Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[GeeGolly]

There's a scary tipping for folks receiving services depending on the state they live in. Some states have a limit on TANF ($), say two years and then done. Others don't. In the states that don't, what sometimes happens is once the parent starts working more, they start to lose services. Then they get a full time job and have to pay for day care, receive no financial aid and have their SNAP reduced. If they're lucky they have Section 8 that remains in place. What can often happen is the parent can no longer make ends meet and the cycle begins again (if their state allows it too).

Going from a married unskilled mom to an single unskilled mom, even with services, is not always easy and sometimes sets them up to fail.

[Cinnabon]

13 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

There's a scary tipping for folks receiving services depending on the state they live in. Some states have a limit on TANF ($), say two years and then done. Others don't. In the states that don't, what sometimes happens is once the parent starts working more, they start to lose services. Then they get a full time job and have to pay for day care, receive no financial aid and have their SNAP reduced. If they're lucky they have Section 8 that remains in place. What can often happen is the parent can no longer make ends meet and the cycle begins again (if their state allows it too).

Going from a married unskilled mom to an single unskilled mom, even with services, is not always easy and sometimes sets them up to fail.

Not to mention losing healthcare coverage. Daycare without the subsidies often costs more than $1300 a month. Ditto for health insurance. Our social safety net helps very few and sets them up to fail with these kinds of limitations. 

This situation       should serve as a learning experience for Anna’s daughters, showing them what can happen when women don’t have any education or skills and depend completely on men to support them, but it likely won’t. 🥲
 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Cinnabon

[hathorlive]

31 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

I haven't read all the letters, but it seems like none of them really adress his crimes or alleged that Josh has remorse. Could it be because they want to appeal?

They can't say he did it and then try to convice the court to have another trial?

Really, what could any letter say to address the victims? That Josh has never hurt a child before? Scratch that.  That he would never do any thing to another victim again? Been there, done that.  They can't acknowledge the victims because it shows a repeat pattern that he can't and won't be able to stop in the future.

[Miss Fabulous]

5 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

Any thoughts on why Boob didn’t write a sentencing letter for FF? 

i reckon he told SmugAnna and Bitchelle what to write.

[Tdoc72]

15 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I'll write you a letter G90.

 

Dear Sir Judge ⚖️,

My sweet friend G90 is very diligent in writing on the boards. She has a heart to find facts for others and is quick to post the perfect photo for almost any discussion. We will miss her greatly during her sentence and have banned together with purpose of supporting her when she returns.

Sincerely, GG🧡

(came back to add, this does describe G90 and she is awesome)

I feel like the judge will only give leniency if you include her cracker crumb cleaning status. 

[GeeGolly]

3 hours ago, Tdoc72 said:

I feel like the judge will only give leniency if you include her cracker crumb cleaning status. 

Oh, oh P.S. Sir Judge, G90 ain't nobody's bitch and lets folks clean up their own messes, but she can follow the tiniest trail of bread crumbs to dig up dirt on the Duggars. 👏🏽

[galaxygirl76]

On 5/15/2022 at 8:27 PM, SmallTownMom said:

Does anybody else remember an episode where Josh and Anna had friends over for dinner (I think they were in DC then).  Josh wanted something from the fridge, so a pregnant Anna CRAWLED under the table to get it for him!  Many other times, we saw Anna pushing a stroller and carrying things while Josh just strolled along in front of her.

But at least she has a husband.

He did this with the camera crew there, I can't imagine how he treated her when they weren't there.

[libgirl2]

1 hour ago, galaxygirl76 said:

He did this with the camera crew there, I can't imagine how he treated her when they weren't there.

He likes to degrade women. He gets off on it. That is why what he was viewing was the worst of the worst. He is a sick person who should never be around children. 

[DeeReynolds]

Cousin Amy penned an open letter to Anna.

 https://people.com/tv/amy-duggar-tells-anna-duggar-no-shame-to-divorce-josh-duggar-amid-child-pornography-trial/

[awaken]

1 hour ago, DeeReynolds said:

Cousin Amy penned an open letter to Anna.

 https://people.com/tv/amy-duggar-tells-anna-duggar-no-shame-to-divorce-josh-duggar-amid-child-pornography-trial/

It was picked up by Newsweek as well. 

[ginger90]

Any opinions on if Josh will speak to the court at his sentencing?

[GeeGolly]

6 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Any opinions on if Josh will speak to the court at his sentencing?

Oh wow, I never even thought about this. I suppose if he's going to appeal he can't show remorse (if he has any). He may go rogue and go on an innocent Godly rant.

[Albanyguy]

14 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Oh wow, I never even thought about this. I suppose if he's going to appeal he can't show remorse (if he has any). He may go rogue and go on an innocent Godly rant.

If his lawyers are smart, they’ll make him keep his mouth shut. Nothing he can possibly say will help him, since an honest admission of his guilt and a sincere show of remorse is never going to happen. 
 

 

[Scarlett45]

12 hours ago, DeeReynolds said:

Cousin Amy penned an open letter to Anna.

 https://people.com/tv/amy-duggar-tells-anna-duggar-no-shame-to-divorce-josh-duggar-amid-child-pornography-trial/

I am of two different minds on this.

1. Amy isn’t wrong. And nothing she said in the letter was rude, condescending or disrespectful to Anna. And I do agree that given what a public family this is, it might be helpful for the kids to know that there were family members who spoke out PUBLICLY against Josh and his crimes (Joy, Jinger and Jill all made public statements too). 
 

2. Amy is a famewhore. Now being a famewhore isn’t a crime, nor does it make someone incapable of having good intentions, but I think Amy is angry (in some ways justifiably so) in how she and her Mom were treated by JB, while he was protecting scum bag Josh. That’s not WRONG but this just isn’t the place for it. Being a mother herself, and 35, I would expect Amy to have a bit more emotional maturity. A statement like the one Jill, Joy or Jinger wrote would’ve been fine. If Amy wants to vent about her uncle and his shit- her husband, therapist or Mom is the best place to do that, not an open letter to Anna. Because Anna doesn’t care what Amy thinks, and she’s NOT going to listen to Amy ever. 
 

Just my thoughts. This was more about Amy and her issue than Anna. 

[GeeGolly]

Amy has no dog in this fight. She's a cousin/niece. JB owes Amy nothing. JB owes Deanna nothing. When it benefitted her, Amy was all about being a Duggar, so much so she kept the Duggar name on SM long after she was married. Now, when its not cool to be a Duggar and even better yet, cool to be a Duggar hater, she's all about the hate.

Amy just needs to go about her own life and if she really wants distance from the Duggars, she need not mention them again. But she won't do that because she wants the attention the Duggar name gives her.

[Scarlett45]

11 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Amy has no dog in this fight. She's a cousin/niece. JB owes Amy nothing. JB owes Deanna nothing. When it benefitted her, Amy was all about being a Duggar, so much so she kept the Duggar name on SM long after she was married. Now, when its not cool to be a Duggar and even better yet, cool to be a Duggar hater, she's all about the hate.

Amy just needs to go about her own life and if she really wants distance from the Duggars, she need not mention them again. But she won't do that because she wants the attention the Duggar name gives her.

Taking my response to the Amy thread. 

[quarks]

Given that Josh apparently still intends to appeal the verdict, I doubt he'll say anything beyond "yes" or "no" at sentencing. 

 

[MamaMax]

anna cant and wont get a job, because that's how her cult is designed. the cult deliberately under-educates girls, marries them young and keeps them pregnant so that they can never leave, even if they were to "wake up" and want to. a page taken right out of the FDLS book.  JB will now have to provide for anna and the M&Ms bc he has to pretend that's what they do (or else other girls/women might realize what a vulnerable spot they're in before they have eleventy kids and MIGHT be able to slip away). but i wouldnt be surprised if he does it very grudgingly and is super cheap (even cheaper than he was w his own kids) and they are all treated like 2nd class citizens in private. in public, he will be soaking up the accolades about being the unselfish provider. 

[cmr2014]

11 minutes ago, MamaMax said:

anna cant and wont get a job, because that's how her cult is designed. the cult deliberately under-educates girls, marries them young and keeps them pregnant so that they can never leave, even if they were to "wake up" and want to. a page taken right out of the FDLS book.  JB will now have to provide for anna and the M&Ms bc he has to pretend that's what they do (or else other girls/women might realize what a vulnerable spot they're in before they have eleventy kids and MIGHT be able to slip away). but i wouldnt be surprised if he does it very grudgingly and is super cheap (even cheaper than he was w his own kids) and they are all treated like 2nd class citizens in private. in public, he will be soaking up the accolades about being the unselfish provider. 

JB has a pretty standard way of "providing," and I don't think much will change. They live in the warehouse, and will live there unless the county comes by and kicks them out for living in a warehouse that hasn't been approved as habitable. They will get groceries (mostly canned food) from the TTH pantry and grocery runs. I'm sure her phone is already on a TTH plan, and I'm sure her car is already part of the Duggar Enterprises fleet and is insured and gassed up on the Duggar Enterprises dime.

She'll probably get a tiny allowance from JB to keep her kids and herself supplied in thrift store clothes and shoes.

That's it. That's going to be her life for the next 10+ years: warehouse/TTH, TTH/warehouse. Probably not much better than Josh's life, and she's not the criminal.

[SMama]

2 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

JB has a pretty standard way of "providing," and I don't think much will change. They live in the warehouse, and will live there unless the county comes by and kicks them out for living in a warehouse that hasn't been approved as habitable. They will get groceries (mostly canned food) from the TTH pantry and grocery runs. I'm sure her phone is already on a TTH plan, and I'm sure her car is already part of the Duggar Enterprises fleet and is insured and gassed up on the Duggar Enterprises dime.

She'll probably get a tiny allowance from JB to keep her kids and herself supplied in thrift store clothes and shoes.

That's it. That's going to be her life for the next 10+ years: warehouse/TTH, TTH/warehouse. Probably not much better than Josh's life, and she's not the criminal.

IIRC the only vehicle I’m the FF’s name is the old RV. Anna must be driving something borrowed from the TTH. TBH their life won’t change much as what you describe is their current living conditions. Just no FF doing nothing around the house. 

[merylinkid]

5 minutes ago, SMama said:

TBH their life won’t change much as what you describe is their current living conditions. Just no FF doing nothing around the house. 

Yeah.   I mean its not like Anna had a life outside the family before this.   It's just she's not Matriarch in Waiting anymore.   

I think the most freedom she ever had was when she was in DC.   Josh was at "work" all day.   No family responsibilities other than her own.   Nobody watching her every move.   The money Josh made was his own, not begrudgingly handed out by Daddy.   And FF was too dumb to question how she spent it.   As long as there was food on the table he was fine with the situation.

[Heathen]

14 minutes ago, SMama said:

IIRC the only vehicle I’m the FF’s name is the old RV. Anna must be driving something borrowed from the TTH. TBH their life won’t change much as what you describe is their current living conditions. Just no FF doing nothing around the house. 

Well, he didn't do NOTHING. He got Anna pregnant. That was his full-time job. 

[SusanM]

3 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Yeah.   I mean its not like Anna had a life outside the family before this.   It's just she's not Matriarch in Waiting anymore.   

This is a great example of how Josh's crime is punishing Anna.  I mean most of us think the best thing that could happen for her is that she is no longer in the baby making business but for her that's never been what she wanted and this is cruel. 

She really did see herself stepping into Michelle's shoes - maybe even going her one or two better.  Now, no matter what happens in terms of the sentencing her chances of having at least what? 12-13 more kids are significantly diminished if not completely demolished.

[Absolom]

4 hours ago, MamaMax said:

JB will now have to provide for anna and the M&Ms bc he has to pretend that's what they do (or else other girls/women might realize what a vulnerable spot they're in before they have eleventy kids and MIGHT be able to slip away). but i wouldnt be surprised if he does it very grudgingly and is super cheap

I wonder if he's thought for a minute what a dangerous precedent this is.  What if tragedy befalls JB and dies before Josh is released from prison?  Who takes on Anna then?  Will Michelle if she's still around?  What if another son has a tragic, fatal accident?  Will JB need to take on that family also?  They've seen family tragedies and should be thinking that could happen to us, too.  

[Albanyguy]

4 hours ago, SusanM said:

This is a great example of how Josh's crime is punishing Anna.  I mean most of us think the best thing that could happen for her is that she is no longer in the baby making business but for her that's never been what she wanted and this is cruel. 

She really did see herself stepping into Michelle's shoes - maybe even going her one or two better.  Now, no matter what happens in terms of the sentencing her chances of having at least what? 12-13 more kids are significantly diminished if not completely demolished.

Josh had the bad luck to marry a girl who would come to share his mother's obsession with marathon childbearing. The only difference between the two is that, to her credit, Anna feels some responsibility towards raising the babies she pops out.

[emmawoodhouse]

36 minutes ago, Absolom said:

I wonder if he's thought for a minute what a dangerous precedent this is.  What if tragedy befalls JB and dies before Josh is released from prison?  Who takes on Anna then?  Will Michelle if she's still around?  What if another son has a tragic, fatal accident?  Will JB need to take on that family also?  They've seen family tragedies and should be thinking that could happen to us, too.  

There's a fundie family named the Mortons. Their oldest daughter married and they had 8 kids. Out of nowhere, the husband is accused and convicted of child rape, some of the victims his own daughters. He was sentenced to something like 20 years. Katie (the wife) wasted absolutely no time divorcing his sorry ass and moving back home to her family. 

I know Michael Keller wrote a letter defending Smuggar, but why couldn't he take Anna in if she chooses to leave Smuggar? I think she has become accustomed to a cushy life, even living in the warehouse. She wants for nothing, and we know that Smuggar hasn't been able to provide that lifestyle for her, save when they lived in DC.

And so she will never leave. Boob will continue to support her as long as she is convinced that Smuggar is innocent.

[libgirl2]

57 minutes ago, Absolom said:

I wonder if he's thought for a minute what a dangerous precedent this is.  What if tragedy befalls JB and dies before Josh is released from prison?  Who takes on Anna then?  Will Michelle if she's still around?  What if another son has a tragic, fatal accident?  Will JB need to take on that family also?  They've seen family tragedies and should be thinking that could happen to us, too.  

She probably would become the responsibility of her father's. And if he is gone, one of her brothers. 

[YupItsMe]

I don’t know who in her family would have the room and enough income to support Anna and all her children, even if she should get a job or assistance.

[emmawoodhouse]

5 minutes ago, YupItsMe said:

I don’t know who in her family would have the room and enough income to support Anna and all her children, even if she should get a job or assistance.

The family doublewide used to have 8 children in it. Anna's parents could house her, but as I said before, she'll never leave the warehouse. 

[ginger90]

* As is the case with most information, proceed with caution.
 

* This was misunderstood. So, to borrow someone else’s words: “it's the actual government document. With that said - it addresses specific items FF viewed and if you've avoided details so far - DON'T READ THIS.”,

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.152.0.pdf

Edited May 19, 2022 by ginger90

[sagittarius sue]

55 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

As is the case with most information, proceed with caution.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.152.0.pdf

Another masterful rebuttal by the U.S. Attorney.

[realityfan26]

58 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

As is the case with most information, proceed with caution.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.152.0.pdf

I misunderstood your "proceed with caution" as maybe the info was from a shady source. Obviously not since it's the actual government document. With that said - it addresses specific items FF viewed and if you've avoided details so far - DON'T READ THIS

[SMama]

Love them calling out JB and his “self serving testimony.” I have no idea who thought it’d be a good idea to put him on the stand. Not a lawyer and I saw the train wreck before it left the station. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by SMama

[sagittarius sue]

34 minutes ago, realityfan26 said:

I misunderstood your "proceed with caution" as maybe the info was from a shady source. Obviously not since it's the actual government document. With that said - it addresses specific items FF viewed and if you've avoided details so far - DON'T READ THIS

I'd suggest skipping Section A and B which deal with the CSAM but the later sections are DON't MiSS material.

[ginger90]

49 minutes ago, realityfan26 said:

I misunderstood your "proceed with caution" as maybe the info was from a shady source. Obviously not since it's the actual government document. With that said - it addresses specific items FF viewed and if you've avoided details so far - DON'T READ THIS

Noted, an attempt to clarify has been made.

Edited May 19, 2022 by ginger90

[quarks]

I wish the prosecution had redacted some of the details there before releasing this, but that said, I am glad that the prosecution pointed out the rather significant differences between the Beanie Baby guy and Josh, and took the time to say that Timothy Burgess is being ridiculous. 

[SMama]

So in their abysmal ignorance the letter authors have provided more reason for concern. Because that support and guidance Michelle wrote about completely ignored the heinous crime FF was convicted of, but will also have no concern about him being around children. Never thought I’d say this, but thank God for stupid people. 

[graefin]

"Absent some recognition from Duggar of his crimes and his need to address his demonstrated and long-standing sexual interest in children, it is unlikely that that he will ever view his conviction as anything other than proof that he needs to be more circumspect and secretive the next time he engages in conduct involving child sexual abuse. It is equally unlikely that he will ever receive the treatment and accountability needed to prevent him from reoffending should he maintain this posture. In fact, given the apparent success of his blame tactics with some of the individuals he intends to surround himself with after his release from incarceration, it is not just unlikely—it is inconceivable." (bolding mine)

Ooh, burn.

[Zella]

So, they go after the letters of support? I wanna read this, but I don't want to read the details of what he watched and downloaded. What is the safe page to start on? 

[Jeeves]

17 minutes ago, Zella said:

So, they go after the letters of support? I wanna read this, but I don't want to read the details of what he watched and downloaded. What is the safe page to start on? 

Page 5, beginning at Section C. ETA: Or just go to page 6 which is where that section starts. Section C addresses the enhancement based on the molestations. It's not got anything graphic in it, though.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Jeeves

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, Zella said:

So, they go after the letters of support? I wanna read this, but I don't want to read the details of what he watched and downloaded. What is the safe page to start on? 

Start with section C. Sections A and B detail the CSAM.

[SusanM]

13 minutes ago, graefin said:

Ooh, burn.

My exact thought as I was reading the whole section dealing with the letters of support.  

They made an excellent point, that I am sure will not have escaped the judge's notice - that not only are the letters of support providing pitiful examples of Josh's supposed sterling character but more importantly that the people who will surround him when he leaves prison are as deep in denial over the seriousness of his crimes as he is.  This does not bode well for him - or the children he will more than likely continue to victimize.

[Jeeves]

Thanks for the link, @ginger90 The prosecution's statement is well-reasoned and well-written. I started drafting a post about it with quotes but I ended up quoting too much, lol. As I'm writing this @graefin has posted one of my favorite bits of the memo. "Burn," indeed!!

The prosecution threw some shade at the alleged "challenges of a young man growing up on TV" too. In a footnote they point out that the series started in 2008, when Josh was 20 years old. (I believe the first Duggar TV special was aired in 2004, when he would have been 16 - but that's still hardly "growing up on TV.")

Okay, I have to quote a lot here but if you don't want to read the original maybe that's okay. The defense argued that the judge should depart from the sentencing guideiines and show mercy. This is where the letters come in to the discussion. The memo says in part - I've omitted the cites to the pages in the record and added some bolding:

"[H]is supportive family and public-facing and privileged lifestyle make his pattern of criminal conduct all the more baffling. Despite achieving some level of fame through reality television as an adult, he is better known at this point for his behavior outside his family’s show, including his sexual improprieties and criminal sexual conduct. More importantly, none of these letters meaningfully grapple with his crimes or his sexual proclivities toward prepubescent girls. At least one suggests that “enemies” threatened by his “quiet display of conservative values” are targeting him while simultaneously advancing his impossible theory that “an unscrupulous young man” framed him. Many more describe his conviction generally as an unfortunate happenstance—something that has simply befallen him despite his best efforts to avoid it. That is precisely the problem. While Duggar is apparently continuing to tell those around him that he is the victim of “an unscrupulous young man” or an even broader conspiracy, that theory is irreconcilable with the straightforward, common-sense evidence produced at trial, which overwhelmingly reflects his culpability in repeatedly downloading and viewing CSAM on his work computer. It is also irreconcilable with the goals of sentencing, which include protecting the public and affording adequate deterrence."

The memo goes on to make the points quoted by @graefin above. 

This is kind of obvious but I think the prosecution has to say it for the record: 

"W]hile Duggar’s incarceration will undoubtedly reverberate through his immediate and extended family, that is unfortunately true in many criminal cases and particularly in cases like this one, where Duggar appears to have hidden his reprehensible conduct from those closest to him up until his conviction."

Well played, AUSAs. Well played.

 

[SMama]

27 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

Thanks for the link, @ginger90 The prosecution's statement is well-reasoned and well-written. I started drafting a post about it with quotes but I ended up quoting too much, lol. As I'm writing this @graefin has posted one of my favorite bits of the memo. "Burn," indeed!!

The prosecution threw some shade at the alleged "challenges of a young man growing up on TV" too. In a footnote they point out that the series started in 2008, when Josh was 20 years old. (I believe the first Duggar TV special was aired in 2004, when he would have been 16 - but that's still hardly "growing up on TV.")

Okay, I have to quote a lot here but if you don't want to read the original maybe that's okay. The defense argued that the judge should depart from the sentencing guideiines and show mercy. This is where the letters come in to the discussion. The memo says in part - I've omitted the cites to the pages in the record and added some bolding:

"[H]is supportive family and public-facing and privileged lifestyle make his pattern of criminal conduct all the more baffling. Despite achieving some level of fame through reality television as an adult, he is better known at this point for his behavior outside his family’s show, including his sexual improprieties and criminal sexual conduct. More importantly, none of these letters meaningfully grapple with his crimes or his sexual proclivities toward prepubescent girls. At least one suggests that “enemies” threatened by his “quiet display of conservative values” are targeting him while simultaneously advancing his impossible theory that “an unscrupulous young man” framed him. Many more describe his conviction generally as an unfortunate happenstance—something that has simply befallen him despite his best efforts to avoid it. That is precisely the problem. While Duggar is apparently continuing to tell those around him that he is the victim of “an unscrupulous young man” or an even broader conspiracy, that theory is irreconcilable with the straightforward, common-sense evidence produced at trial, which overwhelmingly reflects his culpability in repeatedly downloading and viewing CSAM on his work computer. It is also irreconcilable with the goals of sentencing, which include protecting the public and affording adequate deterrence."

The memo goes on to make the points quoted by @graefin above. 

This is kind of obvious but I think the prosecution has to say it for the record: 

"W]hile Duggar’s incarceration will undoubtedly reverberate through his immediate and extended family, that is unfortunately true in many criminal cases and particularly in cases like this one, where Duggar appears to have hidden his reprehensible conduct from those closest to him up until his conviction."

Well played, AUSAs. Well played.

 

Thank you @Jeeves, I was really hoping you and others with your knowledge would weigh in. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by SMama

[Zella]

Thanks, @Jeeves and @emmawoodhouse!

[emmawoodhouse]

To the attorneys on here: does the defense get a chance to rebut the beautiful memo put forth by the Feds? Or is this the last bit we'll see before sentencing?

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, SMama said:

So in their abysmal ignorance the letter authors have provided more reason for concern. Because that support and guidance Michelle wrote about completely ignored the heinous crime FF was convicted of, but will also have no concern about him being around children. Never thought I’d say this, but thank God for stupid people. 

Absolutely right. As you said, you’re not a lawyer and most of the rest of us aren’t either, but we all saw this coming.

[Cinnabon]

So much talk about his alleged “enemies.” Sounds like Jill R. These people really seem to need to see enemies and persecution everywhere. Just sad.

[Notabug]

Bravo to the prosecution, they have seemingly covered every single base in this case.  Makes me proud to be a taxpayer and contributing to their well-earned salaries.  

Isn't it just a beautiful thing to see the Duggars callled out in such eloquent fashion and exposed for who and what they really are?  That this goes on Josh's permanent record just makes me so happy.

I'd love to buy the prosecution a round when they go out to celebrate the sentencing.  If he doesn't get the book thrown at him it won't be because they didn't do their best.

Edited May 20, 2022 by Notabug

[Cinnabon]

9 minutes ago, Notabug said:

Bravo to the prosecution, they have seemingly covered every single base in this case.  Makes me proud to be a taxpayer and contributing to their well-earned salaries.  

Isn'r it just a beautiful thing to see the Duggars callled out in such eloquent fashion and exposed for who and what they really are?  That this goes on Josh's permanent record just makes me so happy.

I'd love to buy the prosecution a round when they go out to celebrate the sentencing.  If he doesn't get the book thrown at him it won't be because they didn't do their best.

It really is beautiful!