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

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I like Jen Psaki and she’s improved her appearance with a new hairstyle and better makeup since she moved from the White House to MSNBC. And I’ve got a thing for redheads but I think she’s kind of average looking. Still, I’m a team player.

IMG_7556.thumb.jpeg.dcb7fa3cfc21a900e5026d883894a8d1.jpeg

I lean more toward Mallory McMorrow. She’s not model hot either but she’s more to my liking. 

IMG_7343.thumb.jpeg.6d5126c3c6e93a96bc13901adfb66aac.jpeg

IMG_7345.thumb.jpeg.3fbe338cc00fc167e7d55076407d686c.jpeg

This is crazy talk

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

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

None of it really matters insofar as we have no way to affect any of it. It’s like complaining about Sark’s play calling or something. We are just along for the ride. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

Yeah, and the notion that DOJ should return to some semblance of non-partisanship is valid, as well.

And, it's worth noting that "a criminal conspiracy carried out on live TV" is some hindsight bias bullshit.  The elector scheme wasn't on TV.  The browbeating of Pence wasn't on live TV.   All the machinations preceding those things weren't on live TV.  And those things are tremendously important.  Trump likely could not be successfully charged and convicted on the 1/6 speech, standing alone.  Only when it's joined with those other elements does it become something other than an exercise of First Amendment rights.

Best I can figure, what happened is they started arresting and filing cases on the 1/6 rioters, expecting to get some degree of information on higher ups, like Trump.  That turned out not to be the case and by then the DC USAO was up to its ass in alligators just handing the cases that were filed.  But it it a time-honored way for the DOJ to proceed:  investigate and prosecute from the bottom up.

Various disjointed efforts started to try to raise the sights toward Trump and his associates, and that took a while to coalesce.  A guy named Tom Windom was anointed to try to coordinate those efforts into something coherent.

And while that was taking shape, Trump announced his candidacy, making a Special Counsel a necessity and bringing Jack Smith and a laser-sharp focus to bear.  That article on Smith notes that he really did just take over and accelerate an existing investigation.  Most of his prosecutors were the ones already engaged in the investigation and not necessarily hand-picked, and same with the FBI agents.

One thing that doesn't get discussed much:  Had DOJ been as "hammer and tongs" on a criminal investigation as the 1/6 Committee, there would have been conflicts, and probably not minor ones either, both between the two institutions and among witnesses before both "bodies."  Simultaneous civil and criminal investigations pose a lot of problems:  ask any securities litigator.

If you deem the 1/6 Committee as having served a valid purpose all by itself (I was skeptical, but they did a tremendous fucking job), then DOJ largely had to butt out and let it proceed.  And, while the Committee exposed the basic facts, and then some, it is erroneous to believe that that is a complete package ready to be turned into an indictment.  There's still a lot of grand jury work to be done, at minimum.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

I know we've thrown a bunch of names of the six co-conspirators but have they been confirmed? The reason I ask is because the opening to NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, they've run the pictures and names of Rudy, Easton, Powell, Clark, Chesebro and Unidentified across the screen.

Wouldn’t it be a kick if the political consultant turned out to be Ginni Thomas? She was up to her eyeballs in undermining the peaceful transition of power.

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

44 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

Stephen Colbert No GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Had DOJ been as "hammer and tongs" on a criminal investigation as the 1/6 Committee, there would have been conflicts, and probably not minor ones either, both between the two institutions and among witnesses before both "bodies." 

I would argue that there would be no need for a 1/6 Committee if the DOJ had been actively, visibly investigating.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

I would argue that there would be no need for a 1/6 Committee if the DOJ had been actively, visibly investigating.  

"Visibly" investigating is anathema to the US Department of Justice.  You rarely, if ever, hear shit about an investigation until the indictment drops.  Because they were investigating and you just didn't know it, and you rarely would.  

And, snippets of investigations, and even jury trials, aren't the best way to inform the public of anything. Actually, maybe one of the worst.  We couldn't have even made the speculation we made without the work of the 1/6 Committee.  Oh, someone probably Pat Cipollone, was called to the grand jury, again  . . . . hmm . . . . interdasting.

I was skeptical of the 1/6 Committee, but they did a great job.  And did it in a really good, digestible format.  Also, the fact that the GQP boycotted the thing kept it from being a Gym Jordan-esque Benghazi Boogaloo shit show.  So, in retrospect, I don't think I'd sacrifice having the 1/6 Committee for having indictments a year earlier, even though the indictments are far more consequential to Trump.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, snippets of investigations, and even jury trials, aren't the best way to inform the public of anything. Actually, maybe one of the worst.  We couldn't have even made the speculation we made without the work of the 1/6 Committee.  Oh, someone probably Pat Cipollone, was called to the grand jury, again  . . . . hmm . . . . interdasting.

Half of the country completely ignored the 1/6 Committee.

Cipollone obviously would have been one of the first witnesses subpoenaed by a grand jury, so I'm not sure why you're giving the J6C credit for unearthing the testimony of a WH counsel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Half of the country completely ignored the 1/6 Committee.

Cipollone obviously would have been one of the first witnesses subpoenaed by a grand jury, so I'm not sure why you're giving the J6C credit for unearthing the testimony of a WH counsel. 

Well half the country is going to ignore this, too, every fucking bit of it.  

The Committee put the story into a cohesive, pretty comprehensive format that we would have been clueless on until this indictment dropped.  We only understood the dribs and drabs about Smiths investigation that leaked out because of the Committee's work.  

We wouldn't have got the "we'll call you next time there's an oil spill" piece and still wouldn't have it.  

These trials will not be televised.  So, while I am normally skeptical of congressional investigations, I think 1/6 was extremely worthwhile.  And, it did give DOJ a bit of a dramatic dry run on how the story is perceived and where there by tygers and dragons.

Also, I kind of picked Cipollone at random as THE WHC, who was repeatedly called to the grand jury after having Trump's executive privilege claims poured out.  Those are the kind of snippets we got from Smith's "visible" investigation, and without the work of the Committee, we couldn't have made heads or tails of that.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

He'd only get bail pending appeal if the judge thought he was likely to prevail and did not pose a flight risk or danger to the community. I don't think he'd get it. 

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

7 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

He'd only get bail pending appeal if the judge thought he was likely to prevail and did not pose a flight risk or danger to the community. I don't think he'd get it. 

Well, the last two are the same as pretrial detention, so they weight up about the same.  It is fairly common for white collar defendants to remain free pending appeal regardless of the likelihood of success.  Holmes I think is a notable exception, but her convictions were straight up wire fraud, nothing kinky like honest services fraud or any of that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

It seems to me that arguing Trump's efforts to overturn the election were protected free speech is akin to arguing that armed robbery of a liquor store is legal because the thief held an open carry license.

I'm sorry sir I live in Texas. What is that?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, it's worth noting that "a criminal conspiracy carried out on live TV" is some hindsight bias bullshit.  The elector scheme wasn't on TV.  The browbeating of Pence wasn't on live TV.   All the machinations preceding those things weren't on live TV.  And those things are tremendously important. 

Come on, we first heard of the elector scheme from Peter Navarro, confessing bragging in a TV interview; then WaPo found the Ted Cruz tape detailing it.  Pretty sure WaPo was also capable of digging up the story of how Pence was treated, too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Come on, we first heard of the elector scheme from Peter Navarro, confessing bragging in a TV interview; then WaPo found the Ted Cruz tape detailing it.  Pretty sure WaPo was also capable of digging up the story of how Pence was treated, too.  

It seems the entire country is almost completely immune to bad behavior at this point.  It's the Stockholm Syndrome writ large on a political level.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

he means the trial itself

 

Everyone knew that there would be no consequences for Trump from the J6C, so most people ignored it.  In a criminal trial, there may be consequences.

The J6C was a pre-season NFL game.  The trial will be a playoff game.

 

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

5 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

So Trump said to Pence "You're too honest."  

Can you imagine George Washington or Abe Lincoln or Harry motherfuckin' Truman or Dwight Eisenhower saying those words to ANYBODY?

Bunch of lib cucks compared to the orange emperor God 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ha, this flew over my head too.  We all watched it for fuck's sake!

 

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Stephen Colbert No GIF by The Late Show With Stephen Colbert

Yeah, speed typing.  That is a valid reply. 

That said, if you think watching J6 happen on tv gave the evidence sufficient to indict a President, then you might be agreeing with Larry, Darryl and their other brother Darryl. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the last two are the same as pretrial detention, so they weight up about the same.  It is fairly common for white collar defendants to remain free pending appeal regardless of the likelihood of success.  Holmes I think is a notable exception, but her convictions were straight up wire fraud, nothing kinky like honest services fraud or any of that.  

I'm not so sure white collar status applies here, but maybe that's me.  Leading a criminal conspiracy with the intent of defrauding the US and Civil Rights violations seem to be far more than just run of the mill white collar crime.  I get him being released on OR before trial, especially considering that he is protected by the Secret Service, and in a sense babysat by them (though they can't stop him from publicly sowing more discord).  So yeah, I'm hoping he will be given a detention start date and have to report despite pending appeals.  Personally, I wish he were getting the Stewart Rhodes treatment starting Thursday and that he be remanded (I'd also like to see him sentenced at least as long as Rhodes as well).  That having been said, this is not my field, and even though I'd like that to happen, I don't believe it will.  

Then again, I also take some measure of comfort in the belief that this is the beginning of the charges and not the end, and there will be more; be it in this case or others heading his way.  Far more charges are coming for others, like Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Michael Flynn, etc; and all of them will have one over-riding thing in common, co-defendant and co-conspirator Donald Trump.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the last two are the same as pretrial detention, so they weight up about the same.  It is fairly common for white collar defendants to remain free pending appeal regardless of the likelihood of success.  Holmes I think is a notable exception, but her convictions were straight up wire fraud, nothing kinky like honest services fraud or any of that.  

I think this judge may take a different view than Cannon. I'm still not quite sure how a wealthy, powerful person who owns a jet, has  property and connections around the world,  and is facing the rest of his life in prison isn't a significant flight risk. 

And I really don't see how he's not a danger to the country until he's locked up. 

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

Thinking about the events all in a big picture from Smith's point of view and wondering did he just checkmate Trump and Cannon on her attempts to stall?

It appears to me everything about the order and timing of this was deliberate. Hit with the documents case first because it would naturally take longer with the classified info involved but also because there was a good chance it would go to Cannon. Knowing full well that Cannon would want to stall Smith asks for a quick trial and says he can do it in 3 weeks from start to finish, fully expecting her to set a late date like May.

He waits until she plays her hand then hits back with this indictment in DC knowing the odds of getting a judge that will want to expedite it are much higher. With no classified info and seemingly tons of physical evidence I'm guessing Smith will push for a Jan 2024 start date and get it. That completely undercuts Cannon and her ability to stall Trump's reckoning in federal court. Smith gets to hit with the clearer and more likely to convict case first taking a ton of piss out of the documents case. 

Just seems like it was timed out intentionally and once again Trump and his cronies got pantsed. 

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

7 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Really?  If he's convicted and jailed, they're going to ignore that?

Look, my only point is, somewhat to my surprise, I think the 1/6 Committee and its work was valuable.

It would have been hard to have the 1/6 Committee and DOJ doing the same work simultaneously.

Feel free to disagree about the Committee.  But, it happened, and, for the most part DOJ had to stand down while it worked.

The other reality is this:  Even if the indictments came down a year ago, or a year and a half, I don't think it would change that much.  The cases would be on appeal right up until the election and any convictions would not be final.  And I don't think Trump would be in jail pending those appeals.

So, we'd be right about where we are now:  uncertain, and worried that Trump might still win the election.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Satchel said:

One important aspect of Jack Smith’s and Merrill Garland’s work that is often overlooked is how they are establishing a framework for dealing with the criminally wayward in the executive branch who push constitutional boundaries while undermining our democracy. Nothin like this has ever existed before in our history.

They're not really establishing a framework.  That's always been there in the form of the rule of law.

You can argue that applying the rule of law to former POTUS is a new aspect of that framework, given that it hasn't happened before, although it has come right close (Nixon but for the pardon, other high-level executive officials short of POTUS).

Whether it's the right thing to do might well be debated for decades into the future, like the Nixon pardon.

However, I do think the 1/6 prosecution, unlike the others, is pretty important in that constitutional integrity sense you mention.  The rest is just grimy criming.  Nixon was really more or less grimy criming.  I don't think any of the prior crimey presidential scandals have had this dimension to them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Love that the right media is arguing that trump didn’t know what he was doing was illegal, and even trumps lawyer is saying that trump was just following his lawyers’ advice.  They seemed to jump over the fact that they now agree trump broke the law.

Oh it’s worse than that. They’re going out to the usual outlets claiming that this indictment is an assault on Trump’s free speech rights. And that tracks…if when you’re reading the indictment you shut your eyes when you turn to the…you know, pages. And that’s especially true with page 2 when the indictment specifically concedes the highlighted portion:

IMG_4234.thumb.png.b6207c6869cb361458b5855490b33e6d.png
 

Nowhere in the indictment is it possible to conclude that Smith is attempting to squash free speech. That’s a canard. It’s a straw man of the highest order. So of course they’re going to say that. And what will they not say? Well, you know, the stuff that actually is in the indictment. So they read into the indictment things it does not say, and they don’t read what it actually does say. Shocking, I know.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Oh it’s worse than that. They’re going out to the usual outlets claiming that this indictment is an assault on Trump’s free speech rights. And that tracks…if when you’re reading the indictment you shut your eyes when you turn to the…you know, pages. And that’s especially true with page 2 when the indictment specifically concedes the highlighted portion:

IMG_4234.thumb.png.b6207c6869cb361458b5855490b33e6d.png
 

Nowhere in the indictment is it possible to conclude that Smith is attempting to squash free speech. That’s a canard. It’s a straw man of the highest order. So of course they’re going to say that. And what will they not say? Well, you know, the stuff that actually is in the indictment. So they read into the indictment things it does not say, and they don’t read what it actually does say. Shocking, I know.

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. And if you tell them otherwise, they will not accept your facts.

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...