Jump to content

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

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Serak The Preparer said:

You lawyers you and your legal terms like "represent" and "minion". Okay, point taken.

This kind of explains Wooward.  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/30/legal-nerd-maga-bigwigs-stanley-woodward-00071385

Criminal defense attorneys often have to make cringey arguments and throw bombs at the government.  It's expected, or should be.  But Woodward appears to be getting a bit over his skis here.  He may be rather indignant at the suggestion that he's an unethical hack.  He does not appear to be, but he's rolling in the mud with pigs.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

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

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

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

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

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

Posted Images

Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27392

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The initial premise is that Stanley Woodward is not your usual Trump lawyer

Why should one accept this premise?

by his accepting trump as his client he pretty much blew that premise out of the water 

 

edit so he’s not Trump’s lawyer he just chose to represent a bunch of people doing Trump’s bidding. My point stands

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3072

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

This kind of explains Wooward.  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/30/legal-nerd-maga-bigwigs-stanley-woodward-00071385

Criminal defense attorneys often have to make cringey arguments and throw bombs at the government.  It's expected, or should be.  But Woodward appears to be getting a bit over his skis here.  He may be rather indignant at the suggestion that he's an unethical hack.  He does not appear to be, but he's rolling in the mud with pigs.

He doesn't appear to be? Didn't he appear to have his client lie to protect Trump to the client's detriment? 

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25766

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m not ready for people like Trump and his ilk — the white supremacists, the fascists, the neo-Confederates, the religious bigots — to redefine what America represents or stands for. I’m still dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and the resolution that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. That’s the America I pledge my allegiance to and I’m proud to do it  

I’m offended by the corruption of the pledge by the insertion of the words “under god.” It’s more meaningful without them and I don’t recognize them. I think they should be officially removed. “One nation indivisible” is a more powerful expression and it looks to me like there a lot of Americans who could use a reminder. I think some might forget how recently the change was made.

 

Exactly.

Why should the flag change? They're the ones who suck.

Edit: Looks like @Chad Fuck beat me to this by 10 hours.

Edited by Rimbo
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
locodos

locodos 5330

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This kind of explains Wooward.  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/30/legal-nerd-maga-bigwigs-stanley-woodward-00071385

Criminal defense attorneys often have to make cringey arguments and throw bombs at the government.  It's expected, or should be.  But Woodward appears to be getting a bit over his skis here.  He may be rather indignant at the suggestion that he's an unethical hack.  He does not appear to be, but he's rolling in the mud with pigs.

narrator: "But it wasn't mud in which they were rolling..."

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

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

He doesn't appear to be? Didn't he appear to have his client lie to protect Trump to the client's detriment? 

I'm not about to make that accusation without more evidence.  I shouldn't think you would either.  I think had that been the case, it would have been revealed in the conflicts proceeding in DC and there would be a more heated discussion about Woodward's representation(s) than conflicts hearings.

The guy represents a truly random smattering of 1/6 defendants, these co-defendant mooks, and a couple of the Oath Keepers.  The closest Trump associate he represents is Navarro, but in a reduced role behind JP Rowley and John Irving.

He does seem to be taking a lot of fees from third parties associated with Trump and that seems to be a most dangerous game, but it's not unethical per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29213

Posted
Posted
On 8/26/2023 at 8:41 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Eh.  It's strange, sure enough, for what ought to be a fairly routine matter.

In the end though she granted the right to a file a sur-reply.  Big fucking deal.

One irony, that shows Woodward has a cunt streak is that the government objected to the sur-reply. He bitched a blue streak about that.  That after Trumpco similarly objected to a reply on the trial scheduling issue in DC.

There's no big urgency here.  The government alleges that the actual conflict doesn't arise until trial, when Taveras testifies against Nauta.  It may be interesting what happens at any Garcia hearing, given what happened with Taveras, but I don't think there's any reason to believe Nauta will flip, he's a true believer.

Woodward appears to be pissing down his leg on this, mostly because the government did everything pretty much correctly, but got the unsealing orders ex parte, so Woodward was unaware.  Inasmuch as no witness has the right to counsel at a grand jury hearing, I'm not sure there's anything wrong with such ex parte filings.  But, the government can let a lawyer's nose into the tent, and that appears to have happened here.  Not sure what their obligations are here.

The signal even that seems to have led to this is Cannon's striking of the sealed filings accompanying the Garcia motion, which largely explain everything.  She said "The Special Counsel states in conclusory terms that the supplement should be sealed from public view “to comport with grand jury secrecy,” but the motion for leave and the supplement plainly fail to satisfy the burden of establishing a sufficient legal or factual basis to warrant sealing the motion and supplement."

That baffles me.  I am not sure what kind of showing one needs to make when the items filed bear the style and case number of the grand jury proceeding and orders of the DC court permitting disclosure.  And Rule 6, Fed. R. Crim. P.. makes it pretty clear that shit is to remain sealed and undisclosed until order of the judge presiding over the grand jury.  Maybe it was the fact that the DC court's order permitted public disclosure.

None of this really advantages Trump in any way.  It'a a sideshow.  But it seems to show that she is kind of a dipshit.

She's made what ought to be a fairly routine matter into a month-long fight. How many more routine matters turned months-long fights before we're looking at a trial date some time in 2026?

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

TexasEd 8064

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So, more fun on removal of criminal actions to federal courts.  The ND Ga district judge has taken up Meadows' petition for removal pretty swiftly, holding a hearing on it Monday, considerably swifter than SD NY on Trump's similar motion from Manhattan.

Meadows seems perhaps to have a better claim, initially, to all of his activities giving rise to the indictment being fully within the scope of his federal office as White House Chief of Staff, who does a little bit of everything.

But he made an interesting concession in his petition to remove:

all the substantive allegations in the Indictment concern unquestionably political activity.

That maybe was aimed at cloaking the activities with First Amendment protections.  But he has run afoul of the Hatch Act:

(a)Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), an employee may take an active part in political management or in political campaigns, except an employee may not—

(1)

use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election;

So, the Hatch Act takes these political activities right out of the ambit of offical actions or actions done under color of official authority.

Unfortunately, the President is excluded from this provision of the Hatch Act.

Fun shit.  More here https://www.justsecurity.org/87859/the-hatch-act-bars-meadows-removal-bid/

On the removal questions there are too many catch 22s for it to go through.  Thinking about it in a logic flow.

A. Was this in the role of the office of the President? No, it was part of a campaign for president not part of the duties of a sitting president.

B. Was it political, Yes, it was part of the campaign for re-election See above.  

C. Was it election related? Yes, and the laws governing the conduct of elections are state laws and he was charged with state crimes.

D. Was it part of their jobs in government? No, none of their government job descriptions include re-election.  If they do things in furtherance of re-election using government resources that is a violation of the Hatch Act.  This is a separate Federal crime that is not charged in this indictment.  You want another charge?

  • Hook 'Em 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25766

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

 

 

5cac2a0e-103d-489a-8199-f363c612809f_tex

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

She's made what ought to be a fairly routine matter into a month-long fight. How many more routine matters turned months-long fights before we're looking at a trial date some time in 2026?

 

And if this were the only criminal case against him, I might consider possibly being worried about this.

And then I'd note the many options Jack Smith has if Cannon does anything that might legally cross the line that e.g. TwiceHorn has so kindly mentioned many, many times, and stop worrying about it.

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

YGIFS 19449

Posted
Posted

I know that.  You know that.  But can you imagine the fucking theatrics on that Monday-Wednesday within the GOP?  Trump, standing trial for attempted insurrection and the overthrow of the Republic at its Seat of Government, probably opens the trial with some insane rambling or insult to the Judge...while the rest of the field and FoxNews have to pretend like it's still "Super Tuesday" and go through the campaign motions.  Everybody that's running sticks with it through Super Tuesday, especially with the way their calendar sits this cycle.  I mean that night of the first debate with Trump talking to Tucker about surrendering the next day...that was one thing.  I saw/heard people I knew were Trump supporters kinda shrink a bit because of the shitshow of a field combined with that mugshot.  March 4 & 5 will be that 100x fold.  How in the fuck do they spin something like that?  Or maybe it's the launch point for somebody else.  tehehehehe

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29213

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

5cac2a0e-103d-489a-8199-f363c612809f_tex

 

 

And if this were the only criminal case against him, I might consider possibly being worried about this.

And then I'd note the many options Jack Smith has if Cannon does anything that might legally cross the line that e.g. TwiceHorn has so kindly mentioned many, many times, and stop worrying about it.

Is there anything in life you haven't ever felt absolute certainty about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85085

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

But can you imagine the fucking theatrics on that Monday-Wednesday within the GOP?

I could go watch the smaller monkeys fling their shit at each other at the zoo while all the spectators are busy watching the big gorilla sitting by himself in the corner. It’s about the same thing. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasEd

TexasEd 8064

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, TexasEd said:

On the removal questions there are too many catch 22s for it to go through.  Thinking about it in a logic flow.

A. Was this in the role of the office of the President? No, it was part of a campaign for president not part of the duties of a sitting president.

B. Was it political, Yes, it was part of the campaign for re-election See above.  

C. Was it election related? Yes, and the laws governing the conduct of elections are state laws and he was charged with state crimes.

D. Was it part of their jobs in government? No, none of their government job descriptions include re-election.  If they do things in furtherance of re-election using government resources that is a violation of the Hatch Act.  This is a separate Federal crime that is not charged in this indictment.  You want another charge?

Meadows testifying at the evidentiary hearing on this.  He is answering questions like "What would you say you do here?"  Well, Bob...

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted (edited)

Jay Bratt, who is not only one of the documents prosecutors, but the head of the National Security Division of the DOJ had a meeting in March with some Biden admin underling about something. Someone so important that they are no longer employed by the government. Because she's going to law school. Clearly a Biden surrogate telling the DOJ what to do. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4042

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jay Bratt, who is not only one of the documents prosecutors, but the head of the National Security Division of the DOJ had a meeting in March with some Biden admin underling about something. Someone so important that they are no longer employed by the government. 

That's what the far right does: turn an innocuous, banal and mundane...thing into a DEFCON 1 scandal. Why else does anyone here think that Fox host used the phrase "terrorist fist jab?"

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40627

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jay Bratt, who is not only one of the documents prosecutors, but the head of the National Security Division of the DOJ had a meeting in March with some Biden admin underling about something. Someone so important that they are no longer employed by the government. Because she's going to law school. Clearly a Biden surrogate telling the DOJ what to do. 

And this was coming from Dotard, who is, famously, a stickler for protocol. 

He also seems to think Jack Smith was working on this two plus years before he was appointed as special counsel. 

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

TwiceHorn 31240

Posted
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

That's what the far right does: turn an innocuous, banal and mundane...thing into a DEFCON 1 scandal. Why else does anyone here think that Fox host used the phrase "terrorist fist jab?"

Wanted to re-read the NY Post article talking about it.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/26/biden-staffers-met-with-special-counsel-jack-smiths-aides-before-trump-indictment/

It contains this galaxy brain statement:

Bratt is not the only Department of Justice connection to a Trump indictment.

JFC.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hookah Horns

Hookah Horns 3072

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Jay Bratt, who is not only one of the documents prosecutors, but the head of the National Security Division of the DOJ had a meeting in March with some Biden admin underling about something. Someone so important that they are no longer employed by the government. Because she's going to law school. Clearly a Biden surrogate telling the DOJ what to do. 

This is an epically dumb fake story. I don't care if it was Biden's chief of staff, I'm pretty sure it's not that unusual for a DOJ boss to meet with people from the administration. Do the magats know that DOJ is in the executive branch? 

  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19092

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Wanted to re-read the NY Post article talking about it.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/26/biden-staffers-met-with-special-counsel-jack-smiths-aides-before-trump-indictment/

It contains this galaxy brain statement:

Bratt is not the only Department of Justice connection to a Trump indictment.

JFC.

It’s the NY Post.  It’s a print version of Fox News.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 25766

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I think if you were actually informed (say, if you were a lawyer) you'd feel a lot less certain.  

The only thing I've called people out upon is not "OMG I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG," but rather, when people are presented evidence and ignore it because it doesn't fit their worldview.

I can handle that once or twice... it is, after all, how human brains work... but when we get past half a dozen or more times, where people just see the evidence and their eyes glaze over and they just pretend it isn't there...

I mean, I tell you I'm certain of nothing, and you say I should be "less certain." How can I be less certain than nothing?

Ever hear the phrase, "Every accusation is a confession?"

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


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

×
×
  • Create New...