Jump to content

The mega-meta Ivanka thread

Gil Bang

By Gil Bang
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bullneck

Bullneck 18987

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 She and Jared will not spend time in prison. You have to know this. It won't happen. She can be charged with so much crime, but it will be a blip on the radar.

I have a feeling there are some people - particularly in NY - who aren't going to stop until they see her in prison.  I understand your cynicism about the differences in justice between rich and poor but I think when all the dirt comes out it will be inevitable.

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

Sawbonz 27437

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

I have a feeling there are some people - particularly in NY - who aren't going to stop until they see her in prison.  I understand your cynicism about the differences in justice between rich and poor but I think when all the dirt comes out it will be inevitable.

None of these fucks see the inside of a jail IMO. I can see them paying hefty fines and penalties as part of pleas and tax settlements and then stiffing their private debt holders, but no plea agreement will include even a day in jail, and I can’t see any prosecutors bringing anything to a jury.  I don’t know how you get a unanimous verdict 

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

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

His dad probably thought that too. 

True, and he served 14 months out of the original two year sentence, but that was thanks to Christie arranging the plea agreement. You have to wonder just how tangled that relationship is. Christie prosecutes Charles but they both support Trump. Jared and Ivanka were not heading for a future together until Murdoch and his (now ex) wife, Wendi Deng got them together. It may be that the bonds are a lot more interconnected now and it isn't going to happen w/o an unholy falling out. Can't see the establishment going for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
achooloco

achooloco 1065

Posted
Posted
On 11/26/2020 at 11:07 AM, Sawbonz said:

None of these fucks see the inside of a jail IMO. I can see them paying hefty fines and penalties as part of pleas and tax settlements and then stiffing their private debt holders, but no plea agreement will include even a day in jail, and I can’t see any prosecutors bringing anything to a jury.  I don’t know how you get a unanimous verdict 

Two years ago I would have said the same about aunt Becky and Epstein if you described him as an anonymous “rich connected white playboy”. Brave new world bruh, but at least one of the diaper don clan will be convicted.

To be fair my nascent miss Cleo vibes say it’ll either be just barely with a ton of Hard Copy OJ white van twists and turns that make Shyamalan blush, or an avalanche that ends up with multiple Trump turds getting deservedly screwed. So You may very well (and probably) end up correct but I don’t think it’d take much to see a plethora of karmic jury trials resulting in these pathetic shit stains paying very shameful and painful restitution to the public for a very long time. 

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

Biff Tannen 45499

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, achooloco said:

Two years ago I would have said the same about aunt Becky and Epstein if you described him as an anonymous “rich connected white playboy”. Brave new world bruh, but at least one of the diaper don clan will be convicted.

To be fair my nascent miss Cleo vibes say it’ll either be just barely with a ton of Hard Copy OJ white van twists and turns that make Shyamalan blush, or an avalanche that ends up with multiple Trump turds getting deservedly screwed. So You may very well (and probably) end up correct but I don’t think it’d take much to see a plethora of karmic jury trials resulting in these pathetic shit stains paying very shameful and painful restitution to the public for a very long time. 

Moar of this please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27437

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, achooloco said:

Two years ago I would have said the same about aunt Becky and Epstein if you described him as an anonymous “rich connected white playboy”. Brave new world bruh, but at least one of the diaper don clan will be convicted.

To be fair my nascent miss Cleo vibes say it’ll either be just barely with a ton of Hard Copy OJ white van twists and turns that make Shyamalan blush, or an avalanche that ends up with multiple Trump turds getting deservedly screwed. So You may very well (and probably) end up correct but I don’t think it’d take much to see a plethora of karmic jury trials resulting in these pathetic shit stains paying very shameful and painful restitution to the public for a very long time. 

Oh I would love to see his diaper pulled down in open court. I just don’t think it is politically expedient for any of the would be prosecutors to risk a loss just to make that happen. It’s not how those guys think. SDNY might be a different story but I just don’t see any sitting president overseeing the prosecution of a previous president. 

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

Biff Tannen 45499

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Oh I would love to see his diaper pulled down in open court. I just don’t think it is politically expedient for any of the would be prosecutors to risk a loss just to make that happen. It’s not how those guys think. SDNY might be a different story but I just don’t see any sitting president overseeing the prosecution of a previous president. 

And this is why we are where we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
achooloco

achooloco 1065

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Oh I would love to see his diaper pulled down in open court. I just don’t think it is politically expedient for any of the would be prosecutors to risk a loss just to make that happen. It’s not how those guys think. SDNY might be a different story but I just don’t see any sitting president overseeing the prosecution of a previous president. 

I respect that theoretically but why anecdotally in this instance? Not being pedantic but just thinking that whatever empirical reasons can be espoused for not prosecuting a former president, and many are valid and should outlast trump, I think can be countered anecdotally for trump. The exception to prove the rule as it were. 

If from here on out we recognize arguable parameters of contention between good faith presidential actors as reasonable, I think we have “won” as a country. It’s like back in hs when I went on college visits and hated the schools; yeah I might have hated them but it helped to determine what was right for me.

So if from 2022 to end of USA times we say or rule “damn he/she seems to have a point but they sure as fuck acting trumpy so they’re probably full of shit so they’re automatically wrong”, then I think 250k+ Dead from incompetent government, torture against children who are guilty for only looking brown like me, and strenuous ass testing of our republican ideals were (are? Sorry I’m drunk) well worth it. 

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

Sawbonz 27437

Posted
Posted

I just don’t see a sitting president ever going after his predecessor in criminal court. A terrible precedent to set when you may have to make decisions that can be second guessed by your successor who may have political or personal reasons to come after you. The ex presidents are in maybe the most exclusive club there is, and I don’t see anyone setting that precedent. They can rationalize that impeachment is the correct path and if it is not used, or is used and fails, the blame lies with the legislative, and it is not the job of the current executive to go after the prior once out of office. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13414

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I just don’t see a sitting president ever going after his predecessor in criminal court. A terrible precedent to set when you may have to make decisions that can be second guessed by your successor who may have political or personal reasons to come after you. The ex presidents are in maybe the most exclusive club there is, and I don’t see anyone setting that precedent. They can rationalize that impeachment is the correct path and if it is not used, or is used and fails, the blame lies with the legislative, and it is not the job of the current executive to go after the prior once out of office. 

If an ex-president breaks the law, then the DOJ or state authorities should go after them. But I agree that a president should not sic the DOJ on someone especially political adversaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27437

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If an ex-president breaks the law, then the DOJ or state authorities should go after them. But I agree that a president should not sic the DOJ on someone especially political adversaries. 

I think he’s fair game for shit he does after leaving office (and anything pre Jan 20 2017). I just don’t see DOJ looking at anything during his incumbency. We’ll see

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 7916

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

I think he’s fair game for shit he does after leaving office (and anything pre Jan 20 2017). I just don’t see DOJ looking at anything during his incumbency. We’ll see

What will happen with the ongoing complaints, tied up in the courts, that allege he acted unconstitutionally during his presidency?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kevwun

kevwun 15653

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I just don’t see a sitting president ever going after his predecessor in criminal court. A terrible precedent to set when you may have to make decisions that can be second guessed by your successor who may have political or personal reasons to come after you. The ex presidents are in maybe the most exclusive club there is, and I don’t see anyone setting that precedent. They can rationalize that impeachment is the correct path and if it is not used, or is used and fails, the blame lies with the legislative, and it is not the job of the current executive to go after the prior once out of office. 

Fear of prosecution once he was no longer Proconsul in Gaul and lost the immunity the office provided was the main reason Julius Caesar marched on Rome with his army and started the civil war that eventually ended the Roman Republic.  If ever someone deserved jail it's Trump, but I think it's best Biden lets the NY AG do the deed.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31283

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

What will happen with the ongoing complaints, tied up in the courts, that allege he acted unconstitutionally during his presidency?

By and large, those are not crimes. To make a crime, or even a civil case for damages, out of a constitutional provision, there has to be a congressionally passed "enabling act."

The most obvious example is 42 USC 1983 makes it possible for private citizens to sue state actors for violating the 14th Amendment.

Here are some criminal statutes that purport to do similar things. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/federal-civil-rights-statutes But some of those are going to be hard as hell to enforce.

But things like emoluments, the whole impeachment deal, firing whistleblowers, fucking with the census, even probably detaining and separating immigrant families, all that, not crimes.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38127

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I read elsewhere that this is a civil case brought by the DC AG.  

Meanwhile, is there such a thing as a "state or local crime" in DC?  Isn't everything there federal?  Is there even a DC court

No

Quote

This is a question we hear a lot as Maryland defense attorneys: "since Washington, D.C. is a federal territory, does that mean all crimes committed in D.C. are federal crimes?" The short answer is no. Here's the long answer: while all federal law enforcement agencies have jurisdiction within the District of Columbia, they will often not involve themselves in crimes that don't involve their specific enforcement mandate.

Instead, most crimes that would otherwise be state crimes are charged under the D.C. Code, which was drafted by Congress but is able to be amended by the D.C. Council. However, Congress retains the authority to amend the D.C. Code at any time. Additionally, all civil and criminal cases are tried in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which is a branch of the local D.C. government but is operated by the federal government.

Here's where it gets a little complicated:

Misdemeanors and traffic violations are prosecuted by the Attorney General of the District of Columbia, a city official. However, federal offenses and felony offenses are prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. The U.S. Attorney is appointed by the President and reports to the Department of Justice, a federal institution. In the rest of the country, 93% of prosecutors are elected, while the rest are appointed by local officials.

So, if you're charged with a felony, does it count as a federal crime? No, but it will be prosecuted by a federal attorney who works for a federal institution, with all the resources and power that comes with federal office. While it may not be a federal crime, you'll still need a defense attorney with serious resources, experience, and litigation skill.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted

Bunker Island

 

Quote

 

The private, guarded and gated Indian Creek Island is also one of the most secure places in Florida, as it boasts a 13-man police force for just 29 residences.

It is believed the couple purchased Lot 4, which was owned by Julio Iglesias, to build a bayfront estate. The sale closes on Dec. 17, we’re told.

It measures 1.84 acres with 200 feet of private waterfront. The lot was for sale at $31.8 million. Taxes are $472,764 a year.

 

About an hour away from Trump's place and also not too far from Sunny Isles, also known as Little Moscow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23434

Posted
Posted
On 11/25/2020 at 5:23 PM, washparkhorn said:

Toe cleavage is nice, but what is wrong with her right leg?

spacer.png

 This vapid pair of tits is thinking about a Florida Senate run? I guess she is most likely to challenge Rubio, but an Ivanka -Rick Scott debate would be something else. 

Quote

“Ivanka definitely has political ambitions, no question about it,” a source told CNN. “She wants to run for something, but that still needs to be figured out.”

Florida might offer one potential avenue in a Senate race in 2022 when current Republican incumbent Marco Rubio’s seat is up for re-election. Rubio was a harsh critic of Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican nomination race but later morphed into a loyal supporter of Trump once he had the won election.

“I think she’d be the immediate frontrunner if she ran for US Senate against Rubio, given her father’s popularity in the Sunshine State,” Adam C Smith, former Tampa Bay Times political editor and now consultant with Mercury Public Affairs, told CNN.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34444

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Blotto said:

 This vapid pair of tits is thinking about a Florida Senate run? I guess she is most likely to challenge Rubio, but an Ivanka -Rick Scott debate would be something else. 

 

Giant meteor? Rubio tears would be delicious following his complete and utter self-abasement before Trump but the entire Trump clan should have shock collars fitted to go off if they cross the beltway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blotto

Blotto 23434

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Giant meteor? Rubio tears would be delicious following his complete and utter self-abasement before Trump but the entire Trump clan should have shock collars fitted to go off if they cross the beltway.

I guess the best case scenario is that she takes out Rubio in the primary, and somehow the Trump name is so tarnished that she loses to a dem, but i don't think that is possible in Florida. At least watching Marco bend over and take it from team Trump will provide some enjoyment. 

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...