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 28.4k
  • 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

Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32389

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Guys, Donald Trump is just super concerned about the welfare of future Presidents. That's all this is about. 

 

Or that if Trump is back in office, Obama might get charged with something. You all wouldn't want that now, would you?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11031

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

One thing that just occurred to me. The judgment says something like we are looking at this as someone indicted after they leave the executive, as though that was important to saying no immunity.  But we’ve already had that, right?  Spiro Agnew was indicted while he was VP for tax fraud, right?

 

Also, Nixon accepted his pardon, presumably because he knew there was a very good chance he could be indicated. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BearSchlong

BearSchlong 8083

Posted
Posted
Yeah, less-than-rich defendants employ delay tactics with success as well as rich, just no one pays attention to them. 
The poor are not wholly unable to employ similar tactics to the rich, they're just less likely to, and lack of funds is just one reason, but not necessarily THE reason.


Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31438

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, safe sex said:

I'll never forget a nonprofit legal service telling me to not sue the employer who was discriminating against me because the employer would just kill my suit with money and time.

Basically just "I guess you've gotta get a new job"

Truth is, a non-profit legal service isn't going to be much help in that kind of situation.  An employment discrimination lawyer would have given you a more solid case evaluation.

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

Chuckie Finster 22694

Posted
Posted

I know this will shock everyone, but Trump has not been consistent in his belief of Presidential immunity.

Quote

The president’s rambling and ill-tempered interview with Maria Bartiromo on Thursday saw him run through a long list of his usual grievances, but he was particularly rancorous on the subject of supposed Obama-era “crimes” against him for which he wants to see his predecessor indicted, along with Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and many others.

 

“Unless Bill Barr indicts these people for crimes,” declared the president, “the greatest political crime in the history of our country, then we’re gonna get little satisfaction unless I win. Because I won’t forget it. But these people should be indicted, this was the greatest political crime in the history of our country. And that includes Obama, and that includes Biden; these are people that spied on my campaign, and we have everything.

“Now they say they have much more, and I say Bill, you got plenty. You don’t need any more.”

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-bill-barr-arrests-fox-news-clinton-obama-biden-obamagate-b885971.html

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

safe sex 11697

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Truth is, a non-profit legal service isn't going to be much help in that kind of situation.  An employment discrimination lawyer would have given you a more solid case evaluation.

They were a nonprofit legal service with an office/section focused on employment law. 🤷‍♀️ No cash for a "legit" one at the time (or now lol) 

They said they thought I had a case (I'm a good contemporaneous notetaker), and I could fight if I wanted, but that I would almost certainly lose due to the imbalance of resources, and even if I didn't, the process would probably tear my life up. 

I asked a couple of my lawyer pals in private practice (none specializing in employment discrimination, tbf, but one of them has some experience with it). They said the same. 

I need to find out how to meet George Soros. 🤔

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pato del Muerto

Pato del Muerto 52485

Posted
Posted (edited)

I’m surprised Paxton didn’t have something typed up and ready to submit as soon as the No immunity ruling dropped, indicting Obama for something. 
 

or even do it before, so the judge knew about it while considering the ruling. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pasken

Pasken 1309

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I’m surprised Paxton didn’t have something typed up and ready to submit as soon as the No immunity ruling dropped, indicting Obama for something. 
 

or even do it before, so the judge knew about it while considering the ruling. 

He's too busy suing Austin for weed.

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

henrygandorf 29189

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Now it seems that he's gonna blackmail Biden into getting charges tossed.

 

Screenshot2024-02-07125443.png.a384bb73dd8ec353a48568eeee932fcd.png

 

 

who is he talking to with these?  does he think presidential immunity is on the ballot as a prop or something?  does he think if i'm nervous about biden and obama then i'm going to vote for him?

don't get me wrong, i think it would be great if he tries to run on the issue of presidential immunity, because that would be hilarious.  not like we're going to see a debate any time soon.

guess he'll go on the morning shows every week and screech about presidential immunity when asked about the border.  this is what happens when you're a defendant and a candidate at the same time.  he's the worst case scenario of thomas jefferson's dream.

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

TwiceHorn 31438

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, safe sex said:

They were a nonprofit legal service with an office/section focused on employment law. 🤷‍♀️ No cash for a "legit" one at the time (or now lol) 

They said they thought I had a case (I'm a good contemporaneous notetaker), and I could fight if I wanted, but that I would almost certainly lose due to the imbalance of resources, and even if I didn't, the process would probably tear my life up. 

I asked a couple of my lawyer pals in private practice (none specializing in employment discrimination, tbf, but one of them has some experience with it). They said the same. 

I need to find out how to meet George Soros. 🤔

Legit means contingent.  No fees required and almost no one pays a lawyer to take an employment discrimination case.  And such lawyers are fully apprised of the dilatory tactics of employers and undeterred by it if you have a solid case of discrimination.  They should have at least sent you to the EEOC.

What the legal services people said was basically true.  Any lawsuit has good potential to at least temporarily wreck your life and will seem interminable. Discrimination is hard to prove as currently schemed by the courts.

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

YGIFS 19449

Posted
Posted

Trump; “I have this here coupon  that says we can have Greenland at a discount!”

-but sir, this is an Arby’s

Trump; “very well, I’ll have 9 beef and cheddars and will pay you tomorrow.”

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31438

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

One thing that just occurred to me. The judgment says something like we are looking at this as someone indicted after they leave the executive, as though that was important to saying no immunity.  But we’ve already had that, right?  Spiro Agnew was indicted while he was VP for tax fraud, right?

Couple of things.  First, VP is not POTUS and a lot of the reasons for giving POTUS broad immunity would not apply to VP.  Second, it seems Agnew was not actually indicted, but did plead to an offense (one of these indictment/pleas that we've seen a number of lately) immediately prior to resigning.  Third, it was for bribery/kickbacks when he was County Executive of Bodymore County, Murdaland.

It also so happens that the DOJ/OLC policy that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted for acts in or prior to taking office was developed under the Nixon Administration, but has been ratified a couple of times since.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14465

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Truth is, a non-profit legal service isn't going to be much help in that kind of situation.  An employment discrimination lawyer would have given you a more solid case evaluation.

. . . [,] charged you for the privilege, and may, ultimately, have told you the same thing.  Litigation at an hourly rate isn't always a profitable venture for plaintiffs or their attorneys where there isn't a statute allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees (and off the top of my head, I'm not remembering that there's anything for employment discrimination), and I can't imagine a lot of lawyers are taking these claims on contingency (I could be wrong on that).

 

And before people start using this as an example of "the system is rigged!!!!," just remember that that's just the sort of thing Trump types in ALL CAPS on the daily from the shitter.  I'm sorry for anyone who has to suffer through the bullshit of being discriminated against to make a living and to hell with anyone who does that to another person.  But even in a system set up to meet out justice, I agree that things aren't always fair.  But it's important to point out that the legal maze through which lawyers and clients must navigate is constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed by politicians, lawyers, especially ones who can navigate this ever-shifting landscape, cost money, and pro se litigants, 99.9% of the time, aren't nearly as clever/savvy in-court as they think they are. 

 

@safe sex Sorry that happened to you.

Edited by dcbc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14465

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, safe sex said:

the process would probably tear my life up

This also wasn't what I'd consider terrible advice but rather, an honest assessment.  Litigation is a terribly unpleasant process.  Do Trump or his lawyers look happy?

 

Edited by dcbc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27637

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It also so happens that the DOJ/OLC policy that a sitting POTUS cannot be indicted for acts in or prior to taking office was developed under the Nixon Administration, but has been weaponized by Bill Barr a couple of times since.

Ftfy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13509

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

You have to put it in perspective.  George W Bush’s legal team in 2000 was basically season 1 of Airwolf.  

Trump’s legal team is season 4 of Airwolf.

Solid analogy. You just have to be 52-57 years old to appreciate it.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
topochico

topochico 1049

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

You have to put it in perspective.  George W Bush’s legal team in 2000 was basically season 1 of Airwolf.  

Trump’s legal team is season 4 of Airwolf.

We would have also accepted Blue Thunder the TV adaptation. 

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

YGIFS 19449

Posted
Posted

Wait, you guys are getting helicopters?

since November of 2020, I’ve been looking up Trump’s attorneys legal specialties.  And it reads like Danny DeVito’s office door in the movie ‘Twins’, “Sports Agency, Import/Export, and Wholesale Patio Furniture.”

And their educational backgrounds.  I went to a little known law school in California but these folks’ schools make American Somoa School of Law look like Yale.  Alina went to law school at Widener Univeristy. Yes, the Catholic Boys School.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52454

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

You have to put it in perspective.  George W Bush’s legal team in 2000 was basically season 1 of Airwolf MacGyver.  

Trump’s legal team is season 4 of Airwolf MacGruber.

Never saw Airwolf, so edited for another analogy.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29902

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Second, it seems Agnew was not actually indicted, but did plead to an offense

I believe that event introduced No Lo Contendre to the popular vernacular. I think a lot of Nixon Men used it.

Edited by RomaVicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11031

Posted
Posted

 

I remember when I was a child, there was this "special" kid in my elementary school who had moved from either Nebraska or Kansas. He loved Blue Thunder. He would walk around saying "I'm Blue Thunder-- You can't kill Blue Thunder!". Except he pronounced it "Blue Thaandaa". 

Amazing what memories you assholes bring to the surface. 

 

 

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

atomheartbevo 89628

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, topochico said:

We would have also accepted Blue Thunder the TV adaptation. 

As much as it sucked. It was probably the best TV series in the 1980s that starred James Farentino, Sandy McPeak, Dana Carvey, Dick Butkus, and Bubba Smith.

15 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

I remember when I was a child, there was this "special" kid in my elementary school who had moved from either Nebraska or Kansas. He loved Blue Thunder. He would walk around saying "I'm Blue Thunder-- You can't kill Blue Thunder!". Except he pronounced it "Blue Thaandaa". 

Amazing what memories you assholes bring to the surface. 

Did that kid get his ass beat?  Blue Thunder was a cool looking helicopter, but it was no Airwolf. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19449

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

I remember when I was a child, there was this "special" kid in my elementary school who had moved from either Nebraska or Kansas. He loved Blue Thunder. He would walk around saying "I'm Blue Thunder-- You can't kill Blue Thunder!". Except he pronounced it "Blue Thaandaa". 

You went to school with AC/DC's Brian Johnson?  

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11294

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, South Austin said:

Trump’s legal team is season 4 of Airwolf MacGruber.

Whatever, MacGruber could make a bomb out of chewing gum, belly button lint, and baler wire. 

Trump's team can't even tie their own shoes.

18 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

I hate to interrupt, but I'm not sure if the Supreme Court oral argument link goes here or Movies and TV.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

Live look...

karmi-wearing-dungarees.gif

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted

Navarro's petition to remain free will on appeal was rejected today.  It's unclear when he would be required to report, and he has or will appeal the decision.  Interesting that Bannon didn't have this happen, yet Navarro did, for the same crime.  

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

atomheartbevo 89628

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Navarro's petition to remain free will on appeal was rejected today.  It's unclear when he would be required to report, and he has or will appeal the decision.  Interesting that Bannon didn't have this happen, yet Navarro did, for the same crime.  

One spilled the beans, the other didn’t?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

One spilled the beans, the other didn’t?

There is nothing to indicate that, at least of yet, but I suppose that is a possibility.  I sort of chalked it up to potentially being arbitrary from the judge, but that might not be the entire story.  If not, it's another thing that is sort of maddening about our imperfect system.  

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

DixonHur 11294

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, G650 said:

I assure you mid 40's is sufficient

 

6 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Co-sign 

 

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Yep, 40th anniversary of the show is this year.

You guys were following the show as toddlers?  Pretty impressive.

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...