|
PST posted:Bonus quote, is this some form of mental health problem? Reagan's legacy shines, one untreated mental illness at a time.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
Cliven already has no filter, imagine him with dementia. I'm sure it can get a whole lot worse than "Let me tell you one more thing I know about the negro!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
This new background image is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:This new background image is pretty good. I was leery when they moved the thread from GBS to here but it really is the perfect place for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Is it bad that I am now envisioning the trial as if it was a poorly constructed goanimate video? Because I feel like that is the only way you can dignify this thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
EorayMel posted:Is it bad that I am now envisioning the trial as if it was a poorly constructed goanimate video? ryanbundy. You will be jailed for nine five seven six four five one four eight eight two seven eight seven five six five four two nine five eight four six seven five five five five five years go to your cell. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Krinkle posted:ryanbundy. You will be jailed for nine five seven six four five one four eight eight two seven eight seven five six five four two nine five eight four six seven five five five five five years go to your cell. That's numberwang.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Sorry to double-post, but have some content: http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/oregon-standoff-trial-6th-week-defense-plans/ I don't know what these tweets (from this morning) mean. Could anyone please shed some light? Conrad Wilson @conradjwilson Judge Anna Brown has saidshe's not going to allow cumulative testimony from the defense about the condition of the refuge. Conrad Wilson @conradjwilson Through 10 previous witnesses, Brown said, the defense had established its point that the refuge was clean and peaceful. WrenP-Complete has issued a correction as of 17:02 on Oct 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
"Cumulative" evidence is evidence that's basically overwhelmingly redundant. The judge is indicating that the testimony has little value, because it doesn't add any real support to previous claims that the refuge space was kept clean. Implicit in the statement in this context is that no one is buying this claim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
http://katu.com/news/local/what-to-know-as-the-oregon-ranching-standoff-trial-continuesquote:It's unclear how many of the remaining defendants plan to testify. Ryan Bundy, who's serving as his own lawyer, told the judge he's leaning against it. If he does testify, another lawyer will pose the questions. The judge said it would be hard for jurors to keep a straight face if Ryan Bundy asked his own questions and then answered them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
echo465 posted:http://katu.com/news/local/what-to-know-as-the-oregon-ranching-standoff-trial-continues Hard for Ryan to keep a straight face too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:Hard for Ryan to keep a straight face too. Pretty much a Harrison Bergeron scenario then.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/785998686954229760
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
With the Trump campaign implosion and feds pursuing criminal contempt charges against Arpaio this week, I might have to take Monday off if the Bundy's defense rests and the jury convicts before Friday is over.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
 https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/786000495655608320
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
"A lodge is a place you wreck up and poo poo all over, right?" He added.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Knight posted:With the Trump campaign implosion and feds pursuing criminal contempt charges against Arpaio this week, I might have to take Monday off if the Bundy's defense rests and the jury convicts before Friday is over. ooh what? Also: https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/785998302881787904
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Semisponge posted:ooh what? http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/11/497577585/feds-will-press-criminal-contempt-charges-against-ariz-sheriff-arpaio
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Knight posted:With the Trump campaign implosion and feds pursuing criminal contempt charges against Arpaio this week, I might have to take Monday off if the Bundy's defense rests and the jury convicts before Friday is over. Unfortunately it looks like putting Trump on trial for child rape charges has been delayed until December.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 13:26
|
|
|
In the same sense that the Bundys are "good ranchers". chitoryu12 posted:Unfortunately it looks like putting Trump on trial for child rape charges has been delayed until December. At least he's getting sued for his scam "university" in late November.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
^ Eh, if he has no chance to win he'll just settle out like he said he's done a lot in the past to avoid admitting he's a sexual predatorchitoryu12 posted:Unfortunately it looks like putting Trump on trial for child rape charges has been delayed until December. I kinda hope it goes the Bin Laden route where Trump refuses to concede, holes up in his own little compound and SEAL Team 6 has to go kick his poo poo in
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Ryan Bundy called his wife Angela to the stand as the defense resumed its case in the Oregon standoff trial. Acting as his own lawyer, Bundy broke down Tuesday before posing his first question, finally composing himself to ask: "You're my wife, right?" http://www.kezi.com/news/Ryan_Bundy_Questions_Wife_at_Stand_Off_Trial.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KEZI_9_News
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:In the same sense that the Bundys are "good ranchers". The university thing is pretty funny because it's pretty obviously churning in the back ofDonald's mind. Last night at a rally he told his voters to make sure they got out to vote on 11/28. Which as you might have noticed is not the date of the election, but instead the date of the Trump U case starts. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:The university thing is pretty funny because it's pretty obviously churning in the back ofDonald's mind. It's the date of the republican election, the democratic election is on the 8th. Make sure all your republican friends are aware of the scheduling change!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
The Fuzzy Hulk posted:Ryan Bundy called his wife Angela to the stand as the defense resumed its case in the Oregon standoff trial. To which she responded, "I did not create joinder."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
The Fuzzy Hulk posted:Ryan Bundy called his wife Angela to the stand as the defense resumed its case in the Oregon standoff trial. Objection, leading.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Bar Crow posted:To which she responded, "I did not create joinder." Well unless she opened up her market to free trade with the highest bidding contractor, she created joinder at least six times.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
My understanding of spousal privilege is such that there's very little she can actually say on the stand that will damage Ryan Bundy's case, since anything beyond direct 'did X happen' stuff is considered to be privileged information. Is that incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:My understanding of spousal privilege is such that there's very little she can actually say on the stand that will damage Ryan Bundy's case, since anything beyond direct 'did X happen' stuff is considered to be privileged information. Is that incorrect? I thought spousal privilege was a right but not a requirement? Like they can't compel you to testify against your spouse but if you do it anyway it doesn't make it invalid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:My understanding of spousal privilege is such that there's very little she can actually say on the stand that will damage Ryan Bundy's case, since anything beyond direct 'did X happen' stuff is considered to be privileged information. Is that incorrect? If it didn't work like that, how could a wife ever testify against her husband in a domestic violence case without first getting a divorce?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
Do you waive any of that privilege by testifying for the defense? I bet you can at least be cross examined on any topic you brought up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
My understanding is that if you mention something that leads to a line of inquiry on cross then anything that comes up can be fair game. Though it depends on the judge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Looks like Payne changed his mind. https://twitter.com/amandapeacher/status/786570105295560705
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:Looks like Payne changed his mind. LOL, what an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:My understanding of spousal privilege is such that there's very little she can actually say on the stand that will damage Ryan Bundy's case, since anything beyond direct 'did X happen' stuff is considered to be privileged information. Is that incorrect? Depends. If there were 3rd parties present any spousal privilege is forfeit. The government can't bring any obstruction or contempt of court charges if they were having a private spousal conversation. If she wanted to testify she absolutely could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Rockin Orthodontist posted:LOL, what an idiot. "Well, as long as we're goin' down, might as well be on fire too"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
His reasoning boils down to: "Whelp I didn't realize I was talking to snitches, this changes everything!", right?quote:“It has now been revealed that some of the inculpatory conduct and statements attributed to Mr. Payne apparently were made to confidential informants, a fact previously unknown to Mr. Payne,” Frederico wrote. “Had Mr. Payne and his counsel been aware of this basis for impeachment of the government’s potential witnesses, they could have evaluated the strength of the government’s case differently.” Also something about the plea deal in Nevada not being completely written out when he took the Oregon deal, but I am not sure how that's relevant. Late edit: aaaand here's the jury nullification talk. https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/786648909430951936 TotalLossBrain has issued a correction as of 22:38 on Oct 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Hah. https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/786649513213595648 https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/786649772971008000  https://twitter.com/maxoregonian/status/786649868425015296
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:26 |
|
|
TotalLossBrain posted:His reasoning boils down to: "Whelp I didn't realize I was talking to snitches, this changes everything!", right? Did you occupy a federal reserve? "yes" Knowing that you talked to informants, did you occupy a federal reserve? "Yes" I don't see how this changes anything
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2016 23:27
|
|