Can "Bullshit" Be Used as an Adjective?

[DGS49]

Alvin Bragg’s Witch Trial - Chronicles

Bragg’s indictment repeatedly alleges Donald Trump made a false business entry to, “commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” But Bragg does not specify what the original crime was.

chroniclesmagazine.org

The linked essay simplifies the current Trump "hush money" trial in a way that explains the legal failings and - I dare say - atrocities incorporated therein. He is accused of concealing information pertaining to a "crime," which "crime" is never identified, and indeed to date has not been identified. Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment? Take your pick.

State Bar Associations are never lauded for their courage, but seriously, THIS CASE is the reason why they exist. You have a prominent attorney (Alvin Bragg) making a mockery of simple jurisprudence. EVERYBODY knows it, from the criminal lawyers who are looking on, to every American with a three-digit IQ.

There has never been another case where sanctioning a prominent attorney has been so richly warranted, and yet everyone reading this knows that IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

And as for my question above, yes, "bullshit" can be used as an adjective. Bragg is a bullshit prosecutor, it is a bullshit case in front of a corrupt judge, and anything that comes out of it will necessarily be bullshit.

 

[deannalw]

Hell, these days it can even be used as a pronoun.

 

[beautress]

The term "Bullshit" should not be used for anything but a used rodeo ground.

 

[Dante]

Alvin Bragg’s Witch Trial - Chronicles

Bragg’s indictment repeatedly alleges Donald Trump made a false business entry to, “commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” But Bragg does not specify what the original crime was.

chroniclesmagazine.org

The linked essay simplifies the current Trump "hush money" trial in a way that explains the legal failings and - I dare say - atrocities incorporated therein. He is accused of concealing information pertaining to a "crime," which "crime" is never identified, and indeed to date has not been identified. Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment? Take your pick.

State Bar Associations are never lauded for their courage, but seriously, THIS CASE is the reason why they exist. You have a prominent attorney (Alvin Bragg) making a mockery of simple jurisprudence. EVERYBODY knows it, from the criminal lawyers who are looking on, to every American with a three-digit IQ.

There has never been another case where sanctioning a prominent attorney has been so richly warranted, and yet everyone reading this knows that IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

And as for my question above, yes, "bullshit" can be used as an adjective. Bragg is a bullshit prosecutor, it is a bullshit case in front of a corrupt judge, and anything that comes out of it will necessarily be bullshit.

Read the indictment!

The Trump Jan. 6 Indictment, Annotated​

By Charlie Savage and Adam GoldmanAug. 1, 2023

The Justice Department unveiled an indictment on Tuesday charging former President Donald J. Trump with four criminal counts. They relate to Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters.

1 count: Conspiracy to defraud the United States
The charge against Mr. Trump details the various methods he and co-conspirators used to try to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

2 counts: Related to efforts to obstruct the vote certification proceedings

Mr. Trump faces two charges involving the vote certification proceedings at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021: one of obstructing that process and one of conspiring to do so.

1 count: Conspiracy to violate civil rights

Related to Mr. Trump’s attempts to reverse election results in states with close elections in 2020.


The New York Times annotated the document.
Download the full PDF

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election/1f1c76972b25c802/full.pdf

 

[Dante]

Read the indictment!

https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf

THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses
the defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST
DEGREE, in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice
from Michael Cohen dated February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump
Revocable Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

SECOND COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by this indictment, further accuses the
defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE,
in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows:
The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017,
with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission
thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, an entry in
the Detail General Ledger for the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, bearing voucher number
842457, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.

THIRD COUNT:
AND THE GRAND JURY AFORESAID, by th...

 

[Dante]

Alvin Bragg’s Witch Trial - Chronicles

Bragg’s indictment repeatedly alleges Donald Trump made a false business entry to, “commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” But Bragg does not specify what the original crime was.

chroniclesmagazine.org

The linked essay simplifies the current Trump "hush money" trial in a way that explains the legal failings and - I dare say - atrocities incorporated therein. He is accused of concealing information pertaining to a "crime," which "crime" is never identified, and indeed to date has not been identified. Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment? Take your pick.

State Bar Associations are never lauded for their courage, but seriously, THIS CASE is the reason why they exist. You have a prominent attorney (Alvin Bragg) making a mockery of simple jurisprudence. EVERYBODY knows it, from the criminal lawyers who are looking on, to every American with a three-digit IQ.

There has never been another case where sanctioning a prominent attorney has been so richly warranted, and yet everyone reading this knows that IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

And as for my question above, yes, "bullshit" can be used as an adjective. Bragg is a bullshit prosecutor, it is a bullshit case in front of a corrupt judge, and anything that comes out of it will necessarily be bullshit.

quotes --

Bragg’s legal argument is complicated, but it stems from a simple episode: In the days before the 2016 election, Trump’s personal attorney and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid $130,000 in hush money to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors argue that Trump, who denies that he had sex with Daniels, then lied on 34 business records — 12 ledger entries, 11 invoices and 11 checks — to disguise his repayment of Cohen as legal fees.

On its own, falsifying those documents would be misdemeanors, relatively minor crimes. Bragg elevated each of the charges to felonies by arguing that they were committed to hide or further another crime — which, in an unusual move, he did not charge. He said he wasn’t required to specify that crime, but added that it might have been a violation of state or federal election law. What may further complicate the case is that it relies heavily on testimony from Cohen, a disbarred lawyer who served prison time after pleading guilty to violating campaign-finance laws, evading taxes, making false statements to a bank and lying to Congress.

After the indictment, a chorus of critics — some but not all on the right — questioned the legal reasoning, wisdom and winnability of the hush-money case. Today, many experts believe that Bragg’s legal strategy looks considerably stronger, validated by a federal judge who rebuffed Trump’s effort to delay or even kill the case by having it moved to federal court, and by the Manhattan judge presiding over the case, who in February officially greenlit Bragg’s premise by setting a trial date.

None of which means the case has ceased to be controversial...

How a ‘Nerdy’ Prosecutor Became the First to Try Trump

Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan D.A., campaigned as the best candidate to go after the former president. Now he finds himself leading Trump’s first prosecution — and perhaps the only one before the November election.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Meathead]

quotes --

Bragg’s legal argument is complicated, but it stems from a simple episode: In the days before the 2016 election, Trump’s personal attorney and fixer, Michael D. Cohen, paid $130,000 in hush money to the adult-film star Stormy Daniels. Prosecutors argue that Trump, who denies that he had sex with Daniels, then lied on 34 business records — 12 ledger entries, 11 invoices and 11 checks — to disguise his repayment of Cohen as legal fees.

On its own, falsifying those documents would be misdemeanors, relatively minor crimes. Bragg elevated each of the charges to felonies by arguing that they were committed to hide or further another crime — which, in an unusual move, he did not charge. He said he wasn’t required to specify that crime, but added that it might have been a violation of state or federal election law. What may further complicate the case is that it relies heavily on testimony from Cohen, a disbarred lawyer who served prison time after pleading guilty to violating campaign-finance laws, evading taxes, making false statements to a bank and lying to Congress.

After the indictment, a chorus of critics — some but not all on the right — questioned the legal reasoning, wisdom and winnability of the hush-money case. Today, many experts believe that Bragg’s legal strategy looks considerably stronger, validated by a federal judge who rebuffed Trump’s effort to delay or even kill the case by having it moved to federal court, and by the Manhattan judge presiding over the case, who in February officially greenlit Bragg’s premise by setting a trial date.

None of which means the case has ceased to be controversial...

How a ‘Nerdy’ Prosecutor Became the First to Try Trump

Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan D.A., campaigned as the best candidate to go after the former president. Now he finds himself leading Trump’s first prosecution — and perhaps the only one before the November election.

www.nytimes.com

Bullshit can also be used as a noun.

 

[leftwinger]

who denies that he had sex with Daniels, then lied on 34 business records — 12 ledger entries, 11 invoices and 11 checks — to disguise his repayment of Cohen as legal fees.

Stupid OX. A one X payment does not show up on 100s' of documents. But the entire event never happned, see 38DD 2018 letter stating such facts.

 

[Dante]

Stupid OX. A one X payment does not show up on 100s' of documents. But the entire event never happned, see 38DD 2018 letter stating such facts.

After the indictment, a chorus of critics — some but not all on the right — questioned the legal reasoning, wisdom and winnability of the hush-money case. Today, many experts believe that Bragg’s legal strategy looks considerably stronger, validated by a federal judge who rebuffed Trump’s effort to delay or even kill the case by having it moved to federal court, and by the Manhattan judge presiding over the case, who in February officially greenlit Bragg’s premise by setting a trial date.

 

[Dante]

Bullshit can also be used as a noun.

Does "truthful hyperbole" count as bullshit?

 

[Meathead]

Does "truthful hyperbole" count as bullshit?

Truthful hyperbole?! God you're fucking weird.

 

[Dante]

Truthful hyperbole?! God you're fucking weird.

That's a thing Trump pushed. It's his. He owns it. Don't you people know shit?

04-04-2017TECH

“I Call It Truthful Hyperbole”: The Most Popular Quotes From Trump’s “The Art of the Deal”​

The most-highlighted excerpts from Trump’s book take on new meaning, given the way he ran his campaign—and is running America.

 

[Dante]

Truthful hyperbole?! God you're fucking weird.

So again, does "truthful hyperbole" count as bullshit?

 

[candycorn]

Hell, these days it can even be used as a pronoun.

It does describe the average trump supporter perfectly.

 

[rosends]

Alvin Bragg’s Witch Trial - Chronicles

Bragg’s indictment repeatedly alleges Donald Trump made a false business entry to, “commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” But Bragg does not specify what the original crime was.

chroniclesmagazine.org

The linked essay simplifies the current Trump "hush money" trial in a way that explains the legal failings and - I dare say - atrocities incorporated therein. He is accused of concealing information pertaining to a "crime," which "crime" is never identified, and indeed to date has not been identified. Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment? Take your pick.

State Bar Associations are never lauded for their courage, but seriously, THIS CASE is the reason why they exist. You have a prominent attorney (Alvin Bragg) making a mockery of simple jurisprudence. EVERYBODY knows it, from the criminal lawyers who are looking on, to every American with a three-digit IQ.

There has never been another case where sanctioning a prominent attorney has been so richly warranted, and yet everyone reading this knows that IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

And as for my question above, yes, "bullshit" can be used as an adjective. Bragg is a bullshit prosecutor, it is a bullshit case in front of a corrupt judge, and anything that comes out of it will necessarily be bullshit.

Yes it can -- page 117

https://thescriptlab.com/wp-content/uploads/scripts/My-Cousin-Vinny.pdf

 

[Meathead]

So again, does "truthful hyperbole" count as bullshit?

It does when it comes to this shit.

 

[BackAgain]

On its own, falsifying those documents would be misdemeanors, relatively minor crimes. Bragg elevated each of the charges to felonies by arguing that they were committed to hide or further another crime — which, in an unusual move, he did not charge. He said he wasn’t required to specify that crime, but added that it might have been a violation of state or federal election law.

I know the Dainty doesn’t understand this, but he has successfully quoted one of the problems with the Bragg legal theory of the case. Amazing.

It may be true (for instance) that in NY, in a burglary case, a prosecutor isn’t required to state which crime a defendant “intended to commit” inside a home he has illegally entered. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that he isn’t obligated to state the alleged “other” crime in a case alleging “falsification of business records.”

And there are clear legal dangers inherent in declining to do so for the persecutor.

What may further complicate the case is that it relies heavily on testimony from Cohen, a disbarred lawyer who served prison time after pleading guilty to violating campaign-finance laws, evading taxes, making false statements to a bank and lying to Congress.

Yeah. It does happen. Shitbag witnesses do get “flipped” from time to time. But it is still kind of unusual for the shitbag witness to have been convicted of perjury relative to the very matters he is going to be asked at trial in the present case.

After the indictment, a chorus of critics — some but not all on the right — questioned the legal reasoning, wisdom and winnability of the hush-money case. Today, many experts believe that Bragg’s legal strategy looks considerably stronger, validated by a federal judge who rebuffed Trump’s effort to delay or even kill the case by having it moved to federal court, and by the Manhattan judge presiding over the case, who in February officially greenlit Bragg’s premise by setting a trial date.

So what? It doesn’t matter what some alleged legal experts think. It matters what the appellate courts may have to say in the event of a conviction.

 

[Yarddog]

Alvin Bragg’s Witch Trial - Chronicles

Bragg’s indictment repeatedly alleges Donald Trump made a false business entry to, “commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof.” But Bragg does not specify what the original crime was.

chroniclesmagazine.org

The linked essay simplifies the current Trump "hush money" trial in a way that explains the legal failings and - I dare say - atrocities incorporated therein. He is accused of concealing information pertaining to a "crime," which "crime" is never identified, and indeed to date has not been identified. Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment? Take your pick.

State Bar Associations are never lauded for their courage, but seriously, THIS CASE is the reason why they exist. You have a prominent attorney (Alvin Bragg) making a mockery of simple jurisprudence. EVERYBODY knows it, from the criminal lawyers who are looking on, to every American with a three-digit IQ.

There has never been another case where sanctioning a prominent attorney has been so richly warranted, and yet everyone reading this knows that IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.

And as for my question above, yes, "bullshit" can be used as an adjective. Bragg is a bullshit prosecutor, it is a bullshit case in front of a corrupt judge, and anything that comes out of it will necessarily be bullshit.

Sitting BuLLsHIt Elizabeth Warren
Yes we can !

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

"BULLSHIT" best describes Biden.

 

[Dante]

It does when it comes to this shit.

So you now agree Trump is full of bullshit -- oh pardon (pun?), full of truthful hyperbole??