Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Trump Indicted (AGAIN)

Trump Indicted (AGAIN) (Page 2)
Thread Tools
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2023, 01:15 AM
 
Trump is indicted in Georgia.

Indictment (PDF - 98 pages)
Annotated Indictment (CNN)

41 counts (13 against Trump). 19 defendants (Trump + 18 others). They have until August 25 to turn themselves in. I'm still reading.

According to CNN, Trump now faces 91 felony counts in 4 cases, across 4 different jurisdictions. Two of them state jurisdictions (New York, Georgia). Even if so inclined, a future POTUS cannot pardon state crimes.
( Last edited by reader50; Aug 15, 2023 at 10:10 PM. )
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2023, 07:34 AM
 
Quite the read. Georgia’s own RICO statute is in play here, which requires at least five years be served before parole can even be considered. Interestingly, in Georgia the governor cannot issue a pardon. That’s exclusively the purview of the state parole board.
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2023, 07:40 AM
 
I’m kind of shocked the indictment lists the grand jury members by name. Those poor people are in for a rough time of it, I fear.
     
Gregg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2023, 09:02 AM
 
Trump has already perpetrated actual witness intimidation against someone in the Georgia case. He's already on thin ice with the judge in DC. The question is, which jurisdiction will move first to hold him accountable for his tantrums?
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2023, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
I’m kind of shocked the indictment lists the grand jury members by name. Those poor people are in for a rough time of it, I fear.
I saw that as well. Also, on Page 20, "Act 3" is listed as "Act 2" - a typo that shouldn't have slipped into a court filing. Hopefully their case management will be tighter.
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 17, 2023, 11:33 AM
 
And, as I feared...
Trump supporters post home addresses of members of grand jury.
“These jurors have signed their death warrant by falsely indicting President Trump,"
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2023, 07:32 PM
 
6’3”, 215lbs?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 25, 2023, 11:59 PM
 
Maybe that's what his drivers license says from 50 years ago, LOL
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2023, 04:25 AM
 
That’s what the receipt is for; that’s what he gets to take with him when he leaves jail.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 26, 2023, 06:56 AM
 
He’d weigh more if he had bigger hands.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 12, 2023, 05:28 PM
 
Finally hearing some chatter about section 3 of the 14th amendment to bar him from ever holding office again. Which seems like it would be entirely appropriate.Wonder if SCOTUS will do the right thing on that one. Strangely, I have a feeling they actually might.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Gregg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 13, 2023, 09:04 AM
 
On this side of the pond, that's been filtering through for at least a couple of months, with concrete actions taking place in the last couple of weeks or so. The cases might all take a back seat to SC. I wouldn't be shocked by any ruling. It could go either way…
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2023, 03:26 AM
 
After the GOP loaded the SC I assumed they would in an egregiously partisan fashion at every turn but they have surprised me once or twice. Its hard to see how they could justify not blocking Trump under the law, though they will definitely not want to block him because I don't see any other Republican winning an election.
I wouldn't see Trump winning one either if Biden didn't genuinely seem to be going mentally downhill fairly fast. I assumed it was just Fox News nonsense at first but he does look frail and does say some odd things. The Dems should really be finding a good replacement ASAP.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Gregg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2023, 08:14 AM
 
Biden has been making misstatements for decades. Perhaps he does it more often than he used to, but he also has a bigger megaphone. He seems to embellish things in his past, and apparently he genuinely believes his memory to be accurate. It would be better to acknowledge that he doesn't remember details about things that happened years ago.
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 14, 2023, 04:33 PM
 
Reminder we don’t have President Franken right now.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2023, 01:53 AM
 
@Waragainstsleep
The thing with (quasi-)octogenarians is that their health can decline precipitously after e. g. a sudden fall. Have a look at what happened to Mitch McConnell, he was super sharp and on point until he wasn't. Trump always has been unhinged for a while, and I struggle picking up on the differences between him bsing and not being on top of things mentally. It is true, though, that he seems to lack the energy and fire he has had.

Originally Posted by Gregg View Post
Biden has been making misstatements for decades. Perhaps he does it more often than he used to, but he also has a bigger megaphone. He seems to embellish things in his past, and apparently he genuinely believes his memory to be accurate. It would be better to acknowledge that he doesn't remember details about things that happened years ago.
What is the relevance here?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2023, 04:46 AM
 
I always feel like presidential elections are at significantly a popularity (or familiarity) contest. Trump only won because he was utterly dominating every second of the news cycle on both sides of the isle. IMO.
If Biden needs to be replaced, I think they need to do it sooner rather than later to give everyone a chance to get to know the replacement. Harris has been fairly anonymous since Biden was elected and I do worry that racism and misogyny would play a part as well if she were top of the ticket. So if not her, then who is next in line as the democrat candidate? AOC might have the next highest profile (from an international perspective) but I sense she doesn't feel ready to pull that trigger yet. If its something she even wants at all.

Obviously Harris takes charge if Biden quits sooner, but not who replaces Biden for the next election?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2023, 06:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Obviously Harris takes charge if Biden quits sooner, but not who replaces Biden for the next election?
There really isn’t anyone in a position to replace him right now. The headcount in both the senate and house is too close to allow anyone from that crowd to replace him. Harris is capable of doing the job, but you’re right, sadly, about the wave of bigotry and misogyny that will follow.

Biden has never in his entire career been a solid speechifier. I think it has a lot to do with his learning to control, and cover for, his stutter.

Let’s not forget that Trump is relatively close in age to Biden and is far more obviously challenged, both physically and mentally. I mean, if Biden were to wander off-topic and simply start ranting the way Trump does all the time, it would be screaming headlines all through the right-wing media. But, no, Trump’s insanity is a beloved thing.

The ginned-up pearl-clutching over Biden’s age is being used as an election tactic against him. Honestly, what people need to focus on on what a second Trump administration will be like, and what the long-term effects of it will be.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2023, 06:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Reminder we don’t have President Franken right now.
That’s still depressing.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2023, 06:39 AM
 
Let Biden run, and win. IF he wins.

If the country doesn’t descend into civil war, he can retire for health reasons (sooner rather than later), and Harris is president.

Then see how she does.

The United States needs an AOC for president just to restore some of the basic premises of 20th-century social development and get out of the right-wing downward spiral into which the conservatives (D) and reactionaries/fascists (GOP) have locked the country, but she’s too young, and the time isn’t ripe yet.
     
Gregg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2023, 08:22 AM
 
There has been some preliminary action in the cases against Trump. None have been favorable to him. Looks like the same pattern as in the post-election suits he brought. I don't know about his all-time record, but lately, Trump does not win in court.
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2023, 03:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
There really isn’t anyone in a position to replace him right now. The headcount in both the senate and house is too close to allow anyone from that crowd to replace him. Harris is capable of doing the job, but you’re right, sadly, about the wave of bigotry and misogyny that will follow.
While I agree, it (unfortunately) is true that VP Harris does not have the pull and she couldn't use the Vice Presidency to establish herself in the role.
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Biden has never in his entire career been a solid speechifier. I think it has a lot to do with his learning to control, and cover for, his stutter.
What suprised me with Biden was his legislative accomplishments, which should serve as a reminder that being a good orator is one thing, but that isn't the same as getting shit done.
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
The ginned-up pearl-clutching over Biden’s age is being used as an election tactic against him. Honestly, what people need to focus on on what a second Trump administration will be like, and what the long-term effects of it will be.
The one-sidedness is just the same as the obsession with the purported “Biden crime family”, yet ignoring the far more egregious problems of the Trump family.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2023, 03:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gregg View Post
There has been some preliminary action in the cases against Trump. None have been favorable to him. Looks like the same pattern as in the post-election suits he brought. I don't know about his all-time record, but lately, Trump does not win in court.
I think in his previous life, Trump was used to dealing with civil lawsuits where in the worst case you can make the problem go away by paying money. That doesn't work with criminal cases, especially when you keep on obstructing the case and/or go against at least the spirit of court orders.

Plus, Trump has furnished really clear evidence in many of these cases, e. g. the infamous Raffensperger call.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2023, 02:44 PM
 
Where does the law stand when you own the Supreme Court?
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2023, 03:40 PM
 
SCOTUS is loaded with conservative shills, but they don't seem to obey Trump specifically. They made numerous calls against Trump on his no-evidence 2020 election lawsuits, for example. I'm cautiously hopeful.
     
Gregg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2023, 08:43 AM
 
Here's the biggest mistake Trump ever made: he ran for President of the United States.

He would still be getting away with fraud and not facing prison otherwise.
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2023, 12:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
SCOTUS is loaded with conservative shills
What’s the difference between a conservative justice and a conservative shill justice? Are there liberal shill justices?

Where did Scalia fit?
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2023, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gregg View Post
Here's the biggest mistake Trump ever made: he ran for President of the United States.

He would still be getting away with fraud and not facing prison otherwise.
I dunno. The New York case might still have played out the way it has so far (DJT has been held liable for extensive business fraud, and the Tr*mps — Donald J, Eric, and DT Jr. — just got a number of business licenses revoked). We just wouldn't be reading about it. Definitely not over here in Europe.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2023, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What’s the difference between a conservative justice and a conservative shill justice? Are there liberal shill justices?

Where did Scalia fit?
Roberts is a non-shill conservative. He values long-standing court precedence, and won't overturn one just because it's politically convenient. He needs a really good law reason. ie - DC vs Heller (2008) where the 2nd Amendment was recognized as an individual right. This decision happened after legal scholars had almost all decided it really was an individual right.

Thomas is a shill conservative. He'll vote for conservative positions without regard to precedence, while accepting his personal-life bribes benefits from appreciative conservative donors.

I haven't followed the others closely enough. But my feeling is all those who voted down Roe are suspect.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2023, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
my feeling is all those who voted down Roe are suspect.
I hate the kind of argument I’m about to make, but I’m pressed for time.

Roberts’ opinion on that vote is he concurred in judgement with the opinion of these suspect judges.

Roughly speaking, this puts us somewhere between:

1) Roberts is suspect by way of concurring with suspect judgement.

2) The judgement isn’t as suspect as it’s being made out to be.


I think it’s closer to number two.

I’m not saying I’m right, but like, I might be right, right?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2023, 06:58 PM
 
My impression is that "concurred in judgement" means Roberts buys into it personally. But he wouldn't have overturned a half century of settled law without more than his personal opinion. From what's leaked out since, he fought hard to maintain at least part of Roe.

Roberts is definitely conservative, but I'd call him a "professional". He holds his opinions separate from what's good for the law or country. And the professional side wins more often than not. I suppose that would count as a 3) on your list. It doesn't fit either of the first two.

Conservatives make up a significant part of the country. They should be represented on SCOTUS. But they're currently badly over-represented, and I'd rather have several Roberts instead of his current "bench". They shill conservative politics too often - though I've also been surprised here and there. Barrett hasn't gone off the rails as much as I'd feared, and Kavanaugh helped strike down Alabama's racial gerrymander instead of hollowing out yet more of the Voting Rights Act.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2023, 09:53 AM
 
I am used to the law being independent of political persuasion, so it is odd for me to see a defence of the top legal body in a country being deliberately - and acceptedly - representative of only one part of the population, rather than all of the population.

In my view any "Supreme Court" should be applying the law as it stands, not interpreting the law to benefit their political beliefs. But I guess like all genies, this one won't go back in the bottle.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2023, 12:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by christ View Post
I am used to the law being independent of political persuasion, so it is odd for me to see a defence of the top legal body in a country being deliberately - and acceptedly - representative of only one part of the population, rather than all of the population.

In my view any "Supreme Court" should be applying the law as it stands, not interpreting the law to benefit their political beliefs. But I guess like all genies, this one won't go back in the bottle.
As I understand it there are different legal traditions.

There is the extremely formal version, where everything is intended exactly as written, and imprecision in the law results in acquittal and a note to the legislative that it needs to be fixed. Germany tends to mostly follow this line — which resulted in acquittal for a guy some decades ago when a new law was drawn up that, while not actually legalising marijuana possession, turned possession of "insignificant amounts" ("geringfügige Menge") from a crime into a misdemeanor.
Which immediately led to a court acquitting a dealer for possession of several kilograms, since the "insignificance" threshold hadn't actually been defined. Which it then was, soon after.

Then there is the law that is mostly executed by way of "the spirit of the law" and precedence, which, I gather, is the basis for much of American law. This is always up for interpretation as to what the law means (see the goddamn Second Amendment), as well as drawing from how it was interpreted by courts in the past.

From what I gather, most judicial systems are a combination of these, but lean rather heavily in one direction or the other.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2023, 08:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
My impression is that "concurred in judgement" means Roberts buys into it personally. But he wouldn't have overturned a half century of settled law without more than his personal opinion. From what's leaked out since, he fought hard to maintain at least part of Roe.

Roberts is definitely conservative, but I'd call him a "professional". He holds his opinions separate from what's good for the law or country. And the professional side wins more often than not. I suppose that would count as a 3) on your list. It doesn't fit either of the first two.
In my mind the issue isn’t just that SCOTUS is much more conservative than the population, the conservative side is a philosophical monoculture thanks to the Federalist Society. Part of the selection process was not just whether potential judges subscribed to a very particular judicial philosophy, but also how they would rule on specific issues. Abortion is one of them. Couples to lifetime tenure and you have a bad recipe that makes it hard to correct such things.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2023, 09:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by christ View Post
In my view any "Supreme Court" should be applying the law as it stands, not interpreting the law to benefit their political beliefs. But I guess like all genies, this one won't go back in the bottle.
SCOTUS doesn’t “apply the law.” SCOTUS judges if the law passes muster in relation to the constitution. It’s the part where they determine WTF the constitution means that we have problems with. Of course, interpreting the constitution is often highly dependent on one’s political/social bent, which is why we have nine justices instead of just one or two, the idea being that such an arrangement is more apt to even things out.

Unfortunately, we currently have a highly gerrymandered court, where a cadre of justices have made up their minds before they even hear an argument.
     
Gregg
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Milwaukee
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2023, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Unfortunately, we currently have a highly gerrymandered court, where a cadre of justices have made up their minds before they even hear an argument.
Well, wouldn't you say that's what we had for many, many years after FDR? So, it's not just "currently". It's more like that's the way it's always been in my lifetime.
Ya gotta applaud those bunnies for sacrificing their hearing just so some guy in Yonkers can have better TV reception.
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 30, 2023, 10:48 AM
 
No. Not at all. One could easily argue that the court before FDR was extremely partisan in favor of corporations, the wealthy, and whites in general. Court decisions post-FDR can largely be seen as expanding rights and liberties to all. This very recent court has made a raft of decisions aimed at walking back those expansions, and are very much in-keeping with the aims of the various conservative thinktanks the justices are aligned with, especially the Federalist Society.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2023, 05:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gregg View Post
Well, wouldn't you say that's what we had for many, many years after FDR? So, it's not just "currently". It's more like that's the way it's always been in my lifetime.
What happened during FDR is that SCOTUS was out of sync with a generational political shift, which led to the New Deal legislation. As far as I understand, there were long periods where there was much more fluidity. E. g. a lot of Republicans were upset that “their” judges in their mind were much more “liberal” than they wanted (judged by mostly outcomes). Put another way, you had much more ideological diversity on the court. One reaction was that justices nominated by conservative (Republican) presidents had to be vetted by the Federalist Society.

I think one way to interpret the current situation is similar to the time of the New Deal or the time around Reagan's first election as President: a shift in the zeitgeist of the population. You can see that the Republican Party is out of sync with the electorate: even in conservative states races or votes (on state constitutional amendments or ballet measures) that were related to e. g. abortion did not go the GOP's way, consistently so.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2023, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
SCOTUS doesn’t “apply the law.”
Originally Posted by https://www.supremecourt.gov/

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" - These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution
(My emphasis added)

SCOTUS applies the law. SCOTUS also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

It is not either or, it does both.

In my view politically partisan courts (supreme or otherwise) do not - and don't attempt to - provide equal justice under law.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2023, 05:03 PM
 
If the law tells equal justice to fuck off…

Liberal Supreme Court Justices tell the law to fuck off.

Conservative Supreme Court Justices tell equal justice to fuck off.
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2023, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the law tells equal justice to fuck off…

Liberal Supreme Court Justices tell the law to fuck off.

Conservative Supreme Court Justices tell equal justice to fuck off.
Elegantly put.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2023, 12:23 PM
 
Thank you.
     
Thorzdad  (op)
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2023, 04:43 PM
 
Both Sidney Powell and Ken Chesebro flipped on Trump in the Georgia case this week. Gonna be a bad weekend at Mar a Lago.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2023, 11:44 AM
 
predictably, trump now claiming powell was never his lawyer. despite the tweet welcoming her to the legal team.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:59 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,