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
38 minutes ago, C-Man said:

There were a number of us who were doom-and-gloom when we realized Cannon was going to be the presiding judge. We were assured by countless Surly lawdogs that all was well, Kevin Bacon/Animal House style. Looking more and more like the doom-and-gloomers will be proven right in this instance. This is fuckery of the highest order.

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Gator will be here any minute now to tell us we're wrong and overreacting.  The system is working as designed... blah blah blah.

Bold is not correct. Fudge Nuggets is wrong. C-man must be remembering that Twice quite correctly pointed out that we did not know then if her initial mistakes were the result of Trump friendly shenanigans - or whether she was screwing up this case just like she had previously screwed up other non-Trump cases…..because she is completely inexperienced/unqualified and also apparently bigly dumb. IOW, the possibility remained back then that her initial rulings were a case of Hanlon's razor, an adage that states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Nobody said ‘all was well’, just that maybe a different reason remained that explained why her initial getting things wrong might be attributed to the same reasons she got the other non-Trump cases wrong - she was known to be unqualified and stupid. We now have a more complete record and it would be silly for anyone to conclude at this point that her fat ugly thumb was not firmly on the scale for Trump. 

I award you both cookies for your early, now-confirmed, certainty of her douchebaggery.   But don’t create alternate facts in order to pat yourself on the back harder.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
4 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Bold is not correct. Fudge Nuggets is wrong. C-man must be remembering that Twice quite correctly pointed out that we did not know then if her initial mistakes were the result of Trump friendly shenanigans - or whether she was screwing up this case just like she had previously screwed up other non-Trump cases…..because she is completely inexperienced/unqualified and also apparently bigly dumb. IOW, the possibility remained back then that her initial rulings were a case of Hanlon's razor, an adage that states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Nobody said ‘all was well’, just that maybe a different reason remained that explained why her initial getting things wrong might be attributed to the same reasons she got the other non-Trump cases wrong - she was known to be unqualified and stupid. We now have a more complete record and it would be silly for anyone to conclude at this point that her fat ugly thumb was not firmly on the scale for Trump. 

I award you both cookies for your early, now-confirmed, certainty of her douchebaggery.   But don’t create alternate facts in order to pat yourself on the back harder.  

Also, other than the delay, which is equally attributable to her stupidity and inexperience, we don't yet have a record of substantive rulings in favor of Trump.  She almost did one with the jury instructions stunt, but rapidly reversed herself.  She apparently has not yet fucked a CIPA ruling because the government has the right to immediately appeal those, which has not yet occurred.

I am most interested in whether she suppresses the Evan Corcoran evidence presented to the grand jury after piercing privilege on crime-fraud exception grounds.  Beryl Howell rendered an 80-plus page opinion on it and the DC Circuit affirmed her decision.  If that isn't res judicata or law of the case (which apparently it isn't) this is a big opportunity for Cannon to expose her bias.  This is Howell's opinion. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/561/4/united-states-v-trump/

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Comey thinks Trump will be convicted in this case.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/james-comey-predicts-trump-will-be-convicted-in-hush-money-trial-and-defends-alvin-bragg-bringing-the-case/

Quote

Former FBI Director James Comey sat for a wide-ranging interview with Dan Abrams on NewsNation on Wednesday, where he said he believed former President Donald Trump would be convicted following his hush money trial.

It was a disagreement with Abrams (the owner of Mediaite), who believed that the trial would result in a hung jury. But not only did Comey believe Trump would be convicted of the charges he’s accused of — 34 counts of falsifying business records — he said there was “zero chance of an acquittal.” Comey also defended the decision by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to bring the case after the Department of Justice passed on it:

Abrams: If you had been the Manhattan D.A. — you were a former top prosecutor in New York, not the Manhattan D.A., but in another role — would you have brought the hush money case?

Comey: I wasn’t sure that I would have when I read the indictment, but now, having seen the case, I’m not sure after investigating how they wouldn’t bring it. They had a much stronger case than I imagined, and they’d be taking a pass on it because of who the defendant was. And that’s something you don’t ever want to do as a prosecutor.

Abrams: What about the fact that the feds, including the Biden DOJ, took a pass on it? And you would think that, particularly when it comes to the election piece of this, that that is typically something that would be tried in a federal court?

Comey: Yeah, it’s a good question. I don’t know the answer to that. And so like, I really don’t know. There could be all kinds of reasons that I can’t see internal to the Department of Justice.

Abrams: What do you think’s going to happen? I can’t imagine there’ll be anything about a hung jury. But that’s just my…

Comey: I actually, I have a different take. I think there’s an overwhelming chance of a conviction, a significant but much smaller chance of a hung jury, and zero chance of an acquittal.

Abrams: Why?

Comey: Why zero chance of acquittal?

Abrams: No, no, no, why do you think there’s more of a chance of a conviction than a hung jury?

Comey: Because they built a very strong circumstantial case. They built a building out of a series of bricks that really couldn’t be crossed because there were documents, there were texts, there were the words of the defendant before they went to their cooperator at the end. I bet they even debated whether they needed to call [Michael Cohen] as a cooperator. And that circumstantial case, at least in my experience, having tried a lot of cases, is very, very powerful with the jury.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Bold is not correct. Fudge Nuggets is wrong. C-man must be remembering that Twice quite correctly pointed out that we did not know then if her initial mistakes were the result of Trump friendly shenanigans - or whether she was screwing up this case just like she had previously screwed up other non-Trump cases…..because she is completely inexperienced/unqualified and also apparently bigly dumb. IOW, the possibility remained back then that her initial rulings were a case of Hanlon's razor, an adage that states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Nobody said ‘all was well’, just that maybe a different reason remained that explained why her initial getting things wrong might be attributed to the same reasons she got the other non-Trump cases wrong - she was known to be unqualified and stupid. We now have a more complete record and it would be silly for anyone to conclude at this point that her fat ugly thumb was not firmly on the scale for Trump. 

I award you both cookies for your early, now-confirmed, certainty of her douchebaggery.   But don’t create alternate facts in order to pat yourself on the back harder.  

Counterpoint.

532d1fa9-5db2-4b60-baaf-2c961f7a36c6_tex

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
Posted
14 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Abrams: What about the fact that the feds, including the Biden DOJ, took a pass on it? And you would think that, particularly when it comes to the election piece of this, that that is typically something that would be tried in a federal court?

Comey: Yeah, it’s a good question. I don’t know the answer to that. And so like, I really don’t know. There could be all kinds of reasons that I can’t see internal to the Department of Justice.

I think the reasoning there is that it was apparently debated in the Biden DOJ whether prosecuting this particular ex-president was a good idea.

Posted
41 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Bold is not correct. Fudge Nuggets is wrong. C-man must be remembering that Twice quite correctly pointed out that we did not know then if her initial mistakes were the result of Trump friendly shenanigans - or whether she was screwing up this case just like she had previously screwed up other non-Trump cases…..because she is completely inexperienced/unqualified and also apparently bigly dumb. IOW, the possibility remained back then that her initial rulings were a case of Hanlon's razor, an adage that states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Nobody said ‘all was well’, just that maybe a different reason remained that explained why her initial getting things wrong might be attributed to the same reasons she got the other non-Trump cases wrong - she was known to be unqualified and stupid. We now have a more complete record and it would be silly for anyone to conclude at this point that her fat ugly thumb was not firmly on the scale for Trump. 

I award you both cookies for your early, now-confirmed, certainty of her douchebaggery.   But don’t create alternate facts in order to pat yourself on the back harder.  

I’m referring to the timeframe before she started showing her bias and incompetence.  There were plenty that said it was fine because the DOJ couldn’t be seen as judge shopping by asking to get the case moved to another court.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

  

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I’m referring to the timeframe before she started showing her bias and incompetence.  There were plenty that said it was fine because the DOJ couldn’t be seen as judge shopping by asking to get the case moved to another court.

and yet here we are. let historians debate the right and wrong later. right now, WE say it was wrong and he should be punished. we don't care what they say about it later. tbh

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

 the DOJ couldn’t be seen as judge shopping by asking to get the case moved to another court.

No one ever said that, as far as I know.  DOJ would have and currently has, no viable grounds for recusal or any other way of moving the case to another judge.

Once she commits a substantive error that gives DOJ the ability to appeal, they might ask the 11th Circuit to remand it to a different judge, or the 11th might do that of its own volition.

What was said is that Jack Smith did the unimpeachably right thing by filing in the Fort Pierce division.  He didn't have to, he could have filed anywhere else in SD Fla and avoided her.  But once he did, he was in for the long haul.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Bold is not correct. Fudge Nuggets is wrong. C-man must be remembering that Twice quite correctly pointed out that we did not know then if her initial mistakes were the result of Trump friendly shenanigans - or whether she was screwing up this case just like she had previously screwed up other non-Trump cases…..because she is completely inexperienced/unqualified and also apparently bigly dumb. IOW, the possibility remained back then that her initial rulings were a case of Hanlon's razor, an adage that states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Nobody said ‘all was well’, just that maybe a different reason remained that explained why her initial getting things wrong might be attributed to the same reasons she got the other non-Trump cases wrong - she was known to be unqualified and stupid. We now have a more complete record and it would be silly for anyone to conclude at this point that her fat ugly thumb was not firmly on the scale for Trump. 

I award you both cookies for your early, now-confirmed, certainty of her douchebaggery.   But don’t create alternate facts in order to pat yourself on the back harder.  

 

59 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, other than the delay, which is equally attributable to her stupidity and inexperience, we don't yet have a record of substantive rulings in favor of Trump.  She almost did one with the jury instructions stunt, but rapidly reversed herself.  She apparently has not yet fucked a CIPA ruling because the government has the right to immediately appeal those, which has not yet occurred.

I am most interested in whether she suppresses the Evan Corcoran evidence presented to the grand jury after piercing privilege on crime-fraud exception grounds.  Beryl Howell rendered an 80-plus page opinion on it and the DC Circuit affirmed her decision.  If that isn't res judicata or law of the case (which apparently it isn't) this is a big opportunity for Cannon to expose her bias.  This is Howell's opinion. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/561/4/united-states-v-trump/

OK, so maybe we were just correct to fear the worst. Sorry if I painted with too broad a brush.

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

 

OK, so maybe we were just correct to fear the worst. Sorry if I painted with too broad a brush.

It's never a bad idea to fear the worst.  It's the predicting-the-dystopian-future-from-the-ledge part where I tend to draw the line (not that you're a member of the predicting-the-dystopian-future-from-the-ledge brigade).

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

So, in upside-down world, apparently right wing regards have spent the last day or so talking about how Biden tried to assassinate Trump. So, this will be a thing going forward I'm sure. "Did you hear Biden tried to kill him??"

Posted
4 hours ago, Red Five said:

So, in upside-down world, apparently right wing regards have spent the last day or so talking about how Biden tried to assassinate Trump. So, this will be a thing going forward I'm sure. "Did you hear Biden tried to kill him??"

giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952xopzneven1jxib75y4

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Someone needs to 

So as we've repeated ad nauseam, all ex-Presidents still have plain-clothes secret service agents randomly select grocery stores to shop for the former first family.  Idea being that you can't possibly poison an entire city's grocery supply on an hour's notice.  It's worked damn well for decades.  Trump doesn't like that arrangement.  He insists on eating at Mar-a-Lago from the kitchen, directly.  The last few weeks, he's eating straight from his New York tower's executive cafe.  When you know what somebody will eat and when they will eat it, and they refuse Secret Service safety protocol....it's really not that complicated.  

My grandchildren, god willing, will get to attend Ben E. Keith Middle School.  

Posted
11 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Bold is not correct. Fudge Nuggets is wrong. C-man must be remembering that Twice quite correctly pointed out that we did not know then if her initial mistakes were the result of Trump friendly shenanigans - or whether she was screwing up this case just like she had previously screwed up other non-Trump cases…..because she is completely inexperienced/unqualified and also apparently bigly dumb. IOW, the possibility remained back then that her initial rulings were a case of Hanlon's razor, an adage that states: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Nobody said ‘all was well’, just that maybe a different reason remained that explained why her initial getting things wrong might be attributed to the same reasons she got the other non-Trump cases wrong - she was known to be unqualified and stupid. We now have a more complete record and it would be silly for anyone to conclude at this point that her fat ugly thumb was not firmly on the scale for Trump. 

I award you both cookies for your early, now-confirmed, certainty of her douchebaggery.   But don’t create alternate facts in order to pat yourself on the back harder.  

Lawyers just can't turn off the lawyer lying bullshit even when the bullshit is plainly obvious. 

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

Lawyers just can't turn off the lawyer lying bullshit even when the bullshit is plainly obvious. 

 If the lie is so obvious, your smooth brain should have been able to point it out in a sentence or two.  But…no. 

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
3 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Trump doesn't like that arrangement.  He insists on eating at Mar-a-Lago from the kitchen, directly.  The last few weeks, he's eating straight from his New York tower's executive cafe.  When you know what somebody will eat and when they will eat it, and they refuse Secret Service safety protocol....it's really not that complicated.  

Real question.  How do you know this?

Posted

Are you under cover?  Because if you’re a cop, you have to tell me you’re a cop if I ask.  
 

Despite their insistence they switch things up, Trump likes to eat off the menus at his resorts and towers.  And they are worried as fuck about it.  
 

i have been questioned about where I got the wine and appetizer before breaking bread by federal officials.  They take food safety real serious for reasons i don’t ask about.  But apparently Trump doesn’t want to look weak but sending for takeout 

  • Haha 2
Posted
7 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

 If the lie is so obvious, your smooth brain should have been able to point it out in a sentence or two.  But…no. 

 

You're just constantly full of shit. You've been here saying the whole thing is working exactly as it's supposed to when we have one judge intentionally delaying a trial in Florida and the fucking Supreme Court intentionally dragging their feet to delay his trial in DC. It's pure fucking corruption and I, for one, am tired of your constant bullshit. 

Just shut your lawyer cunt ass up already. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
You're just constantly full of shit. You've been here saying the whole thing is working exactly as it's supposed to when we have one judge intentionally delaying a trial in Florida and the fucking Supreme Court intentionally dragging their feet to delay his trial in DC. It's pure fucking corruption and I, for one, am tired of your constant bullshit. 
Just shut your lawyer cunt ass up already. 

Link to Gator saying the WHOLE THING is working EXACTLY as it’s supposed to?
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, scottsins said:


Link to Gator saying the WHOLE THING is working EXACTLY as it’s supposed to?

Also probably worth noting that lawdogs are pretty inured to delays.  It's one of those things you have to get used to when you start practicing.  And law students are already used to delays in that you wait an entire semester before getting any indication of a grade, in the usual case.

That doesn't mean we like it, and it's extremely unfortunate in these cases.  But it's just one of those "well, shit" things.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also probably worth noting that lawdogs are pretty inured to delays.  It's one of those things you have to get used to when you start practicing.  And law students are already used to delays in that you wait an entire semester before getting any indication of a grade, in the usual case.

That doesn't mean we like it, and it's extremely unfortunate in these cases.  But it's just one of those "well, shit" things.

My position is that y'all have a big fucking blind spot to when something that is common and mundane is being weaponized to further injustice. Y'all act like it's just normal for nuclear secrets to be stolen and the trial delayed for years, simply because other trials are delayed, like sometimes, I guess. 

You're so used to seeing the sausage made, you're not worried about people dumping sawdust and ratshit into the product - bad trimmings make it in all the time and there's a rule against it or something. But heaven forbid we say "hey they're dumping rat shit in" without having ironclad proof, otherwise we're just being alarmist amirite??

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

My position is that y'all have a big fucking blind spot to when something that is common and mundane is being weaponized to further injustice. Y'all act like it's just normal for nuclear secrets to be stolen and the trial delayed for years, simply because other trials are delayed, like sometimes, I guess. 

You're so used to seeing the sausage made, you're not worried about people dumping sawdust and ratshit into the product - bad trimmings make it in all the time and there's a rule against it or something 

Well, because the outcome is usually as expected.  You learn to ignore the delay and focus on engaging in the process and getting the desired result.

And, let's face it, if, somehow, all of these cases were tried to verdict before the election, and the appeals exhausted, it wouldn't change a damn thing.

This idea that we're somehow normalizing crimes is complete bullshit.  There wouldn't be an indictment at all if that were normalized.  What we're doing is adjusting expectations to reflect the reality of the system, where trials inside of a year are an exception rather than the rule.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, let's face it, if, somehow, all of these cases were tried to verdict before the election, and the appeals exhausted, it wouldn't change a damn thing.

Expand on this. Because it doesn’t seem correct. 

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

Well, because the outcome is usually as expected.  You learn to ignore the delay and focus on engaging in the process and getting the desired result.

And, let's face it, if, somehow, all of these cases were tried to verdict before the election, and the appeals exhausted, it wouldn't change a damn thing.

Maybe, maybe not. But the American people would know that Trump had been convicted of stealing top secret information.  There are very real and continued harms being done every day to the average American's perception of our justice system by all this bullshit and just dismissing those concerns as uninformed doesn't help your case. None of the way Trump's crimes have been investigated and prosecuted have actually gone by the book. They've been delayed by the vain political concerns of chickenshits who thought maybe if they just ignored it he'd go away, and by numerous and easily foreseeable corrupt actions of conservative public officials.  People are right to be pissed and as a functioning member of that system you should be pissed at the people who are destroying it, not those who are noticing the destruction. 

This is like the people who argued there was no point in Woodward quickly reporting that Trump knew in February 2020 that covid was airborne and would be catastrophic. I dunno man, I think millions of voters would've liked to have known that before the election. How the fuck am I consistently less cynical than most about the American public?

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Expand on this. Because it doesn’t seem correct. 

What would it change?  The base doesn't give a fuck about Trump's criminal problems, not one single fuck.  Think that would change if he was actually convicted, serving time? ELeCtiON InTERfeReNce! Maybe among some "independents," but I'd guess those that would be affected are already affected by the fact of the indictments and trials.

A startling number of voters are willing to accept this as politically motivated and the product of a "two-tiered" system.  Do you think convictions, even affirmed on appeal, would change any of that?

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

What would it change?  The base doesn't give a fuck about Trump's criminal problems, not one single fuck.  Think that would change if he was actually convicted, serving time? ELeCtiON InTERfeReNce! Maybe among some "independents," but I'd guess those that would be affected are already affected by the fact of the indictments and trials.

 

As much as I’m on the Ledge, I do think if he were convicted and sentenced for the federal crimes he’s accused of committing, including stealing classified information and inciting and directing a coup to overturn an election, he would actually lose support among the “independents” and even some of the GOP voters.  And it would undoubtedly increase turnout for Biden. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Maybe, maybe not. But the American people would know that Trump had been convicted of stealing top secret information.  There are very real and continued harms being done every day to the average American's perception of our justice system by all this bullshit and just dismissing those concerns as uninformed doesn't help your case. None of the way Trump's crimes have been investigated and prosecuted have actually gone by the book. They've been delayed by the vain political concerns of chickenshits who thought maybe if they just ignored it he'd go away, and by numerous and easily foreseeable corrupt actions of conservative public officials.  People are right to be pissed and as a functioning member of that system you should be pissed at the people who are destroying it, not those who are noticing the destruction. 

This is like the people who argued there was no point in Woodward quickly reporting that Trump knew in February 2020 that covid was airborne and would be catastrophic. I dunno man, I think millions of voters would've liked to have known that before the election. How the fuck am I consistently less cynical than most about the American public?

I'm not dismissing them, but they are uninformed. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What would it change?  The base doesn't give a fuck about Trump's criminal problems, not one single fuck.  Think that would change if he was actually convicted, serving time? ELeCtiON InTERfeReNce! Maybe among some "independents," but I'd guess those that would be affected are already affected by the fact of the indictments and trials.

A startling number of voters are willing to accept this as politically motivated and the product of a "two-tiered" system.  Do you think convictions, even affirmed on appeal, would change any of that?

Yeah when you post shit like this it reads to me as if you're saying "there's no point in prosecuting him, so why bother?"

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

I'm not dismissing them, but they are uninformed. 

He got Cannon right and you didn't. What does that tell you about the value of your knowledge? 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, Captainant said:

Yeah when you post shit like this it reads to me as if you're saying "there's no point in prosecuting him, so why bother?"

Not at all.  It's a simple acknowledgment of the fact that his base is fucking insane and the people knowledgeable enough to follow this (and complain about it) were never voting for him anyway.

 

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He got Cannon right and you didn't. What does that tell you about the value of your knowledge? 

No one really knows why Cannon is doing what she's doing.  So, that's not knowledge, that remains speculation.  I never said Cannon wouldn't fuck it up, I speculated that the reason was that she's a dumbfuck ill-suited to handle a trial like this moreso than in the bag for Trump.  He speculated the other way.

We still don't know, know.

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

Yeah when you post shit like this it reads to me as if you're saying "there's no point in prosecuting him, so why bother?"

That's not really fair.  @TwiceHorn is talking about the vote, not the crime.  I'm quite confident he's of the opinion that crimes were committed and that justice should be served.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

Also, to be ultra-realistic:

  • Even if all of these prosecutions had commenced in 2021 (unrealistic in itself), only experienced, hard-core judges like Chutkan or Merchan were getting these to trial within a year
  • Appeals would have prevented the finality of any judgments of conviction in any court until past the election, which in all likelihood would keep Trump out of prison and able to continue to squawk about witch hunts and corrupt judges and prosecutors
  • The immunity question, bullshit as it is, would hamstring and delay the January 6 case, even under Chutkan, making trial within a year, or even two, completely unrealistic, let alone any post-conviction appeals
  • The CIPA issues surrounding 30 someodd classified documents would have made trial within a year, or even two, a dubious proposition even with a judge like Chutkan or Lewis Kaplan  (see, e.g. Reality Winner case, resolved by plea one year after filing and involving far fewer classified documents)

Getting a final final conviction against Trump before the election was a pipe dream, even if events had lined up better than they have (no Cannon, no delay in indictment).

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's not really fair.  @TwiceHorn is talking about the vote, not the crime.  I'm quite confident he's of the opinion that crimes were committed and that justice should be served.

Correct.  I remain hopeful that the system, permitted to operate, will result in convictions.  But it won't be on our timeframe.  In this belief, I am discounting jury nullification (hung juries by Trumpists) and Trump winning the election and halting proceedings.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Lawdogs: do y'all think that all of Cannon's delays are totally normal, reasonable, and justified, and would happen in any other case, and are beyond scrutiny?

Posted
1 minute ago, miguelito said:

Lawdogs: do y'all think that all of Cannon's delays are totally normal, reasonable, and justified, and would happen in any other case, and are beyond scrutiny?

Beyond scrutiny, no.

But the case is not a year old, yet, even (filed June 8, 2023).  As said repeatedly, getting to trial in a year is an ambitious project even for an experienced, strong judge.  And that's without unique issues involving classified documents and CIPA, a statute that is relatively new and relatively few judges have experience with and which multiplies pretrial proceedings excessively

There are a few other unique issues, including now whether the piercing of privilege before the grand jury will also apply at this trial.  

Also, the fact that this involves three defendants is a complicating factor.  That basically triples the number of pretrial motions the judge has to deal with.

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

No one really knows why Cannon is doing what she's doing.  So, that's not knowledge, that remains speculation.  I never said Cannon wouldn't fuck it up, I speculated that the reason was that she's a dumbfuck ill-suited to handle a trial like this moreso than in the bag for Trump.  He speculated the other way.

We still don't know, know.

I guess they don’t teach “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck” theory in law school. It’s ability to explain and predict Cannon’s actions has been pretty reliable in this case. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, miguelito said:

Lawdogs: do y'all think that all of Cannon's delays are totally normal, reasonable, and justified, and would happen in any other case, and are beyond scrutiny?

No. I'm fairly sure every lawyer that posts here but TwiceHorn thinks Cannon is pretty openly in the tank for Trump. He seems to have mostly quit giving her the benefit of the doubt, but is still rationalizing his error with this "we can't REALLY know what she's thinking" stuff. Which, c'mon man. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

No. I'm fairly sure every lawyer that posts here but TwiceHorn thinks Cannon is pretty openly in the tank for Trump. He seems to have mostly quit giving her the benefit of the doubt, but is still rationalizing his error with this "we can't REALLY know what she's thinking" stuff. Which, c'mon man. 

I mean, you can't actually know what she's thinking.

I have expressed no certainty on that issue, only that it is equally consistent with her being a dipshit, which I think is fairly beyond cavil at this point.

Posted
1 hour ago, kevwun said:

I have no doubt she's stupid, but every "oops" she has is in Trump's favor.

In the same way we can't REALLY know if the "Reich" photo was included in that tweet on purpose.

yeah_sure_jon_hamm.gif

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, let's face it, if, somehow, all of these cases were tried to verdict before the election, and the appeals exhausted, it wouldn't change a damn thing.

 

If dotard was convicted under the espionage act then he wouldn’t be running around the country free to spout his bullshit.  That would be a huge and welcome change.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also probably worth noting that lawdogs are pretty inured to delays.  It's one of those things you have to get used to when you start practicing.  And law students are already used to delays in that you wait an entire semester before getting any indication of a grade, in the usual case.

That doesn't mean we like it, and it's extremely unfortunate in these cases.  But it's just one of those "well, shit" things.

Just because the frogs in the pot are used to the high temperatures doesn’t mean the rest of us are jazzed about hopping in. The justice system is working, but not well, mainly because it only works for the people that created it ($) and just because it’s what we got doesn’t mean we can’t make it better. The only way to make it better is to vote, which leads us into another problem in this whole democracy experiment, the electorate is a brainwashed cumstain that believes in fairytales and worships Kim Kardashian 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Just because the frogs in the pot are used to the high temperatures doesn’t mean the rest of us are jazzed about hopping in. The justice system is working, but not well, mainly because it only works for the people that created it ($) and just because it’s what we got doesn’t mean we can’t make it better. The only way to make it better is to vote, which leads us into another problem in this whole democracy experiment, the electorate is a brainwashed cumstain that believes in fairytales and worships Kim Kardashian 

Exactly.  Any one of us could create some shell corporations, fudge some loan and real estate paperwork involving a dead woman and falsifying the info of a public notary in Florida, and then claim a property in Memphis that we  are foreclosing on so we can auction it for big bucks, but because we aren’t Donald Trump, it’s now in the news and the Tennessee Attorney General is coming after us.

Posted
21 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Any one of us could create some shell corporations, fudge some loan and real estate paperwork involving a dead woman and falsifying the info of a public notary in Florida, and then claim a property in Memphis that we are foreclosing on so we can auction it for big bucks,

IMG_6725.gif.4d1ce7714f8a48694993bcd8870707eb.gif

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Exactly.  Any one of us could create some shell corporations, fudge some loan and real estate paperwork involving a dead woman and falsifying the info of a public notary in Florida, and then claim a property in Memphis that we  are foreclosing on so we can auction it for big bucks, but because we aren’t Donald Trump, it’s now in the news and the Tennessee Attorney General is coming after us.

"Allegedly."  You forgot that very important word.  I "allegedly" did those things.  And you wanted to be my lawyer.  Sheesh.



×
×
  • Create New...