Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Republicans: Do you know where your political donations are?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 6:12 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (12 comments) [431 views]

The silent Trump voter
Politics by HatetheSwamp     April 28, 2024 7:28 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [22 views]

James Comer hopes for divine intervention to save him from embarrassing impeachment fiasco.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:05 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [136 views]

pb's Legal Goobers #s 2 & 3: The NY v Trump case is collapsing
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 3:43 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [53 views]

The Oval Office Oaf calls for "Four more years. Pause."
Entertainment by HatetheSwamp     April 24, 2024 2:56 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (6 comments) [110 views]

Trump, Giuliani, Meadows are unindicted co-conspirators in Michigan fake elector case, hearing reveals
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 4:53 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [65 views]

Turley: The "haymaker" in Supreme Court arguments. Chief Justice Roberts. "Openly mocking of DC Circuit."
Law by HatetheSwamp     April 26, 2024 5:59 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [194 views]

The latest general election polls from this weekend reveal something interesting.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     April 22, 2024 11:03 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (10 comments) [424 views]

So Ukraine got money.
Military by oldedude     April 24, 2024 3:58 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (6 comments) [99 views]

Donna may be getting her wish granted: Gateway Pundit to file for bankruptcy
Law by Curt_Anderson     April 24, 2024 7:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [39 views]

Dungeons & Dragons selectors, pages, etc.
What are the odds...
By Ponderer
August 11, 2023 5:17 pm
Category: Dungeons & Dragons

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


...that Trump will get himself put in jail for contempt of court very soon for blabbing his mouth off in direct, pig-ignorant defiance of a judges order? I'm gonna predict pretty, pretyyyyyy, pretty, pretty good.

He's already telling his followers he's going to say whatever the hell he wants to. He's declaring openly and brazenly that he won't comply. I will bet on within one week.

This judge is not fooling around. She's not going to treat him any different than she treats any other criminal defendant she deals with on a regular basis. Trump could even get his attorneys thrown in jail, not that he cares.


And when he goes to jail, he'll whine and cry that it's the judge's fault. Thefucking gall of this man.

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "What are the odds...":

  1. by Curt_Anderson on August 11, 2023 5:29 pm
    Ponderer,
    My bet is that Trump won't go to jail. I gave my two cents in the link below as to why I think Trump will hold his tongue. Basically, I think the judge wisely gave Trump a reason not violate her order about talking/complaining about sensitive evidence, witnesses, etc.
    selectsmart.com

  2. by oldedude on August 11, 2023 6:37 pm
    I think trumpster will say it just because. "let's test the first amendment!" I dunno where it will lead after that. No bets.

  3. by HatetheSwamp on August 12, 2023 6:11 am

    po,

    Good question. I think Trump will do all he can to force the judge to find him in contempt because, IMO, moderates and independents already think that Jack Smith...and this wacko judge...have gone too far.

    Because most of America still thinks that the Bill of Rights applies to Trump...even if TDSers don't, Trump could win the election right here.

  4. by Ponderer on August 12, 2023 8:01 am

    "Because most of America still thinks that the Bill of Rights applies to Trump...even if TDSers don't, _Hate

    Bill, how do you figure that we don't think that the Bill of Rights apply to Trump? After everything that has happened, you must seriously believe that your cult's leader hasn't committed any crimes. Otherwise, why would you keep defending him so much?

    Bill, the man is a criminal defendant playing chicken with the federal judge overseeing his case! Who in thefuck does that??? Certainly not an innocent man. He's literally daring her to jail him by openly and brazenly defying her orders. What is a federal judge supposed to do when a criminal defendant does such a thing?

    Are we supposed to believe that the Bill of Rights allows him to do that? You think that the judge is supposed to go, "Well, he's a former president, so given that, and because of the Bill of Rights, he should be allowed to commit contempt of court to his heart's content with no fear of any penalty, unlike any other criminal defendant who has ever faced a federal criminal indictment."?

    The truth is that it's Criminal Defendant Trump who believes that nothing in the entire Constitution applies to him.

    Are you really oblivious to how monumentally stupid you look trying to defend him with nonsense like that?


  5. by islander on August 12, 2023 8:07 am

    I gotta say, I fully agree with Peter from Marcy Wheeler’s site Empty Wheel”


    "After Trump was indicted in DC, the speculation — informed and otherwise — went to his possible defense strategies. “Delay delay delay” was an early one, following his increasingly successful efforts to do so in the Mar-a-Lago case before Judge Cannon. Judge Chutkan, however, is no Judge Cannon, and she has been pushing hard to move things along briskly. Trump sycophants have been putting some trial balloons out there, to see what might fly with the base, if not with the court, such as cries of “Free Speech!” and “First Amendment!” which pointed to a possible defense strategy. Another was the claim that Trump was relying on the advice of counsel, and thereby cannot be held liable.

    That last one I found rather . . . what’s the correct legal term of art? Oh yes . . . silly." 🍻

  6. by islander on August 12, 2023 8:28 am

    Pondy, the funniest thing about Hate’s foolhardy and never ending defense of Trump is that he and the others like him are helping to scuttle their favorite boy’s campaign (DeSantis), although I don’t hear them praising DeSantis much any more. I wonder why ?? LoL !!

    DeSantis’ campaign is hemorrhaging support with this type of GOP voter, polls show


    miamiherald.com

  7. by HatetheSwamp on August 12, 2023 8:29 am

    ...such as cries of “Free Speech!” and “First Amendment!” which pointed to a possible defense strategy.

    Well, yeah. If you're a first year law student, or an idiot like Alan Dershowitz. Baha.

    Another was the claim that Trump was relying on the advice of counsel, and thereby cannot be held liable.

    You're the all-knowing one, isle. I haven't heard that one but I've heard that he received conflicting legal advice... which, clearly, he did... and he chose to accept what was convenient to him, which a narcissist would. Ain't?

    BTW, that idjut and goober Alan Dershowitz thinks that the DC indictment is an obvious loser and that Smith knows that he can't, ultimately, win but it's a reasonable political ploy. What do the real legal geniuses think?

  8. by Donna on August 12, 2023 9:09 am

    Islander's Miami Herald piece says that DeSantis has lost support from White college-educated Republicans.

    Education matters about a lot of things.

  9. by HatetheSwamp on August 12, 2023 3:04 pm

    Does it say that they now support Trump?

  10. by Donna on August 13, 2023 8:32 am

    IMO Trump is trying to get thrown in jail because it would martyrize him in the eyes of his devoted followers and increase fundraising.

  11. by HatetheSwamp on August 13, 2023 8:56 am

    As I promised, I watched Shannon's Sunday Morning Show. And, as I predicted, that legal goober and member of pb's Legal Advisory Council, Jonathan Turley was guest at the beginning of the show. They discussed the DC indictment and the judge's rules imposed on Trump as a candidate for the US presidency.

    Turley said that the judge will have to be very careful in enforcing her restrictions on Trump's speech or she'll be overturned very quickly by the Supreme Court.

    He suggested that she very likely already crossed a line in instructing Trump's lawyers to restrict what notes Trump takes.

    pb thinks that, the Bill of Rights being intended, as it is, to protect citizens from government intrusion, the prosecutor and judge are in a weak position in attempting to limit the speech of the leading rival to the reelection of the sitting President.

    My guess is that Trump is going to have fun with this. It'll hard for not to be the political winner on this'ne.

  12. by Ponderer on August 13, 2023 10:22 am

    "pb thinks that, the Bill of Rights being intended, as it is, to protect citizens from government intrusion, the prosecutor and judge are in a weak position in attempting to limit the speech of the leading rival to the reelection of the sitting President. " -Hate

    So you do you think that Trump should be totally allowed to threaten any witnesses or prosecutors that he wants to? Do you think that a criminal defendant publicly threatening witnesses, prosecutors and/or even the judge of their case is protected speech under the First Amendment?

  13. by oldedude on August 13, 2023 10:34 am
    Po- That's not even close to any part of the first amendment. That falls under jury tampering. So you're waaaayyyyy off base.

    Jury tampering refers to improper communications with a juror with the purpose of influencing the juror’s deliberative process via private communication or contact regarding matters directly related to the case being tried. Examples of jury tampering may include providing outside information to a juror and bribing, threating or intimidating a juror to influence the verdict. Both lawyers and jurors themselves can be involved in jury tampering.

    18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

    Check out the citations.
    law.cornell.edu
    law.cornell.edu

  14. by Curt_Anderson on August 13, 2023 10:39 am
    There are limits as to what any criminal defendant can say. There is no free speech right to threaten witnesses or officers of the court. Defendants cannot conspire with fellow defendants on a bogus alibi. They cannot poison the jury pool.

    Trump is different from the usual defendant. Trump has crazy cult followers, like the heavily armed Utah guy who planned to kill Biden last week but was killed in a confrontation with FBI agents, and the J6 rioters willing to do Trump's bidding at his slightest hint. Trump has long demonstrated a proclivity for lying about his perceived enemies and the ability make his gullible supporters believe it.

  15. by Curt_Anderson on August 13, 2023 10:49 am
    OD,
    I wish you'd quote the person's comment that you are responding to. I don't see anywhere that Ponderer referred to jurors or the jury. Obviously the First Amendment doesn't protect jury tampering.

    If you don't want to quote a person, you could simply the cite the number of the post. I am replying here to your post #13 above, for example.

  16. by HatetheSwamp on August 13, 2023 11:03 am

    po and Curt,

    Obviously, Trump can't commit a crime through his speech.

    It's putting themselves in the position of interfering with the campaign of the leading opponent of the sitting President that has the prosecutor and judge between a rock and a hard place.

    If Trump's simply Trump and they attempt to imprison him, they'll put themselves in the position of advocating for the US as a Banana Republic.

    I can't, as po'd really say, effinWAIT to hear the nickname Trump comes up with for Jack Smith...and I can't, as po'd say, effinREALLY wait to observe what Smith does about it... And, if it happens?, Smith, as po'd really say, effinASKED for it!!!!! Bahahahahahahahahahaha baha baha!

    Can you imagine!!!!!? Being imprisoned for calling someone JUMPIN JACK, or SLIMY SMITTY?

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha baha baha! Bring it on!!!!!

  17. by Ponderer on August 13, 2023 11:07 am

    "Po- That's not even close to any part of the first amendment. That falls under jury tampering." -olde dude

    Thanks, od. I do like to get as specific as I can when asking questions. I didn't mean to leave out jurors.


    So Bill, do you think that Trump should be totally allowed to threaten any witnesses or prosecutors, or tamper with any prospective jurors that he wants to? Do you think that a criminal defendant publicly threatening witnesses, prosecutors and/or even the judge of their case, and/or tampering with a jury is protected speech under the First Amendment?


    olde dude, you don't have to tamper with a juror just over the phone or in person one-on-one. You can also do it by broadcasting whatever threats you want to directed at them over the public airwaves even before they have been picked to be jurors. You can poison tamper with the entire prospective juror pool that way and it's still witness tampering.


  18. by Ponderer on August 13, 2023 11:09 am

    That last line shpudl have said,

    You can poison tamper with the entire prospective juror pool that way and it's still Jury tampering.

  19. by Curt_Anderson on August 13, 2023 11:13 am
    "Obviously, Trump can't commit a crime through his speech." --HtS

    HtS,
    You couldn't be more wrong. There are many examples of criminal speech including:
    Incitement to imminent lawless action
    Harassment
    Threats
    Defamation
    Fraud
    Perjury
    Phony 911 emergency calls
    Conspiring to commit a crime.

  20. by HatetheSwamp on August 13, 2023 11:23 am

    So Bill, do you think that Trump should be totally allowed to threaten any witnesses or prosecutors, or tamper with any prospective jurors that he wants to? -po

    "Obviously, Trump can't commit a crime through his speech." -pb

    I agree with that legal goober Alan Dershowitz. The DC indictment isn't serious. Jack Smith knows that he can't win. He merely wants to wreak havoc with Trump's campaign.

    Oh, and,...

    Instead of SLIMY SMITTY, how bout SMELLY SMITTY, or SHITTY SMITTY!!!!?

    I can hear it now. Trump’s cellie says, "So, what ya in for, bub?"

    "Calling Jack Smith, 'SHITTY SMITTY.'"

    Even you humorless woke, white, electric limousine lib lovin progressives have to think that's funny. Baha baha baha baha!

  21. by HatetheSwamp on August 13, 2023 11:25 am

    Right, Curt.

    I said that, obviously, can't commit a crime through his speech.

    That's always true about everyone.

  22. by Curt_Anderson on August 13, 2023 11:40 am
    "Right, Curt.

    I said that, obviously, can't commit a crime through his speech.

    That's always true about everyone." ---HtS

    You are still wrong. Constitutionally protected speech by definition is not criminal. But not all speech (and other forms of expression) are constitutionally protected. Trump will almost certainly need to defend his constitutionally questionable speech in the trials he's facing.

  23. by HatetheSwamp on August 13, 2023 11:55 am

    So, some people can engage in:

    Incitement to imminent lawless action
    Harassment
    Threats
    Defamation
    Fraud
    Perjury
    Phony 911 emergency calls
    Conspiring to commit a crime    ...

    ...but not Trump under indictment?

    C'mon man. Gimme a break!


  24. by Curt_Anderson on August 13, 2023 12:29 pm
    The only example of unprotected speech on the list that Trump hasn't tried is phony emergency calls.

  25. by oldedude on August 13, 2023 2:22 pm
    #17.po- olde dude, you don't have to tamper with a juror just over the phone or in person one-on-one. You can also do it by broadcasting whatever threats you want to directed at them over the public airwaves even before they have been picked to be jurors. You can poison tamper with the entire prospective juror pool that way and it's still witness tampering.

    #22.curt- You are still wrong. Constitutionally protected speech by definition is not criminal. But not all speech (and other forms of expression) are constitutionally protected. Trump will almost certainly need to defend his constitutionally questionable speech in the trials he's facing.


    That's a pretty high bar though, and trumpster is known for dragging these things out. The big question is; are you holding trumpster to a different standard than you would a dim? That's where he going to gain traction. It's also how his poll numbers grow every time this happens. Now they're in a US court of law. Not in congress. The bar is not set by public opinion, it's set by cases and SCOTUS decisions. My view here is that the "opinions" are like, well you know. Again, no one is going to change their mind.

    And curt, no po didn't say anything about jury tampering, she's not aware of jury tampering, although in her post, it wasn't a violation of free speech (like you've pointed out) there are other laws that speech may fall under. I was just pointing that out so you could use it.

  26. by Ponderer on August 13, 2023 2:57 pm

    "The big question is; are you holding trumpster to a different standard than you would a dim?" -olde dude

    Absolutely not. I am not holding him to any different standards than I would any criminal defendant that any other American citizen, Democrat or otherwise, might find themselves being.

  27. by Curt_Anderson on August 13, 2023 3:06 pm
    "The big question is; are you holding trumpster to a different standard than you would a dim?" --OD

    Yes, I am. Trump should be held to different standard than a regular citizen. For example his "all I need is you to find 11,870 votes" phone call is more intimidating and has more pressure coming from a president of the United States than from an average person. Trump told Raffensberger that he might be breaking the law if he didn't "find" those votes.

    If a Democrat who was running for president (or any other office) made the same kind of veiled threat to an election official, they should be hauled into court for attempted election fraud.

    Unlike Trump, most of us don't have a bully pulpit and the ability to communicate through the media. Trump owns a very unique position and should be held accountable for the extra weight of his defamation, threats, incitement and other unprotected speech.

  28. by oldedude on August 13, 2023 6:56 pm
    Yes, I am. Trump should be held to different standard than a regular citizen. For example his "all I need is you to find 11,870 votes" phone call is more intimidating and has more pressure coming from a president of the United States than from an average person. Trump told Raffensberger that he might be breaking the law if he didn't "find" those votes.

    Then why do you hold pedojoe to a different standard than trumpster? You have NEVER not supported him. You make excuses for him for things he should have been called out for, like grazing eva Longoria's breast. I consider you far worse than any trumpster.
    View Video

  29. by Curt_Anderson on August 13, 2023 7:36 pm
    “#28”. —OD
    If and when Joe Biden is under indictment in four different jurisdictions and accused of rape (in a court room) I will!

  30. by Indy! on August 14, 2023 1:05 am

    I’ll believe it when I see it.

  31. by Ponderer on August 14, 2023 7:49 am

    "Then why do you hold pedojoe to a different standard than trumpster?" -olde dude

    Nobody is doing that, od. It's just that we haven't seen or heard any definitive evidence yet that Joe Biden actually committed any crimes.

    It was completely different with Trump. Blatant, undeniable evidence of him committing crimes can be brought up on Youtube if people want to see and hear it. The taped calls to state election officials begging them to commit felonies and help him steal the election... Pictures of boxes full of top secret documents he stole from the White House and refused to turn over even with a subpoenas ordering him to... The video of him exhorting a deluded crowd of knowingly armed would-be revolutionaries to march on the capitol to fight like hell to take their country back... There is just so much undeniable evidence of the crimes he has committed, even though you and Bill won't look at it.

    We've looked at what you have scraped together and presented here so far to go after Biden with. And so far it just doesn't constitute actual evidence of any specific crime he supposedly committed. There may be something to it and maybe he did commit a crime, but so far you have failed to present evidence of Biden committing a crime.

    So... absolutely, completely different situations. It's not our fault that Trump was such a sloppy criminal. Don't blame us.

  32. by HatetheSwamp on August 14, 2023 10:51 am

    There is just so much undeniable evidence of the crimes he has committed, even though you and Bill won't look at it.

    I don't want to speak for OD, but I don't think either of us are as comfortable being prosecutor, judge and jury as you are.

    Almost no one is.


  33. by Ponderer on August 14, 2023 4:11 pm

    "I don't want to speak for OD, but I don't think either of us are as comfortable being prosecutor, judge and jury as you are." -Hate

    Unless it's about Biden, right? That's the one little chink in your I'm no hypocrite armor there.

    I'll bet that particular projection was 100% unintentional, wasn't it. I'd bet a lot it was. Didn't even realize you were doing it, huh. You still don't even think you were. Oh that's Priceless.


  34. by Curt_Anderson on August 14, 2023 4:30 pm
    RE: #33

    Ponderer,
    When it comes to Joe Biden, HtS is comfortable being prosecutor, judge, jury and gerontologist.

  35. by HatetheSwamp on August 14, 2023 5:44 pm

    Unless it's about Biden, right? That's the one little chink in your I'm no hypocrite armor there.

    pb thinks Joe should be investigated. Lynched? Nuh uh.

  36. by Curt_Anderson on August 14, 2023 6:02 pm
    Re: #35

    No, HtS, Biden should NOT be investigated. Crimes should be investigated to see who may have committed the crime. Otherwise innocent people should not be investigated to see if they may have committed a crime.

    The congressional GOP members have said and/or strongly implied that Joe Biden took a political bribe and bent US policy to Burisma's advantage. They should start there and find if any US policy benefitted Burisma or some other foreign entity at America's expense and detriment.

    Trump his being investigated because probable crimes with his fingerprints all over them were committed. For example, his "11,780 votes" phone call, the classified documents he claimed he had the right to take because he declassified them with his mind, the fake electors scam, etc.

  37. by Ponderer on August 14, 2023 10:23 pm

    Trump is dead meat.

    Hate is probably in dire straits right about now, Curt. His cult's guru is going to prison for racketeering on a RICO bust. He must feel like his whole world has dropped out from under his feet.

    Give him a little break, Curt.

  38. by islander on August 15, 2023 7:32 am

    Hate and his followers can no longer deny that the guys they have supported all along are indeed dead meat! Their heroes are nothing but a gang of racketeering thugs just like we've been telling them since day one and now they know it!

    What they are trying to is save their own butt by pretending they never supported those guys and pretending they themselves aren't Republicans! For a while they even tried fooling everyone into thinking hey were Libertarians but that didn't work! LoL !!

    It gets even more hilarious, lately they have even gone so far as to proclaim they are really Liberals !! 🤣

    Ya gotta' love this!! 🍻

  39. by HatetheSwamp on August 15, 2023 7:50 am

    No, HtS, Biden should NOT be investigated. Crimes should be investigated to see who may have committed the crime. Otherwise innocent people should not be investigated to see if they may have committed a crime.

    Denile ain't just a river, eh, baha. Congress has a constitutional obligation to to exercise oversight. That's all that happnin.

    And, Congress has no power to judge crimes, except for, as po'd say, effin High Crimes...which is what's happnin...and will continue to happen, at the GOPs' own pace. And, there's nuthin your Rachel nor HuffPo can do to stop it. Sweet!

    The congressional GOP members have said and/or strongly implied that Joe Biden took a political bribe and bent US policy to Burisma's advantage.

    That, among many other things. And, the evidence that that's so is getting stronger by the day.

    Ah, yes. Trump Trump Trump Trump...TRUMP

    Bahahahahahahahahahaha.

  40. by HatetheSwamp on August 15, 2023 7:51 am

    po,

    pb thinks that Trump is despicable. He supports Ron DeSantis for President.

  41. by HatetheSwamp on August 15, 2023 7:53 am

    Hate and his followers...

    pb has followers? News to him.

  42. by Indy! on August 15, 2023 8:28 am

    DeSantis is also despicable. But the other choice will be the despicable Biden, sooooooooo six of one - half dozen of the other. 😉

  43. by HatetheSwamp on August 15, 2023 9:18 am

    At least DeSantis knows the Queen died.

Go To Top

Comment on: "What are the odds..."


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
 SelectSmart.com home page