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

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

scottsins

scottsins 1951

Posted
Posted
Yeah, I don't see how that is a federal question.    

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2016/09/22/manslaughter-charge-against-former-detective-charles-kleinert-dropped/10113116007/

This APD shooting case came to mind when I read the posts above about state court criminal proceedings against fed employees discharging federal duties.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 13853

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Irony of ironies….that actor turned out to be a sexual predator.

Well Diane Franklin turned out to be Princess Joanna, so you win some, you lose some.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89304

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I'd go with "She was relaxed and she enjoyed it."

Off-Topic: Taking off my Enrollment Guru hat for a moment... | ACA Signups

If Clayton Williams doesn't drop that little nugget of wisdom, he might win, and if he wins, George W. Bush does not become governor when he does (if ever), which means he doesn't become President in 2001, which means no invasion of Iraq in 2003, which cuts way down on the chances of ISIS/etc. rising up as well as the "Arab Spring" and causing problems all across the Middle East and North Africa (that we are still dealing with in 2023).  George W not happening as President from 2001-2008 may mean no Obama as President, or at least in 2009, which definitely means no Trump as President, and no rise of MAGA/Qanon.

One awful little comment three decades ago set the wheels in motion for Trump.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33779

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2022/08/dan-schneider-accused-of-disgusting-controlling-behavior-while-at-nickelodeon

Maybe “predator” isn’t the best term….creepy pervy fucker might be more accurate.

aren't you a lawyer? you of all people should know words matter. be better.

🤣

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted

Per the WAPO, 8 fake electors in Georgia have accepted Fani Willis’ immunity deals in exchange for truthful testimony abut their involvement in the plot to undermine results.
Now we know the real reason why Willis shared her timeline for issuing indictments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27251

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

Suspicious Monkey GIF by MOODMAN

I would really like to understand why it's not a punishable offense for the false elector lawyer to withhold the immunity deal in an effort to obstruct the prosecution. If you think it was just an oopsie whoopsie, I have a bridge to sell you in Midland TX

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31096

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

I would really like to understand why it's not a punishable offense for the false elector lawyer to withhold the immunity deal in an effort to obstruct the prosecution. If you think it was just an oopsie whoopsie, I have a bridge to sell you in Midland TX

Because we don't actually know that happened.  The two sentences in the motion about it, several paragraphs apart, have multiple explanations other than the lawyer didn't discuss "potential immunity deals."  Namely that her clients are fucking morons and weren't paying attention.

And, the drive-by nature of the allegation in the motion frankly has all the earmarks of a chickenshit attack by one lawyer on another when the lawyer can't prove the chickenshit attack, but only suspects that it may be true.  I hope Willis' office isn't like that, that doesn't bode well for these prosecutions.

And there would be absolutely nothing to be gained by the lawyer for doing that, except a hickey on the law license.

And, from the WaPo article, the defense lawyer called the prosecution on their chickenshit attack (when a lawyer writes like this, instead of in innuendo, it typically means they can prove exactly what they say).

In the latest volley, Debrow accused prosecutors of misrepresenting the facts — a reference to an April 18 motion from Willis asking a judge to block Debrow from “any further participation” in the case, claiming the attorney did not tell her clients they had been offered potential immunity in the investigation.

 *  *  *

In her response Friday, Debrow vehemently denied both allegations — and accused prosecutors of knowing that their allegations were not true. She cited a letter to her clients dated last August that laid out early discussions of potential immunity offers. She also said that all eight of her current clients have accepted immunity, making it impossible for them to implicate one another. She added that after reviewing audio recordings and transcripts of her clients’ interviews with prosecutors, which she attended, she has found no evidence that any of them implicated anyone else.

“This statement is categorically false, and provably so,” Debrow wrote. “None of the interviewed electors said anything in any of their interviews that was incriminating to themselves or anyone else, and certainly not to any other elector represented by defense counsel.”

Also notable from the actual article.  All eight of that lawyer's clients accepted immunity deals simply for telling the truth, not for giving testimony incriminating anyone else.  That takes quite a bit of the fun out of it.

So, yet again, you have come to believe that a crime or ethical violation has occurred because you read it in a tweet or some slipshod legal reporting, or worse, slipshod briefing by the prosecution (if you happened to read the motion).  Meanwhile disregarding provable facts.

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

Gatorubet 30023

Posted
Posted

I finally saw the video of Trump’s deposition where he looks at the old photo of alleged rape victim and identifies her as his former wife Marla.   

Legit LOL.   Plus, his spray tan looked really bad.  

However, that legal genius did tell the female lawyer questioning him that she was not attractive enough for him to wanna rape her, so that was different. ( I know, he was just talking about how all us men look at the woman’s hotness as seen through our personal lens before we get all rape-y.   Baylor gets it) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6421

Posted
Posted
I would really like to understand why it's not a punishable offense for the false elector lawyer to withhold the immunity deal in an effort to obstruct the prosecution. If you think it was just an oopsie whoopsie, I have a bridge to sell you in Midland TX
Lots of bridges in Midland over abandoned wells, saltwater lagoons. and over troubled frac waters. However, if you're going to drill baby drill anywhere, Midland is the area to fuck shit up, shit was already fucked and unappealing to begin with. No one noticed. That area looks like bombed out Iraq zones from the air.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45440

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, nbmishoid said:

Well, while modern humans are pegged at 200k years ago, pre human types were walking around.   He prolly is fantasizing being an Australopithecus Robustus trying to assault all the Aferensis in sight.  Still a disgusting thought.  Those footsteps in the sandstone are running away from pre human tfg.  

TMI

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45440

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

If Clayton Williams doesn't drop that little nugget of wisdom, he might win, and if he wins, George W. Bush does not become governor when he does (if ever), which means he doesn't become President in 2001, which means no invasion of Iraq in 2003, which cuts way down on the chances of ISIS/etc. rising up as well as the "Arab Spring" and causing problems all across the Middle East and North Africa (that we are still dealing with in 2023).  George W not happening as President from 2001-2008 may mean no Obama as President, or at least in 2009, which definitely means no Trump as President, and no rise of MAGA/Qanon.

One awful little comment three decades ago set the wheels in motion for Trump.  

Fuck me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31096

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It’s not like he did that himself. So they need to prove he ordered it done.  No slam dunk. 
/aspiring twicehorn

Under a reasonable doubt scheme, very good grasshopper.

But we're getting to a point here where this shit is getting harder and harder to explain.  We're getting way beyond "he said it on TV!!11!1!"

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30023

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, The Dog said:

NSIAP

 

Trump; “That kid <looks at phone>….Barron……is always messing with the remote. Won’t even talk to me, immediately looks for the remote and turns the volume up.  A remote is an electronic thing, and the camera is an electronic thing, so he likely did it.  I’ll send him to boarding school.  I went to boarding school - the best one, really, very hard to get into.  I did very well on the test. Number one, actually.  Look, we’ll send….the kid…away and you can wrap this witch hunt up..”

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31096

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Trump; “That kid <looks at phone>….Barron……is always messing with the remote. Won’t even talk to me, immediately looks for the remote and turns the volume up.  A remote is an electronic thing, and the camera is an electronic thing, so he likely did it.  I’ll send him to boarding school.  I went to boarding school - the best one, really, very hard to get into.  I did very well on the test. Number one, actually.  Look, we’ll send….the kid…away and you can wrap this witch hunt up..”

Person man woman camera tv.

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

TwiceHorn 31096

Posted
Posted
On 5/4/2023 at 6:43 PM, Foosters said:

Wouldn't any Federal employee be entitled to make the same claim? 

So, I was focused on 1443, which deals with civil rights violations, as does the case cited by gatorubet. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1443

There's also 1442, which seems initially less controversial as it is an aspect of sovereign immunity by which federal agencies and officials can't be sued in state courts.  It permits removal when the defendant in a civil or criminal action is:

The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

That's the provision applied in the case scottsins referenced, and I don't think it's going to help Trump.  But yeah, any federal employee acting under color of office could probably invoke that.

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

Gatorubet 30023

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, I was focused on 1443, which deals with civil rights violations, as does the case cited by gatorubet. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1443

There's also 1442, which seems initially less controversial as it is an aspect of sovereign immunity by which federal agencies and officials can't be sued in state courts.  It permits removal when the defendant in a civil or criminal action is:

The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.

That's the provision applied in the case scottsins referenced, and I don't think it's going to help Trump.  But yeah, any federal employee acting under color of office could probably invoke that.

I admit to not being up on my CFR’s.

Which is the one that talks about the right of a future maybe POTUS to pay off porn stars he slept with so the voting public won’t know right before the election? 

 

 

I know, false documents, and not stormy, but Snark is Snark and a bit is a bit

Edited by Gatorubet
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52242

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I admit to not being up on my CFR’s.

Which is the one that talks about the right of a future maybe POTUS to pay off porn stars he slept with so the voting public won’t know right before the election? 

 

Only law that counts is Bible law. Where in the Bible does it say he isnt supposed to do that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31096

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I admit to not being up on my CFR’s.

Which is the one that talks about the right of a future maybe POTUS to pay off porn stars he slept with so the voting public won’t know right before the election? 

 

 

I know, false documents, and not stormy, but Snark is Snark and a bit is a bit

United States Code, not Code of Federal Regulations. 🙃

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 75960

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It’s not like he did that himself. So they need to prove he ordered it done.  No slam dunk. 
/aspiring twicehorn


correct 

 

but if you were instructed by the douche to do this, would you rather face obstruction charges or sing like a bird on a plea deal ?

someone made the call on this move 

Edited by tx 3 putt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31096

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I was not riffing on removal authority.  But I will…and was your fancy law book in a room with a Fringed Flag?

Mine, no, it was on the intergoogles, but a lot of them are, especially those pertaining to the admiralty jurisdiction.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9588

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, nbmishoid said:

Well, while modern humans are pegged at 200k years ago, pre human types were walking around.   He prolly is fantasizing being an Australopithecus Robustus trying to assault all the Aferensis in sight.  Still a disgusting thought.  Those footsteps in the sandstone are running away from pre human tfg.  

The dog just tried to hump my leg so this hits close to home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27251

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


correct 

 

but if you were instructed by the douche to do this, would you rather face obstruction charges or sing like a bird on a plea deal ?

someone made the call on this move 

We know there's not going to be a record of trump saying "do this thing for me that is overtly criminal". Cohen told us how he operates, like a monster does. And thank goodness for great lawyers like twice that make sure he'll always be protected by individually assessing each fuckery he does rather than considering the totality of his actions and constantly assuming he's an honest actor that is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. 

BeCaUsE iF wE dOnT gIvE rEaSoNaBlE dOuBt tO tRuMp NoBoDy WiLl GeT iT!!! 

  • Fuck You 2
  • Rage+1 1
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...