"It's not theirs, Its mine"

[bripat9643]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if the assertion by SeaMajor is that my avatar has failed to persuade in some discussions on this venue.....well, he is right.
However, let's not presume that was the intent of any of my avatar's posts. He's ambitious and energetic, pro-active one might say. However, he recognizes that persuading the QAnon & MAGA fanboys that parade here is simply a bridge too far.

OK, that is just a general statement. More specifically, to our request for context and scale of Li'l bripat's charge that this prosecutor in question, Weissman, "... has a record of convicting innocent people, jackass.".......well, we simply do not have any data provided by Li'l 'bripat to substantiate his claim.

True he demonstrates, in post #1,537, his desire to prove a 'record of' of wrongful convictions, but......but that is not what is contained in Li'l bripat's submitted documentation. He asserts that some affidavits by opposing attorneys....the defendant attorney's in this case......prove wrongful conviction.
Not so.

As contained in Li'l bripat's post this is not a 'conviction' issue. It is opposing attorneys complaining about prosecutorial tactics that they didn't like. No conviction issue whatsoever. Even the defendant, Enron, is not party to this internecine food fight. It is between two opposing teams of attorneys. Further, these opposing attorney affidavits were rejected by the court. ("the courts refused to consider the affidavits sufficient to prove prosecutorial misconduct.)

So, while my avatar applaud's both Li'l bripat's and SeaMajor's enthusiasm and participation in this discussion.....we would still suggest a little more homework for each. And a little less QAnon histrionics.

Just sayin'

 

[j-mac]

It sounds like some highly classified files were recovered, along with other presidential office related papers. What if it is true?

Sounds like? Really?

 

[White 6]

Sounds like? Really?

I haven't actually seen any or many files, just file covers, not knowing what if anything in those covers. I am more than willing to let the courts and legal people sort it out.

 

[Chillicothe]

"He has a record of convicting innocent people, jackass. I fully realize that Dim scumbag like you don't care of people are innocent."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(See post #1,541 by poster Li'l bripat for reference.)

So, L'il B ..... you cannot back up your assertion about the prosecutor Weissman, can you?

As has been asked earlier, a thoughtful, substantive response from Li'l B is still useful. And required to substantiate the usefulness of the avatar Li'l B on this venue.

To repeat:

'Well, little poster 'bripat', let's put some metrics on your assertion. Quantifying the man's work could help us all understand the context, the scale, and the comparatives on this phenomena you suggest.

So, you say he convicts "innocent people", OK ......... how many?
And how many of those compared to how many of people who were actually guilty?
Meaning, did 10 innocent people get prosecuted (he doesn't 'convict'....juries & judges do that)....versus every 10 guilty who were prosecuted?
Or would it be 4 innocent versus 400 guilty? Or vice versa?'

 

[j-mac]

I haven't actually seen any or many files, just file covers, not knowing what if anything in those covers. I am more than willing to let the courts and legal people sort it out.

So, what if those covers were filled with material after they were taken from the Trump residence?

Remember, The FBI would NOT let the SM see those documents for quite some time after requested...

 

[Chillicothe]

So, what if those covers were filled with material after they were taken from the Trump residence?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good Question, poster 'j-mac.

Good Question #2:
So, what if those covers were filled with highly-sensitive secrets that America rightfully wishes to be protected, but......but removed by DTrump and minions to be re-located to a hiding spot at another Trump property? For reasons America does not yet know?

 

[j-mac]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good Question, poster 'j-mac.

Good Question #2:
So, what if those covers were filled with highly-sensitive secrets that America rightfully wishes to be protected, but......but removed by DTrump and minions to be re-located to a hiding spot at another Trump property? For reasons America does not yet know?

Wow, way to twist what I posted....You dishonest putrid fuck....

 

[White 6]

So, what if those covers were filled with material after they were taken from the Trump residence?

Remember, The FBI would NOT let the SM see those documents for quite some time after requested...

Am familiar with what is sometimes in covers like that. Not really surprised, not shown publicly. This is one of those cases where absence of public information is not information.

 

[j-mac]

Am familiar with what is sometimes in covers like that. Not really surprised, not shown publicly. This is one of those cases where absence of public information is not information.

Well, a good start would be not believing that we are stupid....Trust in the FBI is at an all time low...They did that to themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(See post #1,541 by poster Li'l bripat for reference.)

So, L'il B ..... you cannot back up your assertion about the prosecutor Weissman, can you?

As has been asked earlier, a thoughtful, substantive response from Li'l B is still useful. And required to substantiate the usefulness of the avatar Li'l B on this venue.

To repeat:

'Well, little poster 'bripat', let's put some metrics on your assertion. Quantifying the man's work could help us all understand the context, the scale, and the comparatives on this phenomena you suggest.

So, you say he convicts "innocent people", OK ......... how many?
And how many of those compared to how many of people who were actually guilty?
Meaning, did 10 innocent people get prosecuted (he doesn't 'convict'....juries & judges do that)....versus every 10 guilty who were prosecuted?
Or would it be 4 innocent versus 400 guilty? Or vice versa?'

I just backed it up, douchebag. Your statistics aren't required. Weinstein is a scumbag.

 

[bripat9643]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good Question, poster 'j-mac.

Good Question #2:
So, what if those covers were filled with highly-sensitive secrets that America rightfully wishes to be protected, but......but removed by DTrump and minions to be re-located to a hiding spot at another Trump property? For reasons America does not yet know?

Prove it, asshole.

 

[Chillicothe]

You dishonest putrid fuck....

Prove it, asshole.

Well, putting aside for the moment the English language star-turn from our Trump University students above.....lemme point out there is no need or call for "proving" my hypothetical about "what if those covers were filled with highly-sensitive secrets"....because, well because it was a hypothetical.
That's a Captain Obvious lesson.
---------------------------------------------------------

I just backed it up, douchebag.
.

Ummm, Li'l bripat.....no your avatar did not.
You asserted he wrongly 'convicted' people who were innocent. But your 'proof' was an internecine hissyfit between attorneys on two opposing sides of a case where one was complaining about 'misconduct'. No 'convictions' were at issue.

Again, another Captain Obvious lesson.
-----------------------------------------------------------

a good start would be not believing that we are stupid

Ummmm..........................

 

[bripat9643]

Well, putting aside for the moment the English language star-turn from our Trump University students above.....lemme point out there is no need or call for "proving" my hypothetical about "what if those covers were filled with highly-sensitive secrets"....because, well because it was a hypothetical.
That's a Captain Obvious lesson.
---------------------------------------------------------

Ummm, Li'l bripat.....no your avatar did not.
You asserted he wrongly 'convicted' people who were innocent. But your 'proof' was an internecine hissyfit between attorneys on two opposing sides of a case where one was complaining about 'misconduct'. No 'convictions' were at issue.

Again, another Captain Obvious lesson.
-----------------------------------------------------------


Ummmm..........................

The Supreme Court threw out the Arthur Anderson conviction, so according to the law, they are innocent. Of course, you wouldn't admit that your hero is a scumbag if your life depended on it.

 

[Sixties Fan]

We’ll continue to see debate in the week ahead over whether Garland had to appoint a special counsel and whether he chose the right person; whether the investigations will be delayed, perhaps fatally, and so forth. But I confess to cautious optimism and a belief that we should watch what happens in the month ahead, the time between Thanksgiving and the end of the year, when DOJ employees typically have leave they must take or lose, and progress can slow. A sprint during this time period, which we might see in the form of witnesses summoned to the grand jury or additional search warrants being executed, would be telling.

The bottom line is this: Trump is upset about the special counsel appointment. Sunday evening, he claimed, laughably and without any evidence to support it, that Smith was under Barack Obama’s control. If Trump is this upset about the special counsel appointment, Merrick Garland must be doing something right.


(full article online)

The Week Ahead

November 20, 2022: Special Counsel Déjà Vu

joycevance.substack.com

 

[j-mac]

We’ll continue to see debate in the week ahead over whether Garland had to appoint a special counsel and whether he chose the right person; whether the investigations will be delayed, perhaps fatally, and so forth. But I confess to cautious optimism and a belief that we should watch what happens in the month ahead, the time between Thanksgiving and the end of the year, when DOJ employees typically have leave they must take or lose, and progress can slow. A sprint during this time period, which we might see in the form of witnesses summoned to the grand jury or additional search warrants being executed, would be telling.

The bottom line is this: Trump is upset about the special counsel appointment. Sunday evening, he claimed, laughably and without any evidence to support it, that Smith was under Barack Obama’s control. If Trump is this upset about the special counsel appointment, Merrick Garland must be doing something right.


(full article online)

The Week Ahead

November 20, 2022: Special Counsel Déjà Vu

joycevance.substack.com

So, you found some lib spewing justification….Big deal…Just another brick in the wall of destruction.

 

[Sixties Fan]

So, you found some lib spewing justification….Big deal…Just another brick in the wall of destruction.

[This is who she is. You post someone who knows the law who will not tell you that taking classified documents from the WH for private use is not a crime]

Joyce White Vance is a Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Law. She served as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017. She was nominated for that position by President Barack Obama in May of 2009 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate in August of 2009. Professor Vance served on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee and was the Co-Chair of its Criminal Practice Subcommittee. As U.S. Attorney, she was responsible for overseeing all federal criminal investigations and prosecutions in north Alabama, including matters involving civil rights, national security, cybercrime, public corruption, health care and corporate fraud, violent crime and drug trafficking. She was also responsible for affirmative and defensive civil litigation on behalf of the government and for all federal criminal and civil appeals.

Before becoming U.S. Attorney, Professor Vance served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Birmingham for 18 years. She spent ten years as a criminal prosecutor, before moving to the Appellate Division in 2002. She became the Chief of that Division in 2005. Prior to her work as a federal prosecutor, she spent six years as a litigator in private practice, first at Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn in Washington D.C., and then at Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, now Bradley, Arant, Boult & Cummings, in Birmingham. Professor Vance received a B.A. from Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, magna cum laude, and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of law.

Joyce Vance | University of Alabama School of Law

For more than 140 years, the University of Alabama School of Law has produced attorneys who become leaders locally, nationally and globally. Alabama Law provides a top-rate education at an affordable cost in a supportive and diverse environment.

www.law.ua.edu

 

[j-mac]

[This is who she is. You post someone who knows the law who will not tell you that taking classified documents from the WH for private use is not a crime]

Joyce White Vance is a Distinguished Professor of the Practice of Law. She served as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017. She was nominated for that position by President Barack Obama in May of 2009 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate in August of 2009. Professor Vance served on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee and was the Co-Chair of its Criminal Practice Subcommittee. As U.S. Attorney, she was responsible for overseeing all federal criminal investigations and prosecutions in north Alabama, including matters involving civil rights, national security, cybercrime, public corruption, health care and corporate fraud, violent crime and drug trafficking. She was also responsible for affirmative and defensive civil litigation on behalf of the government and for all federal criminal and civil appeals.

Before becoming U.S. Attorney, Professor Vance served as an Assistant United States Attorney in Birmingham for 18 years. She spent ten years as a criminal prosecutor, before moving to the Appellate Division in 2002. She became the Chief of that Division in 2005. Prior to her work as a federal prosecutor, she spent six years as a litigator in private practice, first at Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn in Washington D.C., and then at Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, now Bradley, Arant, Boult & Cummings, in Birmingham. Professor Vance received a B.A. from Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, magna cum laude, and a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of law.

Joyce Vance | University of Alabama School of Law

For more than 140 years, the University of Alabama School of Law has produced attorneys who become leaders locally, nationally and globally. Alabama Law provides a top-rate education at an affordable cost in a supportive and diverse environment.

www.law.ua.edu

I don’t give two shits what her academic bona fides are, she’s biased….

 

[Sixties Fan]

I don’t give two shits what her academic bona fides are, she’s biased….

Following the law is not being biased. It is following the law, for Republicans, Independents and Democrats.

You will not find one thing she said which goes against the Laws of the USA.

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[j-mac]

Sixties Fan

Following the law is not being biased. It is following the law, for Republicans, Independents and Democrats.

You will not find one thing she said which goes against the Laws of the USA.

you are not the judge.