Still waiting you spineless wonder.
Only infants are incapable of admitting mistakes, and they can’t talk. What’s your excuse for a total lack of testicular fortitude?

😂 Because Fox said so! 😂

Too bad he already testified under oath that he had no knowledge that this was true, if the text isn’t a fraud, which considering the source is nearly guaranteed, even if it’s a real text it’s only what he said he THOUGHT happened, not what he has sworn to under oath.
Also too bad for Trump it’s not criminal to have a relationship with other attorneys.
Also too bad its been proven he was not her first choice, or her first offer for the position, nor the highest monetary offer made, he was the only one willing to take the physical risk of going against the Trump terrorist cult.

Always, every single time you lie to twist reality to what you want then you actually think that’s real. Hide and watch. There’s no crime here.

It does seem the illegitimate supreme court has decided to be Trump’s public defender and delayed their ruling (which shouldn’t be a consideration, a ruler with absolute immunity is a king or emperor, not a president) on absolute immunity late enough to not know if Trump is eligible to run before the election happens.

How is disqualifying Smith going?

Still waiting. 😂 😂 😂

I expect it to be a long wait for you to grow up enough to have the spine to admit you are, again, 100% wrong, as usual.
You have a long way to go and you aren’t making any headway.

Oh fuck…day 1 of the Trump Rape trial was a shit show for Habba. She’s going to end up in prison too. The judge is already so done with her disrespect, lack of courtroom decorum, lack of legal knowledge, attempts to re-litigate issues he already ruled on, calling the judge “sir” not “your honor”, interupting, filing inappropriate motions, making motions through email, slandering and libeling the judge publicly, etc. She is SO not ready for federal court, and she’s now LEAD COUNCIL after Tacapino quit Trump last weekend.
Trump is going to be convicted on every count, and lose every civil trial worse than anyone can imagine not just because he’s guilty but also because he has no defense team, he has unintelligent cheerleaders. He would be better off with a public defender, but they won’t sleep with him. His lecherous tendencies, needing to be surrounded by attractive women at all times to feel secure, are ending him in spectacular fashion….and I am so here for it with popcorn and a big gulp!

So far, Habba has been reamed by the judge and Trump had “Tothed” hundreds of posts attacking his victim while the jury is being picked…a jury that has total anonymity to protect them from exactly the same treatment if Trump finds out who they are. The jury is going to see those when determining how much to award his rape victim, his guilt is legally pre-determined from his last trial, and it will be in their minds that they might suffer the same thing themselves so expect an astoundingly huge award, enough to ensure he never does it again because they might very well be the target next time. 😂
He is so fucked.

Bonus- Oh snap…like I said, in opening statements the prosecutor showed them the 22 times Trump attacked Carrol this morning while in the room with them, asked to think about that when determining how much money it will take to convince Trump to stop. That’s going to be one big number with a lot of zeros….7…8…could we see 9 zeros? 😂
And make no mistake, she gets ANOTHER bite of his pie because he has not stopped defaming her even as the trial progresses, and that slander and libel isn’t covered in this or the other rape trials. He’s really regretting opening his halitosis filled mouth, but still can’t stop doing it. 😂

And Trump lost again in NY Supreme Court trying to remove his gag order so he can attack court workers and threaten their safety. Denied.

Gym Jordan busted today by actual phone and text messages from the whitehouse on Jan 6. He had claimed he may have talked to the whitehouse a maximum of one time on Jan 6 and only after the capital had been cleared, now it’s proven he had a 10 minute conversation with Trump hours before going to object to the legitimate electors from multiple states.
No wonder he’s still ignoring his subpoena over the biggest crime ever in American history with more arrests and more convictions than the next 3 mass crimes put together, he was directly involved and one of the architects of the attempted coup….and a willing child rapist protector. Never forget you chose the party of child rapists, willingly and with full knowledge of who you were standing with.
“You will know them by the company they keep.” makes you look like one sick fucker. These are your guys….

276 Frederick Eugene Wall, Republican candidate for state senate in SC, is charged with child pornography and sexual exploitation of a minor. He threatened reporter who asked him about it. He denies he was charged, but he has the same name, age, and address.

277 Gary Schaffrick, State GOP Treasurer in CT - child endangerment that sounds a lot like sexual assault (Bathing nude with 5 yr old boy who he sits on his lap while both are naked, sharing a bed)

278 Elected @GOP state legislators who oppose changes to state statutes of limitation so that victims of sexual assault and exploitation will be able to come forward and get justice. They are on the side of rapists and child molesters

279 GOP Rep. Michael Capps of Wichita - child abuse of foster child, overturned on a technicality, party withdraws supports, asks him to withdraw but he won’t

280 Roy Bolden, Chair of the Providence GOP - first-degree and second-degree child molestation, and third-degree sexual assault.

281 Elliott Broidy, former RNC Finance Chair, mega-donor - sexual abuse

282 Iowa GOP staff Jim Friedrich cost Iowa taxpayers $2.2 million with his sexual harassment of women

283 Former GOP State Senator Shawn Hamerlinck, sexual harassment - cost taxpayers #2.2 million

284 Iowa state Sen. Merlin A Bartz - sexual harassment

285 Iowa GOP aide Ed Failor Jr - sexual harassment

286 Iowa GOP state Sen. Rick Bertrand - sexual harassment

287 Iowa State Sen Bill Anderson - inappropriate conduct, comments

288 Iowa State Sen Tim Kapucian - inappropriate comments/conduct

289 GOP NV Assembly candidate and LEGAL brothel owner Dennis Hof was under investigation for sexual assault, though his death 10/16/18 will probably end the investigation

290 ID state rep Mark Patterson - pled guilty to attempted rape, lied about it, also said his constituents aren’t interested in that.

291 Southern Baptist Seminary leader Paige Patterson pressured women to not report their rapes, told a woman it was good she was raped. He’s not the rapist, but he helped the rapist rape more women.

292 ME state house GOP candidate Mark Bedell - domestic violence

293 NH state Rep. Eric Schleien to resign amid allegations he sexually assaulted 16-year-old student.

294 ME GOP state house candidate Chris Hoy - violating a protective order, domestic violence, assault, pled guilty

295 GOP Voters - More Republican voters would vote for a candidate accused of sexual harassment than would not. They have embraced their role as the party of sexual abuse.

296 John Boswell, Republican donor-activist - sexual assault. Arrested twice, first time at Trump inauguration, paid a $50 fine.

297 OK Republican George Faught makes the list for claiming rape and incest are God’s will. Rape culture on steroids.

298 State Rep. Rob Brooks - R-WI - racist remarks and sexual harassment

299 US Rep Ralph Norman thinks sexual assault is a joke, cracking a joke about it during a debate

300 Former executive director of SC Republican Party Todd Kincannon - domestic violence. He may be mentally ill.

Bonus- Trump’s Georgia RICO case codefendent Trevion Kutti’s lawyers both withdrew from the case because she can’t pay them (she claimed one was willing to come back, but he was still on the zoom meeting and told the judge absolutely not unless she found the cash first, then she declined a public defender. This means, unless she can find a lawyer prepared to defend her in a 4 week minimum public RICO case involving treason for free with absolutely nothing to gain for them, she’s going into it with no representation. If she’s found guilty, thanks to RICO so is Trump. The house of cards is falling! 😂

The court ruled that they found "there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent (Giuliani) communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers, and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former president Donald J Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020."

They explained the false statements bolstered Giuliani's false narrative that there was widespread fraud and that the 2020 election was "stolen" from his client.

Now disbarred indefinitely for perjury, and facing criminal charges on multiple separate federal and state crimes, all for Trump who didn't even pay him for sacrificing his own livelihood and reputation on the alter of Diaper Don. Gonna be hilarious when he requests a public defender....THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!

Try the first one....lazybones. ;-) It lays out both the stated intent and the actions that belie that statement.

When the video guy is well known for publicly defending the far right, neo Nazi supporting gallery that holds private, secret white power rallies, that's enough for me. He clearly made himself look like a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer, and that's how the community sees him. He may just be a friend to Nazis, not one himself, but that's both a distinction without a clear difference and an image he created without stating clearly that he disagrees with them but supports their right to be wrong. That's on him.

It seems far easier to read the links than try to research it yourself, so I don't understand why you decided to ignore the research offered in favor of your own unproductive but far more labor intensive research. Seems a bit like putting fingers in your ears and saying you hear no evidence during a discussion.

@HenningKO --

Not that I want to defend them (the R's that publicly defend or at least refrain from going negative on Trump), but I think the end of the video pretty well explains their thought process.

They want to stay in office. If they oppose Trump *now*, they create a big problem for themselves in their primaries. Who likes Trump? Evangelicals. Who shows up and actually votes in primaries? Evangelicals. Many of these guys are in states so overwhelmingly red that as long as they are on the ballot in the general election, they are almost assured the victory. But go against Trump now, and it won't be their name next to that (R), it'll be some Evangelical appeaser that booted them out in the primary.

Is that a rather spineless and amoral line of reasoning? Yes. Is it notably lacking in the public service motivation that we would like our elected officials to have, and instead motivated entirely out of shamelessly corrupt self-promotion? Yes.

Is that sort of reasoning and motivation unique to Republicans? Hell no. You can't spell incumbent without getting "bent". I think we need term limits on all these fuckers.

Apply RICO, assign a public defender, grab some popcorn and watch what happens.

Much like crack, it's an easy way to keep US prisons full of poor black folk who rely on overworked public defenders after getting busted holding...

And while it's illegal, various law enforcement agencies get to inflate their budgets to deal with the war on drugs.

All comes down to money.

The details of that judge fighting the public defender when the public defender refused to settle for a speedy trial and actually wanted to defend his client: http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2015/03/30/panel-reviewing-evidence-in-brevard-courtroom-scuffle/70667488/ The judge was suspended for four weeks, but then reinstated. As of June 2, 2015 the case was being heard, I didn't follow the story deeper to see how it went from there...

That's pretty screwed up. Cops aren't supposed to issue a summons unless they saw the crime. He should have been forced to citizens arrest them, which would have to be done at the time, not weeks later. I think they'll win in court if it goes that far.
The public defender may tell you to plea out, but can't force you to. Just because they don't want the work doesn't mean they don't have to do it (by going to trial).
I also guessed roots, but I'm not sure either. I haven't seen it since the 70's.

Yes, public HS. He didn't issue the summons, just called his cop buddies and had them cited for disturbing the peace. One of those nice charges that you kind of have to pay if you can't find a decent pro bono lawyer. Public Defender will just tell you to plead out and pay the fine.

I think the movie is some part of roots, not sure. I figured people would know that was the end of the clip.

To be fair, SOME people do work hard honestly to become rich. SOME people are merely lucky, right place right time. But as more and more people simply inherit their wealth, or get their wealth through dishonest means, it stacks the deck against the honest and the lucky to the point where hard work is the exception, not the rule. Which is where we're at now.

I also got a kick out of the difference in monopoly money, where the "rich" player got 2K and the "poor" person only got 1K. If you want to make that more realistic, the "rich" player should have received something like 50K or 100K.

If rich people merely had double what the average person had..and SOME perks, I doubt that people would be complaining as much. I think most people accept that there is always someone more well off. so the issue isn't envy as some of the pundits like to point out. The issue is not that they have more, but that they have EXPONENTIALLY more, and on top of that, they appear to be exempt from certain rules the rest of us have to follow. Justice seems to be in favor of a rich person and their expensive lawyers vs the poor person and their public defender.

We don't have lower/middle/upper class anymore, it's more like lower/middle/upper/very upper/extremely upper/obscenely upper where even the well off are paupers by comparison.

The first problem I saw (from a civil rights perspective) came way earlier.

Maybe I'm off on my interpretation here, but didn't she say she earns $200 a week, has a car and some jewelry, to which he told her, she was not entitled to a public defender because she could sell her jewelry to hire a lawyer?

That seems like a travesty to me. She'll be forced to pay several months salary up front, simply as a retainer, before she even gets her day in court.

@heropsycho and @Mikus_Aurelius Thanks for your great replies. I will continue this conversation some more after I get home, but I wanted to say mikus raised a really good point that I couldn't wait to investigate further. The "income=expenditures" does seem a rather bad assumption. And I would like to offer my own pontifications a probable solution, I also put in an email to their info station. I present it here for reading.

"Hello. I imagine you won't have time to respond to this email, but I
have a question about one of the graphs in the FAQ. In Figure 2, the
graph assumes to make a balanced rate based on income = total
spending. That seems like a rather dubious assumption, as lower
income families will spend a disproportionate amount of their total
income when compared to someone of higher income whom will save more.
Was this just done for simplicity, because it would seem like the
actual rate would have to be higher all around given that money being
spent from the upperclasses isn't nearly has high, or I assume isn't
nearly as high. Is their any evidence to support the claim, is what I
am asking, that total income is directly equal to total spending. It
seems like to bold a statement to take on face value without some
reason to believe that. I love the idea of the fair tax, this
question seems to be burning in my mind as needing an answer."

Now, income is a strange beast. Steve Jobs only gets 1 dollar a year from his job, so how is that graph mapping it in relation to his income? Who knows, perhaps that is why it is so directly correlated, that most all money will get spent in the end regardless of salary. And I think the other graph still holds in spite of the figure 2 one, that total spending seems to be more steady then total income. You can think of income as a fire, and spending as the ember. People are always going to find money to spend, perhaps even hidden money like we all did in monopoly...that no one REALLY knows about. I still have lots more questions than answers on many of the different ways we could do taxes, but there is one thing I do know. Complex systems favor large businesses. The rules of scale mean anyone with a payroll department already can factor off some of the cost of compliance with normal business costs. Small businesses can't do this as easy. Also, complex systems are breeding grounds for lobbies getting special exemptions for their pet business. The entropy of the intent of a complex, income based system seem like something we could do without.

In closing, I am sad we ended up talking about which one was "more or less effective". Unless the cost is astronomically different between the 2, we shouldn't let that even be a topic. Reason being is we were talking about which one is right or wrong, and if one is morally wrong, it really shouldn't matter if it is cheaper. It is kind of like lawyers and the public defender. We could cut costs of the justice system by snubing out the public defenders, but we would be doing something we see as wrong by saving money in this case (I am not saying I support public defenders, just an example). So the rightness and wrongness of something should be the first focus, and its effectiveness a very much latter criteria. I don't have time to get into that real argument, but I thought I would add those 2 little tid bits before I had to get back to the grind.

I know this is old but I figure to comment anyways.

I understand where people come from in their blaming of the authorites in this vid, but let's understand.

I know diabetics because I work around them. I know one who broke the wrist of a female friend, when all she did was try and help him (He was banging his head against a hard object) but that's apparently okay, since it was diabeties. So no actual wrists were hurt I guess.

They appear drunk 100%. Slurred speech, aggressive, unresponsive... Period. And leave an already "drunk" man in a car? Hell, the lawsuit when he takes off, or the officer who is run over, would be damning far more than the diabetic getting tazed. Or force his limbs this way and perhaps break an arm or leg in order to cuff him? Probably not good either.

What is important is what happened after these cops figured out the man appearing drunk was in fact not. And that was 100% legit. Now, if they would have stompped on him or left him in the road, or arrested him, that's different.

And as far as the speaker in the video, public defenders = 100% biased. So that' not surprising.