Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    13026
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. 1) It actually notes in the motion that the rog answered wasn't verified, so it wasn't under oath. 2) The answer appears to be a version of aggressive lawyering and depends upon what you consider to be period of marriage. While it might be misleading, there appears to be a good faith argument that it wasn't false. Even if it were under oath, I don't think that would ever support a perjury charge. That said, personally, if I we're taking that approach to an answer, I would have objected to the question. 3) it might matter to the Georgia bar and to the Court in the divorce case, but why does it matter as to Trump? The lawyer isn't going to be testifying in the case. 4) it isn't evidence that the testimony related to the disqualification motion was false.
  2. So, your contention is that these arguably misleading rog responses are evidence of perjury in some respect? What does any of this have to do with the Trump case? Are we litigating the divorce now? Again, I ask, why are you interested? Why do you believe any of this should matter as far as Trump goes?
  3. You provided one video that didn't show what you said. You've provided another 20 minute video and refuse to provide time stamps so I can tell what you're referencing. You'll forgive me for not trusting your description of events. Not that I think any of it is relevant to anything.
  4. How did they fix him? Freshman Daly was amazing.
  5. No getting a run here is no bueno.
  6. Sigh, picked off at first right before a single.
  7. I listened to portions of it. I didn't hear anything regarding 2023 rogs where he answered that he had no relationship to the present. There was some argument about failure to answer discovery responses in the divorce proceedings. Again, it is 20 minutes. What portion do you contend supports your statement? Or are you misrepresenting the evidence again?
  8. Could be? Like, you're not sure if she is a figment of your imagination?
  9. Sounds like a great play to get the lead runner out on third.
  10. Do you have a time stamp to what you're referring to?
  11. No need to get the testimony is what I meant to say.
  12. And you're still being disingenuous. You made the claim he already admitted it to being business expenses. He didn't. Whether the judge allows this fishing expedition to continue is not relevant to that claim. If whether the expenses were deducted from his taxes was relevant in the first place, there would have been need to get this testimony in order to subpoena them. Honestly though, whether or not he committee tax fraud still isn't relevant to the core claim that Fanni financially benefited from his appointment in someway that would prevent Trump from having a fair trial.
  13. So, using a business credit card isn't the same as business expenses, and you know that.
  14. The December 2021 interrogatories? That would be consistent with the testimony at the time the rogs were signed. Whether or not he failed to update them after a relationship had started could be up for debate. But I'm not sure why that would be necessary as a relationship that began well after divorce proceedings were initiated doesn't seem particularly relevant. That said, I certainly don't know family law, much less family law in Georgia. Again, this is all a distraction that shouldn't have been allowed by the judge in the first place.
  15. Wow, have all the surly crazies joined this thread?
  16. Again, lying under oath would be bad. I don't see how the cell phone analysis is at all reliable evidence of that. They explained those some questions in their testimony. Everything so far is consistent with the testimony. And, none of this cell phone data analysis has been subject to analysis or cross examination. Submitting it after the testimony rather than using it with the witnesses is just another way to delay things and should be a pretty clear indication to you that it isn't going to hold up. The defense attorneys clearly had it at time and chose not to use it for a reason.
  17. 1) there is no evidence of perjury. There is an affidavit claiming to have some very rudimentary cell location data. You're falling for the bit Trump wants you to fall for. 2) the defense isn't going to be able to bring up any of this at trial. The risk that some potential juror will know about this stuff and that would taint their ability to reach a verdict based upon the evidence is much less than the risk that any pro-trumper is a jury member and would refuse to convict. Pretty much any of the former would also be latter. 3) This whole saga is precisely why the judge shouldn't have countenanced this argument in the first place. Bad people are taking advantage of honest people like yourself. That is all that is happening. These aren't serious arguments. No one actually believes Trump is at risk of having an unfair trial because of their relationship. It is all a stupid game.
  18. Stop being disingenuous. You know this isn't about Trump getting a fair trial. Just say it.
  19. Balcones believes she was eminently qualified.
  20. Yeah, and, for shits and giggles, can you think of any political reason why maybe other counties may be less inclined? Can you think of any special interest Fulton county may have? Of course you know exactly what this game is and exactly what the implication is. Don't play dumb.
  21. This his true interest. It isn't about Trump getting a fair trial. It is about Trump not facing justice at all.
×
×
  • Create New...