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

TeeDubya

TeeDubya 3,362

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tbone_ said:


On Nov 8 2016 I learned that a whole bunch of assumptions I had been operating under were way, way wrong.

Sadly, we're surrounded by dumbasses.  Hopefully 2016 is the only time they feel empowered by hatred and putrescence enough to vote.

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

Rimbo 25,974

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, tbone_ said:


What can I say. I’m an optimist.

Optimism vs pessimism has nothing to do with it. I'm also thinking that Trump will get destroyed in November, if he's even on the ballot.

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

Snake Diggity 4,625

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tbone_ said:


On Nov 8 2016 I learned that a whole bunch of assumptions I had been operating under were way, way wrong.

Word.  Initially I assumed Trump’s campaign was essentially a publicity stunt.  One he was clearly seriously in the running for the GOP nomination, I assumed he was just trying to become president to inflate his ego.  That may actually be true.  
 

But once he won, I assumed that he (or those close to him) would ensure he was surrounded by competent people he could delegate all the real responsibility to; that his role would be mainly to get on camera and brag, but that he wouldn’t really want to do the work of being president.  I figured he might involve himself superficially in some trade deal negotiations to have something to brag about, but that he’d quickly tire of that when he realized it was actual hard work.  I also assumed he would hate being president and ensure he only served one term.  Wrong across the board.  The piece of shit is intent on fucking up EVERYTHING, ALL THE WAY.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tbone_

tbone_ 14,128

Posted
Posted
Word.  Initially I assumed Trump’s campaign was essentially a publicity stunt.  One he was clearly seriously in the running for the GOP nomination, I assumed he was just trying to become president to inflate his ego.  That may actually be true.  
 
But once he won, I assumed that he (or those close to him) would ensure he was surrounded by competent people he could delegate all the real responsibility to; that his role would be mainly to get on camera and brag, but that he wouldn’t really want to do the work of being president.  I figured he might involve himself superficially in some trade deal negotiations to have something to brag about, but that he’d quickly tire of that when he realized it was actual hard work.  I also assumed he would hate being president and ensure he only served one term.  Wrong across the board.  The piece of shit is intent on fucking up EVERYTHING, ALL THE WAY.

I am 1,000% convinced he wants to be Putin.
Optimism vs pessimism has nothing to do with it. I'm also thinking that Trump will get destroyed in November, if he's even on the ballot.

I just meant I was optimistic about who we really were as a society despite the evidence prior to Nov 2016.
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29,355

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Word.  Initially I assumed Trump’s campaign was essentially a publicity stunt.  One he was clearly seriously in the running for the GOP nomination, I assumed he was just trying to become president to inflate his ego.  That may actually be true.  
 

But once he won, I assumed that he (or those close to him) would ensure he was surrounded by competent people he could delegate all the real responsibility to; that his role would be mainly to get on camera and brag, but that he wouldn’t really want to do the work of being president.  I figured he might involve himself superficially in some trade deal negotiations to have something to brag about, but that he’d quickly tire of that when he realized it was actual hard work.  I also assumed he would hate being president and ensure he only served one term.  Wrong across the board.  The piece of shit is intent on fucking up EVERYTHING, ALL THE WAY.

It was a publicity stunt. Before he announced, Trump thought he'd come in 2nd in the GOP primary to Jeb. But he immediately jumped to first in GOP polls after he announced and Jeb turned out to be completely pathetic, and nobody else in that primary ever attacked him (expecting he'd hit a ceiling and drop out and endorse them), until it was far too late. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewbacca

Chewbacca 7,780

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Word.  Initially I assumed Trump’s campaign was essentially a publicity stunt.  One he was clearly seriously in the running for the GOP nomination, I assumed he was just trying to become president to inflate his ego.  That may actually be true.  
 

But once he won, I assumed that he (or those close to him) would ensure he was surrounded by competent people he could delegate all the real responsibility to; that his role would be mainly to get on camera and brag, but that he wouldn’t really want to do the work of being president.  I figured he might involve himself superficially in some trade deal negotiations to have something to brag about, but that he’d quickly tire of that when he realized it was actual hard work.  I also assumed he would hate being president and ensure he only served one term.  Wrong across the board.  The piece of shit is intent on fucking up EVERYTHING, ALL THE WAY.

Giving a person like Trump the power and prestige that comes with being President must be like injecting heroin for a normal person.  He needs that again and will never let go of it if he gets it again.

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

jimmyjazz 45,972

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Snake Diggity said:

It’s crazy to me that someone with multiple bankruptcies on their resume was ever a viable candidate for president, much less actually elected.

You have to understand, we are a country of standards, and we must be consistent.  For instance, Dan Quayle once blew any repeat shot at VP by spelling a common root vegetable "potatoe".

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

YGIFS 19,452

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You have to understand, we are a country of standards, and we must be consistent.  For instance, Dan Quayle once blew any repeat shot at VP by spelling a common root vegetable "potatoe".

Yes, but what is the root word of that adjective vegetable? 

That he was arguably the most largess voice of reason to Mike Pence during the election certification proves my belief that we live inside a computer simulation.

That I once had lunch with Dan Quayle at a Central Florida Steak 'n Shake with my across-the-hall dorm-mate who used to bang his daughter only confirms my belief that none of this is real.  

Why more prominent Republicans and Democrats like Clinton, Quayle, Bush, and Romney aren't constantly on the assault against Trump truly worries me.  But remember, go to church.  Go to work.  Sleep.  Reproduce.  Obey.  And then I fucking promise you as God as my witness, Frank Stallone will be his running mate.  And you will all have a great laugh and they will push the reset button.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25,974

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Word.  Initially I assumed Trump’s campaign was essentially a publicity stunt.

It was. Woodward's first book on him talks about this.

58 minutes ago, tbone_ said:


I just meant I was optimistic about who we really were as a society despite the evidence prior to Nov 2016.

Yes. I know. Point still stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heisenberg

Heisenberg 162

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Until he actually crashes, until he is actually fully and finally ruined, until he is in a cell or dead.....I maintain that

I think starting the 30-day window on appealing the judgment will ruin him.  He can't afford to put up a cash bond, and no one is going to underwrite a bond for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pods

Pods 7,581

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Until he actually crashes, until he is actually fully and finally ruined, until he is in a cell or dead.....I maintain that

a0d56426-50e4-4229-ad4b-89931fe64360_tex

 

Even then, He has a looooooooooong fucking list to get on. 

I've always maintained that if there is a God, we were his 8th grade science project. 

He procrastinated most of the assignment time, then spent 6 days furiously collecting data and writing a shit report. 

Day 7, we were disposed of under His bed. We have been there, alone, ever since.

The heat death of the Sun will happen when mom get sick of the mess while he's away at college and throws us out. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16,593

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

I think starting the 30-day window on appealing the judgment will ruin him.  He can't afford to put up a cash bond, and no one is going to underwrite a bond for him.

I don't think Hans Christian Andersen could have ever envisioned this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NAVY

NAVY 6,747

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Heisenberg said:

I think starting the 30-day window on appealing the judgment will ruin him.  He can't afford to put up a cash bond, and no one is going to underwrite a bond for him.

No one? Huh IMG_2736.webp.262a8074c4445b1627e302c56e2de528.webp

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slacks

Slacks 6,821

Posted
Posted
On 2/21/2024 at 7:16 AM, Horn Dog said:

If any of you fuckers want to set up a grift fund to “Support Donald Trump with his War on Woke”,  I will legally change my dog’s name to ‘Donald Trump’ and my neighbors dog’s name to ‘Woke’, and do a daily stream of their barking matches for 20% proceeds. 

$9.95

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chewbacca

Chewbacca 7,780

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Heisenberg said:

I think starting the 30-day window on appealing the judgment will ruin him.  He can't afford to put up a cash bond, and no one is going to underwrite a bond for him.

I still think Elon might do it. Or the Saudis. Or Putin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8,067

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, dcbc said:

And, as you undoubtedly know, in Texas, for purposes of appeal, we have the "one final judgment" rule, which is to say that a final judgment is one which disposes of all parties and all issues, which typically is indicated by a "Mother Hubbard" clause stating that the judgment does just that.  But to make matters more strange (at least in Texas), even if a judgment does not, in fact, dispose of all parties and all issues, if it appears that the trial court intended to dispose of all parties and all issues, a judgment which is not, in fact, final, is considered final for purposes of appeal.

 

4122fea6-05f2-4628-81a7-35f072b551c9_tex

So you're saying

image.png.b38aab43a3cf553cae6bf0e41cc8cd00.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,495

Posted
Posted (edited)

Still haven't read the motions to dismiss, but I think even Cannon will make short shrift of the Fitton Socks case based one. It just doesn't hold up and it's not a subtle argument. 

 

One that does kinda pique the curiosity is the lawful/unlawful initial possession problem.  There are two provisions of 793 that focus on wrongful withholding of NDI.  One specifies that initial possession was lawful and the other specifies unlawful.  Trump is indicted on the latter.  Seem easier to prove the lawful one, because depending on when you consider possession to occur, seems like POTUS might have a good argument that he's legally entitled to initially possess.

 

There may be some other subtleties in there and I defer to Smith but I always thought it odd that they indicted under the provision that requires unlawful initial possession. Just seems like more to prove when the guts of the thing is wrongful retention. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
The Dog

The Dog 44,060

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Still haven't read the motions to dismiss, but I think even Cannon will make short shrift of the Fitton Socks case based one. It just doesn't hold up and it's not a subtle argument. 

 

One that does kinda pique the curiosity is the lawful/unlawful initial possession problem.  There are two provisions of 793 that focus on wrongful withholding of NDI.  One specifies that initial possession was lawful and the other specifies unlawful.  Trump is indicted on the latter.  Seem easier to prove the lawful one, because depending on when you consider possession to occur, seems like POTUS might have a good argument that he's legally entitled to initially possess.

 

There may be some other subtleties in there and I defer to Smith but I always thought it odd that they indicted under the provision that requires unlawful initial possession. Just seems like more to prove when the guts of the thing is wrongful retention. 

The problem is he and his lawyers keep changing their story/argument between whether they were personal, or declassified, or something else that they come up with. 

9 hours ago, safe sex said:

Will she though?

Not initially - first she'll have multiple hearings on the matter and issue several paperless orders asking for clarification and comment from both parties.  

Then she'll make some nonsensical ruling that references the wrong statute.

Smith will point out the correct statute along with another threat to go to the 11th circuit. 

THEN she'll reject it to prevent any appeal from happening because at this point anything that goes to the 11th circuit runs the risk of her being removed.

She's trying to thread the needle of being totally in the tank for Trump while also having no idea how to achieve that. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
texastough

texastough 1,129

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

THEN she'll reject it to prevent any appeal from happening because at this point anything that goes to the 11th circuit runs the risk of her being removed.

Que? Now judges can be removed if an appellate court finds reversible error?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33,874

Posted
Posted
On 2/22/2024 at 8:49 AM, dcbc said:

 

Yeah, in Texas we have a "motion for judgment," the counterpoint to which is a motion JNOV, which wouldn't make sense here.  Maybe style it motion for corrected judgment.  Just a weird naming scheme in Trump University Upstairs Law College and Tanning Salon.

 

And, as you undoubtedly know, in Texas, for purposes of appeal, we have the "one final judgment" rule, which is to say that a final judgment is one which disposes of all parties and all issues, which typically is indicated by a "Mother Hubbard" clause stating that the judgment does just that.  But to make matters more strange (at least in Texas), even if a judgment does not, in fact, dispose of all parties and all issues, if it appears that the trial court intended to dispose of all parties and all issues, a judgment which is not, in fact, final, is considered final for purposes of appeal.

 

4122fea6-05f2-4628-81a7-35f072b551c9_tex

I don't understand any of this, but I'm glad you do.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,495

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, texastough said:

Que? Now judges can be removed if an appellate court finds reversible error?

No, not per se.  But it is possible that the appeals court reassigns it on remand for any of a variety of reasons, stated or otherwise. If no appeal, that possibility, already slim probably, is reduced.

I think as it stands, the Chief District Judge has discretion to reassign, but probably wouldn't do so except on cannons request. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14,487

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I don't understand any of this, but I'm glad you do.

 

Some days, I wish I did not.  Maybe if I hadn't had to fill up my biological hard drive space remembering this nonsense, I could have learned how to weld or code or something else practical.

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

DDD Dad 14,339

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Heisenberg said:

It seems to me that the imminent filing of a judgment in the Leticia James Civil Fraud Trial will start a 30-day clock running during which Trump will have to either put up something like $500 million (the entire judgment amount, including accrued interest) in cash, or secure a bond in excess of that amount, in order to appeal Judge Engoron's judment and stay enforcement of the judgment, or pay the judgment in full in the amount of about $500 million.

It also seems to me that Trump does not have $500 million in cash and that he will not be able to obtain a bond in the amount required as bonding agents do not want real estate assets as collateral, and besides, bonding agents know Trump's nature and will not want to do business with him.

So it may be that enforcement of Judge Engoron's order may force Trump into bankruptcy or otherwise Trump will face seizure and liquidation of enough of his assets to satisfy the judgment.

I'm no lawyer, but this is what I gather from readings on the internet.

TL;DR - Judge Engoron's judgment, if enforced, will ruin Trump financially.

Anybody see things working otherwise?

"We have all the funding we need out of Russia"

Also, today's NYT "The Daily" seems on point:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/podcasts/the-daily/trump-civil-fraud-penalty.html

Edited by DDD Dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26,487

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No, not per se.  But it is possible that the appeals court reassigns it on remand for any of a variety of reasons, stated or otherwise. If no appeal, that possibility, already slim probably, is reduced

Sidebar- do you personally think Cannon can be assumed to be on the level at this point, and do you think her peers assume she is? Serious question, not going to argue your answer because I don’t have any thing to base an opinion on.

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...