A story about a pathetic man's downfall [34 Felony Convictions]

[Bullneck 19092]

 

 

[Bullneck 19092]

 

 

[immamac 42852]

51 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

And there it is folks. Re: Garland. We are done here. 

These people are so incompetent it's fucking unreal. 

[Willfully Horn 8017]

11 minutes ago, immamac said:

These people are so incompetent it's fucking unreal. 

Dems are using muskets in wintertime, after the harvest and on historic battlegrounds. Rs have laid claymore mines in the public square, and haven’t stopped firing AR-15s in schools, hospitals, and churches.

[RomaVicta 29908]

Garland should be fired. He's either compromised or incompetent.

I haven't opined about him before because I don't believe I can discern what's going on in the DOJ. The republic was attacked by the president of the United States. It was a raw power move where the Capitol was violated and leaders of state were hunted.

Ooey, ooey, I don't want to seem political is tragically misguided and a crime of omission tantamount to the treasonous activities in question. This gives traitors another shot at office.

Replace Garland with Adam Schiff. Right fucking now.

Ooey, ooey, they'll call it a witch hunt!

I. Don't. Give. A. Fuck. Take your fantasy about what is happening to your retirement home and write a book nobody cares about, Garland. Fuck off. 

 

[tx 3 putt 76958]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

Appointing Garland as AG has to be Biden’s worst blunder as POTUS. The man is a pussy. 

[immamac 42852]

2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Appointing Garland as AG has to be Biden’s worst blunder as POTUS. The man is a pussy. 

He's not getting on the supreme court so what the fuck is he concerned about politically? There are no bridges left to burn. He has one job when he was appointed AG - expediently bring charges against insurrectionists. 

[TwiceHorn 31476]

8 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

 

 

Goddammit.

The press release from the DOJ, here, https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/oyster-bay-residents-charged-27-million-investment-fraud-scheme-and-selling-foreign does not allege that contributions were made to Trump, but only to various state and national committees, that are likely GQP, but not Trump or his campaign directly..  And those facts have yet to be proven.

And, the Garland memo is such a nothing burger.  It requires getting AG approval before pulling a Comey.

A rational take:

 

If you don't think ANY prosecution of a former POTUS would not have AG approval, you're fucking high.  And, we already know that an investigation is underway, via the Navarro and other subpoenas.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever on whether Trump will be indicted.  It's not similar, it's not relevant, it has zero predictive value.

Sandy vaginas.  Stop.

Edited July 20, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

Remember when Garland declined to prosecute Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino for contempt? He’s not helping. As soon as pessimism stops paying off, I’ll stop betting on it.

[TwiceHorn 31476]

8 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Remember when Garland declined to prosecute Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino for contempt? He’s not helping. As soon as pessimism stops paying off, I’ll stop betting on it.

First off, Navarro is being prosecuted.  You mean Meadows. There are valid reasons for that that long preexist.  

Pessimism may be warranted, but you're grasping at straws to support it and slandering a good man in the process.

Edited July 20, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Dr. Teeth 5844]

Garland was a moderate that Obama hoped would be sufficient for McConnell to allow into the court. Garland was a moderate that Biden hoped would appease McConnell as AG. One party thinks you need to work with and appease the other. McConnell and Rs will keep doing the same things as long as old, white dudes like Biden and Schumer let him. And we are all fucked for it. 

[TwiceHorn 31476]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Garland was a moderate that Obama hoped would be sufficient for McConnell to allow into the court. Garland was a moderate that Biden hoped would appease McConnell as AG. One party thinks you need to work with and appease the other. McConnell and Rs will keep doing the same things as long as old, white dudes like Biden and Schumer let him. And we are all fucked for it. 

That all may be true, and probably is.  But it has little bearing on whether Garland and his DOJ will indict Trump.

And, I want to add that Glenn Kirshner's analysis is fine as far as it goes, but he keeps spouting that there's probable cause to indict.  That is true.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is whether you can convict.  And there are implications to prosecuting a former president.  I don't think we have any insight on how that issue will be resolved.  And, I am going to guess that it is at least as much Biden's decision as Garland's, assuming it gets to the point of at least a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

[DigglerontheHoof 21200]

8 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

Garland was a moderate that Obama hoped would be sufficient for McConnell to allow into the court. Garland was a moderate that Biden hoped would appease McConnell as AG. One party thinks you need to work with and appease the other. McConnell and Rs will keep doing the same things as long as old, white dudes like Biden and Schumer let him. And we are all fucked for it. 

The current Dem leadership is the worst I've ever witnessed in either political party, in my lifetime.  Pelosi et al need to retire and gtfo of the way for new leadership.  They. Are. Horribad. 

[Dr. Teeth 5844]

That’s what I am getting at. Biden doesn’t want to do anything to rile anyone up. He wants to play nice. Hence, his pick of Garland. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21200]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That all may be true, and probably is.  But it has little bearing on whether Garland and his DOJ will indict Trump.

And, I want to add that Glenn Kirshner's analysis is fine as far as it goes, but he keeps spouting that there's probable cause to indict.  That is true.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is whether you can convict.  And there are implications to prosecuting a former president.  I don't think we have any insight on how that issue will be resolved.  And, I am going to guess that it is at least as much Biden's decision as Garland's, assuming it gets to the point of at least a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

But there are more horrifying implications to not prosecute dotard, imo. 

[TwiceHorn 31476]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

That’s what I am getting at. Biden doesn’t want to do anything to rile anyone up. He wants to play nice. Hence, his pick of Garland. 

To a certain extent, I think that's exactly why Biden is President, today.

However, after being cornholed repeatedly by bad-faith GQPs and DINOs, and, in the face of malignant criminality, I think Joey Two Scoops and Garland are pretty likely to go for it.

The first step is to establish that there is a winnable case, which I think is nearly there.  A big issue, though, is these witnesses and their now on record potentially prior inconsistent statements.  Then comes the "implications."

Edited July 20, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Serak The Preparer 3431]

On 7/18/2022 at 7:11 PM, markstanco said:

Look it up. They got mad jack signing with them. And they are off the pga tour or at least they were a few weeks ago. Maybe it changed. But I doubt it. I think Phil got 200 million signing bonus. They offered Tiger a billion I heard. Too lazy to Google.

Weird, you're so good at googling numbers, figured you'd be automatic by now.

 

[Pancho 44804]

28 minutes ago, Dr. Teeth said:

That’s what I am getting at. Biden doesn’t want to do anything to rile anyone up. He wants to play nice. Hence, his pick of Garland. 

Because Biden, pelosi, Schumer and the like care more about decorum. They believe that “all it takes” while not understanding radical republicans aren’t going back to decorum—ever. They are going scorched earth to get their way because it’s working.

[Biff Tannen 45688]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That all may be true, and probably is.  But it has little bearing on whether Garland and his DOJ will indict Trump.

And, I want to add that Glenn Kirshner's analysis is fine as far as it goes, but he keeps spouting that there's probable cause to indict.  That is true.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is whether you can convict.  And there are implications to prosecuting a former president.  I don't think we have any insight on how that issue will be resolved.  And, I am going to guess that it is at least as much Biden's decision as Garland's, assuming it gets to the point of at least a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

 

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

To a certain extent, I think that's exactly why Biden is President, today.

However, after being cornholed repeatedly by bad-faith GQPs and DINOs, and, in the face of malignant criminality, I think Joey Two Scoops and Garland are pretty likely to go for it.

The first step is to establish that there is a winnable case, which I think is nearly there.  A big issue, though, is these witnesses and their now on record potentially prior inconsistent statements.  Then comes the "implications."

I just want them to get caught trying.  That's all.

[Neonmoon 38129]

Just more evidence of the takeover of our country. no big deal. thanks Garland

 

 

[Vegas64 675]

47 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

The current Dem leadership is the worst I've ever witnessed in either political party, in my lifetime.  Pelosi et al need to retire and gtfo of the way for new leadership.  They. Are. Horribad. 

Agree and anytime the "Pelosi is awesome and should be speaker of the house" titled thread is bumped I cringe to death, with the benefit of hindsight.

[Fastbreak 3985]

[TwiceHorn 31476]

8 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Just more evidence of the takeover of our country. no big deal. thanks Garland

 

 

Well, that's a blinding glimpse of the obvious.  I'm fairly certain that was revealed in the litigation over it.

[WhatTheBuck 28783]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

First off, Navarro is being prosecuted.  You mean Meadows. There are valid reasons for that that long preexist.  

Pessimism may be warranted, but you're grasping at straws to support it and slandering a good man in the process.

Oh, right.  I was just recalling that Navarro and Scavino were both voted to be held in contempt at the same time.

I’m sure Garland is a good man. I’ll bet he would’ve made a good justice. I don’t think he’s a very good AG. That’s hardly a novel opinion. He’s welcome to prove me wrong at any time and I’ll happily eat crow. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddammit.

The press release from the DOJ, here, https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/oyster-bay-residents-charged-27-million-investment-fraud-scheme-and-selling-foreign does not allege that contributions were made to Trump, but only to various state and national committees, that are likely GQP, but not Trump or his campaign directly..  And those facts have yet to be proven.

And, the Garland memo is such a nothing burger.  It requires getting AG approval before pulling a Comey.

A rational take:

 

If you don't think ANY prosecution of a former POTUS would not have AG approval, you're fucking high.  And, we already know that an investigation is underway, via the Navarro and other subpoenas.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever on whether Trump will be indicted.  It's not similar, it's not relevant, it has zero predictive value.

Sandy vaginas.  Stop.

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

First off, Navarro is being prosecuted.  You mean Meadows. There are valid reasons for that that long preexist.  

Pessimism may be warranted, but you're grasping at straws to support it and slandering a good man in the process.

 

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

That all may be true, and probably is.  But it has little bearing on whether Garland and his DOJ will indict Trump.

And, I want to add that Glenn Kirshner's analysis is fine as far as it goes, but he keeps spouting that there's probable cause to indict.  That is true.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is whether you can convict.  And there are implications to prosecuting a former president.  I don't think we have any insight on how that issue will be resolved.  And, I am going to guess that it is at least as much Biden's decision as Garland's, assuming it gets to the point of at least a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

I wonder if you will ever tire of trying to cover for Garland's lazy and incompetent ass?

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

1 hour ago, Vegas64 said:

Agree and anytime the "Pelosi is awesome and should be speaker of the house" titled thread is bumped I cringe to death, with the benefit of hindsight.

I don't cringe, I get my hopes up that the most recent post says she got thrown out of the speaker role.  I always haz disappoint.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Should have been Doug Jones.

I’ll go to my grave pissed about that.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddammit.

The press release from the DOJ, here, https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/oyster-bay-residents-charged-27-million-investment-fraud-scheme-and-selling-foreign does not allege that contributions were made to Trump, but only to various state and national committees, that are likely GQP, but not Trump or his campaign directly..  And those facts have yet to be proven.

And, the Garland memo is such a nothing burger.  It requires getting AG approval before pulling a Comey.

A rational take:

 

If you don't think ANY prosecution of a former POTUS would not have AG approval, you're fucking high.  And, we already know that an investigation is underway, via the Navarro and other subpoenas.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever on whether Trump will be indicted.  It's not similar, it's not relevant, it has zero predictive value.

Sandy vaginas.  Stop.

 

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

First off, Navarro is being prosecuted.  You mean Meadows. There are valid reasons for that that long preexist.  

Pessimism may be warranted, but you're grasping at straws to support it and slandering a good man in the process.

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That all may be true, and probably is.  But it has little bearing on whether Garland and his DOJ will indict Trump.

And, I want to add that Glenn Kirshner's analysis is fine as far as it goes, but he keeps spouting that there's probable cause to indict.  That is true.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is whether you can convict.  And there are implications to prosecuting a former president.  I don't think we have any insight on how that issue will be resolved.  And, I am going to guess that it is at least as much Biden's decision as Garland's, assuming it gets to the point of at least a reasonable likelihood of conviction.

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

To a certain extent, I think that's exactly why Biden is President, today.

However, after being cornholed repeatedly by bad-faith GQPs and DINOs, and, in the face of malignant criminality, I think Joey Two Scoops and Garland are pretty likely to go for it.

The first step is to establish that there is a winnable case, which I think is nearly there.  A big issue, though, is these witnesses and their now on record potentially prior inconsistent statements.  Then comes the "implications."

lol at carrying water for the worst AG for the times.  the memo incorporated barr's increased bureaucracy for top level investigations -- which of course he had no need to do.  the memo did not otherwise address any other nuances for political investigations.  it's amazing that someone can come into office in january 2021 and not have had a single unique thought about potential investigations into politicians. 

[HenryJames 66057]

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

A whole bunch of that thread is NYT, BuzzFeed, Mother Jones, etc uncovering shit then the DOJ asking for tidbits from their findings.

Sounds like DOJ is free-loading off the work of others instead of using their vast resources to get to the bottom of this shit in an expedited manner.

Fuck Garland.

[VRHorn 718]

The whole "we must respect norms and decorum" crowd is going to be the death of us all. They are also completely exhausting at this point because no amount of evidence can shake them.

[tx 3 putt 76958]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Just more evidence of the takeover of our country. no big deal. thanks Garland

 

 

meh, drop some criminal charges on him and I’ll be somewhat impressed 

[TwiceHorn 31476]

46 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

A whole bunch of that thread is NYT, BuzzFeed, Mother Jones, etc uncovering shit then the DOJ asking for tidbits from their findings.

Sounds like DOJ is free-loading off the work of others instead of using their vast resources to get to the bottom of this shit in an expedited manner.

Fuck Garland.

Lol wut.  Just stahp.

That screed describes dozens of grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, indictments and sealed cooperation product from lower-level conspirators.  And that's just the stuff that has somehow leaked to the public.

And, it should be noted that DOJ is likely somewhat biding its time in deference to the Committee, because subjecting people to criminal and non-criminal or civil investigations simultaneously, makes the non-criminal investigation much more difficult.

Edited July 20, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[C-Man 27229]

1 hour ago, VRHorn said:

The whole "we must respect norms and decorum" crowd is going to be the death of us all. They are also completely exhausting at this point because no amount of evidence can shake them.

This isn't breaking news but as you all know, the GQP hasn't respected "norms and decorum" for some time now. It's time for Dems to do the same.

[The Dog 44053]

Great video on why the DOJ is "taking so long". Must watch for the more unhinged on here:

 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13512]

SIAP, Wisconsin leader says that Trump called as recently as this month to decertify the 2020 election. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/donald-trump-wisconsin-2020-presidential-election/index.html

Trump is the modern day equivalent of the Duke brothers wanting those machines turned back on.

 

['stache 21816]

I think many of you are forgetting how absolutely dumb as shit a huge swatch of our electorate is, especially the self-proclaimed "independents" or "undecideds."

Dems arrested for peaceful pro-choice protest?: "The dems are so angry and divisive."

Dems pursue hearings and prosecutions of right-wingers who tried to overthrow the government and got people killed? "The dems are so angry and divisive."

 

It doesn't go both ways with these people. They are absolutely fucking braindead idiots. Many dems are likely dying to go scorched earth but have political analysists telling them how this works. They are just as interested in winning elections.

It's why I'm fully on the ledge right now. The dems can't fucking win, it's over. Gerrymandering will ensure that it's done. Doesn't matter how many Americans are sick of this shit, the senate is already problematic with small red state overrepresentation, the rest are being gerrymandered to shit. Nothing makes a shit anymore. 

[Gil Bang 25960]

[TwiceHorn 31476]

3 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

 

 

 

lol at carrying water for the worst AG for the times.  the memo incorporated barr's increased bureaucracy for top level investigations -- which of course he had no need to do.  the memo did not otherwise address any other nuances for political investigations.  it's amazing that someone can come into office in january 2021 and not have had a single unique thought about potential investigations into politicians. 

For perspective, the DOJ first issued a "memo" on this in 2008, under GWB.  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/08/06/a_brief_history_of_the_dojs_60-day_rule_which_doesnt_say_60_days_124754.html#!

Notably:

Quote

Obama Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch reissued the Mukasey memo in March 2012 and April 2016, respectively. And Barr issued his own memo in February of this year, with “additional requirements for the opening of certain sensitive investigations,” while reiterating the longstanding policy codified in the three previous memos.  

This is not a new thing.  AGs reissue memos clarifying their policies on this type of thing routinely, and also how defendants will be charged, what plea bargains are acceptable. etc.  

You'd think these things would happen immediately upon the AG taking office, continuing, rejecting, or modifying the prior policy.  But, for some reason, it seems they never do.

Edited July 20, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

Quote

 

In an interview with Milwaukee ABC affiliate WISN, Mr Vos said he recieved a phone call last week in which the former president again demanded that somehow find a way to reverse his 2020 loss.

“It’s very consistent — he makes his case ... he would like us to do something different in Wisconsin, I explained that it's not allowed under the Constitution,” said Mr Vos, who added that the former president “has a different opinion”.

 

Wisconsin official says Trump phoned him last week to pressure him to change election results | The Independent

 

Just last week.  Sure, take your time, let him roam free.  Let's see how that works out.

[The Dog 44053]

6 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Just last week.  Sure, take your time, let him roam free.  Let's see how that works out.

at this point he's doing more harm to the GOP than good.

GOP leadership really wants him to stop talking about the 2020 election but he just won't drop it.

This is a great cycle for the GOP to make gains and he's fucking it up. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by The Dog

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

For perspective, the DOJ first issued a "memo" on this in 2008, under GWB.  https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/08/06/a_brief_history_of_the_dojs_60-day_rule_which_doesnt_say_60_days_124754.html#!

Notably:

This is not a new thing.  AGs reissue memos clarifying their policies on this type of thing routinely, and also how defendants will be charged, what plea bargains are acceptable. etc.  

You'd think these things would happen immediately upon the AG taking office, continuing, rejecting, or modifying the prior policy.  But, for some reason, it seems they never do.

Quite literally is "a new thing" as your very excerpt demonstrates  --  Barr issued his own memo in February of this year, with “additional requirements for the opening of certain sensitive investigations,”.  Barr added additional restraints that were not there on top level political investigations.  Garland decided to continue those. 

 

It is as difficult to pursue political crimes as it was under Barr, which it more difficult than it ever was before.   Garland did nothing to tweak it or offer any guidance as to what to do in pursuing political crimes.  He has no thoughts of his own on this at all.  

 

[Pato del Muerto 52499]

8 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Wisconsin official says Trump phoned him last week to pressure him to change election results | The Independent

 

Just last week.  Sure, take your time, let him roam free.  Let's see how that works out.

Last week because the WI Supreme Court issued a ruling about ballot box drop off locations, so trump geniusly thought he could have it applied retroactively and toss those votes and be declared winner of Wisconsin. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

10 minutes ago, The Dog said:

at this point he's doing more harm to the GOP than good.

GOP leadership really wants him to stop talking about the 2020 election but he just won't drop it.

This is a great cycle for the GOP to make gains and he's fucking it up. 

Sorry, dog, but I'm not talking about the GOP being hurt or not.  I'm talking about a person committing the same crime he is under investigation for by a Grand Jury in Georgia.  While being investigated by Congress for leading an armed insurrection against the peaceful transfer of power.   And we're told 'just wait, the DOJ will do something some time. Maybe."  OK.

In the meantime he gets to go around committing more crimes.  

Edited July 20, 2022 by MC Fresh Breath

[The Dog 44053]

2 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Sorry, dog, but I'm not talking about the GOP being hurt or not.  I'm talking about a person committing the same crime he is under investigation for by a Grand Jury in Georgia.  While being investigated by Congress for leading an armed insurrection against the peaceful transfer of power.   And we're told 'just wait, the DOJ will do something some time. Maybe."  OK.

In the meantime he gets to go around committing more crimes.  

and he's being told to fuck off by everyone. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

and he's being told to fuck off by everyone. 

Not the point.  The GOP has figured out that they can crime spree indefinitely.  And nobody is going to punish them, but there will be sternly worded letters of concern I'm sure.

['stache 21816]

15 minutes ago, MC Fresh Breath said:

Not the point.  The GOP has figured out that they can crime spree indefinitely.  And nobody is going to punish them, but there will be sternly worded letters of concern I'm sure.

It's the voters that should be the primary punisher, but nope, false flags of socialism and trannys in the bathroom are more important. See my rant above. I truly hate this country and have no reservations saying it out loud.

[Brisketexan 105143]

51 minutes ago, The Dog said:

and he's being told to fuck off by everyone. 

....except the GQP voters.  That's the important part.  It's the ONLY important part.

Trump runs again, he wins the nomination.  Fuck any polling that you've seen, fuck seeing some of his endorsed candidates losing.  HE is the brand, and it's the only brand the GQP has now.  He runs, he wins the nomination.

And if he wins the nomination, he wins the presidency -- not because he'll get more votes, but because GQP legislatures in gerrymandered battleground states will simply toss out the actual votes, declare him the winner of the state's electoral votes, and the SCOTUS will bless it all.  They have all told you what the plan is.  You should believe them.

[The Dog 44053]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

....except the GQP voters.  That's the important part.  It's the ONLY important part.

Trump runs again, he wins the nomination.  Fuck any polling that you've seen, fuck seeing some of his endorsed candidates losing.  HE is the brand, and it's the only brand the GQP has now.  He runs, he wins the nomination.

And if he wins the nomination, he wins the presidency -- not because he'll get more votes, but because GQP legislatures in gerrymandered battleground states will simply toss out the actual votes, declare him the winner of the state's electoral votes, and the SCOTUS will bless it all.  They have all told you what the plan is.  You should believe them.

Yes yes yes you have said may times that we are headed to a dictatorship run by Trump who will live forever into perpetuity. 

How about you just ignore my takes from now on if they are so off base?