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

[Burt 4093]

Will you two just hurry up and hate-fuck each other off board and get this over with? 

[C-Man 27286]

2 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Were these things applied for the watergate burglars?  Official duties by order of potus?

Nixon didn't order any of that though he probably knew some of his close advisors had people doing some dirty trick-like things through the CRP. The burglars had no official role with the Nixon Administration -- they were part of the Committee to Re-Elect President Nixon (CRP), some of them very loosely affiliated if affiliated at all. Nixon's advisors/aides/etc such as Colson, Haldeman, Mitchell and Erlichman might've been able to try and claim "official duties" but I doubt it would've gotten very far. What CRP was doing was clearly in the name of politics.

[Rimbo 26165]

that's it, I'm going back to the Rice game week thread

[Superhero 8858]

8 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

Anyone wanna wager that he dies of an aneurism before the election next year?

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

Meanwhile, Sidney tells the court that she shouldn't be a part of all this, because she just didn't know these people:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31598]

5 hours ago, Born to Run said:

I can't say it enough: I appreciate you and you are more often than not, 100% correct.
Which makes me want to hate you even more. it's like colon blow, you hate to hear if but ya need it.

I prefer to be referred to as Miralax, thanks.

Edited August 31, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31598]

26 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Meanwhile, Sidney tells the court that she shouldn't be a part of all this, because she just didn't know these people:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Be interesting to see how this plays out.  In a flip of the Meadows situation, she justifies her motion to sever based on claims that she's not guilty and not much else.

Like Cheese man, she's asked for a speedy trial and that may effectively sever her out of the case against the remaining defendants all by itself.

[TwiceHorn 31598]

5 hours ago, C-Man said:

Nixon didn't order any of that though he probably knew some of his close advisors had people doing some dirty trick-like things through the CRP. The burglars had no official role with the Nixon Administration -- they were part of the Committee to Re-Elect President Nixon (CRP), some of them very loosely affiliated if affiliated at all. Nixon's advisors/aides/etc such as Colson, Haldeman, Mitchell and Erlichman might've been able to try and claim "official duties" but I doubt it would've gotten very far. What CRP was doing was clearly in the name of politics.

All true and further reasons this wasn't available to them.  But the main one is that they were all tried in federal court, on federal charges, so there's no place to remove.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9369]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Only 479 pages?  Shit, I'd expect that transcript to be 3-4 volumes of word salad and just trying to get him to focus and answer the goddamn question.  I suppose invoking the 5th cuts down on transcript volume significantly.

ETA:  Goddamn.  One of the first questions asked, at pages 27-28 elicited a four page wall of self-aggrandizing text.  Christalmighty.

He devoted at least 15 pages to explaining how Doral has not just one but four golf courses, and he could--if he wanted, which he did but then didn't--tear down everything and rebuild it even better than it is  and make even more money because the value is in the acreage, not in people hitting beautiful golf shots down the middle of the fairway. You probably didn't know that, but he did. The value is in the acres, many acres--hundreds--in the best area. Worth billions.

That exchange was almost as annoying and useless as him trying to explain that Turnberry was one of the 7 courses in the rotation for the British Open tournament. The biggest in the world. They call it the Open. Jack Nicklaus. Tom Watson. The Duel in the Sun. I almost wish the prosecution would have asked what the effect has been on the value since the R&A refuses to hold the Open championship there since he rebranded the course Trump Turnberry. It would have been worth it to read him lose his shit about that snub.

[dcbc 14544]

10 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Every accusation....

 

A statement like this ten years ago would have got you in real trouble.

He also was wearing a tan suit during that interview, if I had to guess.  And the gave Beck a fist bump, er huh, terrorist fist jab, afterward.

Edited August 31, 2023 by dcbc

[Biff Tannen 45751]

8 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

So you agree that shooting the state official in the face during a meeting about “election fraud” in that state would be grounds for removal to the federal court? Because of presumption of innocence and the fact that he was attending the meeting in his official rule as WH chief of staff?

This page makes me want to shoot MYSELF in the face.

[SilasCoade 2622]

9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not actually a crime until someone is convicted of it.  Until then, it's just an allegation.

For some reason you think I'm arguing from a presumption of guilt. That is not accurate. I'm simply pointing out that the question of guilt for committing a crime cannot be dependent upon whether the act was an official duty or not. A crime cannot be an official duty. So the production should have to prove he did what they allege but he should not be allowed any protection of his office.

[TwiceHorn 31598]

31 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

For some reason you think I'm arguing from a presumption of guilt. That is not accurate. I'm simply pointing out that the question of guilt for committing a crime cannot be dependent upon whether the act was an official duty or not. A crime cannot be an official duty. So the production should have to prove he did what they allege but he should not be allowed any protection of his office.

But we're not talking about guilt.  We're talking about removal to a different forum where a crime may be proven.

This is the money quote:  A crime cannot be an official duty.  

It's not a crime until it's proven.  You are assuming that it's a crime before it has been proven to be a crime in a proceeding the purpose of which is to prove a crime.  it's circular.

We can, however, prove or disprove other things about the character of the actions, such as whether they're within the official duties or not, by measures other than "it's a crime."

 

[Biff Tannen 45751]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

But we're not talking about guilt.  We're talking about removal to a different forum where a crime may be proven.

This is the money quote:  A crime cannot be an official duty.  

It's not a crime until it's proven.  You are assuming that it's a crime before it has been proven to be a crime in a proceeding the purpose of which is to prove a crime.  it's circular.

We can, however, prove or disprove other things about the character of the actions, such as whether they're within the official duties or not, by measures other than "it's a crime."

 

Can we not agree that a concept of a crime should be taken into account when discussing this?  The concept can exist without being proven.

[SilasCoade 2622]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

But we're not talking about guilt.  We're talking about removal to a different forum where a crime may be proven.

This is the money quote:  A crime cannot be an official duty.  

It's not a crime until it's proven.  You are assuming that it's a crime before it has been proven to be a crime in a proceeding the purpose of which is to prove a crime.  it's circular.

We can, however, prove or disprove other things about the character of the actions, such as whether they're within the official duties or not, by measures other than "it's a crime."

 

The only assumption I'm making is that a prosecutor is charging a defendant with a crime. Is there something else that a prosecutor could be doing? You are arguing that because he might not have committed a crime he should have protections of his office (even if that protection only extends to where the question of guilt is determined). What I am pointing out is that if he is guilty then it could not possibly have been within the scope of his duties of office. Therefore moving the question is moot. 

A = he performed an action

B = an action is a crime

C = an action is within scope of official duties

D = federal court is correct forum

E = state court is correct forum

You are stating that: If C then D to determine if A and B, but of course if A and B then NOT C. So by stipulating C, the question of if A and B is moot. Therefore the question of "if A and B" has primacy and therefore E to determine if (A and B ), NOT A, or (A and C).

[TwiceHorn 31598]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Can we not agree that a concept of a crime should be taken into account when discussing this?  The concept can exist without being proven.

Well, given that courts of law are all about proof and not your internet feels.  No, we cannot.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9369]

Trump's gonna need a new grift. Save America PAC is on fumes.

Quote

His key fund has spent nearly all of the more than $150 million it raised, and is sitting on less than $4 million, according to the latest numbers available. He’s already dug into his fund for 2024 ads, and borrowed money to post bail in Georgia. And some of his allies are begging for donations, saying he won’t pony up.

That'sashame.gif

[TwiceHorn 31598]

3 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

The only assumption I'm making is that a prosecutor is charging a defendant with a crime. Is there something else that a prosecutor could be doing? You are arguing that because he might not have committed a crime he should have protections of his office (even if that protection only extends to where the question of guilt is determined). What I am pointing out is that if he is guilty then it could not possibly have been within the scope of his duties of office. Therefore moving the question is moot. 

A = he performed an action

B = an action is a crime

C = an action is within scope of official duties

D = federal court is correct forum

E = state court is correct forum

You are stating that: If C then D to determine if A and B, but of course if A and B then NOT C. So by stipulating C, the question of if A and B is moot. Therefore the question of "if A and B" has primacy and therefore E to determine if (A and B ), NOT A, or (A and C).

Geezus.

You realize B can only be answered after trial, right?

Kind of hard to pick a forum for the trial, D and E, after the trial.

The goal of this kind of thing is to protect federal officials from being harassed by state officials alleging crimes against them for carrying out their duties.  If all the state official has to do is allege that an act is a crime, and an alleged crime is never an official duty, then we never have removal.

[Biff Tannen 45751]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, given that courts of law are all about proof and not your internet feels.  No, we cannot.

But you're saying that a crime cannot exist until proven, so therefore, no crimes exist pre-verdict.  Therefore, we live in a crime free world.  It's an existential question that I think you're glossing over.  

[Red Five 40940]

3 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

Trump's gonna need a new grift. Save America PAC is on fumes.

That'sashame.gif

Trump is running out of other people's money to pay lawyers.

[TwiceHorn 31598]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

But you're saying that a crime cannot exist until proven, so therefore, no crimes exist pre-verdict.  Therefore, we live in a crime free world.  It's an existential question that I think you're glossing over.  

But we're talking about court proceedings here, not existential questions. Proof then is paramount.

That you "know" or "think" he's guilty has no relevance here, no matter how right you might be.  And we won't know how right you may be until these things go to trial.  Trials require evidence.

That's been the fundamental problem all along.  People have been saying "Trump is guilty" "Meadows is guilty" "They did crimes" "I saw it on the internet."   That's all good and fine, but if we're talking about indicting people, trying them, and finding them guilty, it's worth a bucket of warm spit.

Edited August 31, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[GhostOfTomJoad 9369]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Trump is running out of other people's money to pay lawyers.

My bad. I was caught up scrolling past the latest twicehorn rant on this page and missed the earlier post.

[Sawbonz 27653]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

But you're saying that a crime cannot exist until proven, so therefore, no crimes exist pre-verdict.  Therefore, we live in a crime free world.  It's an existential question that I think you're glossing over.  

Unless the crime is shooting someone in the face of course. Somehow that’s different. At least that’s what he argues upthread and then proceeds to ignore 
 

I’m out. Enjoy 

[SilasCoade 2622]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You realize B can only be answered after trial, right?

Well, no, I suppose I do not. I know that (A and B) -- which is to say the guilt or innocence question -- can only be answered after trial, but the nature of the allegation should not require a trial to answer. And it is that question that you so smugly and glibly brushed off by Biff Tannen because you are making assumptions about everyone not taking you at your word. Your argument is not logical and is in fact the one that is circular as shown.

Edited August 31, 2023 by SilasCoade

[YGIFS 19452]

Your guys' idea of a "Minority Report" prequel fucking blows.  See you lame fuckers at the tailgate.

[TwiceHorn 31598]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Unless the crime is shooting someone in the face of course. Somehow that’s different. At least that’s what he argues upthread and then proceeds to ignore 
 

I’m out. Enjoy 

It's not that shooting someone in the face is or is not a crime.  It might be murder, it might be manslaughter, it might be self defense and not a crime at all.

It's that the White House Chief of Staff is not authorized to carry a weapon, he's not authorized to protect the president using force or deadly force, he's not generally authorized to shoot people, for any reason. He has no law-enforcement authority whatsoever.  It's not part of his job description, crime or not.

[Sawbonz 27653]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not that shooting someone in the face is or is not a crime.  It might be murder, it might be manslaughter, it might be self defense and not a crime at all.

It's that the White House Chief of Staff is not authorized to carry a weapon, he's not authorized to protect the president using force or deadly force, he's not generally authorized to shoot people, for any reason. He has no law-enforcement authority whatsoever.  It's not part of his job description, crime or not.

Nor is he authorized to aid and abet the commission of extortion of a state official to commit election fraud

 

fuck now I’m out see the proof above

Edited August 31, 2023 by Sawbonz

[TwiceHorn 31598]

29 minutes ago, SilasCoade said:

Well, no, I suppose I do not. I know that (A and B) -- which is to say the guilt or innocence question -- can only be answered after trial, but the nature of the allegation should not require a trial to answer. And it is that question that you so smugly and glibly brushed off by Biff Tannen because you are making assumptions about everyone not taking you at your word. Your argument is not logical and is in fact the one that is circular as shown.

Dude, I've been fighting the "we're in court, fuck your feelings" battle for more than a year.  It's a persistent problem on these threads and many other legal threads on this site.

To take an action outside of removal or immunity, you're going to have to allege and prove something more/different than "it's a crime if he's proven guilty."

Put the shoe on the other foot.  Lets say some jackleg prosecutor in some Georgia backwater indicts Hunter and Joe for some official misconduct or conspiracy to bribe relating to the firing of Shokin as public prosecutor in Ukraine.  Think Joe ought to be able to remove it and maybe successfully assert immunity in federal court?  And should that removal/immunity turn on whether "it's a crime if he's proven guilty"? Or should it turn on whether Biden was acting as Vice President charged with dealing with Ukraine by President Obama? 

Edited August 31, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[chainsaw 9879]

Supremacy Clause doesn't really matter unless there's an actual conflict of law, right? I could see why it applied in Neagle and I could see how it has applied in cases where federal law and state law are inconsistent. I can even see how it would apply to hypothetical situations such as Biden instructing the army to operate an abortion clinic at Camp Mabry in direct violation of Texas law.

But the problem Meadows has is that there needs to be overlap among (A) alleged conduct that, if proven, would violate Georgia law, (B) conduct that is alleged in the indictment, (C) alleged conduct that, if proven, would be objectively within the scope of his official duties.

The problem he has is with (C) because although it's true that he did hold the title of chief of staff, that doesn't really answer the question of whether the conduct for which he needs there to be overlap [that is, the (A) and (B) conduct] is within the scope he needs them to be within. He can't simply retroactively ordain that the conduct was within scope. Nor would it matter if he sincerely believed it at the time he engaged in the conduct.

What matters is how the scope of his official duties was defined at the time. While it's certainly subject to debate, especially at the margins, there are certain things that would not be debatable. Federal offenses (which I am defining as conduct that, if proven, would violate federal law or exceed a limit that has been placed on a federal official) are categorically outside the scope of any federal official's duties. In simpler terms, there cannot be any, and is no, overlap between (C) conduct that is objectively within the scope of Meadows's official duties and (D) conduct that, if proven, would be a federal offense.

Therefore, if Meadows' conduct falls into (D) then it cannot fall into (C). Which would mean there's no actual conflict of law. Which means the Supremacy Clause doesn't apply.

So, does Meadows' conduct fall into (D)? I don't think there's a way to read 5 USC 7323(a)(1) that allowed Meadows to act in his official capacity while engaged in the alleged conduct. So, I would say that Meadows' conduct falls into (D) which means the Supremacy Clause doesn't apply.

Edited August 31, 2023 by chainsaw

[Biff Tannen 45751]

ANYWAY

Just got a notification that dotard pled (pleaded?) not guilty in the Georgia case, thereby WAIVING his arraignment.  What does this mean?

[The Dog 44171]

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

funny he put law before constitution. these fuckwads are just wired to think "states rights" before anything federal, aren't they?

[The Dog 44171]

 

7 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

funny he put law before constitution. these fuckwads are just wired to think "states rights" before anything federal, aren't they?

he's likely referring to the state constitution. 

not everything is a dog whistle y'all.

[The Dog 44171]

from yesterday. this was always DOA and just grandstanding for fundraising:

 

[chainsaw 9879]

i hate when people say flaunt when they mean flout

[Biff Tannen 45751]

24 minutes ago, The Dog said:

not everything is a dog whistle y'all.

Username EXTREMELY suspect

[Biff Tannen 45751]

18 minutes ago, The Dog said:

from yesterday. this was always DOA and just grandstanding for fundraising:

 

They are flailing about like the T-1000 in the molten metal scene.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

56 minutes ago, The Dog said:

not everything is a dog whistle y'all.

[Pig Bellmont 8742]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

ANYWAY

Just got a notification that dotard pled (pleaded?) not guilty in the Georgia case, thereby WAIVING his arraignment.  What does this mean?

It means he submitted paperwork and doesn’t have to show up in person next week 

[chainsaw 9879]

59 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

i hate when people say flaunt when they mean flout

Hunter Biden flaunts his dong and flouts tax laws.

[Biff Tannen 45751]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

It means he submitted paperwork and doesn’t have to show up in person next week 

Has he not been arraigned for the federal stuff yet?

[RDCanecutter 26479]

58 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

i hate when people say flaunt when they mean flout

Between you and I, it's time to reign this in irregardless of speaker.

[Pig Bellmont 8742]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Has he not been arraigned for the federal stuff yet?

I think he has. That’s where those courtroom sketches came from if I remember right. An arraignment is basically just a court appearance where they read the charges and are asked how they plead (guilty, not guilty). 

[Biff Tannen 45751]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

I think he has. That’s where those courtroom sketches came from if I remember right. An arraignment is basically just a court appearance where they read the charges and are asked how they plead (guilty, not guilty). 

Ok, that's what I thought, so why did he not do that for the others?  

[Francisco 2.0 32432]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok, that's what I thought, so why did he not do that for the others?  

 

He had a tee time.

[Rimbo 26165]

11 hours ago, Superhero said:

Anyone wanna wager that he dies of an aneurism before the election next year?

 

I am not wasting energy hoping for that much good luck.

 

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

funny he put law before constitution. these fuckwads are just wired to think "states rights" before anything federal, aren't they?

 

You're reading way too much into this... I don't think Kemp is smart enough to have considered the order.

 

59 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Username EXTREMELY suspect

 

Suspect? All the more reason to believe... you'd figure dogs would be the authorities on dog whistles.

[G650 14278]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lets say some jackleg prosecutor in some Georgia backwater indicts Hunter and Joe for some official misconduct or conspiracy to bribe relating to the firing of Shokin as public prosecutor in Ukraine.  Think Joe ought to be able to remove it and maybe successfully assert immunity in federal court? 

This isn't analogous unless he was bribing him in Georgia.

From watching this (painful) back and forth, I think you are missing what they are getting at. The choice of venue should be dependent on the allegation. So federal court would not be the appropriate venue, regardless of anyone's guilt or innocence. No one is making a call on guilt in a legal sense. We all think the fucker did it but that's a separate conversation.

[Pig Bellmont 8742]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok, that's what I thought, so why did he not do that for the others?  

Federal procedures vs Georgia procedures 

[YGIFS 19452]

Isn't that the name of some shitty country music band FeGa Proline?  

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

the practical real world legal reasoning that will be applied to the removal issue is this: there ain't no single judge in the world who wants that shit show in his/her courtroom.  period.

Petitioner's motion will be denied.