Jump to content

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

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

AnTiM

AnTiM 1666

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If Trump had won re-election, it would’ve been Putin who was visiting Kyiv this week. 

And trump would be getting a few million for his help with the deal.  Hard to understand why anyone would have a problem with that, it's just business, right?  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 41.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • tx 3 putt

    1687

  • TwiceHorn

    1467

  • WhatTheBuck

    1322

  • atomheartbevo

    1315

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Beau Vine
Beau Vine

To be fair, President Trump’s four years in office weren’t so bad, except when when he incited an insurrection against the government, mismanaged a pandemic that killed nearly half a million Americans

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

Y’all about to get a great visual representation of Cullman, Alabama. Only good things to come out of Cullman are the Britt brothers (Roll Tide!) and orange rolls from All Steak restaurant. That pla

ChiTownDoc
ChiTownDoc

You seem really pissed off for a nontrumper.  Just laugh at the trumpers, bro.  They’re really gullible dumbfucks who worship this orange blob…you know, people completely unlike yourself.  

Posted Images

WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28781

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Woland said:


Taking Ukraine had to be a long term plan for Putin. He was stupid to continue the plan when the Trump-re-election part of the puzzle fell through.

He was banking on Trump being in power and making it an easy conquest. Then when Trump lost, Putin made the mistake of thinking the West had lost its resolve to stand up to him. Especially after everything Trump had done to try to weaken NATO and advance Putin’s agenda. Putin got away with invading Georgia and Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So he invaded with a large force and tried to take Kyiv. He wasn’t prepared to run into an old Cold Warrior like Joe Biden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28781

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Lurch said:

Ugh… the jury forewoman is a walking facepalm

She seems like a nutjob who’s loving the attention. She doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. I heard an interview with her where she said a highlight of her experience was getting to shake Rudy Giuliano’s hand. She thinks he’s a swell kind of guy.

Heres another quote from an article in the AJC that doesn’t make me feel very confident that Trump will be held to account:

Quote

“We heard a lot of recordings of President Trump on the phone,” she said, declining to give specifics. “It is amazing how many hours of footage you can find of that man on the phone. … Some of these that were privately recorded by people or recorded by a staffer.”

Kohrs also shed more light on the grand jury’s decision not to subpoena or invite former President Donald Trump to testify voluntarily.

“We kind of knew what to expect, and so especially with our time being limited and with our resources being limited, when it came to that it was like ‘eh, we’d rather get this person, which is a battle that we can win, than this other one,’” she said.

When he appeared before the New York attorney general for a deposition last summer, Trump reportedly cited his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination more than 440 times.

“So, I think the president just was one where we chose to focus our energies elsewhere, because it would be more productive in the long run,” Kohrs said.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-grand-juror-multiple-indictments-recommended/KGAJO32SP5CJXO4EYGCONSP5OE/

We’ll have to wait and see but I’m not getting my hopes up.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31470

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

She seems like a nutjob who’s loving the attention. She doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. I heard an interview with her where she said a highlight of her experience was getting to shake Rudy Giuliano’s hand. She thinks he’s a swell kind of guy.

Heres another quote from an article in the AJC that doesn’t make me feel very confident that Trump will be held to account:

https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-grand-juror-multiple-indictments-recommended/KGAJO32SP5CJXO4EYGCONSP5OE/

We’ll have to wait and see but I’m not getting my hopes up.

Ok, here's why her flightiness is irrelevant.

The grand jury is a vehicle through which prosecutors secure sworn testimony from witnesses they compel to be there.  This grand jury was basically not much more than an audience for that testimony.  The prosecutors ask the questions, although usually grand jury members are free to as well. The real goal of the the grand jury here was to compel testimony under oath.  And it is the only way the government can do it.

Once it came down to matching up the evidence and testimony with crimes and issuing a report, the grand jury became at the mercy of the prosecutors.  They nominally got to vote or somehow decide collectively what to report, but like the indicting grand jury and the ham sandwich, the prosecutors heavily guided that.

Now, it is the prosecutors' call to impanel an indicting grand jury and present the evidence to them to secure indictments of whomever the prosecutors feel like indicting, this grand jury's report notwithstanding.

On the one hand, this investigative special grand jury served an important evidence gathering role.  On the other, it is basically a window-dressing of fairness to Trumpco, much like a grand jury indictment itself is window-dressing of fairness to a defendant.  It's a layer between the prosecutors and the defendants, but it doesn't offer much protection to the defendant.

tl;dr the foreperson of the grand jury in this case is almost utterly irrelevant to whether charges are brought and against whom.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28781

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Woland said:

Mayor was bitching about Biden on Monday.

Saying what a slap in the face it was that Biden was in Ukraine instead of East Palestine, OH.

Dude, it’s a nation at war. He didn’t just decide to go there. That’s been in the works for months. He can’t just put it off until next week. It took your governor almost a week to show up at the crash site (6 days). Give the man a break. He’s got a lot on his plate. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28781

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ok, here's why her flightiness is irrelevant.

The grand jury is a vehicle through which prosecutors secure sworn testimony from witnesses they compel to be there.  This grand jury was basically not much more than an audience for that testimony.  The prosecutors ask the questions, although usually grand jury members are free to as well. The real goal of the the grand jury here was to compel testimony under oath.  And it is the only way the government can do it.

Once it came down to matching up the evidence and testimony with crimes and issuing a report, the grand jury became at the mercy of the prosecutors.  They nominally got to vote or somehow decide collectively what to report, but like the indicting grand jury and the ham sandwich, the prosecutors heavily guided that.

Now, it is the prosecutors' call to impanel an indicting grand jury and present the evidence to them to secure indictments of whomever the prosecutors feel like indicting, this grand jury's report notwithstanding.

On the one hand, this investigative special grand jury served an important evidence gathering role.  On the other, it is basically a window-dressing of fairness to Trumpco, much like a grand jury indictment itself is window-dressing of fairness to a defendant.  It's a layer between the prosecutors and the defendants, but it doesn't offer much protection to the defendant.

tl;dr the foreperson of the grand jury in this case is almost utterly irrelevant to whether charges are brought and against whom.

It’s not her flakiness that makes me feel doubtful. It’s the things she says.

The fact that she seems like a loon and played any kind of a role in the process doesn’t help, though. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13253

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i can only assume trump water went out of business with the steaks and the vodka which begs the question - just how fucking old is this water?

Trump Ice (His water company) shut down in 2010.

They're going to ingest more chemicals leeched from the plastic bottles than they would from the tap water.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45684

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ok, here's why her flightiness is irrelevant.

The grand jury is a vehicle through which prosecutors secure sworn testimony from witnesses they compel to be there.  This grand jury was basically not much more than an audience for that testimony.  The prosecutors ask the questions, although usually grand jury members are free to as well. The real goal of the the grand jury here was to compel testimony under oath.  And it is the only way the government can do it.

Once it came down to matching up the evidence and testimony with crimes and issuing a report, the grand jury became at the mercy of the prosecutors.  They nominally got to vote or somehow decide collectively what to report, but like the indicting grand jury and the ham sandwich, the prosecutors heavily guided that.

Now, it is the prosecutors' call to impanel an indicting grand jury and present the evidence to them to secure indictments of whomever the prosecutors feel like indicting, this grand jury's report notwithstanding.

On the one hand, this investigative special grand jury served an important evidence gathering role.  On the other, it is basically a window-dressing of fairness to Trumpco, much like a grand jury indictment itself is window-dressing of fairness to a defendant.  It's a layer between the prosecutors and the defendants, but it doesn't offer much protection to the defendant.

tl;dr the foreperson of the grand jury in this case is almost utterly irrelevant to whether charges are brought and against whom.

This is good to know, but 98% of non-lawyer America will freak the fuck out (on both sides) when it comes out that they didn't recommend indicting dotard.  The magats will scream EXONERATION! for months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28781

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Trump Ice (His water company) shut down in 2010.

They're going to ingest more chemicals leeched from the plastic bottles than they would from the tap water.

Trump Water probably has a higher fat content than Piggy Water.

”It’s buttery good!”

BE02638F-625F-44E6-A6CC-E2F2C2015407.thumb.jpeg.90e19e31bd5da39199968988547c8c36.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29191

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The grand jury is a vehicle through which prosecutors secure sworn testimony from witnesses they compel to be there.  This grand jury was basically not much more than an audience for that testimony.  The prosecutors ask the questions, although usually grand jury members are free to as well.

i was questioned by both in front of a grand jury in florida.  i found the questions from the jury to be smarter, more focused, and way more hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3083

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Born to Run said:

Fools like this have an excessively large impact on our republic. Fucking swell.
I guess I'm glad she's not wearing Aggie gear.

This particular chick really has no impact on our republic, at least as far as this grand jury goes. She has some really weird mannerisms,  but what did she say that was foolish? 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3083

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

It’s not her flakiness that makes me feel doubtful. It’s the things she says.

The fact that she seems like a loon and played any kind of a role in the process doesn’t help, though. 

She could be Sydney Powell herself, and even if the entire rest of the panel was equally as crazy, it wouldn't mean anything as far as whether dotard gets indicted. The charging recommendation (for or against) of this kind of grand jury, like that of the J6 committee, doesn't really do anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31470

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

This particular chick really has no impact on our republic, at least as far as this grand jury goes. She has some really weird mannerisms,  but what did she say that was foolish? 

One thing that has been pointed out is that grand jury deliberations are supposed to be secret.  When that secrecy "fails" for whatever reason, defendants may have grounds to quash an indictment by that grand jury.

In this case, of course, a judge released portions of this grand jury's work, and, as long as her "remarks" are coextensive with the released portions, there shouldn't be much of an issue.

Plus, this grand jury issued no indictments, so there shouldn't be grounds to quash an indictment issued by a "non-secret" grand jury.

Still, you know all the turds are going to milk this for all it's worth.  It would probably be best if she STFU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

I'll be the first to say McD breakfast is pretty decent. But I don't understand why anyone would eat it for lunch/dinner. So many better options. Everything tastes like it's been coated in a chemical preservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3083

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing that has been pointed out is that grand jury deliberations are supposed to be secret.  When that secrecy "fails" for whatever reason, defendants may have grounds to quash an indictment by that grand jury.

In this case, of course, a judge released portions of this grand jury's work, and, as long as her "remarks" are coextensive with the released portions, there shouldn't be much of an issue.

Plus, this grand jury issued no indictments, so there shouldn't be grounds to quash an indictment issued by a "non-secret" grand jury.

Still, you know all the turds are going to milk this for all it's worth.  It would probably be best if she STFU.

Yeah, nothing she said was prejudicial. I've seen pearl clutching about her "hinting" they recommended charges against dotard. What she said about whether they recommended charges against him is ambiguous as fuck. It can truly be interpreted either way. 

My favorite freak out about her though pertains to her mentioning that the DA office had an ice cream social for the jurors. As if the jurors getting a free popcicle could've influenced what they recommended. The idea that Willis was attempting to influence their recommendation, which isn't necessary to get an indictment, with treats is truly hilarious. 

I agree though that everyone would've been be better off if the weirdo hadn't given these pointless, unenlightening interviews. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...