Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
News Kamla's Latest Ad By Jack Smith
Author Message
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 86,713
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 11976
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: Hell House
Post: #21
RE: Kamla's Latest Ad By Jack Smith
(10-08-2024 01:15 AM)banker Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 12:00 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(10-07-2024 11:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-07-2024 04:08 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  It most certainly does. That said, we all know someone will come by and say this is just fine. Because, as I've said before, "REEEEEEEEE! ORANGE MAN BAD!"

And I had a feeling Kamala was going to release something like this. The only reason I didn't say anything is because I didn't think she'd have the arrogance -- and audacity, for that matter -- to actually do it. Yet she did, and I'm not surprised. That should tell you how predictable the left has become. So one more cup of coffee for me, please? 07-coffee3

Using a public document is election interference?

The issue of whether she *should* have produced and released the commercial is absolutely debatable on both sides of the issue.

The issue of using a public document in a campaign ad is somehow running afoul of election laws is just daft.

Given its legaiity, could does not necessarily mean should.

is that why we have judges and law thingys ... curious minds and all, Ja?!

No need for the judges and laws thingy here for the 'could' question present. Absolutely legal to use the text and video of the current Smith Motion for Immunity Determination in the ad.

Not that that issue determines the 'should' question of actually using it.

The question isn’t the use, it’s the convenient timing of the unsealing, which served on real purpose, to allow it to be available for use.

cucktwad fully understands the 'ram0rodifications' ... it's a shame the big Sur continues to be waned due to the wildebeests and muh muh muh corruptive spitballers...
10-08-2024 07:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,645
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Kamla's Latest Ad By Jack Smith
(10-08-2024 01:15 AM)banker Wrote:  The question isn’t the use, it’s the convenient timing of the unsealing, which served on real purpose, to allow it to be available for use.

Most of the timing issues fall on Trump's lawyers. It is literally the product of all the appeals that not only *required* this type of filing, but also led us down the calendar to this time.

Additionally, nothing prevents Trumps attorneys from their filing to counter / rebut in time to hit the docket.

Finally, there is literally a legal requirement that filings should, when possible (that is they dont spill classified matters to the public, they dont endanger witnesses), that all filings should be available to the public with as much dispatch as possible.

I understand *why* Trump doesnt want the filing available to the public, but his appeal and the directio0ns of SCOTUS on that mandated such a filing or proffer of proof. It also required that the party having the presumption against them meet the requisite level to move ahead (i.e. show their proof that the case involving the actions a then sitting President are not subject to immunity claims).

Bummer for him we can actually look not just at the proof underlying the criminal claims against him, but the basis of the who, when, why, what of those items. People can decide for themselves what they mean, instead of less grounded speculation.

The alternative is to simply **** can it, and sit on it. I was under the impression that the folks around here hated the idea of government censorship and/or government suppression of relevant information.
10-08-2024 08:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GeminiCoog Offline
Saved by grace through faith.
*

Posts: 21,972
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 2170
I Root For: Houston, Notre Dame
Location: Dayton, Texas, USA
Post: #23
RE: Kamla's Latest Ad By Jack Smith
(10-08-2024 07:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 01:15 AM)banker Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 12:00 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(10-07-2024 11:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Using a public document is election interference?

The issue of whether she *should* have produced and released the commercial is absolutely debatable on both sides of the issue.

The issue of using a public document in a campaign ad is somehow running afoul of election laws is just daft.

Given its legaiity, could does not necessarily mean should.

is that why we have judges and law thingys ... curious minds and all, Ja?!

No need for the judges and laws thingy here for the 'could' question present. Absolutely legal to use the text and video of the current Smith Motion for Immunity Determination in the ad.

Not that that issue determines the 'should' question of actually using it.

The question isn’t the use, it’s the convenient timing of the unsealing, which served on real purpose, to allow it to be available for use.

cucktwad fully understands the 'ram0rodifications' ... it's a shame the big Sur continues to be waned due to the wildebeests and muh muh muh corruptive spitballers...

Something tells me he's also a narcissist. He feels like he has to have the last word.

Case in point, his latest post. (And the post below this one. So predictable.)
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2024 12:26 PM by GeminiCoog.)
10-08-2024 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,645
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Kamla's Latest Ad By Jack Smith
(10-08-2024 11:54 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 07:53 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 01:15 AM)banker Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 12:04 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 12:00 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  is that why we have judges and law thingys ... curious minds and all, Ja?!

No need for the judges and laws thingy here for the 'could' question present. Absolutely legal to use the text and video of the current Smith Motion for Immunity Determination in the ad.

Not that that issue determines the 'should' question of actually using it.

The question isn’t the use, it’s the convenient timing of the unsealing, which served on real purpose, to allow it to be available for use.

cucktwad fully understands the 'ram0rodifications' ... it's a shame the big Sur continues to be waned due to the wildebeests and muh muh muh corruptive spitballers...

Something tells me he's also a narcissist. He feels like he has to have the last word.

Case in point, his latest post.

Maybe try a substantive issue based reply, instead of the sad droopy eye caterwauling you provide above. Imagine that. Lolz.
10-08-2024 12:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
banker Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 14,649
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 2127
I Root For: Marshall
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Kamla's Latest Ad By Jack Smith
(10-08-2024 08:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 01:15 AM)banker Wrote:  The question isn’t the use, it’s the convenient timing of the unsealing, which served on real purpose, to allow it to be available for use.

Most of the timing issues fall on Trump's lawyers. It is literally the product of all the appeals that not only *required* this type of filing, but also led us down the calendar to this time.

Additionally, nothing prevents Trumps attorneys from their filing to counter / rebut in time to hit the docket.

Finally, there is literally a legal requirement that filings should, when possible (that is they dont spill classified matters to the public, they dont endanger witnesses), that all filings should be available to the public with as much dispatch as possible.

I understand *why* Trump doesnt want the filing available to the public, but his appeal and the directio0ns of SCOTUS on that mandated such a filing or proffer of proof. It also required that the party having the presumption against them meet the requisite level to move ahead (i.e. show their proof that the case involving the actions a then sitting President are not subject to immunity claims).

Bummer for him we can actually look not just at the proof underlying the criminal claims against him, but the basis of the who, when, why, what of those items. People can decide for themselves what they mean, instead of less grounded speculation.

The alternative is to simply **** can it, and sit on it. I was under the impression that the folks around here hated the idea of government censorship and/or government suppression of relevant information.

That’s a lot of words when you could have simply said “you’re right”.
10-08-2024 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,645
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Kamla's Latest Ad By Jack Smith
(10-08-2024 04:05 PM)banker Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 08:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(10-08-2024 01:15 AM)banker Wrote:  The question isn’t the use, it’s the convenient timing of the unsealing, which served on real purpose, to allow it to be available for use.

Most of the timing issues fall on Trump's lawyers. It is literally the product of all the appeals that not only *required* this type of filing, but also led us down the calendar to this time.

Additionally, nothing prevents Trumps attorneys from their filing to counter / rebut in time to hit the docket.

Finally, there is literally a legal requirement that filings should, when possible (that is they dont spill classified matters to the public, they dont endanger witnesses), that all filings should be available to the public with as much dispatch as possible.

I understand *why* Trump doesnt want the filing available to the public, but his appeal and the directio0ns of SCOTUS on that mandated such a filing or proffer of proof. It also required that the party having the presumption against them meet the requisite level to move ahead (i.e. show their proof that the case involving the actions a then sitting President are not subject to immunity claims).

Bummer for him we can actually look not just at the proof underlying the criminal claims against him, but the basis of the who, when, why, what of those items. People can decide for themselves what they mean, instead of less grounded speculation.

The alternative is to simply **** can it, and sit on it. I was under the impression that the folks around here hated the idea of government censorship and/or government suppression of relevant information.

That’s a lot of words when you could have simply said “you’re right”.

Apparently you didn’t read them, which cuts against your implication of whose convenience.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2024 04:15 PM by tanqtonic.)
10-08-2024 04:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread:


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.