Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Laughing at Perjury Elf? Ok fine, then we'll just keep putting you on trial until we finally convict you   ( huffingtonpost.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, United States Senate, D.C. Superior Court, Jury, Attorney Kimberly Paschall, United States Capitol, Senate confirmation hearing, civil rights organizations, Hill police officer  
•       •       •

4325 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Sep 2017 at 5:05 AM (15 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



78 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-02 02:52:07 AM  
Doesn't she have a First Amendment case here?
 
2017-09-02 03:12:18 AM  

fusillade762: Doesn't she have a First Amendment case here?


not in trumper america.  any other time in the history of the united states, sure.  but look who we're talking about here - perjury elf and his boss, the Orange Julius.  neither of whom is exactly known for their respect for the law OR tolerant of differing opinions.
 
2017-09-02 03:55:32 AM  
She should have yelled out "You lie!" and got away with it, like that congress guy.
 
2017-09-02 04:03:08 AM  
if the idiots pushing this case figured it would make people shut up about Sessions, its had the exact opposite effect.
 
2017-09-02 05:07:44 AM  
Can we all get together in a huge mob and collectively laugh at Sessions together?
 
2017-09-02 05:14:34 AM  
So when does it become malicious prosecution?
 
2017-09-02 05:22:47 AM  

Summoner101: So when does it become malicious prosecution?


when its a democrat or a brown person.
 
2017-09-02 05:26:42 AM  
I have a feeling that this is going to be a lot like the Roscoe Arbuckle case, and the jury will literally apologize in court upon acquittal for the way this woman was treated.
 
2017-09-02 05:30:19 AM  

Weaver95: Summoner101: So when does it become malicious prosecution?

when its a democrat or a brown person.


i2.cdn.turner.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-02 05:30:31 AM  

Weaver95: if the idiots pushing this case figured it would make people shut up about Sessions, its had the exact opposite effect.


upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2017-09-02 05:32:59 AM  
First verdict overturned; TFA:  "the government had improperly argued that her laughter alone was enough to convict."

Thanks, Trump voters.  My respect for you remains unchanged.
 
2017-09-02 05:33:52 AM  

Weaver95: if the idiots pushing this case figured it would make people shut up about Sessions, its had the exact opposite effect.


Remember this fud?

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-02 05:35:32 AM  

PunGent: First verdict overturned; TFA:  "the government had improperly argued that her laughter alone was enough to convict."

Thanks, Trump voters.  My respect for you remains unchanged.


can you imagine the levels of rage and violence that would come from the alt right, should anyone have tried to pull this sort of stunt under Obama?

I often ask this of trumpers, and I've never gotten them to give me ANY answer.  not even a lying, disingenuous one.  they all take one look at this situation and run away fast as they can.
 
2017-09-02 05:43:13 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Weaver95: if the idiots pushing this case figured it would make people shut up about Sessions, its had the exact opposite effect.

Remember this fud?

[img.fark.net image 532x649]


The fact she hasn't lost a libel or slander case yet tells you how full of shiat he is.  It's true, the right to freedom of speech and the freedom of the press have limits.  He clearly doesn't understand what those limits are.
 
2017-09-02 05:46:40 AM  
That boy, I say, that boy has got scrambled eggs where his brains oughta be. You can tell by the ears, sticking out like flaps on a huntin' cap.
 
2017-09-02 06:07:50 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size


I'm just a layman, but doesn't the 5th amendment have something to say about this?
 
2017-09-02 06:10:02 AM  

Voxper: [img.fark.net image 300x168]

I'm just a layman, but doesn't the 5th amendment have something to say about this?


but someone LAUGHED!  at a REPUBLICAN!  they have to be crushed under foot, smashed down into the dirt and made to suffer!  if the plebs start thinking they have rights, the entire GOP will implode!
 
2017-09-02 06:15:22 AM  
A laser-like focus on jobs.  That's what this is.

/in 7th dimensional chess
//or dialectics
 
2017-09-02 06:16:08 AM  
The cover is $25.  There's a two drink minimum.  The trial will last all week.  Try the veal.  Any DOJ lawyer who even smiles will be sacked.
 
2017-09-02 06:17:22 AM  
You will not laugh at your rightful overlords!

You will learn your place woman!

/Praise Gilead!
 
2017-09-02 06:19:51 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-02 06:25:09 AM  

Summoner101: The fact she hasn't lost a libel or slander case yet tells you how full of shiat he is.


American libel laws are a joke. But then, if they weren't, then the First Amendment means absolutely nothing.
 
2017-09-02 06:26:00 AM  

ralphjr: [img.fark.net image 425x378]


img.fark.netView Full Size


Come to the derp side.
We have cookies.
 
2017-09-02 06:38:29 AM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-02 06:48:32 AM  
1. I believe that prosecuting someone for what she did is unjust and a huge waste of resources. Just kick someone like this out and move on.

BUT

2. They are not just charging her with laughing and journalists who don't acknowledge that in their articles are irresponsible or lazy. The jury members have said they convicted her for actions after being taken into custody which were far more disruptive than the laughter.

3. The case was thrown out because the government argued that laughter, alone, was enough to convict her. The court found that absurd.

4. While I think this case (and almost all cases like it) should end with the person being thrown out and maybe given a slap on the wrist, many states have laws that make it a crime to impede elected and non-elected government officials/employees from carrying out their duties. I agree with those laws although in this case the penalties seem harsh. While we all seem to hold Congress in contempt, they are the people's representatives with the authority to pass laws that bind us all. Its members should be able to carry out their duties without constant disruption.
 
2017-09-02 06:53:36 AM  

eiger: 1. I believe that prosecuting someone for what she did is unjust and a huge waste of resources. Just kick someone like this out and move on.

BUT

2. They are not just charging her with laughing and journalists who don't acknowledge that in their articles are irresponsible or lazy. The jury members have said they convicted her for actions after being taken into custody which were far more disruptive than the laughter.

3. The case was thrown out because the government argued that laughter, alone, was enough to convict her. The court found that absurd.

4. While I think this case (and almost all cases like it) should end with the person being thrown out and maybe given a slap on the wrist, many states have laws that make it a crime to impede elected and non-elected government officials/employees from carrying out their duties. I agree with those laws although in this case the penalties seem harsh. While we all seem to hold Congress in contempt, they are the people's representatives with the authority to pass laws that bind us all. Its members should be able to carry out their duties without constant disruption.


Found the obligatory lawful evil post
 
2017-09-02 06:57:30 AM  
If we can't laugh at him, can we at least still tell him to go fark himself?
 
2017-09-02 07:00:22 AM  

Alphax: Can we all get together in a huge mob and collectively laugh at Sessions together?


Oh sign me the fark up for that shiat.
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-02 07:03:17 AM  

Alphax: Can we all get together in a huge mob and collectively laugh at Sessions together?


That's a serious a good idea, a protest in DC against Sessions, where everyone just incessantly mocks him.
 
2017-09-02 07:09:19 AM  

Weaver95: fusillade762: Doesn't she have a First Amendment case here?

not in trumper america.  any other time in the history of the united states, sure.  but look who we're talking about here - perjury elf and his boss, the Orange Julius.  neither of whom is exactly known for their respect for the law OR tolerant of differing opinions.


Not in any America. This particular case is ridiculous since she shouldn't have been removed for a brief laugh, but the first amendment does not apply here. Observers are not allowed to disrupt Congress.
 
2017-09-02 07:11:59 AM  

Mad Scientist: [img.fark.net image 600x431]


As should we all!

Haha look at the funny little elf, with his pointy ears, and his lil turtle friend!
 
2017-09-02 07:20:13 AM  

eiger: 1. I believe that prosecuting someone for what she did is unjust and a huge waste of resources. Just kick someone like this out and move on.

BUT

2. They are not just charging her with laughing and journalists who don't acknowledge that in their articles are irresponsible or lazy. The jury members have said they convicted her for actions after being taken into custody which were far more disruptive than the laughter.

3. The case was thrown out because the government argued that laughter, alone, was enough to convict her. The court found that absurd.

4. While I think this case (and almost all cases like it) should end with the person being thrown out and maybe given a slap on the wrist, many states have laws that make it a crime to impede elected and non-elected government officials/employees from carrying out their duties. I agree with those laws although in this case the penalties seem harsh. While we all seem to hold Congress in contempt, they are the people's representatives with the authority to pass laws that bind us all. Its members should be able to carry out their duties without constant disruption.


They argued that laughter is enough to convict because otherwise you're attempting to convict for resisting an unlawful arrest.
 
2017-09-02 07:31:01 AM  

The Madd Mann: They argued that laughter is enough to convict because otherwise you're attempting to convict for resisting an unlawful arrest.


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-02 07:38:56 AM  
Future steps:

Deport her
Declare her an enemy combatant
Accuse her of voter fraud
 
2017-09-02 07:51:52 AM  
LoL. There's something seriously wrong with Jeff Sessions, and I'm not even talking about his unredeemed genteel racism. Like his boss, the man's behavior is that of someone with serious mental  disorder.
 
2017-09-02 07:56:45 AM  
When will people on the left learn?  If you don't like someone/something you protest in a civilized manner, with open carry!  If you laugh, someone could get their feelings hurt!

/Feeeeelings
//Nothing more than feeeeeelings
///3 slashies for the laughter
 
2017-09-02 08:04:22 AM  
The 1% has had just about enough of the peasants using that free speech thing.  A few convictions and a heavily militarized police force should do the trick.
 
2017-09-02 08:05:42 AM  

Voxper: [img.fark.net image 300x168]

I'm just a layman, but doesn't the 5th amendment have something to say about this?


No.  Because she hasn't been acquitted.

She was convicted, the conviction was thrown out on appeal on the grounds that the Prosecution made a faulty case.

Double Jeopardy doesn't apply until they are actually aquitted at trial.  You can be convicted, have the conviction overturned, re-tried and re-convicted and have that conviction overturned indefinitely until the Jury says "Not Guilty". . .THEN they can't touch you again.
 
2017-09-02 08:16:15 AM  
Contempt of cock.
 
2017-09-02 08:20:50 AM  
Highest Form of Patriotic!
 
2017-09-02 08:42:50 AM  
They need to be disbarred for pursuing this line. In fact, worse. If you can prosecute for laughter, you can prosecute for anything.
 
2017-09-02 08:45:27 AM  
68.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-02 08:45:33 AM  

eiger: 1. I believe that prosecuting someone for what she did is unjust and a huge waste of resources. Just kick someone like this out and move on.

BUT

2. They are not just charging her with laughing and journalists who don't acknowledge that in their articles are irresponsible or lazy. The jury members have said they convicted her for actions after being taken into custody which were far more disruptive than the laughter.

3. The case was thrown out because the government argued that laughter, alone, was enough to convict her. The court found that absurd.

4. While I think this case (and almost all cases like it) should end with the person being thrown out and maybe given a slap on the wrist, many states have laws that make it a crime to impede elected and non-elected government officials/employees from carrying out their duties. I agree with those laws although in this case the penalties seem harsh. While we all seem to hold Congress in contempt, they are the people's representatives with the authority to pass laws that bind us all. Its members should be able to carry out their duties without constant disruption.


This case needs to be thrown out because the defendant should NOT have been taken into custody for laughing, and they possibly violated her rights by doing so. There's no way for the government to call those actions obstruction without admitting she should not have been taken into custody. I think someone else mentioned first amendment possibly implying free speech, but if a judge already found her laughter wasn't obstruction was her being taken into custody for laughing a violation of her right to peaceful assembly?
 
2017-09-02 08:49:45 AM  

Mad Scientist: [img.fark.net image 600x431]


Ha. I'm mocking the Attorney General.
I'm scorning the Attorney General.
I'm farting in his general direction.
 
2017-09-02 08:56:44 AM  

Gordon Bennett: Weaver95: if the idiots pushing this case figured it would make people shut up about Sessions, its had the exact opposite effect.

Remember this fud?

[img.fark.net image 532x649]


Here's the rub...

If you have you "work really hard to earn an honest reputation in this country" ... then you are not an honest person at all.
 
2017-09-02 09:08:59 AM  

IlGreven: Summoner101: The fact she hasn't lost a libel or slander case yet tells you how full of shiat he is.

American libel laws are a joke. But then, if they weren't, then the First Amendment means absolutely nothing.


In the US, truth is an absolute defense against prosecution for libel or slander.  That's the kind of "joke" the rest of the world could use more of.
 
2017-09-02 09:10:19 AM  

RJReves: Mad Scientist: [img.fark.net image 600x431]

As should we all!

Haha look at the funny little elf, with his pointy ears, and his lil turtle friend!


Seems to me the arresting officer is the one who created the disturbance.
 
2017-09-02 09:21:44 AM  

hobbes0022: Alphax: Can we all get together in a huge mob and collectively laugh at Sessions together?

That's a serious a good idea, a protest in DC against Sessions, where everyone just incessantly mocks him.


It should be a thing to laugh at him whenever he shows his little keebler face in public.
 
2017-09-02 09:22:43 AM  

eiger: 2. They are not just charging her with laughing and journalists who don't acknowledge that in their articles are irresponsible or lazy. The jury members have said they convicted her for actions after being taken into custody which were far more disruptive than the laughter.


How should people react when they are being detained for chuckling? Should they just submit? Excessive use of force is one of the most important issues this country continues to grapple with. Are we or are we not allowed to protest our government? Or just laugh at it? If not, how the fark do we live with that?
 
2017-09-02 09:23:33 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Found the obligatory lawful evil post


Really? You think that people should be able to disrupt Congress for shiats and giggles whenever they want? Good luck with that.

I want to be clear. I'm not commenting on this case (besides the fact that it's been very misreported in the press). Nor do I think the possible penalties are at all just nor reasonable. To me, disrupting Congress should lead to expulsion and maybe a small fine like a traffic ticket. What's on the books now is frankly nuts.

However, increasingly I see a lot of rhetoric that people should have carte blanche to disrupt Congress or other venues in the name of "free speech" which is just nonsense. That's never been a right anyone has.

And, frankly, I increasingly see a lot of my fellow leftists embracing pretty much any tactic as long as it's sticking it to "them."

And, of course, if you dare to point out that maybe people shouldn't be allowed to disrupt the operations of Congress, suddenly you're "lawful evil."

Once again, good luck with that.
 
Displayed 50 of 78 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report