Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    34528
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Well, Wenaas seems to be turning it on a little earlier and a little earlier.
  2. That's just the stupidest argument in the history of evar. You're either a witness with relevant testimony, or you're not. Whether you are defendant has little bearing on that question (although most defendants do have relevant testimony).
  3. It's it common to the point or routine that a law firm would deposit these funds on behalf of their client, for a number of reasons. Of course, typically that firm would have received the money from its client before paying. Yeah yeah Trump always stiffs his lawyers. But this is another way in which the game has changed for Donald compared to his old ways of doing civil suits. For one thing, he's paying lawyers with OPM. But for a second, I think his past habits of stiffing law firms have caught up with him. You know damn well sugarbaby Habba is getting paid.
  4. People lie on the witness stand every day. That's not something that leads directly to perjury. It would be impossible to prove what he really meant and therefore that he was lying and committed perjury. That's just one for the fact finder.
  5. The other thing, I think, about OTFs is that the mechanism to get a blade to traverse linearly is pretty complex and keeps a spring or springs under tension for long periods of time. I believe they require maintenance and rebuilding from time to time and that fidget/flicking contributes to that.
  6. Thing is though, Meadows' utility to the government declined every day past January 6 and certainly January 20, 2021. By the time they secured his cooperation, I very seriously doubt he was getting any useful information from anyone, by recording device or anything else.
  7. Well true, what they asked for is "dismissal." Dismissal, judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, and directed verdict/JNOV are all pretty much the same thing, just at different evidentiary stages of the cases. But, also, if a judge decides a trial is necessary, even a bench trial, to evaluate the evidence, I suppose a directed verdict is appropriate if the evidence can't support the verdict. The feds adoption of judgment as a matter of law kind of covers all the bases. The other ridiculously stupid thing is, I think the state's case is far from over, so not only is Cohen just one witness, preceded by several more, I think he's going to be followed by several more. Where on earth they got the idea that they won the case on Cohen's testimony is anyone's guess. Their own Johnny Jolly moment.
  8. Kind of a notable thing, his firm/partner used to be a guy named George Milner, and Milner at least, was pretty much the king of DWI in Dallas, as was his father before him. I note that they are no longer associated. I also knew the subject's father, Frank Finn, who was also a bit of an imperious prick. Head of litigation at Thompson & Knight and chairman of the firm on multiple occasions. And, as mentioned in the article, a heavy drinker himself. It doesn't really surprise me that his home life was dysfunctional, but that's certainly not a requirement for alcoholism, and often something of a crutch to avoid recovery. Sounds like the genes were lined up well, though.
  9. Goddammit. The replays sucked, but maaaan, if it looks like a carry, it usually is.
  10. 😬😬 I am very glad we don't wear those tank top jerseys with separate sleeves. They're goofy as shit.
  11. Pretty good story giving context to Trump storming out. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/10/when-the-judge-refused-to-toss-his-case-trump-stormed-out-of-court-today/ It seems the real issue there is that Cohen was a somewhat ambivalent witness as to exactly when/how he told him to cook the books. When he admitted that he accurately told Congress he couldn't recall if Trump had ever specifically asked him to cook the books, the Team Trump morons acted like they had won the case and asked the judge for a directed verdict, which was promptly denied. As if there haven't been two solid weeks of testimony of Trump directing people to cook the books and explaining how it was done. His stupidity really seems to be contagious.
  12. I was called for a death penalty jury, but I was one of about 600 people called to fill out a 40-50 page questionnaire and sent home to be called back if needed. This guy. https://www.texastribune.org/2020/02/06/texas-execution-abel-ochoa-death-row/ I answered honestly that my views on addiction might well color my thinking regarding criminal liability and certainly death. An horrific crime, but even that remote brush with capital punishment started to seal my views against the death penalty.
  13. Well, the reason for this is mostly that women's sports are less popular than men's and have a smaller audience. But, part of the reason for that is that women's sports havent been around very long, and maybe women don't watch them. And a big reason for that is because until fairly recently, it was thought women shouldn't play sports, or maybe even watch them. And the reason for that is that it was "unladylike," or not what men and society thought they should do And so on and so forth. So, this particular stat is not very useful for advancing any kind of an equality argument, but you don't have to go very far below the surface to find some misogyny that bears at least some responsibility for the differential.
  14. I think he's saying what Trump is saying. Trump and his team want to conceptualize the whole fraud thing as classical fraud: a knowing falsity to induce loans. If that's all there was to it, he might have a limitations point and a good one. But 63(12) just encompasses a broader set of false and fraudulent acts that apparently is satisfied by showing that a knowingly false document was used in a business transaction, whether actually to anyone's detriment or not.
  15. Most crime rants are counterfactual.
  16. Ivanka appealed mostly on the ground of statute of limitations. Several issues. The main two were 6 or 3 year statute of limitations (answer 6), and whether a "tolling agreement" applied to her. The tolling agreement extended limitations by 18 months, I think, and was executed by the Trump Org, only, and purported to bind all officers and directors, affiliates, etc. The combination of the tolling agreement and the 6 year limitations period put the "pumpkin day" back to 2014 for those bound by the agreement, and 2016 for those not bound by the agreement. Vanky was dismissed from the case because there were no allegations that she did anything after 2016, and, by the time of the tolling agreement, she was not an officer or director of Trump Org and thus not bound by it. The appeals court in passing suggested that the trial court could/should evaluate or re-evaluate its holdings in light of the decision, which Engoron did on summary judgment, holding and citing case law that a tolling agreement signed on behalf of an organization could bind individual officers and directors. One other little thing, the court mentioned that causes of action "accrue" (when they count for purposes of limitations, as in did the fraud occur before 2016 or 2014) when "the transaction is complete." Trump wants that to mean when the loans closed, which were all in like 2011 or 2012. But there were separate fraudulent acts occurring in connection with loan covenants well into 2014 and 2016.
  17. Was he through testifying? ETA: Ohhh, dummy. I thought he was actually taking the stand in the case itself. Also, I see that the ACLU has entered an apperance as amicus curiae on the DC gag order appeal. Fascists. https://www.npr.org/2023/10/25/1208409526/trump-gag-order-first-amendment Trump is rarely called a liar to his face other than in the political arena, much less face immediate consequences. Arthur Engoron is a national treasure.
  18. My word. This guy is a law school classmate. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/former-federal-prosecutor-and-dallas-judge-suspended-for-offensive-court-behavior/ar-AA1iOQHO Guy was kind of a prick in law school, and I didn't much care for him, but I'm pretty certain I was way outstripping his drinking back then. Looks like he's been struggling with sobriety for 5-6 years. That has to be rough. Makes me glad it caught up with me in my early 30s and not now.
  19. Well that and even if you have documents and such, you generally need a live witness to introduce them into evidence. Meadows initially produced a lot to the committee and then stopped on executive privilege. Then Smith got the privilege blown away before the grand jury, so there may well be a trove of stuff that no one has seen.
  20. I am not aware of his actually testifying at any trial previously. As noted, a key aspect of the Teflon Don strategy has been to avoid trial at all cost.
  21. And you kinda actually do have to hear what he says to evaluate his credibility.
×
×
  • Create New...