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

[GhostOfTomJoad 9530]

51 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

As a reminder, #6 PHIL WALDRON is the guy who owns this place out in Dripping Springs: https://osdtx.com/about-us/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-jan-6-probe-subpoenas-trump-adviser-who-reportedly-prepared-powerpoint-2021-12-16/

 

 

Quote

When we started the building project, our basic task was to convert a “Barndominium” into a Distillery/Brewery. With the help of buddies in the Aggie Network and the local Mason Lodge, we were off to the races. 

So Phil Waldron is a retired Army colonel, aggie, and a Trumpkin? Isn't that the trifecta for Maga?

[DDD Dad 14669]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

he’ll take a small boat out into the Atlantic and get on a bigger boat, in the middle of the night. Members of his ss detail are loyal to him and him alone 

[Horn Dog 10195]

4 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

You know MAGA country got very excited mis reading that last line! 

[DDD Dad 14669]

36 minutes ago, locodos said:

I'm just looking forward to the documentary...

Chapter 5:  Second Battle of The Waffle House

Ken Burns:

" Dear Karen,

Although the fighting, modeling of plus sized tactical gear, and memeing reached levels not before seen anywhere except the hallowed grounds of Ft. Walmart, the Waffle House stood fast and continued to serve breakfast although with a reduced menu..."

/scene

 

In Peter Coyote's voice, of course.

[C-Man 27843]

Where does Mike Lindell fit into all of this?

[Gatorubet 30807]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

In Peter Coyote's voice, of course.

Ashokan Farewell playing in the background. 

[Rimbo 27093]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

And so it begins, your new voice for the Republican Party is emerging, Brian Kemp.  Don't be fooled, he's a dangerous right wing lunatic in his own right, who will push insane backwards legislation.  He is not a moderate of any type, and just because someone does something right once in their life doesn't mean it indicates anything beyond that.  

Listen.

I don't want a guy like Kemp or an idiot like Pence in charge of the country.

But I will take both of those guys ANY day, and twice on Sunday, over someone who is actively trying to destroy our democracy.

I can agree to disagree with anyone on anything as long as we agree on that.

@Brisketexan et al are fucking right about MAGA. We need Trump locked up for what he's done. But we have to do it the right way, or we're as guilty of destroying our country as they are. And the right way is slow and involves giving Trump every chance to defend himself, even knowing full well that he would never give us that same courtesy.

It's a dangerous way to handle someone like him, with one hand tied being our back, but it's also THE ONLY WAY.

Otherwise, we're no better than they are.

And then, when they claim (as they already are) "foul!", we can point to the process we followed, to the rights he had all along the way, and show them that no, he was treated no differently than anyone else would have.

[jimmyjazz 47361]

9 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

So Phil Waldron is a retired Army colonel, aggie, and a Trumpkin? Isn't that the trifecta for Maga?

Personally I loved that my malware app flagged that One Shot site.

[Pato del Muerto 53615]

I realize that in court you argue what you have or what you have to, but it’s another fun example of how the party of small local governance is going to claim novel federal oversight of state rights to try and get what they want. 

[jimmyjazz 47361]

1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

. . . We need Trump locked up for what he's done. But we have to do it the right way, or we're as guilty of destroying our country as they are. And the right way is slow and involves giving Trump every chance to defend himself, even knowing full well that he would never give us that same courtesy.

It's a dangerous way to handle someone like him, with one hand tied being our back, but it's also THE ONLY WAY.

I completely disagree.  He should get due process, fair trial(s), and nothing more.  

[Francisco 2.0 32634]

3 hours ago, Superhero said:

Wonder if there is one of these at the DOJ and Atlanta?

 

Also wondering when Layla starts and we get the montage of people getting whacked to protect the Don. 

 

I prefer this family tree:

 

 

 

[Jiggy-Z 3511]

15 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

So Phil Waldron is a retired Army colonel, aggie, and a Trumpkin? Isn't that the trifecta for Maga?

Would also have accepted real estate agent, or pillow magnate.

[scottsins 2047]

Whoa . . . Willis just said she planned to try all 19 defendants together.  Did I hear that right?

Apparently so. I’m not caught up in this thread yet, but if this is what she is doing, jury selection may take a year and even finding a workable trial date will be a shitshow. I don’t see this sniffing actual testimony until 2025.

GA former judge said last night that they have a RICO trial going on now and jury selection took 7 months.

[SydneyCarton 49537]

1 minute ago, scottsins said:

Apparently so. I’m not caught up in this thread yet, but if this is what she is doing, jury selection may take a year and even finding a workable trial date will be a shitshow. I don’t see this sniffing actual testimony until 2025.

GA former judge said last night that they have a RICO trial going on now and jury selection took 7 months.

What makes the jury selection so much more long and drawn out for a RICO trial? Shouldn't their be restrictions? I ask this as someone who was stuck of voir dire all fucking day yesterday for a murder trial. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13747]

Are we getting mug shots for all of the defendants? Looking forward to seeing Guiliani and Sidney Powell having their picture taken.

If you're at the bottom of this conspiracy, I don't see how you don't flip. Unless of course the govt refuses to hear your offer if they don't need your confession.

[Brisketexan 107055]

36 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Listen.

I don't want a guy like Kemp or an idiot like Pence in charge of the country.

But I will take both of those guys ANY day, and twice on Sunday, over someone who is actively trying to destroy our democracy.

I can agree to disagree with anyone on anything as long as we agree on that.

@Brisketexan et al are fucking right about MAGA. We need Trump locked up for what he's done. But we have to do it the right way, or we're as guilty of destroying our country as they are. And the right way is slow and involves giving Trump every chance to defend himself, even knowing full well that he would never give us that same courtesy.

It's a dangerous way to handle someone like him, with one hand tied being our back, but it's also THE ONLY WAY.

Otherwise, we're no better than they are.

And then, when they claim (as they already are) "foul!", we can point to the process we followed, to the rights he had all along the way, and show them that no, he was treated no differently than anyone else would have.

Except....and hear me out here....it might not work.  I'd give the odds on what wins (MAGA, or the Republic) at 50/50, and that's TODAY.  Playing by the rules when the other side has opted out of them altogether is a fucking tough uphill climb.  They have the advantage, because they'll do whatever it takes to win.   They will, LITERALLY, "destroy the village in order to save it" (in their sick minds, that's what they're doing).  They would rather rule alone over the ashes than share the country.

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

41 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Where does Mike Lindell fit into all of this?

[Biff Tannen 46220]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Except....and hear me out here....it might not work.  I'd give the odds on what wins (MAGA, or the Republic) at 50/50, and that's TODAY.  Playing by the rules when the other side has opted out of them altogether is a fucking tough uphill climb.  They have the advantage, because they'll do whatever it takes to win.   They will, LITERALLY, "destroy the village in order to save it" (in their sick minds, that's what they're doing).  They would rather rule alone over the ashes than share the country.

Let's say @atomheartbevo is right and 98% of these chodes are just keyboard warriors.  Even if they lose and don't do much, I don't think they are going away.  They will (along with their moron reps) just gear back up for the next election.  A good amount of them will die off, but there are also some youngins that are part of the cult.  I think this will be a problem for the foreseeable future.

[cactusflinthead 27628]

 

[jimmyjazz 47361]

I'm sorry, but just how stupid does a person need to be to align with Trump these days?

Don't answer that.

[Brisketexan 107055]

2 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

If any of these morons didn't realize that from the get-go (and they didn't....because they're fucking morons, every last goddamn one of them), then they deserve the utter fucking they're about to receive.  Fuck em.  Fuck em all.  I hope they all die crying in prison.

[Stilicho 1422]

48 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Where does Mike Lindell fit into all of this?

Probably espousing the health benefits of ivermectin / colloidal silver / meth.

Also probably dead from an overdose of all three. 

[Pig Bellmont 8888]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

What makes the jury selection so much more long and drawn out for a RICO trial? Shouldn't their be restrictions? I ask this as someone who was stuck of voir dire all fucking day yesterday for a murder trial. 

I’m not a criminal procedure expert but I assume it’s because each defendant is entitled to a certain number of peremptory strikes of potential jurors. Meaning that as a matter of right, they can eliminate something like 9 potential jurors. That’s separate from striking a potential juror for cause

[nbmishoid 989]

5 hours ago, Constant said:

Republicans must be getting tired of this act right? They just must. 

No presumption of no jury pool tampering, eh?

[SydneyCarton 49537]

1 minute ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I’m not a criminal procedure expert but I assume it’s because each defendant is entitled to a certain number of peremptory strikes of potential jurors. Meaning that as a matter of right, they can eliminate something like 9 potential jurors. That’s separate from striking a potential juror for cause

Yes, but striking is a given. The strikes and jury selected were all done over 7 hours yesterday for me. They're referencing 7 months. So what is going into that process that takes so much longer? Full background checks on every potential juror? Because that seems...borderline illegal. They reading his Facebook page? The system as I understand it was that each side gets a # of strikes, they use them, that elimiantes a huge chunk of the pool, and you basically get what's left. So what other steps/processes/requirements go into RICO jury selection that doesn't exist for a "basic" murder trial in Houston?

[hayden_horn 11403]

3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

What makes the jury selection so much more long and drawn out for a RICO trial? Shouldn't their be restrictions? I ask this as someone who was stuck of voir dire all fucking day yesterday for a murder trial. 

well, i don't know shit, but i was once voir dired for a federal case here as a jury member. i've also been voir dired (and chosen) as a travis county juror. i've also stood in travis county court as a defendant more than one time and once spent a night in the building as a guest. i've also testified as a witness in a murder trial. so those are my non-lawdog bona fides, ymmv.

the federal case was a humdinger - it was the relatively open and shut case of the guy who shot judge kocurek. nevertheless, i had to fill out something like a 30 page questionnaire before even showing up for jury duty.  there must have been some 150+ of us in the pool. and most of us faced some form of question from either the defense or the prosecution. it took pretty much three whole days. this was for one defendent, in a fairly complicated case, because the shooting was really only a minor part of a larger racketeering thing. i was not selected for the jury, in part, because my voir dire had to do with my being a witness in a murder trial, and whether i would just rather "not go through that again" or whatever. pretty sure that was disqualifying for me in that one. anyways, as i recall, that trial took months. they found him guilty, but not of attempted murder - it was all the racketeering, which was also a big part of our questionnaire (have you ever had your identity stolen, etc). 

the county case was also a humdinger - super aggravated sexual assault of a minor. prior to showing up, i also received a lengthy (probably 10 page) questionnaire. the jury pool was pretty big, i'm told, and there was maybe 100 of us? jury selection took all day, and at the end of that day i was selected as a juror. we found the guy guilty, and he's gone away for awhile. this trial took us four days.

both of those trials were kind of big local prosecutions, so i imagine my experience was vastly different from most jurors. we had a talk about how to handle journalists in both cases if contacted. neither obviously involved the former president of the united states of america and his many lawyers who also are accused of breaking the law.

i can't imagine how long it would take for jury selection in such a trial - the number of questions asked pre-selection, and the follow ups necessary during selection, for 19 different defendants? impossible. this isn't a mafia trial of some mob bosses in a huge racket. 

or is it? i don't really know.

[SydneyCarton 49537]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

well, i don't know shit, but i was once voir dired for a federal case here as a jury member. i've also been voir dired (and chosen) as a travis county juror. i've also stood in travis county court as a defendant more than one time and once spent a night in the building as a guest. i've also testified as a witness in a murder trial. so those are my non-lawdog bona fides, ymmv.

the federal case was a humdinger - it was the relatively open and shut case of the guy who shot judge kocurek. nevertheless, i had to fill out something like a 30 page questionnaire before even showing up for jury duty.  there must have been some 150+ of us in the pool. and most of us faced some form of question from either the defense or the prosecution. it took pretty much three whole days. this was for one defendent, in a fairly complicated case, because the shooting was really only a minor part of a larger racketeering thing. i was not selected for the jury, in part, because my voir dire had to do with my being a witness in a murder trial, and whether i would just rather "not go through that again" or whatever. pretty sure that was disqualifying for me in that one. anyways, as i recall, that trial took months. they found him guilty, but not of attempted murder - it was all the racketeering, which was also a big part of our questionnaire (have you ever had your identity stolen, etc). 

the county case was also a humdinger - super aggravated sexual assault of a minor. prior to showing up, i also received a lengthy (probably 10 page) questionnaire. the jury pool was pretty big, i'm told, and there was maybe 100 of us? jury selection took all day, and at the end of that day i was selected as a juror. we found the guy guilty, and he's gone away for awhile. this trial took us four days.

both of those trials were kind of big local prosecutions, so i imagine my experience was vastly different from most jurors. we had a talk about how to handle journalists in both cases if contacted. neither obviously involved the former president of the united states of america and his many lawyers who also are accused of breaking the law.

i can't imagine how long it would take for jury selection in such a trial - the number of questions asked pre-selection, and the follow ups necessary during selection, for 19 different defendants? impossible. this isn't a mafia trial of some mob bosses in a huge racket. 

or is it? i don't really know.

I can't either. That's what I'm trying to understand. Are the questionnaire's just that much larger, and if someone "fails" one they go back and send out X more booklets until they get what they need to do a proper Voir Dire? I'm just trying to understand waht about the actual process makes it take so much longer. Extra steps? Extra background checks? what, exactly?

[Rimbo 27093]

56 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I completely disagree.  He should get due process, fair trial(s), and nothing more.  

That's pretty much exactly what I said, though, so what exactly are you disagreeing with?

[texastough 1147]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I completely disagree.  He should get due process, fair trial(s), and nothing more.  

I think you are saying the same thing (despite your complete disagreement)

[hayden_horn 11403]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

I can't either. That's what I'm trying to understand. Are the questionnaire's just that much larger, and if someone "fails" one they go back and send out X more booklets until they get what they need to do a proper Voir Dire? I'm just trying to understand waht about the actual process makes it take so much longer. Extra steps? Extra background checks? what, exactly?

i don't really know i was just sharing my experience in relatively minor local cases. 

i will say that in both cases, i felt "special" when i did the online registration and when i showed up. i've showed up to jury duty several other times, and it's always been wait around in the court lobby for two hours, then everyone go home, the whole thing is off. both these times, i got special emails and the questions in the real mail. 

i don't think that they struck any jurors before we showed up. but there were definitely follow up questions to the questions. now maybe they had each struck certain people directly, but they are also subject to who actually shows up, right? i know we were nearly 200 deep for that federal case, which was extraordinary, i was told, and that took extra long for selection, and that trial took a long time, so it's the only real-life experience comparison i could make.

but if there were multiple defendants in a case with substantially more complexity, i could see it going for quite a long time in the selection process.

[Rimbo 27093]

26 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Except....and hear me out here....it might not work.  I'd give the odds on what wins (MAGA, or the Republic) at 50/50, and that's TODAY.  Playing by the rules when the other side has opted out of them altogether is a fucking tough uphill climb.  They have the advantage, because they'll do whatever it takes to win.   They will, LITERALLY, "destroy the village in order to save it" (in their sick minds, that's what they're doing).  They would rather rule alone over the ashes than share the country.

Oh, you're right. And it might not work even if Trump is behind bars and forced out of the presidential race. The traitors still have lots of options of that happens. They don't need a majority or anything like it.

Just saying that we won't start the fight.

But once we're in it, we WILL finish it.

[SydneyCarton 49537]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

i don't really know i was just sharing my experience in relatively minor local cases. 

i will say that in both cases, i felt "special" when i did the online registration and when i showed up. i've showed up to jury duty several other times, and it's always been wait around in the court lobby for two hours, then everyone go home, the whole thing is off. both these times, i got special emails and the questions in the real mail. 

i don't think that they struck any jurors before we showed up. but there were definitely follow up questions to the questions. now maybe they had each struck certain people directly, but they are also subject to who actually shows up, right? i know we were nearly 200 deep for that federal case, which was extraordinary, i was told, and that took extra long for selection, and that trial took a long time, so it's the only real-life experience comparison i could make.

but if there were multiple defendants in a case with substantially more complexity, i could see it going for quite a long time in the selection process.

Yeah, I mean, I filled out a questionnaire and they had specific questions for me as well. So I get it. It's just nuts it's 7 hours versus 7 months. I'd like to understand why. Yes, the case would be more complex than murder, but in theory you wouldn't think necessarily matter for jury selection, right? As in, they're not going to disqualify someone who didn't graduate HS from jury duty because they might not understand complexities of a RICO trial. 

[Brisketexan 107055]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Oh, you're right. And it might not work even if Trump is behind bars and forced out of the presidential race. The traitors still have lots of options of that happens. They don't need a majority or anything like it.

Just saying that we won't start the fight.

But once we're in it, we WILL finish it.

My frustration is in knowing the the fight is coming, and just wanting to get it the fuck over with.

They want bloodletting for the future of the Republic.  So, let them start it and get on with it, and then let's fucking finish it.

It's been a million years since I've been in a physical fight, but I remember on more than one occasion, KNOWING it was coming (the preliminaries, the jawing, all that was obviously leading up to it)....waiting for the punches to finally happen just pissed me off.  GET ON WITH IT.  SWING.  DO IT.

I'm sick of the fucking MAGAs.  And one the things I'm sickest of the most is that they are gutless cowardly pussies who won't fucking back up their shit.  BRING IT YOU FUCKING COWARDS.

[hayden_horn 11403]

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah, I mean, I filled out a questionnaire and they had specific questions for me as well. So I get it. It's just nuts it's 7 hours versus 7 months. I'd like to understand why. Yes, the case would be more complex than murder, but in theory you wouldn't think necessarily matter for jury selection, right? As in, they're not going to disqualify someone who didn't graduate HS from jury duty because they might not understand complexities of a RICO trial. 

i don't remember any background checks, and, like i said, i have a small background, so if that would've been an issue, i wouldn't have made it as far.

but i think that 7 months must also take into account the admin leadup? the compilation of the questions, the digestion and preparation for voir dire of the questions coming in, etc.

i can't imagine it taking 7 months, but then again, if you have 19 different counsels trying to procedure the fuck out of things to delay and clusterfuck up the joint, it could take awhile. for the travis county jury i was actually on, we spent less than half our time on the jury actually in the courtroom. the rest of the time they were hashing out this or that legal matter while we waited in the jury room.

and while our case was kind of complicated, and i won't bore everyone with the pretty gross details, in the end it was fairly straightforward from an evidence perspective and a documentation perspective.

but i don't really know the answer, except that it's donald, so it's going to be a fucking circus no matter what.

[Gatorubet 30807]

18 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

well, i don't know shit, but i was once voir dired for a federal case here as a jury member. i've also been voir dired (and chosen) as a travis county juror. i've also stood in travis county court as a defendant more than one time and once spent a night in the building as a guest. i've also testified as a witness in a murder trial. so those are my non-lawdog bona fides, ymmv.

the federal case was a humdinger - it was the relatively open and shut case of the guy who shot judge kocurek. nevertheless, i had to fill out something like a 30 page questionnaire before even showing up for jury duty.  there must have been some 150+ of us in the pool. and most of us faced some form of question from either the defense or the prosecution. it took pretty much three whole days. this was for one defendent, in a fairly complicated case, because the shooting was really only a minor part of a larger racketeering thing. i was not selected for the jury, in part, because my voir dire had to do with my being a witness in a murder trial, and whether i would just rather "not go through that again" or whatever. pretty sure that was disqualifying for me in that one. anyways, as i recall, that trial took months. they found him guilty, but not of attempted murder - it was all the racketeering, which was also a big part of our questionnaire (have you ever had your identity stolen, etc). 

the county case was also a humdinger - super aggravated sexual assault of a minor. prior to showing up, i also received a lengthy (probably 10 page) questionnaire. the jury pool was pretty big, i'm told, and there was maybe 100 of us? jury selection took all day, and at the end of that day i was selected as a juror. we found the guy guilty, and he's gone away for awhile. this trial took us four days.

both of those trials were kind of big local prosecutions, so i imagine my experience was vastly different from most jurors. we had a talk about how to handle journalists in both cases if contacted. neither obviously involved the former president of the united states of america and his many lawyers who also are accused of breaking the law.

i can't imagine how long it would take for jury selection in such a trial - the number of questions asked pre-selection, and the follow ups necessary during selection, for 19 different defendants? impossible. this isn't a mafia trial of some mob bosses in a huge racket. 

or is it? i don't really know.

My phone cut off the Guest part…

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

btw, for anyone who has ever accused me or anyone like me of having Trump Derangement Syndrome; you can go sit on fucking barrel cactus. Seriously, fuck you. We were right the whole time you tried to gaslight us. Fuck all the way off. forever. amen

[Pig Bellmont 8888]

16 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Yes, but striking is a given. The strikes and jury selected were all done over 7 hours yesterday for me. They're referencing 7 months. So what is going into that process that takes so much longer? Full background checks on every potential juror? Because that seems...borderline illegal. They reading his Facebook page? The system as I understand it was that each side gets a # of strikes, they use them, that elimiantes a huge chunk of the pool, and you basically get what's left. So what other steps/processes/requirements go into RICO jury selection that doesn't exist for a "basic" murder trial in Houston?

Im not sure you understand this process. A typical jury pool for a single case is probably 50 potential jurors. With 19 defendants We’re talking about at least 171 people stricken as a matter of right, plus I’m sure a large number stricken for cause in addition because of the high profile nature of the case, number of facts publicly known, and high bias of the jury pool. Georgia isn’t going to be able to get 1000 potential jurors in one sitting. If all these defendants are tried together, then jury selection will take forever. 

[SydneyCarton 49537]

2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Im not sure you understand this process. A typical jury pool for a single case is probably 50 potential jurors. With 19 defendants We’re talking about at least 171 people stricken as a matter of right, plus I’m sure a large number stricken for cause in addition because of the high profile nature of the case, number of facts publicly known, and high bias of the jury pool. Georgia isn’t going to be able to get 1000 potential jurors in one sitting. If all these defendants are tried together, then jury selection will take forever. 

Thank. This was the exact kind of answer I was looking for. And that goes a long way, although the 7 month RICO case in quesiton, it didn't have 19 defendants being tried at once I would assume? That being said, this is a good point. THe more attornies, the more strikes. 

Have to wonder why she's trying all 19 at once man. 

[hayden_horn 11403]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Thank. This was the exact kind of answer I was looking for. And that goes a long way, although the 7 month RICO case in quesiton, it didn't have 19 defendants being tried at once I would assume? That being said, this is a good point. THe more attornies, the more strikes. 

Have to wonder why she's trying all 19 at once man. 

i cannot imagine the strategy behind it.

but it does have precedent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_Commission_Trial

Quote

Trial
Defendants

The indictments and arrests on February 25, 1985, included nine defendants:[11]

Paul "Big Paul" Castellano, boss of the Gambino crime family
Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno, boss of the Genovese crime family
Anthony "Tony Ducks" Corallo, boss of the Lucchese crime family
Philip "Rusty" Rastelli, boss of the Bonanno crime family
as well as their subordinates,

Aniello Dellacroce, Gambino family underboss
Gennaro "Gerry Lang" Langella, Colombo family acting boss/underboss
Salvatore "Tom Mix" Santoro, Lucchese family underboss
Christopher "Christy Tick" Furnari, Lucchese family consigliere
Ralph "Little Ralphie" Scopo, Colombo family soldier
Added shortly after:[12]

Carmine "Junior" Persico, boss of the Colombo crime family
Stefano Canone, Bonanno family consigliere
Anthony "Bruno" Indelicato, Bonanno family capo[13]

who prosecuted that trial? a fucking named defendant in this trial.

Quote

Using evidence obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 11 organized crime figures, including the heads of New York City's "Five Families", were indicted by United States Attorney Rudolph Giuliani under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) on charges including extortion, labor racketeering, and murder. Eight of them were convicted under RICO, and most were sentenced to 100 years in prison on January 13, 1987, the maximum possible sentence under that law.

this fucking simulation.

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Where does Mike Lindell fit into all of this?

35 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Probably espousing the health benefits of ivermectin / colloidal silver / meth.

He post links advocating for bitcoin in 6th Street

[Biff Tannen 46220]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

btw, for anyone who has ever accused me or anyone like me of having Trump Derangement Syndrome; you can go sit on fucking barrel cactus. Seriously, fuck you. We were right the whole time you tried to gaslight us. Fuck all the way off. forever. amen

91 felony counts.  But they are all just made up right?  Just being mean to him!

[Beau Vine 55901]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Im not sure you understand this process. A typical jury pool for a single case is probably 50 potential jurors. With 19 defendants We’re talking about at least 171 people stricken as a matter of right, plus I’m sure a large number stricken for cause in addition because of the high profile nature of the case, number of facts publicly known, and high bias of the jury pool. Georgia isn’t going to be able to get 1000 potential jurors in one sitting. If all these defendants are tried together, then jury selection will take forever. 

Can't we just pick 12 brothers off the Falcons' roster and get it going?

[Brisketexan 107055]

14 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

btw, for anyone who has ever accused me or anyone like me of having Trump Derangement Syndrome; you can go sit on fucking barrel cactus. Seriously, fuck you. We were right the whole time you tried to gaslight us. Fuck all the way off. forever. amen

Fucking this.

At this point in history, the pejorative of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is as nonsensical as stating "hey, fellow Maui residents, maybe we should GTFO of the way of that wildfire blowing our way at 60 mph syndrome" as a pejorative.

We were right.  On functionally all of it.  And it's more destructive and harmful than we even imagined it could be when it started.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Brisketexan

[Francisco 2.0 32634]

RE: The Twitter subpoena that they didn't initially reply to, and had to be barred from letting Trump know about.

Apparently, Twitter may save drafts of Tweets, so it's possible Smith was searching for these (as well as DM's, since the actual tweets are already public).

Here's a story from summer 2022:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-drafted-tweet-calling-supporters-march-us-capitol-jan-6-2022-7

 

Quote

The House committee investigating the Capitol riot on Tuesday revealed a draft tweet in which President Donald Trump called on his supporters to go to the US Capitol after his speech on January 6, 2021.

"I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House). Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!" Trump wrote in the draft tweet, which is undated.

 

 

Quote

Trump never sent the tweet, but its existence, along with other messages exchanged between rally organizers, offer proof that the march to the Capitol was premeditated, the January 6 committee said.

Democratic Rep. Stephanie Murphy of Florida presented the evidence during Tuesday's hearing, and said: "The evidence confirms that this was not a spontaneous call to action, but rather it was a deliberate strategy decided upon in advance by the president."

Ultimately, Trump encouraged his supporters to head to the Capitol after he finished his speech at the Ellipse. 

 

Quote

But, the committee said, rally organizers had been in touch with others in Trump's orbit discussing plans for that day.

"This stays only between us, we are having a second stage at the Supreme Court again after the ellipse. POTUS is going to have us march there/the Capitol," Kylie Kremer, a rally organizer, texted MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, a Trump ally, on January 4.

"It cannot get out about the second stage because people will try and set up another and Sabotage it. It can also not get out about the march because I will be in trouble with the national park service and all the agencies but the POTUS is going to just call for it 'unexpectedly,'" the message continued.

 

Quote

Another "Stop the Steal" rally organizer, Ali Alexander, texted a conservative journalist on January 5 about plans to go to the Capitol following Trump's speech.

"Tomorrow: Ellipse then US capitol. Trump is supposed to order us to the capitol at the end of his speech but we will see," Alexander wrote.

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by Francisco 2.0

[Longhorn_Fan68 34108]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Fucking this.

At this point in history, the pejorative of "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is as nonsensical as stating "hey, fellow Maui residents, maybe we should GTFO of the way of that wildfire blowing our way at 60 mph syndrome" as a pejorative.

We were right.  On functionally all of it.  And it's more destructive and harmful than we even imagined it could be when it started.

all because modern day Jed Clampett doesn't have a grasp of reality enough to realize he's not on a fucking game show. well, guess what, bucko. you are now, and we are ALL fucking watching. now it's actually fun seeing the name trump in the news.

[jimmyjazz 47361]

34 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

That's pretty much exactly what I said, though, so what exactly are you disagreeing with?

Your qualifier "with one hand tied being our back" seemed to be implying we should bend over backwards to give him every out.  Maybe I misinterpreted what you said.

I mean, we shouldn't self-handicap the process, but if that's not what you meant, OK.

[wildcat09 29601]

2 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

RE: The Twitter supoena that they didn't initially reply to, and had to be barred from letting Trump know about.

Apparently, Twitter may save drafts of Tweets, so it's possible Smith was searching for these (as well as DM's, since the actual tweets are already public).

Here's a story from summer 2022:

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-drafted-tweet-calling-supporters-march-us-capitol-jan-6-2022-7

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can't wait to see how many times he's typed out the n-word in a draft of a tweet.

[hayden_horn 11403]

i mean, we all really know it when we think about it, but it's alarming that draft anythings can be used against anyone. i draft many posts in this here computer machine that i deem too nasty or whatever to actually hit "submit." 

thought is not a crime. thinking a thing is not a crime. drafting a thing (and not sending it) is along the lines of thinking a thing, imo. 

edit: please note i'm not talking about submitting a thing and later deleting it after people have seen it. that's called "regret" and it's a different thing altogether.

[Longhorn94 2502]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

This sort of shit is so funny. Everyone saw them try a coup when they lost and they retook the House two years later. The GOP will be fine.

it was the most underperforming mid-term in the last 60 years. it was not a successful election for them at all. it was all but a rejection of the GOP in its current form.

[wildcat09 29601]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

it was the most underperforming mid-term in the last 60 years. it was not a successful election for them at all. it was all but a rejection of the GOP in its current form.

Them underperforming expectations somewhat and winning a small majority in the House two years after attempting a violent coup is hardly a rejection of the GOP. That's just wishful thinking.