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

[Gil Bang 25980]

 

 

[Gil Bang 25980]

27 minutes ago, pacman said:

https://www.caclubindia.com/assets/judge-aileen-cannon-money/

 

Judge Cannon has had a bit of financial luck of late...

Ah.  The reverse Duke Cunningham.

[Bozo_Casanova 26504]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

That actual reporting reads like it was written by AI. But Dems in the senate should be quietly investigating her finances given how corrupt most federalist society judges are.

"CACLUBINDIA?"

Come on yall. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

It’s amazing how corrupt this country is right now 

[WhatTheBuck 28791]

10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

"CACLUBINDIA?"

Come on yall. 

Yeah, I don’t know how reliable that source is. Not taking any of it for fact without confirmation.

[bolverk 29694]

21 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

Gil, if you don't have a twitter account, you can't read a whole thread anymore. Here's a version of the tweet that the many of us who dumped twitter can actually read without giving financial support to Elmo Mush with a click or an account.

https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3dg/post/C8DYkmfvBDI 

Edited June 10 by bolverk

[Dbeasy 15073]

10 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s amazing how corrupt this country is right now 

Yup. I’m trying to decide whether it’s always been this corrupt but now it’s out in the open due to the internet, or it truly has degraded. I believe the corruption is way worse and it’s sad. 

[BamaATL 16593]

28 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

Yup. I’m trying to decide whether it’s always been this corrupt but now it’s out in the open due to the internet, or it truly has degraded. I believe the corruption is way worse and it’s sad. 

It certainly hasn't helped that the print media has pretty much died, they used to do the bulk of investigative journalism, in particular in local matters.  That more or less doesn't exist anymore, and in that vacuum, corruption at the local level has exploded.  On the national level, investigative journalism has been more or less cast aside in favor of the far more profitable infotainment business model.  The real problem is that until American's decide to choose to make that sort of journalism profitable (which there is no sign of happening), no one is going to do it.  If you look right now at any "news" network (left, right, whatever) it isn't news, it's someone giving an opinion pretty much 90% of the time, if not higher.  

What's the solution for this?  I have no realistic idea, but therein lies a big problem.  The 4th estate right now is pretty much in absolute tatters.  As a result, we aren't getting independent news, we are getting infotainment from people with agendas.  

[Js1 85442]

The media is as complicit and corrupt 

[Ted Lange 16110]

A bigger problem is if anyone on the right is accused or even convicted of something every republican simply doesn’t believe it 99% of the time.   It takes something outlandishly over the top like George Santos, and even then 30% still won’t believe it 

[elfenix 34329]

10 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

A bigger problem is if anyone on the right is accused or even convicted of something every republican simply doesn’t believe it 99% of the time.   It takes something outlandishly over the top like George Santos, and even then 30% still won’t believe it 

 "And the Democrats are worse!"

[Mdhorn 5974]

24 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The media is as complicit and corrupt 

The just asking questions bit plays a little one sided.  Wish they asked more questions of Trumpco. 

[TwiceHorn 31510]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Gil, if you don't have a twitter account, you can't read a whole thread anymore. Here's a version of the tweet that the many of us who dumped twitter can actually read without giving financial support to Elmo Mush with a click or an account.

https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3dg/post/C8DYkmfvBDI 

She's technically right, I suppose in that the government argued in support of that paragraph that it was "Rule 404(b)" material.

I don't know that the government made that argument in support of other paragraphs.  It was kind of a dumb argument, because it does require some proceedings and a ruling before other bad acts are admissible.

Rule 404(b) is the rule that generally prohibits the use of evidence of uncharged or other bad acts as trial evidence, at least until the government shows that it is for some other purpose than the defendant acted consistently.  The government can probably meet that burden easily, but until they do, they can't use these as trial evidence.  An indictment is not trial evidence, but may be read to or given to the jury as part of the charge.

[tchookem 3903]

Yup. I’m trying to decide whether it’s always been this corrupt but now it’s out in the open due to the internet, or it truly has degraded. I believe the corruption is way worse and it’s sad. 

I've decided that it was always corrupt. The difference is that in the past, the bar for corruption was so low that practically anyone could play. In the west, you could pay off a judge with a couple pieces of silver. Years ago, you could pay off a cop with a couple $100 bills. You could probably get a politician for a couple grand. But today, the price for corruption is so restrictive that only the mega-rich are able to get in the game. And since there's no accountability for the mega-rich, there's really no reason to be discreet.

So here we are.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

Sidenote.  In a year, this case has more than 600 docket entries.  That is fucking astonishing.

A normal pace for even a complex and active civil case is somewhere around 100 entries per year of pendency.  Criminal cases tend to have even fewer filings.

[DixonHur 11342]

2 hours ago, pacman said:

https://www.caclubindia.com/assets/judge-aileen-cannon-money/

 

Judge Cannon has had a bit of financial luck of late...

[Biff Tannen 45692]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

 "And the Democrats are worse!"

This.  They reflexively parrot this because they know deep in their hearts they are supporting criminals.  Most of them know this anyway.

[Biff Tannen 45692]

54 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Sidenote.  In a year, this case has more than 600 docket entries.  That is fucking astonishing.

A normal pace for even a complex and active civil case is somewhere around 100 entries per year of pendency.  Criminal cases tend to have even fewer filings.

[BamaATL 16593]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

layman's terms - Trump's attorneys know at worst she is grossly incompetent and burying her in motions and paperwork will delay the case.  At best she is their stooge that can justify so many delays based on the number of their filings.  Either way, they get what they want, this strung out as long as possible.  Truth is, it's probably a combination of both scenarios.  

[GenXer 2888]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This.  They reflexively parrot this because they know deep in their hearts they are supporting criminals.  Most of them know this anyway.

I have a theory that the hardcore trump supporters are criminals themselves. They may engage in fraud, tax evasion, or other shady dealings. They rationalize their own behavior by comparing it to trump. Like, hey it’s cool if I don’t report all my income; the president doesn’t report all of his either.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

31 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Every court filing is a docket entry.  600 in a year is roughly 6x what a fairly active case generates.  Sure, it's probably mostly Trump. but not entirely.

[TexasEd 8067]

3 hours ago, bolverk said:

Gil, if you don't have a twitter account, you can't read a whole thread anymore. Here's a version of the tweet that the many of us who dumped twitter can actually read without giving financial support to Elmo Mush with a click or an account.

https://www.threads.net/@gtconway3dg/post/C8DYkmfvBDI 

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

She's technically right, I suppose in that the government argued in support of that paragraph that it was "Rule 404(b)" material.

I don't know that the government made that argument in support of other paragraphs.  It was kind of a dumb argument, because it does require some proceedings and a ruling before other bad acts are admissible.

Rule 404(b) is the rule that generally prohibits the use of evidence of uncharged or other bad acts as trial evidence, at least until the government shows that it is for some other purpose than the defendant acted consistently.  The government can probably meet that burden easily, but until they do, they can't use these as trial evidence.  An indictment is not trial evidence, but may be read to or given to the jury as part of the charge.

They should charge the Bedminster incident in SDNY.

 

[Zeus 6102]

2 hours ago, elfenix said:

 "And the Democrats are worse!"

They are all the same, Texas should secede. 

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93

Clinton was fined $8k for using campaign funds to pay for opposition research and classifying it as legal fees. Similar deal. 
 

The real question is who is behind the curtain? The two WWE wrestlers out there - orange man vs dementia man. It’s got everyone arguing and fired up, but it’s all baloney. 
 

Who in the MIC is running the show and are they planning to blow more money and get more Americans killed in another pointless war soon? Do they even have the bodies to throw out there? 
 

Anyway back to regularly scheduled programming

[Zeus 6102]

1 hour ago, GenXer said:

I have a theory that the hardcore trump supporters are criminals themselves. They may engage in fraud, tax evasion, or other shady dealings. They rationalize their own behavior by comparing it to trump. Like, hey it’s cool if I don’t report all my income; the president doesn’t report all of his either.

Wait, Trump supporters are Latin American immigrants working for cash under the table?

[Brisketexan 105161]

Wait, Trump supporters are Latin American immigrants working for cash under the table?

Not a one of them is as honorable as that.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33877]

16 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Yup. I’m trying to decide whether it’s always been this corrupt but now it’s out in the open due to the internet, or it truly has degraded. I believe the corruption is way worse and it’s sad. 

I'm in the "it's always been this way" camp, we just have way better access to the shit show. in the past we'd be oblivious to most of it. hence why a lot of people can't handle this realization now. the influx of information, good and bad, has broken a lot of brains

[wildcat09 29355]

13 hours ago, Zeus said:

They are all the same, Texas should secede. 

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-2022-midterm-elections-business-elections-presidential-elections-5468774d18e8c46f81b55e9260b13e93

Clinton was fined $8k for using campaign funds to pay for opposition research and classifying it as legal fees. Similar deal. 
 

The real question is who is behind the curtain? The two WWE wrestlers out there - orange man vs dementia man. It’s got everyone arguing and fired up, but it’s all baloney. 
 

Who in the MIC is running the show and are they planning to blow more money and get more Americans killed in another pointless war soon? Do they even have the bodies to throw out there? 
 

Anyway back to regularly scheduled programming

This is shit mediocre teenagers think to make themselves feel clever.

[TexasEd 8067]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm in the "it's always been this way" camp, we just have way better access to the shit show. in the past we'd be oblivious to most of it. hence why a lot of people can't handle this realization now. the influx of information, good and bad, has broken a lot of brains

I think the stakes are higher as they work though new grifts so that it affects more people directly.

We've always had corruption in things like import licenses, liquor or gaming. 

The problems started accelerating when we got into areas that were for public good and privatizing taxes:

• Defense became a huge deal during WWII and then during the cold war with the whole military industrial complex.  This didn't hurt anyone except more taxes.
• Then we had the war on drugs and privatization of jails and the profit incentive was more people in jail for petty crimes, now there were classes of people directly affected by this policy.
• We moved on to making traffic horrible so that we would buy off on privatization of roads with toll roads build with public bonds that transferred the risk to taxpayers and profits to corporations. 
• Privatization and deregulation of our electric providers means the focus is on profit instead of providing a service so when the power goes down and rates skyrocket we get to use more taxes to line the pockets of the corporations that don't have the best interest of the public at the top of their priority list.
• Now we're doing the same thing with education by intentionally making it bad so that people will buy off on vouchers to enrich out of state business interests.

So the more they dig into the "for the public good" areas to privitize things that are really public services the more it affects the population.

 

[Brisketexan 105161]

27 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

I think the stakes are higher as they work though new grifts so that it affects more people directly.

We've always had corruption in things like import licenses, liquor or gaming. 

The problems started accelerating when we got into areas that were for public good and privatizing taxes:

• Defense became a huge deal during WWII and then during the cold war with the whole military industrial complex.  This didn't hurt anyone except more taxes.
• Then we had the war on drugs and privatization of jails and the profit incentive was more people in jail for petty crimes, now there were classes of people directly affected by this policy.
• We moved on to making traffic horrible so that we would buy off on privatization of roads with toll roads build with public bonds that transferred the risk to taxpayers and profits to corporations. 
• Privatization and deregulation of our electric providers means the focus is on profit instead of providing a service so when the power goes down and rates skyrocket we get to use more taxes to line the pockets of the corporations that don't have the best interest of the public at the top of their priority list.
• Now we're doing the same thing with education by intentionally making it bad so that people will buy off on vouchers to enrich out of state business interests.

So the more they dig into the "for the public good" areas to privitize things that are really public services the more it affects the population.

 

Our problem today is one of 1) excusing it, and 2) degree.

First, once you conclude "everyone does it," then you slide right into "therefore, I can do it too."  Second, when you define "it" too broadly, it leads to excess in degrees.

Think of it this way: the following is pretty much a true statement: "everyone steals."  It's true.  That little stack of post-it notes in your kitchen junk drawer that you took from the office, the pen from the bank, or some similar item you nabbed from somewhere says so.  And look, there's a baseline of human behavior that is a bit of "play in the wheel" when it comes to rules.  We all steal, cheat, speed, lie.....a little bit.  If you conclude "everyone steals A LITTLE BIT" and then slide right into "therefore, I can do it too," the social costs is de minimis.  Nobody's business went broke because someone stole some post-its.

But now we have a movement that makes the first broad statement ("everybody steals"), interprets it broadly, and then slides into the "so I'll do it too."  They see others steal post-it notes, and because everyone steals, they can abscond with half a million dollars of people's retirement money.

The grifting of the MAGA movement is a good example.  How MAGA is openly trying to 1) commit voter fraud and 2) disenfranchise legal votes is another great example.  It is TRUE that "there is voter fraud.  It exists.  It always will.  Just like people stealing post-it notes.  But the question is not whether voter fraud exists (that is, whether the number of fraudulent votes cast each year is greater than 0).  The question is whether voter fraud is material, significant, and systemic (spoiler: it is not.  Not a single legit analysis or study has found any evidence of such).  But for the MAGAs, once you conclude that voter fraud is greater than zero, then that is the same as "voter fraud is rampant and decides elections."  And they use THAT conclusion to justify their own fraud (yep, most recent voter fraud cases have been by MAGAs) and massive disenfranchisement efforts which, in their minds, are necessary to counteract that rampant fraud they believe exists.

TLDR: when your reality is built on lies and delusions, then it follows that your moral code, or lack thereof, will be built on the same.  And here we are.

[jimmyjazz 45992]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

the pen from the bank,

Hey, those are free for the taking.  (Checks junk drawer.)

['stache 21824]

18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

She's technically right, I suppose in that the government argued in support of that paragraph that it was "Rule 404(b)" material.

I don't know that the government made that argument in support of other paragraphs.  It was kind of a dumb argument, because it does require some proceedings and a ruling before other bad acts are admissible.

Rule 404(b) is the rule that generally prohibits the use of evidence of uncharged or other bad acts as trial evidence, at least until the government shows that it is for some other purpose than the defendant acted consistently.  The government can probably meet that burden easily, but until they do, they can't use these as trial evidence.  An indictment is not trial evidence, but may be read to or given to the jury as part of the charge.

I'm confused about it being "stricken" from the indictment, that doesn't read like an evidentiary ruling. Are indictments evidence in criminal trials? I honestly don't know, don't practice criminal law. 

[dcbc 14492]

6 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm confused about it being "stricken" from the indictment, that doesn't read like an evidentiary ruling. Are indictments evidence in criminal trials? I honestly don't know, don't practice criminal law. 

Hard to say without sitting down with the indictment.  But if Paragraph 36 wasn't one of the counts on which the government is seeking a conviction, then it's a matter of proving an exception to 404(b) like motive, intent, or absence of mistake, any of which seem possible.  Was that paragraph related to something he did while he still was in office?  It's all running together for me at this point.  

 

Stricken.  Quashed.  It's gone for now.

[Foosters 17858]

16 hours ago, Zeus said:

They are all the same

Quote

In the months after the election, President Trump and Dr. Eastman helped foster those  public beliefs and encouraged state legislators to question the election results. Dr. Eastman testified before and met with “state legislators[] to advise them of their constitutional authority . . . to direct the ‘manner’ of choosing presidential electors.” Relying on public interviews with attendees, the Select Committee states that on January 2, 2021, President Trump and Dr. Eastman hosted a briefing urging several hundred state legislators from states won by President Biden to “decertify” electors. President Trump also made personal appeals to state officials.

On January 2, he called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to discuss allegations of election fraud. During the call, President Trump repeatedly claimed it was impossible for him to have lost the popular vote in Georgia, and repeatedly mentioned his “current margin [of] only 11,779” votes. He explained to Secretary Raffensperger that he did not care about specific fraud numbers as long as he won, “Because what’s the difference between winning the election by two votes and winning it by half a million votes[?]” When Secretary Raffensperger pushed back against these requests, the President warned of public anger and threatened criminal consequences. The President interspersed the conversation with specific fraud claims—dead people voting, absentee ballot forgeries, trucks ferrying illegal ballots, and machines stuffed with “unvoted."

Mr. Raffensperger debunked the allegations “point by point” and explained that “the data you have is wrong;” however, President Trump still told him, “I just want to find 11,780 votes.” The next day, President Trump attempted to elevate Jeffrey Clark to Acting Attorney General, based on Mr. Clark’s statements that he would write a letter to contested states saying that the election may have been stolen and urging them to decertify electors.

The White House Counsel described Mr. Clark’s proposed letter as a “murder-suicide pact” that would “damage everyone who touches it” and commented “we should have nothing to do with that letter.”

President Trump eventually did not promote Mr. Clark after multiple high-ranking members of the Department of Justice threatened mass resignations that would leave the Department a “graveyard.” In the months following the election, numerous credible sources–from the President’s inner circle to agency leadership to statisticians–informed President Trump and Dr. Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud. One week after the election, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared “[t]he November 3rd election [] the most secure in American history” and found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” An internal Trump Campaign memo concluded in November that fraud claims related to Dominion voting machines were baseless.

In early December, Attorney General Barr publicly stated there was no evidence of fraud, and on December 27, Deputy Attorney General Donoghue privately told President Trump that after “dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews,” the Department of Justice had concluded that “the major allegations [of election fraud] are not supported by the evidence developed.” Still, President Trump repeatedly urged that “the Department [of Justice] should publicly say that the election is corrupt or suspect or not reliable.”

By early January, more than sixty court cases alleging fraud had been dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of standing.

2. Plan to disrupt electoral count

In response to alleged fraud, Dr. Eastman researched and planned a strategy for President Trump to win the election. Just after Christmas, Dr. Eastman wrote a now-public two page memo proposing that Vice President Pence refuse to count certified electoral votes from states contested by the Trump campaign: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The memo outlines the two ways in which Dr. Eastman’s plan ensures “President Trump is re-elected.” If Vice President Pence refused to count electoral votes from all seven contested states, President Trump would win 232 votes to 222.24 Alternatively, if Congress claimed that a candidate could not win without reaching 270 votes, Vice President Pence could send the election to the Republican-majority House of Representatives, which would then elect President Trump.

The memo emphasizes that “[t]he main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court.” On January 3, 2021, Dr. Eastman drafted a six-page memo expanding on his plan and analysis, which he later disclosed to the media. This memo “war gam[ed]” four potential scenarios for January 6, only some of which would lead to President Trump winning reelection. Claiming that “[t]he stakes could not be higher,” Dr. Eastman concludes his memo stating that his plan is “BOLD, Certainly. But this Election was Stolen by a strategic Democrat plan to systematically flout existing election laws for partisan advantage; we’re no longer playing by Queensbury Rules.”

On January 4, President Trump and Dr. Eastman invited Vice President Pence, the Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob, and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Marc Short to the Oval Office to discuss Dr. Eastman’s memo. Dr. Eastman presented only two courses of action for the Vice President on January 6: to reject electors or delay the count. During that meeting, Vice President Pence consistently held that he did not possess the authority to carry out Dr. Eastman’s proposal. The Vice President’s counsel and chief of staff were then directed to meet separately with Dr. Eastman the next day to review materials in support of his plan. Dr. Eastman opened the meeting on January 5 bluntly: “I’m here asking you to reject the electors.” Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob and Dr. Eastman spent the majority of the meeting in a Socratic debate on the merits of the memo’s legal arguments. Over the course of their discussion, Dr. Eastman’s focus pivoted from requesting Vice President Pence reject the electors to asking him to delay the count, which he presented as more “palatable.” Ultimately, Dr. Eastman conceded that his argument was contrary to consistent historical practice, would likely be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court, and violated the Electoral Count Act on four separate grounds. Despite receiving pushback, President Trump and Dr. Eastman continued to urge Vice President Pence to carry out the plan.

At 1:00 am on January 6, President Trump tweeted, “If Vice President @Mike_Pence comes through for us, we will win the Presidency . . . Mike can send it back!” At 8:17 a.m., the President tweeted again, “States want to correct their votes . . . All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!” Following his tweets, President Trump placed two calls to Vice President Pence directly. After not being able to connect with the Vice President around 9:00 am, they spoke at approximately 11:20 am. Vice President Pence’s National Security Advisor, General Keith Kellogg, Jr., was present and described President Trump as berating the Vice President for “not [being] tough enough to make the call” to delay or reject electoral votes.

ThEYR'e aLL tHE SAme!!

 

Edited June 11 by Foosters

[WhatTheBuck 28791]

22 minutes ago, Foosters said:

ThEYR'e aLL tHE SAme!!

 

[Dahobbs 17626]

45 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I'm confused about it being "stricken" from the indictment, that doesn't read like an evidentiary ruling. Are indictments evidence in criminal trials? I honestly don't know, don't practice criminal law. 

It is sort of like striking something from a civil pleading. It may remove a factual issue from a case or remove an entire cause of action, just depends on what is stricken. 

[atomheartbevo 89738]

21 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Well that’s definitely subtle.

20 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s amazing how corrupt this country is right now 

20 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

Yup. I’m trying to decide whether it’s always been this corrupt but now it’s out in the open due to the internet, or it truly has degraded. I believe the corruption is way worse and it’s sad. 

20 hours ago, Ted Lange said:

A bigger problem is if anyone on the right is accused or even convicted of something every republican simply doesn’t believe it 99% of the time.   It takes something outlandishly over the top like George Santos, and even then 30% still won’t believe it 

18 hours ago, GenXer said:

I have a theory that the hardcore trump supporters are criminals themselves. They may engage in fraud, tax evasion, or other shady dealings. They rationalize their own behavior by comparing it to trump. Like, hey it’s cool if I don’t report all my income; the president doesn’t report all of his either.

We’ve always been corrupt, but not on the level that we are now - way too much money is flowing into politics, and some of it is still easy to hide.  You don’t have to go to a bank and cash out thousands (or more) in cash and risk being seen when you can electronically transfer it, and along with that, it’s easy to move campaign funds around with just a few mouse clicks.

And the Republicans scream from the rooftops about Democrats doing this or that, and it’s because the Republicans believe that because they are corrupt, the Democrats are just as corrupt - Republicans can’t fathom somebody trying to act honorably when given the chance to rake in a shitload of money.

[atomheartbevo 89738]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Think of it this way: the following is pretty much a true statement: "everyone steals."  It's true.  That little stack of post-it notes in your kitchen junk drawer that you took from the office, the pen from the bank, or some similar item you nabbed from somewhere says so.

Yeah, but it’s not as easy to steal shit from the morgue, since you have to keep it frozen and make sure the kids don’t get into it by accident when digging through the freeze for ice cream. And everybody that posts from work while on the clock is stealing resources from their employer (unless you’re in the shitter), but I digress  

A lot of Republican politicians feel like they are entitled to get wealthy simply from being politicians, whether it’s a US Senator doing stock deals with insider information, a sitting President whose properties are frequented by foreigners looking to curry favor with them, or a judge like Clarence Thomas getting gifts, or Aileen Cannon getting a property at below- market value,

[Brisketexan 105161]

3 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

A lot of Republican politicians feel like they are entitled to get wealthy simply from being politicians, whether it’s a US Senator doing stock deals with insider information, a sitting President whose properties are frequented by foreigners looking to curry favor with them, or a judge like Clarence Thomas getting gifts, or Aileen Cannon getting a property at below- market value,

My S. Texas grandfather used to sit and pontificate to us youngsters, a Pearl in one hand and an unfiltered cigarette in the other.  One of his pieces of wisdom was "hell, boy....any politician, you gotta give 'em reasonable stealin' privileges.  It comes with the job!"  Which gets to my bit about "everyone takes post-it notes."  Everyone takes advantage of some "perk" of their job to add a few percentage points to their quality of life.  If a politician uses his broad knowledge of development codes, traffic patterns, and the like to make a better real estate deal than Joe Schmoe could....so be it.  If he gets invited to UT football games to visit with UT leadership about how the City and University can work together better....so be it.  Hell, lots of public entities have rules that their employees cannot accept a gift worth over $50...meaning that they CAN accept a gift.  So do I care if your local director of planning sits down with someone who buys them a $30 lunch and pitches why they think it's important to allow live witnesses at permit hearings?  Nope.  It's de minimis.  And if the director is changing his policy position because someone bought him an Old Timer with cheese and some boneless buffalo wings, we were already fucked.   Dem, Repub, Monster Raving Looney Party, human beings always have and always will do such things.

But when they get fucking WEALTHY by virtue of their position, and use their position for the PRIMARY end of service to self/self-enrichment, that's when we're fucked.

And politicians have done that in the past -- truly crooked politicians have existed since the dawn of time, from all parties.  Sometimes, it was completely systemic (Tammany Hall shit in NY), sometimes it was one-offs (Bob Menendez taking gold bars to get some dudes favorable import treatment for halal meat).  But not in my memory has it been 1) across-the-board for an entire party, and 2) treated by that party as a fucking VIRTUE instead of something to be hidden and ashamed of.

They fucking BRAG about it, they don't try to hide it.  It's a feature, not a bug.  It's one of the ways they demonstrate their absolute power: "look at me, I'm corrupt right in front of your face.  And there's not a goddamned thing you can do about it.  THAT is how powerful I am, you fucking insects."

It's how you kill a Republic, very, very quickly.

[tx 3 putt 77155]

On 6/10/2024 at 1:19 PM, Rimbo said:

 

[bolverk 29694]

5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

[RPM 26326]

Republicans seem to be really eager to prosecute gun laws right now.

[TwiceHorn 31510]

3 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

It is sort of like striking something from a civil pleading. It may remove a factual issue from a case or remove an entire cause of action, just depends on what is stricken. 

I don't think it goes that far. It's just a factual allegation that is removed from the pleading. In this particular case I don't think it is excluded from the trial, just subject to proof and the 404 test. 

There's a discussion in the opinion about "speaking indictments" that contain recitations not strictly necessary that are usually judged by relevance and prejudice to the defendant. She declined to strike any paragraphs except 36 because the government cited 404 in support.

[BevoAbyss 2071]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

They fucking BRAG about it, they don't try to hide it.  It's a feature, not a bug.  It's one of the ways they demonstrate their absolute power: "look at me, I'm corrupt right in front of your face.  And there's not a goddamned thing you can do about it.  THAT is how powerful I am, you fucking insects."

Spot on. 

It’s pretty much the same way the Christians/Capitalists treated Native Americans.

— Say one thing to their face, then lie, insult, intimidate, and dehumanize … right to their face … then cynically agree to treaties … brazenly ignore/break the treaties with zero ethical concerns … all while perpetuating a puritanical genocide/ethnic cleansing program and seizing an entire continent. A bloodbath of terror and thievery, with near zero remorse. Colonize, conquer, cleanse, and convert those left alive to their Bible BS, while ruling them with an iron fist. 

And that’s the MAGA-GQP 2025 plan for America.

— Colonize the government, police, military, education …  conquer with violence any liberal or secular resistance … cleanse from society the brown people, abortion seekers, LGBTQIA, atheists, secular educators, leftists, and uncooperative journalists, celebs, scientists, and academics, etc. …  convert those who agree to go along. Voila! A fascist theocracy.

All celebrated by Christian America and Fox/OAN to be a Free Christian America … as ordained in the Bible … and expressed in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and First Amendment. And none of it is remotely true.

Yet, it will be hardly contested as more than a mere policy issue by the media, Hollywood studios, university leaders, or corporate media. After all, the Capitalists need readers/viewers, filmgoers, tuition dollars, and customers/profits. And don't forget the tax breaks!

Edited June 12 by BevoAbyss

[bolverk 29694]

20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think it goes that far. It's just a factual allegation that is removed from the pleading. In this particular case I don't think it is excluded from the trial, just subject to proof and the 404 test. 

There's a discussion in the opinion about "speaking indictments" that contain recitations not strictly necessary that are usually judged by relevance and prejudice to the defendant. She declined to strike any paragraphs except 36 because the government cited 404 in support.

In light of the tweet on the previous page regarding Trump having a gun at Mar-a-Lago that hasn't been released to local law enforcement, his felony conviction outside the State of Florida, and the conditions of his release, what are your thoughts on this?

I realize it's not your practice area, but it seems pretty clearcut if they can locate the gun.

 

Felony Conviction
If you have been convicted of a felony as described in Section 790.23, Florida Statutes, and the felony conviction occurred within the State of Florida, your civil rights and firearm rights must be restored by the Florida Office of Executive Clemency. Felony convictions occurring in another state require restoration of civil and firearm rights by the state in which the conviction occurred. If you were convicted of a felony under federal law, you must have a presidential pardon or have been granted federal relief from disabilities. If your civil rights and firearms rights have not been restored as described above, or if you cannot provide proof of restoration of civil rights and firearms rights, you are not eligible for a Concealed Weapon or Firearm License. (bolded in original)

[jimmyjazz 45992]

Not to suggest that Trump wouldn't ignore his obligation to turn over any firearms after his conviction, wouldn't there be some sort of grace period in which he would be allowed to do so?  

[bolverk 29694]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not to suggest that Trump wouldn't ignore his obligation to turn over any firearms after his conviction, wouldn't there be some sort of grace period in which he would be allowed to do so?  

Imagine if Trump were a poor Black man and then ask that question again.

[YGIFS 19452]

I knew that former Presidents could still own firearms but they were never allowed to touch them with ammo.  I'm sure there's some nuance where like Secret Service cleared the weapon so the former President could show it to a friend or whatever.  I guess it's maybe that Trump customized pistol he received as a gift at that gunshop a few months back?  Otherwise, there's no record of him at any gun club, shooting club, clay sports facility, hunting license, etc. since he left military academy high school.  I dunno, I assume there's all kinda nuance to the rules, but W.'s former bodyman indicated that Bush could not handle a weapon with live ammo, even hunting.  It was just something they have to give up.  I assume back in the day of Teddy Roosevelt, it was kosher...but not anymore.  But I guess, an exception could be made for, "Look at this tremendous custom weapon.  Made just for me for how fantastic I am."  I'm guessing with his eyes closed, some agent could make sure there was nothing chambered, nothing in the weapon at all but bullshit and fables.  But if you gotta turn it over, you gotta turn it over.  Every gun has a story, this one is just gonna be stranger than most. 

[jimmyjazz 45992]

5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I knew that former Presidents could still own firearms but they were never allowed to touch them with ammo. 

If true, that's silly.

[YGIFS 19452]

I'm guessing like most "warning signs", it came from some kinda incident where a former POTUS almost killed themselves on accident.  I think it's more of a concern by the SS not to want a former POTUS to die on their watch because of negligence so they just cleaned the board.  

I dunno, Trump has so little experience with firearms over the last 60 years and can barely negotiate a bottle of water...let alone a pistol at his bumbling age.  It'd be in the best interest of the nation if he was given more weapons and more pills and encouraged to legally possess them to practice more.  

[bolverk 29694]

5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I knew that former Presidents could still own firearms but they were never allowed to touch them with ammo.  I'm sure there's some nuance where like Secret Service cleared the weapon so the former President could show it to a friend or whatever.  I guess it's maybe that Trump customized pistol he received as a gift at that gunshop a few months back?  Otherwise, there's no record of him at any gun club, shooting club, clay sports facility, hunting license, etc. since he left military academy high school.  I dunno, I assume there's all kinda nuance to the rules, but W.'s former bodyman indicated that Bush could not handle a weapon with live ammo, even hunting.  It was just something they have to give up.  I assume back in the day of Teddy Roosevelt, it was kosher...but not anymore.  But I guess, an exception could be made for, "Look at this tremendous custom weapon.  Made just for me for how fantastic I am."  I'm guessing with his eyes closed, some agent could make sure there was nothing chambered, nothing in the weapon at all but bullshit and fables.  But if you gotta turn it over, you gotta turn it over.  Every gun has a story, this one is just gonna be stranger than most. 

Something to consider is that he turned over two of the three pistols he owned to NYPD last year, so it's not like he can plead ignorance. Mar-a-Lago is his little fiefdom where laws don't apply, and he can simply squirrel away shit he wants to keep from the government.