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

[Rimbo 25911]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

Jim Comey defying his boss’s directive to not contravene policy by announcing a nothing burger investigation into Hillary 11 days before the election was the kill shot.

Again, if she even pays the slightest bit of attention to Wisconsin and Michigan, she still manages to win, despite how horrible of a candidate she was, despite Comey's fuckery, despite all of that shit.

 

[NWBuck 8552]

14 hours ago, miguelito said:

I think he thinks that if he's running for president, he can't be indicted, or investigated, or arrested, or anything. 

Hell, tell him he can still run for President if he's incarcerated (it's been done before). He might see this as a strategic advantage (no campaign rallies and expenses, only opportunities to grift more money for the prison canteen)

[Satchel 6933]

47 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Again, if she even pays the slightest bit of attention to Wisconsin and Michigan, she still manages to win, despite how horrible of a candidate she was, despite Comey's fuckery, despite all of that shit.

 

I don’t think so. Had there been a simultaneous announcement of the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign, she most likely would have won. You can’t underestimate damage done by Comey going rogue, nor could  she be the miserable candidate you describe and garner the highest popular vote total in history at the time of her defeat.

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

Again, if she even pays the slightest bit of attention to Wisconsin and Michigan, she still manages to win, despite how horrible of a candidate she was, despite Comey's fuckery, despite all of that shit.

 

You can’t say that. That’s impossible to know. I don’t think you’re being entirely objective in your analysis. 

[RomaVicta 29902]

H. Clinton's campaign talk not going away.

[atomheartbevo 89628]

11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

H. Clinton's campaign talk not going away.

It's a Trump thread.  If he can't let it go, why should we?

[RomaVicta 29902]

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's a Trump thread.  If he can't let it go, why should we?

Them's is high standards.

[Beau Vine 54208]

Whoa, I hadn't thought of Lyndon LaRouche in a long time.  There are some real parallels there...

[Captainant 27637]

7 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's a Trump thread.  If he can't let it go, why should we?

 

7 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Them's is high standards.

Now you're thinking with #bothsides of your brain!

[SydneyCarton 48057]

12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably not actually.  The obstruction occurred in Florida, and 793 relates to "unlawful retention" and to showing them to people. https://www.lawfareblog.com/wheres-venue-risks-charging-mar-lago-case-dc

But, what the fuck, might as well make him make the motion.

Oh shit, unlike a civil case, venue is not waivable, and trying a case in the wrong venue can reverse the conviction.

Just to be clear, are you saying that the venue cannot be moved to Florida? Or are you saying that if they try it in DC and it should have been in Florida, it is reversible?

[wildcat09 29346]

11 hours ago, Rimbo said:

It wasn't too difficult:

1. Hillary was a shitty candidate
   1. She has almost no charisma to speak of
   2. She largely came to her positions of power because of who she married
   3. She did a mediocre to shitty job in those positions of power
   4. She didn't even win the popular vote in the primaries; superdelegates edged her over Bernie
2. The Democrats ran a lazy campaign where she didn't even visit Wisconsin and Michigan.
   1. The Democrats have been taking the blue collar vote for granted without giving them anything, ever since her husband was in power.
   2. So not only did she do nothing to win them over, but her closest association is with the one man who represented most the betrayal of pro-union/blue-collar ideals (see Point #1)
   3. If they had even bothered with those states they would have likely won them and won the election

 

She was a shitty candidate, but she had more than 3.5 million more votes than Bernie in the Democratic primary.

[wildcat09 29346]

9 hours ago, Satchel said:

I don’t think so. Had there been a simultaneous announcement of the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign, she most likely would have won. You can’t underestimate damage done by Comey going rogue, nor could  she be the miserable candidate you describe and garner the highest popular vote total in history at the time of her defeat.

This is silly, of course she could. Nearly every presidential election has higher turnout than any before it, because our population is always growing. And it's a two person race, so it was absolutely possible for her to win the popular vote despite being a shitty candidate, because her opponent was a huge piece of shit.

If it were possible to generate energy based on bad takes, the bad takes about the 2016 election (both primaries and the general) would give us unlimited free energy until the earth falls into the sun. Literally nearly anything might've been decisive, because it was an incredibly close race in the states that swung the election. It might've been Comey, Russians trolling on facebook, Hillary's shittiness, or the fucking weather. There are plenty of things to learn from 2016, but except from "DON'T IGNORE THE MIDWEST YOU IDIOTS" everyone seems hellbent on not learning anything. 

[jimmyjazz 45889]

You know what would be great?  If the Cloak Room would re-litigate the 2016 POTUS election for the eleventy-billionth time.

[G650 14243]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You know what would be great?  If the Cloak Room would re-litigate the 2016 POTUS election for the eleventy-billionth time.

Well my friend, you are in luck.

[DigglerontheHoof 21183]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You know what would be great?  If the Cloak Room would re-litigate the 2016 POTUS election for the eleventy-billionth time.

The minute I saw it brought up again, I knew we were in for 5 pages of:

[TwiceHorn 31440]

21 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Just to be clear, are you saying that the venue cannot be moved to Florida? Or are you saying that if they try it in DC and it should have been in Florida, it is reversible?

I'm saying it probably belongs in Florida in the first place, and, if it is tried outside Florida, it may be reversible on that ground.

In a civil case, if you don't request a transfer of venue, it is waived, too bad so sad.  But it seems that if Trump doesn't make a motion to transfer it to Florida, a conviction may be reversible on that alone, i.e. that it was brought and tried in the wrong venue.  

Edited June 6, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[YGIFS 19449]

Hey, what's this I hear you Dems are having problems with your midwest election reports?   

[DDD Dad 14326]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm saying it probably belongs in Florida in the first place, and, if it is tried outside Florida, it may be reversible on that ground.

In a civil case, if you don't request a transfer of venue, it is waived, too bad so sad.  But it seems that if Trump doesn't make a motion to transfer it to Florida, a conviction may be reversible on that alone, i.e. that it was brought and tried in the wrong venue.  

Not a criminal lawyer, but I would have to think you'd have to preserve error at some point.  While it's not like civil venue that is waived if not raised in first pleading or paper, I'd be surprised if improper venue could be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

ETA - from the DOJ website:

Any defect in venue apparent from the indictment will be waived if the defendant fails to object before pleading guilty or before trial. See United States v. Allen, 24 F.3d 1180, 1830 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 493 (1994); United States v. Semel, 347 F.2d 228, 229 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 840 (1965); United States v. Jones, 162 F.2d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 1947); Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2). A claim of insufficient evidence to support a finding of venue will be waived if not specifically raised in a motion for acquittal. See United States v. Menendez, 612 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979). See also United States v. Roberts, 618 F.2d 530 (9th Cir.), appeal after remand, 640 F.2d 225, cert. denied, 452 U.S. 942 (1980).

Edited June 6, 2023 by DDD Dad

[TwiceHorn 31440]

14 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not a criminal lawyer, but I would have to think you'd have to preserve error at some point.  While it's not like civil venue that is waived if not raised in first pleading or paper, I'd be surprised if improper venue could be raised for the first time on appeal.

 

ETA - from the DOJ website:

Any defect in venue apparent from the indictment will be waived if the defendant fails to object before pleading guilty or before trial. See United States v. Allen, 24 F.3d 1180, 1830 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 493 (1994); United States v. Semel, 347 F.2d 228, 229 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 840 (1965); United States v. Jones, 162 F.2d 72, 73 (2d Cir. 1947); Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(2). A claim of insufficient evidence to support a finding of venue will be waived if not specifically raised in a motion for acquittal. See United States v. Menendez, 612 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1979). See also United States v. Roberts, 618 F.2d 530 (9th Cir.), appeal after remand, 640 F.2d 225, cert. denied, 452 U.S. 942 (1980).

Yeah I guess that's if the transfer motion is improperly denied.  Makes sense.

[Longhorn94 2448]

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm saying it probably belongs in Florida in the first place, and, if it is tried outside Florida, it may be reversible on that ground.

In a civil case, if you don't request a transfer of venue, it is waived, too bad so sad.  But it seems that if Trump doesn't make a motion to transfer it to Florida, a conviction may be reversible on that alone, i.e. that it was brought and tried in the wrong venue.  

perhaps i am thinking of another discussion, but i seem to recall violations of the PRA fall under DC's exclusive jurisdiction. Would these charges not be brought under the PRA?

[TwiceHorn 31440]

23 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

perhaps i am thinking of another discussion, but i seem to recall violations of the PRA fall under DC's exclusive jurisdiction. Would these charges not be brought under the PRA?

As Jim Trusty loves to say, there's no criminal penalty for violation of the PRA.

If the President wishes to challenge the release of presidential records to the public, on privilege or other grounds, the exclusive venue for doing so is D. D.C.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2204

That lawfare article above gives a pretty solid and detailed discussion of venue.  https://www.lawfareblog.com/wheres-venue-risks-charging-mar-lago-case-dc  It's risky outside of Florida.

Edited June 6, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Longhorn94 2448]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As Jim Trusty loves to say, there's no criminal penalty for violation of the PRA.

If the President wishes to challenge the release of presidential records to the public, on privilege or other grounds, the exclusive venue for doing so is D. D.C.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/2204

thank you for clearing that up. A Weissman is pretty adamant that Trump will be charged in DC while his assistants will be charged in FL. i wonder how he gets there.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Longhorn94

[TwiceHorn 31440]

8 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

thank you for clearing that up. A Weissman is pretty adamant that Trump will be charged in DC while his assistants will be charged in FL. i wonder how he gets there.

Well, like any forum-shop, I guess, you can file in the preferred venue and make the defendant move to transfer.  It also appears that there's not a transfer mechanism in the criminal code, only dismissal and re-filing. For improper venue, anyway.

Edited June 6, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Bullneck 19073]

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45889]

That's some hard-hitting journalism right there.

[Rimbo 25911]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

She was a shitty candidate, but she had more than 3.5 million more votes than Bernie in the Democratic primary.

meh. details...

[hobbes2702 13029]

14 hours ago, Rimbo said:

It wasn't too difficult:

1. Hillary was a shitty candidate
   1. She has almost no charisma to speak of
   2. She largely came to her positions of power because of who she married
   3. She did a mediocre to shitty job in those positions of power
   4. She didn't even win the popular vote in the primaries; superdelegates edged her over Bernie
2. The Democrats ran a lazy campaign where she didn't even visit Wisconsin and Michigan.
   1. The Democrats have been taking the blue collar vote for granted without giving them anything, ever since her husband was in power.
   2. So not only did she do nothing to win them over, but her closest association is with the one man who represented most the betrayal of pro-union/blue-collar ideals (see Point #1)
   3. If they had even bothered with those states they would have likely won them and won the election

 

I agree with several of your points while I think a couple might be the influence of years of bullshit spewed about her. But to be clear, she absolutely won the primary popular vote and it wasn’t even close. The fact you think that leads me to believe I’m correct about several of the other points you made.

[Rimbo 25911]

19 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I agree with several of your points while I think a couple might be the influence of years of bullshit spewed about her. But to be clear, she absolutely won the primary popular vote and it wasn’t even close. The fact you think that leads me to believe I’m correct about several of the other points you made.

There's honestly been as much, if not more, pro-Hillary fan fiction written than anti-Hillary incel rages.

The fact is, if you have the prerequisite charisma required for the job, you can survive an awful lot of bullshit, even legitimate accusations. See also her husband, Reagan, Trump, Obama, Ann Richards.

There's a reason she didn't get the SecState job in Obama's second term: Because Obama needed someone who wasn't complete ass at the job.

[The Dog 44019]

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13578]

8 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

There's honestly been as much, if not more, pro-Hillary fan fiction written than anti-Hillary incel rages.

Ok. This is just trolling.

[RomaVicta 29902]

34 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I agree with several of your points while I think a couple might be the influence of years of bullshit spewed about her. But to be clear, she absolutely won the primary popular vote and it wasn’t even close. The fact you think that leads me to believe I’m correct about several of the other points you made.

 

10 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

There's honestly been as much, if not more, pro-Hillary fan fiction written than anti-Hillary incel rages.

The fact is, if you have the prerequisite charisma required for the job, you can survive an awful lot of bullshit, even legitimate accusations. See also her husband, Reagan, Trump, Obama, Ann Richards.

There's a reason she didn't get the SecState job in Obama's second term: Because Obama needed someone who wasn't complete ass at the job.

[Rimbo 25911]

2 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Ok. This is just trolling.

I'm guessing you don't get to the library very often.

You'd be genuinely astonished at the sheer quantity of books, for children and adults, written about her.

[Js1 85286]

42 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I think a couple might be the influence of years of bullshit spewed about her

The former pre-Trump Republicanism definitely comes out at times.

[hobbes2702 13029]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

 

Yup that’s my bad. I’m out

[Horndog 2228]

On 6/5/2023 at 1:43 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

please let this be where he strokes out.

Before he strokes out he will improve his lie.

[Horndog 2228]

23 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

 

Trump uses the same pool guy I have? 

[jimmyjazz 45889]

1 minute ago, Horndog said:

Trump uses the same pool guy I have? 

Humblebrag?  Or more like

[Satchel 6933]

5 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

You know what would be great?  If the Cloak Room would re-litigate the 2016 POTUS election for the eleventy-billionth time.

It’s quite possible that said re-litigation triggers those who thought voting for Trump really couldn’t be all that bad

[The Dog 44019]

 

[tx 3 putt 76873]

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

 

this treasonous douche should be rotting in a jail cell or swinging from a rope 

[Satchel 6933]

 For the four years that Clinton served as Secretary of State, her approval rating often topped 60%. Twice she topped 65%. It’s an old wives tale that she has always been wildly unpopular, kept alive by those who feared her inevitable ascendancy to the presidency. A withering, unrelenting campaign to smear in to her into oblivion worked brilliantly:

 

 

[DDD Dad 14326]

5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

 For the four years that Clinton served as Secretary of State, her approval rating often topped 60%. Twice she topped 65%. It’s an old wives tale that she has always been wildly unpopular, kept alive by those who feared her inevitable ascendancy to the presidency. A withering, unrelenting campaign to smear in to her into oblivion worked brilliantly:

 

 

Hillary talk in the (checks notes) Trump indictment thread not going away.

[Brisketexan 105073]

19 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

this treasonous douche should be rotting in a jail cell or swinging from a rope 

If Bob Barr had a single atom of loyalty to the Republic within him, he'd eat the barrel of a .357, point it up, and pull the trigger till he couldn't pull it anymore.

[DDD Dad 14326]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

If Bob Barr had a single atom of loyalty to the Republic within him, he'd eat the barrel of a .357, point it up, and pull the trigger till he couldn't pull it anymore.

That's quite a picture you painted there, brisket.

[jimmyjazz 45889]

Especially the "Bob" part.

[tx 3 putt 76873]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Lying bastards that are loyal to trump, not their country 

[TwiceHorn 31440]

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If Bob Barr had a single atom of loyalty to the Republic within him, he'd eat the barrel of a .357, point it up, and pull the trigger till he couldn't pull it anymore.

After using it on Trump.  Hell, if he'd use it on Trump, he could skip the rest.

[tx 3 putt 76873]

15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If Bob Barr had a single atom of loyalty to the Republic within him, he'd eat the barrel of a .357, point it up, and pull the trigger till he couldn't pull it anymore.

Better use a .45, just in case 

[Brisketexan 105073]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Especially the "Bob" part.

Bob....Bill....

[wildcat09 29346]

Glad to see I'm not the only one who confuses Bob and Bill Barr all the time.