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

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

sidis

sidis 10020

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

"Would you like to put your fate in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty?" is often a fair sales pitch to get your client on board with settlement.

being a someone who has been [vague description] in 5-10 civil trials a year for the last 20 years (with 15-20x as many engagements that ultimately land on settlement), this has always been my mindset.

but what is weird about that is when i think back over the highest stakes, most complex presentations to juries for unbelievably nuanced liability and damages cases, there are very, very few of them where it wasn't my objective opinion that they got it exactly right.  it is kind of mind blowing to me as a lot of the ones i am involved in are some seriously, down in the weeds nuanced issues related to highly complex finance concepts or other industry concepts but damned if i don't underestimate the jury almost every time. it's wild. can never take it for granted obviously but i have had to remind myself of that a number of times sitting in the back of the room when they seat the jury at the beginning of a month long trial dealing with shit that would be hard to communicate to a grad school finance professor and thinking to myself "there's no fucking way."

not that this little anecdote informs this impending outcome.

 

Just now, immamac said:

What? That doesn't even make sense. 

you new around here?

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32159

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, dcbc said:

I don't recall Pecker's testimony being as highly assailed as was Cohen's.  So I agree, the fact that that's where their focus lies is bad news for Individual Uno.

Yep, that's my thinking.  Sounds an awful lot like they're looking for similar testimony about Trump's knowledge/involvement without relying on Cohen, whom someone(s) is/are saying "I don't think I can trust that guy."

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32159

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, sidis said:

being a someone who has been [vague description] in 5-10 civil trials a year for the last 20 years (with 15-20x as many engagements that ultimately land on settlement), this has always been my mindset.

but what is weird about that is when i think back over the highest stakes, most complex presentations to juries for unbelievably nuanced liability and damages cases, there are very, very few of them where it wasn't my objective opinion that they got it exactly right.  it is kind of mind blowing to me as a lot of the ones i am involved in are some seriously, down in the weeds nuanced issues related to highly complex finance concepts or other industry concepts but damned if i don't underestimate the jury almost every time. it's wild. can never take it for granted obviously but i have had to remind myself of that a number of times sitting in the back of the room when they seat the jury at the beginning of a month long trial dealing with shit that would be hard to communicate to a grad school finance professor and thinking to myself "there's no fucking way."

not that this little anecdote informs this impending outcome.

 

you new around here?

My sense as well.  On occasion, one is flabbergasted by a verdict.  But more often that's because you're still believing your own BS.  In the fullness of time, you see that they probably got it pretty right.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 107113

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, sidis said:

being a someone who has been [vague description] in 5-10 civil trials a year for the last 20 years (with 15-20x as many engagements that ultimately land on settlement), this has always been my mindset.

but what is weird about that is when i think back over the highest stakes, most complex presentations to juries for unbelievably nuanced liability and damages cases, there are very, very few of them where it wasn't my objective opinion that they got it exactly right.  it is kind of mind blowing to me as a lot of the ones i am involved in are some seriously, down in the weeds nuanced issues related to highly complex finance concepts or other industry concepts but damned if i don't underestimate the jury almost every time. it's wild. can never take it for granted obviously but i have had to remind myself of that a number of times sitting in the back of the room when they seat the jury at the beginning of a month long trial dealing with shit that would be hard to communicate to a grad school finance professor and thinking to myself "there's no fucking way."

not that this little anecdote informs this impending outcome.

 

you new around here?

Excellent post.  You've got more jury trials than me, but I've said the same thing.  I have had one verdict that the jury got dead-wrong, but....they got it dead-wrong because the judge utterly fucked up and the way he laid out the case and the jury charge, it would have been very hard for them NOT to get it dead-wrong.  In other words, in light of the case and questions that were actually presented to them...they got it right.  The error was the judge's fault.

Which ultimately worked out, as we got the entire thing flipped -- full-on reverse-and-render -- by the court of appeals.  

But swallowing that shitty verdict at the time SUCKED.  And it took four years of waiting to get it fixed.  I hated that.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27888

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, that's my thinking.  Sounds an awful lot like they're looking for similar testimony about Trump's knowledge/involvement without relying on Cohen, whom someone(s) is/are saying "I don't think I can trust that guy."

That seems — less than ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 10020

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, what I've taken from today's proceedings is that surly is 95% lawyers.

i am not a lawyer but i often do their jobs for them when shit starts to matter.

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Excellent post.  You've got more jury trials than me, but I've said the same thing.  I have had one verdict that the jury got dead-wrong, but....they got it dead-wrong because the judge utterly fucked up and the way he laid out the case and the jury charge, it would have been very hard for them NOT to get it dead-wrong.  In other words, in light of the case and questions that were actually presented to them...they got it right.  The error was the judge's fault.

Which ultimately worked out, as we got the entire thing flipped -- full-on reverse-and-render -- by the court of appeals.  

But swallowing that shitty verdict at the time SUCKED.  And it took four years of waiting to get it fixed.  I hated that.

the only truly bitter pill i have had to swallow in my career was a bench trial from a visiting judge assigned from an entirely unrelated federal district who had absolutely no fucking subject matter experience whatsoever and completely fucked up the entire class certification process so bad that when i [played my role] at the merits trial in showing the screwed up [vague stuff] that the plaintiff did to get to their numbers and how it couldn't be done on a class-wide basis given the [vague stuff], i was threatened with contempt.  case currently pending under consideration at the [x]th circuit court of appeals and i cannot wait for them to fucking buttfuck that fucking asshole so hard on a laundry list of error that would make aileen cannon blush.

i can't think of a jury that i wanted to kick in the nuts. just a few i very much wanted to walk over and shake awake when it was time for them to listen to the important part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27888

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

So people that are insisting that there will be some sort of hung jury is pretty amusing to me.  What you'd have to believe is that an elected prosecutor took a case to the grand jury against a President without being 100% sure they'd get a conviction.  It may not be every charge, but my goodness, no political figure would dare do this without being 100% convinced.  

In the non-Upside Down World, Trump would’ve been disqualified as a legit candidate for POTUS many, many months — if not years ago. But here we are with him potentially being the man to beat.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14663

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Excellent post.  You've got more jury trials than me, but I've said the same thing.  I have had one verdict that the jury got dead-wrong, but....they got it dead-wrong because the judge utterly fucked up and the way he laid out the case and the jury charge, it would have been very hard for them NOT to get it dead-wrong.  In other words, in light of the case and questions that were actually presented to them...they got it right.  The error was the judge's fault.

 

Which apparently is the source of the presumption that the jury follows the trial court's instructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32159

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, C-Man said:

That seems — less than ideal.

Eh, probably to be expected.  I remember thinking during Pecker's testimony that they had the thing about wrapped up, just needed someone to authenticate the checks.

But that was a long time ago and a couple days of Michael Cohen ago.

So they show the skeptic that evidence and bingo bango.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2500

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Is he talking about his lawyers, the thugs, that could have called some witnesses?  Jesus, Donald.  They probably could have called Eric, Don Jr, and Laura Trump, too (not sure Ivanka would vouch for you).  Why weren't they called?  Huh? And who is he talking about at the end.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19494

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

oh fuckity-fuck.  The jury also asked that the jury instructions be read again.

That would be good for the defense.

I think I jinxed this thing with my jury note story post

Jury:  We would like for the jury instructions to be read again.

Judge:  No.

Easy enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14663

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, strangulation! said:

I bet your clients strenuously object to being charged ungodly rates for y'all to post all day, every day, on the internet

friends-ross.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29623

Posted
Posted

I actually take it as a pretty good sign that they pretty quickly requested to re-hear Pecker's testimony and the jury instructions. I think if there was a Trumper on the jury who's determined to hang it no matter what, it would've taken more time before they wanted to go back to the evidence and instructions.  That indicates there's something specific a holdout may want clarified, meaning they're trying to take the process seriously. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27888

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Donald, these key witnesses -- could your attorneys have called them to the witness stand?

There’s a gag order, ya stupid sip

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19494

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I think there is a non-insignificant chance that the next President, regardless of whether its Biden or Trump, is assassinated in 2025.

I'm just about fully convinced that since the Secret Service kept Obama out of reach from all the deranged rednecks, they can pretty much foil any attempt.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19460

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I'm just about fully convinced that since the Secret Service kept Obama out of reach from all the deranged rednecks, they can pretty much foil any attempt.

It's food.  They kept several presidents protected and alive.  But it's about food.  The man eats in the same three places every single week.  It's not that hard.  There have been bullets and illnesses and the like.  But getting to their food has been an afterthought.  The protocol to protect the food is 99% steel.  But the guy eats at one of the three restaurants every single week.  No shopping, no cooking, no nothing.  It would cause a lot of trauma to regular Americans dining at one his properties, but it's really not that hard.  When you know what someone will eat or drink and when they eat or drink it................there hasn't been an easier way to get to somebody in decades.  There is a SS agent right now grappling with this reality.  But the good news is he doesn't have to make any tough choices.  The shitbag appears to be dying on his own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcbc

dcbc 14663

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I actually take it as a pretty good sign that they pretty quickly requested to re-hear Pecker's testimony and the jury instructions. I think if there was a Trumper on the jury who's determined to hang it no matter what, it would've taken more time before they wanted to go back to the evidence and instructions.  That indicates there's something specific a holdout may want clarified, meaning they're trying to take the process seriously. 

Could easily be that, or it could be that they picked up on the prosecution's closing that they could convict without Cohen's testimony and said let's lean on Pecker.  The jury's like a tripod.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19460

Posted
Posted

Well thoughts and prayers to the Bream family on her upcoming homicide.  Or suicide.  Or accidental death.  

I know I annoyingly post multiple times that these people are gonna end up murdering one another, but I didn't realize it was going to actually occur.  I guess it'll be fun to watch though........

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90772

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, what I've taken from today's proceedings is that surly is 95% lawyers.

1 hour ago, South Austin said:

The other 5% are offensive coordinators.

  • 46% of Surly are lawyers
  • 46% of Surly are doctors
  • 2% of Surly are both
  • 2% of Surly are pilots
  • 2% of Surly are engineers (1 member of Surly is a lawyer and an engineer, but the stats don't reflect it)
  • 2% of Surly are in the entertainment industry
  • 2% of Surly are math majors
1 hour ago, South Austin said:

spacer.png

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

What a great fucking movie that is.

Check the movie forum, he and Brad Pitt have a new movie coming out where they clean things up.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19460

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, bluto said:

Sid Bream gonna come to the defense of his sister in law?!

the guy who was literally one of the first handful of players drafted  from Liberty University.  Now the birthplace of MAGA higher-ed  Who wore an actual painters cap as we're talking about painting houses.  And is related to Shannon Bream who is about to get her house painted.  What the fuck people?  I swear to the heavens, Andy Van Slyke is going to be a member of the Cabinet in a year's term.  Why is this happening?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30861

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

So, what I've taken from today's proceedings is that surly is 95% lawyers.

 

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

That aren't working on a Wednesday.

IMG_2768.gif.87d87ba819140f0a7dc08ea31e7062c4.gif

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...