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

Yeah. A pure question of law with no facts in dispute will usually work like that.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, scottsins said:


Yeah. A pure question of law with no facts in dispute will usually work like that.

Plus, they were actually at a date where they had to issue ballots, and once they made them, they could not retract it so it was paramount that the decision be decided before that event,

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
8 hours ago, tbone_ said:


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

Or just get stage 4 face eating cancer and die from a massive coronary the after 30 days of being immobilized by agonizing pain. That'll work too.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
14 hours 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.

Texas A&M is probably the closest.   

Whoop!

Posted

oh that bond?!

 

Trump saved millions by keeping court in dark about billionaire's bond offer

 

  • After his team cited hardship in securing funding, Trump's civil fraud trial bond was cut to $175 million.
  • ProPublica reported a billionaire businessman offered to post the original $464 million amount due.
  • By failing to report the offer, Trump's legal team may have violated ethics rules, ProPublica found.

Donald Trump's recent complaints about being unable to afford his civil fraud trial bond may have been misleading to the court, according to a new report from ProPublica.

The outlet reported Friday that, despite Trump's legal team calling the original $464 million an "impossible bond requirement" and claiming he'd been rejected by 30 firms he'd approached to raise the money, the former president had already received an offer from billionaire businessman Don Hankey to post the full amount.

"I saw that they were rejected by everyone, and I said, 'Gee, that doesn't seem like a difficult bond to post,'" Hankey told ProPublica. Hankey told the outlet he reached out to Trump's representatives days before the bond was lowered, expressing a willingness to use real estate as collateral for the loan — which Trump's lawyers indicated other firms were unwilling to do.

The bond was ultimately slashed to $175 million, saving Trump hundreds of millions of dollars, before it was posted by Knight Specialty Insurance Company, Hankey's business.

Hankey told the outlet that, though he is a Trump supporter, he would have done the deal regardless of his personal beliefs. He suggested the former president was struggling to secure an appeal bond not because he lacked the liquidity to back the deal but because, for public companies, "maybe you don't want to offend 45% of the population" by visibly backing Trump.

It remains unclear whether Trump's legal team was aware of negotiations between Hankey and Trump's representatives to post the full $464 million amount, which was underway when the bond was reduced. However, legal experts told Business Insider, that if his lawyers knew about the offer and failed to notify the court, they may have violated ethics rules.

After the outlet contacted Trump's representatives, Hankey reached back out to ProPublica. In the second conversation, he told ProPublica that accepting Trump's real estate as collateral would have been complicated, and the deal would have been "difficult."

What happens now?
According to the New York State Bar Association, attorneys are bound to the NY Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court.

"Attorneys who violate the law or fail to abide by this code of conduct are subject to discipline, which may include admonishment, reprimand, censure, suspension or loss of his or her license to practice law," the NYSBA website reads.

Two legal experts told Business Insider that if Trump's attorneys knew of the negotiations surrounding Hankey's offer as they appealed to the court for a lower bond amount, it would likely be an ethics violation.

"If Trump's lawyers knew it was possible for him to secure a bond for the full amount when they filed their appeal, then their misrepresentation may be an ethics violation and a fraud on the court," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Business Insider. However, he noted it would be difficult to prove what Trump's lawyers knew and when they knew it.

Andrew Lieb, a litigation attorney and legal analyst, told Business Insider the conduct of Trump's attorneys in this matter appears to be "a clear violation" of rule 3.3 of the NY Rules of Professional Conduct, which states lawyers shall not knowingly make false statements of fact to the court and that they shall make "reasonable remedial measures," including disclosure to the court if they come to know of a falsehood.

"Should Trump's lawyers be found to violate this rule, they should expect an ethics charge be levied against them, which can result in anything from a private letter in their file all the way up to a suspension from practice," Lieb told BI.

He added: "Moreover, the timing of when they found out isn't relevant because according to the rule, they need to take reasonable remedial measures to correct the falsity of the evidence or statement, even if they learned of it after the fact."

The Trump campaign, lawyers representing the former president in his civil fraud case, and Knight Specialty Insurance Company representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

Posted
18 hours ago, Rimbo said:

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.

My problem with this, specifically with January 6th, is WE ALL SAW HIM COMMIT THE OFFENSE IN REAL TIME.  Oh, maybe he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol?  YES HE DID.  WE ALL WATCHED IT.

It's just frustrating to have to pretend all this shit didn't happen because of some decorum of "law" that has to be followed because reasons and slippery slopes.  God dammit, the motherfucker was on video.  

I guarantee if someone were on video assassinating a president, that person would be in prison until trial and I bet the trial would be over within weeks.  But nope, this motherfucker gets to run for president instead.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
17 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

My problem with this, specifically with January 6th, is WE ALL SAW HIM COMMIT THE OFFENSE IN REAL TIME.  Oh, maybe he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol?  YES HE DID.  WE ALL WATCHED IT.

It's just frustrating to have to pretend all this shit didn't happen because of some decorum of "law" that has to be followed because reasons and slippery slopes.  God dammit, the motherfucker was on video.  

I guarantee if someone were on video assassinating a president, that person would be in prison until trial and I bet the trial would be over within weeks.  But nope, this motherfucker gets to run for president instead.

The problem with that is that what he did on January 6, alone, is not a crime.  You have to know and be able to prove his intention on January 6, which includes all the background activity and run-up to January 6.  None of that was on video, but apparently some of it was on audio.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, locodos said:

oh that bond?!

 

Trump saved millions by keeping court in dark about billionaire's bond offer

 

  • After his team cited hardship in securing funding, Trump's civil fraud trial bond was cut to $175 million.
  • ProPublica reported a billionaire businessman offered to post the original $464 million amount due.
  • By failing to report the offer, Trump's legal team may have violated ethics rules, ProPublica found.

Donald Trump's recent complaints about being unable to afford his civil fraud trial bond may have been misleading to the court, according to a new report from ProPublica.

The outlet reported Friday that, despite Trump's legal team calling the original $464 million an "impossible bond requirement" and claiming he'd been rejected by 30 firms he'd approached to raise the money, the former president had already received an offer from billionaire businessman Don Hankey to post the full amount.

"I saw that they were rejected by everyone, and I said, 'Gee, that doesn't seem like a difficult bond to post,'" Hankey told ProPublica. Hankey told the outlet he reached out to Trump's representatives days before the bond was lowered, expressing a willingness to use real estate as collateral for the loan — which Trump's lawyers indicated other firms were unwilling to do.

The bond was ultimately slashed to $175 million, saving Trump hundreds of millions of dollars, before it was posted by Knight Specialty Insurance Company, Hankey's business.

Hankey told the outlet that, though he is a Trump supporter, he would have done the deal regardless of his personal beliefs. He suggested the former president was struggling to secure an appeal bond not because he lacked the liquidity to back the deal but because, for public companies, "maybe you don't want to offend 45% of the population" by visibly backing Trump.

It remains unclear whether Trump's legal team was aware of negotiations between Hankey and Trump's representatives to post the full $464 million amount, which was underway when the bond was reduced. However, legal experts told Business Insider, that if his lawyers knew about the offer and failed to notify the court, they may have violated ethics rules.

After the outlet contacted Trump's representatives, Hankey reached back out to ProPublica. In the second conversation, he told ProPublica that accepting Trump's real estate as collateral would have been complicated, and the deal would have been "difficult."

What happens now?
According to the New York State Bar Association, attorneys are bound to the NY Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court.

"Attorneys who violate the law or fail to abide by this code of conduct are subject to discipline, which may include admonishment, reprimand, censure, suspension or loss of his or her license to practice law," the NYSBA website reads.

Two legal experts told Business Insider that if Trump's attorneys knew of the negotiations surrounding Hankey's offer as they appealed to the court for a lower bond amount, it would likely be an ethics violation.

"If Trump's lawyers knew it was possible for him to secure a bond for the full amount when they filed their appeal, then their misrepresentation may be an ethics violation and a fraud on the court," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Business Insider. However, he noted it would be difficult to prove what Trump's lawyers knew and when they knew it.

Andrew Lieb, a litigation attorney and legal analyst, told Business Insider the conduct of Trump's attorneys in this matter appears to be "a clear violation" of rule 3.3 of the NY Rules of Professional Conduct, which states lawyers shall not knowingly make false statements of fact to the court and that they shall make "reasonable remedial measures," including disclosure to the court if they come to know of a falsehood.

"Should Trump's lawyers be found to violate this rule, they should expect an ethics charge be levied against them, which can result in anything from a private letter in their file all the way up to a suspension from practice," Lieb told BI.

He added: "Moreover, the timing of when they found out isn't relevant because according to the rule, they need to take reasonable remedial measures to correct the falsity of the evidence or statement, even if they learned of it after the fact."

The Trump campaign, lawyers representing the former president in his civil fraud case, and Knight Specialty Insurance Company representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

Lmao, add it to the list. Still waiting for him to get in trouble for violating gag orders

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem with that is that what he did on January 6, alone, is not a crime. 

Is there nothing like "failure to render aid", when the POTUS sends a mob to the capitol, and then refuses to offer assistance (because he is in league with the mob) while it and all of our elected leaders are under attack? How on earth is that not criminal?

Posted
16 hours ago, YGIFS said:

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...  

I don't think this proves his cognitive decline as much as it's just another GQP dogwhistle that appeals to the lowest common denominator in our society.

This shit sells. That's all you need to know about garbage like this.

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

Is there nothing like "failure to render aid", when the POTUS sends a mob to the capitol, and then refuses to offer assistance (because he is in league with the mob) while it and all of our elected leaders are under attack? How on earth is that not criminal?

It is more like the case where a violent, abusive husband says he is going to kill his wife and she runs out of the house towards you standing there, carrying your loaded 45.  If you stand there and do nothing, and watch her be beaten to death, that is not a crime. At least I’m not aware of any crime that would fit the bill.

I am aware of cases that say that law-enforcement is not criminally liable for failing to stop a crime. And that is their job. It is universally a crime to do something illegal - not to watch others do something illegal and not act. The closest criminal circumstance I can think of would be misprision of a felony, where you have a duty to report a crime you know of, and fail to do so. Which is different from failing to prevent the crime itself and after the fact. 

 

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

It is more like the case where a violent, abusive husband says he is going to kill his wife and she runs out of the house towards you standing there, carrying your loaded 45.  If you stand there and do nothing, and watch her be beaten to death, that is not a crime. At least I’m not aware of any crime that would fit the bill.

I am aware of cases that say that law-enforcement is not criminally liable for failing to stop a crime. And that is their job. It is universally a crime to do something illegal - not to watch others do something illegal and not act. The closest criminal circumstance I can think of would be misprision of a felony, where you have a duty to report a crime you know of, and fail to do so. Which is different from failing to prevent the crime itself and after the fact. 

 

But... he sent them there. It would be more like if a guy sent all of his buddies to murder his wife, and then stood there and watched it happen. 

I mean, if he had immediately tweeted out "Oh no no, you misunderstood me! I meant a non-violent protest! Stop what you're doing right now and leave!" etc. etc. But he didn't. In fact, he mocked the people begging him for help, hiding inside the capitol from the angry mob that HE CREATED, and then sent there. 

Edited by Red Five
Posted
17 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

It is more like the case where a violent, abusive husband says he is going to kill his wife and she runs out of the house towards you standing there, carrying your loaded 45.  If you stand there and do nothing, and watch her be beaten to death, that is not a crime. At least I’m not aware of any crime that would fit the bill.

I am aware of cases that say that law-enforcement is not criminally liable for failing to stop a crime. And that is their job. It is universally a crime to do something illegal - not to watch others do something illegal and not act. The closest criminal circumstance I can think of would be misprision of a felony, where you have a duty to report a crime you know of, and fail to do so. Which is different from failing to prevent the crime itself and after the fact. 

 

George Costanza Seinfeld GIF

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

IMG_2520.gif.55f5b03e9f2eeddff29d53d0e8dd0fc9.gif

Ok, give me another option then.  Because we have already concluded that the current system is going to move too slowly to stop the fascist train from running on time.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok, give me another option then.  Because we have already concluded that the current system is going to move too slowly to stop the fascist train from running on time.

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

Posted
15 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

Yea but Lincoln also had an actual honest-to-goodness shooting war going on at that point AND all he had out there information wise was word of mouth and newspapers that most people didn't get. 

Posted
Just now, Surly Bevo said:

Yea but Lincoln also had an actual honest-to-goodness shooting war going on at that point AND all he had out there information wise was word of mouth and newspapers that most people didn't get. 

No argument. Not advocating a suspension of habeus. I would like to see all appeals expedited. SCOTUS’ scheduling the immunity appeal on its last day of oral arguments ought be actionable.

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

This would put Trump and his minions on the actual moral and correct side of the law if they were to engage in a Civil War after this happened. Lincoln also did the equivalent of putting the Fox News organization in jail, or at least shutting down their operations during the war. Lincoln absolutely violated the constitution in a number of fundamental and abhorrent ways.

We can’t devolve to a scenario where we are doing things just as constitutionally inappropriate as he did, or Trump does now, because, “our team.”.   “Because it helps my side” is not a reason to do unconstitutional things.   I am not a serious student of Lincoln, but I have never run across anything that led me to believe that Lincoln’s several unconstitutional executive orders during the Civil War was key to our winning that war.    It certainly drove some Lincoln supporters into Lincoln opponents because of him doing that

I don’t think those are options we need to consider. Every one of us sitting here bitching about this needs to track down 10 non-registered people and get them to vote - and have each of them track down people and get them to register to vote. And then we all vote the fuck stick away from politics for the rest of his life, and his followers will give up and go away without him as a figurehead. If not, in another 10 or 15 years, most of them will be dead.

Edited by Gatorubet
sorry dude. I was too busy being verbose to realize you had posted your response.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

And that order was unconstitutional almost without doubt and anyone imprisoned under it could commence lengthy litigation to so establish, likely being freed along the way. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This would put Trump and his minions on the actual moral and correct side of the law if they were to engage in a Civil War after this happened. Lincoln also did the equivalent of putting the Fox News organization in jail, or at least shutting down their operations during the war. Lincoln absolutely violated the constitution in a number of fundamental and abhorrent ways.

We can’t devolve to a scenario where we are doing things just as constitutionally inappropriate as he did, or Trump does now, because, “our team.”.   “Because it helps my side” is not a reason to do unconstitutional things.   I am not a serious student of Lincoln, but I have never run across anything that led me to believe that Lincoln’s several unconstitutional executive orders during the Civil War was key to our winning that war.    It certainly drove some Lincoln supporters into Lincoln opponents because of him doing that

I don’t think those are options we need to consider. Every one of us sitting here bitching about this needs to track down 10 non-registered people and get them to vote - and have each of them track down people and get them to register to vote. And then we all vote the fuck stick away from politics for the rest of his life, and his followers will give up and go away without him as a figurehead. If not, in another 10 or 15 years, most of them will be dead.

Were Biden to suspend habeus, it would drive me away from supporting him.  I appreciate, very much, living in a society governed by the rule of law. Lincoln’s action was based on a need for urgency, however, and I wish the same sense of urgency was driving the judicial branch’s actions on all things related to 1/6, the GA rico case, and the document case.

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

And that order was unconstitutional almost without doubt and anyone imprisoned under it could commence lengthy litigation to so establish, likely being freed along the way. 

No argument here. Never said it was the right option.

Posted
33 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

No fuck that.  Dems are the actual law and order party... and the party of fiscal responsibility, national defense, science, liberty, democracy, education ...

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

It's just fucking insane that apparently our options are either "suspend habeas corpus" or "let trump repeatedly abuse the justice system with unchecked lies". What the fucking fuck? It's like y'all have this weird blind spot that makes you think trump is always acting in good faith when he NEVER fucking has

Posted

For 91 indictments and a half dozen civil cases they are moving faster than what I would expect, and only one finding a bad judge is pretty decent, there way more than that on the bench. The problem isn’t the legal system, he’ll get convicted, and the judgments will be affirmed. The problem is that 80 million shitstain Americans will still vote for him and an entire political party hails him as their undisputed king. No legal system can fix that, if that’s what the mob wants, well then, just end this country and let states figure out if they want to be democracies or dictatorships. I’ll be moving to a place where the majority are willing to act like civilized adults.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
16 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Plus, they were actually at a date where they had to issue ballots, and once they made them, they could not retract it so it was paramount that the decision be decided before that event,

But if his traitorous ass wins the general election we just have to sit here and eat a shit sandwich, because reasons?

Posted
46 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And that order was unconstitutional almost without doubt and anyone imprisoned under it could commence lengthy litigation to so establish, likely being freed along the way. 

So today’s traitors can regain their freedom 20 years from now.  What’s the downside in this specific case?

Im not advocating suspending HC, but speed the fuck up people.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

"I will gladly become a modern day Nelson Mandela"?  Dah fuh?  Is fucking Larry the Cable guy the editor who proofs his shit before it gets sent out?  Between the long prison sentence and then being dead, does he know fact one about history?  

Posted
Is there nothing like "failure to render aid", when the POTUS sends a mob to the capitol, and then refuses to offer assistance (because he is in league with the mob) while it and all of our elected leaders are under attack? How on earth is that not criminal?

Yea but Lincoln also had an actual honest-to-goodness shooting war going on at that point AND all he had out there information wise was word of mouth and newspapers that most people didn't get. 


What Trump and his army, acting at his behest and functionally under his command did is only partly criminal. The individuals who actually trespassed assaulted cops, etc, committed some crimes.

But what was done as a whole was not a criminal endeavor…it was a rebellion.

And Lincoln DEFINITELY showed us how to deal with a rebellion: you kill the fuck out of the rebels. You shoot them and keep shooting them until their bodies fill the field. He didn’t try to arrest them. He didn’t bring them up on charges. He sent the forces of the United States to kill rebels. It was the right thing to do then, we should have done it again on January 6, and we should do it if they ever try it again. Mow them down. Shoot them as they panic and run. Just like we did at Gettysburg.

You don’t arrest traitors actively committing rebellion.. You kill them. Don’t treat it like a criminal justice problem, because that’s not what it is.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted
It's just fucking insane that apparently our options are either "suspend habeas corpus" or "let trump repeatedly abuse the justice system with unchecked lies". What the fucking fuck? It's like y'all have this weird blind spot that makes you think trump is always acting in good faith when he NEVER fucking has

Link to someone asserting that Trump is always acting in good faith?
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


I said “hot coed ass,” not “Reveille is in my seat.”

When you're fucking an A&M coed, and the dog barks, do you have to pull out?

Posted
1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

When you're fucking an A&M coed, and the dog barks, do you have to pull out?

No, see...because it's your dog.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

"I will gladly become a modern day Nelson Mandela"?  Dah fuh?  Is fucking Larry the Cable guy the editor who proofs his shit before it gets sent out?  Between the long prison sentence and then being dead, does he know fact one about history?  

/csb  Larry The Cable Guy visited a Bakken oil rig one of my closest friends (MS UT-PetEng) was managing a few years back.  Spent almost a week there, pitched in and did work.  Apparently he's not a dumbass and is a pretty cool guy.

Posted
5 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

My problem with this, specifically with January 6th, is WE ALL SAW HIM COMMIT THE OFFENSE IN REAL TIME.  Oh, maybe he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol?  YES HE DID.  WE ALL WATCHED IT.

And what you saw isn't a crime until a court says it is. That's what y'all seem to not understand. In your mind, he's guilty, and you're playing judge, jury, and executioner. But we don't do these things that way here and for very good reasons. And if you even give the appearance of doing so, you hand-deliver to Trump everything he wants.

You're trying to make this simpler than it really is and very conveniently forgetting some very important things. And by doing so, you are being the very authoritarians you are accusing Trump of being.

We don't get to stop playing by the rules just because they stop. Otherwise, we're hypocrites, full of shit, and deserve to lose.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

And what you saw isn't a crime until a court says it is. That's what y'all seem to not understand. In your mind, he's guilty, and you're playing judge, jury, and executioner. But we don't do these things that way here and for very good reasons. And if you even give the appearance of doing so, you hand-deliver to Trump everything he wants.

You're trying to make this simpler than it really is and very conveniently forgetting some very important things. And by doing so, you are being the very authoritarians you are accusing Trump of being.

We don't get to stop playing by the rules just because they stop. Otherwise, we're hypocrites, full of shit, and deserve to lose.

Well in some cases, the crimes are obvious.  But at least to a lawdog, what was televised on J6 wasn't necessarily a crime.  We know that "incitement to riot or violence" isn't really a thing unless it's pretty explicit. 

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well in some cases, the crimes are obvious.  But at least to a lawdog, what was televised on J6 wasn't necessarily a crime.  We know that "incitement to riot or violence" isn't really a thing unless it's pretty explicit. 

Even if it's obvious, due process is a real thing. We have it for a reason. And in this case, we have to be very very careful to show that we're going through all the right steps in the right way, because even one tiny misstep will give the bastards all the political ammo in the world.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
And what you saw isn't a crime until a court says it is. That's what y'all seem to not understand. In your mind, he's guilty, and you're playing judge, jury, and executioner. But we don't do these things that way here and for very good reasons. And if you even give the appearance of doing so, you hand-deliver to Trump everything he wants.
You're trying to make this simpler than it really is and very conveniently forgetting some very important things. And by doing so, you are being the very authoritarians you are accusing Trump of being.
We don't get to stop playing by the rules just because they stop. Otherwise, we're hypocrites, full of shit, and deserve to lose.

Counterpoint: we sure as fuck did stop “playing by the rules” the last rebellion these fuckers tried. There weren’t any cops telling suspects to stand down at Gettysburg. We weren’t there to make arrests. We didn’t put them on trial. We shot them dead. Thousands of them. We didn’t stop shooting until they either surrendered or fled the battlefield.

Because see, while these fuckers opted out of ONE set of rules (law, evidence-based litigation, etc), they opted INTO another set of rules: you engage in violent rebellion against the country, then you fucking die. There are only two sets of rules: rule of law or rule of the gun. They chose the second. We should have engaged in their chosen game. Until our rifle barrels melted down.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

/csb  Larry The Cable Guy visited a Bakken oil rig one of my closest friends (MS UT-PetEng) was managing a few years back.  Spent almost a week there, pitched in and did work.  Apparently he's not a dumbass and is a pretty cool guy.

 

Yeah, I use him as a punchline more than I should because Gallagher is dead and Carrot Top is so obscure now.  But the few comics I know that know him reiterate the same thing your friend said.  He's actually super nice in real life, does a lot of charitable work, and isn't exactly 'smart', but is much more intelligent than his 'character.'  They all like him.  It's his audience, which he panders down to for money (which I get), I guess that I am ostensibly referring to when I use his name as a dig.  I should stop that. I guess it's just a lazy placeholder on my part. 

equal csb/ A comic friend of mine, Gary Gulman who helped me acknowledge some shit I needed to work on personally when he was coming out a rough patch himself.  Gary is one of the smartest comics I've ever met, probably the smartest.    Probably one of the most intelligent of all time.  I mean, he could have done anything.  I know a lot of smart people, a lot.  In all walks of life.  And Gary blows me away, but he went into comedy instead of something more high paying because it was a way for him to work his shit out (as many comics do).  But he operates on a such a level that his material isn't as popular as it could be because of how obscure and high level it is.  It's not quite Carlin-esque, but it's close.  Anyway, he tells me that Larry is, as you say, smarter than he seems.  He's disappointed that Larry dumbs it down for his audience but he gives him full credit because a lot of the money that he has earned off the Stupids, Larry turns around and does a great deal of good with it.  He's a conduit for the greater good in that sense.  

To tie it back to this thread, Gary used to do some political humor.  Not much, but some.  I asked him, just once (I don't like to get into their stylings), about why he wasn't taking advantage of all this Trump insanity to incorporate into his act.  And he had a legitimate point.  He said there's basically nothint there.  The absurdity speaks for itself.  There's really no room for commentary.  And he told me about a guy he met, an improv player, who had a really good Trump parody that just got hired my SNL.  And he said, "He's basically just gonna go Trump straight unlike Baldwin's goofy cartoon."  A year later, James Austin Johnson launched his impression and we went in Uncanny Valley.  Gary telegraphed it correctly.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
But if his traitorous ass wins the general election we just have to sit here and eat a shit sandwich, because reasons?
??? The only thing my comment was directed to was the speed with which SCOTUS took up the Colorado 14th amendment case. 

if he wins because of clearly illegal manipulation of the system, that is one thing.

If he wins because the majority of the voting populous is so stupid they will vote for him no matter what the truth - or the clear lies and hate pouring out of his mouth - then the reason would be “democracy”.

if the latter, then people opposing that election would be the insurrectionists.
  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...