Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions

SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
12 Posts 8 Posters 162 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • kluursK Offline
    kluursK Offline
    kluurs
    wrote on last edited by
    #3

    I'm just delighted that it is an unanimous opinion. I'm at the point where I don't even care what the issue is, against bombing orphanages or pissing on baby ducks. It's just great to have them agree on something.

    1 Reply Last reply
    • HoraceH Online
      HoraceH Online
      Horace
      wrote on last edited by
      #4

      On the other hand, unanimous decisions indicate faulty and likely politicized judgments in the lower courts.

      Education is extremely important.

      1 Reply Last reply
      • MikM Away
        MikM Away
        Mik
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

        Got to love unanimous.

        "You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible." — Thomas Sowell

        1 Reply Last reply
        • 89th8 Offline
          89th8 Offline
          89th
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          @George-K said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:

          Bridget

          The aide's name was Bridget. Bridge-t. Obviously she's guilty.

          1 Reply Last reply
          • L Offline
            L Offline
            Loki
            wrote on last edited by
            #7

            Bridgegate and Flynn on the same day. So much for the sanctimony. Sunlight the best disinfectant and all that.

            George KG 1 Reply Last reply
            • L Loki

              Bridgegate and Flynn on the same day. So much for the sanctimony. Sunlight the best disinfectant and all that.

              George KG Offline
              George KG Offline
              George K
              wrote on last edited by
              #8

              @Loki said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:

              Bridgegate and Flynn on the same day. So much for the sanctimony. Sunlight the best disinfectant and all that.

              Was bridgegate wrong? Probably from what I've read.

              But the question is, was it illegal?

              Remember, just because something's wrong ethically, doesn't make it illegal.

              "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

              The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

              L 1 Reply Last reply
              • George KG George K

                @Loki said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:

                Bridgegate and Flynn on the same day. So much for the sanctimony. Sunlight the best disinfectant and all that.

                Was bridgegate wrong? Probably from what I've read.

                But the question is, was it illegal?

                Remember, just because something's wrong ethically, doesn't make it illegal.

                L Offline
                L Offline
                Loki
                wrote on last edited by
                #9

                @George-K said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:

                @Loki said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:

                Bridgegate and Flynn on the same day. So much for the sanctimony. Sunlight the best disinfectant and all that.

                Was bridgegate wrong? Probably from what I've read.

                But the question is, was it illegal?

                Remember, just because something's wrong ethically, doesn't make it illegal.

                Remember it was allegedly Christie behind it. How far we’ve come from that sanctimony.

                1 Reply Last reply
                • jon-nycJ Offline
                  jon-nycJ Offline
                  jon-nyc
                  wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                  #10

                  It is a real shame that the law is so specific that it be monetary gains.

                  At the very least we can take solace in the fact that at least Kelly was crushed financially. Not sure about the resources of the other two but insofar as they have any they’ll lose them in civil actions, I would expect.

                  So some sort of justice will be done.

                  Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

                  L 1 Reply Last reply
                  • MikM Away
                    MikM Away
                    Mik
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #11

                    Today Briget tomorrow Weinstein!

                    "You cannot subsidize irresponsibility and expect people to become more responsible." — Thomas Sowell

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                      It is a real shame that the law is so specific that it be monetary gains.

                      At the very least we can take solace in the fact that at least Kelly was crushed financially. Not sure about the resources of the other two but insofar as they have any they’ll lose them in civil actions, I would expect.

                      So some sort of justice will be done.

                      L Offline
                      L Offline
                      Loki
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12

                      @jon-nyc said in SCOTUS tosses "Bridgegate" convictions:

                      It is a real shame that the law is so specific that it be monetary gains.

                      At the very least we can take solace in the fact that at least Kelly was crushed financially. Not sure about the resources of the other two but insofar as they have any they’ll lose them in civil actions, I would expect.

                      So some sort of justice will be done.

                      Trust me when I say I am all for rewriting the law. Somehow I doubt it will ever pass and you likely won’t like who is against it,

                      1 Reply Last reply

                      Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                      Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                      With your input, this post could be even better 💗

                      Register Login
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Users
                      • Groups