Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
18 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

It’s nice that the feminine leather of the shoes matches the material of his favorite lady’s sports watch.  
How in the fuck did he convince so many Texas ‘Men’ he was an alpha male?  He makes Dan Patrick look like Clint Eastwood.  

hell, he makes DANICA Patrick look masculine.

nttawwt

Posted
1 hour ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

 

Thoughts and prayers to the family of Marla Maples on her imminent and quite fatal tumble down the stairs.  

Posted
6 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

You can make fun of Trump but you have to admit that he was excellent as the lead in The Nutcracker.


FvIblFMWcAAKDer?format=jpg&name=900x900
 

 

Yeah, but he looks like an idiot as an old fat naval pilot or whatever he's supposed to be in this.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
57 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Yeah, but he looks like an idiot as an old fat naval pilot or whatever he's supposed to be in this.

 

He doesn't like American POWs. He thinks vets are suckers. etc etc etc

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

You can make fun of Trump but you have to admit that he was excellent as the lead in The Nutcracker.


FvIblFMWcAAKDer?format=jpg&name=900x900
 

Too bad he quickly developed bone spurs.  He would have dazzled the NVA in Nam.

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, mchookem said:

my god i hate his stupid fucking fish lipped mouth. YOU'RE SO GROSS, MOTHERFUCKER!

This is their new birth certificate.  Their guy, however, will never take an IQ test, because we know he'd be lucky to make 90.  

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂

 

biden should show up and debate a baby trump balloon 

Hey the balloon probably won't try to give him Covid, pre-vaccines. Remember that? 

Edited by Red Five
no coffee
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

For the non-lawyers (I think there are 2 or 3 of you on Surly), all that means is that Trump's team isn't going to call witnesses after the Plaintiff rests their case. In a civil case a defendant can often insert their case into the middle of the plaintiff's case through cross examination. If all the the defendant's witnesses are called by the plaintiff, then there may not be any reason for the defendant to put on a separate case. Here, according to the article, it sounds like the only new witness Trump's team had was an expert witness that it says it now isn't going to call due to health reasons. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

Not that I like Trump but I don’t see how you can present much of a defense to something that is claimed happened 25+ years ago.

i haven’t followed the trial or this case but I would struggle to find someone e liable for a lawsuit that was pursued decades after it occurred. And I completely understand that a woman wouldn’t want to report it at the time. And my opinion isn’t that Trump is innocent. I have no idea. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not that I like Trump but I don’t see how you can present much of a defense to something that is claimed happened 25+ years ago.

i haven’t followed the trial or this case but I would struggle to find someone e liable for a lawsuit that was pursued decades after it occurred. And I completely understand that a woman wouldn’t want to report it at the time. And my opinion isn’t that Trump is innocent. I have no idea. 

Yeah but most defendants would show up and look the jury in the eye and say “I did not do it”.  To totally not show up for a trial where the central allegation is rape cancels out any of that BS especially since the legal standard is only a preponderance of the evidence. 
Glad you aren’t on the jury. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
36 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not that I like Trump but I don’t see how you can present much of a defense to something that is claimed happened 25+ years ago.

i haven’t followed the trial or this case but I would struggle to find someone e liable for a lawsuit that was pursued decades after it occurred. And I completely understand that a woman wouldn’t want to report it at the time. And my opinion isn’t that Trump is innocent. I have no idea. 

You don’t think you would recall being raped, years later?  51% or so sure?

Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

For the non-lawyers (I think there are 2 or 3 of you on Surly), all that means is that Trump's team isn't going to call witnesses after the Plaintiff rests their case. In a civil case a defendant can often insert their case into the middle of the plaintiff's case through cross examination. If all the the defendant's witnesses are called by the plaintiff, then there may not be any reason for the defendant to put on a separate case. Here, according to the article, it sounds like the only new witness Trump's team had was an expert witness that it says it now isn't going to call due to health reasons. 

Seems risky as hell, too, with the preponderance burden of proof.

 

Posted
12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seems risky as hell, too, with the preponderance burden of proof.

 

I’m pretty sure it’s because he knows he’s judgement proof. It’s already established that his “wealth” is an illusion, and when has he ever paid on any obligation? He isn’t paid wages that can be garnished and I doubt he has any assets in his own name that can be subject to execution. These judgments mean nothing. If they did Alex Jones would be living in a trailer park somewhere with whatever income he’s allowed to keep after paying the parents he tortured in Connecticut. I work in these cases and you generally only collect when the richer agrees to pay when all appeals are exhausted and they pay to keep a decent reputation in the business community. Trump has no reputation to salvage, he’s actually set it up such that paying a judgement would hurt his brand among the dipshit right wing voters.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


Yes she may win, but can she collect a judgment from a serial bankruptcy filer?

Well, you'd actually know better than I.

But the judgment would be against him personally, so that would be a different kettle of fish for teh Donald than the usual bankruptcy of DJT AC SPAC LP III and associated entities.

He ain't filing a personal 7, we know that much.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Well, you'd actually know better than I.
But the judgment would be against him personally, so that would be a different kettle of fish for teh Donald than the usual bankruptcy of DJT AC SPAC LP III and associated entities.
He ain't filing a personal 7, we know that much.

We do.

We also know he’s slipperier than greased up snake snot.

I hope for a “we got him!” moment.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I didn’t type that. 

No, but you doubted any accuser could convince you (to the required threshold). So, would you likewise doubt yourself?

Posted

I don't know what this means, or that it means anything. But I do want to record here for posterity that the Trump org employs security execs named Matthew Calamari Sr, and also his son. Matthew Calamari Jr. 

Not clear: which Matthew Calamari is pictured below. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Seems risky as hell, too, with the preponderance burden of proof.

Maybe. It just depends on how the evidence has come out so far. If all the testimony and evidence the defense wanted was introduced during the Plaintiff's case, it isn't much of a risk. It isn't like the defense is waiving closing argument. Muddling up the plaintiff's case with all the defense stuff is a time honored tactic. 

54 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you'd actually know better than I.

But the judgment would be against him personally, so that would be a different kettle of fish for teh Donald than the usual bankruptcy of DJT AC SPAC LP III and associated entities.

He ain't filing a personal 7, we know that much.

I agree that a judgment against him personally is going to be harder for him to get around. But I'm sure his paper assets are held in various trusts that then themselves have different holding companies for the various assets. While he may not technically be judgment proof, I would not be surprised if untangling that mess would in and of itself cause a significant expense to any judgment creditor. Hell, maybe he even has found a way to hide many of his assets in an ERISA retirement account, which would make them immune from collection. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

 

Why is the interviewer dressed to look exactly like Trump? That's really really really fucking weird. 

Posted
10 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Matthew Calamari and his son Matthew Calamari Jr.? They’re fucking with us now, right?

Don't forget Joe Tacopina.

Posted
13 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Matthew Calamari and his son Matthew Calamari Jr.? They’re fucking with us now, right?

Next you will try to get me to believe that Tito of Tito’s vodka has the surname Beverage. 

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Matthew Calamari and his son Matthew Calamari Jr.? They’re fucking with us now, right?

The Calamaris were great in Rushmore.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

the only new witness Trump's team had was an expert witness that it says it now isn't going to call due to health reasons. 

Yeah, our boy Trump would love to be here kickin' asses and defending himself from this scurrilous assault from this unpretty woman who isn't his type except he's deeply concerned about security and the safety of all others involved with the trial! You're so fuckin' lucky, I tell ya.

Oh, and we have this ace expert witness who would shatter E for Exceptionally Nasty Jean Carroll's fake claims, but he's sick and can't show up. 

Your honor, the dog ate our defense while we were washing it, so we rest. But we really coulda showed 'em, yessirree!

spacer.png



×
×
  • Create New...