on much of what we get around here.

I believe he represents mostly Jihadist Universities. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

I believe he represents mostly Jihadist Universities. 

Well played.  My dogs are wondering why I'm staring at a screen and laughing my head off.

 

Also, I assume that means he represents UT (to quote aggy)

Edited by dcbc
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I believe he represents mostly Jihadist Universities. 

Can you imagine being a professor when it comes time to pass out the grades or Fatwahs?

 

You'd have to expect some blowback

 

Edited by locodos
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, locodos said:

Can you imagine being a professor when it comes time to pass out the grades or Fatwahs?

 

You'd have to expect some blowback

 

Fatwah 101 sounds like pass/fail.  The ultimate pass/fail.

 

But if you pass, you get 72.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, tbone_ said:


I mean if we’re making up fantasies

A buddy of mine used to joke (I presume) that if your search term is more than five words, you're a proper pervert.  But that's probably a conversation for a different thread on a forum that does not exist here.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I believe he represents mostly Jihadist Universities. 

Hey Mohammed, what's this I hear you're having problems with your TPS homework?  

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Hey Mohammed, what's this I hear you're having problems with your TPS homework?  

giphy.gif

 

You should have seen what happened to him after the self-portrait he turned in in art class.

Edited by dcbc
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted

He got an 'A' on it, to be fair.  I mean, they killed him.  But still, an 'A' with that asshole professor is really impressive.  

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If only there were a whole profession with super high barriers to entry and published, widely understood and adopted rules for professional conduct and discipline that could do something about that.

image.png.a39f16337731a7948e596e328fdf7d53.png

Posted
51 minutes ago, locodos said:

One funny/sad exchange... He was talking about being proud of the rebel flag, and "it is our heritage!"  He thought it was wrong that people disrespected their memory... "They fought and died for this country" 

my response... "they were fucking traitors who fought to destroy the US."  Then he changed the subject to something equally stupid and sad.

A whole lost of these people don’t have any such heritage - their ancestors came well after the Civil War, or were in the North at the time.

And nearly 10% of deaths in the Civil war were from people shitting themselves to death.  Not very glorious and what a heritage - a shitload of them didn’t die fighting for states rights, they died because Jeff Davis couldn’t get them fresh food or because some dumbasses couldn’t help but construct their latrines near water, thereby fucking everybody downstream. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

A whole lost of these people don’t have any such heritage - their ancestors came well after the Civil War, or were in the North at the time.

And nearly 10% of deaths in the Civil war were from people shitting themselves to death.  Not very glorious and what a heritage - a shitload of them didn’t die fighting for states rights, they died because Jeff Davis couldn’t get them fresh food or because some dumbasses couldn’t help but construct their latrines near water, thereby fucking everybody downstream. 

 

Donald Trump makes some people, who don't have much going for them, feel (through lies) like, hey, there's someone that is lower on the hill down which shit slides than I am.  That's like 67% of the Trump supports by my unsubstantiated calculations.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Should a case, whether civil or criminal, rise to the threshold of threatening our Republic, let any and all appeals, or legitimate questions before the court, be decided post haste by the appropriate court, up to and Including SCOTUS. 

Dotard's suit against Colorado removing him from the ballot got resolved real fucking fast.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Future lawsuits ….

 

So it turns out Roseanne Barr was giving great advice about not attending college.



×
×
  • Create New...