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 28.5k
  • 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

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

all those dudes in bush v gore are either on the supreme court or named james baker.

Great.  So, in 2026 r so, after Trump's insane victory in 2024 (because this fucking timeline), Alina Habba is going to end up on the SCOTUS.

That totally, 100% checks out.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27627

Posted
Posted

This will do as good as anywhere to drop this.

But perhaps such views are merely overheated samplings from super-red MAGA pockets, and the heartland voters are more sensible. No such luck. In Iowa, 19 percent of 502 likely GOP caucus attendees said Trump’s statement that he might have “no choice” but to lock up his political opponents made them more inclined to vote for him. One out of five might not seem like a lot, but another 43 percent said they didn’t care one way or another. Trump’s ranting about “terminating” parts of the Constitution made only 14 percent more likely to vote for him, but again, 36 percent didn’t care. What a triumph: Only one in eight Iowa GOP caucus voters supports trashing the Constitution.

----

Strings of losses, including the 2018 Democratic-wave election, Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, and the “red wave” that never happened in 2022, forced MAGA voters to construct an alternate reality in which the patriotic, hardworking majority has been repeatedly thwarted by schemes so complicated that SPECTRE would have struggled to execute them. Worse, a culture (especially in the media) that for a time was desperate to understand their views now either ignores them or treats them as dangerous curiosities.

 

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27008

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

This has been discussed ad nauseum but having an opportunity to represent the FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES should be the dream scenario for every single student going through law school.

The fact that this lady is the best he can do says so much.

 

58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So much this.  This opportunity - in the abstract - is the career opportunity of a lifetime (usually an opportunity that comes to someone already moving at the higher levels of the practice of law).  It is indeed a dream scenario.  And it doesn't necessarily have to be along party lines -- depending on the case, I would have been honored, and would have busted my ass, to represent Obama, W, GHWB, even Clinton.  

The fact that this piece of fucking excrement has to get the shittiest attorneys on earth -- people who wouldn't even get hired by a sleazy dude running a chain of donut shops that's a front for a half-assed fencing operation -- is incredible.  The former POTUS should be represented by one of the best law firms in the country.  Instead, he's represented by a barely sentient pair of tits, who was hired solely for the "tits" part, not the "sentient" part.

Blah blah blah.

Already covered this. The bloom fell off that particular rose last year.

If we gain nothing else from Trump, can we at least realize that the notion that presidents are somehow Great or Worthy by virtue is the Office is, and always has been, stupid? I'm pretty sure no one has deserved that praise during my lifetime, which began sometime around when "Watergate" became a household name. And you can work backwards from there.

Fuck em all, even the ones I like.

57 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's her CV:

hq720.jpg?sqp=-oaymwE7CK4FEIIDSFryq4qpAy

I believe that the left one is "C," and the right one is "V."  But I may have that reversed.

 

57 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Well that does appear to be quite the nice rack

It really is.

It's too bad that there are THREE boobs in that photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

 

Blah blah blah.

Already covered this. The bloom fell off that particular rose last year.

If we gain nothing else from Trump, can we at least realize that the notion that presidents are somehow Great or Worthy by virtue is the Office is, and always has been, stupid? I'm pretty sure no one has deserved that praise during my lifetime, which began sometime around when "Watergate" became a household name. And you can work backwards from there.

Fuck em all, even the ones I like.

 

It really is.

It's too bad that there are THREE boobs in that photo.

Way to ruin Total Recall for me, man.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16695

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

This will do as good as anywhere to drop this.

But perhaps such views are merely overheated samplings from super-red MAGA pockets, and the heartland voters are more sensible. No such luck. In Iowa, 19 percent of 502 likely GOP caucus attendees said Trump’s statement that he might have “no choice” but to lock up his political opponents made them more inclined to vote for him. One out of five might not seem like a lot, but another 43 percent said they didn’t care one way or another. Trump’s ranting about “terminating” parts of the Constitution made only 14 percent more likely to vote for him, but again, 36 percent didn’t care. What a triumph: Only one in eight Iowa GOP caucus voters supports trashing the Constitution.

----

Strings of losses, including the 2018 Democratic-wave election, Joe Biden’s 2020 election victory, and the “red wave” that never happened in 2022, forced MAGA voters to construct an alternate reality in which the patriotic, hardworking majority has been repeatedly thwarted by schemes so complicated that SPECTRE would have struggled to execute them. Worse, a culture (especially in the media) that for a time was desperate to understand their views now either ignores them or treats them as dangerous curiosities.

 

 

Well, other Americans are to blame. They voted for other people.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26846

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Red Five said:

Can you normally talk shit to the judge in the courtroom with no repercussions? His response to a warning from the judge was to insult the judge. All in front of the jury, I'm assuming.

“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

Tough to draw any conclusions on what this means in this highly partisan country, but there has definitely been a clear shift from “I didn’t do anything wrong” to “it doesn’t matter if I did anything wrong.”

It’s the same script every time 

The next step is accusing Biden of insurrection 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32586

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

It’s the same script every time 

The next step is accusing Biden of insurrection 

 

 

Or something like "I HAD TO LEAD THE INSURRECTION, BECAUSE I HAVE TOTAL IMMUNITY AND THE COUNTRY CAN'T SURVIVE BIDEN!"

 

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47148

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Red Five said:

"A president has to have total immunity!!"

Funny, it's never been a problem before. 

Exactly my thought.  We had 240 years of American history before Trump took office, but then the authority and decisiveness of the President was suddenly in danger of being "stripped and gone forever".  Huh.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14644

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Well, that settles it then!

-Thomas and Alito, probably.

 

Screenshot2024-01-18at5_58_18AM.thumb.png.53fa1b1b88dd4888f363cd26bfa21f5a.png

 

 

1280px-Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protes

 

Also, for most of us, it doesn't take years to determine what's good and what's bad.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Well, that settles it then!

-Thomas and Alito, probably.

 

Screenshot2024-01-18at5_58_18AM.thumb.png.53fa1b1b88dd4888f363cd26bfa21f5a.png

 

Just understand that by the standard that Trump advocates for above, the hypothetical that the DC Circuit asked can be answered definitively, along with all other extreme hypotheticals.  For example "full and total immunity," even for actions that "cross the line" would mean that President Biden could kill Donald Trump and bomb Mar A Lago to rubble....and would be completely immune to any prosecution for those actions.

And here's the thing....the SCOTUS may well issue that ruling.  It would be stupid, wrong-headed, and without any legal justification....but that won't stop this SCOTUS.  But Biden, being an actual human being with some respect for rules and norms, would not murder his political rival.

If Trump ends up back in the White House, he would not exercise any such restraint.  Anything goes, all bets are off, expect to see Americans put in camps, killed, etc., with zero repercussions because the MAGAT segment of the Senate will never vote to convict him in the required numbers even if the House impeaches.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27779

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

It’s the same script every time 

The next step is accusing Biden of insurrection 

 

Well, pretty sure Nancy Pelosi has been accused of being at least partially responsible for the J6 attack of the Capital building.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87178

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

For example "full and total immunity," even for actions that "cross the line" would mean that President Biden could kill Donald Trump and bomb Mar A Lago to rubble

Ill Allow It GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 41730

Posted
Posted
Well, pretty sure Nancy Pelosi has been accused of being at least partially responsible for the J6 attack of the Capital building.

…. for the peaceful riot. With the hostages who are currently imprisoned for no reason.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19458

Posted
Posted

Yeah, why should she be held liable for some tourists who got lost looking for the gift shop?  Plus they were all ANTIFA and FBI false-flag operators anyway.  So what's to hold her to account for?  And even if she did, MTG will demand her release, Trump will pardon her, and Roger Stone will pay her legal bills.  So it's just a wash anyway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32076

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Well, that settles it then!

-Thomas and Alito, probably.

 

Screenshot2024-01-18at5_58_18AM.thumb.png.53fa1b1b88dd4888f363cd26bfa21f5a.png

 

That is actually one of the more nuanced Trump screeds I have ever read.  

It does drive at the reasoning in support of an executive immunity, if overstating it substantially.

No fucking way he wrote it.

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

TwiceHorn 32076

Posted
Posted

So, out of curiosity, I dug up the brief Trumpco filed in the appeal of the Carroll I verdict.  

The brief is here.  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67373834/74/carroll-v-trump/

It was authored, apparently, by Todd Blanche, one of Trump's more serious attorneys, instead of Bob Dobalina Tacopina, who has withdrawn from appellate representation, or habba dabba do.

It does seem to make some fairly serious arguments that Judge Kaplan erred in admitting evidence in the first trial.  

The main issue is one that is a board favorite:  to what extent can "prior bad acts" be used as evidence to demonstrate that the bad act "at bar" or under consideration is something the defendant is just prone to do.

A corollary of it is that in sexual assault cases, both civil and criminal, the rules were loosened some years back to make such prior bad act evidence more easily admitted than before.

I don't know whether this brief will obtain reversal of the jury verdict, that's always an uphill climb, but it is a serious, non-frivolous piece of advocacy.  Somewhat unusual for Trumpco, but Todd Blanche appears to be "for real."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27008

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

For example "full and total immunity," even for actions that "cross the line" would mean that President Biden could kill Donald Trump and bomb Mar A Lago to rubble....and would be completely immune to any prosecution for those actions.

And here's the thing....the SCOTUS may well issue that ruling. 

You understand that both sides get to present their cases, and one side is going to point out the Biden example you just gave, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27008

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The more persuasive argument would be that if Trump is right then there's nothing stopping Biden from having the Republican members of SCOTUS killed.

Precisely. And they can point to Trump's own behaviors, riling people up against judges, as a clear example of what they'll be allowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29579

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ironically, the arguments in favor of immunity, of virtually any kind, are an explicit elevation of the government over individual rights in a way rarely encountered in the judicial system.

Funny enough, Trump did make the argument for QI.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30323

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Ironically, the arguments in favor of immunity, of virtually any kind, are an explicit elevation of the government over individual rights in a way rarely encountered in the judicial system.

That would be ironic if Trump were your typical "small government" conservative, but it's been fairly apparent for a while that he's anything but that, and neither are his most ardent supporters in Congress or among the laity.

I know you realize this, but it still bears repeating that Trump is an autocrat followed by authoritarian-minded people.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106886

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

You understand that both sides get to present their cases, and one side is going to point out the Biden example you just gave, right?

 

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

Precisely. And they can point to Trump's own behaviors, riling people up against judges, as a clear example of what they'll be allowing.

And they.  Don't.  Care.  

Always bet on authoritarianism.  It's the side that doesn't give a FUCK about the rules.  It's kinda like how the smart bet is to bet on the team that holds on every play (since the refs don't call holding) vs. the team that plays by the stupid "rules."  "Rules" are for pussies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28530

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Also, what is the point of Trump comparing himself to a police officer when police officers are not explicitly above the law?

They may not be explicitly above the law, but cops are practically above the law. That's good enough for trump - being authority figure pig that's above consequence is right up his alley

Link to comment
Share on other sites
safe sex

safe sex 12000

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

And they.  Don't.  Care.  

Always bet on authoritarianism.  It's the side that doesn't give a FUCK about the rules.  It's kinda like how the smart bet is to bet on the team that holds on every play (since the refs don't call holding) vs. the team that plays by the stupid "rules."  "Rules" are for pussies.

It's kinda like how people in one forum on this site are apparently held to different standards of behavior than others for...some reason

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
safe sex

safe sex 12000

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Degenerate Gardner said:

Is toxic 2024’s new broad brush criticism for things we don’t like? I’ll agree woke was getting pretty worn. I still don’t get drip and refuse to assimilate that one into the lexicon. Trying to keep up.

Toxic already had its moment a few years ago, but I guess imma is just catching up lmao

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...