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

Featured Replies

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That language has been repealed, and also required "when the United States is at war."

Does a “war on terror” count as a war?

  • Replies 3.1k
  • Views 203.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

Posted Images

He didn’t declare winning the war on Christmas until last December so….

23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

That language has been repealed, and also required "when the United States is at war."

then the fucking wiki is wrong

back to the bat cave

the result set for "fake electors" is improving in the last 48 hours

the guardian piece makes clear the chapman servers could = watergate tapes

thanks orange man!

guess this goes here?

I think what he meant to say is, "It should have been a bloodbath but we were told not to fire on them."

  • Popular Post
57 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

guess this goes here?

I think what he meant to say is, "It should have been a bloodbath but we were told not to fire on them."

What I know is that IF this Republic survives, it will likely be because 1/6 was a turning point.  And Goodman almost single-handedly saved senior members of Congress, so that they could perform their constitutional duty and stave off a claim that "sorry they were murdered, but because they didn't certify in time, throw it to the house and make Trump POTUS for life."

He can and should get a gotdamn statue.  I'm not kidding.

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What I know is that IF this Republic survives, it will likely be because 1/6 was a turning point.  And Goodman almost single-handedly saved senior members of Congress, so that they could perform their constitutional duty and stave off a claim that "sorry they were murdered, but because they didn't certify in time, throw it to the house and make Trump POTUS for life."

He can and should get a gotdamn statue.  I'm not kidding.

he deserves way more than a statue. he should get the Prince Akeem royal bath every day for the rest of his life. and more...

16 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

 

 

I think I mentioned it on this thread or elsewhere, but when you, I, and normal people assert a privilege in court, we just can't say "neener, it's privileged."  We have to make a privilege log identifying each document by date, sender, recipient, and general subject matter so the opponent can evaluate the assertion of privilege.  It can be a royal pain in the ass.  Cohen had to do it when his office was raided.

This is normal, and what all these chucklefucks should be forced to do with respect to documents.  And they should be compelled to testify and assert executive privilege on a question-by-question basis.  

That these guys have all said "neener, neener, it's privileged" basically means they should go to jail for contempt of congress.

in this particular instance, Eastman alleges that many or most of the documents and emails are attorney-client privileged communications with Trump and his minions in connection with his representation of Trump or his entities.  He can't get away with this "neener, it's privileged" shit.

Also, this judge rapidly dispensed with claims that the Committee doesn't have a valid legislative purpose or is improperly constituted, which is another bullshit claim of these assholes.

Edited by TwiceHorn

14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What I know is that IF this Republic survives, it will likely be because 1/6 was a turning point.  And Goodman almost single-handedly saved senior members of Congress, so that they could perform their constitutional duty and stave off a claim that "sorry they were murdered, but because they didn't certify in time, throw it to the house and make Trump POTUS for life."

He can and should get a gotdamn statue.  I'm not kidding.

The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world

Just now, Captainant said:

The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world

He's like a real life John McClane!

Just now, Red Five said:

He's like a real life John McClane!

Maybe it's time for us to wake up and smell the ashes

6 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He's like a real life John McClane!

Yippee Ki-Yay, Mr. Falcon.

55 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He's like a real life John McClane!

Welcome to the party, pal!

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think I mentioned it on this thread or elsewhere, but when you, I, and normal people assert a privilege in court, we just can't say "neener, it's privileged."  We have to make a privilege log identifying each document by date, sender, recipient, and general subject matter so the opponent can evaluate the assertion of privilege.  It can be a royal pain in the ass.  Cohen had to do it when his office was raided.

......

in this particular instance, Eastman alleges that many or most of the documents and emails are attorney-client privileged communications with Trump and his minions in connection with his representation of Trump or his entities.  He can't get away with this "neener, it's privileged" shit.

I love that he's claiming that, while using a 3rd-party's email servers, that he did not own or control in any way, and that had nothing to do with whatever legal practice he might claim to have.

16 minutes ago, brakeman said:

Image

Something like this should greet Trump everywhere he goes.

the result set for "fake electors" is improving in the last 48 hours
the guardian piece makes clear the chapman servers could = watergate tapes
thanks orange man!

When you say “orange man“, do you mean the guy with the orange spray tan, or do you mean the dipshit that was doing shit over the servers that are located in Orange, CA?

Inquiring minds want to know
On 1/27/2022 at 9:12 PM, atomheartbevo said:

I love that he's claiming that, while using a 3rd-party's email servers, that he did not own or control in any way, and that had nothing to do with whatever legal practice he might claim to have.

Well, mere use of third-party servers does not affect privilege.  If it did, a whole lot of lawyers would be in deep shit.

And, it's not that privilege is waived, yet, but rather that Eastman, who quit Chapman, claimed he couldn't get his email and it was all privileged, anyway.  But, Chapman also had a policy against use of its email for political purposes, which might go some way to waiving privilege, ultimately.

And, using private servers that are not owned by the client (in the case of in-house counsel) or the law firm (privilege extends to the entire law firm, not just the one lawyer), or don't have a privacy policy, could adversely affect the privilege claim.

Edited by TwiceHorn

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, mere use of third-party servers does not affect privilege.  If it did, a whole lot of lawyers would be in deep shit.

And, it's not that privilege is waived, yet, but rather that Eastman, who quit Chapman, claimed he couldn't get his email and it was all privileged, anyway.  But, Chapman also had a policy against use of its email for political purposes, which might go some way to waiving privilege, ultimately.

And, using private servers that are not owned by the client (in the case of in-house counsel) or the law firm (privilege extends to the entire law firm, not just the one lawyer), or don't have a privacy policy, could adversely affect the privilege claim.

 

On 1/27/2022 at 4:38 PM, GopherRock said:

Welcome to the party, pal!

dammit that was my line

repped

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, mere use of third-party servers does not affect privilege.  If it did, a whole lot of lawyers would be in deep shit.

I should have clarified - it's not simply the use of third-party servers, given that many law firms use outside services, it's that he didn't have permission to use the third-party servers in the manner in which he did, and Chapman specifically had a policy against what he was doing.  He would have acknowledged/accepted that policy when his account was created.  I'm sure that he, like the rest of us, skipped over the TOS when his account was being created, but there would have been something in there where he acknowledged their usage policies. And the idea of him claiming to have not read the TOS and just signing off on it is amusing.

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, it's not that privilege is waived, yet, but rather that Eastman, who quit Chapman, claimed he couldn't get his email and it was all privileged, anyway.  But, Chapman also had a policy against use of its email for political purposes, which might go some way to waiving privilege, ultimately.

And, using private servers that are not owned by the client (in the case of in-house counsel) or the law firm (privilege extends to the entire law firm, not just the one lawyer), or don't have a privacy policy, could adversely affect the privilege claim.

If it's the university I'm thinking of, it's focused on research, which means they probably have a whole lot of policies revolving around privacy, etc., but yeah, they barred the use of it for political purposes, so I don't see how he has any kind of privilege claims.

56 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I should have clarified - it's not simply the use of third-party servers, given that many law firms use outside services, it's that he didn't have permission to use the third-party servers in the manner in which he did, and Chapman specifically had a policy against what he was doing.  He would have acknowledged/accepted that policy when his account was created.  I'm sure that he, like the rest of us, skipped over the TOS when his account was being created, but there would have been something in there where he acknowledged their usage policies. And the idea of him claiming to have not read the TOS and just signing off on it is amusing.

If it's the university I'm thinking of, it's focused on research, which means they probably have a whole lot of policies revolving around privacy, etc., but yeah, they barred the use of it for political purposes, so I don't see how he has any kind of privilege claims.

Right.  I just wanted to clear up any misconception that attorney-client privilege goes away just by using a third-party server.  In most cases, you have the requisite expectation of privacy.  In some circumstances, you may not.

It hasn't come to the point of waiver of privilege, even though Chapman was kind of arguing in that direction.  

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, mere use of third-party servers does not affect privilege.  If it did, a whole lot of lawyers would be in deep shit.

And, it's not that privilege is waived, yet, but rather that Eastman, who quit Chapman, claimed he couldn't get his email and it was all privileged, anyway.  But, Chapman also had a policy against use of its email for political purposes, which might go some way to waiving privilege, ultimately.

And, using private servers that are not owned by the client (in the case of in-house counsel) or the law firm (privilege extends to the entire law firm, not just the one lawyer), or don't have a privacy policy, could adversely affect the privilege claim.

So is dotard proper fucked or not?

1 hour ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

So is dotard proper fucked or not?

I doubt Trump has ever been properly fucked.

Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, once foes, talk Trump | AP News

So is dotard proper fucked or not?

Believe it when you see it.

I'm not sure what if any criminal charges can result against these "plotters."

But, I think there's going to be massive evidence of a "plot," part of which relied on delaying the electoral count, and/or browbeating Pence into doing something.  All of which Trump was privy to and subscribed to and wanted to happen.

And that gives him a very solid and credible motive or intent for the 1/6 speech to incite obstruction of the electoral count.

Without this evidence, he can claim it was just another one of his stupid rallies that people overreacted to.  And, whether a jury believes that or not, it is probably enough to create reasonable doubt.  I think this kind of evidence helps close that gap.

 

On 1/25/2022 at 8:42 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

We need a special court set up that can be used to hear challenges from Trump on different lawsuits.

I bet the FISA court has some free time. Eh, @Anastasis?

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I bet the FISA court has some free time. Eh, @Anastasis?

If you love secret courts so much you should go marry one. 

Image

 

Here he is saying the quiet part loud.

.

 

FKY4QCkXsAImrTq?format=jpg&name=small
 
Here he is saying the quiet part loud.
.
 

And our resident Trumpkins SUPPORT THAT. They are perfectly fine with the vote of the people being completely irrelevant. If the Ruling Party dislikes the result, it can simply disregard it. Remember that. The GQP and it’s supporters openly want a totalitarian state.
10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


And our resident Trumpkins SUPPORT THAT. They are perfectly fine with the vote of the people being completely irrelevant. If the Ruling Party dislikes the result, it can simply disregard it. Remember that. The GQP and it’s supporters openly want a totalitarian state.

Cross board post:

On 12/10/2021 at 4:23 PM, Johnny Sack said:

You don't ever admit to the existence of this thing of ours.


From the mafia BUFFS thread. Criminal cons are criminal.

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


And our resident Trumpkins SUPPORT THAT. They are perfectly fine with the vote of the people being completely irrelevant. If the Ruling Party dislikes the result, it can simply disregard it. Remember that. The GQP and it’s supporters openly want a totalitarian state.

I like it, too, that Trump speaks in terms of Pence's "right" to change the election outcome.  It's not a right, it would be a power or ability.

Trump has a really infirm grasp of rights, duties, etc.

So, Kamala Harris can do the same in 2024?

(lololololololol)

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I like it, too, that Trump speaks in terms of Pence's "right" to change the election outcome.  It's not a right, it would be a power or ability.

Trump has a really infirm grasp of rights, duties, etc.

Authoritarians and fascists view the government not as a mechanism to execute policy and serve the people, but as a weapon to wield against their enemies. If you simply expect trump and the GQP to act along those lines, you will rarely be surprised. 

14 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

So, Kamala Harris can do the same in 2024?

(lololololololol)

Should reply to his announcements with that. :)

 

It's profoundly disturbing to think that a significant faction of Americans buy into the idea that one man -- the VP -- has the authority to determine the next President of the United States.

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's profoundly disturbing to think that a significant faction of Americans buy into the idea that one man -- the VP -- has the authority to determine the next President of the United States.

Well,  one man could pardon anyone.

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's profoundly disturbing to think that a significant faction of Americans buy into the idea that one man -- the VP -- has the authority to determine the next President of the United States.

Maybe it’s time to get rid of all the stupid pomp and circumstance over having actual human electors that have to record an actual vote, which then has to be counted off and accepted in congress. It’s pageantry. We know how many EV each state is worth, so once they certify their state vote totals just add that shit up and move forward. 

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Maybe it’s time to get rid of all the stupid pomp and circumstance over having actual human electors that have to record an actual vote, which then has to be counted off and accepted in congress. It’s pageantry. We know how many EV each state is worth, so once they certify their state vote totals just add that shit up and move forward. 

not sure if serious, but this sounds terrible. also, the electoral college can get straight fucked.

20 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


And our resident Trumpkins SUPPORT THAT. They are perfectly fine with the vote of the people being completely irrelevant. If the Ruling Party dislikes the result, it can simply disregard it. Remember that. The GQP and it’s supporters openly want a totalitarian state.

The oligarch have always have been working on that goal and attacking the institution from multiple angles for a long fucking time.   Voter suppression.  Gerrymandering.  And now ignoring the will (votes) of the people and outright stealing elections (S. Abrams).   We are too broke to care and not broke enough to starve.

Going back to the pipe bomb thing.  It's quite clear from the video that it was a woman.  I'd put even money that it was either MTG or Boobert.  Have they been subpoenaed yet?  Think they have a solid alibi for their whereabouts on Jan 5?

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Going back to the pipe bomb thing.  It's quite clear from the video that it was a woman.  I'd put even money that it was either MTG or Boobert.  Have they been subpoenaed yet?  Think they have a solid alibi for their whereabouts on Jan 5?

It's my pollyanna naivete speaking, but good lord, I can't even fathom a sitting congresswoman placing a pipe bom.  I can't buy into that one.

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's my pollyanna naivete speaking, but good lord, I can't even fathom a sitting congresswoman placing a pipe bom.  I can't buy into that one.

Oh it's full on wacko, but have you been paying attention the past few years?  Is it that outlandish?

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's my pollyanna naivete speaking, but good lord, I can't even fathom a sitting congresswoman placing a pipe bom.  I can't buy into that one.

it's beyond comprehension, but the fact that it's even plausible says everything about where we are right now

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's my pollyanna naivete speaking, but good lord, I can't even fathom a sitting congresswoman placing a pipe bom.  I can't buy into that one.

This time 4 years ago, I couldn't fathom someone like Bobo or MTG being elected to Congress.  Nope, can't buy into that one.

Yeah, even at the 2018 midterms, I couldn't see a MTG or Boebert being elected.  That's a debate I couldn't even reasonably entertain.  

And now, just a hair over 3 years later...I'm honestly entertaining the idea that not only is MTG in Congress, but an incredible visible member of a party I used to engage with, and possibly an armchair pipe bomber.  It doesn't even weird me out to type it.

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.