Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
  On 5/1/2023 at 6:56 PM, 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.  

Expand  

hell, he makes DANICA Patrick look masculine.

nttawwt

Posted
  On 5/2/2023 at 11:50 PM, mchookem said:

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

Expand  

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)
  On 5/3/2023 at 6:25 AM, tx 3 putt said:

😂😂😂😂

 

biden should show up and debate a baby trump balloon 

Expand  

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)
  On 5/3/2023 at 8:31 PM, 4th&Five said:

 

Expand  

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
  On 5/3/2023 at 8:57 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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
  On 5/3/2023 at 8:57 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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

Posted
  On 5/3/2023 at 8:44 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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

 

Posted
  On 5/3/2023 at 10:08 PM, TwiceHorn said:

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

 

Expand  

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
  On 5/3/2023 at 10:16 PM, Chad Fuck said:


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

Expand  

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
  On 5/3/2023 at 10:27 PM, 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.

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

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)
  On 5/3/2023 at 10:08 PM, TwiceHorn said:

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

Expand  

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. 

  On 5/3/2023 at 10:27 PM, 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.

Expand  

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
  On 5/3/2023 at 8:44 PM, 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. 

Expand  

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...