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

[atomheartbevo 89777]

[safe sex 11745]

Holy shit Aileen Cannon is willing to play fucking dumb, essentially.

Edited August 26 by safe sex

[Brisketexan 105268]

16 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Holy shit Aileen Cannon is willing to play fucking dumb, essentially.

Yes, that's how corrupt traitors to the Republic roll.  It's not a new script.  It's a time-honored one.  All that actually matters is the end result: total fealty and service to The King, Lord Rule of All, His Majesty [Trump, whatever other bullshit dictator in history you want to think of].

[tx 3 putt 77328]

the grift never ends …..

 

[C-Man 27254]

the grift never ends …..
 

[tx 3 putt 77328]

 

[tx 3 putt 77328]

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

 

 

 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20471]

18 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Sure, it looks like a cheap piece of shit. But what if I told you that, per the website, it's actually "A truly unique collectible motorcycle sculpture, it features a star-spangled chopper that can be removed from its base for multiple display options?"

[TexArcher 38021]

Half this country is so god damned irredeemably stupid, man.  How much of an idiot do you have to be to get conned by THIS idiot?

[Js1 85522]

7 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Half this country is so god damned irredeemably stupid, man.  How much of an idiot do you have to be to get conned by THIS idiot?

Conned implies they are being deceived. They’re doing this because they want to

[TexArcher 38021]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

Conned implies they are being deceived. They’re doing this because they want to

Yeah, but aren't the marks always doing it because they want to?

Nevermind, I don't want to understand it.  I just need them to lose.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

17 hours ago, Js1 said:

Time for Cannon to get her pp slapped

 

Minor point of order, the case was appealed a little over a month ago, in July.  This is the government/appellant's brief.  Trump's is due in 30 days.

This is an expedited appeal and I would expect oral argument within 30 days or so of Trump's brief and a decision a couple of weeks thereafter, so probably October.

Edited August 27 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31529]

13 hours ago, safe sex said:

Holy shit Aileen Cannon is willing to play fucking dumb, essentially.

In fairness, when you start having to talk about participles and verb tenses in a statutory construction case, it tends to mean Congress has been a bit less than crystal clear in defining the powers it granted to the Attorney General.

If you remove the desired result -- Congress gave the AG power to appoint special counsel -- there's quite a bit of wiggle room here.

[Captainant 27726]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Minor point of order, the case was appealed a little over a month ago, in July.  This is the government/appellant's brief.  Trump's is due in 30 days.

This is an expedited appeal and I would expect oral argument within 30 days or so of Trump's brief and a decision a couple of weeks thereafter, so probably October.

Canon did her job, checks in the mail. It's not a bribe, it's a tip for services! Absolutely wild that he has successfully delayed his trial for SELLING OUR HUMINT AND NUCLEAR SECRETS

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20471]

 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30286]

16 hours ago, safe sex said:

Holy shit Aileen Cannon is willing to play fucking dumb, essentially.

Aye, there’s the rub.  Because she is in fact, stupid and incompetent, and was found to be stupid and incompetent in other matters unrelated to Trump, there was an initial benefit of the doubt given her.

Which over time she fully removed. 

[wildcat09 29376]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

In fairness, when you start having to talk about participles and verb tenses in a statutory construction case, it tends to mean Congress has been a bit less than crystal clear in defining the powers it granted to the Attorney General.

If you remove the desired result -- Congress gave the AG power to appoint special counsel -- there's quite a bit of wiggle room here.

You can resist this urge Twice, I believe in you.

[Gatorubet 30286]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

Conned implies they are being deceived. They’re doing this because they want to

I have a brother-in-law who has been noticeably not-smart since he was a child. The MAGA message appeals to his simplistic, white and black way of thinking, and allows him to be taken in by any lie that requires him to see nuance or another side of the story. He is simply incapable of doing that.

Since we know that demographics say that the less education you have, the more likely you are to be a Trump supporter, he fits that demographic perfectly.    He does not want to think, he wants other people to tell him what to think. It’s just a hell of a lot easier for him.

[Biff Tannen 45711]

On 8/25/2024 at 11:34 PM, tx 3 putt said:

this suuuuuuuuure looks staged 

 

Two people died right?  That’s the only reason I can’t go down the “it was staged” route. But I’m willing to listen. 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

You can resist this urge Twice, I believe in you.

You can read opinions and briefs for yourself, dispense with your desire for a certain outcome, and acknowledge that there can be a dispute here.

 

Edited August 27 by TwiceHorn

[shakahorn 1645]

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can read opinions and briefs for yourself, dispense with your desire for a certain outcome, and acknowledge that there can be a dispute here.

 

Does it depend on what the definition of "is" is?

[wildcat09 29376]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can read opinions and briefs for yourself, dispense with your desire for a certain outcome, and acknowledge that there can be a dispute here.

 

I'm just saying that you don't in fact need to continually play devil's advocate and pretend as if the real problem is that a legislature wasn't clear enough with its language. Legislation not being sufficiently clear is a thing, sure, but that's more just a function of how language works than it even is about legislative sloppiness. Saying that a piece of legislation could be a little more clear is like saying the sky is blue or water is wet.

You know as well as any of us that even when a law is crystal fucking clear a Republican judge can and will still ignore the clear meaning if they want to do so.  

[Captainant 27726]

27 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can read opinions and briefs for yourself, dispense with your desire for a certain outcome, and acknowledge that there can be a dispute here.

Treating the fascists as if they're acting in good faith is a good way to let the fascists get what they want. Canon is actively blocking and tackling for trumpco and further worsening the damage from trump's garage sale of our national secrets.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20471]

 

 

 

[tx 3 putt 77328]

9 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm just saying that you don't in fact need to continually play devil's advocate and pretend as if the real problem is that a legislature wasn't clear enough with its language. Legislation not being sufficiently clear is a thing, sure, but that's more just a function of how language works than it even is about legislative sloppiness. Saying that a piece of legislation could be a little more clear is like saying the sky is blue or water is wet.

You know as well as any of us that even when a law is crystal fucking clear a Republican judge can and will still ignore the clear meaning if they want to do so.  

That's a fair point.  But as a lawyer that deals with relatively modern statutes on the reg, TItles 15, 17, and 35, they are much better drafted than older things.  One of mulitple flaws of Congress, both todays and those of yesteryear, is that they seem to refuse to a) draft with clarity and b) fix clarity issues when the courts find them.

So weirdly worded statutes grind my gears.  And these are pretty oddly worded.  

And, when you have that, regardless of the political orientation of the interpreting court, you can get bad results.

And, it's not devil's advocacy.  It's acknowledgement that there can be an actual dispute here, even before you get to what you think the court will do with that dispute.

The best thing in the government's favor here is the opinion in US v. Nixon.  It is clearly not dicta, however it apparently was agreed by the parties that the AG had the authority to appoint Jaworski and there's zero interpretation of the statutes in question.

The "history" of accepted special counsels doesn't help me much.  That's how we got Breuen.

Edited August 27 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29376]

Even a statute that it as clear as it can possibly be when written will become unclear over time, because language evolves. It's not math, no matter how much you wish it were. Even if you got rid of all the sausage making and could just hand the pen to one brilliant lawyer, there is not and will never be a way for that lawyer to craft a statute so perfectly that it wouldn't be susceptible to bad faith arguments about how it actually means the opposite of what it says if a judge is sympathetic to those arguments. 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Even a statute that it as clear as it can possibly be when written will become unclear over time, because language evolves. It's not math, no matter how much you wish it were. Even if you got rid of all the sausage making and could just hand the pen to one brilliant lawyer, there is not and will never be a way for that lawyer to craft a statute so perfectly that it wouldn't be susceptible to bad faith arguments about how it actually means the opposite of what it says if a judge is sympathetic to thosie arguments. 

See, I don't think it requires great brilliance to draft with clarity.  I write and screw around with patent claims on a daily basis.  Verbal descriptions of physical objects and processes that require some degree of clarity.  I'm not some genius drafter, and even if I am, a plethora of chuckleheads write patent claims that get the job done every day.

[achooloco 1072]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can read opinions and briefs for yourself, dispense with your desire for a certain outcome, and acknowledge that there can be a dispute here.

 

Sounds a lot like water isn’t wet. 

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You can read opinions and briefs for yourself, dispense with your desire for a certain outcome, and acknowledge that there can be a dispute here.

 

But these are really not disputes about what the law says or allows, but rather, tests of how far bad faith actors are allowed to deviate from what the law is widely understood to say and allow. 
 

 

Edited August 27 by Bozo_Casanova

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/special-counsel-re-indicts-trump-supreme-court-immunity-decision/

Special counsel reindicts Trump with narrower set of accusations after Supreme Court immunity decision

Washington — Special counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment against former President Donald Trump Tuesday in which he again accused Trump of resisting the peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 presidential election. Smith narrowed the allegations after a landmark Supreme Court ruling on presidential power earlier this year.

The new charging document is based on a more refined set of allegedly criminal acts after the Supreme Court ruled Trump was immune from prosecution for some of the conduct included in Smith's original 2023 indictment.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

[Js1 85522]

From ABC:

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case.

"Today, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, ECF No. 226, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment," a Justice Department spokesperson said Tuesday.

"The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions," the spokesperson said.

[Satchel 6948]

5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Aye, there’s the rub.  Because she is in fact, stupid and incompetent, and was found to be stupid and incompetent in other matters unrelated to Trump, there was an initial benefit of the doubt given her.

Which over time she fully removed. 

She’s a magna cum laude graduate from a top ranked law school. She’s not dumb. She’s completely and wholly compromised.

[Gatorubet 30286]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

She’s not dumb. She’s completely and wholly compromised.

 Perhaps dumb is the wrong word. But her short time on the bench in non-Trump matters shows that she’s over her head and not particularly competent.

None of that disputes that she has her thumb on the scales in a particularly heinous and partisan manner.

 

[atomheartbevo 89777]

36 minutes ago, Js1 said:

From ABC:

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case.

"Today, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, ECF No. 226, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment," a Justice Department spokesperson said Tuesday.

"The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions," the spokesperson said.

[Bozo_Casanova 26522]

14 minutes ago, Satchel said:

She’s a magna cum laude graduate from a top ranked law school. She’s not dumb.

 My experience instructs me not to assume the latter on the basis of the former.

[G650 14273]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 My experience instructs me not to assume the latter on the basis of the former.

Beat me to it

[wildcat09 29376]

17 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 My experience instructs me not to assume the latter on the basis of the former.

See: Brett Kavanaugh.

[Gatorubet 30286]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

See: Brett Kavanaugh.

Senator Ted Something…

[yoladu 4094]

22 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

the grift never ends …..

 

that ear looks great!

[yoladu 4094]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Minor point of order, the case was appealed a little over a month ago, in July.  This is the government/appellant's brief.  Trump's is due in 30 days.

This is an expedited appeal and I would expect oral argument within 30 days or so of Trump's brief and a decision a couple of weeks thereafter, so probably October.

[mdmost 43022]

He's having a mood.

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11820]

[TwiceHorn 31529]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

 Perhaps dumb is the wrong word. But her short time on the bench in non-Trump matters shows that she’s over her head and not particularly competent.

None of that disputes that she has her thumb on the scales in a particularly heinous and partisan manner.

 

To the extent that high-standing in a law school class indicates "smarts," sometimes, if not often, it is of something of a savant variety.

And, as you note, her lack of trial experience and sort of egghead bent tends to mean she "makes a federal case" out of, well, federal cases.

[TwiceHorn 31529]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

From ABC:

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump in a superseding indictment in his federal election interference case.

"Today, a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a superseding indictment, ECF No. 226, charging the defendant with the same criminal offenses that were charged in the original indictment," a Justice Department spokesperson said Tuesday.

"The superseding indictment, which was presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case, reflects the Government’s efforts to respect and implement the Supreme Court’s holdings and remand instructions," the spokesperson said.

The indictment is 9 pages shorter than the original, so it probably reduces mention of anything that could be considered an official act or core constitutional responsibility.  The ABC article does a pretty good summary. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-charged-superseding-indictment-federal-election-subversion/story?id=113193224

Notably:

While the original indictment mentions the Justice Department on over 30 occasions, the new indictment makes no mention of the DOJ.

More importantly, I think, behind the scenes, the evidence presented to the grand jury to secure the indictment avoided anything (well not anything but more things) that could be considered official acts or core constitutional responsibilities.  And, I'm sure this is a different grand jury, so there's no "taint" (or grundle or gooch) of the prior possibly inadmissible evidence.

Edited August 27 by TwiceHorn

[Slacks 6857]

On 8/26/2024 at 6:02 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Contains a typo. Dismissed.

[immamac 42916]

2 minutes ago, Slacks said:

Contains a typo. Dismissed.

Have AI do this bitch. 

[Slacks 6857]

28 minutes ago, immamac said:

Have AI do this bitch. 

Contains AI. Also dismissed.

[tx 3 putt 77328]

8 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

 

always be grifting ….

 

[Francisco 2.0 32416]

 

 

 

Quote

In a filing accompanying the new indictment, prosecutors noted that the revised charges had been “presented to a new grand jury that had not previously heard evidence in this case.” That move was undertaken to keep Mr. Trump’s lawyers from claiming that the grand jury had been tainted by hearing testimony barred by the Supreme Court’s immunity decision