Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
2 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

The Fauci-haters that I worked with mainly objected, and I quote one of them directly, "He thinks he's smarter than the President.  He can't contradict the President!"

Remind them of this iron-clad principle next time they disagree with Biden

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
2 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

Don't forget that Dr. Fauci had the temerity to contradict their orange diety when he said stupid shit like the government should experiment on people by injecting bleach or Lysol into them.  The Fauci-haters that I worked with mainly objected, and I quote one of them directly, "He thinks he's smarter than the President.  He can't contradict the President!"

This is how you decide who gets to clean out the sump pump.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

This is how you decide who gets to clean out the sump pump.

I like your thinking, but alas, this was an electrician who was not under my supervision.  Those who were under my supervision had learned discretion by this time.  Of course, cleaning out sump pumps and such was part of that process.

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Come on Aileen

Yeah, but who knows what she means?  

We are far too young and clever and things won't ever change.  

  • Drool 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, NAVY said:

Surly, The Musical 

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and guess that the Surly version of Oklahoma would be far more colorful and entertaining.  

 

Just saying.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and guess that the Surly version of Oklahoma would be far more colorful and entertaining.  

 

Just saying.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Pokoloco said:

Why are democrats in the bag for this guy? It's weird.

You're a fucking moron.

**************************

I watched 2H's video and somehow this came up in the 'for you.'

image.thumb.png.8bbea640481aa46b362446e1dbd8b05b.png

 

 

Edited by Bullneck
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and guess that the Surly version of Oklahoma would be far more colorful and entertaining.  

 

Just saying.  

Oklahoma sucks so yeah 

Posted
1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

You're a fucking moron.

Oh yeah?  If he's such a fucking moron, how can he do all his own research on Covid and the vaccines?  During snack time, before nap, using National Geographic for Kids?  Huh?  

  • Haha 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, NAVY said:

Surly, The Musical 

19 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I'm just gonna go out on a limb here and guess that the Surly version of Oklahoma would be far more colorful and entertaining.  

Just saying.  

It’ll end up with restraining orders, just like Hall and Oates.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  And note that this approach also allows for the conclusion of "and maybe he got some of the response wrong, even way-wrong."  Because people were figuring this shit out on the fly, and coming up with the best solutions they thought applicable in the moment.  And there were indeed alternate/counter-approaches that were out there that they opted against -- correctly, wrongly, and sometimes still undetermined.  And on top of THAT, the choices were often "bad choice A" vs. "bad choice B," and they had to pick the less bad one.  And then get attacked for "look at this!  The option he picked was bad!"  No shit.  ALL options are bad.

And finally, the lambasting him as some evil mastermind director of some sinister conspiracy is the thing that pisses me off the most.  Over my not-short life, I've had to deal with countless government bureaucrats, functionaries, administrators, and sometimes quite senior folks in that respect.  My old man was a federal regulator in the field; I have had to deal with regulators at various levels throughout my career; I have friends and family who have been and are involved at all levels of the government (including people who are on a first-name basis with senators and presidents). 

And through all of that, I HAVE met a few "true believers."  For example, I had to deal with an old hippie gal at the EPA who wouldn't let go of an issue, with little vision of the practicality of things.  But 99.9% of the time....these people are just fucking people, man.  They have no sinister agenda, no secret plan.  They have a mission/purpose that is no secret (Fauci worked for the infectious disease agency....which deals with...infectious diseases).  They pursue that mission using the best available information, with good intentions, to the best of their ability.  We don't really hear about it when they succeed, and YES, sometimes they fail (like literally every other human being, public or private sector).  Was Fauci involved in research of coronoaviruses?  Shit, it would have been criminally stupid and impossible to explain if he HADN'T BEEN - they had long ago been flagged as a key infectious disease risk in the wake of our human experience with SARS and MERS.  "A-HA!  Fauci was involved in researching coronaviruses [because they were a known fucking risk of giving rise to a pandemic] and waddaya know, a coronavirus caused a pandemic!  DO THE MATH, SHEEPLE!"

I worked closely with lots of people in official positions responding to the pandemic.  There was no secret agenda, no hidden plan.  People were dying, resources were strained, solutions were hard to find.  They did the best they could.  The fucking psychotic Republican need to find a demon everywhere they look (gee, every accusation is a confession) is fucking infuriating, assholish, and flat-out evil.  It's one of several things I hate them for.

Fauci may have done a great job, he may have done a terrible job....odds are, he did a job that was something in between.  But characterizing him as an evil mass murderer and shit is psychotic, twisted, and sick.  And people who do that are psychotic, twisted, and sick.  And I hate them.  A lot.

You misspelled bleach and horse dewormer.  Who you gonna believe, a scientist erring on the side of caution, or a president that looked directly at an eclipse?  Just keep raking so you don't burn up in the next wildfire.  Someone from FEMA will be by to pick up the bagged piles, just attach post-its to what you want removed.          

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Court response:

“Well, Donald, if you somehow win your appeal, you will find yourself in court again being tried by the same people for the same thing. Since you are so bigly sure you will win that appeal because of my rigged trial, I simply can’t terminate the gag order……because according to you, I will need it again…… at least that’s what my daughter says.”

You know... he just likes to say "gag order" since he could never make another human gag...

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

The airing of the grievances …..

 

This was done on the motion of Matthew Seligman and a group of government officials supporting the government.

The reason for two in support of Trump is that Blackman and Schaerr take opposing positions for why the appointment is invalid, and both of them differ from Trump.

This is one of those arguments over the Appointments Clause, and who is a principal officer of the United States, appointable only by the President with confirmation by the Senate, and who is an inferior officer and can be appointed by someone else.

The Schaerr group argues that the AG lacks power to appoint a special Counsel because he is a principal Officer. The Blackman group argues that the Special Counsel is merely an employee and can't exercise the powers of a Special Counsel.

Seligman says that what those other two guys said is bullshit.

Here is Seligman's brief.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 6/3/2024 at 9:51 PM, Gatorubet said:

I get that emotions were running high, and I get that whole mob mentality thing.    But I swear to God, I cannot fathom what was going through her brain when she thought that attacking elected representatives in Congress was a good idea, given the locked doors to keep you out - and the armed security who have their weapons drawn and pointed at you - telling you to stop or they’ll shoot - makes you think,  “Ya know…this might be a really good time to try to bash out the window between us and crawl through it to get to those people.”

I never get tired of this thought: her husband claims she was “simply expressing her opinion.” Well, the security officer was also simply expressing his opinion.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This was done on the motion of Matthew Seligman and a group of government officials supporting the government.

The reason for two in support of Trump is that Blackman and Schaerr take opposing positions for why the appointment is invalid, and both of them differ from Trump.

This is one of those arguments over the Appointments Clause, and who is a principal officer of the United States, appointable only by the President with confirmation by the Senate, and who is an inferior officer and can be appointed by someone else.

The Schaerr group argues that the AG lacks power to appoint a special Counsel because he is a principal Officer. The Blackman group argues that the Special Counsel is merely an employee and can't exercise the powers of a Special Counsel.

Seligman says that what those other two guys said is bullshit.

Here is Seligman's brief.

So basically the argument is, that guy was appointed wrongly so he can’t prosecute me?  Nevermind the actual alleged crimes. Technicality!

  • Drool 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So basically the argument is, that guy was appointed wrongly so he can’t prosecute me?  Nevermind the actual alleged crimes. Technicality!

I’m quite sure Cannon will totally nail this one 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I obviously have little legal knowledge but I predict this documents case never, ever goes to trial as long as this stupid cunt is the judge.

Eventually, she will do something so egregious a removal will happen, but until then it's stuck.  I suppose Smith is having to wait for that.  

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

Eventually, she will do something so egregious a removal will happen, but until then it's stuck.  I suppose Smith is having to wait for that.  

This particular thing was going to have to happen (a hearing on Trump's motion to dismiss**) regardless.  Letting amicus argue isn't really a big deal in terms of time-wastage.  And actually probably increases the likelihood she gets it right.

**In federal civil cases, hearings on motions are relatively uncommon.  The judge usually decides on the briefs.  Hearings seem to be more common in criminal cases.

If she fucks this up, the government will undoubtedly appeal and the weight of authority such as it is seems to favor the government on this, as set out in Seligman's brief.  That may be the golden opportunity for the 11th Circuit to remand it to another judge.  Thousands of complaints have been leveled against her to the 11th Circuit Judicial Council, but most of them are not actionable. https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/03/politics/cannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17175189455410&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F06%2F03%2Fpolitics%2Fcannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump%2Findex.html It has become clear, if it wasn't before, that there is a public perception of her that undermines the judiciary.

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

Delay delay delay and he consistently gets what he wants

Trump's Legal Team's PK appears to be more effective than Edmonton's!

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

If other lawyers want to weigh in on the case, they should speak directly with Trump's lawyers or the special counsel, depending on their view. I don't see how a court can operate by  randomly choosing 3rd parties to address the judge.

If the 3rd party lawyers want to join the Trump team, then do so officially. Or be called as an expert witness from the Trump side, and be allowed to be cross examined.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I don’t practice in the area of former President crimes, but in my experience amicus parties frequently submit briefs in cases on appeal, and rarely are allowed to participate in argument. I don’t see amicus briefing at the trial court level, but I suspect it’s more common in federal district courts on constitutional issues regarding abortion, immigration, and similar hot-button issues.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If other lawyers want to weigh in on the case, they should speak directly with Trump's lawyers or the special counsel, depending on their view. I don't see how a court can operate by  randomly choosing 3rd parties to address the judge.

If the 3rd party lawyers want to join the Trump team, then do so officially. Or be called as an expert witness from the Trump side, and be allowed to be cross examined.

 

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

I don’t practice in the area of former President crimes, but in my experience amicus parties frequently submit briefs in cases on appeal, and rarely are allowed to participate in argument. I don’t see amicus briefing at the trial court level, but I suspect it’s more common in federal district courts on constitutional issues regarding abortion, immigration, and similar hot-button issues.

See South Austin's point above.  It is not unusual at all to allow amicus briefing even in the trial courts.  It's also not uncommon in federal courts on specialized/high profile issues.  Many moons ago, I represented a party as an "active amicus" in a federal trial (Yeakel didn't allow us to intervene, but granted us that status).  I didn't get to examine witnesses, but I sat at counsel table, was able to argue on a variety of motions, including opening and closing arguments.

Oh, and lawyers don't appear as "expert witnesses" on the law.  The old saying is that the only expert on the law in a courtroom is the judge.  Lawyers argue the law -- what they say has the weight of argument only, not testimony.

Is fuckery afoot with Cannon?  Surely.  But the fact that amicus parties are allowed to argue a particular point of law isn't, in and of itself, fuckery.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

See South Austin's point above.  It is not unusual at all to allow amicus briefing even in the trial courts.  It's also not uncommon in federal courts on specialized/high profile issues.  Many moons ago, I represented a party as an "active amicus" in a federal trial (Yeakel didn't alleenow us to intervene, but granted us that status).  I didn't get to examine witnesses, but I sat at counsel table, was able to argue on a variety of motions, including opening and closing arguments.

Oh, and lawyers don't appear as "expert witnesses" on the law.  The old saying is that the only expert on the law in a courtroom is the judge.  Lawyers argue the law -- what they say has the weight of argument only, not testimony.

Is fuckery afoot with Cannon?  Surely.  But the fact that amicus parties are allowed to argue a particular point of law isn't, in and of itself, fuckery.

Yeah, this isn't simply a matter of advocacy for one party or another.

We've had Special Counsels or something like them since Nixon and before.  Thereafter, Congress actually passed a statute providing for "Independent Counsel," but it was unpopular among certain types (probably Ed Meese for one) and allowed to lapse.

There have been roughly a dozen Special/Independent/Counsel/Prosecutors appointed since then under various legal regimes.

Under the current one, which is just internal rules promulgated by the DOJ known as the Reno Rules, there have been at least five:  Mueller, Durham, Smith, Hur and Weiss.

If the current scheme is unconstitutional, that has ramifications beyond Trump.  It is an important issue worthy of amicus consideration.

Posted
10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This was done on the motion of Matthew Seligman and a group of government officials supporting the government.

The reason for two in support of Trump is that Blackman and Schaerr take opposing positions for why the appointment is invalid, and both of them differ from Trump.

This is one of those arguments over the Appointments Clause, and who is a principal officer of the United States, appointable only by the President with confirmation by the Senate, and who is an inferior officer and can be appointed by someone else.

The Schaerr group argues that the AG lacks power to appoint a special Counsel because he is a principal Officer. The Blackman group argues that the Special Counsel is merely an employee and can't exercise the powers of a Special Counsel.

Seligman says that what those other two guys said is bullshit.

Here is Seligman's brief.

Do most law schools offer courses in how to throw shit against the wall to see what sticks?

Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Do most law schools offer courses in how to throw shit against the wall to see what sticks?

It's actually a fairly serious dispute, not some shit Trump made up.  Thankfully, it does appear that the arguments that Special Counsel are unconstitutional are pretty flawed.

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

Do most law schools offer courses in how to throw shit against the wall to see what sticks?

I mean....how do you think I boosted my GPA?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

State case in federal court? But . . But . . . I have it on good authority from one of the finest legal minds our country has ever known, that the place to decide highly disputed matters of individual liberty is with the states. Surely that fucking guy can't be wrong. Ever. Just ask him.

  • Haha 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's actually a fairly serious dispute, not some shit Trump made up.  Thankfully, it does appear that the arguments that Special Counsel are unconstitutional are pretty flawed.

Shouldn’t that argument have been adjudicated prior to the use of any of them?

Posted
Just now, Thrawn said:

State case in federal court? But . . But . . . I have it on good authority from one of the finest legal minds our country has ever known, that the place to decide highly disputed matters of individual liberty is with the states. Surely that fucking guy can't be wrong. Ever. Just ask him.

And one of the most bedrock principles of federalism is that it is the states that have plenary power to prosecute crimes.

But this goes back to the notion that Congress controls the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and therefore can do stuff.

It appears from the article that it may not have enough votes to pass even the House and is DOA at the Senate.

Posted
1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Shouldn’t that argument have been adjudicated prior to the use of any of them?

You might think, but the only person that can validly raise the issue is someone being prosecuted by one of those Special Counsel.

The argument was raised in connection with the Mueller investigation and decided in favor of the government by the DC Circuit.

Posted
17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You might think, but the only person that can validly raise the issue is someone being prosecuted by one of those Special Counsel.

The argument was raised in connection with the Mueller investigation and decided in favor of the government by the DC Circuit.

So why is there a question if already answered?

Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This particular thing was going to have to happen (a hearing on Trump's motion to dismiss**) regardless.  Letting amicus argue isn't really a big deal in terms of time-wastage.  And actually probably increases the likelihood she gets it right.

**In federal civil cases, hearings on motions are relatively uncommon.  The judge usually decides on the briefs.  Hearings seem to be more common in criminal cases.

If she fucks this up, the government will undoubtedly appeal and the weight of authority such as it is seems to favor the government on this, as set out in Seligman's brief.  That may be the golden opportunity for the 11th Circuit to remand it to another judge.  Thousands of complaints have been leveled against her to the 11th Circuit Judicial Council, but most of them are not actionable. https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/03/politics/cannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQGsAEggAID#amp_tf=From %1%24s&aoh=17175189455410&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2024%2F06%2F03%2Fpolitics%2Fcannon-orchestrated-complaints-trump%2Findex.html It has become clear, if it wasn't before, that there is a public perception of her that undermines the judiciary.

I don't know who Bradley Moss but he said letting third parties opine in this particular instance is ridiculous: https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/04/politics/cannon-trump-special-counsel-hearing/index.html

"“The fact these motions are even being entertained with a hearing is itself ridiculous. That third parties are being allowed to opine at the hearing is absurd,” Bradley Moss, a national security law expert based in Washington, DC, told CNN.

 

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

See South Austin's point above.  It is not unusual at all to allow amicus briefing even in the trial courts.  It's also not uncommon in federal courts on specialized/high profile issues.  Many moons ago, I represented a party as an "active amicus" in a federal trial (Yeakel didn't allow us to intervene, but granted us that status).  I didn't get to examine witnesses, but I sat at counsel table, was able to argue on a variety of motions, including opening and closing arguments.

Oh, and lawyers don't appear as "expert witnesses" on the law.  The old saying is that the only expert on the law in a courtroom is the judge.  Lawyers argue the law -- what they say has the weight of argument only, not testimony.

Is fuckery afoot with Cannon?  Surely.  But the fact that amicus parties are allowed to argue a particular point of law isn't, in and of itself, fuckery.

6s7qav.png?a475848

  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...