Jump to content

IGotWorms

Members
  • Content Count

    63,372
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    66

Posts posted by IGotWorms


  1. 7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

    was Jane Fonda a traitor? 

    We’re not at war with Russia. Even if we we were, people would still be allowed to disagree with that. Being a traitor, or committing treason, is a big deal. The Rosenbergs were traitors. Tokyo Rose committed treason. You need to do something pretty awful. 

    Was Jane Fonda president? :wacko:


  2. 23 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    So you think there will be proof besides Cohens testimony that Trump told him to pay her off and use campaign funds? 

    As I understand there are audio recordings and testimony of several others, plus a jury can rely on circumstantial evidence and draw inferences. I think it’s a pretty strong case even with cohen’s substantial credibility issues, but I suppose we’ll find out


  3. 4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    Michael Cohen has been discredited by the courts, more than once. That doesn’t seem to bother you. But you still have Stormy. And what do you care? We all know the outcome. You don’t even care that the judge in this case donated to a group called “stop republicans”. I guess if you were counsel for the defense you wouldn’t bring that up. 

    Yeah like I said, this case will be won or lost by the paper trail. I wish cohen didn’t have to testify at all but they probably need him merely to authenticate some documents 


  4. 48 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

    Lol. Michael Cohen is the star witness for the prosecution. You need to up your dosage. Consult with your health care provider.  

    Now here’s something we agree on.

    Except I don’t think cohens testimony will matter much, if at all, on its own. The issue is the paper trail. If it’s there that damns trump regardless of whether cohen has any credibility at all as a witness (and he shouldn’t) 


  5. 1 hour ago, Patented Phil said:

    Michael Avenatti:

    “There’s no question [the trial] is politically motivated because they’re concerned that he may be reelected. If the defendant was anyone other than Donald Trump, this case would not have been brought at this time." 

    "for the government to attempt to bring this case and convict him in an effort to prevent tens of millions of people from voting for him, I think it’s just flat out wrong, and atrocious."

    “I’m really bothered by the fact that Trump, in my view, has been targeted. Four cases is just over the top and I think there’s a significant chance that this is going to all backfire and is going to propel him to the White House.”

    Avenatti has been thoroughly discredited. And mostly by your side :lol: :doh:


  6. It’s an interesting issue imo. I mostly agree with weepers and wiffleball on this, but I do think, like strike is essentially saying, that cities and towns still need to be able regulate their public spaces and not have them filled up with homeless shanty towns.

    I don’t agree that auschwitz is the answer and think you’re a POS if you do. Yeah yeah I know, joking 🙄


  7. Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

    Pretty sure no collusion was found by the special prosecutor in the Russia hoax case. Why do you keep saying there was? 

    A. “Collusion” is not the applicable legal term. It was made up by Trump because it sounds harder to prove.

    B. The special prosecutor said that Russia was willing to help Trump and that Trump wanted to receive that help. Mueller said he couldn’t bridge the gap to show the two actually conspired towards those ends. I think that was a cop out.

    HTH. I recommend reading the actual mueller report if you want to know what he really said and found.


  8. 2 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

    As president, Donald Trump “made it very clear” that he thought Ukraine “must be part of Russia”, his former adviser Fiona Hill says in a new book about US national security under threat from Russia and China.

    This, Sanger writes, meant Trump’s view of Ukraine was “essentially identical” to that of Vladimir Putin, the Russian president who would order an invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a year after Trump left office.

     

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/12/trump-russia-ukraine-book-comments

    You're either pro freedom or you're pro Russian.

    Maga is pro Russian.  Maga are traitors.

    That’s shocking, if true.

    I mean, in a way it’s totally obvious. Trump asked for, and received, Putin’s help in winning the 2016 election. And he’s been throating Putin’s knob ever since.

    But still, for an American president to say that… it’s treasonous :o 


  9. Just now, Strike said:

    About what?

    The Supreme Court case that’s being heard on Monday.

    Read the link.

    But essentially, ninth circuit has held you can’t criminalize homelessness when there are not homeless shelters available. They say it’s cruel and unusual punishment under the eighth amendment.

    Cities and towns don’t like it because they want to kick the homeless out.


  10. What say you?

     

     

    Helen Cruz racked up more than $2,000 in fines for sleeping in Grants Pass parks when she was homeless for about six years but now lives at a church feeding others who live on the southern Oregon city’s streets.

    Almost half of Cruz’s fines came in 2022 alone when police cited her four times for illegal camping or scattering rubbish, court records show.

    Cruz’s experiences will be at the center of arguments Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court that all sides say encompass the most significant case to address homelessness in more than four decades.

    About 600,000 people are homeless in the United States, with about 256,000 living outside on any given night, according to federal counts.

    The case has drawn more than 80 friend-of-the-court briefs from leaders of both liberal and conservative-led cities, homeless advocacy groups, public health and mental health professionals, professors, law enforcement agencies and religious groups.

    Cruz is flying to Washington, D.C., to speak at a “Housing, not Handcuffs” rally outside the Supreme Court, arguing that affordable housing, rental assistance, outreach and more shelters are the solutions to address the nation’s homelessness crisis.

    Advocates for homeless people want the court to uphold a ruling that barred Grants Pass from punishing people with citations, fines, arrests or jail for sleeping in public when they have no access to an alternative shelter.

    “The city’s enforcement scheme is unconstitutional,” said Ed Johnson, who brought the case in Grants Pass as litigation director of Oregon Law Center after working nearly 30 years as a legal aid attorney. “Punishing the victims of our failed housing policies will not solve homelessness. It will make it worse. It will increase the number of people unable to get inside.”

    But cities along the West Coast and across the country that are struggling with burgeoning homeless populations are pressing the Supreme Court to set narrower restrictions.
     

     

     

    More: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2024/04/supreme-court-to-hear-grants-pass-homeless-case-monday-whats-at-stake.html?outputType=amp

×