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)

Why aren’t his ex lawyers notes covered by attorney / client privilege ?

when he discusses not responding / getting rid of / hiding the document 

Edited by tx 3 putt
Posted
40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Indictment. Hey, I'm a layman! Cut me some slack, bro.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So less than half the respondents said he should be charged?  That...is not great.

well over half said yes if you only count the yes and no responses (i'm assuming).

i also assume 17% said some version of "i have no idea what i'm doing dog sitting at computer" response.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why aren’t his ex lawyers notes covered by attorney / client privilege ?

when he discusses not responding / getting rid of / hiding the document 

crime-fraud exception.   It was litigated a while back.

Posted
I think that’s 48 indy and 35 R which is pretty damn good. 

Another way to read that is that half of independents and two thirds of Republicans are just fine with Republic-betraying crimes so long as it’s DJT doing them. That…is problematic.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
Just now, Biff Tannen said:

So less than half the respondents said he should be charged?  That...is not great.

13% think the documents charges are serious, but that Trump should not be charged for them. 

 

10388692.gif

  • Haha 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I think that’s 48 indy and 35 R which is pretty damn good. 

Nope. It's overall and even worse, 47% view this as politically motivated vs 37% who say it's not politically motivated. 

Quote

2. While perceptions have shifted on the severity of this indictment compared to the last, attitudes are stable on whether Trump should be charged for a crime, whether the charges are politically motivated, and whether or not he should suspend his campaign.

More believe that the former president should be charged in this case (48%) and suspend his campaign (46%) than believe he should not (35%, 38%, respectively).

Overall, roughly half believe Trump should be charged, and should suspend his campaign (48% and 46%, respectively). These views are unchanged from April, where 50% said Trump should be charged and 48% agreed he should suspend his campaign.

On the other hand, 47% view the latest charges as being politically motivated, also unchanged from April (50%). These views are mainly driven by Republicans, while Democrats want to see Trump charged and to suspend his campaign. Interestingly, independents are split, with roughly half agreeing with all three sentiments.

Still, the share of Americans who believe these charges are politically motivated (47%) outnumber those who do not (37%).

 

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

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.

I’m fully aware there are insufficient grounds for the judge to recuse herself. I’m also fully aware no fraud exists, furthermore there is no evidence of fraud. I was merely pointing out in a world, not of common law, but of common sense, that allowing a judge, that owes her position of power to one private citizen, to oversee the same private citizen’s case in her courtroom is fucking absurd and makes a mockery of the entire justice system. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Another way to read that is that half of independents and two thirds of Republicans are just fine with Republic-betraying crimes so long as it’s DJT doing them. That…is problematic.

There’s no such thing as independents. They’re just too embarrassed to call themselves Republicans. But that’s what they are 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m fully aware there are insufficient grounds for the judge to recuse herself. I’m also fully aware no fraud exists, furthermore there is no evidence of fraud. I was merely pointing out in a world, not of common law, but of common sense, that allowing a judge, that owes her position of power to one private citizen, to oversee the same private citizen’s case in her courtroom is fucking absurd and makes a mockery of the entire justice system. 

I know you know Neon.  But others might have read it differently. So my verbose ass replied. 

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

Indictment. Hey, I'm a layman! Cut me some slack, bro.

For about 25 years now I assumed you were an attorney.  Apologies as I can’t explain how I came to that.

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, nbmishoid said:

For about 25 years now I assumed you were an attorney.  Apologies as I can’t explain how I came to that.

It's because he's full of shit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j/k

Edited by Gil Bang
  • Haha 2
Posted
 
honestly, you need a little more time to let these facts bake in. A young lawyer I work with was unaware of the ethical problems of Justice Thomas, and as of Friday unaware with any details of the Trump indictment. There are a lot of people like that. Some of the poll results were gathered the ninth. If some of those responses are before Jack Smith gave his press - and before anyone had a real chance to read the indictment and figure out what that was about, the numbers will be skewed.
While the GQP cult numbers might not change, I will bet you that the numbers will change among independents if you give it a few weeks.

edit: damn voice software changes it as i save
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Barr’s statements are an attempt to ingratiate himself to sane people. Trumpkins already hate him because…well, Trump hates him and and that’s enough. In other words, at no personal cost but with perceived upside. That his statements are mostly true is beside the point with vermin like Bill Barr. It’s a dog and pony show trotted out for consumption. His words mean nothing.

Edited by Degenerate Gardner
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

if Barr thinks we will forget his treasonous derailment of the results of the Mueller probe and how he falsely presented the findings to the country, and that this will redeem him in the eyes of everyone, that piece of shit is entirely wrong

I hope you are right, but there are quite a few people that have already forgotten the Iran Contra cover-up work he did for Reagan and Bush 1.

Posted

Whatever happen, the problem for years has been the electorate. A large plurality are hate cultists (deplorables if you will), another plurality oppose the cult but really don't get what's going on. The last plurality can't name the vice president, their own senators, or the significance of the date, Jan. 6.

The hate cultists form the hate engine that existed before Trump was even a republican. He was just cunning enough to up the volume on the hate, appear more fun than the stuffed shirts he was running against, and seize the reins of the hate engine. 

If Trump gets shot out of the saddle (or a cannon for all I care) the hate engine does not disintegrate. Hate will be magnified by resentment and some other cunning fuckwad far smarter than Trump will be the cult leader. Like Trump, I think that person may very well be another government outsider. Pillow guy? Kare Lake? Tucker Carlson?

I don't see the mob getting behind someone like DeSantis or (vom) Ted Cruz. They want someone that they errantly believe is just like them.

It's Idiot World, Jake. Emotional storms sweeping over the crumbling foundations of a pretty good idea for a country.

  • Like 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I hope you are right, but there are quite a few people that have already forgotten the Iran Contra cover-up work he did for Reagan and Bush 1.

And his family connection to Jeff Epstein. 

This one good act doesn't clear him of his past, but it was a good thing he did. He staked out a place where others might be able to follow. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Aaaaaand nothing to see here

 

 

So 80% think he should be president from prison? 

Really can't wait for this lovely little moment in our history to be over. You could show these people video of Trump murdering their families and they'd be like "oh well I don't necessarily support Trump murdering my family, but I do like his policies...."

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Posted
7 hours ago, Texas Jeff said:

Ain't nothing gonna happen....

I was around for the OJ trial.  This will play out the same way.

That’s a ridiculous comparison. The Trump stolen docs case is like if they found the bloody knife in OJ’s house and we had him giving a national interview saying, “Of course I would kill my wife. As her husband I have a right to do that.”

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
That’s a ridiculous comparison. The Trump stolen docs case is like if they found the bloody knife in OJ’s house and we had him giving a national interview saying, “Of course I would kill my wife. As her husband I have a right to do that.”
It also ignores the fact that OJ did actually go to jail... eventually.
Posted
10 minutes ago, Red Five said:

So 80% think he should be president from prison? 

Really can't wait for this lovely little moment in our history to be over. You could show these people video of Trump murdering their families and they'd be like "oh well I don't necessarily support Trump murdering my family, but I do like his policies...."

This is our concern dude. 

Posted

I also think it reflects a clear lack of understanding of what's going on here from the deplorables. Like, "Oh sure he can be convicted and get his slap on the wrist for these fake crimes, and then get on with the business of being president".

Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Why aren’t his ex lawyers notes covered by attorney / client privilege ?

when he discusses not responding / getting rid of / hiding the document 

 

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

crime-fraud exception.   It was litigated a while back.

Yep. He told his lawyers to commit crimes and that is not covered. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Goodman is overseeing the arraignment. Cannon is doing the trial 

So that's actually good right?  Or does Cannon still get to decide all the shit after the arraignment?  Delay tactics and such?

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

if Barr thinks we will forget his treasonous derailment of the results of the Mueller probe and how he falsely presented the findings to the country, and that this will redeem him in the eyes of everyone, that piece of shit is entirely wrong

What’s especially galling about watching Barr try to reform his image is that, when he was shilling for Trump, he expressly stated he wasn’t concerned about his legacy. While he was acting as a political operative dedicated to protecting Donald Trump and not as the top official of the Justice Dept. dedicated to defending the law and the Constitution, he was asked about that. He was unconcerned about his legacy and said “everyone dies.” Now we see the hypocrisy even in that statement.

(I’m including the Rudy Giuliani quote just as a reminder of what an unrepentant piece of shit he is.)

Quote

Attorney General William Barr brushed off critics attacking his reputation and handling of matters concerning President Trump, stating in a new interview: “Everyone dies.”

Barr, who previously served as attorney general under former President George H.W. Bush, was ask[ed] during a “CBS This Morning” interview that aired Friday whether he was concerned about his reputation following allegations that he has protected Trump at the conclusion of the federal Russia probe.

“When you came into this job, I mean, you had a good reputation on the right and on the left. You’re now someone who’s accused of protecting the president, enabling the president, lying to Congress. Did you expect that coming in?” CBS’s Jan Crawford asked Barr.

“Well, in a way I did expect it because I realized we live in a crazy, hyperpartisan period of time and I knew that it would only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them,” Barr replied. “That I would be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits or the substance, they only care about who it helps, who benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side.”

“Everything is gauged by politics,” he continued. “And, as I said, that’s antithetical to how the department runs, and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital, and I realize that and that’s one of the reasons that I was ultimately persuaded, that maybe I should take it on because I think that [at] my stage in life it really doesn’t make any difference.”

“I am at the end of my career,” Barr, 69, said.

“Everyone dies, and I am not, you know, I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that, you know, immortality comes by, you know, having odes sung about you over the centuries, you know?” he added. 

Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani shared similar remarks in an interview with The New Yorker last year when asked whether he was concerned about how his time working with the Trump administration would impact his reputation. 

“I don’t care about my legacy,” he said. “I’ll be dead.” 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/446324-barr-defends-reputation-everyone-dies/

Edited by WhatTheBuck
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 hour ago, tchookem said:
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:
That’s a ridiculous comparison. The Trump stolen docs case is like if they found the bloody knife in OJ’s house and we had him giving a national interview saying, “Of course I would kill my wife. As her husband I have a right to do that.”

It also ignores the fact that OJ did actually go to jail... eventually.

Separate incident?

Posted
5 hours 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.

Whither Bob Wheeler?



×
×
  • Create New...