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

[jimmyjazz 45877]

16 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Trial by combat odds Eddy Grant vs Trump, I've got Grant at 2 to 1 odds.  

Yeah, even at 76 Eddy is looking prime compared to Trump:

[Hermanator 7031]

On 10/27/2024 at 3:43 PM, Bullneck said:

@captainant & @redfive -- Yes, we know.  Our government relies on people of all political affiliations following a code of conduct as well as the rule of law.  That the Republicans don't do this is an indictment of them but also a lot of intellectually lazy Americans.  A lot of our brethren have taken the easy way out and trusted the easiest lies to believe.    

 

Yeah, the criminal justice system was never set up to handle criminals at the highest level of government. That responsibility was given to the American people through voting. 

When the systems were set up who was doing the voting? To those people in that era there was no way to ever fathom a 300+ million American population of every different ethnicity on the planet, the majority armed to the teeth, and full of ignorance, intellectual laziness, and stupidity. All being bombarded by pro-fascist propaganda 24/7 through devices in their pockets. 

The system is completely outdated and needs to be overhauled to account for today's culture and climate. The only thing that can save America from fascism in this outdated form of government is Harris, Walz, their people, and non ignorant, non fascist Americans. If the US population has become unable to maintain even a basement level, barely functioning representative democracy then we will all lose it. There's nothing anyone can do once we hit that tipping point. Let's just hope that point hasn't been reached yet. 

Edited October 29 by Hermanator

[BearSchlong 8082]

While at Bunker Hill last week, I realized the Second Amendment was written by guys whose flintlock muskets wouldn't fire in the rain and had a maximum rate of fire of three rounds per minute.

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

The Bunker Hill HEB? In Houston? 

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2026]

23 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

The Bunker Hill HEB? In Houston? 

Is it open?

[TwiceHorn 31434]

18 hours ago, miguelito said:

So even *that* lawsuit took 4 years.

Geezus, you're right.  Even for a civil suit, where the parties can fuck around for a year or more and discovery can be long and time consuming, that's a long time.  It is in SD NY, which is a congested court.

This is why lawdogs don't get too exercised about delays.

[TwiceHorn 31434]

Oh shit, perusing lawfare, I read an amusing article about how the government had to half-heartedly oppose Ryan Routh's motion to disqualify Cannon.

But, and I had not seen this anywhere before. two of the amicus briefs on appeal of the Mar-A-Lago dismissal advocate for recusal of Cannon and one is ENTIRELY DEDICATED to the issue of recusal/reassignment.  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/in-routh-case--government-backs-cannon-but-barely  And one of the amicii signed on to that brief is Stephen Gillers, probably the most-cited and authoritative legal ethics expert in the country.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25088896/25-1-2024-09-03-attachment-1-crew.pdf

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19184]

12 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Yeah, the criminal justice system was never set up to handle criminals at the highest level of government. That responsibility was given to the American people through voting. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19184]

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh shit, perusing lawfare, I read an amusing article about how the government had to half-heartedly oppose Ryan Routh's motion to disqualify Cannon.

But, and I had not seen this anywhere before. two of the amicus briefs on appeal of the Mar-A-Lago dismissal advocate for recusal of Cannon and one is ENTIRELY DEDICATED to the issue of recusal/reassignment.  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/in-routh-case--government-backs-cannon-but-barely  And one of the amicii signed on to that brief is Stephen Gillers, probably the most-cited and authoritative legal ethics expert in the country.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25088896/25-1-2024-09-03-attachment-1-crew.pdf

 

again...

[Hermanator 7031]

48 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

 

 

 

Explain to us how it was set up to do so. 

 

[C-Man 27183]

Judge Aileen Cannon says Trump’s praise doesn’t warrant her recusal in Trump-related cases

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ar-AA1t9e1G

[TwiceHorn 31434]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Judge Aileen Cannon says Trump’s praise doesn’t warrant her recusal in Trump-related cases

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ar-AA1t9e1G

She's technically correct.  

However, reassignment, as by the 11th Circuit can be done "in the interest of justice" and isn't cabined by the recusal statute.

For example, you can't recuse a judge (by motion of a party) for fucking up a case on remand after appeal, but the court of appeals can reassign and relatively often does.  The combination of bias, inexperience and public perception might just do it, especially when serious people like Gillers advocate for it.

[DigglerontheHoof 21168]

That his cases aren’t getting yanked from her is maddening.

Im sure it’s all par for the course, legally, so spare me the explanation of how it would be a travesty to justice if they did.

[TwiceHorn 31434]

16 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

That his cases aren’t getting yanked from her is maddening.

Im sure it’s all par for the course, legally, so spare me the explanation of how it would be a travesty to justice if they did.

You don't have to get real complicated with it.  Imagine if Trump was able to recuse any judge appointed by Biden, or Obama.   Christ knows he tried with Merchan, Engoron, and Chutkan.

Edited October 29 by TwiceHorn

[High Plains Drifter 11024]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh shit, perusing lawfare, I read an amusing article about how the government had to half-heartedly oppose Ryan Routh's motion to disqualify Cannon.

But, and I had not seen this anywhere before. two of the amicus briefs on appeal of the Mar-A-Lago dismissal advocate for recusal of Cannon and one is ENTIRELY DEDICATED to the issue of recusal/reassignment.  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/in-routh-case--government-backs-cannon-but-barely  And one of the amicii signed on to that brief is Stephen Gillers, probably the most-cited and authoritative legal ethics expert in the country.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25088896/25-1-2024-09-03-attachment-1-crew.pdf

 

 

[Gatorubet 30183]

3 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

A respected, smart lawyer says that Eileen Cannon should step down because of the appearance of impropriety.   Canon opened her mouth like an unhinged jaw of a giant python, reached in and pulled out her mandible bone and smashed that guy with it, while bleeding profusely and grinning.

So nothing happened.

[Biff Tannen 45661]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You don't have to get real complicated with it.  Imagine if Trump was able to recuse any judge appointed by Biden, or Obama.   Christ knows he tried with Merchan, Engoron, and Chutkan.

Wait a minute.  Is the argument that Biden would be the one forcing her to recuse?  And to take it one step further, the idea that Trump would be able to recuse a judge for his own trial is ludicrous.  Surely I'm misunderstanding one or both of those.  I have had a few chardonnays.  What of it?

[TwiceHorn 31434]

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Ryan Routh moved to disqualify Cannon for all reasons "we" like. The government has to oppose or agree with the motion They opposed, but without challenging any of Rouths assertions about her, just that it didn't meet the statutory grounds for recusal a page and a half. 

In the appeal of the Trump case, the government has not yet argued for reassignment, but two friend of the court briefs did, one making only that argument and very credibly as the two friends are the foremost legal and judicial ethics authorities in the country. 

[Gatorubet 30183]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Wait a minute.  Is the argument that Biden would be the one forcing her to recuse?  And to take it one step further, the idea that Trump would be able to recuse a judge for his own trial is ludicrous.  Surely I'm misunderstanding one or both of those.  I have had a few chardonnays.  What of it?

Twice as simply saying that, if the argument is that Cannon cannot properly hear the Trump case because she is conflicted because he appointed her - that would mean that any Democratic appointee could not hear one of Trump’s criminal cases because Biden or Obama appointed them.  Which is why simply being appointed by a president on your same political team is not grounds to recuse that judge. 

[Biff Tannen 45661]

Just now, Gatorubet said:

Twice as simply saying that, if the argument is that Cannon cannot properly hear the Trump case because she is conflicted because he appointed her - that would mean that any Democratic appointee could not hear one of Trump’s criminal cases because Biden or Obama appointed them.  Which is why simply being appointed by a president on your same political team is not grounds to recuse that judge. 

ok yeah, I'm gonna step out of this one and continue drinking

[Gatorubet 30183]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

ok yeah, I'm gonna step out of this one and continue drinking

Me, Scotch and < checks vape cartridge> Northern Lights.  Even drunk you should know to ignore me.

[BamaATL 16593]

39 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Twice as simply saying that, if the argument is that Cannon cannot properly hear the Trump case because she is conflicted because he appointed her - that would mean that any Democratic appointee could not hear one of Trump’s criminal cases because Biden or Obama appointed them.  Which is why simply being appointed by a president on your same political team is not grounds to recuse that judge. 

Well, I'd have to agree with all that, and it makes perfect sense.  How about her gross misinterpretation of the law?  

[safe sex 11696]

Now it's not just that he appointed her, but that it's come out that she is on his list of potential AGs. Which means she's on his list for SCOTUS, too.

[Gatorubet 30183]

10 hours ago, BamaATL said:

Well, I'd have to agree with all that, and it makes perfect sense.  How about her gross misinterpretation of the law?  

that is where the reassignment policy comes in.  it would be a great result with terrible partisan optics.  Granted, she would be the cause of that, but if the reason was her not understanding the legal issues in the case, that is grounds to find a more experienced jurist to hear the case. 

[kevwun 15758]

We are getting to the point where optics don't matter so much.  When things get to where they have gotten, you eventually have to do some distasteful things to make sure they don't continue down that path.  There are many examples throughout history.  If removing a bad Judge who is in the tank for Trump is the worst thing the rest of us have to swallow, we got off pretty easy.

Edited October 30 by kevwun

[TwiceHorn 31434]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

that is where the reassignment policy comes in.  it would be a great result with terrible partisan optics.  Granted, she would be the cause of that, but if the reason was her not understanding the legal issues in the case, that is grounds to find a more experienced jurist to hear the case. 

Well, the good thing about reassignment is that the 11th Circuit is a conservative court whose chief judge didn't have a problem slapping Cannon around a little bit and has had to field more than 1000 judicial complaints, hardly any of which were actionable (meaning citing any valid legal cause), so is well aware of the issues here and may just decide that the "optics," the public view of the judiciary, requires or suggests reassignment to a more experienced, apparently less-partisan judge.

[Gatorubet 30183]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the good thing about reassignment is that the 11th Circuit is a conservative court whose chief judge didn't have a problem slapping Cannon around a little bit and has had to field more than 1000 judicial complaints, hardly any of which were actionable (meaning citing any valid legal cause), so is well aware of the issues here and may just decide that the "optics," the public view of the judiciary, requires or suggests reassignment to a more experienced, apparently less-partisan judge.

I agree with all that. I don’t think they will touch the partisan issue in a decision, and will instead focus on her clear inability to understand the law in the case.  she is by all accounts a true dumbass who was not qualified for the appointment.

[bolverk 29644]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

I agree with all that. I don’t think they will touch the partisan issue in a decision, and will instead focus on her clear inability to understand the law in the case.  she is by all accounts a true dumbass who was not qualified for the appointment.

Serious question: Is law school at a place like Michigan so easy that a true dumbass can graduate manga cum laude from there? 

[Chad Fuck 17658]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Serious question: Is law school at a place like Michigan so easy that a true dumbass can graduate manga cum laude from there? 

I knew some seriously booksmart people in law school who could not argue their way out of a paper bag.  I knew others who didn't know the law, but it didn't matter, because they could convince anyone of anything - legal or not.  Then there were the rest of us in between.  So yes, I could totally see any law school producing someone who made straight "A"s who didn't have the judgment god gave an amoeba simply because they had an ability to study and/or test well.  I'm not saying its right, but I'm saying that's my experience.

 

[Brisketexan 105043]

11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Serious question: Is law school at a place like Michigan so easy that a true dumbass can graduate manga cum laude from there? 

Michigan is a great law school.  So is Texas.  I know dumbass lawyers from each place.  The admissions process can only screen for so much.  Some dipshits get through.  And once you are IN such a law school, there are two things that are really hard to do: end up in the top 5%, and end up in the bottom 5%.  But there are people who end up in each slot.

Edited October 30 by Brisketexan

[Gatorubet 30183]

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Michigan is a great law school.  So is Texas.  I know dumbass lawyers from each place.  The admissions process can only screen for so much.  Some dipshits get through.  And once you are IN such a law school, there are two things that are really hard to do: end up in the top 5%, and end up in the bottom 5%.  But there are people who end up in each slot.

The person who finished number two at my law school class had a hard time getting hired.   Because of her class rank and 4.0, she had several clerking jobs at prestigious firms, all of which ended rather prematurely when they found out she had not one lick of common sense and was a detriment if she spoke to a client, as she would ask questions that were so moronic she was a threat to their business.

She married her high school sweetheart and moved to some town with one traffic light in North Louisiana.   I’m here to tell you that nobody spent more time in the library than she did, with an array of study guide material in front of her at all times -  and her memory was good enough she could regurgitate an “A” on every test.  

No attorney I knew in law school would think of retaining her or referring a case to her IRL

[Chad Fuck 17658]

42 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

The person who finished number two at my law school class had a hard time getting hired.   Because of her class rank and 4.0, she had several clerking jobs at prestigious firms, all of which ended rather prematurely when they found out she had not one lick of common sense and was a detriment if she spoke to a client, as she would ask questions that were so moronic she was a threat to their business.

She married her high school sweetheart and moved to some town with one traffic light in North Louisiana.   I’m here to tell you that nobody spent more time in the library than she did, with an array of study guide material in front of her at all times -  and her memory was good enough she could regurgitate an “A” on every test.  

No attorney I knew in law school would think of retaining her or referring a case to her IRL

We had one just like this.  On top of it, she was gorgeous.  Blonde.  Huge tracks of land that she couldn't wait to accentuate with Angora sweaters as soon as the temps dropped to a balmy 75.  Trying to make conversation with her at parties was excruciating.  I now realize she must've been on the spectrum.  You literally could not have a conversation with her that wasn't about the last quiz, what the answer to a given problem was, quoting scripture and verse.  Listen tits McGhee, we just spent all day studying.  Now I just want a beer and to gaze into the middle distance.  

Edited October 30 by Chad Fuck

[Gatorubet 30183]

1 minute ago, Chad Fuck said:

We had one just like this.  On top of it, she was gorgeous.  Blonde.  Huge tracks of land that she couldn't wait to accentuate with Angora sweaters as soon as the temps dropped to a balmy 75.  

Where’d she make Partner? 

[dcbc 14464]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

We had one just like this.

There are several at every law school---smart enough to get the grades and foot in the door but not enough baked-in common sense and hustle to be of any use to anyone else.   

[Cairn Horn88 8259]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

The person who finished number two at my law school class had a hard time getting hired.   Because of her class rank and 4.0, she had several clerking jobs at prestigious firms, all of which ended rather prematurely when they found out she had not one lick of common sense and was a detriment if she spoke to a client, as she would ask questions that were so moronic she was a threat to their business.

She married her high school sweetheart and moved to some town with one traffic light in North Louisiana.   I’m here to tell you that nobody spent more time in the library than she did, with an array of study guide material in front of her at all times -  and her memory was good enough she could regurgitate an “A” on every test.  

No attorney I knew in law school would think of retaining her or referring a case to her IRL

I don’t think there’s a class or substitute for common sense.  I’ve had lots of employees over the years who worked for me….some extremely book smart and others with good common sense….I sometimes wonder if common sense, if you had to choose one, would be the way to go.

[Cairn Horn88 8259]

On 10/27/2024 at 2:11 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Well, again, you seem to revert to wanting to change the rules for a given defendant.

Having to rely on the justice system to cure us of Donald Trump was never going to be an efficient or expeditious way of doing so.  I think it ultimately will result in trials and convictions that are affirmed on appeal and become final.  It just won't happen on a timeline that meets current wants or expectations.

Mitch McConnell could have stopped all of this….what a pussy.

[Chad Fuck 17658]

14 minutes ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Mitch McConnell could have stopped all of this….what a pussy.

He's not a pussy.  A craven old power hungry asshole maybe.  Not a pussy.

[SydneyCarton 48051]

4 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

He's not a pussy.  A craven old power hungry asshole maybe.  Not a pussy.

I mean, craven and pussy are the same thing. 

[Cairn Horn88 8259]

8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

He's not a pussy.  A craven old power hungry asshole maybe.  Not a pussy.

[Fudge Nuggets 19184]

8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the good thing about reassignment is that the 11th Circuit is a conservative court whose chief judge didn't have a problem slapping Cannon around a little bit

Man, he showed her.

[Nivek 16916]

Lawyers have a financial interest in dragging it out.   Our government was foolish to not have disqualifiers for criminals from taking the highest seats of power.

[TwiceHorn 31434]

10 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Lawyers have a financial interest in dragging it out.   Our government was foolish to not have disqualifiers for criminals from taking the highest seats of power.

Well, in a criminal case, it is usually the defendant in whose interest it is to drag something out.

Also, ironically, speed in litigation dramatically raises costs, especially for defendants who want/need to actually prepare a defense. If nothing else, speed compresses the timeframe in which massive legal costs are incurred. People bitch about lawsuits taking forever to resolve but are rarely willing to pay to expedite them.

In some cases, speed to trial will cause the parties to forego some of the less-likely avenues of pursuit, but not often if the parties are equally financed.

[GopherRock 1765]

16 hours ago, Cairn Horn88 said:

Mitch McConnell could have stopped all of this….what a pussy coward.

FIFY

He had multiple chances to get rid of him, and he didn't. 

[Wally Fairway 5539]

21 hours ago, Chad Fuck said:

We had one just like this.  On top of it, she was gorgeous.  Blonde.  Huge tracks of land that she couldn't wait to accentuate with Angora sweaters as soon as the temps dropped to a balmy 75.  Trying to make conversation with her at parties was excruciating.  I now realize she must've been on the spectrum.  You literally could not have a conversation with her that wasn't about the last quiz, what the answer to a given problem was, quoting scripture and verse.  Listen tits McGhee, we just spent all day studying.  Now I just want a beer and to gaze into the middle distance.  

Chad, dude.....your pictures are not showing up. I mean she has to be online somewhere - so post the link, Facebook, Insta, OF, Martindale
you know there are rules

[Chad Fuck 17658]

55 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Chad, dude.....your pictures are not showing up. I mean she has to be online somewhere - so post the link, Facebook, Insta, OF, Martindale
you know there are rules

I can't even remember her name.  And this was pre me having a cell phone, much less a cell phone with a camera.  What I do remember was...

^None of this was true, but for the title. 

[Nivek 16916]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in a criminal case, it is usually the defendant in whose interest it is to drag something out.

Also, ironically, speed in litigation dramatically raises costs, especially for defendants who want/need to actually prepare a defense. If nothing else, speed compresses the timeframe in which massive legal costs are incurred. People bitch about lawsuits taking forever to resolve but are rarely willing to pay to expedite them.

In some cases, speed to trial will cause the parties to forego some of the less-likely avenues of pursuit, but not often if the parties are equally financed.

So are you considering expedited cases vs normal and also considering stalling tactics?  I imagine that if we were looking at a 2D plot, with Y-axis cost, and X-axis time, that it would have a U shaped plot where expedited cases would be higher, normal would be lower, and stalled/delayed would be higher (granted this is a subjective and relative descriptor as a comparison to the adjacent timeframes)

[WhatTheBuck 28771]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

I can't even remember her name.  And this was pre me having a cell phone, much less a cell phone with a camera.  What I do remember was...

^None of this was true, but for the title. 

Pics of any hot chick with large breasts would be acceptable. 

[Tonesky 932]

26 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Pics of any hot chick with large breasts would be acceptable. 

It is important we know whether the scales of justice tip left or right.

[Kyrie Eleison 9312]

On 10/30/2024 at 1:21 PM, Chad Fuck said:

We had one just like this.  On top of it, she was gorgeous.  Blonde.  Huge tracks of land that she couldn't wait to accentuate with Angora sweaters as soon as the temps dropped to a balmy 75.  Trying to make conversation with her at parties was excruciating.  I now realize she must've been on the spectrum.  You literally could not have a conversation with her that wasn't about the last quiz, what the answer to a given problem was, quoting scripture and verse.  Listen tits McGhee, we just spent all day studying.  Now I just want a beer and to gaze into the middle distance.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19184]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, in a criminal case, it is usually the defendant in whose interest it is to drag something out.

Also, ironically, speed in litigation dramatically raises costs, especially for defendants who want/need to actually prepare a defense. If nothing else, speed compresses the timeframe in which massive legal costs are incurred. People bitch about lawsuits taking forever to resolve but are rarely willing to pay to expedite them.

In some cases, speed to trial will cause the parties to forego some of the less-likely avenues of pursuit, but not often if the parties are equally financed.

Maybe it’s just me, but when the fate of democracy is at stake, I don’t consider that an appropriate time to start pinching  pennies.