User Controls
Posts by stl1
-
2022-02-28 at 2:56 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sThe truth deniers are at it again.
You all are familiar with the whole "truth" concept, aren't you? -
2022-02-28 at 2:30 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sMake that
Asshole
Giuliani get
A nice long sentence
The Guardian
Giuliani’s legal problems deepen as ‘false electors’ scheme investigated
Peter Stone in Washington
Legal pressures are mounting for Donald Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani as the US justice department and the House panel investigating the January 6 assault on Congress are both investigating a “false electors” scheme which Giuliani reportedly helped lead to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 election.
Former prosecutors say the justice department inquiry announced last month could pose a serious legal threat to Giuliani, given his role in helping orchestrate an electoral ploy in seven states that Biden won, involving replacing slates of legitimate Democratic electors with bogus Trump slates.
The false-electors scheme is under growing scrutiny by federal and state investigators as one of the avenues Trump, Giuliani and other allies deployed in their aggressive drive to subvert the election result based on debunked charges of widespread voter fraud.
Giuliani, who was subpoenaed by the House panel in January and is in negotiations about providing some testimony and documents, is one of more than a dozen Trump loyalists the committee has subpoenaed who reportedly were central figures in the stealth electors’ plan to nullify Biden’s election.
The fake electors stratagem was a part of Trump’s discredited and fruitless effort to persuade vice-president Mike Pence to toss out Biden’s electors and substitute bogus Republican electors when Congress met on January 6 to tally up the electoral votes.
The phoney pro-Trump electoral certificates involved dozens of Trump loyalists in states such as Arizona, Georgia and Michigan and were sent to Congress in a brazen effort to thwart Biden’s certification.
Some state legislators who had contacts with Giuliani as part of the scam have been subpoenaed by the panel, such as Mark Finchem in Arizona and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, who are, respectively, running in 2022 to be secretary of state and governor in moves that raise fears of future attempts to subvert American democracy.
The false-electors gambit, which the watchdog group American Oversight helped reveal, has been under scrutiny since last year by state attorneys general in Michigan and New Mexico who have looked into the role of the Trump campaign and laws that may have been broken.
Michigan’s Democratic attorney general, Dana Nessel, who spent almost a year investigating 16 Republicans who submitted false certificates alleging they were the state’s presidential electors – notwithstanding Biden’s victory margin of 154,000 votes – asked federal prosecutors in January to start a criminal inquiry. Subsequently, deputy attorney general Lisa Monaco announced an inquiry into “fraudulent elector certifications”.
Former justice officials say that Giuliani now has several legal problems to worry about as federal and state inquiries expand.
“The threats to Giuliani come from multiple directions,” said Michael Bromwich, a former justice department inspector general. “Evidence is growing that he was at the center of a series of schemes to change the election results – by fraud and by force. As the investigations focus more closely on the people Giuliani recruited to change the election results on January 6 and before, his criminal exposure grows as the number of witnesses against him multiplies.”
Other former prosecutors agree that Giuliani may be in serious legal jeopardy as the justice department proceeds with its fake electors inquiry.
“If prosecutors determine that Giuliani improperly influenced or attempted to improperly influence the election, potentially, he could be charged with state and federal crimes including: falsifying voting documents, fraud, false statements, mail/wire fraud or even conspiracy to defraud the United States,” former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin told the Guardian.
For Giuliani, the latest legal threats come on top of several others that he faces due to his relentless and widely debunked efforts to help Trump win reelection.
Giuliani was hit last year with a $1.3bn defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems over bogus and conspiratorial claims that Dominion helped rig the election. Dominion told a court in January there was “no realistic possibility” that it could reach a settlement with Giuliani.
Separately, a Georgia special grand jury inquiry into Trump’s high pressure call on 2 January 2020 to secretary of state Brad Raffensperger asking him to just “find’ 11,780 votes to reverse Biden’s win, could ensnare Giuliani. The Fulton county district attorney who launched the inquiry has indicated it is looking into false claims that Giuliani made before a Georgia state senate committee.
But the new DOJ inquiry into the fake electors strategy could pose more serious legal threats to Giuliani, say ex-prosecutors, since he served as Trump’s right hand man and was involved with multiple schemes to overturn the election results.
“Giuliani was the cog of Trump’s flywheel to overturn the election, getting other Trump allies to act and leaving his imprint for investigators to find,” said former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut.
“He’s reportedly key in the bogus slate scheme. That’s dangerous for Giuliani, because forgeries disprove innocent intent. In a conspiracy, which DOJ could charge as to the fake electors, a conviction doesn’t require that he solicited, or even knew about the forgeries, but only that he participated in a conspiratorial plot involving fake electors to help overturn the election.”
The drive to assemble illegitimate electors occurred in December 2020 and was conducted state by state with the involvement of some Trump campaign officials and supporters, and reportedly spearheaded by Giuliani.
Michigan attorney general Nessel told Rachel Maddow of MSNBC that under state law “you have a forgery of a public record, which is a 14-year offense, and election law forgery, which is a five-year offense.” She alleged a “coordinated effort” by Republican parties in several states which prompted her request to DOJ to open a federal inquiry. “Obviously this is part of a much bigger conspiracy,” Nessel said.
The House January 6 panel seems to share those views. Last month the committee subpoenaed Giuliani and three other Trump allies he worked closely with on multiple fronts to overturn the election results by promoting baseless charges of widespread voter fraud.
“The four individuals we’ve subpoenaed today advanced unsupported theories about election fraud, pushed efforts to overturn the election results, or were in direct contact with the former President about attempts to stop the counting of electoral votes,” Democratic representative Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, who chairs the committee, said in a January statement.
Congressman Adam Kinzinger, one of two Republican members on the House panel, in February told CBS’ Face the Nation that “we fully expect that, in accordance with the law, we’ll hear from Rudy.”
Giuliani’s lawyer Robert Costello told the Guardian that talks with the panel are ongoing, but would not offer any details, and scoffed at the justice department investigation into the fake elector certificates.
Facing a subpoena and the prospect of a criminal referral to DOJ from the House panel if he doesn’t cooperate, Giuliani could wind up as a crucial witness.
“Giuliani’s information about various schemes that Trump promoted to block Biden’s win could potentially be very helpful to the House inquiry,” Zeldin noted. “If Rudy provides significant cooperation (which is unlikely) he could help the panel unravel some of the major ways that Trump tried to thwart Biden’s election victory including, most significantly, whether there was any coordination or pre-planning between Trump and those who stormed the US Capitol.”
Still, other ex-prosecutors say the fake electors scheme offers a rich target for investigators to unravel that could spell significant trouble for Giuliani.
“For Giuliani and his crew to have legal trouble, you don’t have to get much more into the facts than to understand that he was orchestrating fake slates of electors, based on fake reports of fraud, using faked documents, to fake the outcome of the election, and then submitting those fake documents to government officials,” said Michael Moore, a former US attorney in Georgia.
“That is a conspiracy that a kindergartener could unravel,” Moore added. “The submission of the pro-Trump fake elector certificates to the National Archives was about as smart as taking the note that you used to rob the bank to the frame shop.” -
2022-02-27 at 7:17 PM UTC in Rant
-
2022-02-27 at 7:13 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2022-02-27 at 5:15 PM UTC in RantGo to confession (and pray the priest doesn't have a heart attack and die listening to all of your sins).
-
2022-02-27 at 5:10 PM UTC in what's the last thing you bought?The mirror should.
-
2022-02-27 at 5:07 PM UTC in Rant
Originally posted by DontTellEm In all seriousness I don’t need to explain anything to you. It’s so dumb & juvenile for you as a grown man to describe me, an almost 40 year old woman a “silly ass ho” .
Maybe get ur mind right, & find the the answers to why u are retarded within yourself. Dummy
How about "fugly fat-assed, foul mouthed, rocking chair ho"? -
2022-02-27 at 5 PM UTC in Is there anyone on this website who doesn't exhibit autistic tendencies?All that potential ended up in your arm?
-
2022-02-27 at 4:51 PM UTC in Is there anyone on this website who doesn't exhibit autistic tendencies?
Originally posted by Lanny We’re all fucked in the head of course but honestly less autistic than totse or zoklet were. Remember all the threads by angsty teenagers who thought they were going to fight the system by shoplifting? The guides about “social engineering” or picking up girls that were clearly written by angry insecure permavirgins? “Totse island”?
Like it was pretty cringe
And here I thought coming from DH was a disgrace. -
2022-02-26 at 9:52 PM UTC in What are you doing at the moment
Originally posted by POLECAT ROOTIN FER POOOOOTIN!!!
Originally posted by POLECAT Laughin at Brandon
And you dare to call yourself a patriot?
You are a Communist sympathizer and a traitor to the USA, you fucking commie.
You're so sick and twisted that you don't even realize how utterly sick and twisted you are, Weasel. -
2022-02-26 at 8:55 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sBusiness Insider
Trump took documents to Mar-a-Lago that are so sensitive they may not be described in public, report says
ashoaib@insider.com (Alia Shoaib,John L. Dorman)
Trump took documents of the "very highest levels of classification" to Mar-a-Lago, The Washington Post said.
Some of the documents are so sensitive that they may not be described in upcoming inventory reports.
The details emerge as a congressional committee intensifies its investigation into Trump's handling of White House records.
Former President Donald Trump took documents to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida that are "so sensitive" they might not be able to be described in public, The Washington Post reported Friday, citing two unnamed sources.
After leaving office in January 2021, Trump took 15 boxes of documents to his Florida resort, which National Archives officials said contained some classified information.
Some of the documents were of the "very highest levels of classification," two sources told The Post, and therefore might not be able to be described in upcoming inventory reports in an unclassified way.
One source told The Post that there are records "that only a very few have clearances" to review.
The details emerge as a congressional committee ramps up its investigation into Trump's handling of White House records.
On Friday, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee, wrote to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to request a "detailed description" of the contents of the recovered boxes.
NARA had set Friday as a deadline to provide an inventory of the contents, which are expected to offer more information on the volume and scope of classified documents, The Post reported.
Maloney also requested details about all presidential records that Trump "had torn up, destroyed, mutilated, or attempted to tear up, destroy or mutilate."
She also asked for details about any reviews conducted by other federal agencies into the contents of the boxes, and communications between the Trump administration and NARA relating to the Presidential Records Act.
In the letter to the National Archives on Friday, Maloney described Trump's handling of records as the "largest-scale violations of the Presidential Records Act since its enactment."
The Presidential Records Act requires presidents and White House staff to preserve official documents and communications, and turn those items over to the Archives at the end of a president's term. -
2022-02-26 at 8:46 PM UTC in THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty'sPOLITICO
That time Jackson shredded Trump in a federal court ruling
By Josh Gerstein
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson may not have a long paper trail of distinctive federal court opinions for her Supreme Court resume, but she does have one flashy ruling that liberals love: Her savaging of President Donald Trump’s sweeping claims of executive privilege.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will undoubtedly change the high court’s makeup as its first Black woman justice.
Jackson, nominated for the Supreme Court by President Joe Biden on Friday, will undoubtedly change the high court’s makeup as its first Black woman justice. But legal experts say that when it comes to assessing whether she will shift the court ideologically the jury is still out.
Jackson’s backers say they’re confident she’ll be a reliable and forceful liberal voice on the Supreme Court, although there isn’t a whole lot in her rulings over nine years on the bench that reflects an identifiable judicial philosophy.
But a key factor buoying liberals is the relish—and flourish—with which Jackson took on former President Trump in a couple of high-profile cases during her time on the district court in Washington.
When the House’s lawsuit seeking to enforce a subpoena against former Trump White House Counsel Donald McGahn was randomly assigned to Jackson in 2019, the consensus among courtwatchers was that Trump was likely to be fileted. What emerged from Jackson was an 118-page jeremiad that did not mince words in dissecting Trump’s claim that his advisers had an absolute right to ignore Congressional subpoenas at his direction.
“Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings,” Jackson wrote, dismissing the longstanding argument as “a fiction” and “a proposition that cannot be squared with core constitutional values.”
Beyond that decision and another in which Jackson blocked the Trump administration from expanding the use of expedited deportation proceedings, there are few rulings with clear political overtones.
“There’s very little there that can legitimately be characterized as radical. She’s a judge who takes pains to find and apply the law in an evenhanded manner with a balanced tone,” said Tomiko Brown-Nagin a constitutional law scholar and dean of the Harvard-Radcliffe Institute.
Republicans seemed to concede that there wasn’t a lot in Jackson’s judicial record to view as outlandish or extreme. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell noted that Jackson has only authored two opinions on the D.C. Circuit since she joined that court eight months ago. But he quickly said what makes him most concerned about Jackson is that liberals support her.
“Judge Jackson was the favored choice of far-left dark-money groups that have spent years attacking the legitimacy and the structure of the court itself,” McConnell said.
Indeed, just as Republican presidents now routinely look beyond a nominee’s rulings or writings to assure themselves of his or her conservative bona fides, Democratic presidents and liberal groups do the same.
Their sense that Jackson would be an unapologetically left-leaning justice stems in part from her resume: Biden and his aides have proudly boasted that, if confirmed, she will be the first former federal defender to serve on the nation’s highest court. That’s the kind of experience that liberal legal activists have been for at all levels of the court, arguing that too many judges are former federal prosecutors and tend to harbor a pro-prosecution perspective.
Still, over most of his career, Biden has been more closely identified with tough-on-crime policies than with the criminal justice reform movement that remains ascendant in liberal circles.
Biden and his top aides seemed to take the back-to-the-future approach in public Friday as the president—and even the nominee herself—seemed eager to offer assurances that her work as a defense lawyer did not mean she was pro-criminal or anti-police.
“She comes from a family of law enforcement,” the president said, flanked by Jackson and Vice President Kamala Harris. He went on to quote a police union’s statement expressing confidence that Jackson would “treat issues related to law enforcement fairly and justly.”
Advocates for more professional and career diversity on the bench welcomed the mention of Jackson’s work as a public defender, but some found the appeals to law enforcement seemed like pandering to Republicans.
“This discussion around law enforcement felt like a political moment of wanting to set the stage for confirmation hearings,” said Judith Dianis of the Advancement Project, a civil rights group. “I would love to hear more about her experience as a public defender. I didn’t feel like that part was balanced.”
In his speech Friday, Biden praised Jackson’s “strong moral compass” and said she possesses “the courage to stand up for what she thinks is right,” but he said she doesn’t improvise on the bench.
“Her opinions are always carefully reasoned, tethered to precedent and demonstrate respect for how the law impacts everyday people,” the president added. “It doesn’t mean she puts her thumb on the scale of justice one way or the other but she understands the broader impact of her decisions.”
Biden called Jackson “a proven consensus builder,” but the public evidence for that is limited. She’s been on the D.C. Circuit, which generally sits in three-judge panels to consider cases, for less than nine months. Prior to that, she sat in the same courthouse, ruling on cases solo as a district court judge.
The president’s reference to Jackson’s ability to work across the ideological divide appeared to allude to her service on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines federal courts use to try to encourage more uniform sentences in criminal cases. “Judge Jackson was known for working with Democrats and Republicans to find common ground on critical issues,” Biden said.
Legal experts said Jackson’s work on the relatively obscure commission isn’t much of an indicator of whether she would be able to bridge ideological divides on the nation’s highest court—or even whether she would try to.
“I think one of the biggest unknowns with Judge Jackson is: What’s her ability to build coalition on a nine-member court?” said South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman.
As a former law clerk to the justice she has been nominated to replace, Justice Stephen Breyer, Jackson could be an heir to his approach of trying to rein in the court’s conservative bent by narrowing cases and seeking compromise decisions where possible. But Breyer had his most success doing that when the court was split, 5-4, between Republican appointees and Democratic ones. Now that it’s a 6-3 court under firm control of conservatives, the opportunities for bridge-building and even the wisdom of doing so are less evident.
Some don’t see in Jackson the stridency often expressed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has emerged as the court’s liberal stalwart in the wake of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“She’s probably closer to Breyer than she is to Sotomayor,” Blackman said of Jackson. He also noted the interpersonal dynamics of the nation’s highest court are unique and not entirely predictable.
“Judge Jackson and Justice Jackson may not be the same person,” Blackman noted.
If Jackson is confirmed, one of the earliest tests of how she changes the court will come this fall, as the justices take up longstanding challenge to affirmative action in college admissions. The marquee case is a suit filed against Harvard in 2014, arguing that the school’s policies to try to boost admission of Black and Hispanic students amount to illegal discrimination against Asian-Americans.
Many of Jackson’s supporters have said they relish the opportunity for her, as a Black woman, to defend affirmative action programs when the issue is argued at the high court later this year. However, it’s not at all clear that Jackson will take part in arguments on the Harvard case, since she has served on a prominent governing panel there—Harvard’s Board of Overseers—since 2016.
Jackson likely will participate in a companion case the high court has also agreed to decide involving a challenge to policies at the public University of North Carolina.
While it’s unclear exactly how argument in the cases will proceed and how Jackson will approach the recusal issue, there’s little chance that her view will be decisive on the broader question. Affirmative-action programs in higher education have hanging by a thread at the high court for decades and they seem doomed in light of the six-justice majority of Republican appointees on the court following President Donald Trump’s three appointments.
Still, if Jackson does take part in those cases, she is positioned to play a unique role similar to the one Justice Thurgood Marshall played in the court’s private deliberations when he became its first Black member.
“She brings a history and perspective that is completely different from every other person that is going to be sitting in the [conference] room when the justices leave the courtroom,” Innocence Project Executive Director Christina Swarns said during the Twitter Spaces session. “That is, whether directly or indirectly, influential to the way the court will perceive and address these issues.” -
2022-02-26 at 8:34 PM UTC in This Sunay's ConfessionMy ticket was purchased for that ride a long time ago.
-
2022-02-26 at 8:32 PM UTC in Is It Possible to Get Banned and It Not Show on Your Ban Log?I got banned from DH once for posting my phone number.
Stupid dummy sister running that section. Clueless. -
2022-02-26 at 8:27 PM UTC in This Sunay's ConfessionCandy's going straight to HELL ! ! !
lol -
2022-02-26 at 7:26 PM UTC in Grt it in there fuckRumor has it that she couldn't find it.
-
2022-02-26 at 6:57 PM UTC in Fona's Fucking Lancer Part II
-
2022-02-26 at 6:12 PM UTC in Fox News confirmed Faux.Faux Noos is bullshit?
Whodda thunk? -
2022-02-26 at 6:10 PM UTC in 550 square feet of fuck my dickORANGE MAN BAD!
-
2022-02-26 at 6:04 PM UTC in what's the last thing you bought?
