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

wildcat09

wildcat09 29269

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Whoopsie 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2023/12/21/donald-trump-recorded-pressuring-wayne-canvassers-not-to-certify-2020-vote-michigan/72004514007/
 

IMG_0299.thumb.jpeg.436fdf8e309d9d1f773bdbce40b8abaa.jpeg

It is fucking infuriating that this is just coming out now, because everyone was too scared to investigate anything in 2021 and most of 2022.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52351

Posted
Posted

Does withholding aid to the gvt = aiding the insurrection?  Or would they be separate and distinct acts as defined by a court?

not engaging the NG on his own or when called to do so by pelosi/shumer most certainly aided the Maga side and is very affirmatively provable that he had the means to do so and refused the direct request. 

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

Brisketexan 104688

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Now I'm no lawyer, but I think what's happening here is that Lisa Rubin has big tits. Feel free to correct me on the specifics, surly lawdogs. 

Understand that this is a legal opinion, based on legal reasoning, so do your best to follow along: the evidence appears to support your suspicion.

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

Brisketexan 104688

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
7 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Very telling that even Ronna McDaniel is being cautious with her statements today regarding that Michigan phone call. You can only imagine what other conversations some of them had that and how they stay up at night worried about the 5am "knock" on the door by the FBI.

I really, really just want one conversation to happen.  The one between Ronna, with her legal counsel present, and an AUSA, in the DOJ offices.  "Ronna, so here's the thing.  You can flip and sing like a canary, or you can go to prison.  The choice is yours.  I'll give you ten minutes to talk about it with your lawyer, after that, the deal is off the table, because the guys and I are gonna head out to lunch in a few - there's this new sandwich place that Ed's been raving about, says they use those really good italian sweet pickled peppers.  So, anyway...tick-tock."

  • Hook 'Em 10
  • Like 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16592

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I really, really just want one conversation to happen.  The one between Ronna, with her legal counsel present, and an AUSA, in the DOJ offices.  "Ronna, so here's the thing.  You can flip and sing like a canary, or you can go to prison.  The choice is yours.  I'll give you ten minutes to talk about it with your lawyer, after that, the deal is off the table, because the guys and I are gonna head out to lunch in a few - there's this new sandwich place that Ed's been raving about, says they use those really good italian sweet pickled peppers.  So, anyway...tick-tock."

Any immunity deal needs to include her retaining the head of Republican National Committee for life.  

Pretty sure that isn't a thing, don't care.  

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

TexasEd 8064

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said: The choice is yours.  I'll give you ten minutes to talk about it with your lawyer, after that, the deal is off the table, because the guys and I are gonna head out to lunch in a few - there's this new sandwich place that Ed's been raving about, says they use those really good italian sweet pickled peppers.  So, anyway...tick-tock."

It really is good 

Edited by TexasEd
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89465

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Very telling that even Ronna McDaniel is being cautious with her statements today regarding that Michigan phone call. You can only imagine what other conversations some of them had that and how they stay up at night worried about the 5am "knock" on the door by the FBI.

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I really, really just want one conversation to happen.  The one between Ronna, with her legal counsel present, and an AUSA, in the DOJ offices.  "Ronna, so here's the thing.  You can flip and sing like a canary, or you can go to prison.  The choice is yours.  I'll give you ten minutes to talk about it with your lawyer, after that, the deal is off the table, because the guys and I are gonna head out to lunch in a few - there's this new sandwich place that Ed's been raving about, says they use those really good italian sweet pickled peppers.  So, anyway...tick-tock."

I've wondered how she's been able to keep her position, given that the GOP fell completely to pieces on her watch - Lost the House, Senate, and then White House, while over 1,000 Republicans are facing charges from their assault on the Capitol.

I'm guessing she's been in on a lot of these types of conversations, and the Republican leadership *had* to keep her within the "family" so to speak, or risk her spilling her guts.  And I would assume that somebody with her power/reach, would make sure to have their asses covered, which means she would have receipts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7922

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Slacks said:

So, for me, these have been the two questions:

1. Was Jan 6 an insurrection or rebellion?

Many will say they believe it was. Many will say they believe it was a giant protest. Neither Insurrection nor rebellion are defined in federal law. 

2. If J6 was an insurrection or rebellion, did the President incite, set on foot, assist, or engage... or give aid or comfort thereto?

Whatever it was, some will say they believe he incited it. Some will say he did not. It does not appear that he "set on foot". He didn't appear to assist or engage. And I don't recall any evidence of aid or comfort to those who were involved (I may just not be aware.) 

 

And the uncertainty of what it was and his involvement is why media outlets say 'believe'. We all saw what we saw, but since we've never seen it before, it is subjective. Media corporations can't say it was it was a thing (yet). Saying it was a thing, saying he incited it, and then having a Court rule otherwise would likely shut down a network. That libel / slander lawsuit would be settled for billions. 

I think attempting a coup is insurrection, yes. And the attempted coup had more aspects than the J6 domestic terrorists (a designation which does have a definition.) One aspect was Trump pressuring Pence to not perform his Constitutional duty. The phone call Trump made to R senators, whipping votes against certifying the election results was another. As were the calls made to the GA AG, and now, apparently, to MI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40684

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I think attempting a coup is insurrection, yes. And the attempted coup had more aspects than the J6 domestic terrorists (a designation which does have a definition.) One aspect was Trump pressuring Pence to not perform his Constitutional duty. The phone call Trump made to R senators, whipping votes against certifying the election results was another. As were the calls made to the GA AG, and now, apparently, to MI.

It's never not amazing that he's on tape demanding that state officials fabricate their vote count so that he could win, and he wasn't impeached for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30134

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

I'm guessing she's been in on a lot of these types of conversations, and the Republican leadership *had* to keep her within the "family" so to speak, or risk her spilling her guts..

 — Speaker Ryan: 'What's said in the family stays in the family.'

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

Brisketexan 104688

Posted
Posted

roberts and the far right justices are saving it all for the only decision that matters

My thought as to what’s happening behind the chambers doors: the question of whether the prosecution of a main candidate for POTUS is “election interference” is a political one. A stupid and dangerous one, but still a question. Courts HATE to decide political questions, generally. So, to avoid that, this court is making a bet…and like all bets, it carries risk. If Trump loses the election, then the political question goes away: prosecute him to your heart’s content. That’s what they’re hoping for. But if he wins, then the stakes of the legal question just got incredibly high. It’s not a terrible bet, but the negative outcome if the bet was bad are much higher than the negative consequences of ruling today.
TLDR; the court is hoping that the problem just goes away when Trump loses.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NAVY

NAVY 6739

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


My thought as to what’s happening behind the chambers doors: the question of whether the prosecution of a main candidate for POTUS is “election interference” is a political one. A stupid and dangerous one, but still a question. Courts HATE to decide political questions, generally. So, to avoid that, this court is making a bet…and like all bets, it carries risk. If Trump loses the election, then the political question goes away: prosecute him to your heart’s content. That’s what they’re hoping for. But if he wins, then the stakes of the legal question just got incredibly high. It’s not a terrible bet, but the negative outcome if the bet was bad are much higher than the negative consequences of ruling today.
TLDR; the court is hoping that the problem just goes away when Trump loses.

… Or if he drops dead from being massive pile of shit 

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

Gatorubet 30134

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

TLDR; the court is hoping that the problem just goes away when Trump loses.

I think that this is the right take.  Now, if the Court in a swing state eliminates Donnie from the ballot in 2024, you will likely see many of those furrowed SCOTUS brows leap into action.   I truly do not believe what I’m about to say, but there’s a small chance that they would not mind other states knocking him off the ballot to avoid a Trump presidency - and their sitting on their hands is a way to let the process accelerate and to remove their fingerprints on that ultimate political result without SCOTUS having an active hand in any decision determining the election outcome. 

Why do I think the second position as possible? The denial of the Jack Smith Writ was unanimous.   You would think that the court’s more liberal members would put up a fuss, or at least alert the world of impending skull-fuckery about to occur.  But that decision was unanimous, even though making SCOTUS decide immunity was widely seen as benefiting Jack Smith.

I confess to being confused over the unanimous denial.   I wish I was a fly on that wall

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7922

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No you haven't.

You have been told that, to date, they have not.

Seems like clarifying an Amendment is something for which they have standing, so to speak. Can we now drop they idea the court has not helped Trump? Inaction is a choice. It is something that is done. A decision made.

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

BamaATL 16592

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Seems like clarifying an Amendment is something for which they have standing, so to speak. Can we now drop they idea the court has not helped Trump? Inaction is a choice. It is something that is done. A decision made.

Well, not that I'm really all that inclined to support this court, but, remember, the immunity issue is due to be argued at the US appeals court on Jan 9, and Chutkan's ruling is likely to be affirmed, meaning his immunity defense doesn't hold water.  This will of course be immediately appealed, but that will be the real litmus test.  If the SC either refuses to hear the case of affirms the U.S. Appeals Court affirmation, then this isn't all that much of a thing.  Additionally, under that timeline, as I understand it, the trial date would not move.  So while the media is portraying this as if the world were falling in, I'm not buying, at least not yet.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30134

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well, not that I'm really all that inclined to support this court, but, remember, the immunity issue is due to be argued at the US appeals court on Jan 9, and Chutkan's ruling is likely to be affirmed, meaning his immunity defense doesn't hold water.  This will of course be immediately appealed, but that will be the real litmus test.  If the SC either refuses to hear the case of affirms the U.S. Appeals Court affirmation, then this isn't all that much of a thing.  Additionally, under that timeline, as I understand it, the trial date would not move.  So while the media is portraying this as if the world were falling in, I'm not buying, at least not yet.  

Which indeed might explain the reason behind the unanimity in denying Jack’s writ now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19018

Posted
Posted

 

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I really, really just want one conversation to happen.  The one between Ronna, with her legal counsel present, and an AUSA, in the DOJ offices.  "Ronna, so here's the thing.  You can flip and sing like a canary, or you can go to prison.  The choice is yours.  I'll give you ten minutes to talk about it with your lawyer, after that, the deal is off the table, because the guys and I are gonna head out to lunch in a few - there's this new sandwich place that Ed's been raving about, says they use those really good italian sweet pickled peppers.  So, anyway...tick-tock."

AF1QipMiahdJydBckzFSY6FDvVGZE92IhIzkZeBQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31310

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Which indeed might explain the reason behind the unanimity in denying Jack’s writ now. 

What indication is there that this was unanimous? In the final analysis, it's a cert petition that takes four to grant. 

 

If you assume that the liberals all want to grant, which may not be a good assumption, they'd need one more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31310

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

Seems like clarifying an Amendment is something for which they have standing, so to speak. Can we now drop they idea the court has not helped Trump? Inaction is a choice. It is something that is done. A decision made.

This has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. 

This is presidential immunity arising in the January 6 case. 

And it's not like they won't review it, they just won't review it right now. 

I have never said they never helped trump. They helped him plenty of times when he was in office. 

They just have not, until now, helped him with his post- presidential problems. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27479

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well, not that I'm really all that inclined to support this court, but, remember, the immunity issue is due to be argued at the US appeals court on Jan 9, and Chutkan's ruling is likely to be affirmed, meaning his immunity defense doesn't hold water.  This will of course be immediately appealed, but that will be the real litmus test.  If the SC either refuses to hear the case of affirms the U.S. Appeals Court affirmation, then this isn't all that much of a thing.  Additionally, under that timeline, as I understand it, the trial date would not move.  So while the media is portraying this as if the world were falling in, I'm not buying, at least not yet.  

Shit in one hand and hope in the other and let me know which one fills up first. I have zero doubt the supreme court will find a way to continually delay trumps court dates. 

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

Gatorubet 30134

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

What indication is there that this was unanimous? In the final analysis, it's a cert petition that takes four to grant. 

I should’ve more correctly said that there were no dissents from the denial.    And while I forget where I read that, the fact that no one has mentioned a dissent in this rather newsworthy denial probably means none was authored.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13554

Posted
Posted
Quote

Courts HATE to decide political questions, generally. So, to avoid that, this court is making a bet…and like all bets, it carries risk.

So Jon Edwards should have just stayed in the race to decrease his chances of prosecution? We make a president immune to the law, and those running aren't subject to equal treatment, except in certain cases where family members of politicians are subjected to exceptional punitive scrutiny and charges. 

 

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

BamaATL 16592

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Shit in one hand and hope in the other and let me know which one fills up first. I have zero doubt the supreme court will find a way to continually delay trumps court dates. 

I get the emotional feel to that, but they've done nothing on this that really helps him or hurts him of yet.  The media pumping up that this is something otherwise is bullshit.  To me, this is more of a procedural matter than it is anything else.  It's not as if they've granted him some sort of stay until the next session, all they have said with this is that right now they are going to let this play out in the usual process of going to US Appeals Court and then to them.  There is every reason to believe that part of the reason the did that is because of the time proximity given that its going to happen so soon.  

No one, no court, no one, has delayed the trial date at this point.  That doesn't mean that can't happen, but all the doomsday media would have you believe that is the case, and frankly it isn't.  

So while I certainly understand the frustration, and want this bastard to rot in prison as soon as possible, sometimes we have to let it play out.  

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

TwiceHorn 31310

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I get the emotional feel to that, but they've done nothing on this that really helps him or hurts him of yet.  The media pumping up that this is something otherwise is bullshit.  To me, this is more of a procedural matter than it is anything else.  It's not as if they've granted him some sort of stay until the next session, all they have said with this is that right now they are going to let this play out in the usual process of going to US Appeals Court and then to them.  There is every reason to believe that part of the reason the did that is because of the time proximity given that its going to happen so soon.  

No one, no court, no one, has delayed the trial date at this point.  That doesn't mean that can't happen, but all the doomsday media would have you believe that is the case, and frankly it isn't.  

So while I certainly understand the frustration, and want this bastard to rot in prison as soon as possible, sometimes we have to let it play out.  

It is procedural, and it's not the shadow docket, per se. 

They have, or at least six of them, decided to let it run its normal course.  I suspect even the liberal judges (assuming they actively want to fuck Trump), have some qualms about not letting it run through the DC Circuit first.  It is conceivable that they quickly deny cert if they're content with the DC Circuit's analysis.  Some have predicted that will happen in the Blassingame civil immunity case.

But here's the problem:  Trump cannot be tried with an immunity question pending on appeal.  Nor can he be subjected to discovery, but then criminal defendants aren't really subject to discovery.  In any event, if the appeal remains pending on March 4, or near it, the trial date will move.

I am reasonably certain that the DC Circuit will resolve the case in late January or February, before March 4.  Petitioning for cert does not automatically stay the return of jurisdiction to the trial court, thus freeing the case for trial. But the DC Circuit could rule that it should in this case.

Even if they had granted cert and expedited the briefing and oral argument, I'm not sure the Supremes, any of them at any point in history, would resolve it before March 4.

The trial date will move, it's virtually guaranteed.  The question is, how far.

It's a freak show, baby baby on the dance floor.  Freak. Show.

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

BamaATL 16592

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It is procedural, and it's not the shadow docket, per se. 

They have, or at least six of them, decided to let it run its normal course.  I suspect even the liberal judges (assuming they actively want to fuck Trump), have some qualms about not letting it run through the DC Circuit first.  It is conceivable that they quickly deny cert if they're content with the DC Circuit's analysis.  Some have predicted that will happen in the Blassingame civil immunity case.

But here's the problem:  Trump cannot be tried with an immunity question pending on appeal.  Nor can he be subjected to discovery, but then criminal defendants aren't really subject to discovery.  In any event, if the appeal remains pending on March 4, or near it, the trial date will move.

I am reasonably certain that the DC Circuit will resolve the case in late January or February, before March 4.  Petitioning for cert does not automatically stay the return of jurisdiction to the trial court, thus freeing the case for trial. But the DC Circuit could rule that it should in this case.

Even if they had granted cert and expedited the briefing and oral argument, I'm not sure the Supremes, any of them at any point in history, would resolve it before March 4.

The trial date will move, it's virtually guaranteed.  The question is, how far.

It's a freak show, baby baby on the dance floor.  Freak. Show.

Quick question for you on this.  Is it possible their plan is to expedite the immunity decision after US Appeals Court decision, and that this was relayed to special counsel via today's decision.  Obviously, nothing in writing on that.  As bad as this SC is, I think that is a reasonable line of thought.  I realize the law doesn't work that way under ordinary circumstances, but this is extraordinary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31310

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Quick question for you on this.  Is it possible their plan is to expedite the immunity decision after US Appeals Court decision, and that this was relayed to special counsel via today's decision.  Obviously, nothing in writing on that.  As bad as this SC is, I think that is a reasonable line of thought.  I realize the law doesn't work that way under ordinary circumstances, but this is extraordinary.  

Well, assuming Trump loses at the DC Circuit (a very good assumption, btw), he has some dilatory options.  One is to ask for rehearing, then rehearing en banc (the full court).  Those would be denied with quickness, but would soak up a couple of weeks. 

Trump then has 90 days, either from the entry of judgment or the denial of rehearing by the DC Circuit to petition for cert.  I am not sure there is any way to force him to expedite.

Assuming DC Circuit decides in early February, and rehearings are disposed of by mid-February, Trump will have until May to petition for cert.  One might assume it would be taken up and granted expeditiously and a shortened briefing schedule perhaps established, but even then, we're probably at the end of the October 2023 term and it wouldn't be resumed until October 2024.

So, yeah.

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...