|
A.o.D. posted:Speaking of that rear end in a top hat, I just got served up a prage.ru anti trans ad. There is no pretense that twitter isn't a hate speech platform any more. Get off of twitter also use ublock origin. I use nitter anytime there's something I actually want to follow on twitter.
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
If you've got a problem with Canadian Gooses then you got a problem with me, and I suggest you let that one marinate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2023 21:54
|
|
|
kill me now posted:Corrected for accuracy I misremembered, but glad I was close.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
Nystral posted:Uhh when did this become the retell Steven Segal whoppers thread? Smdh that you don’t immediately envision a shirtless Ricardo Arona.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2023 10:54
|
|
|
Xenoborg posted:How does the whole "the loans were always paid back" defense (which doesn't excuse anything anyway) square with Trump having filed for bankruptcy six times. Sounds like plenty of loans weren't paid back. This case only concerns post 2014 and 2016 things because of statutes of limitations. The bankruptcies were all prior to this. The issues in this case is Trump kept two sets of books. He had one set for tax valuation and one that he would show to banks for loans. He claimed the ones showed to banks was based upon discounted cash flow valuations when they were, in fact, based upon whatever Trump felt the value should be. For example, Trump admitted that one location in NY never made anything close to the value he claimed. He instead said it was valued on the potential sale price he could name if IBM or Tiffanies (the neighbors) wanted to expand. He committed fraud by inflating the value of his assets and lying to the banks about it in order to secure more favorable loan terms or meet the loan requirements. The banks were damaged to the tune of $186m that they would have made in additional interest rates. These loans have mostly been paid off by suing the lender and/or lowballing them to close them out. Banks don't care because they can get higher rates today and are fine with closing them out. He also did not technically default on any of the loans to force the bank to pursue action against him. Trump was find liable for fraud but the remaining counts had to be determined at trail because they required a showing of materiality and intent that they couldn't do at the summary judgment stage. All of these things have been shown at trial, and the judge is going to find against Trump on all counts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:I doubt that's a winning strategy for them. The biggest D counties haven't reported yet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 03:56
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Fort Bragg defended the honor of that lady’s pubes. If I remember right someone asked her what's happening or something like that in the aftermath and she posted a quick video fully clothed of her grabbing and chugging some bragg apple juice.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2023 13:33
|
|
|
There’s a good acronym for this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
Santos Ethics Committee Report: https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/Committee%20Report_52.pdf He did more crimes than he's currently charged with, and the committee already made a DoJ referral.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2023 16:25
|
|
|
Colorado judge rules that Trump did participate in an insurrection but also that the 14th doesn’t apply to the President. https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf She rules for basically the same reason I’ve said it would not apply - the president isn’t listed and is distinct from “officer of the united states.”
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
MonkeyFit posted:I don't like it, and I think it's dumb. But I appreciate your breakdown in earlier threads that helped me understand why this was the likely outcome. No sweat. I love talking about stuff like this. If you skip to page 95 on the opinion linked you can read the judge’s analysis. The big things that pushed her to rule it doesn’t apply is that there was a prior draft of the amendment that included president but the final version omitted it and there are five other distinct constitution sections that distinguish the president from officers of the united states.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 03:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Isn’t the combination of the definition of insurrection on page 68 and discussion of engage starting on 72 seem insanely broad? It’s what those terms meant, though, when the 14th amendment was drafted and ratified.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 12:01
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:So if this gets appealed and upheld by USSC any future democratic president is also immune, for the same reasons, right? If it actually got appealed that high, yes. I dunno that it does. Appeals cost money, and I don’t think the petitioners here have the gumption to appeal all the way through Colorado courts and then the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 13:22
|
|
|
First we need to have someone else try to overthrow the government. I don’t think we’ll have to worry about that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
The guy that created Calvin & Hobbes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
here's the complaint https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454/gov.uscourts.txnd.383454.1.0_1.pdf It's laughably thin and there's no reason whatsoever to be in NDTX.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Nah this is a really, really bad filing that outright admits what media matters claimed. Probably gets shoved under a couch and/or media matters gets it punted over to California or even DC pretty quickly. A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer venue to either federal court in San Francisco or DC will be the first thing filed. This preserves their ability to dismiss on other grounds as well, but it would be step one. I think media matters would rather it be transferred to NDCA. Twitter's TOS is explicit that for any cause of action between parties using the site that state or federal court in San Francisco is the proper venue with exceptions for various federal/government agencies. Even if they can argue that the TOS isn't binding, there is zero connection between either plaintiff or defendant in the NDTX to establish personal jurisdiction. It would throw centuries of court process on it's head to rule that just because something is relating to an internet post that federal courts have personal jurisdiction over people who have no connection to their district. Even if a crackpot in Amarillo rules that he has personal jurisdiction over media matters, I doubt the fifth and scotus would uphold that ruling. Even if it did stay in the NDTX and the judge ruled that the TOS choice of law procedure doesn't control, Texas has a pretty good anti-SLAPP law itself called the TCPA which this case fits squarely into. Like the CA anti-SLAPP, it stays all discovery and other litigation until the hearing on the motion to dismiss, which will be 45 days after filing the motion. Even though we're in federal court, the local state laws apply. In both cases musk will be paying media matters attorneys costs and fees. This lawsuit is just as dumb as the one musk filed to try to get out of his purchase of Twitter except that he's got true believer jackasses from the federalist society filing his suit instead of a respected biglaw firm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 14:25
|
|
|
Ah, I didn't realize that the fifth circuit had that rule. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
Wasabi the J posted:Vic mignogna (voice actor most known for his lead role in Fullmetal Alchemist) just lost a really bad anti-slapp case in Texas filed by similar yahoos. Yeah, but the TCPA doesn't apply because the fifth circuit sees it as a procedural statute and federal courts follow state law not procedure. It's a ticky tacky thing, but it's the rule. However, if it gets kicked to NDCA, California's anti-slapp law will apply.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:The dumbass appellate judge that rescinded the NY Civil gag order appears to have been convinced by the long list of death threats. It was never rescinded - just administratively stayed during the mandamus motion. e: correcting myself - it was not technically an appeal but a quasi-mandamus type motion trying to get a superior court to direct Engoron to lift the gag order. There may be some appellate right in this case but not likely. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Nov 30, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Yeah, fair correction there. I was mostly referring to that judge's oral argument session just after the stay. The dumbass apparently had no idea how any of Donnie's threat mechanisms actually work. Yeah. Their final court is the Court of Appeals. Trial level and appellate courts are both Supreme Court with the latter being the Supreme Court Appellate Division. I'll also note that this gag order is specifically only about the court's staff. Trump started attacking Engoron's wife by name as well so I wouldn't be surprised if it was expanded.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
I had some incorrect information in my first post. While this could be thought of as a denied appeal, it was not technically an appeal and was a mechanically different motion. I still presume the matter is dead until after trial, though.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2023 17:26
|
|