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

[Biff Tannen 46,203]

3 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I like Jen Psaki and she’s improved her appearance with a new hairstyle and better makeup since she moved from the White House to MSNBC. And I’ve got a thing for redheads but I think she’s kind of average looking. Still, I’m a team player.

I lean more toward Mallory McMorrow. She’s not model hot either but she’s more to my liking. 

This is crazy talk

[Biff Tannen 46,203]

1 hour ago, TexasHooch said:

 

@TwiceHorn

[Gatorubet 30,789]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

@TwiceHorn

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

[Biff Tannen 46,203]

8 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

None of it really matters insofar as we have no way to affect any of it. It’s like complaining about Sark’s play calling or something. We are just along for the ride. 

[TwiceHorn 32,108]

18 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

Yeah, and the notion that DOJ should return to some semblance of non-partisanship is valid, as well.

And, it's worth noting that "a criminal conspiracy carried out on live TV" is some hindsight bias bullshit.  The elector scheme wasn't on TV.  The browbeating of Pence wasn't on live TV.   All the machinations preceding those things weren't on live TV.  And those things are tremendously important.  Trump likely could not be successfully charged and convicted on the 1/6 speech, standing alone.  Only when it's joined with those other elements does it become something other than an exercise of First Amendment rights.

Best I can figure, what happened is they started arresting and filing cases on the 1/6 rioters, expecting to get some degree of information on higher ups, like Trump.  That turned out not to be the case and by then the DC USAO was up to its ass in alligators just handing the cases that were filed.  But it it a time-honored way for the DOJ to proceed:  investigate and prosecute from the bottom up.

Various disjointed efforts started to try to raise the sights toward Trump and his associates, and that took a while to coalesce.  A guy named Tom Windom was anointed to try to coordinate those efforts into something coherent.

And while that was taking shape, Trump announced his candidacy, making a Special Counsel a necessity and bringing Jack Smith and a laser-sharp focus to bear.  That article on Smith notes that he really did just take over and accelerate an existing investigation.  Most of his prosecutors were the ones already engaged in the investigation and not necessarily hand-picked, and same with the FBI agents.

One thing that doesn't get discussed much:  Had DOJ been as "hammer and tongs" on a criminal investigation as the 1/6 Committee, there would have been conflicts, and probably not minor ones either, both between the two institutions and among witnesses before both "bodies."  Simultaneous civil and criminal investigations pose a lot of problems:  ask any securities litigator.

If you deem the 1/6 Committee as having served a valid purpose all by itself (I was skeptical, but they did a tremendous fucking job), then DOJ largely had to butt out and let it proceed.  And, while the Committee exposed the basic facts, and then some, it is erroneous to believe that that is a complete package ready to be turned into an indictment.  There's still a lot of grand jury work to be done, at minimum.

Edited August 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Satchel 6,983]

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

I know we've thrown a bunch of names of the six co-conspirators but have they been confirmed? The reason I ask is because the opening to NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt, they've run the pictures and names of Rudy, Easton, Powell, Clark, Chesebro and Unidentified across the screen.

Wouldn’t it be a kick if the political consultant turned out to be Ginni Thomas? She was up to her eyeballs in undermining the peaceful transition of power.

[Beau Vine 55,893]

44 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

[Biff Tannen 46,203]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Ha, this flew over my head too.  We all watched it for fuck's sake!

[Beau Vine 55,893]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Had DOJ been as "hammer and tongs" on a criminal investigation as the 1/6 Committee, there would have been conflicts, and probably not minor ones either, both between the two institutions and among witnesses before both "bodies." 

I would argue that there would be no need for a 1/6 Committee if the DOJ had been actively, visibly investigating.  

[TwiceHorn 32,108]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

I would argue that there would be no need for a 1/6 Committee if the DOJ had been actively, visibly investigating.  

"Visibly" investigating is anathema to the US Department of Justice.  You rarely, if ever, hear shit about an investigation until the indictment drops.  Because they were investigating and you just didn't know it, and you rarely would.  

And, snippets of investigations, and even jury trials, aren't the best way to inform the public of anything. Actually, maybe one of the worst.  We couldn't have even made the speculation we made without the work of the 1/6 Committee.  Oh, someone probably Pat Cipollone, was called to the grand jury, again  . . . . hmm . . . . interdasting.

I was skeptical of the 1/6 Committee, but they did a great job.  And did it in a really good, digestible format.  Also, the fact that the GQP boycotted the thing kept it from being a Gym Jordan-esque Benghazi Boogaloo shit show.  So, in retrospect, I don't think I'd sacrifice having the 1/6 Committee for having indictments a year earlier, even though the indictments are far more consequential to Trump.

[CTC2 2,868]

 

[Biff Tannen 46,203]

1 hour ago, CTC2 said:

 

Doesn't make me wonder.  MTG and I would bet my mortgage on it.

[Rimbo 27,092]

1 hour ago, TexasHooch said:

 

 

is Chris Hayes having a stroke or am I? That sentence doesn't parse at all!

 

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

 

Not my thing but I’m not going to judge 

would

[Beau Vine 55,893]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, snippets of investigations, and even jury trials, aren't the best way to inform the public of anything. Actually, maybe one of the worst.  We couldn't have even made the speculation we made without the work of the 1/6 Committee.  Oh, someone probably Pat Cipollone, was called to the grand jury, again  . . . . hmm . . . . interdasting.

Half of the country completely ignored the 1/6 Committee.

Cipollone obviously would have been one of the first witnesses subpoenaed by a grand jury, so I'm not sure why you're giving the J6C credit for unearthing the testimony of a WH counsel. 

[TwiceHorn 32,108]

37 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Half of the country completely ignored the 1/6 Committee.

Cipollone obviously would have been one of the first witnesses subpoenaed by a grand jury, so I'm not sure why you're giving the J6C credit for unearthing the testimony of a WH counsel. 

Well half the country is going to ignore this, too, every fucking bit of it.  

The Committee put the story into a cohesive, pretty comprehensive format that we would have been clueless on until this indictment dropped.  We only understood the dribs and drabs about Smiths investigation that leaked out because of the Committee's work.  

We wouldn't have got the "we'll call you next time there's an oil spill" piece and still wouldn't have it.  

These trials will not be televised.  So, while I am normally skeptical of congressional investigations, I think 1/6 was extremely worthwhile.  And, it did give DOJ a bit of a dramatic dry run on how the story is perceived and where there by tygers and dragons.

Also, I kind of picked Cipollone at random as THE WHC, who was repeatedly called to the grand jury after having Trump's executive privilege claims poured out.  Those are the kind of snippets we got from Smith's "visible" investigation, and without the work of the Committee, we couldn't have made heads or tails of that.

Edited August 3, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Hookah Horns 3,089]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

immediately thereafter, Lawrence O’Donnell gave his reasons why he thought an earlier indictment would not have been a good thing (in retrospect). In essence, he said that the J6 committee had to do its work and people had to find out about a lot of what happened over time. He said imagine if no one knew a single thing about any of this, and suddenly the indictment dropped. It would be startling to the extreme and harder to swallow and not taken as easily believed.  He also pointed out that even if he was convicted earlier Trump would be out  on bail and in the middle of years of appeal. 

There is truth in both opinions

He'd only get bail pending appeal if the judge thought he was likely to prevail and did not pose a flight risk or danger to the community. I don't think he'd get it. 

[TwiceHorn 32,108]

7 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

He'd only get bail pending appeal if the judge thought he was likely to prevail and did not pose a flight risk or danger to the community. I don't think he'd get it. 

Well, the last two are the same as pretrial detention, so they weight up about the same.  It is fairly common for white collar defendants to remain free pending appeal regardless of the likelihood of success.  Holmes I think is a notable exception, but her convictions were straight up wire fraud, nothing kinky like honest services fraud or any of that.  

[Hermanator 7,698]

12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

It seems to me that arguing Trump's efforts to overturn the election were protected free speech is akin to arguing that armed robbery of a liquor store is legal because the thief held an open carry license.

I'm sorry sir I live in Texas. What is that?

[Beau Vine 55,893]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well half the country is going to ignore this, too, every fucking bit of it. 

Really?  If he's convicted and jailed, they're going to ignore that?

[Rimbo 27,092]

8 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Really?  If he's convicted and jailed, they're going to ignore that?

he means the trial itself

also, one-third. Not half.

[Beau Vine 55,893]

 

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, it's worth noting that "a criminal conspiracy carried out on live TV" is some hindsight bias bullshit.  The elector scheme wasn't on TV.  The browbeating of Pence wasn't on live TV.   All the machinations preceding those things weren't on live TV.  And those things are tremendously important. 

Come on, we first heard of the elector scheme from Peter Navarro, confessing bragging in a TV interview; then WaPo found the Ted Cruz tape detailing it.  Pretty sure WaPo was also capable of digging up the story of how Pence was treated, too.  

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,950]

So Trump said to Pence "You're too honest."  

Can you imagine George Washington or Abe Lincoln or Harry motherfuckin' Truman or Dwight Eisenhower saying those words to ANYBODY?

[jimmyjazz 47,331]

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Come on, we first heard of the elector scheme from Peter Navarro, confessing bragging in a TV interview; then WaPo found the Ted Cruz tape detailing it.  Pretty sure WaPo was also capable of digging up the story of how Pence was treated, too.  

It seems the entire country is almost completely immune to bad behavior at this point.  It's the Stockholm Syndrome writ large on a political level.

[Beau Vine 55,893]

1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

he means the trial itself

 

Everyone knew that there would be no consequences for Trump from the J6C, so most people ignored it.  In a criminal trial, there may be consequences.

The J6C was a pre-season NFL game.  The trial will be a playoff game.

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5,569]

5 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

So Trump said to Pence "You're too honest."  

Can you imagine George Washington or Abe Lincoln or Harry motherfuckin' Truman or Dwight Eisenhower saying those words to ANYBODY?

Bunch of lib cucks compared to the orange emperor God 

[Gatorubet 30,789]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Ha, this flew over my head too.  We all watched it for fuck's sake!

 

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Yeah, speed typing.  That is a valid reply. 

That said, if you think watching J6 happen on tv gave the evidence sufficient to indict a President, then you might be agreeing with Larry, Darryl and their other brother Darryl. 

[Homercles 10,206]

4 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Boris Epshteyn based on this from the NYTimes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/02/us/politics/boris-epshteyn-co-conspirator-6.html#:~:text=Co-Conspirator 6 was more,figures in Mr. Trump's orbit.

 

Not really contributing, sorry can’t help it

[Pancho 46,372]

2 hours ago, CTC2 said:

 

It’s starting to come to realization that it was Marge.

[BamaATL 16,593]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the last two are the same as pretrial detention, so they weight up about the same.  It is fairly common for white collar defendants to remain free pending appeal regardless of the likelihood of success.  Holmes I think is a notable exception, but her convictions were straight up wire fraud, nothing kinky like honest services fraud or any of that.  

I'm not so sure white collar status applies here, but maybe that's me.  Leading a criminal conspiracy with the intent of defrauding the US and Civil Rights violations seem to be far more than just run of the mill white collar crime.  I get him being released on OR before trial, especially considering that he is protected by the Secret Service, and in a sense babysat by them (though they can't stop him from publicly sowing more discord).  So yeah, I'm hoping he will be given a detention start date and have to report despite pending appeals.  Personally, I wish he were getting the Stewart Rhodes treatment starting Thursday and that he be remanded (I'd also like to see him sentenced at least as long as Rhodes as well).  That having been said, this is not my field, and even though I'd like that to happen, I don't believe it will.  

Then again, I also take some measure of comfort in the belief that this is the beginning of the charges and not the end, and there will be more; be it in this case or others heading his way.  Far more charges are coming for others, like Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Peter Navarro, Michael Flynn, etc; and all of them will have one over-riding thing in common, co-defendant and co-conspirator Donald Trump.  

[C-Man 27,834]

Get fucked you fat fuck

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/08/03/bill-barr-trump-legal-fees-raising-money-donors-sot-src-vpx.cnn

[Celery Man 21,105]

54 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It seems the entire country is almost completely immune to bad behavior at this point.  It's the Stockholm Syndrome writ large on a political level.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,950]

After countless rallies with chants of "Lock her up! Lock her up!"  Eric Trump is now whining that we're a country in which we want to imprison our political opponents.
 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30,789]

Are you Co-Conspirator Number 6? 

[Captainant 28,601]

3 hours ago, CTC2 said:

 

Gee, that sure does remind me of the 2020 summer of love with federal agents deploying to cities against the wishes of their governor and mayor

[tx 3 putt 78,759]

[Hookah Horns 3,089]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the last two are the same as pretrial detention, so they weight up about the same.  It is fairly common for white collar defendants to remain free pending appeal regardless of the likelihood of success.  Holmes I think is a notable exception, but her convictions were straight up wire fraud, nothing kinky like honest services fraud or any of that.  

I think this judge may take a different view than Cannon. I'm still not quite sure how a wealthy, powerful person who owns a jet, has  property and connections around the world,  and is facing the rest of his life in prison isn't a significant flight risk. 

And I really don't see how he's not a danger to the country until he's locked up. 

[atomheartbevo 90,678]

8 hours ago, MrBig said:

Pence has a lot of balls doing this. If he spills a lot of info to get Trump convicted, it puts pressure on the GOP to nominate someone who hasn’t been convicted of a felony. If the only major competition is Ron DeSantis and I am Mike Pence, I would be singing like a fucking canary to put Trump away and have a better chance at the nomination.

I'll give Pence credit.  Some MAGA nut is liable to take a shot at him, because he's using a lot stronger language than he had been.

But every time he says something bad about Trump, I'm waiting for him to bring up Hunter or Joe Biden or some bullshit about the Democrats.

Because he's running for the White House, and because he can't fucking help himself, he just can't fucking turn off campaign mode, not even for a few weeks.

If he was out there doing nothing but talking about what Trump tried to get him to do, out there talking about Constitutional issues and how he stood up to Trump and his cronies, I'd have some actual respect for him.  Hell, it'd probably get him some votes among the non-Trumper Republicans (there are some), maybe even some moderate R's, maybe even a few actual Christians that he was put on the ticket to attract.  Maybe some of the Libertarian/Constitutional Party types.

But then he opens his mouth and talks about Biden, and immediately you can no longer trust everything he just said about what he believes in, because he's not Mike Pence, the man who refused to help Trump, he's Mike Pence, the candidate who stands to benefit from Trump going down, the candidate who wants everybody to know that when he's not being punished by Mother and being forced to masturbate into Her Hand, he's loving the Constitution and the American Flag (but only in a strictly heterosexual way).

[tx 3 putt 78,759]

Fuck pence, he’s running last place and only talking out to boost his numbers 

[Hookah Horns 3,089]

I seriously don't understand why Pence is running at all. 

[atomheartbevo 90,678]

54 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

I seriously don't understand why Pence is running at all. 

[Hermanator 7,698]

Thinking about the events all in a big picture from Smith's point of view and wondering did he just checkmate Trump and Cannon on her attempts to stall?

It appears to me everything about the order and timing of this was deliberate. Hit with the documents case first because it would naturally take longer with the classified info involved but also because there was a good chance it would go to Cannon. Knowing full well that Cannon would want to stall Smith asks for a quick trial and says he can do it in 3 weeks from start to finish, fully expecting her to set a late date like May.

He waits until she plays her hand then hits back with this indictment in DC knowing the odds of getting a judge that will want to expedite it are much higher. With no classified info and seemingly tons of physical evidence I'm guessing Smith will push for a Jan 2024 start date and get it. That completely undercuts Cannon and her ability to stall Trump's reckoning in federal court. Smith gets to hit with the clearer and more likely to convict case first taking a ton of piss out of the documents case. 

Just seems like it was timed out intentionally and once again Trump and his cronies got pantsed. 

[TwiceHorn 32,108]

7 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

Really?  If he's convicted and jailed, they're going to ignore that?

Look, my only point is, somewhat to my surprise, I think the 1/6 Committee and its work was valuable.

It would have been hard to have the 1/6 Committee and DOJ doing the same work simultaneously.

Feel free to disagree about the Committee.  But, it happened, and, for the most part DOJ had to stand down while it worked.

The other reality is this:  Even if the indictments came down a year ago, or a year and a half, I don't think it would change that much.  The cases would be on appeal right up until the election and any convictions would not be final.  And I don't think Trump would be in jail pending those appeals.

So, we'd be right about where we are now:  uncertain, and worried that Trump might still win the election.

[TwiceHorn 32,108]

11 hours ago, Satchel said:

One important aspect of Jack Smith’s and Merrill Garland’s work that is often overlooked is how they are establishing a framework for dealing with the criminally wayward in the executive branch who push constitutional boundaries while undermining our democracy. Nothin like this has ever existed before in our history.

They're not really establishing a framework.  That's always been there in the form of the rule of law.

You can argue that applying the rule of law to former POTUS is a new aspect of that framework, given that it hasn't happened before, although it has come right close (Nixon but for the pardon, other high-level executive officials short of POTUS).

Whether it's the right thing to do might well be debated for decades into the future, like the Nixon pardon.

However, I do think the 1/6 prosecution, unlike the others, is pretty important in that constitutional integrity sense you mention.  The rest is just grimy criming.  Nixon was really more or less grimy criming.  I don't think any of the prior crimey presidential scandals have had this dimension to them.  

[Bookman 4,769]

5 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

I seriously don't understand why Pence is running at all. 

I assume he thinks it's his only shot.

Or, maybe he's just trying to cash out while he still has name-recognition.

[ChiTownDoc 21,349]

 

[AnTiM 1,695]

25 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

 

I just hope He is whispering in that ear "Now, go to Hell!"

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,743]

Love that the right media is arguing that trump didn’t know what he was doing was illegal, and even trumps lawyer is saying that trump was just following his lawyers’ advice.  They seemed to jump over the fact that they now agree trump broke the law.

[ohchaucer 1,444]

Look, my only point is, somewhat to my surprise, I think the 1/6 Committee and its work was valuable.
It would have been hard to have the 1/6 Committee and DOJ doing the same work simultaneously.
Feel free to disagree about the Committee.  But, it happened, and, for the most part DOJ had to stand down while it worked.
The other reality is this:  Even if the indictments came down a year ago, or a year and a half, I don't think it would change that much.  The cases would be on appeal right up until the election and any convictions would not be final.  And I don't think Trump would be in jail pending those appeals.
So, we'd be right about where we are now:  uncertain, and worried that Trump might still win the election.

The underlying point to all of, well, everything is that nothing matters if Trump is elected in 2024. There is no armchair quarterbacking, hindsight, or prediction about anything at all that even slightly mitigates the fact that Trump will be the GOP candidate and therefore has a chance to become president - no matter what else happens. All the energy spent wondering “what if” should instead be spent laying foundations for an overwhelming voter turnout initiative for the good guys.

Beat him in 2024 is the only sure way to save our country.

[hpslugga 4,097]

21 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Love that the right media is arguing that trump didn’t know what he was doing was illegal, and even trumps lawyer is saying that trump was just following his lawyers’ advice.  They seemed to jump over the fact that they now agree trump broke the law.

Oh it’s worse than that. They’re going out to the usual outlets claiming that this indictment is an assault on Trump’s free speech rights. And that tracks…if when you’re reading the indictment you shut your eyes when you turn to the…you know, pages. And that’s especially true with page 2 when the indictment specifically concedes the highlighted portion:

 

Nowhere in the indictment is it possible to conclude that Smith is attempting to squash free speech. That’s a canard. It’s a straw man of the highest order. So of course they’re going to say that. And what will they not say? Well, you know, the stuff that actually is in the indictment. So they read into the indictment things it does not say, and they don’t read what it actually does say. Shocking, I know.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,743]

3 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

Oh it’s worse than that. They’re going out to the usual outlets claiming that this indictment is an assault on Trump’s free speech rights. And that tracks…if when you’re reading the indictment you shut your eyes when you turn to the…you know, pages. And that’s especially true with page 2 when the indictment specifically concedes the highlighted portion:

 

Nowhere in the indictment is it possible to conclude that Smith is attempting to squash free speech. That’s a canard. It’s a straw man of the highest order. So of course they’re going to say that. And what will they not say? Well, you know, the stuff that actually is in the indictment. So they read into the indictment things it does not say, and they don’t read what it actually does say. Shocking, I know.

The mouth breathers will admit that they haven’t read the indictment but that their sources tell them that it is an indictment against free speech. And if you tell them otherwise, they will not accept your facts.