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

[Rimbo 25,752]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The "self interest" here is that they want their side 1) to have absolute power, 2) forever.  That means they openly favor an authoritarian state supplanting and replacing our Republic.  Stop thinking they want anything less than that.  And yes "I want complete and total power, that can never be taken from me, so I can impose my will on you without being answerable for it or suffering any repercussions" is fucking evil.

 

I mean, that's what Trump gets if they vote for him, yes.

But what's in it for them?

They're not giving themselves immunity. And they're not giving themselves immunity FROM Trump. I don't know if you've noticed this, but they haven't exactly ruled in his favor every chance they've had. Even if you've forgotten, Trump hasn't. And we've all seen what Trump does to those he think has betrayed him.

What do you think he does to those SCOTUS justices if they give him immunity?

My point isn't that I recognize this danger. My point is that federal counsel has all the evidence they need to put it in front of them.

Your position here is kinda silly.

 

51 minutes ago, otisdog said:

Wrong....my BIL on the El Segundo force is voting Biden

Exception that proves the rule.

[Gil Bang 25,865]

46 minutes ago, Player said:

Obviously he’s no dummy then.

"'till the cat gets caught, lay cool on the copper"

[InkaUtexas 25,426]

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  The military will not save us, because the military will actually follow the law (something that the Trump private/personal gestapo troops will not be burdened by).  The Trump gestapo will be able to do whatever they want with no repercussions because the president told them to, and if the president says it, it's now legal.  And the military will not move 1) without orders from Trump, the CINC, and 2) will not act on US soil because Posse Comitatus. 

We're going to have to save ourselves.  Arm up.  And be prepared to actually pull the trigger.  We're almost there.  Because that's how these insane fascist fuckers want it.  I can't believe it, but they plainly want it that way.

Yep, this is my fear. I have a reoccurring dream where me and a few friends are guarding our town against Trumpkins. We are the county seat and they don't like the new judge/mayor etc. Trump loses, they get pissed and with quiet social media pushes decide to solve the situation. So in that case, what do citizens on the other side do? One person in this dream is a republican I know who voted Biden and lost a lot of friends. Dude is about as Texas as you can get. Hunter, family has been here from the start, including a lot of marriages with Latinos. He sees that as the thread of his soul. Being a Texan.

We talked a few weeks ago. His take is if the Trumpkins come, he will fight back. Someone at the table said well they out gun us. He looked at me, them, and just smiled. "Nah. they just think the do." I laughed and took a sip of beer knowing what he has.

Something that bothers the shit out of me. It only takes 3% of a population to conduct a guerilla war. We are a soft nation full of targets. And they represent what percent?

[Gil Bang 25,865]

17 hours ago, Player said:

Obviously he’s no dummy then.

CSB alert:  when i was in 6th grade or so, a really great teacher had a buddy that worked at NBC in Burbank, and arranged a backstage tour for us.  I actually walked through that "room". 

 

EDIT: does anybody recall the cops' names?   Was the white guy "Smitty"?

Edited January 19 by Gil Bang

[Francisco 2.0 32,290]

48 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

CSB alert:  when i was in 6th grade or so, a really great teacher had a buddy that worked at NBC in Burbank, and arranged a backstage tour for us.  I actually walked through that "room". 

 

Growing up, I  thought that Redd Foxx was like 65 when this show was on.  Turns out he was 49 at the debut.

Man, I feel old now.

Edited January 19 by Francisco 2.0

[TeeDubya 3,358]

21 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Growing up, I  thought that Redd Foxx was like 65 when this show was on.  Turns out he was 49 at the debut.

Man, I feel old now.

[tx 3 putt 76,159]

 

['stache 21,743]

18 hours ago, Superhero said:

Time for Biden to approve an assassination on a political enemy. [/presidentialimmunity]

Well he's not really the president, so it doesn't apply to him.

-Habba Dabba Ding Dong to a nodding Uncle Clarence

[wildcat09 29,187]

17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not so sure about the "in power" thing.  

They were ok supporting most of Trump's legal policies because they basically align with what they believe and were appointed to implement.

Trump's personal bs doesn't really align with any of that.  And, again, I will reiterate that I think that the notion of creating an executive that is not criminally responsible to their branch is not something they want to do, even if they favored propping up a "conservative" president or candidate.

They generally like elevating the executive over the legislative, the executive over the judicial, not so much.  For example, their assault on Chevron deference hurts the executive to their benefit as much or more than Congress (these are executive agencies, after all, and it is usually an executive-prompted rulemaking over which they intend to exert more control).

Sure it does. Being a corrupt piece of shit is fundamental to fascism and they've all fully embraced varying degrees of fascism.  They just disagree over how openly fascist they should be.

You keep pointing out that they didn't "help" Trump in his personal cases while he was President, but you're only partially right. Sure they didn't overturn an election for him and they didn't rule that his tax returns were totally privileged. But they repeatedly delayed proceedings and ruled in ways that allowed him to drag things out. Hell, just look at the emoluments cases. 

As for their attack on Chevron, you know as well as I do that they rule on admin law shit pretty much solely based on which party is in the White House. Eliminating Chevron won't keep them from upholding whatever draconian immigration shit a second Trump administration wants to do.  

[TexasEd 8,062]

On 1/18/2024 at 5:59 AM, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Well, that settles it then!

-Thomas and Alito, probably.

 

 

Checks and Balances?  Phbbbbt.  The Founding Fathers never meant for there to be 3 co-equal branches that made sure none of them ever got too powerful or out of control!

[Gatorubet 30,064]

20 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

Checks and Balances?  Phbbbbt.  The Founding Fathers never meant for there to be 3 co-equal branches that made sure none of them ever got too powerful or out of control!

I still think the Supreme Court must know that a Trump presidency will be the last time that anyone in the executive or legislative branch gave a flying fuck about what the Supreme Court said about anything. Trump won’t.   Even this fucked up crew will not rule that Trump can be dictator forever.   So after he gets in, they gotta go if they will not do what he wants

Roberts might have to rule against Trump to preserve the quaint belief that the other branches have to bow to the Supreme Court.  I keep thinking that this might be a Marbury V Madison moment.  

I see Trump’s reelection as the biggest threat to the continued legitimacy of the authority of the Supreme Court that has happened in 200 years. For self preservation reasons, SCOTUS should do everything within its power to ensure that Trump does not get reelected.

[TexasEd 8,062]

On 1/18/2024 at 12:00 PM, TwiceHorn said:

It's not just Trump.  The irony is small, but it's there.

 

21 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Given that Wade and Willis are aligned irrespective of any romantic relationship, I can't see how this creates any conflict of interest that concerns the defense(s) of the 1/6 case.

There may be some ethical impropriety somewhere along the line, but it doesn't seem to be anything actionable by 1/6 defendants.

So Trump's people got to the special prosecutor's wife and now her legal team is trying to subpoena Fanni Willis for her Divorce case to delay the GA election fraud case.  That is desperate.

[Gatorubet 30,064]

8 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

 

So Trump's people got to the special prosecutor's wife and now her legal team is trying to subpoena Fanni Willis for her Divorce case to delay the GA election fraud case.  That is desperate.

I had a client who was selected as a bellwether plaintiff in a mass tort case. The attorneys for Bristol-Myers Squibb helped my client’s ex-husband, retain an attorney to try to take my client’s daughter away and give sole custody to the ex, despite no grounds to do so. Oh, they denied being behind the custody thing. But Bristol’s lawyers just happened to be in divorce court that day.  Coincidence and all.  They just wanted to send a message to my client that they were willing to do anything they could to hurt her if she proceeded with her claim.

This pissed her off, we continued the suit, and she eventually settled for a more than decent amount of money.  The ex’s custody suit failed.  But never underestimate what a really rich unprincipled party opponent will do to gain an advantage in a case

[safe sex 11,659]

Well, there's no penalty for abusing shit like that, so oh well.

[Chewbacca 7,727]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

I had a client who was selected as a bellwether plaintiff in a mass tort case. The attorneys for Bristol-Myers Squibb helped my client’s ex-husband, retain an attorney to try to take my client’s daughter away and give sole custody to the ex, despite no grounds to do so. Oh, they denied being behind the custody thing. But Bristol’s lawyers just happened to be in divorce court that day.  Coincidence and all.  They just wanted to send a message to my client that they were willing to do anything they could to hurt her if she proceeded with her claim.

This pissed her off, we continued the suit, and she eventually settled for a more than decent amount of money.  The ex’s custody suit failed.  But never underestimate what a really rich unprincipled party opponent will do to gain an advantage in a case

What the fuck.  That's just evil.

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Hell, just look at the emoluments cases. 

Look, just because the Constitution disallows POTUS and various other elected and appointed representatives from taking foreign money doesn't mean that doing so is illegal.

[Gatorubet 30,064]

11 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

What the fuck.  That's just evil.

in mass torts the ultimate resolution may involve hundreds of millions - or billions - of dollars.    I would imagine that the pressure put on defense counsel by their clients so that they don’t lose a billion bucks is……uncomfortable. 

Also, a lawyer who loses that cornucopia of endless massive billing client needs to find a new firm. 

[texasdago 7,550]

19 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

El Segundo is a cool little town

I lost my wallet in El Segundo.  Gotta get it.

[TexasEd 8,062]

19 hours ago, Upgrayedd said:

It’s where I left my wallet 

 

6 minutes ago, texasdago said:

I lost my wallet in El Segundo.  Gotta get it.

ummm

 

[4th&Five 41,457]

 

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Sure it does. Being a corrupt piece of shit is fundamental to fascism and they've all fully embraced varying degrees of fascism.  They just disagree over how openly fascist they should be.

You keep pointing out that they didn't "help" Trump in his personal cases while he was President, but you're only partially right. Sure they didn't overturn an election for him and they didn't rule that his tax returns were totally privileged. But they repeatedly delayed proceedings and ruled in ways that allowed him to drag things out. Hell, just look at the emoluments cases. 

As for their attack on Chevron, you know as well as I do that they rule on admin law shit pretty much solely based on which party is in the White House. Eliminating Chevron won't keep them from upholding whatever draconian immigration shit a second Trump administration wants to do.  

I was unaware that the emoluments cases reached SCOTUS prior to being dismissed as moot.

I can also not think of a single ruling in favor of Trump in his personal capacity from SCOTUS.

And you missed my point about Chevron.  Everyone talks about Chevron like it's going to destroy Congress.  There's some small truth to that.  But what it will really do is disable varying rulemakings based on executive policy leanings and thus weaken executive policymaking while strengthening judicial policymaking.  

The point being, carrying out conservative policies is limited by their unwillingness to weaken the judicial branch. 

They want in on the fascism too.

Edited January 19 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29,187]

What are you even talking about man? Who talks about Chevron as if it will destroy Congress? Everyone knows it’s a judicial power grab at the expense of the executive branch.

[Rimbo 25,752]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What are you even talking about man? Who talks about Chevron as if it will destroy Congress? Everyone knows it’s a judicial power grab at the expense of the executive branch.

ok, so... work with me here

[texasdago 7,550]

44 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

 

ummm

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,118]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

They want in on the fascism too.

Great.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

Maybe already posted but https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/credit-card-statements-show-trump-special-prosecutor-appointed-georgia-rcna134791

Good Lord, Fani. Between this and hosting the fundraiser against the investigation target what are you doing? 

To quote the grand jury judge, the Optics are terrible. 

Edited January 20 by TwiceHorn

[Francisco 2.0 32,290]

 

6 months:

 

FEC records show that between January 1, 2023, and June 30, 2023, Donald Trump's Super PAC, SAVE AMERICA, made payments to the following law firms in these amounts:

BALLARD SPAHR LLP - $109,174.55

BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. – $351,040.77

LAW GROUP - $1,031,788.33

BLANCHE LAW - $353,090.03

BRAND WOODWARD LAW – 201,948.00

BRITO PLLC - $68,194.50

CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM, & TAFT LLP - $344,950.21

CONTINENTAL PLLC - $1,929,207.90

DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. - $734,730.8

EARTH & WATER LAW, LLC - $347,820

HABBA MADAIO & ASSOCIATES LLP - $1,503,915.14

IFRAH LAW PLLC - $720,009.28

FINDLING LAW FIRM - $541,456.25

KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD, FIGEL & FREDERICK PLLC - $1,042,479

CHRIS KISE & ASSOCIATES, P.A. - $2,148,536.58

JOHN F. LAURO, P.A. - $183,859.03

JPROWLEY LAW PLLC - $35,161

LEVEL LAW LTD - $89,721.45

MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD - $290,179.17

MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C.- $269,424.39

NECHELESLAW LLP - $465,231.34

PARLATORE LAW GROUP, LLP - $136,325.1

ROBERT & ROBERT, PLLC - $1,355,631.17

SECIL LAW PLLC - $191,980.35

SILVERMAN THOMPSON SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC – $2,183,578.73

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP – $193,750

TACOPINA, SEIGEL & DEOREO -$ 1,773,126

WEBER, CRABB & WEIN, P.A. - $193,050

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21 by Francisco 2.0

[tx ind 6,996]

~$19M total.  

[Underdog 28,437]

Saw no listing for Dewey, Cheatum & Howe Law Firm, has to be a mistake there. 

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

Kise, who is also Continental Law Group, is being paid most handsomely to beclown himself.

Not handsomely enough, but he's the big winner there, by a substantial margin.

Edited January 21 by TwiceHorn

[BamaATL 16,592]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Kise, who is also Continental Law Group, is being paid most handsomely to beclown himself.

Not handsomely enough.

Easy to see why he is all smiles though.  

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

Easy to see why he is all smiles though.  

It's interesting that Blanche and Lauro are relatively low as I think they are doing most of the heavy lifting in his federal criminal cases, but I think the lifting got heavier in the second part of 2023.

Also notable that that doesn't include any of the NY civil fraud trial.  That was probably worth another couple mil to Kise, at least.

[BamaATL 16,592]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's interesting that Blanche and Lauro are relatively low as I think they are doing most of the heavy lifting in his federal criminal cases, but I think the lifting got heavier in the second part of 2023.

Also notable that that doesn't include any of the NY civil fraud trial.  That was probably worth another couple mil to Kise, at least.

Well I'm just certain that if anyone is on top of campaign accounting it's the Trump campaign.  I'm sure they got a few well respected Arthur Andersen guys running that  shit.  

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well I'm just certain that if anyone is on top of campaign accounting it's the Trump campaign.  I'm sure they got a few well respected Arthur Andersen guys running that  shit.  

I might assume that it's "qualitatively" accurate if not quantitatively precise.  That is, if the numbers are lowballed, they're lowballed relatively equally or proportionally.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,118]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe already posted but https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/credit-card-statements-show-trump-special-prosecutor-appointed-georgia-rcna134791

Good Lord, Fani. Between this and hosting the fundraiser against the investigation target what are you doing? 

To quote the grand jury judge, the Optics are terrible. 

Good thing we got dotard on tape committing the crime.  Shit shouldn’t take more than an hour to wrap up.

[miguelito 11,204]

I should send the PAC an invoice, what the hell. 

[YGIFS 19,449]

Shit, a third of those are medical malpractice firms.  

"How long have you been practicing law?"

-Almost six weeks...

[Biff Tannen 45,477]

12 minutes ago, miguelito said:

I should send the PAC an invoice, what the hell. 

I would give it north of a 50% chance you’d get paid. 

[BamaATL 16,592]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I would give it north of a 50% chance you’d get paid. 

Also, I'm told if you just use "services rendered" on your invoice it drives the point home.

Add in a conditional lien waiver of some type and I bet you are golden.  

[Mdhorn 5,908]

On 1/19/2024 at 2:01 PM, Gatorubet said:

I still think the Supreme Court must know that a Trump presidency will be the last time that anyone in the executive or legislative branch gave a flying fuck about what the Supreme Court said about anything. Trump won’t.   Even this fucked up crew will not rule that Trump can be dictator forever.   So after he gets in, they gotta go if they will not do what he wants

Roberts might have to rule against Trump to preserve the quaint belief that the other branches have to bow to the Supreme Court.  I keep thinking that this might be a Marbury V Madison moment.  

I see Trump’s reelection as the biggest threat to the continued legitimacy of the authority of the Supreme Court that has happened in 200 years. For self preservation reasons, SCOTUS should do everything within its power to ensure that Trump does not get reelected.

Why do they care?  They've proven that they just want to get paid by accepting bribe after bribe. They'd essentially just be getting a severance package, instead of extending it over time, and payment would have to be up front.   

[Gatorubet 30,064]

31 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Why do they care?  They've proven that they just want to get paid by accepting bribe after bribe. They'd essentially just be getting a severance package, instead of extending it over time, and payment would have to be up front.   

Your use of “they” to mean all the Justices does not appear to be grounded in any sort of reality or evidence that you can share.    Feel free to if you can.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,022]

5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Your use of “they” to mean all the Justices does not appear to be grounded in any sort of reality or evidence that you can share.    Feel free to if you can.

Most?

[Neonmoon 38,127]

5 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Your use of “they” to mean all the Justices does not appear to be grounded in any sort of reality or evidence that you can share.    Feel free to if you can.

What is the current tally of justices taking improper benefits aka bribes. 2 of 9?

[WhatTheBuck 28,700]

30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

What is the current tally of justices taking improper benefits aka bribes. 2 of 9?

Who paid off Kavanaugh’s credit card bills?

[atomheartbevo 89,362]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Who paid off Kavanaugh’s credit card bills?

This is why the Qanon idiots as a whole seem to be mentally ill.

There's so much shady shit actually happening and it's out in the open and the dots are waiting to be connected, but they want to cling to dumbfuck FEMA and adrenochrome and imaginary basement theories.

[Bozo_Casanova 26,232]

On 1/19/2024 at 2:36 PM, TwiceHorn said:

And you missed my point about Chevron.  Everyone talks about Chevron like it's going to destroy Congress.  There's some small truth to that. 

Oh, we are laughing. My friend I worked for an industrial giant for many years and I assure you  that is not what they are talking about.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

8 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Your use of “they” to mean all the Justices does not appear to be grounded in any sort of reality or evidence that you can share.    Feel free to if you can.

Yeah, I agree with you. I think.  What they do and why they do it, broadly speaking, is unknowable.  All we can do is guess.

But most of these guys, particularly now, could make more money than the value of all their bribes in a law firm. Greed is not the answer.

Uncle Clarence is the only one against whom significant evidence of bribery or suspicious payments has been accumulated because he had a pitiful private sector career.

They wouldn't be in "public service" except for the power. So, whatever their proclivities and tendencies, you can rest fairly assured that they won't do anything that would significantly diminish their power.

Edited January 22 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

14 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Oh, we are laughing. My friend I worked for an industrial giant for many years and I assure you  that is not what they are talking about.

It's what the news sources are saying.  And, in a very indirect way, they're right.  It constrains Congress' ability to create executive agencies with broad and vague statutory mandates to fill gaps with ostensible expertise.  The so-called "death of the administrative state."

People around here are somewhat more sophisticated in understanding that the more immediate effect is to curtail their rulemaking power, which more immediately affects the ability of a given administration to effect policy.

Overall, I'd say it elevates the judiciary over the executive moreso than the legislative.  It won't stop Congress from creating executive agencies.  It might force them to tighten their mandates and statutory schemes.  But it is going to hamstring executives attempting to implement policy via administrative rulemaking.

Edited January 22 by TwiceHorn

[Bozo_Casanova 26,232]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

People around here are somewhat more sophisticated in understanding that the more immediate effect is to curtail their rulemaking power, which more immediately affects the ability of a given administration to effect policy.

I think that’s right, but more broadly the concern is that while it can be difficult, inept, unfair and even counterproductive at times, the regulatory infrastructure and compliance environment of the Federal government in a highly regulated industry generally makes the market more efficient and enables trade because it allows participants to have a set of assumptions they don’t have to worry about. 
I generally hate sports analogies, but it’s like officiating- we are all often frustrated by the refs but we mostly agree that we ought to have them.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I think that’s right, but more broadly the concern is that while it can be difficult, inept, unfair and even counterproductive at times, the regulatory infrastructure and compliance environment of the Federal government in a highly regulated industry generally makes the market more efficient and enables trade because it allows participants to have a set of assumptions they don’t have to worry about. 
I generally hate sports analogies, but it’s like officiating- we are all often frustrated by the refs but we mostly agree that we ought to have them.

Well, we'll still have them.

Just a lot more replays and the replay booth will be at the local (or otherwise) federal courthouse.  Without any convincing evidence to overturn.