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

[Macanudo 12,975]

40 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I'm not sure he's being entirely truthful.

And commas.  Don't forget the commas.

[Horndog 2,228]

43 minutes ago, NAVY said:

Motherfucker used up the capital letters allowance early this week 

There should be an imposition of capital punishment. 

[Fastbreak 3,982]

I never know when those posts are real or fake.

[HornOnTheBayou 8,912]

1 hour ago, NAVY said:

Here is something better for the top of a new dotard page 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-dog-poop_n_583622a4e4b01ba68ac4212b/amp

Are these for sale? I would be more than happy to plant them around my neighborhood during my runs. 

Edited December 11, 2023 by HornOnTheBayou

[atomheartbevo 89,628]

29 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

I never know when those posts are real or fake.

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump

 

[tx 3 putt 76,870]

 

 

[Dnaguy 11,920]

11 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

 

Death, taxes, Trump not testifying.

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,822]

59 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

Are these for sale? I would be more than happy to plant them around my neighborhood during my runs. 

No shit.  If anyone has a link.  Although may be easier just to create some for myself.

 

[dcbc 14,465]

11 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

 

[YGIFS 19,449]

All due respect to one of my favorite shows of all-time, this is the Trump chicken dance:

Admittedly, it would be funnier if he was such a cowardly sociopath bent on destroying America.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,437]

6 minutes ago, dcbc said:

 

Usted baila como un hombre que vive como un mujer!

[Macanudo 12,975]

12 hours ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

Are these for sale? I would be more than happy to plant them around my neighborhood during my runs. 

You realize this is just a picture of trump cut out of paper and glued on a toothpick, right?  There's not a lot of craftsmanship or artistic ability involved.

[YGIFS 19,449]

Speak for yourself, I am a misunderstood artistic genius! 

We're having another round of e-newsletter mania in our little HOA about uncollected dog-poop.  I thought using a toothpick was risking getting too close to the shit itself.  so used popsicle sticks instead with trump's stupid mug on the top.  Anyway, half the paranoid Karens have those porch cameras and I'm taking the oldest on a walk to see the lights after he sister went to sleep.  Neighborhood really does a tasteful job in holiday decor but sure enough some pile of uncollected dog shit a couple blocks over.  So I put a Trump poop stick in it.  No law against that.  It's my HOA sidewalk, and I don't have a dog anymore.  True to form, a Karen chimes in online, "Somebody littered in our yard!" 'Nother karen replies, "Somebody is right!  If Trump were in office instead of Biden...people could dispose of their dog poop properly!"  I just had to laugh at myself, like "here's my harmless prank" which by the way is calling attention an actual issue, shit all over the sidewalks during the time of year we all take strolls to look at the lights.  And of course, Texas in 2023...somebody thinks we didn't used to have dog shit before Biden got into office in South Austin.  Yeah, okay...

Edited December 11, 2023 by YGIFS

[Fudge Nuggets 19,189]

On 12/5/2023 at 6:06 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Good article on the immunity opinions in lawfare. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/two-court-rulings-on-presidential-immunity-move-the-trump-cases-forward

Contains this:

While Trump may try his luck with an appeal, this opinion is unlikely to be significantly disrupted going forward. The Supreme Court tends to respect unanimous cross-ideological rulings from the D.C. Circuit, and the judges on this panel command respect across the political spectrum.  So on its own terms, the case is important because it significantly clarifies where there is, and where there is not, an opportunity to sue presidents on the basis of conduct taken during their time in office. In particular, it seems to widen the possibility of suits against presidents, contending that—at least in the D.C. Circuit and at least for now—the president cannot assert immunity where a contextual analysis of the conduct shows it to have taken place in the president’s private capacity as a candidate for office.  

The people at lawfare are neither blindly optimistic nor pessmistic and this about the Supreme Court is certainly historically true, and even recently true with the current court.

This refers to the civil immunity holding in Blassingame, not Chutkan's ruling.  But assuming a similar panel of the DC Circuit upholds her reasoning, there's probably not a high likelihood that the Supremes reverse, or even accept cert.

They really went out on a limb there.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,864]

14 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

... massive coward. they forgot that part too.

[texasdago 7,568]

2 hours ago, Macanudo said:

You realize this is just a picture of trump cut out of paper and glued on a toothpick, right?  There's not a lot of craftsmanship or artistic ability involved.

Honestly it would be great if there was a viral movement for more people to do this... trumpy turds all over the country with one picture after another ending up rolling through FB, Instagram, Xitter, Threads, etc.  Wouldn't it be glorious if Trump's mystique was brought down by trumpy turds?

[Pato del Muerto 52,485]

10 minutes ago, texasdago said:

Honestly it would be great if there was a viral movement for more people to do this... trumpy turds all over the country with one picture after another ending up rolling through FB, Instagram, Xitter, Threads, etc.  Wouldn't it be glorious if Trump's mystique was brought down by trumpy turds?

Imagine if it embedded deep enough into our collective conscious that dog piles became known as trumps. Hey watch out for that trump!  You gonna pick up that trump?  My dog needs to make a trump. 

that, friends, is a legacy. 

Edited December 11, 2023 by Pato del Muerto

[texasdago 7,568]

51 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Imagine if it embedded deep enough into our collective conscious that dog piles became known as trumps. Hey watch out for that trump!  You gonna pick up that trump?  My dog needs to make a trump. 

that, friends, is a legacy. 

Man, we can all dream

[4th&Five 41,514]

CNN - Special counsel Jack Smith on Monday asked the Supreme Court to decide whether Donald Trump has any immunity from criminal prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office – the first time that the high court will weigh in on the historic prosecution of the former president.

The extraordinary request is an attempt by Smith to keep the trial – currently scheduled for early March – on track. Smith is asking the Supreme Court to take the rare step of skipping a federal appeals court and quickly decide a fundamental issue of the case against Trump.

[DixonHur 11,293]

So, after this news broke, how long do you think it took for Trump to call Ginni Thomas?

[Gatorubet 30,185]

If they grant Trump immunity, the turnout may be historic.   So there is that side angle. Either shut down the bs defense or substantially increase the likelihood he won’t be reelected. 

[RDCanecutter 26,383]

17 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I’m pretty proud that I taught about half a dozen older relatives to stop typing in all caps.

Around 2005.

Old people and Mexican women. Had a Mexican stalkerette following me from town to town down there, her arrival preceded by all-caps emails. My Canadian buddy who was on track to have dated all Mexican women told me that was a thing they did. All caps, like a telegram.

[RDCanecutter 26,383]

4 hours ago, Macanudo said:

You realize this is just a picture of trump cut out of paper and glued on a toothpick, right?  There's not a lot of craftsmanship or artistic ability involved.

SHUT UP. SHUT. UP.

To the other gentleman, yes, yes our finely crafted Trump-poo art-installations are available commercially to discerning customers of the necessary means. Simply DM us with your credit card info and your required amount. Thank you for supporting the arts.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

28 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

If they grant Trump immunity, the turnout may be historic.   So there is that side angle. Either shut down the bs defense or substantially increase the likelihood he won’t be reelected. 

If one is immune from prosecution while President, wouldn't that make the President a dictator?

 

 

[Gil Bang 25,920]

So, Smith is forcing them to decide on presidential immunity, WHILE BIDEN IS PRESIDENT? 

 

[Gatorubet 30,185]

40 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

If one is immune from prosecution while President, wouldn't that make the President a dictator?

I assume that Ginny Thomas’s  husband would say he’s not a dictator because the House can impeach him and the Senate can remove him. 

[SaucyJack 3,488]

6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Usted baila como un hombre que vive como un mujer!

*una

 

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2,026]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

So, Smith is forcing them to decide on presidential immunity, WHILE BIDEN IS PRESIDENT? 

 

Repubs can’t think that many steps ahead 

[jimmyjazz 45,888]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

So, Smith is forcing them to decide on presidential immunity, WHILE BIDEN IS PRESIDENT? 

Pretty strong move, in my opinion.  Obviously, there's the chance this SCOTUS will go rogue, but it would be unexpected at the least.  Such a ruling would certainly extend to full immunity in office, which is more arguable, for all the reasons (Mueller, cough cough) we've discussed ad nauseum.

[cactusflinthead 27,598]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,864]

 

 

[Gatorubet 30,185]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211115417267_No. 23-624 U.S. v. Donald J. Trump Petition.pdf

Jack’s latest.  80 somepin pages. 

Jack, when I said, “There were no piss tapes” - I did not mean to say or imply that there were no ‘urine videos’…”

[Gatorubet 30,185]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Day-um.  That’s expedited all right. Considering. 

[Red Five 40,845]

"Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin."

Dumb this down for me. Why would he be immune or constitutionally protected from prosecution? 

[Gatorubet 30,185]

26 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Dumb this down for me. Why would he be immune or constitutionally protected from prosecution? 

President Obama’s election interference witch hunt??? That issue is what Donny’s lawyers currently maintain.  ‘Cause want it to be true, and Orange Man pay for them say that.  Really, what other defenses does he have? 

[YGIFS 19,449]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-624/292946/20231211115417267_No. 23-624 U.S. v. Donald J. Trump Petition.pdf

Jack’s latest.  80 somepin pages. 

Jack, when I said, “There were no piss tapes” - I did not mean to say or imply that there were no ‘urine videos’…”

You just brought urine to a piss fight, bitch!

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Pretty strong move, in my opinion.  Obviously, there's the chance this SCOTUS will go rogue, but it would be unexpected at the least.  Such a ruling would certainly extend to full immunity in office, which is more arguable, for all the reasons (Mueller, cough cough) we've discussed ad nauseum.

The one thing is, as noted upthread, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is very good with this political/constitutional stuff and usually refines whatever the district court decides, as it recently refined Mehta's decision on civil immunity in Blassingame.  And that can insulate the decision from further review and/or fine tuning and/or reversal at Scotus.

Going straight from Chutkan to Scotus leaves them a blanker slate to write on, and possibly what could be considered a more partisan opinion of the court below.

It is faster, though. And I think Smith is relatively confident that not even this Supreme Court is going to find blanket immunity.

[Pato del Muerto 52,485]

If there were a ruling that a sitting president is immune from prosecution for crimes, would that not also mean by necessity that any crime committed on the direct order of the president comes with the same immunity?

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

"Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin."

Dumb this down for me. Why would he be immune or constitutionally protected from prosecution? 

The President is immune from criminal prosecution while in office, regardless of when the acts occurred.  This has never been decided, but has been official DOJ policy for more than 50 years.  It will never be tested.

A President is immune from civil liability for acts occurring in office that are within the "outer perimeter of their presidential duties"

What level of immunity from criminal prosecution a former President enjoys post-presidency is an open question.

The reason for granting a president, or any governmental official various types of immunity (most of them have it), is that government would grind to a screeching halt if every decision could be challenged by a personal lawsuit or prosecution against the decision-maker.

Edited December 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[High Plains Drifter 11,031]

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

"Whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin."

Dumb this down for me. Why would he be immune or constitutionally protected from prosecution? 

 

You are asking us to dumb it down to MAGA-dumb level. That is asking a lot. I'm not sure anybody on here is capable of doing that.

 

 

[tx 3 putt 76,870]

Any guesses here ?

i think they protect him 

Edited December 12, 2023 by tx 3 putt

[4th&Five 41,514]

 

[Brisketexan 105,066]

Any guesses here ?
i think they protect him 

Yep. The failsafes have all failed.

[WhatTheBuck 28,775]

6 hours ago, DixonHur said:

So, after this news broke, how long do you think it took for Trump to call Ginni Thomas?

She probably called Trump as soon as Clarence tipped her off. 

[jimmyjazz 45,888]

37 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Any guesses here ?

i think they protect him 

I actually think this one will go the other way.  We'll see.  I wouldn't put more than lunch money on it, for sure.

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I actually think this one will go the other way.  We'll see.  I wouldn't put more than lunch money on it, for sure.

Agreed.

Although this Court seems to be a by-product of Dominionism and related concepts that are antithetical to democracy and pro-autocracy, the Court doesn't seem to have much taste for insulating Trump from himself, or the executive more broadly.  Of course, accreting power to the executive is bound to decrease their own.

Edited December 12, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[UpperWestside 6,161]

24 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.

Although this Court seems to be a by-product of Dominionism and related concepts that are antithetical to democracy and pro-autocracy, the Court doesn't seem to have much taste for insulating Trump from himself, or the executive more broadly.  Of course, accreting power to the executive is bound to decrease their own.

I’d like to hear some of your thoughts on what possible repercussions would be. You are far more knowledgeable than I could ever hope to be in matters related to this stuff so please share some more thoughts about this.

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2,026]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.

Although this Court seems to be a by-product of Dominionism and related concepts that are antithetical to democracy and pro-autocracy, the Court doesn't seem to have much taste for insulating Trump from himself, or the executive more broadly.  Of course, accreting power to the executive is bound to decrease their own.

I appreciate you openly discussing these topics. It helps me better understand what is happening. Thanks Twice!

[Neonmoon 38,129]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

Any guesses here ?

i think they protect him 

[TwiceHorn 31,438]

25 minutes ago, UpperWestside said:

I’d like to hear some of your thoughts on what possible repercussions would be. You are far more knowledgeable than I could ever hope to be in matters related to this stuff so please share some more thoughts about this.

Well, over the history of the country, we haven't had to decide an issue like this because, heretofore, presidents have been mostly law-abiding.

So, if the country were to somehow stick to something like the course of the last 250 years, the repercussions would be limited to Trump escaping criminal liability, if it were to be decided that he has immunity of some sort from criminal prosecution.

Of course, if another lawless asshole were to be elected, s/he'd be more free to do crimes in office without fear of repercussion outside of political considerations.  Again, if there is some degree of immunity for actions in office.

On the other hand, if the president is found to have little or no immunity, that won't change much except perhaps to slightly constrain executive decisionmaking.

We've had decisions like this before, mostly post-Nixon, resuming a bit with Clinton.  Because the country has stayed the course for the last 50 years, these types of decisions are not significant on a daily or even decennial basis.  But they are pretty fundamental to the operation of the country.