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 28.4k
  • 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

Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3083

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

It's really stunning to look back on this dipshit's time as potus and realize we're somehow not all dead. I mean, a fuckton of us are dead, but not everyone. I think this kinda proves that potus is a figurehead and it's the cabinet and staff that does the heavy lifting. Otherwise he'd actually still be in power. We cannot let that happen again.

The federal govt is a huge machine of mostly non-political careerists. Potus is much more than a figurehead, though. The amount of damage dotard was able to wreak proves that. But to your point, he definitely needed a lot of accomplices to do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3083

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh I agree and I think Chutkan feels the same, but she's going to kind of soft-pedal it and may wind up continuing it a month or so.

One thing that astonishes me to some extent is that we haven't seen any of Trump's vaunted pretrial motions.  I'd have thought they'd be framing those out starting months ago, before the indictments even dropped.

Didn't he only hire Lauro like a month ago? One of the fired attorneys may have been working on such but took it with him when he got stiffed on fees. 

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

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted (edited)

So, the judge in the Georgia removal is asking for additional briefing on whether if just one of the RICO predicate acts constitutes a federal officer performing the duties of his office, does that require removal.  That, to me, is not a good sign for the good guys.

I am increasingly of the impression that Fani Willis has created a clusterfuck here that isn't going to end well.  You got multiple defendants asking for speedy trials, others seeking removal, possibly successfully.  You got a six month ongoing jury selection in her other RICO case.

I'm thinking she would have been better off to just charge them individually with the crimes they obviously committed.

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

WhatTheBuck 28798

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

On the one hand, they've got a fuck-ton of PAC money.

But on the other hand, they spend an inordinate amount of time on this kind of stuff that can't be worth more than six figures.  For a family of a billionaire, it's mighty interesting that they hyper-focus on things like fucking t-shirts.  Makes me wonder about their actual financial situation.

They’re probably not getting as much money from Russia as they used to. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8738

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, the judge in the Georgia removal is asking for additional briefing on whether if just one of the RICO predicate acts constitutes a federal officer performing the duties of his office, does that require removal.  That, to me, is not a good sign for the good guys.

I am increasingly of the impression that Fani Willis has created a clusterfuck here that isn't going to end well.  You got multiple defendants asking for speedy trials, others seeking removal, possibly successfully.  You got a six month ongoing jury selection in her other RICO case.

I'm thinking she would have been better off to just charge them individually with the crimes they obviously committed.

I wouldn’t get caught up crystal balling just yet 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3083

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, the judge in the Georgia removal is asking for additional briefing on whether if just one of the RICO predicate acts constitutes a federal officer performing the duties of his office, does that require removal.  That, to me, is not a good sign for the good guys.

I am increasingly of the impression that Fani Willis has created a clusterfuck here that isn't going to end well.  You got multiple defendants asking for speedy trials, others seeking removal, possibly successfully.  You got a six month ongoing jury selection in her other RICO case.

I'm thinking she would have been better off to just charge them individually with the crimes they obviously committed.

I'm hoping she has planned for these contingencies. 

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

WhatTheBuck 28798

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Crystal Balling is a great porn name.

According to iafd.com, there was one adult film performer named Crystal Ball. This is kind of odd. The only description of her is that she was white and blonde. No height, weight, or other statistics are listed. She only appeared in 3 films, one each in 1998, 1999, and 2001. The titles were Phantom Tickler, Return of the Phantom Tickler, and French Tickler, respectively. Her performances are listed as nonsexual.

Such a short career. Crystal literally wasn’t having a ball. 

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

Sawbonz 27589

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, the judge in the Georgia removal is asking for additional briefing on whether if just one of the RICO predicate acts constitutes a federal officer performing the duties of his office, does that require removal.  That, to me, is not a good sign for the good guys.

I am increasingly of the impression that Fani Willis has created a clusterfuck here that isn't going to end well.  You got multiple defendants asking for speedy trials, others seeking removal, possibly successfully.  You got a six month ongoing jury selection in her other RICO case.

I'm thinking she would have been better off to just charge them individually with the crimes they obviously committed.

I’m trying to think of otherwise criminal acts that are part of a federal officer’s official duties

homicide by law enforcement and military personnel 

 

anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 9873

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/trump-mark-meadows-georgia-phone-call-defense.html

 

Trump Team Defenses of Georgia Phone Call Are Robust Arguments Against Second Trump Presidency

We’re delusional, we’re unfathomably poorly informed, and we’d like to be put back in charge of the United States.

Edited by chainsaw
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I’m trying to think of otherwise criminal acts that are part of a federal officer’s official duties

homicide by law enforcement and military personnel 

 

anything else?

It doesn't matter whether they were "criminal" or not for purposes of this analysis.  I thought Willis had it knocked with the Hatch Act and the admission in Meadows' briefing that most of the cited activities were political in nature, and thus statutorily outside the purview of the office.  But she cited what seemed to be an excessive number of predicate acts, many of which were not inherently criminal, just overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy/enterprise.

The other thing that seemed to have gotten short shrift during the hearing was the federal defense.  This Supremacy Clause immunity gives me the willies.

She may be able to win the whole thing, or most of it, but I suspect it's going to wind up being piecemeal and sometime in 2024-25.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14509

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

It doesn't matter whether they were "criminal" or not for purposes of this analysis.  I thought Willis had it knocked with the Hatch Act and the admission in Meadows' briefing that most of the cited activities were criminal in nature.

The other thing that seemed to have gotten short shrift during the hearing was the federal defense.  This Supremacy Clause immunity gives me the willies.

I don't think the request for additional briefing, in an of itself, is a tell as to the ruling.  Judge knows it will go up and wants to be sure, if the request is denied, that no stone was left unturned (and that all opportunities to make the case were given).

Edited by dcbc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40895

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/trump-mark-meadows-georgia-phone-call-defense.html

 

Trump Team Defenses of Georgia Phone Call Are Robust Arguments Against Second Trump Presidency

We’re delusional, we’re unfathomably poorly informed, and we’d like to be put back in charge of the United States.

"With all due respect to storing classified documents in a resort bathroom, telling a local official to invalidate the precise number of votes that would be required to change the outcome of the election is the thing Trump has done with the most pronounced “I don’t think you can do that” feel."

Well when you put it like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27262

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/trump-mark-meadows-georgia-phone-call-defense.html

 

Trump Team Defenses of Georgia Phone Call Are Robust Arguments Against Second Trump Presidency

We’re delusional, we’re unfathomably poorly informed, and we’d like to be put back in charge of the United States.

Quote

Recall, too, that this trial may be taking place during the presidential campaign. Trump will be “defending” himself against a smoking gun by arguing, while his closest advisers testify that they could not possibly handle a gun without shooting themselves in the leg, that he believes guns are made out of cheese. And should he convince 12 jurors in Georgia and the District of Columbia that he is an insane person with low-IQ support staff, and secure a not-guilty verdict on the basis of such a triumph, he will then be asking the rest of his fellow citizens to reinstall him as president. It seems like a tall task, but if you think that it’s impossible, you’re probably the kind of person who is still 100 percent sure that the moon is made of rocks.

 

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, the judge in the Georgia removal is asking for additional briefing on whether if just one of the RICO predicate acts constitutes a federal officer performing the duties of his office, does that require removal.  That, to me, is not a good sign for the good guys.

I am increasingly of the impression that Fani Willis has created a clusterfuck here that isn't going to end well.  You got multiple defendants asking for speedy trials, others seeking removal, possibly successfully.  You got a six month ongoing jury selection in her other RICO case.

I'm thinking she would have been better off to just charge them individually with the crimes they obviously committed.

i-dont-know-how-true-that-is-christopher-corbett.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27589

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It doesn't matter whether they were "criminal" or not for purposes of this analysis.  I thought Willis had it knocked with the Hatch Act and the admission in Meadows' briefing that most of the cited activities were political in nature, and thus statutorily outside the purview of the office.  But she cited what seemed to be an excessive number of predicate acts, many of which were not inherently criminal, just overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy/enterprise.

The other thing that seemed to have gotten short shrift during the hearing was the federal defense.  This Supremacy Clause immunity gives me the willies.

She may be able to win the whole thing, or most of it, but I suspect it's going to wind up being piecemeal and sometime in 2024-25.

You’re going to have to walk me through how the acts he is alleged to have committed, which by the very fact of their being indictable acts are criminal in nature, could be construed as having been done legitimately in the course of his official governmental duties and therefore fall under federal jurisdiction. It strains credulity. 
 

put it this way: if this meeting had taken place in Raffensperger’s office, and when he told Trump no Meadows had shot him in the face, would he be able move his murder trial to federal court based on his role as WH chief of staff?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 26112

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, the judge in the Georgia removal is asking for additional briefing on whether if just one of the RICO predicate acts constitutes a federal officer performing the duties of his office, does that require removal.  That, to me, is not a good sign for the good guys.

I am increasingly of the impression that Fani Willis has created a clusterfuck here that isn't going to end well.  You got multiple defendants asking for speedy trials, others seeking removal, possibly successfully.  You got a six month ongoing jury selection in her other RICO case.

I'm thinking she would have been better off to just charge them individually with the crimes they obviously committed.

Yeah, Legal Eagle had the same criticisms of Willis' indictment. We get a mugshot, yay; will we get a conviction? Seems unlikely.

Speaking of Legal Eagle, they did a fantastic teardown of the Twitter Subpoena recently. Well worth the time, I think:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31536

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

You’re going to have to walk me through how the acts he is alleged to have committed, which by the very fact of their being indictable acts are criminal in nature, could be construed as having been done legitimately in the course of his official governmental duties and therefore fall under federal jurisdiction. It strains credulity. 
 

put it this way: if this meeting had taken place in Raffensperger’s office, and when he told Trump no Meadows had shot him in the face, would he be able move his murder trial to federal court based on his role as WH chief of staff?

Well, it's pretty simple.  Willis alleged 161 predicate acts.  A whole lot of them are not in and of themselves criminal.  See, for example, Act 6. wherein Meadows is alleged to have texted Scott Perry to set up a meeting with the Speaker of the PA legislature.  

That act is not criminal.  It is also pretty firmly within the duties of a Chief of Staff (it may also be political in nature, ultimately).  So Judge Jones is asking if one or some of the acts are a federal official doing a federal job, does that mean removal?

Remember, too, that this isn't a defense, it's just a process to see whether this gets tried in federal or stays in state court.  It''s not the same as an immunity defense (but it is related).

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

chainsaw 9873

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, it's pretty simple.  Willis alleged 161 predicate acts.  A whole lot of them are not in and of themselves criminal.  See, for example, Act 6. wherein Meadows is alleged to have texted Scott Perry to set up a meeting with the Speaker of the PA legislature.  

That act is not criminal.  It is also pretty firmly within the duties of a Chief of Staff (it may also be political in nature, ultimately).  So Judge Jones is asking if one or some of the acts are a federal official doing a federal job, does that mean removal?

Remember, too, that this isn't a defense, it's just a process to see whether this gets tried in federal or stays in state court.  It''s not the same as an immunity defense (but it is related).

It seems to me like the hypothetical existence of a "federal defense" is a weak basis for pissing on the pretense of federalism. Are the states sovereigns or not? If so, then state crimes should be tried in state courts before state judges following state court procedures.

I understand that the 161 overt acts are not, in and of themselves, criminal. And it's not like Meadows performed all 161 of them or that his guilt depends on whether any one of those acts did or didn't happen. Which to me would lead to the conclusion that it's irrelevant whether Meadows was wearing his "official duties" hat at the time of most of those 161 acts.

I might agree that the "federal defense" matters if it had a direct connection to a fact consequential to proving Meadows's guilt. That's a much smaller universe of facts than the 161 overt arts, but I can't think of any legitimate argument that trying to overturn the results of the election has a relationship with official duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14509

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It seems to me like the hypothetical existence of a "federal defense" is a weak basis for pissing on the pretense of federalism. Are the states sovereigns or not? If so, then state crimes should be tried in state courts before state judges following state court procedures.

I understand that the 161 overt acts are not, in and of themselves, criminal. And it's not like Meadows performed all 161 of them or that his guilt depends on whether any one of those acts did or didn't happen. Which to me would lead to the conclusion that it's irrelevant whether Meadows was wearing his "official duties" hat at the time of most of those 161 acts.

I might agree that the "federal defense" matters if it had a direct connection to a fact consequential to proving Meadows's guilt. That's a much smaller universe of facts than the 161 overt arts, but I can't think of any legitimate argument that trying to overturn the results of the election has a relationship with official duty.

It seems like the factual allegations should be considered in the context of a RICO case.  But I don't know whether it's viewed through that lens for purposes of determining the transfer issue.

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

SilasCoade 2622

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is also pretty firmly within the duties of a Chief of Staff

Is it right to phrase this as the Chief of Staff acts as an agent of the President? And if so, is it also right to recognize that not everything the President engages in during his/her time in office is done under the auspices of the office of the President? If the sitting president is in fact able to act not as the President but as a citizen or as a candidate, then clearly the Chief of Staff would also be able to act as Chief of Staff or as a private citizen. If POTUS asked the Chief of Staff to arrange a get away car for his planned liquor store robbery, would that be under the Chief of Staff's purview? This argument seems ridiculous on its face.

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

Rimbo 26112

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

OH YEAH... I forgot that case was going on, too. So hard to keep track of all the crimes this guy's committed.

In other random news, I kept wondering if and when the fella down the street from me would pull down the "Trump 2024" flag, and I noticed it finally gone (and not back up since) last week. Thought it might've been due to the Georgia thing, but then realized it was probably due to the tropical storm that went through socal.

I guess Hilary beat Trump in the end.

  • Haha 3
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...