Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

gernblansten

gernblansten 3,197

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

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

Like it's even possible for anyone to just find a picture of a hot chick with large breasts when it's not Sears catalog Christmas season.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,471

Posted
Posted

Trump will end the federal prosecutions against him.

That should be seen domestically and worldwide as the most corrupt political act in the history of the United States of America.

If you're really not guilty, you should want a trial.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21,504

Posted
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Trump will end the federal prosecutions against him.

That should be seen domestically and worldwide as the most corrupt political act in the history of the United States of America.

Dude. This is some pretty sad wish-casting, even for this place. People. Do. Not. Care. He'll just be ending the "political witch-hunts."

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

DigglerontheHoof 21,199

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump will end the federal prosecutions against him.

That should be seen domestically and worldwide as the most corrupt political act in the history of the United States of America.

If you're really not guilty, you should want a trial.

That will be followed up by jailing his political adversaries.  Then he'll go after any powerful business leaders who've spoken against or opposed him.  That's when we'll start getting the deportation camps that will hold not only minorities but common people like us who have a digital record of opposing him.

I don't know what happens after that, hopefully I'll be dead. 

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

TwiceHorn 31,471

Posted
Posted
Just now, aggie08 said:

Dude. This is some pretty sad wish-casting, even for this place. People. Do. Not. Care. He'll just be ending the "political witch-hunts."

The word "should" was doing a lot of lifting there.  And I said worldwide.

Imagine any other world leader terminating prosecutions against him or her by fiat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27,668

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump will end the federal prosecutions against him.

That should be seen domestically and worldwide as the most corrupt political act in the history of the United States of America.

If you're really not guilty, you should want a trial.

Lol think he's even gonna get sentenced in a couple weeks? I fucking DOUBT he will receive any sort of sentence

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,471

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The jury that is the American people have spoken. Fuck all your bullshit lawfare.  The verdict is not guilty.  

Dude, you're a lawyer, you know damn well the cases against him have teeth, real teeth in an unbiased system.  All of his motions to dismiss as political or selective prosecution were denied, even by Aileen Cannon.

You can quibble about prosecutorial discretion in bringing the cases, but once they have survived motions to dismiss (Cannon's notwithstanding, and which did not invalidate the charges), the only legitimate way out for anyone is trial.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45,685

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dude, you're a lawyer, you know damn well the cases against him have teeth, real teeth in an unbiased system.  All of his motions to dismiss as political or selective prosecution were denied, even by Aileen Cannon.

You can quibble about prosecutorial discretion in bringing the cases, but once they have survived motions to dismiss (Cannon's notwithstanding), the only legitimate way out for anyone is trial.

He screamed as the alligators tore him to pieces. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27,668

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The jury that is the American people have spoken. Fuck all your bullshit lawfare.  The verdict is not guilty.  

Lol youre great at overlooking genuine crimes, just like you do in church while children get molested right?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frank Drebin

Frank Drebin 5,639

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dude, you're a lawyer, you know damn well the cases against him have teeth, real teeth in an unbiased system.  All of his motions to dismiss as political or selective prosecution were denied, even by Aileen Cannon.

You can quibble about prosecutorial discretion in bringing the cases, but once they have survived motions to dismiss (Cannon's notwithstanding, and which did not invalidate the charges), the only legitimate way out for anyone is trial.

They were political prosecutions. Nothing more.  The American people agree. Lawfare backfired big time.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Balcones

Balcones 315

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dude, you're a lawyer, you know damn well the cases against him have teeth, real teeth in an unbiased system.  All of his motions to dismiss as political or selective prosecution were denied, even by Aileen Cannon.

You can quibble about prosecutorial discretion in bringing the cases, but once they have survived motions to dismiss (Cannon's notwithstanding, and which did not invalidate the charges), the only legitimate way out for anyone is trial.

I would like to see if Fani Willis found the 11k votes yet.  Also, maybe Trump will add Biden to the classified documents case for a class action claim.

Edited by Balcones
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9,836

Posted
Posted

When do they make their decision?

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-ask-new-york-appeals-court-toss-nearly-500-mln-civil-fraud-judgment-2024-09-26/

 

Members of the five-judge panel on the Appellate Division - the mid-level state appellate court hearing arguments in Trump's appeal - appeared concerned about possible overreach by James.

Two of the judges interrupted Judith Vale, the lawyer arguing for New York, during her opening statement to ask if there were any other examples of the state suing over private business transactions between sophisticated parties under a law aimed at protecting market integrity.

"Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace," Justice David Friedman told Vale.

"We don't have anything like that here," Friedman added, saying that nobody "lost any money."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagbard Celine

Hagbard Celine 10,864

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

The jury that is the American people have spoken. Fuck all your bullshit lawfare.  The verdict is not guilty.  

Frank, you seem to be a good spokesperson for the alternative reality of the majority.

What do you prefer as the outcome of the legal matters?

What is better for your majority?  Not what is better for Trump.   What best supports your belief system?

Would you prefer that all of the matters just simply stall out, with no further action taken, and all of the matters erased from the legal and historical record?

Or do you prefer the ceremony, pomp and pageantry of actual court proceedings where all of the legal matters are formally adjudicated to their full conclusion, i.e. show trials with real juries that all declare "NOT GUILTY"?

Or something else?

Can we get this on the record, from you, at this time?

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

Frank Drebin 5,639

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hagbard Celine said:

Frank, you seem to be a good spokesperson for the alternative reality of the majority.

What do you prefer as the outcome of the legal matters?

What is better for your majority?  Not what is better for Trump.   What best supports your belief system?

Would you prefer that all of the matters just simply stall out, with no further action taken, and all of the matters erased from the legal and historical record?

Or do you prefer the ceremony, pomp and pageantry of actual court proceedings where all of the legal matters are formally adjudicated to their full conclusion, i.e. show trials with real juries that all declare "NOT GUILTY"?

Or something else?

Can we get this on the record, from you, at this time?

The prosecutors should dismiss them.  And the ones who ran for election on a platform of "getting Trump" should be disbarred.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wild_turkey

wild_turkey 3,159

Posted
Posted
The jury that is the American people have spoken. Fuck all your bullshit lawfare.  The verdict is not guilty.  

How far do you extend that logic? Is it your position that nothing Trump has done in the past matters? He’s inherently not guilty of everything due to this election result?

What about his sexual assault trial? Was that “bullshit lawfare” as well? Do you believe he didn’t sexually assault E. Jean Carroll or do you simply not care if he did?

Is there any criminal act that Donald Trump could commit and deserve to be held accountable, or would you consider him above the law at this point?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagbard Celine

Hagbard Celine 10,864

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

The prosecutors should dismiss them.  And the ones who ran for election on a platform of "getting Trump" should be disbarred.

Your answer indicates there are at least 2 groups of legal enemies.

Those who ran for election on a platform of "getting Trump", and other prosecutors who did not run for election on a platform of "getting Trump".

Which prosecutors fall in to the former category?

 

Edited by Hagbard Celine
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21,199

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
Just now, wild_turkey said:


How far do you extend that logic? Is it your position that nothing Trump has done in the past matters? He’s inherently not guilty of everything due to this election result?

What about his sexual assault trial? Was that “bullshit lawfare” as well? Do you believe he didn’t sexually assault E. Jean Carroll or do you simply not care if he did?

Is there any criminal act that Donald Trump could commit and deserve to be held accountable, or would you consider him above the law at this point?

Quit trying to reason with a piece of shit.

  • Hook 'Em 11
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagbard Celine

Hagbard Celine 10,864

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, wild_turkey said:

Is there any criminal act that Donald Trump could commit and deserve to be held accountable, or would you consider him above the law at this point?

Frank, I would also like to hear what is best for the majority of our citizens with regards to the National Security documents felonies.

This particular litigation is different than anything else of which Trump stands accused.   What does the majority want to see happen to the documented photographic evidence of the National Security documents in Trump's possession 993 miles from the last place they could have legally been possessed by Trump?

Should this evidence be stricken from the historical record and should Trump issue a Presidential Decree against the electronic possession of copies of this evidence?  Like Ramses having Moses' name stricken from all pylons and obelisks?

Or should this evidence be declared "immune" under the Supreme Court ruling?  And in this case, should the litigation simply be erased, as if it never happened?

Or again, does the majority want to see show trials?

Or, something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27,227

Posted
Posted

DOJ moving to wind down Trump criminal cases before he takes office

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/rcna178930

Quote

Justice Department officials have been evaluating how to wind down the two federal criminal cases against President-elect Donald Trump before he takes office to comply with long-standing department policy that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted, two people familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

The latest discussions stand in contrast with the pre-election legal posture of special counsel Jack Smith, who in recent weeks took significant steps in the election interference case against Trump without regard to the electoral calendar.

But the sources say DOJ officials have come to grips with the fact that no trial is possible anytime soon in either the Jan. 6 case or the classified documents matter — both of which are mired in legal issues that would likely prompt an appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, even if Trump had lost the election.

Now that Trump will become president again, DOJ officials see no room to pursue either criminal case against him — and no point in continuing to litigate them in the weeks before he takes office, the people said.

“Sensible, inevitable and unfortunate,” said former federal prosecutor Chuck Rosenberg, an NBC News contributor. 

Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks at the Justice Department on Sept. 27.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

How Trump’s legal jeopardy has unfolded over the past year, in terms of both the criminal charges and his sweeping election victory, is unprecedented.

The sources said it will be up to Smith to decide exactly how to unwind the charges and many questions remain unanswered. Could the prosecutions resume after Trump leaves office or would they be time-barred? What happens to the evidence? What about the two other defendants charged with helping Trump hide classified documents? Will the special counsel write a report, as special counsels usually do?

The sources say all those issues require study and research.

At the same time, Trump’s legal team is weighing its own next steps for how to resolve the outstanding federal cases in his favor now that he is the projected winner of the election. The ultimate goal is to get all the federal and state cases wiped out completely — the strategic call is how best to accomplish that task, according to a person familiar with the discussions. 

If the Trump side, for example, moved again in court to dismiss the charges in Washington related to election interference, then the Justice Department could use its legal response to explain its position on not moving forward with that case.

Trump’s New York criminal case presents different challenges with a felony conviction and sentencing hearing scheduled for Nov. 26. The immediate goal of Trump’s legal team is to get that postponed indefinitely or otherwise dismissed. 

The Georgia election interference case against Trump remains tied up on appeals over ethical issues surrounding the district attorney.

“The American people have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to Make America Great Again," Trump Campaign Spokesman Steven Chung said in a statement. "It is now abundantly clear that Americans want an immediate end to the weaponization of our justice system, so we can, as President Trump said in his historic speech last night, unify our country and work together for the betterment of our nation."

Special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., in 2023.Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images file

The DOJ’s thinking on Trump’s federal cases flows from a 2000 memo by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which affirmed a Watergate-era conclusion that a prosecution of a sitting president would “unduly interfere in a direct or formal sense with the conduct of the presidency.”

“In light of the effect that an indictment would have on the operations of the executive branch, ‘an impeachment proceeding is the only appropriate way to deal with a President while in office,’” the memo concluded, quoting the earlier conclusion.

The practical reality of Trump’s electoral victory Tuesday is that he is unlikely ever to face legal consequences in relation to the serious federal criminal charges brought against him by career Justice Department prosecutors working with career FBI agents.

Some commentators have said the charges were arguably more serious than the conduct in the Watergate scandal that cost Richard Nixon the presidency and left him banished from politics.

In the case accusing Trump of conspiring to illegally overturn the 2020 election, he is charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

In the classified documents case, he is charged with willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice, lying to investigators and withholding documents in a federal investigation.

“The idea that you could win an election to avoid justice just cuts so deeply against my expectations for our legal system and for our politics too,” said Joyce Vance, a former U.S. attorney and NBC News contributor. “But the voters have spoken, and that’s where we are.”

She added that it has never been a foregone conclusion that Trump would be convicted — that would be up to a jury.

“What bothers me so deeply is that he’s avoided the quintessential part of American justice — letting a jury decide, based on the evidence.”

 

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29,354

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh fuck me.  I don't think the policy precludes continuing a prosecution commenced before taking office.

They need to make him do the corrupt thing.

Garland is way too spineless for that.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,471

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ChickenSandwich said:

When do they make their decision?

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-ask-new-york-appeals-court-toss-nearly-500-mln-civil-fraud-judgment-2024-09-26/

 

Members of the five-judge panel on the Appellate Division - the mid-level state appellate court hearing arguments in Trump's appeal - appeared concerned about possible overreach by James.

Two of the judges interrupted Judith Vale, the lawyer arguing for New York, during her opening statement to ask if there were any other examples of the state suing over private business transactions between sophisticated parties under a law aimed at protecting market integrity.

"Every case that you cite involves damage to consumers, damage to the marketplace," Justice David Friedman told Vale.

"We don't have anything like that here," Friedman added, saying that nobody "lost any money."

For the record, that is well within the scope of appellate judge questioning and any lawyer with any appellate experience or knowledge knows that predicting the outcome of the appeal based on questions during oral argument is hazardous at best.

Appellate judges are often the hardest, that is ask the most pointed questions, to the ultimate winner of the appeal.

That said, I have always questioned the soundness of the size of the verdict, but for different reasons than this.  Although this is certainly an argument.

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

wild_turkey 3,159

Posted
Posted
They were political prosecutions. Nothing more.  The American people agree. Lawfare backfired big time.  

Are they political prosecutions solely on the basis of Donald Trump being a politician with people who opposed him running for office?

Would you say the same is true for other politicians, or is there something unique about Donald Trump and the multitude of criminal acts he has been accused of?

For instance, are the crimes George Santos committed actually political lawfare?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hagbard Celine

Hagbard Celine 10,864

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hagbard Celine said:

Your answer indicates there are at least 2 groups of legal enemies.

Those who ran for election on a platform of "getting Trump", and other prosecutors who did not run for election on a platform of "getting Trump".

Which prosecutors fall in to the former category?

@Frank Drebin please continue to engage

which prosecutors of trump crimes ran on a platform of "getting trump"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aggie08

aggie08 21,504

Posted
Posted

Monica Lewinsky. Benghazi. Hillary's emails. Hunter Biden. Biden crime family. 

The idea that the GOP wouldn't pursue the trial and attempted prosecution of Joe Biden if he had been accused of any one of Trump's alleged crimes (Jan 6, election interference/intimidation, boxes of classified documents stored in a resort bathroom, rape, tax fraud, collusion) with the evidence in front of them is so ridiculous that even Sack is laughing at how full of shit he is.

And, no, they wouldn't move to drop the charges if Biden win re-election. 

The party of law and order sure loves to selectively apply it.

 

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

TwiceHorn 31,471

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Can somebody refresh my memory on how to unfollow/block someone on this site?

Hover on username, the ignore or unignore (however it's worded) option appears.  If you actually click the username, the ignore option doesn't appear.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Edited for accuracy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27,562

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Oh fuck me.  I don't think the policy precludes continuing a prosecution commenced before taking office.

They need to make him do the corrupt thing.


You are so close to getting it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...