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

Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46168

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

No Shit, Sherlock

 

 

I love how these people come out YEARS after the fact to tell us shit we've all already known the entire time.  The only former dotard jackass I respect is Cohen because he actually told it like it was from the moment shit started to hit the fan.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
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

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

So the appeal to the 11th circuit--

TwiceHorn, you said before this will be an abuse of discretion standard. Which concerns me. Is there no argument to be made that it should be reviewed de novo?

That is, because Trump team has submitted no sworn facts as the party that petitioned for relief, the legitimacy of Cannon's stay is more in the way of a pure legal issue, rather than an application of the law to a known set of specific facts?  Just a thought 

I believe that to be true, yes.

However, there are a number of legal questions the district court either failed to answer or answered incorrectly, namely the executive privilege questions, and the ownership/access to classified documents.  If the 11th Circuit feels those were clearer questions with clearer answers, that clear error supports an abuse of discretion.  As a court of appeals, they probably are less reticent to empathically state what the law is than a baby trial judge that may be in the bag for Trump.

Also, setting aside MAGAT jurists, of which I think there are actually few. there seems to be a belief that conservative jurists may favor an "imperial presidency" or however you wish to term that, and that strengthening executive privilege strengthens the presidency.  I read an article from a conservative source that points out that strengthening executive privilege in the hands of a former president actually weakens the assertion of the privilege by the office of the president and the sitting president.  So, if strengthening the presidency longer term is the goal of certain jurists and justices, helping Trump out here actually is against their broader policy interests.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10292

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I believe that to be true, yes.

However, there are a number of legal questions the district court either failed to answer or answered incorrectly, namely the executive privilege questions, and the ownership/access to classified documents.  If the 11th Circuit feels those were clearer questions with clearer answers, that clear error supports an abuse of discretion.  As a court of appeals, they probably are less reticent to empathically state what the law is than a baby trial judge that may be in the bag for Trump.

Also, setting aside MAGAT jurists, of which I think there are actually few. there seems to be a belief that conservative jurists may favor an "imperial presidency" or however you wish to term that, and that strengthening executive privilege strengthens the presidency.  I read an article from a conservative source that points out that strengthening executive privilege in the hands of a former president actually weakens the assertion of the privilege by the office of the president and the sitting president.  So, if strengthening the presidency longer term is the goal of certain jurists and justices, helping Trump out here actually is against their broader policy interests.

If we ever get past this as a nation, do you think after the dust settles we will learn about a judiciary in which money changed hands or mob threats were made? I genuinely cannot see any difference between what we have here and what we say happens in the Mexican court system.

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

Brisketexan 106900

Posted
Posted
If we ever get past this as a nation, do you think after the dust settles we will learn about a judiciary in which money changed hands or mob threats were made? I genuinely cannot see any difference between what we have here and what we say happens in the Mexican court system.

As someone who literally makes their living in that system, I can tell you that we’ve moved a lot closer to the authoritarian/not rule of law model than I ever imagined possible. It’s horrifying.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10292

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:


As someone who literally makes their living in that system, I can tell you that we’ve moved a lot closer to the authoritarian/not rule of law model than I ever imagined possible. It’s horrifying.

It is horrifying. Makes you wonder why anyone bothers trying to make an honest living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, chainsaw said:

If we ever get past this as a nation, do you think after the dust settles we will learn about a judiciary in which money changed hands or mob threats were made? I genuinely cannot see any difference between what we have here and what we say happens in the Mexican court system.

She may well be in the bag for Trump, but if that's the case, I very highly doubt she was actually bribed or threatened.

Judges fuck shit up all the time for all manner of reasons, sometimes they're just dumb or have a blind spot.

One thing I think is clear is that she read too much into the Supreme Court's statement in denying cert. in Trump v. Thompson.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21A272  particularly this:  "The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns."

That makes the executive privilege issue look more nuanced or to be a tougher call than it probably is.  Although I don't believe the question here is that difficult, it is still an extension of existing law of the type I have seen new or not confident judges be unwilling to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78685

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, lemonlime said:
I don't trust the 11th Circuit at all. But this is at least a somewhat promising sign in that they're certainly signaling they intend to decide on the stay very soon.

 

yes, they're all on board with supporting trump and getting him back in office 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tigol

tigol 2482

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

She may well be in the bag for Trump, but if that's the case, I very highly doubt she was actually bribed or threatened.

Judges fuck shit up all the time for all manner of reasons, sometimes they're just dumb or have a blind spot.

One thing I think is clear is that she read too much into the Supreme Court's statement in denying cert. in Trump v. Thompson.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/21A272  particularly this:  "The questions whether and in what circumstances a former President may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent President to waive the privilege, are unprecedented and raise serious and substantial concerns."

That makes the executive privilege issue look more nuanced or to be a tougher call than it probably is.  Although I don't believe the question here is that difficult, it is still an extension of existing law of the type I have seen new or not confident judges be unwilling to make.

I like you, but you have a blind spot when it comes to justice.

You may be keeping it real, as depressing as that is, but it is tough to read.  Just venting.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lemonlime

lemonlime 5503

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

yes, they're all on board with supporting trump and getting him back in office 

Eh, if that were true, they'd delay this.  Trump gains nothing by having a decision on a stay reached right away.. The more time lapses, the more likely trump gets off.  That they've asked for briefing right away is promising.

But, we don't know who's on the panel yet.  And even if the 11th grants a stay, fuck knows what Alito and Thomas et al will do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 53506

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

Whoever originally tweeted that got it backwards. It’s 58% party and 33% trump.  MTP in the clip was trying to say that he is losing support, but still has enough to influence primaries. 
 

edit: that’s the MTP account? They got their own segment wrong?

Edited by Pato del Muerto
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Planet Houston

Planet Houston 4950

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, SaucyJack said:

Totally incorrect.

MTP tweet and graph are opposed to each other.

Trump is losing ground in R Party.

They’re the same platforms. Trump’s brand is just being obnoxious and loud about their true feelings. 

Alternative headline - [x]% of respondents said they wanted to keep being loud about their deplorableness, [y]% would like to see if everyone forgets if they can all just shut the fuck up.

 

Edited by Planet Houston
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 25227

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I believe that to be true, yes.

However, there are a number of legal questions the district court either failed to answer or answered incorrectly, namely the executive privilege questions, and the ownership/access to classified documents.  If the 11th Circuit feels those were clearer questions with clearer answers, that clear error supports an abuse of discretion.  As a court of appeals, they probably are less reticent to empathically state what the law is than a baby trial judge that may be in the bag for Trump.

Also, setting aside MAGAT jurists, of which I think there are actually few. there seems to be a belief that conservative jurists may favor an "imperial presidency" or however you wish to term that, and that strengthening executive privilege strengthens the presidency.  I read an article from a conservative source that points out that strengthening executive privilege in the hands of a former president actually weakens the assertion of the privilege by the office of the president and the sitting president.  So, if strengthening the presidency longer term is the goal of certain jurists and justices, helping Trump out here actually is against their broader policy interests.

This (imperial presidency) has been a conservative goal since Nixon resigned. Dick Cheney and one of the lawyers that served for GWB and all Republican presidents from Nixon until then were the chief proponents. It’s not a MAGA or Evangelical position necessarily. 

Edited by troph
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, troph said:

This (imperial presidency) has been a conservative goal since Nixon resigned. Dick Cheney and one of the lawyers that served for GWB and all Republican presidents from Nixon until then were the chief proponents. It’s not a MAGA or Evangelical position necessarily. 

Oh agreed.  I think there are plenty of dangerous conservative beliefs among the judiciary that are not MAGAts.  Meaning could be found among any conservative appointments of the last 30-40 years.

I did find that article interesting, though, and I think it is more likely to represent the view of these conservative jurists than any explicitly pro-Trump stance.

it was American Enterprise Institute, by the way, criticizing the Kavanaugh "dissent thing" in Trump v Thompson by pointing out that giving increased executive privilege to past presidents actually weakens it in the hands of the incumbent president and thus undermines the imperial presidency in the long term.  https://www.aei.org/articles/trump-v-thompson-and-the-meaning-of-executive-privilege-today/

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

Gil Bang 26240

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

My dad and some cousins grew up in Youngstown, so meh. 
 

ulysses S Grant is apparently the heir apparent to F. Douglass?

 

 

That either makes you a Stoops, a Tressel, or a Pelini, so you can fuck right the fuck off.  

Either get a DNA test or go away 

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

atomheartbevo 90650

Posted
Posted

 

14 minutes ago, speed817 said:

Nazis

10 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

I think we are too tolerant of cults here. Maybe we don't go the extreme China goes with oppressing the cults there but kid gloves treatment can be just as dangerous

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

yeah, that seems like a fucking problem

I’d be a lot more worried if it wasn’t Trump grifting and trying to make the GOP about him, and was instead somebody like DeSantis getting these morons to raise their hands in cult salutes.  DeSantis is too smart for that though, and he doesn’t have Trump’s ability to turn a crowd into a cult.

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...