Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Joined

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Not trying to argue, just explaining the process some, because there are clearly misconceptions about how they go. I said earlier that it seems like you might be able to detect some organization in this stuff indicating that it had been systematically reviewed. As Jack Smith stated to Congress, an ethical prosecutor that indicts a case has a firm belief that s/he has the evidence to convict. Anything less than that is unethical. So I am saying that this current DOJ is unethical in their bullshit cases, or delusional as to the state of their evidence, or both. Past administrations' DOJs were pretty ethical in this regard, I think. One thing about a criminal case that is very unlike a civil case. You can file a civil case "on a hunch," do discovery and see what develops. There is very limited discovery for the government in a criminal case, almost none. You have to have it all before that indictment drops. So, some things one might expect to see are witness statements and interview records on the FBI's form FD-302. Some kind of memoranda evaluating evidence against defendants. Grand jury transcripts of subpoena'ed witnesses to get testimony compelled and under oath. Again, that stuff would seem to be ordered to be disclosed by Congress. But I'm not sure that overrides grand jury secrecy under Rule 6. Or is something this bad-faith DOJ would release regardless if it is embarrassing to the Epstein-Trump-Musk billiionaire class. It's normally not the kind of stuff that ever sees the light of day, except to an indicted criminal defendant. Congress would be within its rights to ask Bondi or someone else if there have ever been investigations of other than Epstein and Maxwell, by this DOJ or any other. A normal DOJ would decline to answer and so probably would this one but for different reasons. Im not sure the Transparency Act compels an answer.
  2. Lutnick has a BA in Economics from Haverford, which is, afaik a decent little school. But he was on a tennis scholarship. And, I don't think you have to be a great economics wizard to take the lesson of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. Shit, I'm getting by on a high school class.
  3. I don't disagree with that. It needs a dose of severe near-fatal radiation and chemo.
  4. Unfortunately, the big adopters are run by slightly less anti-social idiots and their rhetoric is music to their ears.
  5. I might guess something firearms related that imports a lot of shit.
  6. That's a good one. Shows their incompetence as well as just being so fucking bad at law, as well as Wilhoit in action. Prosecutors and cops have known the constitution made their jobs harder for a couple of centuries now, but they generally respect it and work around it, with a few notable exceptions. But not these assclowns. Oh, no Bluto, giving these people their rights would create chaos! So we're just gonna blow that off.
  7. What we've mostly been looking at is raw evidence. The Transparency Act does call for release of this material: (6) Any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates. (7) Internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates. This, if it has been released, and that pertaining to Epstein and Maxwell, who we know were investigated and prosecuted, is probably what really tells the tale. And if you want to make a shitty, non-expansive reading of that, it's not really the FBI or prosecuting attorneys files and doesn't even reference grand jury proceedings.
  8. Generally speaking, there are no depositions in criminal cases. What there are are voluntary witness interviews and grand jury subpoenas. And the Fifth Amendment. Criminal cases usually aren't made on documentary evidence, much, anyway. You gotta have credible witnesses that corroborate each other. And a lot of these fuckers aren't talking for fairly obvious reasons. And, for various reasons, it seems a lot of the victims that have spoken out don't have very good credibility. Which is not to say I don't believe them or anyone should disbelieve them, but many of their attempts to go on record in civil suits and the like have been contradictory, etc. And that blows a potential criminal case to hell. You're right there doesn't seem to be evidence of an investigation. But I'm a) not sure we really know that that looks like and b) I'm not sure that's been released or even ordered to be released. The dogs were certainly called off in 2008. They were let loose again in 2018-2019, perhaps on a limited basis, but they at least added a defendant that had not previously been discussed much. I'm sure they considered some others. I do recall that some grand jury testimony was released for the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Not sure how or if we'd know if there were other grand jury investigations. But that's where the rubber hits the road on investigation matters.
  9. Im not sure I had a very positive view of Wall Street types to begin with. But this guy was the head of a major bond trading outfit. Bond traders arguably have better understanding and insight on economic issues than equity traders and certainly "deal dudes." And then there's Bessent. Of course, Peter Navarro has a PhD in economics, but it's something goofy like organizational economics. Can you imagine this bunch of dipshits confronting the 2008 financial crisis? You can certainly take issue with Paulson & Co.'s resolution of it, but it at least felt like it was in competent hands.
  10. Here's a big problem. Most of this board has no idea what constitutes a convictable criminal case. There's a shitload of nasty implications in there but I have yet to see anything that indicates a viable criminal case. Hell, half the time I see a post of some allegedly smoking gun email, or other document, it turns out to be ambiguous enough that it would be rotten evidence for a criminal case. It's possible no one has really looked at this at DOJ because of an insidious conspiracy. That certainly happened in 2008. But just about every time you hear of a politically declined or manipulated prosecution, you hear about it from within DOJ, some tenacious reporter etc.
  11. The Drum back? I know what I have lived through, and this is the shittiest of the shit. The country was in a slow burn before, now it's damned near on fire and we'll be lucky to survive.
  12. Yes. There is. Because while politicians are generally corrupt and money in politics has fucked us, our politicians have still operated in good faith, in comparison to this one.
  13. There's no both sides here. Which is not to say government under the non-Trump party has been great. But there's a massive difference between Trump II and any prior administration and the acceleration of the things you complain of, which are not illegitimate, has been staggering.
  14. And Bush deported a bunch more, and Clinton before him. And, they did it quietly, calmly, so the American people didn't hardly notice. They didn't do it with armed mobs moving in large groups in suburban areas tear-gassing, bean-bagging, rubber-bulleting and flat murdering people. Or detaining citizens in brutal conditions for days and weeks on end.
  15. I case anyone doesn't know, a President can appoint an acting USA for 120 days. If, in that time, a nominee doesn't get confirmed by the Senate, the judges of that district appoint the USA who remains until one is nominated and confirmed. Trump tried to claim he could do the 120 days over and over again. Courts have said, nope.
  16. When I started losing my hair, I was deathly afraid I would have a weird little forepatch like that. Course, I wound up shaving my head, which mooted the whole thing, but that would have sucked. Also, I envied black guys where thinning wasn't as obvious because dark on dark. But then you go grey, but by then no one cares.
  17. Should probably be Trump-Epstein-Musk billionaire class.
  18. Well, y'know, those boots and pants pretty much originated more than a century ago, in the horse cavalry. What's remarkable is that they're still wearing them. I think even the mostly ceremonial Horse Cavalry of the 1st Cavalry Division doesn't wear them anymore.
  19. I remain kind of enamored of steam power because, as a Mechanical Engineer, I took six hours of thermodynamics, which was mostly centered around steam. That subject, of course, has application in all "heat engines" (Otto, Diesel, Stirling, Brayton as well as Rankine.) but the basic case and the teaching case for MEs, was steam for about 50-75 years. Probably still is.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.