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

[dcbc 14472]

3 hours ago, tbone_ said:

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

You've been reading my letters to Santa.

[locodos 5387]

10 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

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.'  "

 

You do know that it doesn't matter if those points are factual and no one on his staff cares if the are or not.  It's only supposed to be inflammatory.  At some point, you have to understand that pointing out/worrying about factual errors is a waste of your time. 

I spent some time yesterday fact checking a Closeted Trumpkin, he just got upset and angry... (he tells me he's not political, but has trump memes on his phone)  I called him out on it...  I did not change his mind at all.  It was really mad/saddening, at some point soon I'm just going stop spending any time with him.

One funny/sad exchange... He was talking about being proud of the rebel flag, and "it is our heritage!"  He thought it was wrong that people disrespected their memory... "They fought and died for this country" 

my response... "they were fucking traitors who fought to destroy the US."  Then he changed the subject to something equally stupid and sad.

[dcbc 14472]

1 hour 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.

Realtors?  Chiropractors?

[dcbc 14472]

1 hour ago, 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 lawyers are just imaginary shit printed on disposable paper, just like EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOVERNS SOCIETY.

 

 

Ixnay on the isposableday aperpay

 

1 hour 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.

Me, too.  And work for elected officials.  And I check my personal politics at the door when I do my job because politics has no place in the interpretation of the law.  It's also why I push back at the notion that the overall system is broken.  Ain't nothing broken leaving my desk.  It might be "wrong."  Occasionally it has been declared as such by some guys and gals down in Austin.  But even when it's declared "wrong," it's not emblematic of a broken system.

Edited April 5 by dcbc

[YGIFS 19450]

Just now, locodos said:

You do know that it doesn't matter if those points are factual and no one on his staff cares if the are or not.  It's only supposed to be inflammatory.  At some point, you have to understand that pointing out/worrying about factual errors is a waste of your time. 

I spent some time yesterday fact checking a Closeted Trumpkin, he just got upset and angry... (he tells me he's not political, but has trump memes on his phone)  I called him out on it...  I did not change his mind at all.  It was really mad/saddening, at some point soon I'm just going stop spending any time with him.

One funny/sad exchange... He was talking about being proud of the rebel flag, and "it is our heritage!"  He thought it was wrong that people disrespected their memory... "They fought and died for this country" 

my response... "they were fucking traitors who fought to destroy the US."  Then he changed the subject to something equally stupid and sad.

Yeah, I know it's not gonna switch any voters from his side to Biden's.  I just have to laugh because it's becoming more and more apparent that he's in massive cognitive decline because of everything that's circling around him over the past year.  We can easily see what's happening.  He's insisting upon these bizarre messages in video/rally/tweet form.  Say what you will about the moral abyss of his staff, somebody there has to know most of this stuff is complete bullshit but he then tells them they're going through it anyway.  And that's the icing on the cake---when somebody is clearly on decline from stress, bad health, and sleep deprivation insists they are fine and ignores health...that's when they are fucked.  Particularly when you combine it with narcissistic sociopathy and old age.  Nobody is gonna switch their vote, but stuff like this does two things that are net gains:  It proves he is dying faster than people thought (humblebrag, I called this awhile bag).  And it may cause a few million of his middle 1/3rd of voters to to think, "Oh this fucking guy, I just can't anymore."  And they stay home.  Straight ticket old-school GOP'ers gonna pull 25 million levers.  Sadistic MAGA lunatics gonna pull 25 million voters.  More and more shit like this could just be enough of to get a few of that middle 25 million to stop holding their nose and say "Nope, Biden sucks and is old.  And maybe our guy is too.  I don't care enough about the local Justice of the Peace election.  Just gonna work through lunch that day...  

[tbone_ 14115]

You've been reading my letters to Santa.

I mean if we’re making up fantasies

[dcbc 14472]

1 hour 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.

Without saying who (obviously), what sorts of clients/cases are these.  I'm obviously in a different part of the state (different world, let's face it), but I don't tend to see a lot of a political undertones on much of what we see around here.  That is to say, what kind of civil cases get an obvious yea or nay from the MAGA juror?

Edited April 5 by dcbc

[Gatorubet 30214]

4 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Without saying who (obviously), what sorts of clients/cases are these.  I'm obviously in a different part of the state, but I don't tend to see a lot of a political on much of what we get around here.

I believe he represents mostly Jihadist Universities. 

[dcbc 14472]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

I believe he represents mostly Jihadist Universities. 

Well played.  My dogs are wondering why I'm staring at a screen and laughing my head off.

 

Also, I assume that means he represents UT (to quote aggy)

Edited April 5 by dcbc

[locodos 5387]

3 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I believe he represents mostly Jihadist Universities. 

Can you imagine being a professor when it comes time to pass out the grades or Fatwahs?

 

You'd have to expect some blowback

 

Edited April 5 by locodos

[dcbc 14472]

1 minute ago, locodos said:

Can you imagine being a professor when it comes time to pass out the grades or Fatwahs?

 

You'd have to expect some blowback

 

Fatwah 101 sounds like pass/fail.  The ultimate pass/fail.

 

But if you pass, you get 72.

Edited April 5 by dcbc

[dcbc 14472]

17 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

I mean if we’re making up fantasies

A buddy of mine used to joke (I presume) that if your search term is more than five words, you're a proper pervert.  But that's probably a conversation for a different thread on a forum that does not exist here.

[YGIFS 19450]

12 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I believe he represents mostly Jihadist Universities. 

Hey Mohammed, what's this I hear you're having problems with your TPS homework?  

[dcbc 14472]

9 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Hey Mohammed, what's this I hear you're having problems with your TPS homework?  

 

You should have seen what happened to him after the self-portrait he turned in in art class.

Edited April 5 by dcbc

[YGIFS 19450]

He got an 'A' on it, to be fair.  I mean, they killed him.  But still, an 'A' with that asshole professor is really impressive.  

[Sawbonz 27547]

2 hours 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.

[dcbc 14472]

4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

/an image for ants

[atomheartbevo 89652]

51 minutes ago, locodos said:

One funny/sad exchange... He was talking about being proud of the rebel flag, and "it is our heritage!"  He thought it was wrong that people disrespected their memory... "They fought and died for this country" 

my response... "they were fucking traitors who fought to destroy the US."  Then he changed the subject to something equally stupid and sad.

A whole lost of these people don’t have any such heritage - their ancestors came well after the Civil War, or were in the North at the time.

And nearly 10% of deaths in the Civil war were from people shitting themselves to death.  Not very glorious and what a heritage - a shitload of them didn’t die fighting for states rights, they died because Jeff Davis couldn’t get them fresh food or because some dumbasses couldn’t help but construct their latrines near water, thereby fucking everybody downstream. 

[dcbc 14472]

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

A whole lost of these people don’t have any such heritage - their ancestors came well after the Civil War, or were in the North at the time.

And nearly 10% of deaths in the Civil war were from people shitting themselves to death.  Not very glorious and what a heritage - a shitload of them didn’t die fighting for states rights, they died because Jeff Davis couldn’t get them fresh food or because some dumbasses couldn’t help but construct their latrines near water, thereby fucking everybody downstream. 

 

Donald Trump makes some people, who don't have much going for them, feel (through lies) like, hey, there's someone that is lower on the hill down which shit slides than I am.  That's like 67% of the Trump supports by my unsubstantiated calculations.

Edited April 6 by dcbc

[Fudge Nuggets 19190]

6 hours 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. 

Dotard's suit against Colorado removing him from the ballot got resolved real fucking fast.

[Goredho 17399]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Future lawsuits ….

 

So it turns out Roseanne Barr was giving great advice about not attending college.

[scottsins 1966]

Dotard's suit against Colorado removing him from the ballot got resolved real fucking fast.

Yeah. A pure question of law with no facts in dispute will usually work like that.

[YGIFS 19450]

1 hour ago, dcbc said:

 

/an image for ants

Oh, so you mean like it literally is like a small school for ants?  /benstiller

[Gatorubet 30214]

16 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Yeah. A pure question of law with no facts in dispute will usually work like that.

Plus, they were actually at a date where they had to issue ballots, and once they made them, they could not retract it so it was paramount that the decision be decided before that event,

[Superhero 8828]

8 hours ago, tbone_ said:

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

Or just get stage 4 face eating cancer and die from a massive coronary the after 30 days of being immobilized by agonizing pain. That'll work too.

[Macanudo 12976]

14 hours 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.

Texas A&M is probably the closest.   

Whoop!

[Brisketexan 105096]

Texas A&M is probably the closest.   
Whoop!

I said “hot coed ass,” not “Reveille is in my seat.”

[locodos 5387]

oh that bond?!

 

Trump saved millions by keeping court in dark about billionaire's bond offer

 

• After his team cited hardship in securing funding, Trump's civil fraud trial bond was cut to $175 million.
• ProPublica reported a billionaire businessman offered to post the original $464 million amount due.
• By failing to report the offer, Trump's legal team may have violated ethics rules, ProPublica found.

Donald Trump's recent complaints about being unable to afford his civil fraud trial bond may have been misleading to the court, according to a new report from ProPublica.

The outlet reported Friday that, despite Trump's legal team calling the original $464 million an "impossible bond requirement" and claiming he'd been rejected by 30 firms he'd approached to raise the money, the former president had already received an offer from billionaire businessman Don Hankey to post the full amount.

"I saw that they were rejected by everyone, and I said, 'Gee, that doesn't seem like a difficult bond to post,'" Hankey told ProPublica. Hankey told the outlet he reached out to Trump's representatives days before the bond was lowered, expressing a willingness to use real estate as collateral for the loan — which Trump's lawyers indicated other firms were unwilling to do.

The bond was ultimately slashed to $175 million, saving Trump hundreds of millions of dollars, before it was posted by Knight Specialty Insurance Company, Hankey's business.

Hankey told the outlet that, though he is a Trump supporter, he would have done the deal regardless of his personal beliefs. He suggested the former president was struggling to secure an appeal bond not because he lacked the liquidity to back the deal but because, for public companies, "maybe you don't want to offend 45% of the population" by visibly backing Trump.

It remains unclear whether Trump's legal team was aware of negotiations between Hankey and Trump's representatives to post the full $464 million amount, which was underway when the bond was reduced. However, legal experts told Business Insider, that if his lawyers knew about the offer and failed to notify the court, they may have violated ethics rules.

After the outlet contacted Trump's representatives, Hankey reached back out to ProPublica. In the second conversation, he told ProPublica that accepting Trump's real estate as collateral would have been complicated, and the deal would have been "difficult."

What happens now?
According to the New York State Bar Association, attorneys are bound to the NY Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court.

"Attorneys who violate the law or fail to abide by this code of conduct are subject to discipline, which may include admonishment, reprimand, censure, suspension or loss of his or her license to practice law," the NYSBA website reads.

Two legal experts told Business Insider that if Trump's attorneys knew of the negotiations surrounding Hankey's offer as they appealed to the court for a lower bond amount, it would likely be an ethics violation.

"If Trump's lawyers knew it was possible for him to secure a bond for the full amount when they filed their appeal, then their misrepresentation may be an ethics violation and a fraud on the court," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Business Insider. However, he noted it would be difficult to prove what Trump's lawyers knew and when they knew it.

Andrew Lieb, a litigation attorney and legal analyst, told Business Insider the conduct of Trump's attorneys in this matter appears to be "a clear violation" of rule 3.3 of the NY Rules of Professional Conduct, which states lawyers shall not knowingly make false statements of fact to the court and that they shall make "reasonable remedial measures," including disclosure to the court if they come to know of a falsehood.

"Should Trump's lawyers be found to violate this rule, they should expect an ethics charge be levied against them, which can result in anything from a private letter in their file all the way up to a suspension from practice," Lieb told BI.

He added: "Moreover, the timing of when they found out isn't relevant because according to the rule, they need to take reasonable remedial measures to correct the falsity of the evidence or statement, even if they learned of it after the fact."

The Trump campaign, lawyers representing the former president in his civil fraud case, and Knight Specialty Insurance Company representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

[Biff Tannen 45676]

18 hours ago, Rimbo said:

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.

My problem with this, specifically with January 6th, is WE ALL SAW HIM COMMIT THE OFFENSE IN REAL TIME.  Oh, maybe he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol?  YES HE DID.  WE ALL WATCHED IT.

It's just frustrating to have to pretend all this shit didn't happen because of some decorum of "law" that has to be followed because reasons and slippery slopes.  God dammit, the motherfucker was on video.  

I guarantee if someone were on video assassinating a president, that person would be in prison until trial and I bet the trial would be over within weeks.  But nope, this motherfucker gets to run for president instead.

[TwiceHorn 31451]

17 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

My problem with this, specifically with January 6th, is WE ALL SAW HIM COMMIT THE OFFENSE IN REAL TIME.  Oh, maybe he didn't mean for them to storm the Capitol?  YES HE DID.  WE ALL WATCHED IT.

It's just frustrating to have to pretend all this shit didn't happen because of some decorum of "law" that has to be followed because reasons and slippery slopes.  God dammit, the motherfucker was on video.  

I guarantee if someone were on video assassinating a president, that person would be in prison until trial and I bet the trial would be over within weeks.  But nope, this motherfucker gets to run for president instead.

The problem with that is that what he did on January 6, alone, is not a crime.  You have to know and be able to prove his intention on January 6, which includes all the background activity and run-up to January 6.  None of that was on video, but apparently some of it was on audio.

[safe sex 11709]

1 hour ago, locodos said:

oh that bond?!

 

Trump saved millions by keeping court in dark about billionaire's bond offer

 

• After his team cited hardship in securing funding, Trump's civil fraud trial bond was cut to $175 million.
• ProPublica reported a billionaire businessman offered to post the original $464 million amount due.
• By failing to report the offer, Trump's legal team may have violated ethics rules, ProPublica found.

Donald Trump's recent complaints about being unable to afford his civil fraud trial bond may have been misleading to the court, according to a new report from ProPublica.

The outlet reported Friday that, despite Trump's legal team calling the original $464 million an "impossible bond requirement" and claiming he'd been rejected by 30 firms he'd approached to raise the money, the former president had already received an offer from billionaire businessman Don Hankey to post the full amount.

"I saw that they were rejected by everyone, and I said, 'Gee, that doesn't seem like a difficult bond to post,'" Hankey told ProPublica. Hankey told the outlet he reached out to Trump's representatives days before the bond was lowered, expressing a willingness to use real estate as collateral for the loan — which Trump's lawyers indicated other firms were unwilling to do.

The bond was ultimately slashed to $175 million, saving Trump hundreds of millions of dollars, before it was posted by Knight Specialty Insurance Company, Hankey's business.

Hankey told the outlet that, though he is a Trump supporter, he would have done the deal regardless of his personal beliefs. He suggested the former president was struggling to secure an appeal bond not because he lacked the liquidity to back the deal but because, for public companies, "maybe you don't want to offend 45% of the population" by visibly backing Trump.

It remains unclear whether Trump's legal team was aware of negotiations between Hankey and Trump's representatives to post the full $464 million amount, which was underway when the bond was reduced. However, legal experts told Business Insider, that if his lawyers knew about the offer and failed to notify the court, they may have violated ethics rules.

After the outlet contacted Trump's representatives, Hankey reached back out to ProPublica. In the second conversation, he told ProPublica that accepting Trump's real estate as collateral would have been complicated, and the deal would have been "difficult."

What happens now?
According to the New York State Bar Association, attorneys are bound to the NY Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted by the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court.

"Attorneys who violate the law or fail to abide by this code of conduct are subject to discipline, which may include admonishment, reprimand, censure, suspension or loss of his or her license to practice law," the NYSBA website reads.

Two legal experts told Business Insider that if Trump's attorneys knew of the negotiations surrounding Hankey's offer as they appealed to the court for a lower bond amount, it would likely be an ethics violation.

"If Trump's lawyers knew it was possible for him to secure a bond for the full amount when they filed their appeal, then their misrepresentation may be an ethics violation and a fraud on the court," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Business Insider. However, he noted it would be difficult to prove what Trump's lawyers knew and when they knew it.

Andrew Lieb, a litigation attorney and legal analyst, told Business Insider the conduct of Trump's attorneys in this matter appears to be "a clear violation" of rule 3.3 of the NY Rules of Professional Conduct, which states lawyers shall not knowingly make false statements of fact to the court and that they shall make "reasonable remedial measures," including disclosure to the court if they come to know of a falsehood.

"Should Trump's lawyers be found to violate this rule, they should expect an ethics charge be levied against them, which can result in anything from a private letter in their file all the way up to a suspension from practice," Lieb told BI.

He added: "Moreover, the timing of when they found out isn't relevant because according to the rule, they need to take reasonable remedial measures to correct the falsity of the evidence or statement, even if they learned of it after the fact."

The Trump campaign, lawyers representing the former president in his civil fraud case, and Knight Specialty Insurance Company representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider.

Lmao, add it to the list. Still waiting for him to get in trouble for violating gag orders

[Red Five 40853]

44 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The problem with that is that what he did on January 6, alone, is not a crime. 

Is there nothing like "failure to render aid", when the POTUS sends a mob to the capitol, and then refuses to offer assistance (because he is in league with the mob) while it and all of our elected leaders are under attack? How on earth is that not criminal?

[C-Man 27217]

16 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Yeah, I know it's not gonna switch any voters from his side to Biden's.  I just have to laugh because it's becoming more and more apparent that he's in massive cognitive decline because of everything that's circling around him over the past year.  We can easily see what's happening.  He's insisting upon these bizarre messages in video/rally/tweet form.  Say what you will about the moral abyss of his staff, somebody there has to know most of this stuff is complete bullshit but he then tells them they're going through it anyway.  And that's the icing on the cake---when somebody is clearly on decline from stress, bad health, and sleep deprivation insists they are fine and ignores health...that's when they are fucked.  Particularly when you combine it with narcissistic sociopathy and old age.  Nobody is gonna switch their vote, but stuff like this does two things that are net gains:  It proves he is dying faster than people thought (humblebrag, I called this awhile bag).  And it may cause a few million of his middle 1/3rd of voters to to think, "Oh this fucking guy, I just can't anymore."  And they stay home.  Straight ticket old-school GOP'ers gonna pull 25 million levers.  Sadistic MAGA lunatics gonna pull 25 million voters.  More and more shit like this could just be enough of to get a few of that middle 25 million to stop holding their nose and say "Nope, Biden sucks and is old.  And maybe our guy is too.  I don't care enough about the local Justice of the Peace election.  Just gonna work through lunch that day...  

I don't think this proves his cognitive decline as much as it's just another GQP dogwhistle that appeals to the lowest common denominator in our society.

This shit sells. That's all you need to know about garbage like this.

[Gatorubet 30214]

7 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Is there nothing like "failure to render aid", when the POTUS sends a mob to the capitol, and then refuses to offer assistance (because he is in league with the mob) while it and all of our elected leaders are under attack? How on earth is that not criminal?

It is more like the case where a violent, abusive husband says he is going to kill his wife and she runs out of the house towards you standing there, carrying your loaded 45.  If you stand there and do nothing, and watch her be beaten to death, that is not a crime. At least I’m not aware of any crime that would fit the bill.

I am aware of cases that say that law-enforcement is not criminally liable for failing to stop a crime. And that is their job. It is universally a crime to do something illegal - not to watch others do something illegal and not act. The closest criminal circumstance I can think of would be misprision of a felony, where you have a duty to report a crime you know of, and fail to do so. Which is different from failing to prevent the crime itself and after the fact. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45676]

Let's write a law to make this shit a crime and apply it retroactively.  I don't see any other way.  

[Red Five 40853]

16 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

It is more like the case where a violent, abusive husband says he is going to kill his wife and she runs out of the house towards you standing there, carrying your loaded 45.  If you stand there and do nothing, and watch her be beaten to death, that is not a crime. At least I’m not aware of any crime that would fit the bill.

I am aware of cases that say that law-enforcement is not criminally liable for failing to stop a crime. And that is their job. It is universally a crime to do something illegal - not to watch others do something illegal and not act. The closest criminal circumstance I can think of would be misprision of a felony, where you have a duty to report a crime you know of, and fail to do so. Which is different from failing to prevent the crime itself and after the fact. 

 

But... he sent them there. It would be more like if a guy sent all of his buddies to murder his wife, and then stood there and watched it happen. 

I mean, if he had immediately tweeted out "Oh no no, you misunderstood me! I meant a non-violent protest! Stop what you're doing right now and leave!" etc. etc. But he didn't. In fact, he mocked the people begging him for help, hiding inside the capitol from the angry mob that HE CREATED, and then sent there. 

Edited April 6 by Red Five

[Surly Bevo 24908]

17 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

It is more like the case where a violent, abusive husband says he is going to kill his wife and she runs out of the house towards you standing there, carrying your loaded 45.  If you stand there and do nothing, and watch her be beaten to death, that is not a crime. At least I’m not aware of any crime that would fit the bill.

I am aware of cases that say that law-enforcement is not criminally liable for failing to stop a crime. And that is their job. It is universally a crime to do something illegal - not to watch others do something illegal and not act. The closest criminal circumstance I can think of would be misprision of a felony, where you have a duty to report a crime you know of, and fail to do so. Which is different from failing to prevent the crime itself and after the fact. 

 

[Gatorubet 30214]

18 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Let's write a law to make this shit a crime and apply it retroactively.  I don't see any other way.  

[Biff Tannen 45676]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Ok, give me another option then.  Because we have already concluded that the current system is going to move too slowly to stop the fascist train from running on time.

[Willfully Horn 8008]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ok, give me another option then.  Because we have already concluded that the current system is going to move too slowly to stop the fascist train from running on time.

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

[Macanudo 12976]

If I plan a robbery and send my minions to do it, am I guilty of nothing when they get caught?

 

[Surly Bevo 24908]

15 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

Yea but Lincoln also had an actual honest-to-goodness shooting war going on at that point AND all he had out there information wise was word of mouth and newspapers that most people didn't get. 

[Willfully Horn 8008]

Just now, Surly Bevo said:

Yea but Lincoln also had an actual honest-to-goodness shooting war going on at that point AND all he had out there information wise was word of mouth and newspapers that most people didn't get. 

No argument. Not advocating a suspension of habeus. I would like to see all appeals expedited. SCOTUS’ scheduling the immunity appeal on its last day of oral arguments ought be actionable.

[Gatorubet 30214]

22 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

This would put Trump and his minions on the actual moral and correct side of the law if they were to engage in a Civil War after this happened. Lincoln also did the equivalent of putting the Fox News organization in jail, or at least shutting down their operations during the war. Lincoln absolutely violated the constitution in a number of fundamental and abhorrent ways.

We can’t devolve to a scenario where we are doing things just as constitutionally inappropriate as he did, or Trump does now, because, “our team.”.   “Because it helps my side” is not a reason to do unconstitutional things.   I am not a serious student of Lincoln, but I have never run across anything that led me to believe that Lincoln’s several unconstitutional executive orders during the Civil War was key to our winning that war.    It certainly drove some Lincoln supporters into Lincoln opponents because of him doing that

I don’t think those are options we need to consider. Every one of us sitting here bitching about this needs to track down 10 non-registered people and get them to vote - and have each of them track down people and get them to register to vote. And then we all vote the fuck stick away from politics for the rest of his life, and his followers will give up and go away without him as a figurehead. If not, in another 10 or 15 years, most of them will be dead.

Edited April 6 by Gatorubet
sorry dude. I was too busy being verbose to realize you had posted your response.

[TwiceHorn 31451]

29 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

And that order was unconstitutional almost without doubt and anyone imprisoned under it could commence lengthy litigation to so establish, likely being freed along the way. 

[Willfully Horn 8008]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This would put Trump and his minions on the actual moral and correct side of the law if they were to engage in a Civil War after this happened. Lincoln also did the equivalent of putting the Fox News organization in jail, or at least shutting down their operations during the war. Lincoln absolutely violated the constitution in a number of fundamental and abhorrent ways.

We can’t devolve to a scenario where we are doing things just as constitutionally inappropriate as he did, or Trump does now, because, “our team.”.   “Because it helps my side” is not a reason to do unconstitutional things.   I am not a serious student of Lincoln, but I have never run across anything that led me to believe that Lincoln’s several unconstitutional executive orders during the Civil War was key to our winning that war.    It certainly drove some Lincoln supporters into Lincoln opponents because of him doing that

I don’t think those are options we need to consider. Every one of us sitting here bitching about this needs to track down 10 non-registered people and get them to vote - and have each of them track down people and get them to register to vote. And then we all vote the fuck stick away from politics for the rest of his life, and his followers will give up and go away without him as a figurehead. If not, in another 10 or 15 years, most of them will be dead.

Were Biden to suspend habeus, it would drive me away from supporting him.  I appreciate, very much, living in a society governed by the rule of law. Lincoln’s action was based on a need for urgency, however, and I wish the same sense of urgency was driving the judicial branch’s actions on all things related to 1/6, the GA rico case, and the document case.

[Willfully Horn 8008]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And that order was unconstitutional almost without doubt and anyone imprisoned under it could commence lengthy litigation to so establish, likely being freed along the way. 

No argument here. Never said it was the right option.

[locodos 5387]

33 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

This, at least, meets the definition of an option:

In 1862, President Lincoln issued Presidential Proclamation 94 which suspended the writ of habeas corpus. (The writ of habeas corpus is a tool preventing the government from unlawfully imprisoning individuals outside of the judicial process).

No fuck that.  Dems are the actual law and order party... and the party of fiscal responsibility, national defense, science, liberty, democracy, education ...

[Captainant 27655]

It's just fucking insane that apparently our options are either "suspend habeas corpus" or "let trump repeatedly abuse the justice system with unchecked lies". What the fucking fuck? It's like y'all have this weird blind spot that makes you think trump is always acting in good faith when he NEVER fucking has

['stache 21802]

For 91 indictments and a half dozen civil cases they are moving faster than what I would expect, and only one finding a bad judge is pretty decent, there way more than that on the bench. The problem isn’t the legal system, he’ll get convicted, and the judgments will be affirmed. The problem is that 80 million shitstain Americans will still vote for him and an entire political party hails him as their undisputed king. No legal system can fix that, if that’s what the mob wants, well then, just end this country and let states figure out if they want to be democracies or dictatorships. I’ll be moving to a place where the majority are willing to act like civilized adults.