"We in the West are starting to talk more freely than we have in the years prior. There's no one single event that you can point to other than the $44 billion purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk."
Breaking News
1,109,675 Views |
12355 Replies |
Last: 8 hrs ago by movielover
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Which neo-nazi made this statement? If Elno thinks the neo-nazis are going to save Twitter, it's in more trouble than most people realize.bear2034 said:
"We in the West are starting to talk more freely than we have in the years prior. There's no one single event that you can point to other than the $44 billion purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk."
What kind of financial trouble can a guy who is worth $245,000,000,000 get into?
Cal88 said:
What kind of financial trouble can a guy who is worth $245,000,000,000 get into?
He seems eager to find out.
Unit2Sucks said:Which neo-nazi made this statement? If Elno thinks the neo-nazis are going to save Twitter, it's in more trouble than most people realize.bear2034 said:
"We in the West are starting to talk more freely than we have in the years prior. There's no one single event that you can point to other than the $44 billion purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk."
Pro-Hamas neo-Nazis have always been able to post freely on Twitter.
Twitter (the unprofitable $5B revenue business Elno overpaid for) didn't rely on monetizing hate speech and wasn't focused on providing them with a platform. Conservative platforms like gab, parler, truth social, etc. were created to provide such a platform. Their hate speech is protected under the first amendment and so it makes sense for right wing focused businesses to support their constituents and to attempt to build small businesses around that niche.bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:Which neo-nazi made this statement? If Elno thinks the neo-nazis are going to save Twitter, it's in more trouble than most people realize.bear2034 said:
"We in the West are starting to talk more freely than we have in the years prior. There's no one single event that you can point to other than the $44 billion purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk."
Pro-Hamas neo-Nazis have always been able to post freely on Twitter.
Elno's version of twitter is performing extremely poorly financially - at far lower revenue scale than the old public company. He's been quite open in acknowledging it and in stating that he will not continue to run the business if it suffers massive operating losses.
People have always been able to "talk freely" in this country, but it's never been possible to build a large social media platform which relies on brand advertising and caters to hate speech, of the type that I'm guessing the person quoted above engages in. It turns out it's still not possible which is why new Twitter is such a dumpster fire of a business and only getting worse. Twitter's ad revenue is likely now somewhere below $2B and falling, which is at least 60% lower than peak, and that's because he's decided to turn Twitter into a platform for hate speech which many advertisers want no part of.
So which neo-nazi made the quote? I think it's pretty obvious what kind of person would be celebrating the ability to "talk freely". Is it that racist professor in Texas who spent years publishing abhorrent content under a pseudo name or one of the other popular right wing deplorables? Is it an actual neo-nazi like Richard Spencer or someone else? What is the point in sharing an unsourced quote as if it were meaningful? I could just as easily make up a quote which says "Because of Twitter's support for online hate speech, our society has become meaner, dumber and less open. The world is worse off under Musk's ownership of Twitter and there is no hope for improvement unless he abandons his support for radical extremist conservatives."
Jack Smith asks for expedited SCOTUS decision on Trump's immunity and double jeopardy claims.
Trump haters...ugh, we know where you stand.
This is an interesting legal question, IMO. I'm less familiar with the Immunity claim but on its face that feels implausible....thought it was fairly established that US v. Nixon told us nobody is above the law. But the double jeopardy argument is potentially different. I believe (could be wrong) there is court language to the effect that Impeachment is the political proxy method for prosecuting a sitting president (they cannot be tried criminally while in office), that the Constitution envisions political penalties for crimes committed while in office. In which case Jeopardy pretty much has to attach.
Trump haters...ugh, we know where you stand.
This is an interesting legal question, IMO. I'm less familiar with the Immunity claim but on its face that feels implausible....thought it was fairly established that US v. Nixon told us nobody is above the law. But the double jeopardy argument is potentially different. I believe (could be wrong) there is court language to the effect that Impeachment is the political proxy method for prosecuting a sitting president (they cannot be tried criminally while in office), that the Constitution envisions political penalties for crimes committed while in office. In which case Jeopardy pretty much has to attach.
The goofy thing about this is that impeachment isn't limited to actions you took in office - the GOP wants to impeach Biden for things (mostly done by his son) that happened with Biden was a private citizen.tequila4kapp said:
Jack Smith asks for expedited SCOTUS decision on Trump's immunity and double jeopardy claims.
Trump haters...ugh, we know where you stand.
This is an interesting legal question, IMO. I'm less familiar with the Immunity claim but on its face that feels implausible....thought it was fairly established that US v. Nixon told us nobody is above the law. But the double jeopardy argument is potentially different. I believe (could be wrong) there is court language to the effect that Impeachment is the political proxy method for prosecuting a sitting president (they cannot be tried criminally while in office), that the Constitution envisions political penalties for crimes committed while in office. In which case Jeopardy pretty much has to attach.
Further, given how long both impeachment and judicial processes take in reality, it's pretty difficult to hold the president accountable for anything if the answer is that he has to be impeached and convicted during his 4-year term. It means for all practical reasons, the POTUS is unaccountable at the end of his or her term, and especially so after the president has lost re-election.
Which seems like a pretty important factor because just about the most dangerous time for an unaccountable POTUS right before a new occupant will be moving into the White House.
I'm not sure whether Leonard Leo's billionaires care about any of this, so we will have to see if they submit amicus briefs demand their bought and paid for justices to take a certain position.
tequila4kapp said:
Jack Smith asks for expedited SCOTUS decision on Trump's immunity and double jeopardy claims.
Trump haters...ugh, we know where you stand.
This is an interesting legal question, IMO. I'm less familiar with the Immunity claim but on its face that feels implausible....thought it was fairly established that US v. Nixon told us nobody is above the law. But the double jeopardy argument is potentially different. I believe (could be wrong) there is court language to the effect that Impeachment is the political proxy method for prosecuting a sitting president (they cannot be tried criminally while in office), that the Constitution envisions political penalties for crimes committed while in office. In which case Jeopardy pretty much has to attach.
Jack Smith asks the Supreme Court to weigh in on Trump immunity argument.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/jack-smith-supreme-court-trump-immunity-argument.html
"On Monday evening, the Supreme Court said it will "expedite consideration of the petition from Jack Smith" and "instruct team Trump to respond by 12/20," according to CNN. The court's swift response does not guarantee that it will hear the case, but indicates that the justices are taking Smith's request including his plea for speed very seriously."
This is not a good sign for tRump. As cynical as I am about SCOTUS, I think tRump can only count on Thomas and Alito going his way. They both realize they may need pardons themselves in a couple of years. The rest of the Conservative justices don't want to be on the wrong side of history with a madman.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
I may be over my skis a bit but I was thinking these points went to the immunity claim. Generically, an interesting component of the case. And in this instance Trump was impeached and tried right at the end of his term.Unit2Sucks said:The goofy thing about this is that impeachment isn't limited to actions you took in office - the GOP wants to impeach Biden for things (mostly done by his son) that happened with Biden was a private citizen.tequila4kapp said:
Jack Smith asks for expedited SCOTUS decision on Trump's immunity and double jeopardy claims.
Trump haters...ugh, we know where you stand.
This is an interesting legal question, IMO. I'm less familiar with the Immunity claim but on its face that feels implausible....thought it was fairly established that US v. Nixon told us nobody is above the law. But the double jeopardy argument is potentially different. I believe (could be wrong) there is court language to the effect that Impeachment is the political proxy method for prosecuting a sitting president (they cannot be tried criminally while in office), that the Constitution envisions political penalties for crimes committed while in office. In which case Jeopardy pretty much has to attach.
Further, given how long both impeachment and judicial processes take in reality, it's pretty difficult to hold the president accountable for anything if the answer is that he has to be impeached and convicted during his 4-year term. It means for all practical reasons, the POTUS is unaccountable at the end of his or her term, and especially so after the president has lost re-election.
Which seems like a pretty important factor because just about the most dangerous time for an unaccountable POTUS right before a new occupant will be moving into the White House.
I'm not sure whether Leonard Leo's billionaires care about any of this, so we will have to see if they submit amicus briefs demand their bought and paid for justices to take a certain position.
bearister said:tequila4kapp said:
Jack Smith asks for expedited SCOTUS decision on Trump's immunity and double jeopardy claims.
Trump haters...ugh, we know where you stand.
This is an interesting legal question, IMO. I'm less familiar with the Immunity claim but on its face that feels implausible....thought it was fairly established that US v. Nixon told us nobody is above the law. But the double jeopardy argument is potentially different. I believe (could be wrong) there is court language to the effect that Impeachment is the political proxy method for prosecuting a sitting president (they cannot be tried criminally while in office), that the Constitution envisions political penalties for crimes committed while in office. In which case Jeopardy pretty much has to attach.
Jack Smith asks the Supreme Court to weigh in on Trump immunity argument.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/12/jack-smith-supreme-court-trump-immunity-argument.html
"On Monday evening, the Supreme Court said it will "expedite consideration of the petition from Jack Smith" and "instruct team Trump to respond by 12/20," according to CNN. The court's swift response does not guarantee that it will hear the case, but indicates that the justices are taking Smith's request including his plea for speed very seriously."
This is not a good sign for tRump. As cynical as I am about SCOTUS, I think tRump can only count on Thomas and Alito going his way. They both realize they may need pardons themselves in a couple of years. The rest of the Conservative justices don't want to be on the wrong side of history with a madman.
tequila4kapp said:I may be over my skis a bit but I was thinking these points went to the immunity claim. Generically, an interesting component of the case. And in this instance Trump was impeached and tried right at the end of his term.Unit2Sucks said:
The goofy thing about this is that impeachment isn't limited to actions you took in office - the GOP wants to impeach Biden for things (mostly done by his son) that happened with Biden was a private citizen.
Further, given how long both impeachment and judicial processes take in reality, it's pretty difficult to hold the president accountable for anything if the answer is that he has to be impeached and convicted during his 4-year term. It means for all practical reasons, the POTUS is unaccountable at the end of his or her term, and especially so after the president has lost re-election.
Which seems like a pretty important factor because just about the most dangerous time for an unaccountable POTUS right before a new occupant will be moving into the White House.
I'm not sure whether Leonard Leo's billionaires care about any of this, so we will have to see if they submit amicus briefs demand their bought and paid for justices to take a certain position.
I think it would be pretty funny if they used another one of their BS made up ahistorical arguments (no doubt fed by Leonard Leo's amici) to explain why Art 1, Sec. 3, Clause 7 doesn't mean what it clearly and unambiguously states.
If the framers didn't think impeached people could be subject to other legal process, why would they have clearly and unambiguously stated the exact opposite? How does one get around this? Nixon was pardoned because everyone knew he wasn't above the law.
I think Jack Smith is just trying to force the issue now so that it doesn't delay things later after he gets an guilty verdict.
Quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Unit2Sucks said:Twitter (the unprofitable $5B revenue business Elno overpaid for) didn't rely on monetizing hate speech and wasn't focused on providing them with a platform. Conservative platforms like gab, parler, truth social, etc. were created to provide such a platform. Their hate speech is protected under the first amendment and so it makes sense for right wing focused businesses to support their constituents and to attempt to build small businesses around that niche.bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:Which neo-nazi made this statement? If Elno thinks the neo-nazis are going to save Twitter, it's in more trouble than most people realize.bear2034 said:
"We in the West are starting to talk more freely than we have in the years prior. There's no one single event that you can point to other than the $44 billion purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk."
Pro-Hamas neo-Nazis have always been able to post freely on Twitter.
Elno's version of twitter is performing extremely poorly financially - at far lower revenue scale than the old public company. He's been quite open in acknowledging it and in stating that he will not continue to run the business if it suffers massive operating losses.
People have always been able to "talk freely" in this country, but it's never been possible to build a large social media platform which relies on brand advertising and caters to hate speech, of the type that I'm guessing the person quoted above engages in. It turns out it's still not possible which is why new Twitter is such a dumpster fire of a business and only getting worse. Twitter's ad revenue is likely now somewhere below $2B and falling, which is at least 60% lower than peak, and that's because he's decided to turn Twitter into a platform for hate speech which many advertisers want no part of.
So which neo-nazi made the quote? I think it's pretty obvious what kind of person would be celebrating the ability to "talk freely". Is it that racist professor in Texas who spent years publishing abhorrent content under a pseudo name or one of the other popular right wing deplorables? Is it an actual neo-nazi like Richard Spencer or someone else? What is the point in sharing an unsourced quote as if it were meaningful? I could just as easily make up a quote which says "Because of Twitter's support for online hate speech, our society has become meaner, dumber and less open. The world is worse off under Musk's ownership of Twitter and there is no hope for improvement unless he abandons his support for radical extremist conservatives."
It's becoming increasingly more difficult now to maintain the lies propagated by those on the left because with one brilliant move, Elon Musk purchased Twitter, kicked out former Deep State employees removed bots, and made it more difficult for the matrix to control information. It was brilliant because Musk back then didn't just see Twitter as a social media site but rather the de facto public square of online news and information. And that is something you can't put a price tag on.
Unit2Sucks said:
I think it would be pretty funny if they used another one of their BS made up ahistorical arguments (no doubt fed by Leonard Leo's amici) to explain why Art 1, Sec. 3, Clause 7 doesn't mean what it clearly and unambiguously states.
If the framers didn't think impeached people could be subject to other legal process, why would they have clearly and unambiguously stated the exact opposite? How does one get around this? Nixon was pardoned because everyone knew he wasn't above the law.
I think Jack Smith is just trying to force the issue now so that it doesn't delay things later after he gets an guilty verdict.Potentially good observation about Nixon.Quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
But the clear and unambiguous language thing may not work the way you are thinking - Trump was not convicted.
movielover said:
The new Libertarian President of Argentina Javier Milei is driving the Liberals mad with his plans to axe complete government departments... upwards of half. Which would help reign in costs. What a task.
On his 1st day in office, President Milei signs an executive order, reducing government from 21 ministries to 9
So you think because he wasn't convicted in the senate he isn't subject to prosecution? That's a take I guess.tequila4kapp said:Unit2Sucks said:
I think it would be pretty funny if they used another one of their BS made up ahistorical arguments (no doubt fed by Leonard Leo's amici) to explain why Art 1, Sec. 3, Clause 7 doesn't mean what it clearly and unambiguously states.
If the framers didn't think impeached people could be subject to other legal process, why would they have clearly and unambiguously stated the exact opposite? How does one get around this? Nixon was pardoned because everyone knew he wasn't above the law.
I think Jack Smith is just trying to force the issue now so that it doesn't delay things later after he gets an guilty verdict.Potentially good observation about Nixon.Quote:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
But the clear and unambiguous language thing may not work the way you are thinking - Trump was not convicted.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
If that cost includes doggy-day care and kenneling that is a bargain to the right people.
There is zero enthusiasm for Joe Biden on this board except for support coming from dajo9.
Cute story, but it requires you to ignore all of recorded history. Like, remember the several months of litigation where Musk tried to weasel his way out of buying Twitter? Do you think perhaps he was able to put a price tag on?bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:Twitter (the unprofitable $5B revenue business Elno overpaid for) didn't rely on monetizing hate speech and wasn't focused on providing them with a platform. Conservative platforms like gab, parler, truth social, etc. were created to provide such a platform. Their hate speech is protected under the first amendment and so it makes sense for right wing focused businesses to support their constituents and to attempt to build small businesses around that niche.bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:Which neo-nazi made this statement? If Elno thinks the neo-nazis are going to save Twitter, it's in more trouble than most people realize.bear2034 said:
"We in the West are starting to talk more freely than we have in the years prior. There's no one single event that you can point to other than the $44 billion purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk."
Pro-Hamas neo-Nazis have always been able to post freely on Twitter.
Elno's version of twitter is performing extremely poorly financially - at far lower revenue scale than the old public company. He's been quite open in acknowledging it and in stating that he will not continue to run the business if it suffers massive operating losses.
People have always been able to "talk freely" in this country, but it's never been possible to build a large social media platform which relies on brand advertising and caters to hate speech, of the type that I'm guessing the person quoted above engages in. It turns out it's still not possible which is why new Twitter is such a dumpster fire of a business and only getting worse. Twitter's ad revenue is likely now somewhere below $2B and falling, which is at least 60% lower than peak, and that's because he's decided to turn Twitter into a platform for hate speech which many advertisers want no part of.
So which neo-nazi made the quote? I think it's pretty obvious what kind of person would be celebrating the ability to "talk freely". Is it that racist professor in Texas who spent years publishing abhorrent content under a pseudo name or one of the other popular right wing deplorables? Is it an actual neo-nazi like Richard Spencer or someone else? What is the point in sharing an unsourced quote as if it were meaningful? I could just as easily make up a quote which says "Because of Twitter's support for online hate speech, our society has become meaner, dumber and less open. The world is worse off under Musk's ownership of Twitter and there is no hope for improvement unless he abandons his support for radical extremist conservatives."
It's becoming increasingly more difficult now to maintain the lies propagated by those on the left because with one brilliant move, Elon Musk purchased Twitter, kicked out former Deep State employees removed bots, and made it more difficult for the matrix to control information. It was brilliant because Musk back then didn't just see Twitter as a social media site but rather the de facto public square of online news and information. And that is something you can't put a price tag on.
Or during his first staff meeting where he warned everyone that bankruptcy was possible because he wasn't willing to subsidize massive losses?
I mentioned above that Twitter's revenue is ~60% down which puts it below $2B. By some estimates, Elno owes $1.2B per year in interest payments - which would be more than 60% of Twitter's current (falling revenue). Once again, it seems like there is a price tag.
Elno also claimed "Twitter obviously cannot become a free-for-all hellscape, where anything can be said with no consequences!" He also said "Fundamentally, Twitter aspires to be the most respected advertising platform in the world that strengthens your brand and grows your enterprise." It's all quite absurd given what's actually transpired.
Elno didn't eliminate the bots, he welcomed them with open arms. The blue check accounts are full of state actors and fake accounts. When I see Twitter ads, they don't exactly look like the Fortune 500 - more like "as seen on tv" trinkets.
Under Elno, Twitter has become an uglier, messier place which gives more space to white supremacists and other deplorables to run wild. I suppose it's slightly less toxic than some of the pure right wing playgrounds (4chan, truth social, etc.) but it hasn't done anything to improve our society or the free exchange of information.
Perhaps as Twitter inches toward bankruptcy you will consider donating some of your own money to the cause. Donald Trump pretends to be a billionaire while reaching into the pockets of gullible old white men (it would probably be an elder abuse scam if not for the leeway given to "politicians") but I would love to see Elno approach Trump's level of grifting. Sure, he might be the second richest man in the world, but he's under attack from the deep state and needs to take a few dollars from pensioners to fight the power. How could you say no to that?
Mary McCord strikes again.
bear2034 said:movielover said:
The new Libertarian President of Argentina Javier Milei is driving the Liberals mad with his plans to axe complete government departments... upwards of half. Which would help reign in costs. What a task.
On his 1st day in office, President Milei signs an executive order, reducing government from 21 ministries to 9
The globalist neoliberals at the IMF are celebrating the moves taken by Argentina's new President.
Some people think they are rebels when really they are just the people you can fool all of the time.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-12/argentina-s-milei-devalues-peso-by-54-in-first-batch-of-shock-measures?srnd=premium
Reality is that so far Milei is doing pretty mainstream stuff to reduce inflation. Cut spending and letting the currency be at market rates rather than propped up rates. His rebel talk of ending the central bank and dollarizing the economy seem to be on hold.
Trump only hires the "best." LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
One of the things every (non-moron) law student learns in school is that (with very few exceptions) affirmative defenses are waived if not pleaded in your answer. Because Trump hires morons, they forgot to include an affirmative defense of presidential immunity (which would have failed anyway) and now an appeals court ruled that it's been waived.
It's amazing how people are willing to vote for a guy who is more likely to hire George Santos than a competent professional.
One of the things every (non-moron) law student learns in school is that (with very few exceptions) affirmative defenses are waived if not pleaded in your answer. Because Trump hires morons, they forgot to include an affirmative defense of presidential immunity (which would have failed anyway) and now an appeals court ruled that it's been waived.
It's amazing how people are willing to vote for a guy who is more likely to hire George Santos than a competent professional.
Court Tells Trump He's 3 Years Too Late To Claim Immunity In E. Jean Carroll Case https://t.co/FELfUhUMg6
— Jon Cohen (@JonUPS_) December 13, 2023
2nd Circuit holds as a matter of first impression that Presidential immunity is waivable and must be pled as an affirmative defense. https://t.co/EvYCJQSv3K
— Proloy K. Das (@Proloy) December 13, 2023
"Subpoenaed witnesses have got to show up!"
Senator Joe Biden (2007)
Senator Joe Biden (2007)
Trump's lawyers apparently only hire the best as well.
Michael Cohen's attorney cited 3 cases to support ending Cohen's supervised release early and the judge can't find any record of these cases. He's asking the attorney to provide the opinions and if he can't, explain why the judge shouldn't sanction him.
Michael Cohen's attorney threatened with sanctions for citing cases that don't exist
Michael Cohen's attorney cited 3 cases to support ending Cohen's supervised release early and the judge can't find any record of these cases. He's asking the attorney to provide the opinions and if he can't, explain why the judge shouldn't sanction him.
Michael Cohen's attorney threatened with sanctions for citing cases that don't exist
Hunter Biden showed up to the capitol today - why are Republicans afraid of having him testify in public? They were happy when Marge 3 toes showed pornography featuring him in an open hearing so obviously they aren't worried about anyone's sensitivities being offended by the subject matter.bear2034 said:
"Subpoenaed witnesses have got to show up!"
Senator Joe Biden (2007)
We all know what's going on though. The GOP is absolutely terrified of the truth. The only reason this is happening is because Trump has been begging for years for someone, anyone, to "open" an investigation into Biden. They don't have any reason to believe there will be a meaningful outcome, they just want to use the investigation to sustain their grift and to try to steal another election. If they were interested in actually finding out what happened, they would question Hunter publicly.
Stop supporting such cowardice and demand a public hearing.
Unit2Sucks said:Hunter Biden showed up to the capitol todaybear2034 said:
"Subpoenaed witnesses have got to show up!"
Senator Joe Biden (2007)
In the Capitol or outside the Capitol?
You know Biden's DOJ arrested J6ers who weren't even anywhere near the Capitol.
Unit2Sucks said:Hunter Biden showed up to the capitol today - why are Republicans afraid of having him testify in public? They were happy when Marge 3 toes showed pornography featuring him in an open hearing so obviously they aren't worried about anyone's sensitivities being offended by the subject matter.bear2034 said:
"Subpoenaed witnesses have got to show up!"
Senator Joe Biden (2007)
We all know what's going on though. The GOP is absolutely terrified of the truth. The only reason this is happening is because Trump has been begging for years for someone, anyone, to "open" an investigation into Biden. They don't have any reason to believe there will be a meaningful outcome, they just want to use the investigation to sustain their grift and to try to steal another election. If they were interested in actually finding out what happened, they would question Hunter publicly.
Stop supporting such cowardice and demand a public hearing.
What exactly happened. He demanded the deposition be televized, the GOP said no, and he refused to attend and then made a statement?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
Trump's lawyers apparently only hire the best as well.
Michael Cohen's attorney cited 3 cases to support ending Cohen's supervised release early and the judge can't find any record of these cases. He's asking the attorney to provide the opinions and if he can't, explain why the judge shouldn't sanction him.
Michael Cohen's attorney threatened with sanctions for citing cases that don't exist
Michael Cohen hasn't been Trump's lawyer in about 6 years. Is this something else you pretend not to be aware of?
Are you a bot or a human?bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:Hunter Biden showed up to the capitol todaybear2034 said:
"Subpoenaed witnesses have got to show up!"
Senator Joe Biden (2007)
In the Capitol or outside the Capitol?
You know Biden's DOJ arrested J6ers who weren't even anywhere near the Capitol.
The only connection between the GOP insurrection in 2021 and their paralyzing fear of Hunter Biden testifying publicly is that both are the product of the GOP recognizing they can never win a national election with their anti-American unpopular policies and politicians. There simply aren't enough deplorables for you guys to ever win on the merits so you have to resort to voter suppression, weaponizing the government (like Trump did with his DOJ against Hunter and others and like Comer is doing with congress), gerrymandering and fraud.
Good luck forcing Hunter to testify privately after spending years telling us that congressional subpoenas don't count.
oski003 said:Unit2Sucks said:Hunter Biden showed up to the capitol today - why are Republicans afraid of having him testify in public? They were happy when Marge 3 toes showed pornography featuring him in an open hearing so obviously they aren't worried about anyone's sensitivities being offended by the subject matter.bear2034 said:
"Subpoenaed witnesses have got to show up!"
Senator Joe Biden (2007)
We all know what's going on though. The GOP is absolutely terrified of the truth. The only reason this is happening is because Trump has been begging for years for someone, anyone, to "open" an investigation into Biden. They don't have any reason to believe there will be a meaningful outcome, they just want to use the investigation to sustain their grift and to try to steal another election. If they were interested in actually finding out what happened, they would question Hunter publicly.
Stop supporting such cowardice and demand a public hearing.
What exactly happened. He demanded the deposition be televized, the GOP said no, and he refused to attend and then made a statement?
Hunter demanded the testimony be public. Republicans refused because if it's public they can't manipulate it and selectively release it. A public hearing ruins their whole misinformation strategy.
Unit2Sucks said:Are you a bot or a human?bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:Hunter Biden showed up to the capitol todaybear2034 said:
"Subpoenaed witnesses have got to show up!"
Senator Joe Biden (2007)
In the Capitol or outside the Capitol?
You know Biden's DOJ arrested J6ers who weren't even anywhere near the Capitol.
The only connection between the GOP insurrection in 2021 and their paralyzing fear of Hunter Biden testifying publicly is that both are the product of the GOP recognizing they can never win a national election with their anti-American unpopular policies and politicians. There simply aren't enough deplorables for you guys to ever win on the merits so you have to resort to voter suppression, weaponizing the government (like Trump did with his DOJ against Hunter and others and like Comer is doing with congress), gerrymandering and fraud.
Good luck forcing Hunter to testify privately after spending years telling us that congressional subpoenas don't count.
I don't know if Swalwell thinks he's going to get some brownie points from the Biden White House or the DOJ for supporting Hunter or maybe he's desperate for attention after he was fired from his intel committee assignment? Either way, it makes Hunter look even more guilty. lol.
Your guy has been indicted on 91 counts, just lost an appeal today in a defamation lawsuit from that time he sexually assaulted a lady (because his lawyers are terrible), is on trial in NY for years of fraud and I'm barely scratching the surface.bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:Are you a bot or a human?bear2034 said:Unit2Sucks said:Hunter Biden showed up to the capitol todaybear2034 said:
"Subpoenaed witnesses have got to show up!"
Senator Joe Biden (2007)
In the Capitol or outside the Capitol?
You know Biden's DOJ arrested J6ers who weren't even anywhere near the Capitol.
The only connection between the GOP insurrection in 2021 and their paralyzing fear of Hunter Biden testifying publicly is that both are the product of the GOP recognizing they can never win a national election with their anti-American unpopular policies and politicians. There simply aren't enough deplorables for you guys to ever win on the merits so you have to resort to voter suppression, weaponizing the government (like Trump did with his DOJ against Hunter and others and like Comer is doing with congress), gerrymandering and fraud.
Good luck forcing Hunter to testify privately after spending years telling us that congressional subpoenas don't count.
I don't know if Swalwell thinks he's going to get some brownie points from the Biden White House or the DOJ for supporting Hunter or maybe he's desperate for attention after he was fired from his intel committee assignment? Either way, it makes Hunter look even more guilty. lol.
No one really cares about Hunter Biden. You pretend to care because any distraction from your dumpster fire of a party feels like a win. Democrats don't care about Hunter - his biggest fan appear to be GOP incels and people like Marge 3 toes who parade his pornographic material openly in congressional hearings.
Good luck in 2024, I think you guys have done enough to prevent Hunter from winning election lolololol.
True, but he was Trump's lawyer for the 12 years before that. He was also vice president of the Trump Organization, co-president of Trump Entertainment and was a board member of the Eric Trump Foundation. Trump also picked him to be deputy finance chairman of the Republic National Committee. He's not someone you pretend not be aware of because he doesn't work for Trump anymore.oski003 said:Eastern Oregon Bear said:
Trump's lawyers apparently only hire the best as well.
Michael Cohen's attorney cited 3 cases to support ending Cohen's supervised release early and the judge can't find any record of these cases. He's asking the attorney to provide the opinions and if he can't, explain why the judge shouldn't sanction him.
Michael Cohen's attorney threatened with sanctions for citing cases that don't exist
Michael Cohen hasn't been Trump's lawyer in about 6 years. Is this something else you pretend not to be aware of?
Featured Stories
See All
Lema Named ACC Offensive Player Of The Year
by Cal Athletics
Ultimate Insider Podcast E97: Oregon State Wrap-up, Wake Forest Preview
by Mike Pawlawski
Bears Hold Off CSU Bakersfield in 86-73 Win in Opener
by Jim McGill
Bears Dominant In Win Over Saint Mary’s
by Cal Athletics
Bears Host CSU Bakersfield In Season Opener
by Cal Athletics