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
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, but the statute covers an "attempt to vote."

Again, I'm not defending the Mason conviction, and particularly not the sentence.  I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of trying a criminal case.  The Mason case was easy-peasy with a little bit of wiggle room on the issue of "knew she was ineligible to vote."  That's an easily triable criminal case with one witness and about a day's preparation.

These Trump cases are nothing like that.

Wow so weird that our justice system is ricky fuckin tick fast when it comes to imprisoning a black woman with the temerity to attempt to vote, and how much a fascist has to do before the lawyers can muster enough cognitive power to connect the fucking dots and lift a goddamn finger TWO YEARS AFTER INCITING THOUSANDS TO ATTEMPT TO INSTALL A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Wow so weird that our justice system is ricky fuckin tick fast when it comes to imprisoning a black woman with the temerity to attempt to vote, and how much a fascist has to do before the lawyers can muster enough cognitive power to connect the fucking dots and lift a goddamn finger TWO YEARS AFTER INCITING THOUSANDS TO ATTEMPT TO INSTALL A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP

Again, nuts and bolts.

Mason case easy, Trump cases hard.

It's not really that difficult to understand.

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

Again, nuts and bolts.

Mason case easy, Trump cases hard.

It's not really that difficult to understand.

So weird how it's always cut and dry when it's NOT a fascist, huh? 

Posted
2 hours ago, TexArcher said:

His own former lawyer, Ty Cobb, was on tv saying that he would advise his client that it's over and he should take whatever deal he can get.

And there it is.  He'll get a slap on the wrist and be our next president.  THIS IS OUR CONCERN DUDE.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

And there it is.  He'll get a slap on the wrist and be our next president.  THIS IS OUR CONCERN DUDE.

The feds, as a general proposition, don't offer too many sweetheart pleas, as outlined above.

And I don't think Trump's ego permits him to plead guilty.

The other thing is that no criminal consequences, however severe, necessarily prevent him from being President.  Short of execution before he can take office.

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

So what do we call this hairstyle?  It's not a mullet because of the generous front combover.  It's not blonde, nor red.  Kinda orange.  Definitely party out back.  But overall, it's altogether different.  It needs a name.  

The Ratfucker? 

Posted
3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes. That’s why we keep saying this. I’ll believe he faces consequences if/when it happens. 

"That's why we keep saying this" doesn't follow from your "yes."

If y'all were paying attention, reading between the lines of what eg TwiceHorn is saying:

Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction. Federal investigators who are very, very thorough, and have a 90% conviction rate. Against a guy who is struggling to keep good lawyers and often hires inexperienced ones for their looks.

At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted looks less like "don't give me hope" and more like parroting Kremlin propaganda. Because believe it or not, Moscow's social media agents work both sides. They want you to feel hopeless, so you won't act when needed.

Of course, it could also just be that y'all are dumb as a bag of hammers.

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

Of course, it could also just be that y'all are dumb as a bag of hammers.

Motto worthy 

  • Haha 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction. Federal investigators who are very, very thorough, and have a 90% conviction rate. Against a guy who is struggling to keep good lawyers and often hires inexperienced ones for their looks.

Hd Reaction GIF by MOODMAN

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction.

You’ve heard this tape? The one CNN is reporting on? The one they haven’t heard themselves but which “sources say” that “Trump’s comments suggest” the slam dunk we-got-him-this-time evidence to convict? That tape?

Posted
4 hours ago, TexArcher said:

  His own former lawyer, Ty Cobb, was on tv saying that he would advise his client that it's over and he should take whatever deal he can get.

Armybrat knew him when he was an asshole baseball player.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
37 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted

I’m no lawyer but doesn’t DOJ have to indict him before we can talk about a conviction? Did I somehow miss that nugget?

Posted
40 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

"That's why we keep saying this" doesn't follow from your "yes."

If y'all were paying attention, reading between the lines of what eg TwiceHorn is saying:

Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction. Federal investigators who are very, very thorough, and have a 90% conviction rate. Against a guy who is struggling to keep good lawyers and often hires inexperienced ones for their looks.

At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted looks less like "don't give me hope" and more like parroting Kremlin propaganda. Because believe it or not, Moscow's social media agents work both sides. They want you to feel hopeless, so you won't act when needed.

Of course, it could also just be that y'all are dumb as a bag of hammers.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect this to wither and die just like most other attempts to punish Trump or limit his behavior.  At this point half of America has PTSD/combat fatigue.

Posted
10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect this to wither and die just like most other attempts to punish Trump or limit his behavior.  At this point half of America has PTSD/combat fatigue.

It is unreasonable. It's completely irrational. It requires ignoring certain basic facts that we've been repeatedly exposed to just in this thread alone.

I'll buy that y'all have PTSD, if only because that's an admission of irrationality. Admit that it's irrational, though. Don't sell me PTSD-derived insanity as if it's reasonable.

Posted

Dude.  I have a voice and a vote.  I use both.  It's still not unreasonable to gird one's self against the possibility he'll skate AGAIN.

I'm not undercutting my ability to effect as much change as I can, being just one progressive Texas resident.  I do what I can.  Not getting my hopes up is self-defense, not irrational behavior.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
12 hours ago, dcbc said:

Oh, I agree with you in large part.  I was just saying that not all state prosecutors are winging it all the time.  Some do.  And I know of more than a few feds who got their start as state prosecutors.

 

But it's a different level for sure.

There's also differences within the state. Going up against a prosecutor on a drug possession case that was handed over to the prosecutor an hour before trial, vs. multi-strike case, or homicide, where gov has multiple expert wits prepped, forensic analysis, etc. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

If I see an indictment under the espionage act I will be shocked. If I see any felony count I will be pleasantly surprised and leaning towards a hung jury if/when he goes to trial. 
 

If it’s a bunch of misdemeanors 

image.gif.a28e1d5a666a523fc090222c2f657084.gif

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Yes. That’s why we keep saying this. I’ll believe he faces consequences if/when it happens. 

This.  I will believe it when I see Trump walk into a prison and hear the barred door lock shut behind him.  Not one second before.

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

And there it is.  He'll get a slap on the wrist and be our next president.  THIS IS OUR CONCERN DUDE.

Because this.  This is what will happen.  In fact, his conviction (with minimal/no prison time) will INCREASE HIS SUPPORT AND TURNOUT OF GQP VOTERS.  Some of y'all haven't been paying attention.  Breaking the law and getting away with it is the ULTIMATE way to induce "sweet libtard tears," which is the only thing that matters to GQP voters.  They will turn out at a 98% turnout rate, and he has a damned good chance of waltzing back into the White House.  Yes, I'm saying it: a convicted Trump has a BETTER chance of winning a POTUS race than the current Trump does.

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect this to wither and die just like most other attempts to punish Trump or limit his behavior.  At this point half of America has PTSD/combat fatigue.

Indeed we do.  And the Rule of Law has taken a beating.  Many of us -- including people who literally depend on it for a living -- have justifiably lost a shitload of faith in it.  Don't tell me what the law is, or what it says.  That doesn't matter.  Only the outcome matters.  And we don't trust the people with their hands on the levers, because we've been given ample evidence telling us not to do so.

  • Like 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just a refresher:  3 years ago today

church-trumpgettyimages-1216826599-2-482a56829b887b1a3bf8db7114aebec2d6ec7696-s1100-c50.jpg

Certainly a bad act.  What crime involved, though?

That's one of the problems.  Anti-Trumpers see crimes where there are none, just bad acts.

Posted
29 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

If I see an indictment under the espionage act I will be shocked. If I see any felony count I will be pleasantly surprised and leaning towards a hung jury if/when he goes to trial. 
 

If it’s a bunch of misdemeanors 

image.gif.a28e1d5a666a523fc090222c2f657084.gif

Mar A Lago doesn't seem to involve any misdemeanors.  Whether they bring the espionage act count is a good question.

Obstruction of justice comes in a couple of different flavors, both of which they could charge, but it's a 10 year felony.  That's maximum, though, and I probably wouldn't count on that, of course.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
"That's why we keep saying this" doesn't follow from your "yes."
If y'all were paying attention, reading between the lines of what eg TwiceHorn is saying:
Federal investigators have, and have had for a while, a recording of Trump admitting everything they need for a conviction. Federal investigators who are very, very thorough, and have a 90% conviction rate. Against a guy who is struggling to keep good lawyers and often hires inexperienced ones for their looks.
At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted looks less like "don't give me hope" and more like parroting Kremlin propaganda. Because believe it or not, Moscow's social media agents work both sides. They want you to feel hopeless, so you won't act when needed.
Of course, it could also just be that y'all are dumb as a bag of hammers.
I'd believe that Trump would eventually face conviction in 3-4 years If he wasn't the frontrunner to be elected Potus. All it takes is a dip in the economy or a spike in gas prices and he likely wins, and then hes not getting convicted-ever. The slow ass justice system coupled with Trump's usual stall tactics makes the likelihood of conviction pretty small within the window we have. Then you have the GOP blatantly stealing elections, suppressing votes and Bragging about. Then you have Ken Paxton who was indicted in 2015 and still has not gone to trial.

It's a razor thin margin here. The Republic may endure only because the Supreme Court went full 4 Loco with Roe, and women are pissed and will turn out in 24 to keep fat boy pussy grabber out of office despite the GOPs efforts to steal the election.

I may be dumber than a bag of hammers, but I'm a UT grad. Consider how much dumber all the aggies and non college grads out there voting must be, especially compared to this board.
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Certainly a bad act.  What crime involved, though?

Crime?  Not sure.  He used the military to clear a peaceful protest, though.  Seems like there might have been a little 1A violation there.  You tell us if it's criminal.

Posted

A few points about the Crystal Mason case, maybe no one cares but:

There  was no jury. The trial was a bench trial. The judge was explicit that no knowledge of ineligibility was required. So the issue was never fully litigated and was not ruled upon. Court of Appeals said same -- knowledge not required. Court of Crim. Appeals said nah-- read the damn statute. 

So now it's back in the Court of Appeals to consider the issue of her knowledge. But how that's going to work, I don't understand. What is the standard of review for judging sufficiency when there was a conviction but the issue was never litigated-- de novo? And yes she signed the written oath but that's not dispositive. If she claims she didn't read or understand it (which by the way she had been released from prison AND from a halfway house), that's a credibility issue, no? Which is a matter the original fact-finder gets to assess, not an appellate court from a cold record. It would seem to me that a new trial is the proper remedy, which I guess the CoA could still say. DA's office should really drop this shit though --filled out a provisional ballot that was never counted SMDH.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
19 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

A few points about the Crystal Mason case, maybe no one cares but:

There  was no jury. The trial was a bench trial. The judge was explicit that no knowledge of ineligibility was required. So the issue was never fully litigated and was not ruled upon. Court of Appeals said same -- knowledge not required. Court of Crim. Appeals said nah-- read the damn statute. 

So now it's back in the Court of Appeals to consider the issue of her knowledge. But how that's going to work, I don't understand. What is the standard of review for judging sufficiency when there was a conviction but the issue was never litigated-- de novo? And yes she signed the written oath but that's not dispositive. If she claims she didn't read or understand it (which by the way she had been released from prison AND from a halfway house), that's a credibility issue, no? Which is a matter the original fact-finder gets to assess, not an appellate court from a cold record. It would seem to me that a new trial is the proper remedy, which I guess the CoA could still say. DA's office should really drop this shit though --filled out a provisional ballot that was never counted SMDH.

Perhaps you missed the parts where 1) she was black and 2) she tried to vote.

Open and shut case, she'll get more than any Jan 6th defendant when all is said and done.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
37 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

she'll get more than any Jan 6th defendant when all is said and done.

Well, I'm not so sure about that.  Stewart Rhodes got 18 years.  That's pretty significant.

Posted
2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

At this point, any doubt about Trump getting convicted looks less like "don't give me hope" and more like parroting Kremlin propaganda. Because believe it or not, Moscow's social media agents work both sides. They want you to feel hopeless, so you won't act when needed.

Hope GIF - Hope - Discover & Share GIFs

Posted

I'm definitely leaning towards the Bag of Hammers Theory because literally every defense y'all have made of this asinine hand-wringing and pointless despair have been addressed, multiple times.

stop being whiny pussies and look at the facts here already

Posted
6 hours ago, Captainant said:

Wow so weird that our justice system is ricky fuckin tick fast when it comes to imprisoning a black woman with the temerity to attempt to vote, and how much a fascist has to do before the lawyers can muster enough cognitive power to connect the fucking dots and lift a goddamn finger TWO YEARS AFTER INCITING THOUSANDS TO ATTEMPT TO INSTALL A FASCIST DICTATORSHIP

I’d complain. 

Posted
9 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I'm definitely leaning towards the Bag of Hammers Theory because literally every defense y'all have made of this asinine hand-wringing and pointless despair have been addressed, multiple times.

stop being whiny pussies and look at the facts here already

Listen man, I think this might actually have legs for once, but you can't blame people here for being skeptical considering 1) History  2) How Timing Works Out 3) There is a Human Element involved here in the form of Juries, etc. Plus politics. Plus Democrats who might not prosecute because "we'll divide the country." We don't know. 

Remember when you used to call those of us hammering Mack Brown and Greg Davis and later Charlie Strong Handwringers? Pepperidge Farm remembers. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I'm definitely leaning towards the Bag of Hammers Theory because literally every defense y'all have made of this asinine hand-wringing and pointless despair have been addressed, multiple times.

stop being whiny pussies and look at the facts here already

I don't often neg, but my trigger finger is getting itchy.

Calling other posters stupid and whiny pussies (in addition to being misogynistic) is classic ad hominem and intellectually lazy.

There has been a considerable history of lack of accountability on Trump for what has appeared to be a consistent pattern of illegal behavior throughout his lifetime.  I'm not saying he'll never face consequences, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm pessimistic and will not be getting my hopes up unless and until it happens.  

If that makes me a whiny pussy then I guess I'm a whiny pussy.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Again, nuts and bolts.

Mason case easy, Trump cases hard.

It's not really that difficult to understand.

Yes, but it is difficult understanding the justice of it.

Posted
1 hour ago, miguelito said:

"Let's see ol' Donny wriggle out of this."

That tweet is like 30 years old.

It was prior to the 2016 election. He still is a free man almost seven years later. 

  • Like 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I don't often neg, but my trigger finger is getting itchy.

Calling other posters stupid and whiny pussies (in addition to being misogynistic) is classic ad hominem and intellectually lazy.

There has been a considerable history of lack of accountability on Trump for what has appeared to be a consistent pattern of illegal behavior throughout his lifetime.  I'm not saying he'll never face consequences, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm pessimistic and will not be getting my hopes up unless and until it happens.  

If that makes me a whiny pussy then I guess I'm a whiny pussy.

 

I think he will be held accountable but death will prevent him from serving one day in jail. He will go four corners and stretch all the legal proceedings out and never serve a day because he’s dead or loses his mind like his father. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Listen man, I think this might actually have legs for once, but you can't blame people here for being skeptical considering 1) History  2) How Timing Works Out 3) There is a Human Element involved here in the form of Juries, etc. Plus politics. Plus Democrats who might not prosecute because "we'll divide the country." We don't know. 

Remember when you used to call those of us hammering Mack Brown and Greg Davis and later Charlie Strong Handwringers? Pepperidge Farm remembers. 

 

And TwiceHorn is sitting here with the patience of Job repeatedly showing why the past history and the current situation are utterly and completely different while you people repeatedly ignore him like I used to ignore y'all pointing out to me the reckless idiocy of Davis' blocking schemes, plugging up my ears and yelling "NEENER NEENER BUT WE WON GAMES TRUST THE CORCHES ARRRGH."

I should recognize the stupidity involved. I'm all too familiar with it.

 

39 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

There has been a considerable history of lack of accountability on Trump for what has appeared to be a consistent pattern of illegal behavior throughout his lifetime.  I'm not saying he'll never face consequences, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm pessimistic and will not be getting my hopes up unless and until it happens.  

If that makes me a whiny pussy then I guess I'm a whiny pussy.

 

 

That past, and why it is completely irrelevant now, has been thoroughly and repeatedly addressed by TwiceHorn and others far smarter than I am.

So yes, at this point, it makes y'all whiny bitches. You're deliberately ignoring the overwhelming evidence in front of you in favor of bitchin and moanin.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

i mean TwiceHorn sitting here showing y'all the tooth y'all put under your collective pillow last night and the roll of quarters where the money that replaced it came from and the fingerprints on the pillow when he lifted your head up to make the exchange, and y'all are still screaming that you still believe that it was the tooth fairy

it's comical at this point

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Rimbo said:

That past, and why it is completely irrelevant now, has been thoroughly and repeatedly addressed by TwiceHorn and others far smarter than I am.

 

I remain optimistic and hope that this new arena in which Trump finds himself is not susceptible to the same old bullshit.

I can't guarantee it, though.  Certainly, his post-election record in the courts does not reflect him getting away with much.

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

i mean TwiceHorn sitting here showing y'all the tooth y'all put under your collective pillow last night and the roll of quarters where the money that replaced it came from and the fingerprints on the pillow when he lifted your head up to make the exchange, and y'all are still screaming that you still believe that it was the tooth fairy

it's comical at this point

This is a really fucking weird thing you're getting worked up over.  Everybody understands what he's saying.  To quote the man:

Quote

I can't guarantee it, though.

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That past, and why it is completely irrelevant now, has been thoroughly and repeatedly addressed by TwiceHorn and others far smarter than I am.

So yes, at this point, it makes y'all whiny bitches. You're deliberately ignoring the overwhelming evidence in front of you in favor of bitchin and moanin.

I agree that Twicehorn is far smarter than you.  Sorry, that was low hanging fruit and I had to take the shot after you chose to insult my own intelligence.  I also don't think Twicehorn believes that the past is "completely" irrelevant.  He and I have discussed legal issues and constitutional law quite a bit over the years, and I think he'd concur that I kinda know what the fuck I'm talking about when it comes to legal issues (and particularly constitutional law).

 

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I remain optimistic and hope that this new arena in which Trump finds himself is not susceptible to the same old bullshit.

I can't guarantee it, though.  

And there you go.  

And while I agree with Twicehorn that Trump's record in post-election litigation is essentially getting pantsed, we're still a loooooong way from him seeing jail time for anything. 

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

And while I agree with Twicehorn that Trump's record in post-election litigation is essentially getting pantsed, we're still a loooooong way from him seeing jail time for anything. 

Nevermind that if ANYBODY else in the country were to abuse the legal system to the extent that trumpco has with it's more than sixty specious and immediately dismissed cases, they would have faced some form of fucking consequences by now. 

But no instead we should simply cheer on that the justice system can handle that much bullshit, not be concerned that an asshole is pouring sugar into the gas tank and allowed to continue doing so

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

 

And TwiceHorn is sitting here with the patience of Job repeatedly showing why the past history and the current situation are utterly and completely different while you people repeatedly ignore him like I used to ignore y'all pointing out to me the reckless idiocy of Davis' blocking schemes, plugging up my ears and yelling "NEENER NEENER BUT WE WON GAMES TRUST THE CORCHES ARRRGH."

I should recognize the stupidity involved. I'm all too familiar with it.

 

 

That past, and why it is completely irrelevant now, has been thoroughly and repeatedly addressed by TwiceHorn and others far smarter than I am.

So yes, at this point, it makes y'all whiny bitches. You're deliberately ignoring the overwhelming evidence in front of you in favor of bitchin and moanin.

First off, don't "you people" me, motherfucker, I've been here the entire time saying I think this sticks. I also understand people's skepticism. And lets not paint TwiceHorn's patience as some kind of virtue, half of that man's identity on this board is staning the long processes of the legal profession with holy sanctimony. It's who he is. 

And since you recognize the dynamic with your own past behavior, maybe you should have some empathy. Because you also remember what a completely merciless prick I was about the fucking blockheaded fucktards who couldn't see reality. Do you really want to be like me, sir?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1


×
×
  • Create New...