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

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19142]

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

He's not happy this morning:

Aileen's first goofy ruling:

 

Can someone come in and explain the Cannon shit?

[South Austin 52568]

18 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That you think this is likely puts everything else you say into question.

He might be president again, but it will be because, as stated before, the coup is still in progress.

He will win no more elections. Not in the popular vote, and not in the Electoral College.

Have you been in a coma since 2016? It’s entirely possible that this fucking country elects Trump in 2024.

[Red Five 40881]

3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

The problem is he has to be willing to admit guilt in order to strike a deal. He's not there yet. 

Oh I think he'll eventually say whatever he needs to say in order to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison.

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

10 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i think it's house arrest at maralago. no public appearances and we will (gladly) be limited to blurry golf course images and vertically recorded wedding crashes. 

With Eric sneaking out videotaped dispatches to leak to the media like bin Laden’s courier. 

[C-Man 27254]

16 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He cuts a deal to drop out of the race and to never run for political office again.  

 

15 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i think it's house arrest at maralago. no public appearances and we will (gladly) be limited to blurry golf course images and vertically recorded wedding crashes. 

 

8 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

I've been thinking it's a combination of these two in some kind of plea deal. 

The problem is he has to be willing to admit guilt in order to strike a deal. He's not there yet. 

And that's just on the classified documents indictment or you think that deal also covers the J6 stuff he's been indicted for in DC? (Oh, and the impending Georgia election interference indictment that is allegedly coming?)

[The Dog 44124]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

 

 

And that's just on the classified documents indictment or you think that deal also covers the J6 stuff he's been indicted for in DC? (Oh, and the impending Georgia election interference indictment that is allegedly coming?)

all the Jack Smith stuff.

no idea what happens with Georgia and NY.

[Captainant 27727]

29 minutes ago, The Dog said:

i'm no lawyer but from the replies:

the top men of surly's legal team have assured us that Judge Cannon isn't a political hack tho! There's no way she would be acting as defense for trump and breadcrumbing his team to the magic words she needs to hear to dismiss

[hayden_horn 11365]

3 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

 

And that's just on the classified documents indictment or you think that deal also covers the J6 stuff he's been indicted for in DC? (Oh, and the impending Georgia election interference indictment that is allegedly coming?)

i think that's the end result for all of it after some "uncovered ground" legal chicanery designed to protect the elite. kind of like napoleon on elba.

<checks notes>

oh wait no

[Beau Vine 54381]

23 minutes ago, The Dog said:

The problem is he has to be willing to admit guilt in order to strike a deal. He's not there yet. 

He'll admit guilt to avoid prison, then immediately begin posting every hour about how he's innocent on truth social.

[SydneyCarton 48150]

31 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He cuts a deal to drop out of the race and to never run for political office again.  

I just don’t see how that can be a deal to be made. I think he’s do it, but the result would be proof that this was all to prevent a poootocal opponent from running. The confidence in democracy would be even lower. Dude needs to go to prison. 

[Red Five 40881]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

He'll admit guilt to avoid prison, then immediately begin posting every hour about how he's innocent on truth social.

"They made me confess! I'm going to put Jack Smith in jail!"

[Foosters 17882]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

the top men of surly's legal team have assured us that Judge Cannon isn't a political hack tho! There's no way she would be acting as defense for trump and breadcrumbing his team to the magic words she needs to hear to dismiss

Please! TwiceHorn come help me understand!

Also, fuck you TwiceHorn. Your answer made me sad inside so I'm going to call you a hack.

[South Austin 52568]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I just don’t see how that can be a deal to be made. I think he’s do it, but the result would be proof that this was all to prevent a poootocal opponent from running. The confidence in democracy would be even lower. Dude needs to go to prison. 

That was my thought.  The DOJ knows it can't even hint at the possibility of that kind of deal without looking bad and giving credence to the far right's claims that the prosecution is used as leverage to get Donald off the ballot. 

[Captainant 27727]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

Please! TwiceHorn come help me understand!

Also, fuck you TwiceHorn. Your answer made me sad inside so I'm going to call you a hack.

I mean, there's not much to understand with aileen. She's an underseasoned and rookie judge that got put on the bench AFTER trump lost the 2020 election - and now after just somehow getting the case "randomly" assigned to her she's doing everything she can to slow down and stop the prosecution. 

 

I know there's other cases going on that will get (hopefully) trump, but that's no fucking reason to be laissez faire about this federal judge attempting to delay this case until past the 2024 election.

[Js1 85527]

I think the biggest question is what are the odds she gets yanked off the case once Smith/DOJ appeals.  

[Foosters 17882]

Just now, Captainant said:

I mean, there's not much to understand with aileen. She's an underseasoned and rookie judge that got put on the bench AFTER trump lost the 2020 election - and now after just somehow getting the case "randomly" assigned to her she's doing everything she can to slow down and stop the prosecution. 

 

I know there's other cases going on that will get (hopefully) trump, but that's no fucking reason to be laissez faire about this federal judge attempting to delay this case until past the 2024 election.

I'm mainly just tired of your repeated attacks on everyone here trying to explain things. Can you please link to multiple attorneys on this board defending Cannon and "assuring you" that she is not a "political hack."

[Beau Vine 54381]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

I think the biggest question is what are the odds she gets yanked off the case once Smith/DOJ appeals.  

[ConferenceRoom 6145]

14 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

poootocal

I only come to this place these days to see your typos. This is your masterpiece. 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

@TwiceHorn explain this to me like I’m not a lawyer 

The protective order?  A pretty standard thing that says neither side can publicly use certain discovery materials that are confidential, such as grand jury transcripts, the identity of witnesses or their testimony, etc.  There's one in Manhattan, one in Florida, and one soon to be in DC, should be a routine thing.  Doesn't have much to do with shithead comments by Trump other than he can't talk about the evidence.

As to the other thing, this is the second time she's stricken a filing under seal. The first time was when the press had moved to have things unsealed, so it required a greater showing that it needed to be sealed than "the other side didn't object."

This time it's a little bit more unclear.  The filing under seal I think was of grand jury proceedings in DC where witnesses represented by Woodward were talking about Nauta and/or Trump and classified documents.  Grand jury things are secret from the get-go, so that would explain the filing under seal, at least initially.  It also raised the issue why a DC grand jury is dealing with the MAL case.  Recall that the grand jury was originally in DC, then moved to Florida when an indictment became inevitable.

I wouldn't call this a big "rebuke."  We have open courts, so filings under seal are the exception rather than the rule.  Some judges are persnickety about letting parties file things under seal, some are less so.

I don't know anything about the propriety or impropriety of grand juries sitting in another district doing things that may relate to a case in another district.  Generally, grand juries sit within a federal district, like Northern District of Texas, say, and that limits their subpoena power somewhat, geographically.  They also hand down indictments for cases that will be filed and presumably tried in the district in which they sit.  Dunno nuffin bout the rest of it.

Edited August 7, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Rimbo 26052]

57 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Have you been in a coma since 2016? It’s entirely possible that this fucking country elects Trump in 2024.

1. No. I'd point that accusation right back at ya.

2. Possible, yes. Likely? Very much no.

Trump is not like at all beyond a peculiar hardcore 30% of the country, and demographics over the past few years and the end of Roe v Wade have been deeply unkind to the GOP's election chances.

It's why the party's all in on the coup. They know it's the only way for the party to survive: To eliminate democracy entirely.

I don't see why anyone would think Trump has a chance to win an election when it's clear that the smartest people on his side are actively working to make him President without it.

[Rimbo 26052]

30 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I mean, there's not much to understand with aileen. She's an underseasoned and rookie judge that got put on the bench AFTER trump lost the 2020 election - and now after just somehow getting the case "randomly" assigned to her she's doing everything she can to slow down and stop the prosecution. 

 

I know there's other cases going on that will get (hopefully) trump, but that's no fucking reason to be laissez faire about this federal judge attempting to delay this case until past the 2024 election.

do you believe that you can justify your hysteria by remaining ignorant, or does your resistance to facts come naturally?

[TwiceHorn 31529]

42 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I'm mainly just tired of your repeated attacks on everyone here trying to explain things. Can you please link to multiple attorneys on this board defending Cannon and "assuring you" that she is not a "political hack."

I'm not defending her, per se, I just think there are alternate explanations from "she's in the bag for Trump."  There are plenty of Trump judges that have ruled against him or those closely allied with him.  She may be, she may not.

One thing I have seen said about her from practicing lawyers is that she is often skeptical of the government.  All other things being equal, that's a good quality in a trial judge.  It also may partially explain her special master ruling and some of her other rulings that aren't very deferential to the government.  The government is not actually always the good guy, especially in a criminal case.  

The "she's in the bag for Trump" is just a bit too facile and conspiratorial for my taste.  It may be true.  Facile and conspiratorial is de rigueur these days, but not usually from our side.

Edited August 7, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14347]

7 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

1. No. I'd point that accusation right back at ya.

2. Possible, yes. Likely? Very much no.

Trump is not like at all beyond a peculiar hardcore 30% of the country, and demographics over the past few years and the end of Roe v Wade have been deeply unkind to the GOP's election chances.

It's why the party's all in on the coup. They know it's the only way for the party to survive: To eliminate democracy entirely.

I don't see why anyone would think Trump has a chance to win an election when it's clear that the smartest people on his side are actively working to make him President without it.

Is Trump the current odds-on favorite to win the R nomination?  If so, then the likelihood of him being re-elected is not just possible but very possible.  Perhaps as much as a toss up.

I get it that you cannot fathom how others might have different perspective than you (which causes you to go on neg-bombing raids when they disagree with you), but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're wrong.

Edited August 7, 2023 by DDD Dad

[South Austin 52568]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Is Trump the current odds-on favorite to win the R nomination?  If so, then the likelihood of him being re-elected is not just possible but very possible.  Perhaps as much as a toss up.

I get it that you cannot fathom how others might have different perspective than you (which causes you to go on neg-bombing raids when they disagree with you), but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're wrong.

Incoming neg, DDD.  Take cover!

[Beau Vine 54381]

 

Edited August 7, 2023 by Beau Vine

[TwiceHorn 31529]

37 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I think the biggest question is what are the odds she gets yanked off the case once Smith/DOJ appeals.  

One might think an appeal of a CIPA issue might be inevitable given that she seems prone to fuckups.  I have no idea what the odds of assigning it to another judge on remand might be.

[chainsaw 9873]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing I have seen said about her from practicing lawyers is that she is often skeptical of the government.  All other things being equal, that's a good quality in a trial judge.  It also may partially explain her special master ruling and some of her other rulings that aren't very deferential to the government.  The government is not actually always the good guy, especially in a criminal case.  

The "she's in the bag for Trump" is just a bit too facile and conspiratorial for my taste.  It may be true.  Facile and conspiratorial is de rigueur these days, but not usually from our side.

I might buy the "skeptical of the government" narrative if there were evidence of her doing these highly unorthodox things in cases involving non-Trump and non-Trump-affiliated defendants, especially when they are Black. Any evidence of that?

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

That you think this is likely puts everything else you say into question.

He might be president again, but it will be because, as stated before, the coup is still in progress.

He will win no more elections. Not in the popular vote, and not in the Electoral College.

You’re not being fair. You only quoted part of his post. Lurch asked what was the most likely scenario and South Austin said:

“He either wins the 2024 election and uses his pardon power or some authoritarian ground to eliminate any conviction or pending charges, or he loses the election and if he is convicted in one or more case he'll tie up the case in appeals for just long enough to die while out on bond.”

He didn’t say either outcome was more likely than the other. You’re putting words into his mouth and then holding him to account for something he never said. I call foul. 

[The Dog 44124]

Aileen is the Angel Hernandez of judges. 

Not corrupt. Just dumb as a rock and bad at her job.

[wildcat09 29376]

1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He cuts a deal to drop out of the race and to never run for political office again.  

Lol, what the fuck?

[Biff Tannen 45712]

3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Explain this shit to me like I'm Spider2yBanana

[wildcat09 29376]

19 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You’re not being fair. You only quoted part of his post. Lurch asked what was the most likely scenario and South Austin said:

“He either wins the 2024 election and uses his pardon power or some authoritarian ground to eliminate any conviction or pending charges, or he loses the election and if he is convicted in one or more case he'll tie up the case in appeals for just long enough to die while out on bond.”

He didn’t say either outcome was more likely than the other. You’re putting words into his mouth and then holding him to account for something he never said. I call foul. 

Rimbo is like a rabid dog with a bone sometimes. He's alright, but the certainty about any American presidential election is misguided. Trump could get convicted of every charge plus the Georgia shit and be sitting in prison and he'd still win the GOP nomination and still pull 40+% of the vote in 2024 because that's how shit works in America these days. 

[Biff Tannen 45712]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Facile and conspiratorial is de rigueur these days, but not usually from our side.

Who is "our side" referring to here?

[C-Man 27254]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Rimbo is like a rabid dog with a bone sometimes. He's alright, but the certainty about any American presidential election is misguided. Trump could get convicted of every charge plus the Georgia shit and be sitting in prison and he'd still win the GOP nomination and still pull 40+% of the vote in 2024 because that's how shit works in America these days. 

Not to mention that if Trump is somehow re-elected in 2024, then American Democracy as we've known it is basically over. So, the stakes are really fucking high.

I've seen no-talent dipshits knock down the occasional mid-court shot for $100K prize. It doesn't have to be Steph Curry taking the shot. Shit happens 'yo.

[Rimbo 26052]

49 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Is Trump the current odds-on favorite to win the R nomination?  If so, then the likelihood of him being re-elected is not just possible but very possible.  Perhaps as much as a toss up.

I get it that you cannot fathom how others might have different perspective than you (which causes you to go on neg-bombing raids when they disagree with you), but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're wrong.

You really aren't paying very good attention.

The GOP hasn't won a popular national election in decades; and in the years since 2020, which Trump lost, the states that were close wins for Biden have broadened the gap, both due to Roe v Wade and demographics (for example, COVID deaths have had a far greater impact on GOP voters than Democrats).

Just look at the GOP's actions. These are not the actions of a party that believes they can win. They are the actions of a party that knows that have to do something drastic to remain relevant.

[Rimbo 26052]

53 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Is Trump the current odds-on favorite to win the R nomination?  If so, then the likelihood of him being re-elected is not just possible but very possible.  Perhaps as much as a toss up.

I get it that you cannot fathom how others might have different perspective than you (which causes you to go on neg-bombing raids when they disagree with you), but just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're wrong.

Also, I don't neg people just because I think they're wrong.

I neg people when they choose to spew unsubstantiated nonsense in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

That includes, but is not limited to: Anti-vaxxers, young Earth creationists, and people who think Trump is likely to get re-elected.

I don't care what your beliefs are, but you better fucking be able to back them up with something other than hysterics.

Hysterics are all you got.

[dcbc 14507]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The protective order?  A pretty standard thing that says neither side can publicly use certain discovery materials that are confidential, such as grand jury transcripts, the identity of witnesses or their testimony, etc.  There's one in Manhattan, one in Florida, and one soon to be in DC, should be a routine thing.  Doesn't have much to do with shithead comments by Trump other than he can't talk about the evidence.

As to the other thing, this is the second time she's stricken a filing under seal. The first time was when the press had moved to have things unsealed, so it required a greater showing that it needed to be sealed than "the other side didn't object."

This time it's a little bit more unclear.  The filing under seal I think was of grand jury proceedings in DC where witnesses represented by Woodward were talking about Nauta and/or Trump and classified documents.  Grand jury things are secret from the get-go, so that would explain the filing under seal, at least initially.  It also raised the issue why a DC grand jury is dealing with the MAL case.  Recall that the grand jury was originally in DC, then moved to Florida when an indictment became inevitable.

I wouldn't call this a big "rebuke."  We have open courts, so filings under seal are the exception rather than the rule.  Some judges are persnickety about letting parties file things under seal, some are less so.

I don't know anything about the propriety or impropriety of grand juries sitting in another district doing things that may relate to a case in another district.  Generally, grand juries sit within a federal district, like Northern District of Texas, say, and that limits their subpoena power somewhat, geographically.  They also hand down indictments for cases that will be filed and presumably tried in the district in which they sit.  Dunno nuffin bout the rest of it.

Yeah, the way I understood it was a request for a response from JS explaining the necessity of filing the motion under seal about whether opposing counsel had a conflict.  She also asks what GJ proceedings in another district had to do with the case pending in her court.  Neither of these things cause me any serious consternation, despite how it was portrayed in some press accounts.  The 12(b)(6) footnote is curious though, but it's hard to tell what related to this specific motion could be rebutted with a motion to dismiss (at least at first glance).

[DDD Dad 14347]

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

You really aren't paying very good attention.

The GOP hasn't won a popular national election in decades; and in the years since 2020, which Trump lost, the states that were close wins for Biden have broadened the gap, both due to Roe v Wade and demographics (for example, COVID deaths have had a far greater impact on GOP voters than Democrats).

Just look at the GOP's actions. These are not the actions of a party that believes they can win. They are the actions of a party that knows that have to do something drastic to remain relevant.

Look, you can keep wish casting all you want about the outcome of the next election.  It doesn't change the simple fact that until the votes are in, neither of us can predict the outcome with any certainty.

And there's no need to try to insult me (or SouthAustin or his mom) with your "you aren't paying attention" or "I have to reconsider everything you've ever posted before" to strengthen your posts.  Maybe just rely on the content.

I'll go back to posting snarky gifs now.

[Rimbo 26052]

35 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You’re not being fair. You only quoted part of his post. Lurch asked what was the most likely scenario and South Austin said:

“He either wins the 2024 election and uses his pardon power or some authoritarian ground to eliminate any conviction or pending charges, or he loses the election and if he is convicted in one or more case he'll tie up the case in appeals for just long enough to die while out on bond.”

He didn’t say either outcome was more likely than the other. You’re putting words into his mouth and then holding him to account for something he never said. I call foul. 

The fact he even considers it "likely" was what I was responding to.

Yes, it's certainly possible. But it's unlikely. Biden would have to screw up really badly, or die, for it to happen.

And I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to fuck up the layup. They did, after all, nominate Hillary.

[DDD Dad 14347]

2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Also, I don't neg people just because I think they're wrong.

I neg people when they choose to spew unsubstantiated nonsense in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

That includes, but is not limited to: Anti-vaxxers, young Earth creationists, and people who think Trump is likely to get re-elected.

I don't care what your beliefs are, but you better fucking be able to back them up with something other than hysterics.

Hysterics are all you got.

[Rimbo 26052]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Look, you can keep wish casting all you want about the outcome of the next election.  It doesn't change the simple fact that until the votes are in, neither of us can predict the outcome with any certainty.

And there's no need to try to insult me (or SouthAustin or his mom) with your "you aren't paying attention" or "I have to reconsider everything you've ever posted before" to strengthen your posts.  Maybe just rely on the content.

I'll go back to posting snarky gifs now.

I'm not insulting him with anything he didn't insult me with first. Because that's @South Austin's entire argument: "you're not paying attention bla bla" He knows nothing of demographics and poll results because, if he did, we wouldn't be having this argument.

And I never said Trump winning is impossible. I've repeatedly said that it is. But anyone who thinks it's "likely" is living in La-la land.

[Captainant 27727]

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The "she's in the bag for Trump" is just a bit too facile and conspiratorial for my taste.  It may be true.  Facile and conspiratorial is de rigueur these days, but not usually from our side.

We are seeing a prosecution for a literal conspiracy to overturn the will of the American electorate. No shit things are gonna feel conspiratorial - they are! It's why we are in the midst of an ongoing constitutional crisis and loss of faith in our highest court.

 

Look, I'm just putting the dots together along the lines of how the world fucking works. If someone who is under experienced and qualified is elevated to a powerful position, and then immediately starts getting a slew of major cases over and over that all target the person who put her on the bench, and then she starts doing everything she can procedurally to slow those cases down to the favor of her benefactor.....

Let's just not go around acting like just because someone is wearing black robes, they're the avatar of justice. She's a fucking strategic asset that was put in her role for a reason by trump and is reaping the benefits of taking advantage of an incredulous legal culture that is overly deferential to fascists.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13521]

2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He cuts a deal to drop out of the race and to never run for political office again.  

 

18 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol, what the fuck?

I heard this argument from Chris Christie and there is some sense in it. Christie surmised that any DOJ deal would include a provision that Trump was out of politics and there was the ability to enforce that provision. Christie added that any guilty verdict would include prison time and how he has personally heard Trump say that he couldn't survive prison.

Christie referenced a discussion that he had with Trump in the mid 2000s when a former President of the NJ Senate was federally sentenced to prison for a couple of years. At that time, Trump asked Christie what was really going to happen to the guy, and Trump was shocked when Christie informed him that the guy was going to prison even with a plea. Trump told Christie he couldn't handle prison.

Trump may be risking the following:

• acquittal of all charges.
• Biden winning in 2024 and Trump ending up in prison.
• Trump winning in 2024, pardoning himself, and SCOTUS rejecting that pardon. Trump going to prison on Jan 20, 2029.
• SCOTUS inexplicably saying that a President can pardon themselves, effectively putting them above the law.

 

 

[Genco 3041]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Look, I'm just putting the dots together along the lines of how the world fucking works. If someone who is under experienced and qualified is elevated to a powerful position, and then immediately starts getting a slew of major cases over and over that all target the person who put her on the bench, and then she starts doing everything she can procedurally to slow those cases down to the favor of her benefactor.....

Let's just not go around acting like just because someone is wearing black robes, they're the avatar of justice. She's a fucking strategic asset that was put in her role for a reason by trump and is reaping the benefits of taking advantage of an incredulous legal culture that is overly deferential to fascists.

[wildcat09 29376]

Ok, I know I just cautioned against certainty, but it is an absolute certainty that the Department of Justice is not going to enter into a plea deal with Trump in which Trump promises to drop out of politics. Christie is talking out of his ass.

[DDD Dad 14347]

19 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I'm not insulting him with anything he didn't insult me with first. 

Actually you started it.

And to all, sorry for the brief thread drift and longcat.

3 hours ago, South Austin said:

He either wins the 2024 election and uses his pardon power or some authoritarian ground to eliminate any conviction or pending charges, or he loses the election and if he is convicted in one or more case he'll tie up the case in appeals for just long enough to die while out on bond. 

 

2 hours ago, Rimbo said:

That you think this is likely puts everything else you say into question.

He might be president again, but it will be because, as stated before, the coup is still in progress.

He will win no more elections. Not in the popular vote, and not in the Electoral College.

 

2 hours ago, South Austin said:

Have you been in a coma since 2016? It’s entirely possible that this fucking country elects Trump in 2024.

 

1 hour ago, Rimbo said:

1. No. I'd point that accusation right back at ya.

2. Possible, yes. Likely? Very much no.

Trump is not like at all beyond a peculiar hardcore 30% of the country, and demographics over the past few years and the end of Roe v Wade have been deeply unkind to the GOP's election chances.

It's why the party's all in on the coup. They know it's the only way for the party to survive: To eliminate democracy entirely.

I don't see why anyone would think Trump has a chance to win an election when it's clear that the smartest people on his side are actively working to make him President without it.

Also, you say "I never said Trump winning is impossible. I've repeatedly said that it is. But anyone who thinks it's "likely" is living in La-la land."

Yet you stated, unequivocally, "He will win no more elections. Not in the popular vote, and not in the Electoral College."  When South Austin pushed back, you moved the goalposts to say "Possible, yes. Likely? Very much no."

So, maybe take a break.

Edited August 7, 2023 by DDD Dad

[wildcat09 29376]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We are seeing a prosecution for a literal conspiracy to overturn the will of the American electorate. No shit things are gonna feel conspiratorial - they are! It's why we are in the midst of an ongoing constitutional crisis and loss of faith in our highest court.

 

Look, I'm just putting the dots together along the lines of how the world fucking works. If someone who is under experienced and qualified is elevated to a powerful position, and then immediately starts getting a slew of major cases over and over that all target the person who put her on the bench, and then she starts doing everything she can procedurally to slow those cases down to the favor of her benefactor.....

Let's just not go around acting like just because someone is wearing black robes, they're the avatar of justice. She's a fucking strategic asset that was put in her role for a reason by trump and is reaping the benefits of taking advantage of an incredulous legal culture that is overly deferential to fascists.

I don't know that I buy the most damning speculation (that Cannon was intended from the beginning to be a strategic Trump asset), but she is very obviously in the bag for Trump. In her very short time on the bench dealing with criminal defendants not named Trump, she's already clearly violated a defendant's constitutional rights. And Federalist Society hacks aren't known for their deference to the rights of criminal defendants.

I like Twice but he's got a definite blind spot regarding Cannon. Maybe because she looks somewhat like Kimberly Guilfoyle, maybe because he's an older lawyer who doesn't want to believe the law is Calvinball, maybe both. 

[Hookah Horns 3083]

20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We are seeing a prosecution for a literal conspiracy to overturn the will of the American electorate. No shit things are gonna feel conspiratorial - they are! It's why we are in the midst of an ongoing constitutional crisis and loss of faith in our highest court.

 

Look, I'm just putting the dots together along the lines of how the world fucking works. If someone who is under experienced and qualified is elevated to a powerful position, and then immediately starts getting a slew of major cases over and over that all target the person who put her on the bench, and then she starts doing everything she can procedurally to slow those cases down to the favor of her benefactor.....

Let's just not go around acting like just because someone is wearing black robes, they're the avatar of justice. She's a fucking strategic asset that was put in her role for a reason by trump and is reaping the benefits of taking advantage of an incredulous legal culture that is overly deferential to fascists.

Couldn't agree more. I'm usually the last person to jump to the conspiracy conclusion, but that doesn't mean I pretend they don't happen. They do and this is starting to look like one. 

[TwiceHorn 31529]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't know that I buy the most damning speculation (that Cannon was intended from the beginning to be a strategic Trump asset), but she is very obviously in the bag for Trump. In her very short time on the bench dealing with criminal defendants not named Trump, she's already clearly violated a defendant's constitutional rights. And Federalist Society hacks aren't known for their deference to the rights of criminal defendants.

I like Twice but he's got a definite blind spot regarding Cannon. Maybe because she looks somewhat like Kimberly Guilfoyle, maybe because he's an older lawyer who doesn't want to believe the law is Calvinball, maybe both. 

I often acknowledge that she may be in some sort of bag for Trump. 

I frequently assert that she may just be a dumbass. 

I am not certain either way is my point. In contrast to those who are certain that she is in the bag. 

[tx 3 putt 77336]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't know that I buy the most damning speculation (that Cannon was intended from the beginning to be a strategic Trump asset), but she is very obviously in the bag for Trump. In her very short time on the bench dealing with criminal defendants not named Trump, she's already clearly violated a defendant's constitutional rights. And Federalist Society hacks aren't known for their deference to the rights of criminal defendants.

I like Twice but he's got a definite blind spot regarding Cannon. Maybe because she looks somewhat like Kimberly Guilfoyle, maybe because he's an older lawyer who doesn't want to believe the law is Calvinball, maybe both. 

Smith met his match and then some by landing in cannon’s court. She has all the power and is only interested in helping trump.

How can she word her decisions so the other federal cases have to at least consider throwing out charges ?