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 (edited)
15 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Saudis and Iran have had their own mini arab cold war for a long time. Intelligence on Iran could definitely be worth money to the Saudis, especially if it exposes vulnerabilities in Iran's defense. 

This right here.  Sunni vs Shia 

Edited by Leeroy Jenkins
Posted
15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

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

Quote

Since January 8, 2006, Riches has filed over 2600[4] lawsuits in federal district courts across the country,[5] some of which have received considerable press attention.[6] Among the more famous defendants of his lawsuits are New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick,[7] former President of the United States George W. Bush,[8] former Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno,[9] Martha Stewart,[10] NASCAR driver Jeff Gordon,[11] former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick,[12][13] entrepreneur Steve Jobs,[14] celebrity blogger Perez Hilton,[15] Somali pirates,[16] and pop star Britney Spears.[17] He also sued the late Benazir Bhutto, Pervez Musharraf, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service on November 7, 2007, to prevent him from being deported to Pakistan and tortured upon his release from prison in March 2012.[18] There is no evidence beyond this lawsuit of any attempt to deport Riches.

On April 9, 2008, Riches filed a request for a temporary restraining order in a US District Court against Grand Theft Auto publisher Take-Two, developer Rockstar Games, FCI Williamsburg, and Grand Theft Auto itself, claiming that the defendants "put me in prison." The inmate stated, "Defendants contributed to Plaintiff committing identity theft. Defendant's games show sex, drugs and violence which offends me." Riches continued, "Defendants put me in prison. I face imminent danger from violent inmates who played Grand Theft Auto who will knock me out and take my gold Jesus cross."[19]

Riches attempted to intervene as a plaintiff in the Madoff investment scandal, claiming that he "met Bernard Madoff on eharmony.com in 2001" and taught Madoff identity theft skills.[20]

In May 2009, Riches filed for an injunction against the Guinness Book of World Records, seeking to stop them from listing him as "the most litigious individual in history".[21] Guinness spokeswoman Sara Wilcox told The Huffington Post that there was no such listing, and no plan to create one. "'Most litigious man' is not something Guinness World Records has ever monitored as a record category," she said. The action—like the vast majority of Riches's filings—was dismissed.[3]

Some of Riches's defendants are not even persons subject to suit. These include "Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party" and the "13 tribes of Israel."[22] One lawsuit, in which George W. Bush was the first-named defendant, also includes another 783 defendants that cover 57 pages. They include Plato, Nostradamus, Che Guevara, James Hoffa, "Various Buddhist Monks," all survivors of the Holocaust, the Lincoln Memorial, the Eiffel Tower, the USS Cole, the book Mein Kampf, the Garden of Eden, the Roman Empire, the Appalachian Trail, Plymouth Rock, the Holy Grail, Nordic gods, the dwarf planet Pluto, and the entire Three Mile Island accident.[23]

A number of Riches's lawsuits have been dismissed as being "frivolous, malicious" or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.[12] Willis Hunt, the U.S. District Court Judge who dismissed Riches's suit against Vick as "farcical," opined that his lawsuits were clearly self-promotional. As per 28 U.S. Code § 1915(g), he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis.[24]

Food for thought

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

Does being such a sensitive cunt, hurt?  You fucking pussy?  

Aww, look, you're taking your anger at me to multiple threads. It's cute. Nothing says "sensitive cunt" like literally making fun of myself. You might consider trying it. 

Posted

I think it's fairly obvious by now that if Trump hadn't stolen top secret shit he would've gotten away with everything else. It does seem like he may indeed not be able to wriggle out of this one finally, but Garland was too scared to seriously pursue anything against Trump related to the deadly coup he attempted. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
17 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

But fucking Iran?  Unless he's related to the drone strike he ordered on Qasem Soleimani, I don't get it.  He was very proud and defensive of that drone strike, so maybe it relates to the reason(s) why he ordered the strike - we know he's a sensitive snowflake. I could easily see him keeping some information around to show people.  "Remember that Iranian general I had killed in Iraq? Yeah, this is why I had him killed.  You can thank me for saving the lives of Americans."

 

Actually, you may be correct. I'd had originally interpreted it to mean documents about a potential attack on Iran. I hadn't considered it being about a prior attack related to Iran. If it's about Soleimani, I totally get it. And it's the exact reason you stated.

Posted
15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think it's fairly obvious by now that if Trump hadn't stolen top secret shit he would've gotten away with everything else. It does seem like he may indeed not be able to wriggle out of this one finally, but Garland was too scared to seriously pursue anything against Trump related to the deadly coup he attempted. 

the documents case appears to be the most "open and shut" and the only reason he's facing charges is because he didn't return them when asked. 

as usual it's the coverup not the initial crime.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Actually, you may be correct. I'd had originally interpreted it to mean documents about a potential attack on Iran. I hadn't considered it being about a prior attack related to Iran. If it's about Soleimani, I totally get it. And it's the exact reason you stated.

If Jared was involved in any way, I would say it was probably to sell or give to Saudi Arabia (Sunni vs Shiite).  I don’t think Trump is that smart or forward thinking - I could see him totally hanging on to something to show that he made a beautiful call in regard to that drone strike. 

Posted
Just now, The Dog said:

the documents case appears to be the most "open and shut" and the only reason he's facing charges is because he didn't return them when asked. 

as usual it's the coverup not the initial crime.

If he had done what everyone else has done ("Oops, sorry about that. Here's everything") none of us would have ever known about it. Which makes the whole typical "witch hunt!" thing especially galling. Like, dude, were you trying to finally get sent off? Everyone has bent over backwards your entire life to keep you out of jail and you pull this shit at 76 years old.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
50 minutes ago, Captainant said:

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. 

Based upon your legal training  and familiarity with the substantive statutes, your knowledge of the rule of evidence, and your mastery of civil and criminal procedure I guess. 

Here is a clue - losing the fucking case is usually the worst consequence. Courts do not have the power to make stupid MAGATS not believe Trump.  Trump manipulating the stupids for political reasons by filing  loser cases is not a task to remedy the courts can take up.  They can only examine the merits and rule.   Almost routinely he lost.   That is the main thing courts can do.   Getting involved in any other way is not their fucking job.   That is the voter’s function, mostly.   

Your bold opinion is based on your emotional feels.   So unless you can explain what Magic Legal Fairy controls the overall process in dozens of different courts throughout the country, some civil, some appellate, some criminal - - - many with different law firms - - - think about some of those factors before subjecting us to your thought bubbles. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Based upon your legal training  and familiarity with the substantive statutes, your knowledge of the rule of evidence, and your mastery of civil and criminal procedure I guess. 

Here is a clue - losing the fucking case is usually the worst consequence. Courts do not have the power to make stupid MAGATS not believe Trump.  Trump manipulating the stupids for political reasons by filing  loser cases is not a task to remedy the courts can take up.  They can only examine the merits and rule.   Almost routinely he lost.   That is the main thing courts can do.   Getting involved in any other way is not their fucking job.   That is the voter’s function, mostly.   

Your bold opinion is based on your emotional feels.   So unless you can explain what Magic Legal Fairy controls the overall process in dozens of different courts throughout the country, some civil, some appellate, some criminal - - - many with different law firms - - - think about some of those factors before subjecting us to your thought bubbles. 

 

 

Well. the other thing is that Trump mostly was not a party to those 60 lawsuits.  And before someone is branded a vexatious litigant, they have to be the plaintiff, by name, or the "real party in interest,"  which I am learning through Inter Partes Review can be a trickier question than it initially appears.

However, the number of spurious/frivolous suits he has filed in his own name lately seems to have him on something of a glide path to vexatious litigant.

But Americans basically have the right to file shitty lawsuits.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, SquishMitten said:

Actually, you may be correct. I'd had originally interpreted it to mean documents about a potential attack on Iran. I hadn't considered it being about a prior attack related to Iran. If it's about Soleimani, I totally get it. And it's the exact reason you stated.

 

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

If Jared was involved in any way, I would say it was probably to sell or give to Saudi Arabia (Sunni vs Shiite).  I don’t think Trump is that smart or forward thinking - I could see him totally hanging on to something to show that he made a beautiful call in regard to that drone strike. 

My theory is it’s a plan to bomb a nuclear research facility in a mountainous region and it involves an old Top Gun pilot training a group of pilots to take their 5th Gen fighters through the enemy air defenses and laser guide the bombs to the target. 
 

I believe it is the plan to target Iran’s enrichment facility. 

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted

It's funny this same things keep getting argued over. The lawyers are arguing over what it takes to apply these laws to perpetrators and they're right. 

The other people are arguing about how the laws and how they're applied are completely biased and corrupt and they're right about that. 

Rimbo is just plain nuts if he thinks there isn't a chance politics corrupt this and Trump walks. Even if Trump gets convicted and sentenced to say 4 years if the American Idiots vote him or any republican president next year he'll get pardoned. 

  • Like 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But Americans basically have the right to file shitty lawsuits.

And the thing is, as much as we all hate the authoritarian loving shit-stain,  one of the go-to authoritarian moves is to disenfranchise those seeking to use the courts.  Leaders Trump loves limit the use of courts to address wrongs.   Sure, Trump is full of it, and abuses it, but that is partly the price you pay for a system that allows you to challenge the status quo.   A strength of our system is that we allow for modifying and enlarging the law, which is a benefit in a changing world.   

If Trump was banned at shit suit thirteen from filing any more, he would claim even greater injustice and victimhood.    Losing 60 suits allows the non-stupid to clearly see he is full of shit.  Preventing him from suing and losing gives him more grievance juice than he has now, and grievance juice is what powers him. And he is deprived of saying the Deep State is being unfair and not allowing him to show his proof.  (i’m mean, he’s gonna say it anyway, but intelligent people will see that it’s bullshit after 60)

Again, and only my opinion, but preventing his embarrassing losses in court by limiting his access to the courts is worse for the country than allowing his embarrassing losses. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, Captainant said:

God bless the free market justice system.

I mean, people voted for that shit, including a constitutional amendment.

It's a bit outside the justice system, actually.

Posted (edited)

TL/DR warning!

I had a long time on my flight back to look at some cases and statutes involving the Georgia case and it’s RICO implications, and I’m gonna bore everybody this weekend with some things that jumped out at me that make me think that the orange turd and Ms.  ladybugs and Rudy could be in trouble.    There are enough things to talk about that I don’t want to longcat to death each topic, so I will spoiler each one so the surly thread page still can scroll easily, and everyone can ignore my ass on all of the observations.

Edited by Gatorubet
“In trouble” meaning indicted. Which is trouble. Convictions are as open and shut as OJ’s
  • Like 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

TL/DR warning!

I had a long time on my flight back to look at some cases and statutes involving the Georgia case and it’s RICO implications, and I’m gonna bore everybody this weekend with some things that jumped out at me that make me think that the orange turd and Ms.  ladybugs and Rudy could be in trouble.    There are enough things to talk about that I don’t want to longcat to death each topic, so I will spoiler each one so the surly thread page still can scroll easily, and everyone can ignore my ass on all of the observations.

TLDR

  • Haha 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

You seem very concerned about whether people think Trump will have any consequences. Not sure why.

Question for the board: let’s assume Trump is convicted and sentenced to three years in prison. How confident are you that Biden wouldn’t pardon him prior to that sentence starting? 100%? 75%?
Posted

A second term Biden, 0%. However if it happens before Nov 2024, there is a legit chance he gets cornered into committing to it in some centrist strategy

Posted

Biden is gonna pardon Trump?  What?  

He's never going to see the inside of a jail cell, even if convicted of something serious.  

There are only two plays afoot here:

1.  Between criss-crossing the country to campaign and fundraise, and make court appearances, an obese 77/78 man drops dead.  Will cause temporary chaos in the country though, with 25 million people either refusing to accept it or thinking the "Deep State" poisoned him.  But we'd get over it eventually.

2.  Calendars.  MattDamonAsKavenaugh, "These beautiful calendars man."  Four substantial cases against him in myriad venues.  Between debates, primaries, fundraisers, trying to stay alive and those four sets of court appearances...it's just a logistics question.  No politics, just no one person, even with an airplane, can keep up that pace and schedule.  He'll be disqualified for debates and caucus votes on top or probably missing a few essential court appearances.  He's about to embark on an itinerary that's beyond even that of the U.S. Air Force.  He can't pull off physically what he thinks he can do.  The Super Alpha Male some of his voters concocted in their minds, will collapse after the convention.  

Posted

See, if I were y'all, I'd be concerned about historical parallels.

Hitler didn't gain control of Germany until AFTER his prison stay.

  • Like 1
Posted
See, if I were y'all, I'd be concerned about historical parallels.
Hitler didn't gain control of Germany until AFTER his prison stay.

…after serving nine months of a five year sentence.
Posted
9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There is absolutely zero chance Biden pardons Trump. Don't be stupid.

"SLEEPY JOE HAS PARDONED ME BECAUSE HE KNOWS I DID NOTHING WRONG!". 

Posted
14 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

See, if I were y'all, I'd be concerned about historical parallels.

Hitler didn't gain control of Germany until AFTER his prison stay.

Fair point.  But remember Hitler was only 44 when ascended to the lead the Reich.  Trump is pushing 80 and will be dead soon enough, which means I probably will be too since I'm gonna ingest everything I can find that week.  But we are left with two overarching concerns---how will his disciples act out after this death that could harm innocent people in the short term?  And in the long term, what the fuck is coming next?  People forget, there was a hot minute where Hitler almost did conquer Europe.  What would have come after him given the justification of his plan had he won, that could have been infinitely more horrifying.  

1 minute ago, Tuco said:


…after serving nine months of a five year sentence.

Well yeah.  Say what you want about the guy.  He at least had the good sense to hire attorneys who weren't construction lawyers by trade and he actually paid them.  Hence their incentives to work the system and get him an early release.  

Posted
15 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

See, if I were y'all, I'd be concerned about historical parallels.

Hitler didn't gain control of Germany until AFTER his prison stay.

I've already noted this.  I am confident in stating that a CONVICTED Trump performs better in the general election than today's Trump.  All the GQP voters will be motivated to turn out to vote because they have to fight back against the evil libtard WITCH HUNT (nevermind that a conviction means that he was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, facts not only don't matter, they only piss of Republicans).  There aren't more GQP voters than Dem voters, but there WILL be more MOTIVATED GQP voters than motivated Dem voters. 

A convicted Trump is a greater threat to the Republic than today's Trump.

We still need to prosecute and convict him, because fuck suspending the rule of law for a narcissist pussy-ass coward piece of shit like him, and fuck his supporters in the goat-ass.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 6/1/2023 at 10:50 AM, 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.

This is so important. 

An opinion that Trump won't face consequences is merely a prediction of an outcome. Fine.

Suggesting that action is pointless because one cannot guarantee a suitable resolution is poison.

Anyone saying impeachment was pointless because Trump wouldn't be convicted was playing into exactly what Rimbo describes. The impeachment served a purpose at a number of levels. At the very least it proved how vile and traitorous the GOP has become.

Don't give in to facile hopelessness. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

This is so important. 

An opinion that Trump won't face consequences is merely a prediction of an outcome. Fine.

Suggesting that action is pointless because one cannot guarantee a suitable resolution is poison.

Anyone saying impeachment was pointless because Trump wouldn't be convicted was playing into exactly what Rimbo describes. The impeachment served a purpose at a number of levels. At the very least it proved how vile and traitorous the GOP has become.

Don't give in to facile hopelessness. 

Well, I am of the opinion that the impeachments were not pointless, but the outcome foreordained, particularly in retrospect.  So, anguish over their outcome was pointless, or if not pointless, a waste of emotion.

On the other hand, I think it is vitally important, if criminal cases are brought, to make them as airtight as possible under the circumstances.  Although conviction might not have the desired results, acquittal would be so much worse.

And for those picking at the justice system, consider whether you're coming close to being in pari delicto with those who say it's rigged and partisan, at least outside the supreme court.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

image.gif.5607e6692e7331cd889f5d757d7ac290.gif

Even without the document itself, the recording serves a solid evidentiary purpose.  And, I think the inability to produce that document hurts Trump worse than the government.  In a case about absconding and withholding government records, it's not going to help to say "the government can't even find this document that is the subject of the recording."  O rly?

  • Haha 1
Posted
43 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

This is so important. 

An opinion that Trump won't face consequences is merely a prediction of an outcome. Fine.

Suggesting that action is pointless because one cannot guarantee a suitable resolution is poison.

Anyone saying impeachment was pointless because Trump wouldn't be convicted was playing into exactly what Rimbo describes. The impeachment served a purpose at a number of levels. At the very least it proved how vile and traitorous the GOP has become.

Don't give in to facile hopelessness. 

I think you are extrapolating way too much.  I'm certainly not saying this shit shouldn't be pushed as far as it can be pushed.  But, calling the "nothing is going to happen" crowd stupid is fucking asinine.  There is plenty of shit that should have stuck, but didn't.  And, as much as I may appreciate the legal analysis, the reality is there is no precedent - legally or politically - for sending an expresident or future candidate to prison.  The legal consequences here aren't like some trigonometric proof we can work through in a vacuum.  People are involved.  Politics are involved.  I certainly hope Trump goes to prison and I recognize that is one of the several possible outcomes.  But if the last six years have demonstrated anything, it's there is wide chasm between logic and reality.   

Y'all believe he is going to prison.  Cool.  I hope you're right.  You want to throw shit at everyone who would lay money the other way?  Go fuck yourself.  Not everyone has to agree with you.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
22 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

No evidence = No crime !!!!

 

Have they checked with the Saudi crown prince? Although I'm sure he's going to want a refund to give the documents back. 

Posted
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Even without the document itself, the recording serves a solid evidentiary purpose.  And, I think the inability to produce that document hurts Trump worse than the government.  In a case about absconding and withholding government records, it's not going to help to say "the government can't even find this document that is the subject of the recording."  O rly?

5-1 odds he makes that argument in court 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I think you are extrapolating way too much.  I'm certainly not saying this shit shouldn't be pushed as far as it can be pushed.  But, calling the "nothing is going to happen" crowd stupid is fucking asinine.  There is plenty of shit that should have stuck, but didn't.  And, as much as I may appreciate the legal analysis, the reality is there is no precedent - legally or politically - for sending an expresident or future candidate to prison.  The legal consequences here aren't like some trigonometric proof we can work through in a vacuum.  People are involved.  Politics are involved.  I certainly hope Trump goes to prison and I recognize that is one of the several possible outcomes.  But if the last six years have demonstrated anything, it's there is wide chasm between logic and reality.   

Y'all believe he is going to prison.  Cool.  I hope you're right.  You want to throw shit at everyone who would lay money the other way?  Go fuck yourself.  Not everyone has to agree with you.  

OK, first, there's a vast difference between TwiceHorn's "There's no guarantee that this will happen" and going full fatalistic "nothing will happen."

Secondly, it's absolutely fair to say that the "nothing is going to happen" dumbwits are showing levels of intelligence inappropriately low for a chordate because literally every argument you made, right here in this post, yet again, has already been addressed, beaten down, torn apart and shredded.

It is possible that nothing will happen. But if nothing happens, it is not going to be for the reasons you're saying. It's going to be because trials are by their nature unpredictable, because any time you get any case in front of 12 people you cannot possibly know the outcome, what judge you'll get, how he'll handle the case. Just about every other so-called "justification" from the "nothing will happen" crowd makes me wonder if you find yourselves regularly outsmarted by nearby garden snails.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Have they checked with the Saudi crown prince? Although I'm sure he's going to want a refund to give the documents back. 

Comer’s whistleblower has it, they just don’t know where both are at this time. 



×
×
  • Create New...