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

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,127

Posted
Posted
Just now, texasdago said:

That had to be awkward... 

Yeah, then again, probably not for the people who eat that up.

We live in a world where 35% of Americans see something that is plainly the most idiotic, dishonest shit ever said....and they think it's a sign of genius.  Up is down, down is up, all that shit.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40,857

Posted
Posted

I've said some version of this so many times, but how could you possibly stand there and watch him, and not have at the very least a little voice in the back of your head saying "Um, this is fucked up." 

But then Biden momentarily stutters or something. "A ha! See! Unfit for office." 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44,044

Posted
Posted
Quote

Unbelievable. Eric testified today and basically just lost the entire case. 1) After testifying he “never heard” about the Trump org statement of financial condition until recently, he later admitted that he knew about it in 2013. 2) After saying he never worked on it, he was showed an email where employees were told he was working on it. They lie so much, they can’t even keep track of their own bullshit. Sounds like perjury is on today’s menu.

(from late yesterday)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105,127

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Totally normal 14k gold belt buckle that was gifted to Trump by Trendsetter yesterday.

 

osu.thumb.jpg.c90a38c6e00ac1e283171809deece00d.jpg

I love the cognitive dissonance.

Trendsetter thanks DOTARD for "Saving American Engergy!".......while fucking SIMULTANEOUSLY, their own social media account triumphantly announces project after project, contract after contract, their oil patch engineering firm has gotten.....while evil Joe Biden is president.

Remember this about MAGAts -- even the "smart ones" are the dumbest fucking humans to ever walk the earth.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 76,942

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

I've said some version of this so many times, but how could you possibly stand there and watch him, and not have at the very least a little voice in the back of your head saying "Um, this is fucked up." 

But then Biden momentarily stutters or something. "A ha! See! Unfit for office." 


because Obama was a black Muslim !!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,463

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Captainant said:

Galaxy brain to suggest giving classified documents to someone under investigation for espionage and improper handling of classified documents. Truly breathtaking. 

You are lending credibility to trump to suggest that there is some good faith reason for him to ask for this, and laundering it against a broad slippery slope argument for a defendant that is one of one. 

As stated before, there's a cat out of the bag problem here.  And, anything given to Trump or his attorneys at the point will be tightly controlled.

And. you're not paying attention.  The CIPA process determines not only what Trump and/or his counsel get, but what the jury sees.

Any lawyer for someone similarly situated to Trump is going to be fighting tooth and nail to get as much of the classsified/NDI as possible.  The defendant presumably has already seen it and done crimes, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  The lawyers have not seen it and need to see as much of it as they can to defend their client.  That's not a bad-faith thing, as much as you want it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,463

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

What are the consequences of lying in a case such as this? Is it perjury just as in a criminal case?

Calling @TwiceHorn or @Foosters or any other of the lawyers here with experience.

 

Thanks.

Witnesses and defendants are caught in lies or dissembling on the crucial issues in lawsuits every day.  Nothing usually comes of it because everyone involved has bigger or more immediate fish to fry.

Theoretically, it could support a perjury prosecution, but basically "aint nobody got time for that" and DA's offices would grind to a halt.

In a really egregious case, a criminal referral may be made, sometime by the judge.  I have heard of them calling in a DA to a hearing or trial right in the middle of it to "see" what just happened.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45,682

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

We live in a world where 35% of Americans see something that is plainly the most idiotic, dishonest shit ever said....and they think it's a sign of genius.  Up is down, down is up, all that shit.

Actually, recent polling suggests that the maga base has GROWN to almost 75% of the party, if you look at favorability and enthusiasm for Dotard. 

Edited by Biff Tannen
Which I guess translates to more like 40% of the overall electorate
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8,066

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not sure anyone is saying they should get the documents themseives, especially not Trump himself, but what you propose amounts to "taking the government's word for it."

Also, the CIPA processes not only govern what the defendants get but what gets shown to the jury.  The government is in a tough spot in choosing between exposing sensitive material and trying to ask a jury to "take our word for it."

No, the Ex Parte review by the judge is to confirm that the docs are what the prosecutors/classification authority say it is.  

Now we can go all - But the Judges are corrupt and act like Trump is a victim here but that is only one man's delusion and you have been far from advocating that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8,066

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Does Trump still have a security clearance that would allow him to view those documents?  Do his attorneys?

No.  It has been customary to provide courtesy briefings to ex-presidents but the Biden administration assessed that the risks were too high in his case.

15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

His attorneys were required to get one at the outset.  That's a subsidiary issue:  it is often easier to justify disclosing to counsel only, than to the defendant himself.

But the default condition in American courts is defendants, themselves, get to see everything.  Any deviation from that constitutionally-required scheme can be viewed with suspicion.

CIPA covers this part.  It is federal law to address this issue.  Nothing suspicious unless you just want to be argumentative or play a victim like Trump and claim that the stuff you stole, hid, refused to acknowledge you had, and when caught red handed having it refused to return, then once it was seized under a search warrant claimed it was a raid and that it was planted there but you wanted it back all at the same time.

Unless you are that guy or one of his lawyers no-one believes that shit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,463

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I'm on your side. Just a little humor to lighten the law dog throwdown in here.

As I think I have said on more than a few occasions, I'm generally pro-defendant in criminal cases, at least as far as procedure and application of substantive law.

That winds up putting me nominally "on the side" of some despicable characters.  To include here one Donald J. Trump.

Please never lose sight of the fact that I want him convicted as badly as anyone here, but I do want the government to do it right.  And, I'm not going to begrudge criminal defense lawyers for making the government do it right.  Seems like Smithco is doing that, if being somewhat aggressive.

A big part of a criminal defense lawyer's job is making what seems to be preposterous arguments on behalf of their clients.  But in proper context, they're not really that preposterous and a defense lawyer would be derelict not to make them.  Of Trump's criminal lawyers, Blanche and Kise seem to be toeing this line pretty appropriately.  Lauro on the other hand is being a bit too outrageous for my taste.

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

TwiceHorn 31,463

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

No.  It has been customary to provide courtesy briefings to ex-presidents but the Biden administration assessed that the risks were too high in his case.

CIPA covers this part.  It is federal law to address this issue.  Nothing suspicious unless you just want to be argumentative or play a victim like Trump and claim that the stuff you stole, hid, refused to acknowledge you had, and when caught red handed having it refused to return, then once it was seized under a search warrant claimed it was a raid and that it was planted there but you wanted it back all at the same time.

Unless you are that guy or one of his lawyers no-one believes that shit.

 

Well, that's pretty much what I have said all along.  Not sure what shit you don't think anyone believes.  Pretty much everything I have said is factual.

CIPA requires a fight between the government and the defendant as to what will be disclosed to the jury and, consequently, to the defense.  You'd expect any defendant to try to get as much as they can and the government to give as little as they can, subject to meeting their constitutional obligations and burden of proof before the jury.  Zero from the government is unrealistic just as 100% disclosure to the jury and defendant is unrealistic.  Where it comes out in the end is a bit anyone's guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25,928

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Another 20% or so remain totally indifferent to it. The don't all vote for him, but they don't care to even look into this shit.

I don't look into it, but only because I'm done with him and have been since 2017.

I'm just eating popcorn and watching the dominoes fall down, now.

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

Rimbo 25,928

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I love the cognitive dissonance.

Trendsetter thanks DOTARD for "Saving American Engergy!".......while fucking SIMULTANEOUSLY, their own social media account triumphantly announces project after project, contract after contract, their oil patch engineering firm has gotten.....while evil Joe Biden is president.

Remember this about MAGAts -- even the "smart ones" are the dumbest fucking humans to ever walk the earth.

there are no smart ones

insert George Carlin quote here; they're all below median intelligence, and you know how stupid the median is

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  There is functionally no old GOP left.  Only MAGA GQP.

 

zuul-there-is-no-dana-only-zuul.gif

i hate when my political parties get possessed by a dog

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 1,966

Posted
Posted
Galaxy brain to suggest giving classified documents to someone under investigation for espionage and improper handling of classified documents. Truly breathtaking. 
You are lending credibility to trump to suggest that there is some good faith reason for him to ask for this, and laundering it against a broad slippery slope argument for a defendant that is one of one. 

Thai stuff is literally the evidence to be used against a defendant in a criminal trial. They don’t get to just surprise someone in the middle of trial with the evidence of their guilt. JFC.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11,302

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Really leaning into the "won't someone think of the children" and 'families" part of this.  

 

 

 

These "children" are 39, 42 & 45 years old. 

They certainly don't seem too concerned about going after Biden's "child"

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27,661

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, scottsins said:


Thai stuff is literally the evidence to be used against a defendant in a criminal trial. They don’t get to just surprise someone in the middle of trial with the evidence of their guilt. JFC.

The evidence of their guilt of stealing documents and improper handling of classified documents has nothing to do with the contents of the documents. It's not a surprise that the docs were mishandled - it's the raison d'etre for this entire fucking case lol. 

This line of argument only ends with putting the entire system of classification on trial and getting dragged into another round of delaydelaydelay as we continue to act like fucking Pollyannas with a pack of fascists. I feel like y'all are just looking for SOMETHING, ANYTHING to validate trumpcos defense and justify your delusion of our laws and justice system actually doing fucking anything to punish trump for his multitude of crimes. 

Between him and Santos and Paxton, it's become abundantly clear that if you can move fast enough with the right political cover, you're  untouchable and above consequences. Or at the very least, you can throw enough sand in the gears to make all the lawyers hem and haw and fret about how messy and fraught it all is and how we should just go nice and slow to be sure we don't make a mistake. Which is a wonderful service to the fascists that have made a career out of delaying legal action against them. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,924

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, scottsins said:


Thai stuff is literally the evidence to be used against a defendant in a criminal trial. They don’t get to just surprise someone in the middle of trial with the evidence of their guilt. JFC.

IT'S NOT THE CLASSIFIED CONTENT THAT MATTERS.  JFC yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,463

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

So Aileen is pissed, not at Trumps attempt at fuckery, but rather that the Special Councel used more than 200 words to alert her of Trumps fuckery???  Am I reading that correct?

Well, the Rules of Civil Procedure and local rule additions/modifications don't provide for just filing any old thing.    And a "notice" is kind of any old thing.

What the government filed did not neatly fit into any category.

Note that she didn't, at least by that order, unfile or strike the government's "notice."  But it was a warning to the parties not to just start filing "notices" of any old thing.

You could probably expect something similar from just about any federal court in the nation.

Sometimes, parties write letters to the judge, that may or may not get docketed on the formal public docket, to accomplish the same thing.  Unless invited to do so by the court, that practice has always struck me as odd and maybe a good way to piss off the judge.

ETA:  The government filed their "notice" on 11/2, after briefing was complete on Trump's motion to continue the case/various deadlines.  A hearing was held this morning on that motion.  The government could just as easily raised that at the hearing without filing the notice, most likely, but maybe wanted to "get on record" with it before the hearing (she has been kind of persnickety about issues arising at the last minute).

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

dcbc 14,482

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I think I have said on more than a few occasions, I'm generally pro-defendant in criminal cases, at least as far as procedure and application of substantive law.

That winds up putting me nominally "on the side" of some despicable characters.  To include here one Donald J. Trump.

 Please never lose sight of the fact that I want him convicted as badly as anyone here, but I do want the government to do it right.  And, I'm not going to begrudge criminal defense lawyers for making the government do it right.  Seems like Smithco is doing that, if being somewhat aggressive.

A big part of a criminal defense lawyer's job is making what seems to be preposterous arguments on behalf of their clients.  But in proper context, they're not really that preposterous and a defense lawyer would be derelict not to make them.  Of Trump's criminal lawyers, Blanche and Kise seem to be toeing this line pretty appropriately.  Lauro on the other hand is being a bit too outrageous for my taste.

I perceive the blow back you get for some of your posts in this thread to be not inconsistent with the blow back Trump's lawyer's get from him when they try to tell him things he doesn't want to hear.  That reaction is pretty common with most clients when their lawyer tells them things they don't want to hear.  It gives me a few unpleasant flashbacks to that time early in my career when I had to deal with clients and explain to them how they would be better off not doing the things that caused them all the trouble in the first place.  It sucks having a client like that because you have to do a lot more work to continue to represent them but not run afoul of the rules yourself.  And there was no way I was going to break the law for anyone.  There's just some money you don't need to make.  But I digress.  The point is, when lawyers try to explain parts of the legal process to nonlawyers, particularly about the contortions the legal system will put itself through to ensure due process in a criminal cases where they defendant was caught in the bank holding the bag of money, it can result in some nasty reactions because most law-abiding people don't like criminals.  But these safeguards which protect us protect them as well, and for good reason.  Keep the posts coming.   

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,463

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I perceive the blow back you get for some of your posts in this thread to be not inconsistent with the blow back Trump's lawyer's get from him when they try to tell him things he doesn't want to hear.  Pretty much true with most clients when their lawyers tell them things they don't want to hear.  It gives me a few unpleasant flashbacks to that time early in my career when I had to deal with clients and explain to them how they would be better off not doing the things that caused them all the trouble in the first place.  It sucks having a client like that because you have to do a lot more work to continue to represent them but not run afoul of the rules yourself.  And there was no way I was going to break the law for anyone.  There's just some money you don't need to make.  But I digress.  The point is, when lawyers try to explain parts of the legal process to nonlawyers, particularly about the contortions the legal system will put itself through to ensure due process in a criminal cases where they defendant was caught in the bank holding the bag of money, it can result in some nasty reactions.  Keep the posts coming.   

Right, I am just aiming to educate people a little bit about where all this "the law is an ass" stuff comes from.

And, on CIPA, I'm struggling to understand the issues and operation of it myself, but when I think I reach an understanding of it, I'll come and explain what I think I'm getting.

But, as mentioned previously, in a criminal case, the defendant generally gets everything the government intends to use against them.

Classified information cannot be given to defendants, so complying with the above is impossible without waiving all confidentiality/classification.  If the defendant can't be given anything, the case has to be dismissed.

CIPA tries to strike a balance, about which the parties are going to argue extensively.  The Reality Winner case, which as far as I know involved a single item of NDI, had some very extensive wrangling over CIPA, like months' worth and dozens of docket entries on that alone.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 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...