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

  • Replies 28.3k
  • 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

Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33825

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

So he's trying to say, "I'm not with them" when every single one of them is about to say HE is the reason they did what they did? HE directed them to do it. But he's not associated with them. Do I have that right? What are the implications here? That bc they don't have more time to prepare this means they're all turbofucked? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45513

Posted
Posted

I'm not asserting that this "logic" is bulletproof, but indulge me:  what if Joe Biden (or his campaign manager) had tried to arrange a similar meeting in late 2020, had the shoe been on the other foot?  Would that have been "official Federal business"?

Of course not.  Joe Biden was a private citizen.  Now, he might not have had the leverage Trump & Meadows had, but to me it's clear that actions on behalf of a political campaign are not on behalf of the Federal government.

I'm probably wrong.  Ask my wife, it's common.

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

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not asserting that this "logic" is bulletproof, but indulge me:  what if Joe Biden (or his campaign manager) had tried to arrange a similar meeting in late 2020, had the shoe been on the other foot?  Would that have been "official Federal business"?

Of course not.  Joe Biden was a private citizen.  Now, he might not have had the leverage Trump & Meadows had, but to me it's clear that actions on behalf of a political campaign are not on behalf of the Federal government.

I'm probably wrong.  Ask my wife, it's common.

I think that the fact that the actions were political/personal in nature is the dispositive fact. The Hatch Act tidies that up nicely.

I think a second factor is that federal officials, probably most especially executive officials, have no role in state elections.

That the acts are alleged to be a crime and may be proven to be a crime is not dispositive.

These are my hopes, but I'm not the judge and I really hope this isn't wishcasting.

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

dcbc 14388

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

So he's trying to say, "I'm not with them" when every single one of them is about to say HE is the reason they did what they did? HE directed them to do it. But he's not associated with them. Do I have that right? What are the implications here? That bc they don't have more time to prepare this means they're all turbofucked? 

I haven't been paying too close of attention lately, and I could be wrong, but did he just play right into Harris's hand.

Edited by dcbc
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29187

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think that the fact that the actions were political/personal in nature is the dispositive fact. The Hatch Act tidies that up nicely.

I think a second factor is that federal officials, probably most especially executive officials, have no role in state elections.

That the acts are alleged to be a crime and may be proven to be a crime is not dispositive.

These are my hopes, but I'm not the judge and I really hope this isn't wishcasting.

On this, I'm pretty sure that the only conceivable role any federal official could have related to state elections would be actual DOJ attorneys investigating whether in conducting an election some state official was violating citizens' constitutional rights. I guess maybe the attorney general, to the extent the attorney general is involved in discussions with lower-level investigators concerning such investigations.

The President and/or the Chief of Staff? Absent a truly terrifying application of the unitary executive theory, I can't see it. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85056

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

On this, I'm pretty sure that the only conceivable role any federal official could have related to state elections would be actual DOJ attorneys investigating whether in conducting an election some state official was violating citizens' constitutional rights. I guess maybe the attorney general, to the extent the attorney general is involved in discussions with lower-level investigators concerning such investigations.

The President and/or the Chief of Staff? Absent a truly terrifying application of the unitary executive theory, I can't see it. 

This. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104465

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

No wonder he's been melting down slightly more than usual on truth.social. He's been playing the greatest hits, but MAGA isn't sending him money.

The PAC had $156 million.  It now has $4 million.

I will guarantee two things about the $152 million that has been spent:

1) very little of it actually went to pay attorneys (Trump attorneys get stiffed: this is the way)

2) a great deal of it found its way into the pockets of the Trump family

 

The problem with any con that goes on too long is that it all falls apart.

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

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The PAC had $156 million.  It now has $4 million.

I will guarantee two things about the $152 million that has been spent:

1) very little of it actually went to pay attorneys (Trump attorneys get stiffed: this is the way)

2) a great deal of it found its way into the pockets of the Trump family

 

The problem with any con that goes on too long is that it all falls apart.

I happen to know that one of his former, now deceased (RIP), attorneys never got paid for any of the (fairly significant) work he did. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40593

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I happen to know that one of his former, now deceased (RIP), attorneys never got paid for any of the (fairly significant) work he did. 

His entire life has been a quest to be the biggest piece of shit any of us has ever seen. And he was elected President. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 43771

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The PAC had $156 million.  It now has $4 million.

I will guarantee two things about the $152 million that has been spent:

1) very little of it actually went to pay attorneys (Trump attorneys get stiffed: this is the way)

2) a great deal of it found its way into the pockets of the Trump family

 

The problem with any con that goes on too long is that it all falls apart.

#2 wouldn't surprise me but what I understand is that the lawyers who don't get paid are those who Trump pays for himself.

The PACs aren't run by him and are paying the legal bills for Trump and some defendants like Nauta. In fact, the reason they are running out of cash is because Trump refuses to pay for the lawyers out of his own pocket and insists on using the money from the rubes from Save America PAC.

Keep in mind there are two PACs here - "Save America" which is the one paying the legal bills and for some campaigning and also "Make America Great Again PAC" which doesn't pay the legal bills but has had to loan Save America PAC money in order to make ends meet. 

Regardless, both are running out of cash and I wouldn't be surprised to see Save America go kaput soon.

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

BamaATL 16592

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The PAC had $156 million.  It now has $4 million.

I will guarantee two things about the $152 million that has been spent:

1) very little of it actually went to pay attorneys (Trump attorneys get stiffed: this is the way)

2) a great deal of it found its way into the pockets of the Trump family

 

The problem with any con that goes on too long is that it all falls apart.

Well, a certain someone is facing a $250 million default loss in the state of New York with either payment or asset forfeiture, so yeah.  

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32685

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's not that shooting someone in the face is or is not a crime.  It might be murder, it might be manslaughter, it might be self defense and not a crime at all.

It's that the White House Chief of Staff is not authorized to carry a weapon, he's not authorized to protect the president using force or deadly force, he's not generally authorized to shoot people, for any reason. He has no law-enforcement authority whatsoever.  It's not part of his job description, crime or not.

But if he's arguing that he didn't shoot him, didn't even have a gun then the analogy is fine. You still need to address it. 

And go. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31184

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But if he's arguing that he didn't shoot him, didn't even have a gun then the analogy is fine. You still need to address it. 

And go. 

What?  I've explained it in great detail.  Arguing that something is or is not a crime, guilt or innocence, is not going to help get a case removed, or conversely, keep it in state court.

If shooting people is part of your official federal duty, that's relevant.  If it's not, that's relevant.  Whether the shooting was murder or manslaughter or completely justified is not relevant.  Trying to argue you didn't do it isn't relevant, either.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 40593

Posted
Posted

It might be related to the absolute fucking mountain of evidence in him, in a variety of different cases. A lot of which we have all seen and heard. 

"I've been arrested for no reason!"

"We have video of you murdering people. You looked at the camera and said your name, and then murdered them. You are being prosecuted for that."

"Yep, no reason at all!"

  • Haha 2
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...