Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I don't know you IRL, but I doubt you've ever lamented anything in your entire life.  That's how they get you, making you think everything up until now was prologue to some great vision you've been denied by "the others."  I lament a metric shit-ton of stuff, but I'm at least in a place in life now where I know almost all of it was my fault, nobody else to visit cruelty upon.  

That sounds so boring. I’m with Hitchens in that hate is a great motivator to get you out of bed in the morning. 

  • Fuck You 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Meh.  Their version is not "all they get".  it's all they want and all they'll accept.  Video evidence won't change that.  Video can be clipped and taken out of context just as easily as print.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Meh.  Their version is not "all they get".  it's all they want and all they'll accept.  Video evidence won't change that.  Video can be clipped and taken out of context just as easily as print.

It won't change minds but it pierces the information bubble that they live in. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

That sounds so boring. I’m with Hitchens in that hate is a great motivator to get you out of bed in the morning. 

And you see what that got Chris.

Posted
56 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

The judge should do what a lot of parents do with a child that acts up.  Wait for dotard to start running out of steam then look over and say “Are you done yet?”. Then throw his ass in timeout (jail) for contempt.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
He's letting Trump talk himself into a corner, no reason to throw contempt at him when larger sharks are circling in the water.  This is brilliant, IMO.  No jury or TV crew from which to garner sympathy.  
Also-the 40 Wall Street comment.  Chef's kiss.  it's less than 200 yards from her office you fucking dipshit.  She literally gets dropped off on the other side of the street from your building from her motorcade during high-profile cases.  Which, spoiler alert...this is, too.  
How does somebody deemed by 35% of adult Americans, to be a billionaire real estate mogul/genius have such a complete lack of the most fundamental understanding of how things like land and buildings work?  
Never interrupt your adversary when he's making a mistake. Ordinarily, it's not wise to make the trial judge your adversary in a bench trial, but stable genius and all.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Gotta give Habba credit.  She knows they can't watch the proceedings and most of them can barely read.  So what does she do?  Claim an "unhinged" mean man threatened her by slamming his hands on a table.  When in fact, it was we've all seen 1000 times on TV/movies.  He dropped the gavel onto the soundblock on his bench.  As an attorney, you should fucking know that terminology.  That's not the same as a drunken, abusive boyfriend breaking furniture in your home.  but you said it like that to garner anger from your idiotic base.  Not a bad move actually.  Too bad you aren't this clever inside the actual fucking courtroom, you fucking wretched cunt.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

The people they lie to don't care, video evidence is meaningless to them. He's their god, infallible in every form.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The people they lie to don't care, video evidence is meaningless to them. He's their god, infallible in every form.

I doubt that even if it were televised, Fox and the like would cover it except to show updates of his lawyers rambling on about slights outside the courthouse. Sure, it'd still be a big deal, but they would show what's going on in the courtroom. That's not daytime Fox's thing though. They're more interested in keeping the olds angry about culture war crap to fill up airspace.

Instead, their midday airtime would be focusing on shit like this (taken from the front page of their website just now):

image.thumb.png.bbc5089fa5726f3e15a046dc1671787f.png

 

Edited by bolverk
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I doubt that even if it were televised, Fox and the like would cover it except to show updates of his lawyers rambling on about sleights outside the courthouse. Sure, it'd still be a big deal, but they would show what's going on in the courtroom. That's not daytime Fox's thing though. They're more interested in keeping the olds angry about culture war crap to fill up airspace.

Instead, their midday airtime would be focusing on shit like this (taken from the front page of their website just now):

image.thumb.png.bbc5089fa5726f3e15a046dc1671787f.png

 

"Stroke of genius"? Jesus.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted

considering the lengthy (although ironically tiny) streak of sexual harassment incidents at FoxNews over the decades, perhaps flippantly using the term "having a stroke" isn't the best course of action for such a serious news outlet.

Posted
2 hours ago, Red Five said:

I need to get me some of them disclaimer clauses. "Hey heads up, this is all bullshit and I'm committing crimes but you can't charge me." 

Trump's next NFT. 

Posted (edited)

Sadly, Trump's only fake salute won't be like Frank's to an actual Armed Forces officer of the United States and he won't have access to a nice Cuban and a razor blade.

Edited by YGIFS
Posted
12 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

Financial statements and personal guarantees cower and fall before the most perfect and powerful disclaimer clause ever written. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Posted
15 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

I'm not sure how that's an astonishing admission. Isn't that why everyone provides financial statements and personal guarantees to banks? Was someone expecting:

AG: you provided financial statements and a personal guaranty to the banks so they'd give you loans, correct?

DT: No. I was just bragging. I dropped of some financial statements at four different McDonald's last night so people know how rich I am. And, the personal guaranty wasn't a guarantee for repayment of a loan, I was giving my personal guarantee that I'm very rich.  

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 minute ago, gernblansten said:

I'm not sure how that's an astonishing admission. Isn't that why everyone provides financial statements and personal guarantees to banks? Was someone expecting:

AG: you provided financial statements and a personal guaranty to the banks so they'd give you loans, correct?

DT: No. I was just bragging. I dropped of some financial statements at four different McDonald's last night so people know how rich I am. And, the personal guaranty wasn't a guarantee for repayment of a loan, I was giving my personal guarantee that I'm very rich.  

Well, there's sort of a neverland or through the looking glass aspect to this case.  We all know, and his lenders probably better than us, that his SFC are self-aggrandizing bullshit of the purest ray serene.

Your last paragraph probably best represents the bizarre truth.

But, at least for the portion of the case in which summary judgment has been granted there doesn't need to be proof of intent to induce them to loan with the SFC or reliance on the SFC.  Just that he used demonstrably false documents in  business transactions.

The facts seem to be that the banks gave all his assets a sizable "haircut" during the underwriting process.  It also seems that the initial valuations were so out of whack that the haircut didn't even get to the real value, so the banks did actually take on excess risk and probably granted more favorable terms than had the SFC's been reasonable in the first place.

But, his admission that he intended and understood the banks would rely on his SFCs, despite all the fairly obvious bullshit and the DISCLAIMERRR, does shore up a lot of all this. And probably helps support giving him "death penalty" remedies.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


 

 

Well, she apparently was not being paid to woodshed him prior to today's testimony.  Of course, I don't think any woodshedding save for a tranquilizer dart to the neck would work with Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 minutes ago, dcbc said:

Well, she apparently was not being paid to woodshed him prior to today's testimony.  Of course, I don't think any woodshedding save for a tranquilizer dart to the neck would work with Trump.

Yeah....any lawyer who has either 1) had to present a narcissist witness for depo/trial, or 2) questioned such a witness, knows that you could prep that witness for a year....and within 2 seconds of taking the stand, he's gonna be who he always was.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

How on fucking par for this simulation that neither Eric or Donald is aware that their Trump Organization has a Chief Financial Officer?  You know, the second most important role at a real estate investment firm?  Oh wait, second in line to Donald Trump?  

Yeah, I think I now know what happened to the CFO.  He dead.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah....any lawyer who has either 1) had to present a narcissist witness for depo/trial, or 2) questioned such a witness, knows that you could prep that witness for a year....and within 2 seconds of taking the stand, he's gonna be who he always was.

It's been a long time since I've represented that client.  But not long enough.

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...