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)
5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


Jack smith has never seen anything like this. Tuesday will get ugly …

image.thumb.png.a63d07a63fbf0e835ba1fa5a34dada99.png

AFFRT -- pronounced "A Fart"?

Edited by C-Man
  • Haha 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I wonder if lou marin enjoys cats and would appreciate facts about them. 

Send him a fax.  The machine will try 5 times before quitting.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
30 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


she fucking helped the trump legal team re-write their brief for the special counsel request / review. That alone should disqualify her. 

jack smith hubris at play here. He should have kept this in dc and let trump drag this out some 

If he'd filed in DC and the defense convinced the judge it should have been filed in Florida it would be dismissed with prejudice (which I believe means it's over, for good).  

the Manafort case had the same issue and was split between DC and VA.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

If he'd filed in DC and the defense convinced the judge it should have been filed in Florida it would be dismissed with prejudice (which I believe means it's over, for good).  

the Manafort case had the same issue and was split between DC and VA.


If he walks in confident and cocky, the judge has cut a deal with him 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

jack smith hubris at play here. He should have kept this in dc and let trump drag this out some 

Bullshit.  The danger from faulty venue is a much greater risk.  

Edit: should have finished reading the thread first

Edited by Gatorubet
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

If he'd filed in DC and the defense convinced the judge it should have been filed in Florida it would be dismissed with prejudice (which I believe means it's over, for good).  

the Manafort case had the same issue and was split between DC and VA.

Not with prejudice. 

But would have given trump an early victory. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Hermanator said:

Would be great if that flyer is fake and there's no bus trip yet dozens of idiots descend on that unfortunate Walmart with their tiny mushroom in their hands

Probably a 50/50 shot

Posted
41 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Would be great if that flyer is fake and there's no bus trip yet dozens of idiots descend on that unfortunate Walmart with their tiny mushroom in their hands

Would be better if the driver got lost and the bus broke down in Coral City. 

Posted
Not with prejudice. 
But would have given trump an early victory. 
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-918-false-statements-and-venue
True, with the caveat that if the statute of limitations had run prior to the dismissal on improper venue you could not re-try the defendant.   I think I remember reading that obstruction had a five-year SOL, so those charges could be brought again. I’m not sure about the other more serious charges, but I’ll be shocked if their SOL was shorter than the obstruction.
Posted

Just spitballing, but it might be interesting if some smart guy around these parts whipped up some flyers advertising free bus rides from Gainesville, Tampa, Naples, Tallahassee to the courthouse in south Florida.

You know, satire.  Plastered all over Truth and other Trumpy sites.

Like I said, spitballing.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Those flyers and mention the pick up is the address of the gov. mansion in austin, Tallahassee and a few other maga locations, just the address and no mention of where/ what it is, and see how many actually show up waiting for the bus. 

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

Just spitballing, but it might be interesting if some smart guy around these parts whipped up some flyers advertising free bus rides from Gainesville, Tampa, Naples, Tallahassee to the courthouse in south Florida.

You know, satire.  Plastered all over Truth and other Trumpy sites.

Like I said, spitballing.


‘bring snacks’ 

Posted

Bill Barr "weighs" in: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-indictment-documents-06-11-23/index.html

Quote

Former Attorney General Bill Barr heavily criticized claims by former President Donald Trump and some of his allies that he is being targeted and unfairly treated by the federal government in its case against him for his alleged mishandling of classified documents after leaving office.

"This idea of presenting Trump as a victim here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous. Yes, he's been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims. And I've been at his side, defending against them when he is a victim. But this is much different. He's not a victim here," Barr told "Fox News Sunday."

Barr said Trump was "totally wrong" in saying he had the right to retain the classified documents.

"Those documents are among the most sensitive secrets the country has," Barr said. "He had no right to maintain them and retain them. And he kept them in a way in Mar-a-Lago, that anyone who really cares about national security — their stomach would churn at it."

"I was shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there were frankly," Barr added.

While noting that Trump has a right to a defense, Barr described the indictment as "very damning" and the counts as "solid." He said it was "perfectly appropriate" for the government to try and recover the documents the former president had stored at his resort in Florida.

The former attorney general also pushed back against claims by Trump and others that what he had done was similar to the practice of former presidents (and which CNN and others have also fact-checked extensively).

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

because normally the nominated judges are selected with input from various sources. Moreover, the nomination does not secure the job. Bipartisan committees review the qualifications of the candidate and the law requires Senate approval and confirmation.   it is much less like a personal appointment and much more like appointment by committee.

And if you think about it, if the fact that Trump was the one appointing her requires her to recuse herself, then most new judges in every administration could not hear any cases involving the United States government and its agencies.  Because whenever the United States was involved, the president as head of the executive department would also be involved. You would wind up with a situation where a reelected president, with an eight year term would have a large pool of judges who could not hear any cases involving the government.  As it is, there are often much-needed unfilled judicial appointments in many areas of the country.   It is universally recognized that judges can hear cases involving their prior law partners and firms, so long as the judge involved did not represent the client    That is how it must work in the real world.    Most of the time the judges take their oaths seriously and adjudicate the matters impartially    

You may recall that most of the judges during Trump’s bullshit election challenge effort were Republican judges, and many of them Trump appointed judges.  And as you recall, those Trump judges dunked on Trump’s bullshit cases. That is how it is supposed to work, and that, in fact, is how it did work.

This is not the United States or any government agency. This is a private citizen who was a former President. It is not analogous in any way to a judge hearing cases of their former partners or firms. The judge’s sole reason for being a judge was due to the selection by this former President, but yes, I am sure there was some thorough vetting by Congress. Tommy Tuberville probably did a deep dive on her credentials. 

I agree that all the election bullshit case were handled appropriately and to the letter of the law by Trump appointed judges. Thankfully 

But we have already seen this wacko ignore the law for Trump. That is evidence the system is not working. Having the appellate slap her down is the evidence of the system working. 

But Eventually enough bought judges will be put into place to ignore the law (see Dobbs) 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Does the Trump transcript about how he "can't declassify anymore" also shoot down any possible argument about how he sincerely believed he truly won 2020 and, thus, didn't have the necessary intent to commit the crime? (Note, I'm not saying that's a winning, good, or even non-frivolous argument - I'm just trying to anticipate the kind of arguments he's going to attempt)

  • Haha 1
Posted
“Bring snacks”

Make sure mom writes your name in your underwear in case you mess them and have to change. Tighty whities don’t grow on trees you know. Don’t wanna lose em.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

This is not the United States or any government agency. This is a private citizen who was a former President. It is not analogous in any way to a judge hearing cases of their former partners or firms. The judge’s sole reason for being a judge was due to the selection by this former President, but yes, I am sure there was some thorough vetting by Congress. Tommy Tuberville probably did a deep dive on her credentials. 

I agree that all the election bullshit case were handled appropriately and to the letter of the law by Trump appointed judges. Thankfully 

But we have already seen this wacko ignore the law for Trump. That is evidence the system is not working. Having the appellate slap her down is the evidence of the system working. 

But Eventually enough bought judges will be put into place to ignore the law (see Dobbs) 

 

I do not disagree with anything you say. But the question I was responding to was, how can a judge rule on a matter associated with a president after being appointed by that president?  Having a particular judge be completely wrong about legal issues and being vigorously bench-slapped in a rather public manner by the 11th circuit seems, to me, to still be insufficient grounds under existing jurisprudence to recuse the judge.  

Anyone trying to assert fraud claims in federal court under the enhanced pleading requirements knows that just alleging - or even proving that someone did something wrong, or even egregiously wrong - is insufficient to plead fraud in the way many want here.   Using that fraud analogy to the judge, there needs to be more before she will be yanked off the case. That is just my opinion. That is not what I want to see happen, or the result that I would prefer.    So, while I hate Trump more than even Trump haters, that does not extend to me saying that it is easy or doable to forcibly remove her from the case. Even with her dumb Fuckery in her previous handling of the case.

I very much look forward to being wrong.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

I read the entire deposition indictment this afternoon. I looked at the middle of it Thursday, and I was surprised at how accessible it is for a layperson such as myself. Smith saying "read the deposition" should be echoed everywhere. 

The document is masterful in generating a clear narrative and weaving together the facts of the investigation and Trump's own words. There's no need for me to offer any commentary, ipse dixit.

I mainly want to convey the brilliance of those who prepared the case and then created the language in the indictment. If one reads it, one cannot but be astonished at how powerful the case is against Donald Trump.

And it's an easy interesting read.

Edited by RomaVicta
Thanks Twice.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Just spitballing, but it might be interesting if some smart guy around these parts whipped up some flyers advertising free bus rides from Gainesville, Tampa, Naples, Tallahassee to the courthouse in south Florida.

You know, satire.  Plastered all over Truth and other Trumpy sites.

Like I said, spitballing.

I was thinking, you know, misinformation. Which should align well with their strategery.

Posted
4 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:


Jack smith has never seen anything like this. Tuesday will get ugly …

image.thumb.png.a63d07a63fbf0e835ba1fa5a34dada99.png

Comedy Central should do a live feed with Jordan Klepper in the walmart parking lot. He could hand out snacks.

image.thumb.png.f2656f31db40b7bb6ef61be2a671c557.png

  • Haha 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

There's a Trumpy church at the end of my street.  I'm seriously thinking about doing up a flier advertising a free bus ride that leaves from there at 9am Monday, posting it, and having an awesome walk with my dog tomorrow.

We need video

  • Haha 1
Posted
7 hours ago, TexasEd said:

I thought you were paying attention when she appointed a special master and tried to slow down the investigation.  That was done because he was dotus

Key word there was "should."

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Does the Trump transcript about how he "can't declassify anymore" also shoot down any possible argument about how he sincerely believed he truly won 2020 and, thus, didn't have the necessary intent to commit the crime? (Note, I'm not saying that's a winning, good, or even non-frivolous argument - I'm just trying to anticipate the kind of arguments he's going to attempt)

 

7B705DE5-1778-4495-AC6D-079B288E5266.gif

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

Does the Trump transcript about how he "can't declassify anymore" also shoot down any possible argument about how he sincerely believed he truly won 2020 and, thus, didn't have the necessary intent to commit the crime? (Note, I'm not saying that's a winning, good, or even non-frivolous argument - I'm just trying to anticipate the kind of arguments he's going to attempt)

These crimes, unlike some other crimes with which he might be charged (namely obstruction of an official proceeding in connection with 1/6), don't require rigorous proof of some nebulous intention.

793(e) provides as follows:

(e)

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

The required mental states are bolded.

1519 provides as follows, as an example of the several obstruction crimes:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Again, bolded, but there's ample evidence elsewhere of knowing concealment and the intention to impede or obstruct.

But yeah, this shows a) he was fully aware of having at least one classified document (Biden and Pence could legitimately argue that they had no such knowledge until brought to their attention) and b) that it was in classified and not for public consumption and c) that maybe he ought not have it at all.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I read the entire deposition this afternoon. I looked at the middle of it Thursday, and I was surprised at how accessible it is for a layperson such as myself. Smith saying "read the deposition" should be echoed everywhere. 

The document is masterful in generating a clear narrative and weaving together the facts of the investigation and Trump's own words. There's no need for me to offer any commentary, ipse dixit.

I mainly want to convey the brilliance of those who prepared the case and then created the language in the indictment. If one reads it, one cannot but be astonished at how powerful the case is against Donald Trump.

And it's an easy interesting read.

The indictment, you mean?  

There really aren't usually depositions in criminal cases, where you get to talk to a witness on the record before they testify, known as a "discovery deposition."  That's why grand juries are so important:  they are, for the most part, the only chance the government has to put a witness under oath and get their testimony on the record before calling them as witnesses at a trial.

Sure, they can do "witness interviews" that are mostly off the record and not under oath, but under penalty of perjury before the FBI.  It's not quite the same thing.  For the longest time, incomprehensibly, the FBI categorically refused to record or video any such interviews and instead 'recorded them" by a form known as a FD-302.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

There's a Trumpy church at the end of my street.  I'm seriously thinking about doing up a flier advertising a free bus ride that leaves from there at 9am Monday, posting it, and having an awesome walk with my dog tomorrow.

Please do this

  • Like 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

These crimes, unlike some other crimes with which he might be charged (namely obstruction of an official proceeding in connection with 1/6), don't require rigorous proof of some nebulous intention.

793(e) provides as follows:

(e)

Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

The required mental states are bolded.

1519 provides as follows, as an example of the several obstruction crimes:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Again, bolded, but there's ample evidence elsewhere of knowing concealment and the intention to impede or obstruct.

But yeah, this shows a) he was fully aware of having at least one classified document (Biden and Pence could legitimately argue that they had no such knowledge until brought to their attention) and b) that it was in classified and not for public consumption and c) that maybe he ought not have it at all.

True, but what if they argue something Nixonian like "when the President does it, it's not illegal" and claim that the Executive power supercedes (or "trumps") whatever statute they are trying to enforce.

Obviously before a sane and impartial judge the defendant would have the "you're not the President" problem. But there are people who truly cling to the idea that it's debatable whether Biden won.

Under those circumstances I think Trump's admission that he lacked the power that a President would have had is powerful.

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...