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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Name a criminal law you think he's broken on connection with the prosecution.  Go head.  Just one.

Don't know.  But RICO is as broad as hell when the feds decide they want it to be and use their full powers to investigate.  So is wire fraud.  So is mail fraud.  I have seen some estimates that the average person commits three felonies a day.

Edited by Frank Drebin
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole sad saga has me thinking about why preservers of the status quo are unalterably opposed to what might be learned from an examination of CRT. The scholarly framework holds that racism goes far beyond just individually held prejudices, and that it is in fact a systemic race and class phenomenon woven into the laws and institutions of this nation. Those who craft the laws and define the parameters in which institutions exist and operate, do so to ensure that results redound to their benefit. 
No poor or minority person in this country could ever get away with what Trump is on the verge of getting away with, and that’s because laws and institutions generally don’t exist to help them.

Edited by Satchel
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democrats would have been way better off had they just stuck with a more reasonable message regarding the 2020 election drama and other Trump stuff. If they’d have kept it to simply re-iterating that Trump is claiming fraud with no tangible proof…and showing how that fits his unpredictable and narcissistic personality, it would resonated with more people. Instead, like democrats these days do, they went off the deep-end with the hysterics about “democracy is at stake!” , “Trump will be a dictator!”, “He wants to overthrow the government!” , “Reeeeeee!!!”

Normal, reasonable people just roll their eyes at that stuff.  But this board is full of reeeeeeeeeee!!

  • Fuck You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

 “He wants to overthrow the government!” , “Reeeeeee!!!”

Normal, reasonable people just roll their eyes at that stuff.  But this board is full of reeeeeeeeeee!!

Interesting. Not sure how anyone can view the actions of Trump and his admin between 11/6/20 - 1/6/21 and NOT come to the conclusion that he was trying to illegally install himself as the president, but you've had 4 years to rationalize that one, so whatever you gotta do, I guess.

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

Curious as to whether Jack Smith or Garland could decide to release all of the records to the public or at least the House and Senate so that their evidence is available for historic purposes. Or they can leave them behind for Pam Bondi to shred.

With the charges dropped does the presiding judge still have control of the case? If Smith/Garland released the evidence, would they be breaking any laws? I'm assuming they would redact any classified info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

He had to drop it.  DOJ policy is no prosecutions against sitting presidents, and in two months, Trump will be a sitting president.

He doesn't have to drop it. Trump isn't president today. He should've kept prosecuting and made Trump fire him and order the prosecutions to be shut down once he took office. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wildcat09 said:

He should've kept prosecuting and made Trump fire him and order the prosecutions to be shut down once he took office. 

No.  He has followed DOJ policy.  He is obligated to keep doing so.  The policy is that sitting presidents are not prosecuted.  And as an officer of the court, he has an obligation to the court and its docket to treat cases in an orderly fashion.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Curious as to whether Jack Smith or Garland could decide to release all of the records to the public or at least the House and Senate so that their evidence is available for historic purposes. Or they can leave them behind for Pam Bondi to shred.

With the charges dropped does the presiding judge still have control of the case? If Smith/Garland released the evidence, would they be breaking any laws? I'm assuming they would redact any classified info.

Biden can declassify. He’s above the law for 2 months.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Imagine Obama and Holder pulling the below in 2012 had Romney eked out a win. You'd have been calling for the public hanging of all involved. You know it. I know it. Everyone here knows it.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

You either think the election was stolen and are too stupid to continue engaging with, or you approve of the above "lawfare" because it helps your side, and can be dismissed as a partisan troll. 

Pretty sure the first couple boxes have been checked and we can jump right to this.

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

No.  He has followed DOJ policy.  He is obligated to keep doing so.  The policy is that sitting presidents are not prosecuted.  And as an officer of the court, he has an obligation to the court and its docket to treat cases in an orderly fashion.

Today I learned that a president-elect is considered “sitting” based on a memo…
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Party_Taco said:


Today I learned that a president-elect is considered “sitting” based on a memo…

No, he's not.  But he WILL be, in less than 60 days.  And if you know that you are required to dismiss your case (per DOJ policy) in less than 60 days, you tell the court that.  That's what an officer of the court practicing in Federal Court is supposed to do.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

It sure seems like a poster posting some 8chan school-shooter "REEEEEEEEEEE" shit should be grounds for a ban.  

plus he's the biggest fucking asshole on this site by a LOT. even posters that generally support his same 'team' think he's a hateful hypocritical dickhead.

he's the Ted Cruz of surly. 

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

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

No, he's not.  But he WILL be, in less than 60 days.  And if you know that you are required to dismiss your case (per DOJ policy) in less than 60 days, you tell the court that.  That's what an officer of the court practicing in Federal Court is supposed to do.

Besides, wtf would be accomplished in 60 more days? They would just stall with more bullshit. It's taken two years just to get this far, and Trump has barely been in a court room for anything other than his New York felonies.

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

Pity people like Johnny. Just think how morally bankrupt Donald fucking Trump has made them over the past 9 years. 

Liz fucking Cheney isn't conservative enough.

Mark Miley and John McCain are traitors to this country.

Why can't you store the highest classification of documents in the bathroom of a golf resort?

Laws that affect our team don't really matter.

"Drain the swamp!"...unless it's billionaires buying off judges and filling out a cabinet with pay-to-play unqualified fucks and Fox News talking heads.

Just no back bone, no principles.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

No, he's not.  But he WILL be, in less than 60 days.  And if you know that you are required to dismiss your case (per DOJ policy) in less than 60 days, you tell the court that.  That's what an officer of the court practicing in Federal Court is supposed to do.

It's more square-dealing than Trump deserves and in that sense, I guess, debatable.  But strictly from a lawyer perspective, it's the right thing to do.

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

36 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Besides, wtf would be accomplished in 60 more days? They would just stall with more bullshit. It's taken two years just to get this far, and Trump has barely been in a court room for anything other than his New York felonies.

Yeah, that's kind of what it boils down to.  This is a waste of the court's time, if no one elses.  And courts are actually a fairly scarce public resource.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GenXer said:

Biden can declassify. He’s above the law for 2 months.

Court records aren't classified.  The decision to keep them sealed or public lies with the judge.

HOWEVER, evidence only gets filed in the court record in bits and pieces (small ones at that) until trial, at which time it all becomes public.

One kind of amusing thing, though, Smith had to put in most of his trial evidence in the motion to avoid immunity.  And that is already public record. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-newly-released-evidence-in-the-jan-6-case-against-trump

In one sense, that sucks for the prosecution, because they have to reveal nearly the entirety of their "hand" before trial.  But the defendant already has most of all of that evidence, in the usual case.

On the other hand, all that inculpatory evidence is revealed to the public before the defendant has any opportunity to rebut it.  In this particular case, that's delightful.  As if anyone read it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, the Mar A Lago case will proceed as against Walt Nauta and Carlos D'Oliveira, which will reveal more explicitly Trump's orders to hide documents from the government.

But, they'll probably plead out.  They could, however, issue a trial subpoena to Trump and in all likelihood that would be enforced, although he could still plead the Fifth.

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

12 minutes ago, safe sex said:

This needs to be fixed. The court system should be as funded for its current and future needs as much as the DoD is. 

No argument from me.  It would be most interesting if trial dates were more freely available and rapidly scheduled (a first trial setting is often scheduled within a year, but no one realistically expects to meet it).

As things stand right now, a civil defendant can expect not to have to face a serious trial date for at least a couple of years in most courts in any case where much is at stake.  And you've seen what a criminal case can be like if the defendant is disinclined to plead.

There is some thought that in civil dispute resolution, the parties coming to a settlement is more economically efficient than trial.  Whether that's true or not, speeding the potential resolution (faster trial dates promote faster settlements and sometimes less expenditure on attorneys fees) would change the game considerably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mchookem said:

plus he's the biggest fucking asshole on this site by a LOT. even posters that generally support his same 'team' think he's a hateful hypocritical dickhead.

he's the Ted Cruz of surly. 

This from the dumbfuck who admitted to suggesting to her suicidal niece that she buy a handgun.  
 

and I’m the only one who called you out on your dumbassery.  Tells you a lot about the dipshits who populate the cloak room.  

Edited by Frank Drebin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, the Mar A Lago case will proceed as against Walt Nauta and Carlos D'Oliveira, which will reveal more explicitly Trump's orders to hide documents from the government.

But, they'll probably plead out.  They could, however, issue a trial subpoena to Trump and in all likelihood that would be enforced, although he could still plead the Fifth.

Turnip's going to pardon them about 15 minutes after the inauguration to avoid all that shit.

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

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

No.  He has followed DOJ policy.  He is obligated to keep doing so.  The policy is that sitting presidents are not prosecuted.  And as an officer of the court, he has an obligation to the court and its docket to treat cases in an orderly fashion.

Remember when Cocaine Mitch decided that norms didn't need to be followed sometimes.   I guess only some people need to keep doing that.  

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

17 minutes ago, Burt said:

There wont be a report.

Oh I am quite sure there will be.  Smith goes by the rules.  What happens to the report after he submits it is a different story.

But, again, a report where indictments were brought isn't going to reveal much.  It is only of great significance when indictments are not brought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Frank Drebin said:

Instead, like democrats these days do, they went off the deep-end with the hysterics about “democracy is at stake!” , “Trump will be a dictator!”, “He wants to overthrow the government!” , “Reeeeeee!!!”

Yeah, you might want to consider the published aims of Peter Thiel, and the New Right. They seek to institute what they call a monarchy. And, Thiel’s connection to coming administration, coupled with turnip’s comments about being a dictator for a day, (which is all a dictator needs to have a day two,) as well as turnip saying, in 2022 when he was still lying about the election: “Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” is more than enough actual, factual, basis to make the claim you mock.
 

You chump.

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets?srsltid=AfmBOorrPKZJc9DOkHFVxljR7s6cjytUaZYJViIDdLeQVxeSFruaKf7o

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

11 hours ago, Scheiss Meister said:

Turnip's going to pardon them about 15 minutes after the inauguration to avoid all that shit.

Probably right and that will be, objectively speaking, a corrupt act on his part.  Not as corrupt as pardoning himself or otherwise acting to terminate the prosecution, but corrupt.

Like it even makes a shit.

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

I have seen a couple of suggestions that Smith should ask for a stay in the two federal cases, to resume prosecution after Trump leaves office.  Merchan apparently is doing that with the sentencing in the hush money case.

There is a big material difference between staying a post-trial sentencing for four years and staying an untried case for four years, namely, the trial.  In the NY case, the trial has occurred and the evidence therefore is fixed.

Staying an untried case for four years is something else entirely.  Memories fade, evidence is lost, people die or become incapacitated, including hopefully Trump.  The one thing it does offer, though, is to force Trump to act to dismiss the cases or pardon himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen a couple of suggestions that Smith should ask for a stay in the two federal cases, to resume prosecution after Trump leaves office.  Merchan apparently is doing that with the sentencing in the hush money case.
There is a big material difference between staying a post-trial sentencing for four years and staying an untried case for four years, namely, the trial.  In the NY case, the trial has occurred and the evidence therefore is fixed.
Staying an untried case for four years is something else entirely.  Memories fade, evidence is lost, people die or become incapacitated, including hopefully Trump.  The one thing it does offer, though, is to force Trump to act to dismiss the cases or pardon himself.

And what would prevent the new doj from coming in and asking for the stay to be lifted, and then ask for a dismissal with prejudice for - reasons? Nothing.

This is the best chance for anything to ever happen in this case (even though we all know nothing will ever happen).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


And what would prevent the new doj from coming in and asking for the stay to be lifted, and then ask for a dismissal with prejudice for - reasons? Nothing.

This is the best chance for anything to ever happen in this case (even though we all know nothing will ever happen).

Acknowledged.  It probably don't make a shit, but for historical purposes, at least, I do just quite like the idea of Trump dismissing prosecutions against himself.

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



×
×
  • Create New...