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
25 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Some time ago, I wrote that gamesmanship in litigation is common.  So, yeah, to an extent.  The better question is, is it right?  Situationally, here we love it.  Elsewhere, maybe not so much.

It becomes problematic when a win at all costs mentality in litigators, particularly criminal prosecutors, makes them lose sight of any notion of actual justice.

I don't think any of that anything but obvious.   I do not love that gamesmanship is part of angling for wins.  If they suddenly stopped doing this for him then it would certainly be a problem.  

Posted
Just now, Sawbonz said:

Maybe. But if I’m on the jury that is not going to weigh in my mind. 

I agree with you.   That is more a comment about the legal elements on appeal - and not for whether or not a jury convicts Trump.   But my experience is that one of the 12 jurors will get the fact that they are there to determine whether Trump paid off people to avoid negative publicity - and then improperly wrote it off as a business expense.    Whether the mushroom got wet? I don’t think that will win or lose the case.

but if I was smart, I’d be rich.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

So if the defense is attacking her credibility and she has described the penis, then why can we not have it shown in court?  Hunter Biden's tallywacker was shown in a higher forum with less privacy attached to it,  Michael Jackson's junk was photographed as well back in the 90s.  Let's get the dick out there and call up the ex-wives to describe the penis.   If they match Daniel's testimony, then have we not established that the serial liar is lying again?   This is the circus we want!  Where is my bread?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

So we're literally gonna do the Porky's police sketch artist thing then and pretend we're not stuck inside a computer program?  What in the holy fuck people?  I swear to god, the bailiff's sister's married name is Balbricker.  I just fucking can't anymore.  This is happening to the most powerful country the world has ever known.  Now.  on our watch.  This is like a thing.  For our granddhildren to read about.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, bolverk said:

image.png.c720e9810b64b6a651d88de0a2468e38.png

image.png.bf662df93c81e18460fb09db6b65e6f0.png

image.png.4b3f5d9fcf2de160559fe5245e918f2a.png

 

The suspense for the follow-up is killing me.

 

Thanks for this and fuck Maggie Habermann.  She’s complicit in the national nightmare that is Trump

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

My Trump friends/family have full shifted to "I vote for the policy not the man" position in public.

Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude... but at least it's an ethos.

Posted
37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well civil either for that matter.  And this may touch on prior bad acts, which is not something that comes up too much in IP litigation, so I only know the broad contours.

To be more specific, because Trump's lawyer is bringing up the matter of their sexual encounter on cross, in Texas at least, it's unlikely that any admissibility challenge would be harmful because Trump's lawyer elicited cumulative testimony about the encounter on cross.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

becuase he claims he never had sex with her.

He has not testified and may not testify.  If his denial come into evidence in some other way, that's another story.  I still think there's an argument that it's relevant, but for the reasons mentioned above, it's in, it likely isn't harmful, and so it's a moot point.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Can someone remind me, did she just willingly violate the NDA or did this become public some other way?

How is it that she’s now talking freely about something that she, ostensibly, willingly signed and took consideration for agreeing to not talk about.

I’m sure this has all been covered before but I just can’t remember how it all squares.

Posted
3 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Can someone remind me, did she just willingly violate the NDA or did this become public some other way?

How is it that she’s now talking freely about something that she, ostensibly, willingly signed and took consideration for agreeing to not talk about.

I’m sure this has all been covered before but I just can’t remember how it all squares.

never really understood that part either.

Posted
44 minutes ago, Nivek said:

So if the defense is attacking her credibility and she has described the penis, then why can we not have it shown in court?  Hunter Biden's tallywacker was shown in a higher forum with less privacy attached to it,  Michael Jackson's junk was photographed as well back in the 90s.  Let's get the dick out there and call up the ex-wives to describe the penis.   If they match Daniel's testimony, then have we not established that the serial liar is lying again?   This is the circus we want!  Where is my bread?

Judge Chang says:

giphy.gif?cid=6c09b952zsdpmcn6p2ncbu5u0h

Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

never really understood that part either.

The NDA has been dealt with previously. But judicial testimony under subpoena is almost always a valid exception to any NDA. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Yes, me. Among others. Millions of others negatively affected by her stupid and selfish decision. 

I went ahead and bolded the part where you sound exactly like every single Trumpkin moron in America since you can't see it in yourself. 

I get it. Hindsight is 20/20. If she had only lived a few months longer than it wouldn’t be an issue and you wouldn’t be indirectly calling me a moron. If you want to put term limits on Supreme Court justices, I’m willing to listen to your argument. Yes, in retrospect, it would’ve been nice if Obama could’ve appointed her replacement rather than Trump. It would also be really nice if McConnell wasn’t a massive piece of shit who stole two SCOTUS seats for blatantly partisan and unconstitutional reasons. Let’s not lose sight of who the real villains are here. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, mdmost said:

The least shocking news of the day.

Trump classified documents trial postponed indefinitely

PUBLISHED TUE, MAY 7 20245:02 PM EDTUPDATED 3 MIN AGO

Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

KEY POINTS

A federal judge indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures while he walks with his attorney Todd Blanche, as his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 continues, at Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S., May 6, 2024. 

Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters

A federal judge Tuesday indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

The trial on charges that Trump willfully retained classified national security records after leaving the White House and then hid them from federal authorities was scheduled to start May 20.

But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in Tuesday’s court order that it “would be imprudent” to finalize a trial date “at this juncture” when various pre-trial issues have yet to be resolved.

Cannon pointed to pending questions about how classified information will be handled in the high-profile trial of the former president, and “additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury.”

To move forward with the trial in May would be “inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider” those issues, she wrote.

“The Court therefore vacates the current May 20, 2024, trial date (and associated calendar call), to be reset by separate order following resolution of the matters before the Court, consistent with Defendants’ right to due process and the public’s interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice,” Cannon ruled.

Can any of the lawyers on here legitimately defend this type of action?  It sure looks like she is just protecting the guy that made her a judge no matter what crimes he may have committed.  

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Yeah, I think if IIRC from CivPro...it's pretty tough to crack for a civil trial (which is what most NDA's are designed for), but if a criminal trial judge orders you to speak to the issues, you can pretty much light that NDA on fire because of the weight of getting everything correct for someone's freedom.

Sidenote-that Cannon ruling was expected but I didn't think she's make it so open-ended and obvious.  I repeat myself (I know, totally unexpected for Lobo).  For $150k, I can get your name on the POTUS ballot as a third party/independent in one of a dozen different states that I know the minutiae of.  You can then commit any number of crimes and we can then claim that you are under political persecution during an election cycle and cannot be held liable/guilty/under indictment.  Now it won't carry as much water as "Presidential Immunity", but it will be an interesting precedent.  Bold strategy, Cotton.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, mdmost said:

The least shocking news of the day.

Trump classified documents trial postponed indefinitely

PUBLISHED TUE, MAY 7 20245:02 PM EDTUPDATED 3 MIN AGO

Kevin Breuninger@KEVINWILLIAMB

SHAREShare Article via FacebookShare Article via TwitterShare Article via LinkedInShare Article via Email

KEY POINTS

A federal judge indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures while he walks with his attorney Todd Blanche, as his criminal trial over charges that he falsified business records to conceal money paid to silence porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016 continues, at Manhattan state court in New York City, U.S., May 6, 2024. 

Brendan Mcdermid | Reuters

A federal judge Tuesday indefinitely postponed the criminal classified documents trial of former President Donald Trump, a court filing shows.

The trial on charges that Trump willfully retained classified national security records after leaving the White House and then hid them from federal authorities was scheduled to start May 20.

But U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon wrote in Tuesday’s court order that it “would be imprudent” to finalize a trial date “at this juncture” when various pre-trial issues have yet to be resolved.

Cannon pointed to pending questions about how classified information will be handled in the high-profile trial of the former president, and “additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury.”

To move forward with the trial in May would be “inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider” those issues, she wrote.

“The Court therefore vacates the current May 20, 2024, trial date (and associated calendar call), to be reset by separate order following resolution of the matters before the Court, consistent with Defendants’ right to due process and the public’s interest in the fair and efficient administration of justice,” Cannon ruled.

Lolololol

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Can any of the lawyers on here legitimately defend this type of action?  It sure looks like she is just protecting the guy that made her a judge no matter what crimes he may have committed.  

Yeah, I mean, she's either in the tank for him or isn't competent enough to manage all of these pretrial motions involving voluminous documents before a trial date this month.  Either idea is plausible, I suppose, or both.  That's not to be construed as a defense on my part.

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

Honestly a beautiful car. 

Would I proudly drive that sonofabitch today?

You bet your fucking ass I would.

With the windows down, cranking some Jethro Tull.  Maybe some Thin Lizzy.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I get it. Hindsight is 20/20. If she had only lived a few months longer than it wouldn’t be an issue and you wouldn’t be indirectly calling me a moron. If you want to put term limits on Supreme Court justices, I’m willing to listen to your argument. Yes, in retrospect, it would’ve been nice if Obama could’ve appointed her replacement rather than Trump. It would also be really nice if McConnell wasn’t a massive piece of shit who stole two SCOTUS seats for blatantly partisan and unconstitutional reasons. Let’s not lose sight of who the real villains are here. 

Except that McConnell didn't really do anything that is unconstitutional. It had just been previously understood by both parties that a sitting POTUS would not put forth any replacement SCOTUS candidates within a certain # of months of an upcoming Presidential Election. But, hey, look the GQP took their shot and have probably forever altered how this will be done in the future. It was the perfect time for them to do it because it gave the GQP control of the Court to roll back Roe and do their other fuckery.

Posted
1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Yeah, I mean, she's either in the tank for him or isn't competent enough to manage all of these pretrial motions involving voluminous documents before a trial date this month.  Either idea is plausible, I suppose.

That sounds like a bunch of fancy lawyer talk but since I imagine it coming from your avatar/Earl Campbell, I will allow it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

If I've learned anything about lawyers, they can defend anyone against anything. 

Kind of the nature of the beast. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Can someone remind me, did she just willingly violate the NDA or did this become public some other way?

How is it that she’s now talking freely about something that she, ostensibly, willingly signed and took consideration for agreeing to not talk about.

I’m sure this has all been covered before but I just can’t remember how it all squares.

 

14 minutes ago, immamac said:

never really understood that part either.

It was covered in today's testimony. Tldr, they were talking about it, she hired an attorney. Said attorney is now in prison for unrelated bullshit.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Would I proudly drive that sonofabitch today?

You bet your fucking ass I would.

With the windows down, cranking some Jethro Tull.  Maybe some Thin Lizzy.

Zep and Sabbath, personally. With a little bit of T-Rex thrown in.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Rimbo said:

Zep and Sabbath, personally. With a little bit of T-Rex thrown in.

You bring the cassettes, we'll work 'em into the rotation.  We got nothin' but time, man.  Nothin' but time.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

It had just been previously understood by both parties that a sitting POTUS would not put forth any replacement SCOTUS candidates within a certain # of months of an upcoming Presidential Election.

giphy.gif

 

I mean, I could have sworn McConnell pulled this out of his as, then reinserted it when it was Trump's time, but there's plenty I don't know.  But this is the first I've heard of this from someone who I would not consider a lunatic.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

You bring the cassettes, we'll work 'em into the rotation.  We got nothin' but time, man.  Nothin' but time.

cassettes? fuck that newfangled tech

8-tracks all the way

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

That sounds like a bunch of fancy lawyer talk but since I imagine it coming from your avatar/Earl Campbell, I will allow it. 

And that, sir, is among many of the reasons I have that avatar (plus, who's cooler than Earl).  But to be less lawyerly about it, she seems biased and incompetent to me.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Rimbo said:

cassettes? fuck that newfangled tech

8-tracks all the way

Good sir, my cordoba will be late 70s vintage, with the latest in sound system technology....and of course, rich Corinthian leather.  I'll let you pick out the air freshener to hang from the rearview mirror, though.

  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

If I've learned anything about lawyers, they can defend anyone against anything. 

You're not wrong. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

You bring the cassettes, we'll work 'em into the rotation.  We got nothin' but time, man.  Nothin' but time.

8 tracks... 

This is the sound I hear in my head when I see that old POS

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, dcbc said:

And that, sir, is among many of the reasons I have that avatar (plus, who's cooler than Earl).  But to be less lawyerly about it, she seems biased and incompetent to me.

Ding ding ding.  Her incompetence is what gave her the idea for a path to satisfy her bias.  "I'm too stupid to figure out any of these pre-trial issues.  WAIT...that will be a PERFECT excuse to do what I want to do....delay this trial forever!  My stupidity is brilliance!"

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

cassettes? fuck that newfangled tech

8-tracks all the way

We're going to need more Steely Dan.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
1 minute ago, dcbc said:

(plus, who's cooler than Earl)

 

the answer is none

none more cool

 

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Good sir, my cordoba will be late 70s vintage, with the latest in sound system technology....and of course, rich Corinthian leather.  I'll let you pick out the air freshener to hang from the rearview mirror, though.

 

In the interest of harmony, I propose a solution.

X5uG-bQX7b1eX6TMg9kW18Gj9EWS8-sP96EK2f5b

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
Just now, Rimbo said:

 

the answer is none

none more cool

 

 

In the interest of harmony, I propose a solution.

X5uG-bQX7b1eX6TMg9kW18Gj9EWS8-sP96EK2f5b

Peace through Kraco.  A life slogan if I've ever heard one.

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, dcbc said:

We're going to need more Steely Dan.

Bring it.  We've got room in the back seat....hold on, lemme swing this super heavy giant seat back forward so you can get in...

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Rimbo said:

 

the answer is none

none more cool

 

 

In the interest of harmony, I propose a solution.

X5uG-bQX7b1eX6TMg9kW18Gj9EWS8-sP96EK2f5b

 

We had one of these in an old 1978 Chevy G20 Van we used to take on road trips.  The noise that thing made when you tried to use the Rew/FF function.

  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...