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

[The Dog 44138]

39 minutes ago, locodos said:

At what point (deadline) can NY go after their money?   I mean the clock is still ticking right?

I no lawdog but the filing by NY AG gave Trump 10 days to respond. 

I'm guessing that if the guys who put up the bond can't prove they have the cash to meet it then it will be rejected. Then the question is does another clock start or can James start collecting immediately? 

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

That’s why he has 91 indictments and is struggling to pay his second multi-million dollar bond…after losing yet another trial.  

 

and it's only going to get worse for him before it gets better. we're 10 days from the stormy daniels criminal trial starting and those bill rates are going to skyrocket.

[Surly Bevo 25145]

6 minutes ago, The Dog said:

we're 10 days from the stormy daniels criminal trial starting and those bill rates are going to skyrocket.

Like Trump pays his bills.

[Superhero 8837]

7 minutes ago, The Dog said:

I no lawdog but the filing by NY AG gave Trump 10 days to respond. 

I'm guessing that if the guys who put up the bond can't prove they have the cash to meet it then it will be rejected. Then the question is does another clock start or can James start collecting immediately? 

and it's only going to get worse for him before it gets better. we're 10 days from the stormy daniels criminal trial starting and those bill rates are going to skyrocket.

Oh yeah? Well fuck him. 

[The Dog 44138]

6 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Like Trump pays his bills.

he's not - his PACs and now the RNC are paying them!

[dcbc 14508]

12 minutes ago, Surly Bevo said:

Like Trump pays his bills.

At this point, I think a lot of his legal bills are paid in the form of large retainers.  Whether he, personally, is paying them (unlikely) or it is trickling out of what remains in the coffers of the various PACs or RNC, is not of concern to me.  This is, in fact, how we drain the swamp.

[Gatorubet 30303]

58 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Still walking free, still contending for the presidency, still hasn’t suffered any real consequences. Still grifting, still conning the rubes, still getting away with everything the justice system is supposed to be stopping him from doing like defaming his rape victim. Oh, he lost that trial? Twice? Let him lose it a third time. It won’t stop him. So what do we have to celebrate?

If he manages to seize presidential power again, it all goes away. Even state charges. He’ll throw his Justice Dept. and IRS and DHS and ICE (in unidentified “little green men” fashion like he did in Portland) and potentially even CIA at any perceived enemy. 

Nothing about what you said will ever change the immutable fact that the average federal criminal trial takes from 12 to 18 months from filing to trial. This is not an average case, so you would assume, even the sans Trump Fuckery, that the trials would be more toward 18 months than 12 months from indictment. 

-Bragg NY State Stormy Trial 3/40/23

-Stollen Records Trial 6/30/23

-J-6 Trial 8/13/23

-Georgia Rico Funfest 8/14/23

The first trial is set for April 15,2024

The second trial has a wildcard of an absolute moron Trump friendly judge, and we are waiting to see when that will go to trial

The Supreme Court will hear the stupid immunity defense Trump is floating on April 25 of this year. With his biggest defense out-of-the-way that should speed up the trial date.

I have no idea how the recent self-inflicted wounds will impact the Georgia Rico case.

Is Trump getting away with saying things that if other people said a judge would throw them in the slammer for contempt? Seems like a yes to me. But then, your average mouthy felon will not have an army of mouth breathers attacking people if this happens.   It is like World War II resistance fighters in France.  You have to weigh killing a couple German soldiers with the Nazis wiping out whole villages in response.  Its not like German soldiers did not need killing. Sometimes you pass on killing a couple German soldiers to protect the innocent. 

is Judge Cannon a problem? Absolutely. But she is being dealt with. Fortunately for us she is dumb as a brick.

My small point is that the federal trials themselves are not in anyway being substantially delayed when you look at the average length between indictment and trial and federal court. When you throw in the fact we are trying to convict a former president, it would be literally foolish to think that would be a quicker trial.

Should they have brought these indictments quicker? You are goddamn right - and that was a mistake. But folks need to chill a little bit about the length of time after indictment (“still walking free..”) because it’s not that bad of a timeline people.  

[Captainant 27760]

6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Should they have brought these indictments quicker? You are goddamn right - and that was a mistake. But folks need to chill a little bit about the length of time after indictment (“still walking free..”) because it’s not that bad of a timeline people.  

The delays after indictment wouldn't be a problem if this were not a race against the clock. We know what they are willing to do to take power. Why the fuck are we leaving the door open for them to fuck around again? Why do we all have to find out, AGAIN??

JFC it's like Neville goddamn Chamberlain is in charge of shit, just hoping if we give the fascists enough space and time they'll just move on. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21225]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

JFC it's like Neville goddamn Chamberlain is in charge of shit, just hoping if we give the fascists enough space and time they'll just move on. 

"Democracy in our time!"

[C-Man 27259]

37 minutes ago, Captainant said:

The delays after indictment wouldn't be a problem if this were not a race against the clock. We know what they are willing to do to take power. Why the fuck are we leaving the door open for them to fuck around again? Why do we all have to find out, AGAIN??

JFC it's like Neville goddamn Chamberlain is in charge of shit, just hoping if we give the fascists enough space and time they'll just move on. 

Yep. And here we are nervously clutching our pearls, sweating out razor-thin margins for the most important election in this country's history.

[dcbc 14508]

Me, everytime this Chicken-Little talk starts up again:

 

 

 

It's not that I don't have the same worries/concerns.  But I will vote for the good guys in November and try to get others to do the same.  That is what I (and most of the rest of us) are able to do.  Apart from that, "Bitch, chill; be cool." 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2848]

Due process, especially for dicks, can be a pain.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

I no lawdog but the filing by NY AG gave Trump 10 days to respond. 

I'm guessing that if the guys who put up the bond can't prove they have the cash to meet it then it will be rejected. Then the question is does another clock start or can James start collecting immediately? 

and it's only going to get worse for him before it gets better. we're 10 days from the stormy daniels criminal trial starting and those bill rates are going to skyrocket.

I think technically until a bond is posted successfully and any court orders extending the 30-day "deadline" are expired, James must hold off on further collection efforts and would probably do so, prudentially, until the bond tussle is over, either with or without a bond. 

[Brisketexan 105316]

It's been noted here before with respect to "the rule of law" (the judicial branch of the government), but really, it's true for both of the other branches (legislative and executive): our system of government is built on a foundation of mutual agreement (I'll follow the rules, and so will you) and trust.  It just is.  It's one of the things that makes it really great....when it works.  It is also a thing that makes it vulnerable.

Our system, all three branches, is vulnerable and has a weak spot: it is not built to fully manage and control truly malevolent bad actors, particularly if there is a cadre of them.

The legislative branch "failsafe" failed (recall the Senate acquitting Trump....not based on evidence or legal principles, but based on them siding with team "fuck Democracy.")

The executive branch failed (see Donald Fucking Trump).

The judicial branch is failing (see this thread).

This country is just a fucking agreement.  That's all it is.  And once enough people opt out of that agreement, then there's no outcome but chaos and blood.  That's, ummm, a big reason why a bunch of us around here have been urging the GQP types "ummm, guys, maybe DON'T just toss our entire system of government in the trash heap, because we'll all pay the price?"

[TwiceHorn 31534]

No doubt all of us lawdogs have had a shitty opponent and a judge that is slow to or refuses to rein them in or punish them. 

It's one of several frustrations that lawdogs endure from various sources. One of the primary ones being general slowness, which is an electoral problem moreso than inherent to the courts. You just have to accept some of it. 

In the civil context, big-picture perspective generally requires you to accept or understand that it's about money (far less so principle most often) and thus not that big a deal in the grand scheme most of the time. 

And as ponderous as the system may be, it reaches the "right" result more often than not. Right is in quotations there because right is often or always dictated by the laws passed by the legislature, which can be pretty far from right sometimes. 

For those who have the luxury of not having to participate in it or pay close attention, I'm sure it's extra-frustrating. 

Edited April 5 by TwiceHorn

[dcbc 14508]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

The judicial branch is failing

Counterpoint

 

[Gatorubet 30303]

2 hours ago, Captainant said:

The delays after indictment wouldn't be a problem if this were not a race against the clock. We know what they are willing to do to take power. Why the fuck are we leaving the door open for them to fuck around again? Why do we all have to find out, AGAIN??

JFC it's like Neville goddamn Chamberlain is in charge of shit, just hoping if we give the fascists enough space and time they'll just move on. 

Unless you can offer some legitimate solution to the fact all trials take some time, important trials longer, how do you propose we solve the problem of the late indictments?  Prohibit delays if it is Trump making them?  Require all trials to be done before November, and ban appellate rights? 

I’m open to hearing solutions, and want the same result that you do, but I’m a bit tired of histrionics about a system built to be grinding along is…well…grinding on…

You have “Do something!!” covered. I just keep missing any suggestions that could accomplish your goal.   Because I’d love to see your goals accomplished.

Your Chamberlain analogy is not very apt, as nobody here does not recognize or discounts the threat.  But since we can’t get in Mr. Peabody’s Way Back Machine and bring indictments in 2021, we are stuck with the current system.   it is like you just erase from your mind that if we had a trial before November, the appeals would go on for another year.   It is what it is.  

[scottsins 1969]

Unless you can offer some legitimate solution to the fact all trials take some time, important trials longer, how do you propose we solve the problem of the late indictments?  Prohibit delays if it is Trump making them?  Require all trials to be done before November, and ban appellate rights? 
I’m open to hearing solutions, and want the same result that you do, but I’m a bit tired of histrionics about a system built to be grinding along is…well…grinding on…
You have “Do something!!” covered. I just keep missing any suggestions that could accomplish your goal.   Because I’d love to see your goals accomplished.
Your Chamberlain analogy is not very apt, as nobody here does not recognize or discounts the threat.  But since we can’t get in Mr. Peabody’s Way Back Machine and bring indictments in 2021, we are stuck with the current system.   it is like you just erase from your mind that if we had a trial before November, the appeals would go on for another year.   It is what it is.  

THIS!

I guess some would propose a solution along the lines of just having judges state:

“ I know that there are rules and shit, but I really think this defendant is a danger to our country so I’m going to just do some shit that I never do otherwise, possible outside what is allowed by law.”

[Longhorn_Fan68 33898]

so the system is working as designed, is what you are saying. what others are saying is that system is shit and needs to be rethought. both can be true.

[dcbc 14508]

10 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so the system is working as designed, is what you are saying. what others are saying is that system is shit and needs to be rethought. both can be true.

I think it's just that the posts seem to preponderate heavily toward "the system is shit" and not so much of how the system should be rethought.  Without the how, it's just complaining, and to the extent that it's valid, it's pretty tiresome to read.  That doesn't mean some of us who are pretty familiar with the judicial system don't agree.  How to fix a "broken" system is a more interesting and useful discussion.

[Willfully Horn 8049]

Should a case, whether civil or criminal, rise to the threshold of threatening our Republic, let any and all appeals, or legitimate questions before the court, be decided post haste by the appropriate court, up to and Including SCOTUS. 

Edited April 5 by Willfully Horn

[jimmyjazz 46120]

One can sense that the system sucks without having the answers to fixing it.  I mean, we're lay people, we just have a sense of justice and that something about the justice system sucks if this guy can't ever get punished.  (Various financial hand slaps don't count.)

[dcbc 14508]

7 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Should a case, whether civil or criminal, rise to the threshold of threatening our Republic, let any and all appeals, or legitimate questions before the court, be decided post haste by the appropriate court, up to and Including SCOTUS. 

That's interesting.  Let's expound on the "threatening our democracy" definition outside of what we're now dealing with which surely would qualify.  We need a definition that survives all constitutional vaguness and overbreadth challenges. 

 

But this is a good start.

[dcbc 14508]

One can sense that the system sucks without having the answers to fixing it.  I mean, we're lay people, we just have a sense of justice and that something about the justice system sucks if this guy can't ever get punished.  (Various financial hand slaps don't count.)

I tend to agree.  And if you want to continue to complain, be my guest.  But I'll still point out that it's not productive or that it doesn't make for interesting reading after a while.  Maybe we need a "The system is Broken" thread? I'd read it.

[TexasEd 8077]

33 minutes ago, dcbc said:

I think it's just that the posts seem to preponderate heavily toward "the system is shit" and not so much of how the system should be rethought.  Without the how, it's just complaining, and to the extent that it's valid, it's pretty tiresome to read.  That doesn't mean some of us who are pretty familiar with the judicial system don't agree.  How to fix a "broken" system is a more interesting and useful discussion.

4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

That's interesting.  Let's expound on the "threatening our democracy" definition outside of what we're now dealing with which surely would qualify.  We need a definition that survives all constitutional vaguness and overbreadth challenges. 

 

But this is a good start.

Yeah, apparently we don't have any laws on the books to define what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 so we can't charge him appropriately and the XIV Amendment used to be self executing but according to this SCOTUS it isn't anymore.

 

[Willfully Horn 8049]

We have questions involving whether tfg is fit to hold office under the 14th Amendment. I dare say this question, unanswered, threatens our Republic.

[Gatorubet 30303]

5 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Yeah, apparently we don't have any laws on the books to define what Trump did leading up to Jan 6 so we can't charge him appropriately and the XIV Amendment used to be self executing but according to this SCOTUS it isn't anymore.

 

We made it through 200 plus years without a person like the orange shit-stained gibbon being elected president.  And honestly, if the orange shit-stained gibbon was elected 20 40, 60 or 100 years ago, the senators and representatives who love their country and honor their oath would have impeached his ass.   

It is after all a bit much to ask the judicial branch to save the country from the legislative branch and its absolute betrayal of their oath. That was not something many people foresaw.  I still have problems, wrapping my head around how this happened so quickly, in a decade, and the only thing I can think of is that we elected a black man as President.

[Rimbo 26071]

4 hours ago, dcbc said:

Me, everytime this Chicken-Little talk starts up again:

 

 

 

It's not that I don't have the same worries/concerns.  But I will vote for the good guys in November and try to get others to do the same.  That is what I (and most of the rest of us) are able to do.  Apart from that, "Bitch, chill; be cool." 

I'll go all the way to the other side. We MUST defeat Trump in November and THEN lock him up. If the latter happens first, it will give his team everything they need to win the election.

Martyrdom is fucking powerful.

That's why it's so incredibly important that the courts dot every i and cross every t.

[tbone_ 14157]

I'll go all the way to the other side. We MUST defeat Trump in November and THEN lock him up. If the latter happens first, it will give his team everything they need to win the election.

Martyrdom is fucking powerful.
That's why it's so incredibly important that the courts dot every i and cross every t.

This. Lose a second time by a record margin, dipshit. Then go to jail, broke.

[Woland 749]

This. Lose a second time by a record margin, dipshit. Then go to jail, broke.

Trump is always one step ahead. He has already booked a hotel in Crimea for his election headquarters.

[speed817 19458]

 

[Rimbo 26071]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so the system is working as designed, is what you are saying. what others are saying is that system is shit and needs to be rethought. both can be true.

Can be, yes. The problem here is that folks really, really want to skip the whole "innocent until proven guilty" mess. That they think Trump is somehow getting a benefit of the doubt no other person would get. Or that he doesn't DESERVE even the standard benefit of the doubt.

The problem is that the minute you skip a step in a rush to throw the guy away, you make a martyr out of him. And the second you do that, you LOSE.

They're already accusing the entire judiciary of being rigged, that these are kangaroo courts, a witch hunt. The worst thing we can do is give them any evidence to support that.

Fortunately, most of these prosecutors and judges get that.

[Rimbo 26071]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

We made it through 200 plus years without a person like the orange shit-stained gibbon being elected president.

Andrew Jackson says "hi"

[scottsins 1969]

so the system is working as designed, is what you are saying. what others are saying is that system is shit and needs to be rethought. both can be true.

Cool. Propose a new rule that would alleviate the current problems.

[scottsins 1969]

Should a case, whether civil or criminal, rise to the threshold of threatening our Republic, let any and all appeals, or legitimate questions before the court, be decided post haste by the appropriate court, up to and Including SCOTUS. 

Ok. So we have a separate preliminary hearing on the “threat to the republic” legal standard? What burden of proof should be used and should that question go to a jury or nah?

What would be the elements to meet that burden? Only POTUS elections? Does the timing relative to an upcoming election matter? What if the defendant is not yet the named nominee for said election?

[Bozo_Casanova 26540]

5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It's been noted here before with respect to "the rule of law" (the judicial branch of the government), but really, it's true for both of the other branches (legislative and executive): our system of government is built on a foundation of mutual agreement (I'll follow the rules, and so will you) and trust.  It just is.  It's one of the things that makes it really great....when it works.  It is also a thing that makes it vulnerable.

 

If only there were a whole profession with super high barriers to entry and published, widely understood and adopted rules for professional conduct and discipline that could do something about that.

Edited April 5 by Bozo_Casanova

[locodos 5393]

For your enjoyment

Judge in Trump hush money case quashes last-minute defense subpoena

The judge overseeing Donald Trump's criminal hush money case quashed a last-minute subpoena by defense lawyers Friday, writing that the former president's request was the "very definition of a fishing expedition."

Trump's lawyers last month subpoenaed NBCUniversal for materials related to their documentary about adult film star Stormy Daniels, which was scheduled to be released one week before the case's original trial date of March 25.

Daniels is expected to testify at trial about the hush money payment she received in 2016 for her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump that the former president has long denied. Trump has pleaded not guilty to a 34-count indictment charging him with falsifying business records in connection with the payment, which Trump's then-attorney Michael Cohen made to Daniels just days before the 2016 presidential election.

Jury selection for the trial is scheduled to get underway April 15 in New York City. The former president has denied all wrongdoing.

Defending their subpoena to NBCUniversal, Trump's lawyers argued that the requested records would "establish collusion between NBCU and Daniels" to release the documentary "as close to the start of the trial as possible to prejudice Defendant and maximize their own financial interest."

In his ruling Friday, Judge Juan Merchan quashed the subpoena and described Trump's arguments as "purely speculative." Evidence submitted by an NBC executive demonstrated that Daniels lacked control over the timing of and material included in the documentary, Merchan concluded.

"Because Defendant's claims are purely speculative and unsupported, his subpoena and the demands therein are the very definition of a fishing expedition," Merchan said.

"The Court has considered Defendant's explanation for seeking this court's permission to rifle through the privileged documents of a news organization and finds that he has not shouldered the very heavy burden necessary to overcome NY civil rights law," the judge wrote.

 

 

[Brisketexan 105316]

8 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

If only there were a whole profession with super high barriers to entry and published, widely understood and adopted rules for professional conduct and discipline that could do something about that.

You mean....rules that are just like our overall Rule of Law, our Legislative rules and procedures, and the laws and rules governing the Executive branch?  Like those rules?  All of which, when you finally get down to it, presume some modicum of good faith and trust?

That's my point.  All of it -- ALL OF IT, THE WHOLE FUCKING REPUBLIC -- is just an agreement.  When enough participants revoke their consent to operate under that agreement, it's over.  When a critical mass opt out of the rule of law, it's the rule of the gun.  That's my whole point.  The rules governing lawyers are just imaginary shit printed on disposable paper, just like EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOVERNS SOCIETY.

Edited April 5 by Brisketexan

[Bozo_Casanova 26540]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

You mean....rules that are just like our overall Rule of Law, our Legislative rules and procedures, and the laws and rules governing the Executive branch?  Like those rules?  All of which, when you finally get down to it, presume some modicum of good faith and trust?

That's my point.  All of it -- ALL OF IT, THE WHOLE FUCKING REPUBLIC -- is just an agreement.  When enough participants revoke their consent to operate under that agreement, it's over.  When a critical mass opt out of the rule of law, it's the rule of the gun.  That's my whole point.  The rules governing paper are just imaginary shit printed on disposable paper, just like EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOVERNS SOCIETY.

I certainly agree that we're running out of firewalls. 

[Brisketexan 105316]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

I certainly agree that we're running out of firewalls. 

And maybe you can understand the immense frustration of people who have built their entire lives and careers on navigating known and knowable rules, now being told the fucking rules of the game are Calvinball.  There have been quite a few occasions when I am simply unable to give my clients sound advice, to tell them what the likely outcome of a situation is.  I can literally ask the question "what would be the most popular outcome on Fox News?", and that's what will fucking happen.

The problem with the fucking authoritarian shitbag Trumpists is that they want to change the rules to have just one rule: "the most powerful group does whatever the fuck it wants."  The problem is, they're so fucking dumb and short-sighted that they can't even conceive of the reality that even if they are the dominant group today, they won't be the dominant group forever.  And once you've made "he who has the power does what he wants" the rule....and you've spent the past several years cruelly imposing your will on everyone else....well, payback is a fucking BITCH.

All the MAGAs are doing is guaranteeing lots of pain and blood....their own included, eventually.

[TwiceHorn 31534]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And maybe you can understand the immense frustration of people who have built their entire lives and careers on navigating known and knowable rules, now being told the fucking rules of the game are Calvinball.  There have been quite a few occasions when I am simply unable to give my clients sound advice, to tell them what the likely outcome of a situation is.  I can literally ask the question "what would be the most popular outcome on Fox News?", and that's what will fucking happen.

The problem with the fucking authoritarian shitbag Trumpists is that they want to change the rules to have just one rule: "the most powerful group does whatever the fuck it wants."  The problem is, they're so fucking dumb and short-sighted that they can't even conceive of the reality that even if they are the dominant group today, they won't be the dominant group forever.  And once you've made "he who has the power does what he wants" the rule....and you've spent the past several years cruelly imposing your will on everyone else....well, payback is a fucking BITCH.

All the MAGAs are doing is guaranteeing lots of pain and blood....their own included, eventually.

I'm always pleased, particularly here in my dotage, that my practice involves little to no politics and minimal human misery, pain, and suffering.

[Willfully Horn 8049]

1 hour ago, scottsins said:

Ok. So we have a separate preliminary hearing on the “threat to the republic” legal standard? What burden of proof should be used and should that question go to a jury or nah?

What would be the elements to meet that burden? Only POTUS elections? Does the timing relative to an upcoming election matter? What if the defendant is not yet the named nominee for said election?

Nah, we employ the loosest standard imaginable and grease wheels. Burden of proof becomes what is a conceivable circumstance. .After all, my proposal does nothing but speed up answers to questions, and infringes not one iota on a defendant, but is (preferably actionably)* proactive in protecting the Republic. INAL; call the hounds and hunt.

*Meaning that unnecessary delay is pure FA,, and FO stars with removal.
 

 

[Foosters 17885]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm always pleased, particularly here in my dotage, that my practice involves little to no politics and minimal human misery, pain, and suffering.

hmm, i should give that a shot

[Sawbonz 27587]

9 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Can't believe that a subprime car loan guy would try to pull something shady with paperwork.

[YGIFS 19452]

You think you hate Ivanka now?  Wait 'til you ride her...

[tx 3 putt 77394]

Future lawsuits ….

 

[Brisketexan 105316]

3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

You think you hate Ivanka now?  Wait 'til you ride her...

[YGIFS 19452]

12 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Future lawsuits ….

 

Well, we can unpack this ball of insanity over the weekend.  But a few initial thoughts:

0:40 mark.  How the fuck do you sue a private university endowment?  You can certainly sue an actual institution, but does the smartest businessman ever not understand how endowments are almost categorically-are run by OCIO's/managers?  Like you can sue the University of Texas for lack of safety or promoting hazing.  Or you can sue UTIMCO if you feel they've purposely mishandled assets or engaged in fraud.  But you can't sue UTIMCO because it supports "wokeness" or some questionable courses or allowing anti-Israeli demonstrations or whatever.  How the fuck does his team not now that?  There are literally thousands of examples across the nation, both public and private.  

1:16 mark.  What the fuck is "Nanchent History?"  

1:43 mark.  Can someone tell me about any U.S. university or college offers degrees in "Jihadism"? 

I mean, I know this guy's a fucking idiot, but there had to be one person on his team with a 90 IQ that proof-read this transcript and thought, "Yeah, I don't know sir if we should go with 'college courses in terrorism.'  "

 

Edited April 5 by YGIFS

[chainsaw 9873]

18 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Future lawsuits ….

 

2023 Ron DeSantis called, he wants his entire identity back

[Brisketexan 105316]

6 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Can someone tell me about any U.S. university or college offers degrees in "Jihadism"? 

1) I am not aware of such thing.

2) Had such a course been on offer back in my college days, and had I assessed that for some reason, it was full of hot coed ass....I'd have signed up.  I'd at least have stuck with it till the add/drop deadline.

Because college Brisket was a pretty linear thinker.

[YGIFS 19452]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1) I am not aware of such thing.

2) Had such a course been on offer back in my college days, and had I assessed that for some reason, it was full of hot coed ass....I'd have signed up.  I'd at least have stuck with it till the add/drop deadline.

Because college Brisket was a pretty linear thinker.

Yeah, I think I ass-essed I should add and drop my jihadzz to this hot coed.  Ah, dammit.  I had something for this.