Jump to content

The Walls be Closing


Kemp

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

if current history repeats itself again. it will just be another dud/acquittal.

 

like all the other times.  same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

Anything can happen.

5 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

 

 

I gave you a shot.

 

You went Hillary, Hunter bla bla.

 

I always say that cult members do exactly that when confronted.

 

You lived up to expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Anything can happen.

 

I gave you a shot.

 

You went Hillary, Hunter bla bla.

 

I always say that cult members do exactly that when confronted.

 

You lived up to expectations.

 

whats the problem?  you spent four years claiming russia rigged the 16 election in trumps favor, set up fake investigations that tore the country apart, then rioted which killed dozens and caused billions in damage and you wonder why 1-6 happens?  1-6 didn't just happen in a vacuum.  Your party sewed the seed that the elections were not secure and you saw the result of that.  

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

22 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

No, I’m right.  I usually am.  You can’t tiptoe around a guy who screams cult every time he loses control of his emotions, and becomes enraged when a question on guilt or innocence is answered rationally.  He doesn’t like my answer, but that’s his problem, not mine. 
 

 

 
 

 

You seem like the one that can't handle the truth. You really think Trump didn't try to violently interfere with the transfer of power? 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

You seem like the one that can't handle the truth. You really think Trump didn't try to violently interfere with the transfer of power? 

The truth is there is more than adequate evidence that trusting those in political positions of power without a healthy degree of cynicism is a mistake I prefer not to make.  
 

If Trump violently interfered with the transfer of power to the extent that death penalty/life in prison is on the table, I’m sure the evidence will be clear and convincing to fair-minded, non-biased people.  I’m happy to revisit it at that time. 
 

In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI.   
 

 

 
 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

Anything can happen.

 

I gave you a shot.

 

You went Hillary, Hunter bla bla.

 

I always say that cult members do exactly that when confronted.

 

You lived up to expectations.

That's the MAGA playbook.  Memes and MTG rap videos also are part of the arsenal. 

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

Anything can happen.

 

I gave you a shot.

 

You went Hillary, Hunter bla bla.

 

I always say that cult members do exactly that when confronted.

 

You lived up to expectations.

And the well known politico, Andrew Baroncelli.  Now I'm craving a lemoncello and it's way too early.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The truth is there is more than adequate evidence that trusting those in political positions of power without a healthy degree of cynicism is a mistake I prefer not to make.  
 

If Trump violently interfered with the transfer of power to the extent that death penalty/life in prison is on the table, I’m sure the evidence will be clear and convincing to fair-minded, non-biased people.  I’m happy to revisit it at that time. 
 

In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI.   
 

 

 
 

 

Hoax.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI.   
 

nope.  not the D's.  R''s have been doing those things since before the 2020 election.  D's actually win in the framework as designed.  R's, esp trump R's, lose.

55 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

You seem like the one that can't handle the truth. You really think Trump didn't try to violently interfere with the transfer of power? 

older barbie and the stooge on the right are fighting back tears.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

nope.  not the D's.  R''s have been doing those things since before the 2020 election.  D's actually win in the framework as designed.  R's, esp trump R's, lose.

older barbie and the stooge on the right are fighting back tears.

History shows otherwise, but I commend your dedication to the party line.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

This actually seems fairly aggressive given the case. I’m curious to see if it doesn’t get pushed back as we get closer. 

With anybody else it would plead, but Trump is such a d-bag he’ll run it through trial and risk public discussion of what by all accounts are sensitive matters.  

 

I disagree on the aggressiveness; the case basically is documents, establishing that the documents are classified/secret/etc., establishing a chain of custody/control with respect to those documents, and establishing intent to withhold said documents from federal agents.  It’s probably a relatively small universe of witnesses — in a normal context, I wonder if much of the “chain” testimony could be stipulated to — so no reason to let this thing fester.  Get it done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

With anybody else it would plead, but Trump is such a d-bag he’ll run it through trial and risk public discussion of what by all accounts are sensitive matters.  

 

I disagree on the aggressiveness; the case basically is documents, establishing that the documents are classified/secret/etc., establishing a chain of custody/control with respect to those documents, and establishing intent to withhold said documents from federal agents.  It’s probably a relatively small universe of witnesses — in a normal context, I wonder if much of the “chain” testimony could be stipulated to — so no reason to let this thing fester.  Get it done. 

 

I think that's correct from the government's perspective. They seem pretty well organized and shouldn't have a problem presenting their case by May (especially since it is such a slam dunk that any other defendant would have already plead out).

 

However, the discovery process is going to be fairly onerous for Trump's team. Sure, they can get a bunch of junior lawyers on doc review, but to my knowledge, cases involving classified documents rarely go to trial within a year of the indictment. Additionally, there's going to be a lot of motion practice on how to handled the classified materials.

 

As a defendant, Trump would normally be able to view the materials to be used against him but the government would be worried that he would be careless with them and would prefer only Trump's lawyers view it. Additionally, how are they going to handle classified info in open court? Are they going to use the silent witness rule or some other method?

 

It's definitely possible the May date holds, I just wouldn't be surprised if it ends up getting pushed back some.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The truth is there is more than adequate evidence that trusting those in political positions of power without a healthy degree of cynicism is a mistake I prefer not to make.  
 

If Trump violently interfered with the transfer of power to the extent that death penalty/life in prison is on the table, I’m sure the evidence will be clear and convincing to fair-minded, non-biased people.  I’m happy to revisit it at that time. 
 

In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI.   
 

 

 
 

 

 

Well, my friend, you seem to be channeling opposite world.

Could have sworn it was Trump who tried to destroy faith and confidence in our system when he believed Putin over our agencies.

Maybe it was Hunter Biden impersonating Trump?

Trump's stated and whole agenda is to destroy faith in American government. Hell, he even recently stated exactly that.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think that's correct from the government's perspective. They seem pretty well organized and shouldn't have a problem presenting their case by May (especially since it is such a slam dunk that any other defendant would have already plead out).

 

However, the discovery process is going to be fairly onerous for Trump's team. Sure, they can get a bunch of junior lawyers on doc review, but to my knowledge, cases involving classified documents rarely go to trial within a year of the indictment. Additionally, there's going to be a lot of motion practice on how to handled the classified materials.

 

As a defendant, Trump would normally be able to view the materials to be used against him but the government would be worried that he would be careless with them and would prefer only Trump's lawyers view it. Additionally, how are they going to handle classified info in open court? Are they going to use the silent witness rule or some other method?

 

It's definitely possible the May date holds, I just wouldn't be surprised if it ends up getting pushed back some.

 

The easiest way to do it would be to get Trump to stip to the nature of the documents.  The import rests in what the docs are, not necessarily in what they say.  So maybe silent witness rule.  Before that happens the Trump lawyers probably have to get eyes on the docs in a secure setting (maybe Trump does, too, to be fair).  If it goes that route, then I don’t see why they can’t run this thing by May. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

The easiest way to do it would be to get Trump to stip to the nature of the documents.  The import rests in what the docs are, not necessarily in what they say.  So maybe silent witness rule.  Before that happens the Trump lawyers probably have to get eyes on the docs in a secure setting (maybe Trump does, too, to be fair).  If it goes that route, then I don’t see why they can’t run this thing by May. 

 

Sure, but it won't go that way.

 

While one might think he'd want the trial over sooner if he believed he was innocent (an acquittal before the election probably strengthens him), Trump is going to delay as much as possible to get the date moved after the election. Not sure if he'll be successful though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

The truth is there is more than adequate evidence that trusting those in political positions of power without a healthy degree of cynicism is a mistake I prefer not to make.  
 

If Trump violently interfered with the transfer of power to the extent that death penalty/life in prison is on the table, I’m sure the evidence will be clear and convincing to fair-minded, non-biased people.  I’m happy to revisit it at that time. 
 

In the event that happens, we’re still left with a multi-year campaign by the democrats to destroy faith and confidence in our system, problems with interference in our elections by intelligence agencies, and massive concerns about the trustworthiness of the DOJ/FBI.   
 

 

 
 

 

You have seen the evidence, did he stir up a riot in your opinion or not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll see when the target letter is made public or Trump is actually indicted, but I remain skeptical that he'll be charged for incitement of violence.

 

Fake electors, wire fraud, defrauding the US, etc seem much more likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Sure, but it won't go that way.

 

While one might think he'd want the trial over sooner if he believed he was innocent (an acquittal before the election probably strengthens him), Trump is going to delay as much as possible to get the date moved after the election. Not sure if he'll be successful though.

Ultimately it’s not his choice.  This thing is going if the judge wants it to go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

You have seen the evidence, did he stir up a riot in your opinion or not? 

 

Nowhere did he tell them to be violent.  In fact he said the opposite.  So no.

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

 

Well, my friend, you seem to be channeling opposite world.

Could have sworn it was Trump who tried to destroy faith and confidence in our system when he believed Putin over our agencies.

Maybe it was Hunter Biden impersonating Trump?

Trump's stated and whole agenda is to destroy faith in American government. Hell, he even recently stated exactly that.

No, I'm channeling reality.  Things don't happen in a vacuum, and if you don't want to talk about things the make you uncomfortable, tarry forth little soldier. 

 

If Trump is found guilty as previously detailed, sure, he tried to destroy faith and confidence in our system post 2021, though the Putin thing is an old wives tale best suited for book clubs and conspiracy talk at the local coffee shop.  That doesn't change anything about the dems actions, but see paragraph 1.  

 

Hunter Biden has never been accused of impersonating anything but a brother's-widow-bangin-deadbeat-dad-bribe-takin-influence-peddlin-joe-partnerin meth head who's been described as the smartest man alive (and that must be considered given how all you folks love the man)  but if you've got some news on that front, share!

 

As for faith in government, that's  a  problem generally, and you had no issues with just 1,292 days ago.  Let's take a look at how the US govt fares generally:

 

Spoiler alert...YIKES for Joe. 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/

 

Clean up your own house, friend. 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Nowhere did he tell them to be violent.  In fact he said the opposite.  So no.

He organized the rally right on that day and sent them to the capital. The only reason to do that is to "Stop the steal." 

 

 

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

In my opinion, he held an ill-advised rally.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

 

 

 

 

On the very day Biden was to be certified, and his mob, that he stirred up violently delayed that and people got killed. 

 

You think its ok what he did, let him get away with it. 

9 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 though the Putin thing is an old wives tale best suited for book clubs and conspiracy talk at the local coffee shop.   

 

 

 

No you are wrong. Putin interfered in our election and Trump welcomed it. His team met with Russian officials, encouraged their efforts and even took Paul Manafor, a Putin plant, into the campaign. 

 

Even called him a genius for murderously attacking a peaceful nation that Putin simply wants to crush

 

To say there was nothing in the Putin attack on our election is to show yourself to be seriously and wilfully ignorant 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

On the very day Biden was to be certified, and his mob, that he stirred up violently delayed that and people got killed. 

 

You think its ok what he did, let him get away with it. 

 

If you're going that route, then Joke Biden should be charged for the thirteen Marines he killed.  He made a horrible decision and people got killed.  Oh.  And let's not forget how he looked at his watch when they were unloading the coffins.  What a dick.  What a mess. 

 

 

Edited by Irv
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

On the very day Biden was to be certified, and his mob, that he stirred up violently delayed that and people got killed. 

 

You think its ok what he did, let him get away with it. 

I think it was "ok" to hold a rally because that's one of the fundamental freedoms our country offers.  You likely would take away that freedom to silence the opposition--just as I suggested to Frankish yesterday when he raised hypotheticals about Biden declaring martial law.   

 

I think it was a bad idea to have the rally on 1/6.  Biden was being embalmed* into office, nothing was going to change that, and there was only downside.   We saw the downside, it was bad for the country, and here we are. 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No you are wrong. Putin interfered in our election and Trump welcomed it. His team met with Russian officials, encouraged their efforts and even took Paul Manafor, a Putin plant, into the campaign. 

 

Even called him a genius for murderously attacking a peaceful nation that Putin simply wants to crush

 

To say there was nothing in the Putin attack on our election is to show yourself to be seriously and wilfully ignorant 

I know the fairy tale, Tibsy.  We've rehashed it multiple times over the past couple days, and it's still bunk.  

 

It's not unlike Trump and MSB, post Kashoggi, and how things were going to change and Glass Joe was gonna open a can of WHOOP A$$ when he took over.  Next thing you know, the fisting commences, money flows to our temporary 4 year enemy--or tenemy as I have  decided to call it---just like it did when Barrack and Joe were running the show.    

 

It's also very poor internet protocol to declare someone willfully ignorant and misspell willfully.  Be better, be best. 

 

*edit--try as I might, when I typed 'inaugurated' and the B name together, my system auto-corrects to embalmed.  Weird. 

Edited by leh-nerd skin-erd
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Irv said:

 

If you're going that route, then Joke Biden should be charged for the thirteen Marines he killed.  He made a horrible decision and people got killed.  Oh.  And let's not forget how he looked at his watch when they were unloading the coffins.  What a dick.  What a mess. 

 

 

Stupid 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Stupid 

 

You had a better response the last time I dropped the mic on you.  I never thought I would get you to forfeit so easily.  Now go back under your rock son.

 

What a mess.  

 

 

 

Edited by Irv
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I think it was "ok" to hold a rally because that's one of the fundamental freedoms our country offers.  You likely would take away that freedom to silence the opposition--just as I suggested to Frankish yesterday when he raised hypotheticals about Biden declaring martial law.   

 

I think it was a bad idea to have the rally on 1/6.  Biden was being embalmed* into office, nothing was going to change that, and there was only downside.   We saw the downside, it was bad for the country, and here we are. 

 

 

I know the fairy tale, Tibsy.  We've rehashed it multiple times over the past couple days, and it's still bunk.  

 

It's not unlike Trump and MSB, post Kashoggi, and how things were going to change and Glass Joe was gonna open a can of WHOOP A$$ when he took over.  Next thing you know, the fisting commences, money flows to our temporary 4 year enemy--or tenemy as I have  decided to call it---just like it did when Barrack and Joe were running the show.    

 

It's also very poor internet protocol to declare someone willfully ignorant and misspell willfully.  Be better, be best. 

 

*edit--try as I might, when I typed 'inaugurated' and the B name together, my system auto-corrects to embalmed.  Weird. 

Just weird that you spent so much time arguing for a criminal. You must love that criminal. You are wilfully ignorant, no matter how its spelled. 

 

It was not just a bad idea to stir up a mob on 1/6, it was criminal in how it went, people died, and Trump should be held accountable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Just weird that you spent so much time arguing for a criminal. You must love that criminal. You are wilfully ignorant, no matter how its spelled. 

 

It was not just a bad idea to stir up a mob on 1/6, it was criminal in how it went, people died, and Trump should be held accountable 

 

Who told you to come out from under the rock?  I'll tell you if you can post.  Now git boy!

  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Just weird that you spent so much time arguing for a criminal. You must love that criminal. You are wilfully ignorant, no matter how its spelled. 

 

It was not just a bad idea to stir up a mob on 1/6, it was criminal in how it went, people died, and Trump should be held accountable 

People are being held accountable, Tibsy, just check the news.  You keep mentioning this 'stirred up' thing, are you advocating creating an addendum to the criminal code for Stirred Up Sh8t?  Stirred up in the third degree?  Misdemeanor Stirrage?  Whatever is on your mind, stop speaking in riddles.  

 

I've respectfully responded to your question and accept you don't like my answer.  You want to rush head long into lynch-mob mode, that's just not my game.  

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...