Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for 'we are going to win'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Sports
    • Football
    • Basketball
    • Baseball
    • Other Sports
    • 🤫$9.95🤫
    • Gambling
  • Entertainment
    • Movies and TV
    • Music
    • Hobbies
    • Lulz
    • Food and Travel
  • News & Business
    • Daily Texan
    • Cloak Room
    • 6th Street Journal
    • You Can't Sit With US
  • Other
    • Can You Help Me With This?
    • Best Buy Coupons
    • Please do this better?
    • Surly 1%
    • Purgatory

Product Groups

  • Big Donor Area
  • Buy TreeFiddy for a friend
  • Burnt Ends
    • Merch
  • Surly Horns NIL Slush Fund
  • Tailgate Donation + Payments

Categories

  • Firings
  • 2020 Hires
  • 2020 Season
  • 2021 Season
  • 2022 Season
  • 2023 Season

Categories

  • Movies and TV
  • Music
  • Hobbies
    • Video Games
  • Lulz

Categories

  • Basketball
  • Baseball
  • Other Sports
    • Futbol
  • Gambling

Categories

  • Daily Texan
  • 6th Street Journal

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


  1. Just caught the Monday Show. About to go to bed, so really quick thought. As with most games - really hard trivia - glad to see some tough FJ!s make the game interesting. With the win Mattea stays alive. Just a reminder that 2 are eliminated and 4 advance to the Semis. Victoria (13) and Yogesh (10) are locks into the Semi's Matt Amodio (1) is out. Before we go forward: The matchup's Wed are: Yogesh, James, Matt and Victoria, Amy, Mattea Scores are: James 6 Amy 5 Mattea 5 James is locked in by virtue of the tiebreaker of right answers, he is 30+ correct answers over Amy and Mattea, so there is virtually no way for him to get caught by some combo of Amy and Mattea finishing 1-2. Basically whoever finishes better between Mattea and Amy is the final semi-finalist.
  2. You keep saying this. All that tells me is that you have no idea what you are talking about. But, we are not going to win out from here, so you can keep telling yourself it was a possibility.
  3. Sweep Kansas and win Big 12 tournament would put us at 40-20. Probably 20s for RPI and in top 15 of polls. We would either go to Indiana State or Santa Barbara or maybe be hot enough to host.
  4. It does not, yet. The only thing that matters right now is Kansas. Win the series against Kansas and Texas is a 2 seed come tournament time regardless of whether they go 0-2 in Arlington or win the tournament. Lose the series or get swept and then the tournament becomes more important because you made it matter, not because it inherently matters. So I agree that by the end of this coming Saturday the tournament could matter. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not running out an already banged up Ace Whitehead to try and win a tournament championship that has little to no effect on where Texas gets sent. If we win it because other arms stepped up, great. As far as where we get sent? Where the 2-4 seeds in regionals get sent is often a numbers game with how many regionals there are in a specific region relative to how many teams qualify for the tournament in that region. For example their are only 7 teams on the west coast in the RPI top 70 yet their is a scenario where they could get two regional hosts which means a few teams would have to get sent out there to fill those regionals. Or if they only get one regional then some of those west coast schools are getting shipped out. Especially given the fact that UC Santa Barbara and UC Irvine play in the same conference, as well as Oregon State, Arizona, and Oregon.
  5. These are the kind of leaflets that are given to moronic soldiers of the Russian army to motivate them not to retreat. Move forward or you'll go to jail for 10 years. It's better to kill yourself than surrender to the enemy. And only thanks to God’s chosen Vladimir Putin can you win. Kneel before him and kiss his feet. This is no longer an army, this is a cult, the likes of which we have not seen for a long time, this is Aum Shinrikyo multiplied by 1000. Who would have thought that such a medieval approach would be possible in our era?
  6. And we are done for the day. Cohen's Monday afternoon testimony, Part 2: We are finished with a day that matched expectations: Michael Cohen has testified that Trump directed him to make the hush-money payment and signed off on Allen Weisselberg’s plan to repay Cohen. Cohen will return to the stand on Tuesday, so prosecutors can conclude their examination. After that, it will be the defense’s turn to cross-examine him. Cohen exits the stand, taking his empty water bottle and plastic cup with him. Michael Cohen testifies that Trump, as president-elect, was busy with meetings around time. Yet he and Allen Weisselberg went into Trump’s 26th floor office to discuss the reimbursement plan, he says. This is an important piece of testimony. It not only paints a pretty wild split-screen image of Trump dealing with the fallout from his hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels while putting together his administration. It also drives home the fact that Trump knew about the scheme to reimburse Cohen for making that payment on his behalf. Michael Cohen is explaining why he was owed $180,000, instead of simply $130,000 for the hush money. He says that he was owed $50,000 — an amount he admits was exaggerated — to pay a firm called Red Finch for “tech services.” He tells this story in his book “Disloyal.” At least in part, the services were Cohen getting a computer programmer to buy IP addresses in order to rig an online CNBC poll to make sure Trump ranked among the most influential business leaders alive. Allen Weisselberg then doubled the $180,000 to $360,000. Weisselberg, Cohen says, expected that he would lose half of that money because it would be taxed as income, and was making him whole, even after taxes. The irony of the “grossed-up” description, which Cohen says was Weisselberg’s idea so Cohen could take the money as income instead of reimbursement, is it cost Trump double what it would have otherwise. Michael Cohen is now at the beginning of the portion of his testimony that focuses on false business records. He’s describing his notes with Allen Weisselberg working out what he was being paid for another matter, and how he would be reimbursed for it. We are now, again, looking at Weisselberg’s handwritten notes on the reimbursement to Cohen. We have seen these at least once before, while Jeffrey McConney, an underling of Weisselberg’s, testified. But now, Cohen is testifying that he was in the room as Weisselberg made these notations on how to repay him for the hush money, as well as his shrunken bonus, and other things he was owed. This document, prosecutors say, leads straight to the repayments to Cohen, and the false documents used to disguise them. Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, one for each of those documents: 11 checks, 11 invoices and 12 ledger entries. Michael Cohen says that he went on vacation and that Trump called him while he was away to say hello. But Trump also said to him then: “Don’t worry about that other thing, I’m going to take care of it when you get back.” Cohen says he understood Trump to be referring to his bonus. But later, he says, he met with Allen Weisselberg, who told him that Trump would reimburse him for the hush-money payment. Trump, who has rarely looked at the witness stand today, was looking in Cohen’s direction as he recounted this conversation. It’s impossible to discern how the jury is processing Cohen, to restate a recurring theme. These jurors have been here for several weeks now of testimony that has overlapped at times. By eliciting a detailed account of Michael Cohen’s feelings of betrayal here, prosecutors seem to be anticipating the defense’s plan on cross-examination to paint him as an embittered ex-employee with a grudge against Trump. They would rather get the story out themselves now to lessen its sting. After Michael Cohen describes having wanted a position as a personal lawyer to the new president, which he didn’t get, he begins to describe not having received a significant bonus. What prosecutors are leading into, in short, is that Cohen was very angry and disgruntled in late 2016. Jurors know that like David Pecker before him, Cohen was an ally who had the ability to hurt Trump. So as the prosecution leads us toward the reimbursement of Cohen, it helps to show how angry he was at the time. “Angry,” he said, asked how he felt about the minimal bonus. “Very angry.” Cohen, describing his anger at seeing his bonus cut by two-thirds, almost sounds angry all over again. “I didn’t expect more,” he says of his bonus that year, 2016. “But I certainly didn’t expect less.” Cohen says he took his fury out on Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, and that Weisselberg told him that he’d be taken care of after the holidays. Trump’s eyes had been closed for quite a while, but a brief expression of what appeared to be pleasure crossed over his face as Cohen describes Trump stiffing him on his end-of-year bonus payment in 2016. Michael Cohen also says he preferred being Trump's personal lawyer and remaining in New York, doing consulting work. And this is important: he is describing how being Trump's lawyer opened “doors” for other clients. This is also something that Trump’s lawyers are going to home in on, that Cohen was benefiting personally from his association to Trump. Susan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, asks: “Did you think you could monetize” being Trump’s personal lawyer? “Absolutely,” Cohen responds. Cohen is delivering this testimony — in which he speaks candidly about making money off Trump’s name, something that Trump despises when anyone who isn't him does — while looking directly at the jurors. Few are looking back at him. Most are taking notes or otherwise looking down. Trump’s eyes are closed and he appears to be sleeping, as he has through most of today. We’ve moved on in testimony to Trump winning the presidential election. SUsan Hoffinger, the prosecutor, asks Michael Cohen if he still had a role at the Trump Organization after Trump won. Cohen says no, “because my service was no longer necessary.” He says he turned down the role of “assistant general counsel” in the White House. Hoffinger asks Cohen if he was disappointed that the job of chief of staff wasn't offered to him. Cohen says he didn’t want it, but wanted his name to have been included in the conversation. This is meant to inoculate him on cross-examination, when Trump’s lawyer inevitably says that Cohen was simply disgruntled about not getting a job. Cohen goes on. “I would have liked to have been considered.” He says it was “solely for his ego.” When Cohen says he was offered the role of assistant general counsel, Trump looks at his lawyer and shakes his head. This bit about Cohen being discussed for a White House counsel job is accurate, for what it’s worth. Michael Cohen is talking about discussing with Hope Hicks the article revealing Karen McDougal's hush-money deal, which came out days before the election. When Hicks testified, she acknowledged that it was ironic to be testifying about this exchange she had with Cohen, which focused on whether or not the McDougal story was being picked up by other news outlets, at a literal criminal trial that stemmed from the publication of this story and the one about Stormy Daniels. Trump is back after the break with some of the members of his entourage. Senator J.D. Vance seems to have broken off from their group. Trump is examining a piece of paper he is holding close to his face and doesn’t glance over at Michael Cohen as he walks to the witness stand.
  7. The draft is shitty at the top but it’s relatively deep, especially with foreign guys that could hit and become something incredible which seems to happen every 5 years or so. Take the win. That being said, I’m down for a blockbuster. Just be patient. The list of guys available this offseason is going to grow dramatically in early June. Someone said Ingram upthread. Would you trade the third, another future pick or three, Green, and FVV for Durant if Phoenix decides to blow it up? I mean, that is wishcasting, but a few guys like that are moving this offseason. We just don’t know who yet. What would you give up for Jimmy Butler coming home? Not as much. But we have the assets to do a lot of different things. As far as I am concerned, depending on who is available, no one is untouchable, not even Sengun. But circling back to first paragraph, I am cool drafting best available on board, figure out your lineup by mid-January and make a trade then for Giannis or Booker or whoever becomes disgruntled and is available then.
  8. Three years ago we finished 8th. If we beat Everton, our point total (89) and GD (currently 61 and will improve with a win) would have been enough to win 19 of the 30 PL seasons (not counting last year when shitty finished on 89 only because they showed up drunk from partying after clinching with a few to go). So proud of this group of guys.
  9. Aggy being 16 was BS. It should be Bama or TXST hosting instead of Bama Itll be interesting to see us in OKC. Scary but hey, if we want to win it, we have to go through some damn good pitchers. Every team will. OU would have to go through Pickens and Gotschall and the Mizzou staff is pretty good too
  10. Trying not to be too debbie downer, but if we make it to the WCWS (which I think we all fully expect), I could easily see us dropping one to Canady and then Kilfoyl (as we did during the season), and then our season is over. But whatever, if you want to be the best, you gotta beat great pitching. I just don't trust our bats against top notch pitching. We tend to go into a shell and swing like idiots. Also, while it's hard to bitch about the #1 seed, I will. At the super level, I see why the committee gave us A&M, but that matchup is kinda bullshit when you consider, say, Tennessee draws fucking Alabama, who finished like 9th in the conference. Their RPIs are similar, but I watched some bammer games this year and they are not very good. Plus A&M took 2/3 from them at their place. Oh well. Just win.
  11. I think we lock up a 2 seed today with a win and not going 0-3 vs Kansas next weekend. I think if we win both series and win a couple of games in the big 12, we will be a high rated 2 seed.
  12. I do not give a shit about “fair” when it comes to wealth, I give a shit about quality of life for citizens and outcomes. If tomorrow I could wave a wand, and 320 million Americans had the lifestyle and opportunities of someone who makes 500k per year while 10 million Americans made 1,000 percent more and all had diamond crusted shitters, I’d call that a win. I have a problem with rising CEO compensation only as it creates bad outcomes and not because of some idea of cosmic unfairness. I think we should try to calculate the cost of doing what we want to do to provide people with a dignified life and then go collect the taxes to pay for it because I don’t see how setting a “income limit” gets us there.
  13. Going to be hard to win this one if we don’t get a hit
  14. Just when you thought we were gonna win more than 2.. insert the shit pitching to go with the limp dick 2/3 runs a game offense and bam back to reality.
  15. How does the tiebreaker work? B12 currently lists us in 3rd behind OSU, but we took 2 out of 3 from them. Does it go to higher total winning percentage first?
  16. Highly doubt CDC is waiting on a decision based upon if we sneak into a regional. Texas should never be hoping and praying to make the tournament, let alone with no chance of hosting. CDC knows this. We let Herman go after a winning season and a bowl win
  17. 100% agree with resting or limiting Whitehead and Boehm in the Big 12 tournament assuming we have very little to play for. We win this series and Kansas, I think we are locked into a 2 seed no matter what. Lose one of these series and we are probably a 3 seed. Lose both and nevermind. I would include Grubbs in that as well. Both he and Whitehead are going to blow by their career high in innings pitched. Maybe you don’t fully sit them, but I’m not going more than 60-75 pitches.
  18. Unfortunately we don’t have a postseason birth locked up so we may have to play to win in the Big 12 tourney. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be concerned about the tourney. Whether we are a 2 or 3 seed in a regional doesn’t matter. I’m not sure a 4 would matter either. It might even be better as we’d get Grubbs versus the #1 seed. For me, I’d rather have Gage for 2, 3 games a weekend than 1 one extended game. I’m not a fan of guys trying things they’re not accustomed to when it matters. Early season is fine. It’s not even about him as I think mentally he’s good out of structure but what happens the next game when other guys are having to fill roles they aren’t accustomed to filling. We are going to need a surprise or two or three in the post season. Yes, I’d say Shaw is the first lefty out of the pen, but 4th inning versus 7th inning may make a difference whether it’s him or Lummus. I’m reasonably satisfied with the options we have. I’m not sure there are any wrong choices on who is used and when, but that’s in part because there aren’t many definitive correct choices.
  19. I don't think that Poland, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most importantly, Ukraine... think like that. Russia seems like it is on the brink of collapse. Bulgaria and Georgia are a mess. And all Russia has is a bunch of dumbasses who are forced to fight. But, I don't think we were ever that comfortable with a Ukraine victory or at least our weapons deployment seemed to indicate a more measured approach than what was necessary for victory. My question is whether the more vested Eastern European countries can provide enough to Ukraine to allow it to outlast Putin. I don't get the feeling that Eastern Europe is comfortable with Ukraine going quietly into the night. And from the US perspective, it actually puts us closer to a direct conflict with Russia the more Eastern Europe gets involved. So, give Ukraine what it needs to win and quit pussyfooting around. We love to play politics and implement policies that affect other people's lives and create more restraints than we would ever place on ourselves. We did it here. We did it with Israel. And we have done it with a whole host of countries. And in the process we've help destroy countries and provided opportunities for our enemies. So, yeah, we are concerned about escalation. We are concerned about securing Russian nuclear weapons if it collapses. We are concerned about oil and gas prices. We are concerned about Russia and a bunch of Russian affiliated countries devolving into civil war. We are concerned about China playing a role in securing Russian assets following a collapse. And all of these concerns lead to indecision and inaction. And a lack of a will to win.
  20. It's Friday!! Well, we couldn’t have asked for a clearer preview of what awaits us next week than that. We've ended the fourth week of the trial with the judge asking prosecutors to keep Michael Cohen from attacking Trump. Cohen, Trump's former fixer, is expected to begin his testimony Monday. Prosecutors acknowledged just now that they have little ability to control him, even though he is their witness. Cohen is central to the case. He says that the reimbursements to him were falsified at Trump’s direction. His face-off with Trump is expected to be one of the biggest moments of the trial. And after what was one of our quietest days in court so far, we got a small taste of just how explosive it is likely to be. Justice Merchan asks prosecutors to tell Michael Cohen that he is personally asking him to refrain from making any more statements about the case or Trump. “That comes from the bench,” Merchan says. Trump flashes a wide grin as the prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says he can’t control Cohen’s statements outside court. Then he shakes his head as court adjourns. Trump looks delighted as he stands up at the end of the proceedings. He sees Jeanine Pirro as he leaves and whispers, “Come.” Todd Blanche, one of Trump’s lawyers, is now asking the judge about Michael Cohen, the witness who Blanche says has continued to attack Trump on the social media platform TikTok. Blanche asks the judge to order prosecutors to instruct Cohen to stop talking until the trial is over. Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, says they have repeatedly asked witnesses, including Cohen, to remain silent but have little control over them. This is something of an acknowledgment that at least one or two witnesses in this case are hard for prosecutors to control, including Cohen, who is the key witness expected next week. For the last few minutes, the lawyers have been arguing about whether or not evidence should be allowed in that relates to Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, who is currently on Rikers Island after pleading guilty to perjury. The evidence, Weisselberg’s severance agreement, would show that he is still waiting to be paid his full severance by the Trump Organization. The judge is suggesting that prosecutors should, in fact, call Weisselberg as a witness, which appears as if it would be a major shift in their plan. Justice Merchan is very familiar with Weisselberg, having sentenced him to jail in the past. Joshua Steinglass, one of the prosecutors, says he expects to call two witnesses next week, and that it is entirely possible that they will rest by the end of the week. Keep in mind that we only have a three-day week next week. The trial is always off on Wednesdays, and we'll have next Friday off to allow Trump to attend his youngest son’s high school graduation. Monday will bring the appearance of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer and lawyer, who will be a crucial witness for the prosecution and a likely the subject of a fierce cross-examination. The judge is beginning to discuss with both prosecutors and defense lawyers what the jury instructions may look like. This is an important part of the case, because of the complexity of the charges against Trump, which wrap in a secondary crime with which he is not charged: prosecutors have tried to convince jurors that second crime is an election crime. The jury instructions will tell the jury how to deal with that complexity. They are among the most important aspects of this case that still have yet to be decided. And they will help the jurors — two of whom are lawyers — decide whether the former president is innocent or guilty. Now Emil Bove, the defense lawyer, is cross-examining Jaden Jarmel-Schneider. He tries to win the witness over, first by asking him how he prefers to be addressed and then expressing sympathy as he acknowledges that a paralegal’s work can be boring. But Jarmel-Schneider isn’t having it. He says he enjoys his work, drawing laughter in the courtroom, including from at least one or two jurors. Its ironic that Bove suggested that detail-oriented work is boring, because it’s one of the aspects of lawyering that he has a reputation for excelling at. The defense lawyer is now poring over the tiny details of the data that Jarmel-Schneider worked with, apparently seeking to suggest to the jury that there are issues with the paralegal’s work. Bove sought to suggest that the reports were edited in a suspicious manner. But as prosecutors questioned the paralegal again, he clarified that the report appears in the abridged way it does because he was following directives from prosecutors. Bove is now up again for re-cross trying to raise more suspicion about the list of calls displayed on screen that is under discussion. We’re almost at the end of the day here. We are looking at a comprehensive chart that the district attorney’s office compiled of the 34 business records that prosecutors say Trump falsified. In total, there are 11 invoices, 11 vouchers and 12 checks, all relating to the reimbursement of Michael Cohen. This is the first time we’ve seen all of the documents laid out on a single screen. These went by quickly during testimony, so it makes sense that prosecutors would use Jaden Jarmel-Schneider's testimony to highlight them again. Jaden Jarmel-Schneider is expected to be our final witness of the day. Like Longstreet, he is a paralegal at the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Jarmel-Schneider tells jurors he was involved in the extraction of data from Michael Cohen’s phone. Having explained his work, the witness is now certifying specific exhibits: calls between various key witnesses, including Michael Cohen and Trump. They are then offered into evidence, and are accepted. Some of the records being entered into evidence today involve calls made by or to Cohen. It’s a good reminder Cohen is expected to take the stand Monday. Todd Blanche asks Georgia Longstreet about Michael Cohen’s use of TikTok, which defense lawyers have been furious about because he’s used it to comment on the case. He asks if she’s reviewed Cohen’s TikTok account. Longstreet is off the stand. One more witness to go today. The direct examination of Georgia Longstreet is over. She spoke about the long negotiations between Stormy Daniels’s representatives and The National Enquirer over a possible hush-money deal. Eventually, The Enquirer's editor, Dylan Howard, alerted Michael Cohen, who paid Daniels the hush money himself. Now Todd Blanche, one of Trump's lawyers, is cross-examining Longstreet. The text exchange delved into the amounts that Daniels’s representatives were asking for. Gina Rodriguez, her manager, originally asked for $250,000 for the story but was bargained down slowly. A curiosity that’s interesting to court-watchers in the room today: a very visible, dark spindle of hairspray running through Trump’s dyed blond hair, on the left side of his head over his ear. From the back of the courtroom, it appears almost like a strip of black tape running through his hair. Georgia Longstreet is now guiding the courtroom through a series of texts from 2016 between Dylan Howard, who was the editor of The National Enquirer, and Gina Rodriguez, who was Stormy Daniels’s manager. The texts — between two figures jurors are not expected to hear from directly — show that representatives for The National Enquirer and Rodriguez were in conversation for months about Daniels’s account. This suggests that The Enquirer was monitoring the story, as its publisher, David Pecker, said he had promised to do. In these texts, Rodriguez tells Howard that Daniels had sex with Trump. It is another piece of evidence presented by the prosecutors that matches Daniels's story — a story that Trump denies. Georgia Longstreet is reading a series of tweets from Trump, many of them attacks on Michael Cohen. She just read a post in which Trump unfavorably compared Cohen — who made the hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels and is expected to testify starting Monday — to Paul Manafort, who pleaded guilty to crimes and was sentenced to seven years in prison but was pardoned by Trump while he was still in office. Georgia Longstreet, a paralegal at the Manhattan district attorney's office who reviews social media posts as part of her role, is on the stand. This helps explain Alvin Bragg’s presence in the courtroom. Longstreet testified about Trump’s social media posts once during this trial already. Trump has been hunched over the defense table reviewing and writing on papers in front of him. He only looked up at Longstreet when she started reading his tweets. It sounds as if we only have two more witnesses today, and will end early. As we've reported, we expect Michael Cohen to take the stand on Monday. Before our break, the defense sought to exclude an interview with Larry King from 1999 where Trump apparently said he had extensive knowledge of campaign finance law. Emil Bove, one of Trump's lawyers, said the laws around campaign finance had changed since that interview. Becky Mangold, one of the prosecutors, argued that the “defendant’s admission that he had extensive knowledge of campaign finance law is relevant.” Justice Merchan just sided with the defense, and barred this piece of evidence. Jennie Tomalin is already off the stand. I suspect we will see several more minor witnesses today. And I wonder if at least one of them will work for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which would explain why Alvin Bragg, the district attorney, is in court today. We are now looking at a page from Allen Weisselberg’s phone records. The new witness’s name is Jennie Tomalin. She works for Verizon. It would not be surprising if she were similar to the witness we just saw, Daniel Dixon, in that she is a custodial witness whose testimony may go relatively quickly. Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney who brought the case, hasn’t been here for each day of testimony. But he just walked into the courtroom and took a seat a few rows back from the prosecution table. Daniel Dixon’s role while testifying, which he was compelled to do by subpoena, was purely to authenticate phone records — not provide further explanation for their relevance to the case. The exhibit that he referenced will likely be referred to again in future testimony. The testimony of Dixon, an AT&T employee, is a good reminder that every call and text we send leaves an electronic trail. After a brief cross-examination, Dixon is done. These custodial witnesses can fly by. With Madeleine Westerhout off the stand, and Michael Cohen not expected to begin testifying until next week, we’re now anticipating a group of witnesses who we’re less familiar with. But that doesn’t mean they won’t be important. I’ve made the mistake here of referring to some witnesses as “dry.” A forensic analyst from Montana who is attending the trial recognized me in line yesterday and told me I should stop doing so: She pointed out, correctly, that especially in a records case like this, the “dry” evidence is often the most important. We appreciate her and all our close and careful readers. The next witness, Daniel Dixon, is from Florida. He will be questioned by the prosecutor Christopher Conroy. Dixon testifies that he is an AT&T employee, and that he is a lead compliance analyst at the company. He’s done that work for six to seven years. It’s not yet clear exactly what he’ll testify to — likely phone records related to the case. Trump appears to be bored by this witness's testimony already. He is reading through his stash of clips and writing notes on them. Trump appeared more interested in the testimony of the last witness, Madeleine Westerhout, who often praised him and his presidential administration. He also glanced in her direction as she left the witness stand. Madeleine Westerhout is now finished testifying. She smiles slightly and looks toward the defense table as she leaves. Westerhout admits that she spoke to the defense lawyer Susan Necheles two nights ago. Another indication that she is trying to be a helpful witness to the defense. Westerhout may not be personally hostile to Trump, but there’s a fairly broad perception she’s been damaging to the defense nonetheless. Briefly, as she concluded re-direct, Mangold sought to show the jury that Westerhout was a Republican loyalist, noting that her current boss, too, is a veteran of the Trump administration. Becky Mangold, the prosecutor, is now questioning Madeleine Westerhout again during re-direct, and suggesting that her actual knowledge about the reaction to the "Access Hollywood" tape was nonexistent. Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, just turned to the subject of Stormy Daniels, who remains a sore spot for the defense. Madeleine Westerhout testifies that the “whole situation” with Daniels was “very unpleasant.” But she does not seem to go where Necheles was hoping she would. Necheles asked if Trump brought up his family in relation to Daniels's claims, but Westerhout said that he did not. This is important because the defense is seeking to suggest that Trump was motivated to pay hush money because of concerns about his family, not his electoral chances. Westerhout seemed as if she’d be a perfect witness for that — she expressed a lot of admiration for Trump’s relationship with his wife. But here, she did not play along, hurting the defendant she used to work for and still admires. Susan Necheles is getting Madeleine Westerhout to say that Trump felt strongly that he needed to get back to people quickly and was frustrated with the slow pace of the mail in the White House. He found it disrespectful to friends who were trying to reach him. The implication to the jury: The Trump White House’s workaround mail system — used for the hush-money reimbursement checks — was not designed to conceal illegality, but for the entirely kosher purpose of promptly responding to mail. Through a long line of questions, the defense lawyer Susan Necheles is steering the witness, Madeleine Westerhout, toward describing the mailing arrangement for Trump in the White House as a system that was set up merely to get mail to him quickly. She is seeking to suggest that there was nothing nefarious about it. Necheles asks whether there was a similar set-up in previous presidential administrations as well. Westerhout admits that she doesn’t have personal knowledge about this but adds: “I can’t imagine it would have been any different.” And Necheles is now taking up a second, familiar defense line, asking Westerhout to describe Trump as a multi-tasker who did not pay close attention while signing checks. Overall, Necheles is seeking to cast doubt on the narrative the prosecution sought to establish through Westerhout yesterday: That Trump kept a close eye on private financial matters even while at the White House, and — in an unusual move — kept the checks out of the normal flow of White House mail by sending them to underlings. Susan Necheles is now again trying to suggest there were things happening in the chain of custody of mail sent to Trump that would have been out of Madeleine Westerhout’s view. The prosecutor Becky Mangold is now doing something we haven’t seen in this trial so far. She is questioning the witness’s knowledge of an exhibit that the defense wants in evidence. This kind of questioning is also known as voir dire, a phrase more familiar during jury selection. Prosecutors want to make sure Westerhout can testify truthfully about this evidence. While Madeleine Westerhout is testifying about Trump’s travel schedule, Trump has been glancing down to read what looks like a printed news article in front of him on the defense table. Part of the reason aides supply Trump with these articles during trials — and they did at his civil fraud trial last year as well — is to keep him occupied during the proeedings. Susan Necheles, Trump's lawyer, just sought to use Madeleine Westerhout's testimony to suggest that Trump and Allen Weisselberg may not have spoken much in 2017, when the alleged falsification of business records occurred. Prosecutors say that Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, designed the specific way that Michael Cohen would be reimbursed for the hush-money payment he made to Stormy Daniels. Weisselberg worked in coordination with Trump, prosecutors say. Necheles is trying to cast doubt on that. Trump’s defense lawyers have been using every means available to them to try to create distance between Trump and the alleged crime. We are starting to see the “blame it on Allen Weisselberg” defense emerging. Madeleine Westerhout is back on the stand. Susan Necheles, one of Trump's lawyers — whose day ended yesterday with the judge harshly criticizing her performance, saying she did not object as she should have to some of Stormy Daniels’s testimony — is back questioning this witness, who worked for Trump in the White House. The prosecutors called Westerhout to testify about Trump’s behavior once he got to the White House, specifically whether he met with Michael Cohen and how he dealt with checks there. But the defense lawyers have sought to use Westerhout's testimony for their own purposes, asking her about her experience during the 2016 campaign. She didn’t testify about that period for the prosecution much — but the defense clearly thinks her knowledge of the campaign could be helpful. It's interesting to see the defense think through how to turn the prosecution’s witnesses to their own benefit. At the end of the day yesterday, Trump’s lawyers had asked that the gag order on the former president be modified to allow him to address Stormy Daniels’s testimony. The judge denied the request — but again said he was concerned about witnesses using the order as a “sword” to attack Trump when they knew he could not respond. Last night, Daniels did attack, goading Trump by tweeting: “Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh...wait. Nevermind.” It’s not yet clear whether the former president will testify. Some trivia on the stack of printouts Maggie mentioned Trump carrying. Trump likes to read through news clips and social media posts during long stretches in court. The printouts come courtesy of his aide Natalie Harp, who is never far from Trump’s side and usually sits two rows back in the courtroom. Trump’s other advisers have nicknamed Harp “the human printer” because she travels around with a portable printer so that she can quickly produce mood-boosting articles for Trump to read. She has also been spotted running after Trump’s golf cart on the golf course so that he can read things between holes. Trump is gesturing to this morning’s collection of positive press on the defense desk in front of him, and chatting with his lawyer Todd Blanche, who often whispers in his ear. Per a pool report, Trump complained about the temperature in the courtroom again, during his now-customary morning remarks to reporters positioned in the hallway outside. “I’ll go now sit in that freezing courtroom for 8 or 9 hours,” he said. “And think about being on the campaign all day.” The judge is on the bench and we are set to begin. Trump enters the courtroom, carrying a sheaf of printouts with him. He walks to the defense table and slams them down there. He’s trailed by two advisers, Susie Wiles and Boris Epshteyn. His lead lawyer, Todd Blanche, laughs and grins. The prosecutors are in, with their binders, folders and boxes of documents. They’re accompanied by Peter Pope, who worked on the case before leaving the office last year — he’s been here a couple of times a week. They’re a bit later than usual today, and accompanied by a paralegal who has doubled as a witness. Good morning from the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, where today we will wind down the fourth week of Donald J. Trump’s trial and the third week of testimony. Madeleine Westerhout, the former assistant who sat outside the Oval Office while Trump was president, will return to the stand for more cross-examination. It’s not clear who else might testify today. The last major witness for the prosecution, Michael Cohen, is not expected until Monday. This has been an incredibly tense week in the courtroom, during which Stormy Daniels testified for two days and Westerhout described her interactions with Trump and his gatekeeper at the Trump Organization, Rhona Graff. Among the Trump admirers in the courtroom today is Jeanine Pirro, Trump’s longtime friend and a Fox News host.
  21. And as always, the person who rolls in and says it will be literal hell if Biden wins never seems to be able to articulate any particular policy reasons why what he is saying is true. If you push them on it, he would just say, “everybody knows that.” That’s the thing, I’m quite sure everyone at his church and the people where he works, and his neighbors who are Trumpers all shake their head and agree, and not one of them articulate anything besides ‘secure the border’. We never got the chance to ask him why Trump killed the border deal after the Democrats leaned over backward and met the GOP more than halfway. Who am I kidding? Trump fans do not really care about the facts - because they are not voting for Trump because of facts or policy. We got ‘border’ and ‘businessman’ out of him, and that’s all we were ever going to get.
  22. Injuries/fatigue vs. youth was always going to be a tough matchup. Winning on the road against the 1 seed and taking home court advantage is massive. The intensity isn’t gonna lower, especially if we make the next round. Just take it game by game, hunerd n ten percent, and so on.
  23. The SEC West was hard. The SEC East outside of Georgia and sometimes Florida was much much easier. Its going to be spread out more evenly now (except florida lol). For most fanbases, they would be happy with that. But they are so scared we are going to come in and accomplish something they didn't do, they have to try to dilute it down before we even play a game. Let them argue that the SEC by adding Texas and OU is easier. We will just laugh at them. And also, like going to Tuscaloosa and winning is hard?
  24. A Ukrainian tank crew says the Abrams is still being used on the front lines, but isn't finding 'tank-on-tank' battles where it has the edge A Ukrainian tank crew told state media they're still using the Abrams tank on the front lines. The report comes after the Pentagon said Ukraine had pulled back its Abrams tanks over concerns of drone attacks. A Ukrainian Abrams commander told Army TV that the tanks weren't withdrawn but are used situationally. A Ukrainian tank crew says the US-supplied Abrams is still viable on the front lines, but the tank-on-tank battles where it excels have been few and far between. Pentagon officials in late April told the Associated Press that Ukraine was pulling back its Abrams tanks from the heaviest areas of fighting because Russian drones were making them more difficult to defend. But a Ukrainian state media report is now pushing back on the assessment, citing the crew's commander saying that Kyiv hadn't fully withdrawn the heavy-duty armor. "It all depends on the situation. You see, we don't fight in a way that it's purely tank-on-tank," said the man, identified as Dmytro of the 47th Separate Mechanized Brigade, told Ukrainian military news outlet Army TV. The outlet is run by Ukraine's Defense Ministry. "If it was tank-on-tank, there would be no questions. The T-72 wouldn't even be standing next to it," Dmytro said. Dmytro added battlefield circumstances have become "very difficult" due to Russia's advantage on the ground with personnel and equipment. "So we have to adjust our actions. These tanks are designed primarily for direct contact. Go out and destroy the opponent's vehicles," Dmytro added. Army TV on Tuesday uploaded a video of Dmytro and his crew. It was titled and captioned in English, standing out from the YouTube channel's usual coverage in Ukrainian. "WHERE IS UKRAINIAN ABRAMS: how the legendary American tank fights at the front," its title reads. Clips in the video showed the tank crew operating an Abrams M1A1 at an undisclosed location. Dmytro said his team had, in the last few days, deployed their Abrams to take out Russian infantry and equipment, including a T-62 tank that had been disabled by an exploding drone. It's not immediately clear when the video was filmed. When asked about Army TV's response to the prior assessment, a Pentagon spokesperson told Business Insider: "We refer you to the Ukrainians to speak to their operations." Army TV's video was lavish with praise for the American battle tank, a much-desired ground asset for Kyiv, with a gunman named Koka and a driver named Alexey complimenting its maneuverability and internal systems. The Abrams is touted as an effective tool against Soviet armor, with a winning track record against Russian-made vehicles, but has also faced challenges in Ukraine. In late April, one anonymous defense official told the AP that Ukraine was not deploying the Abrams in combined arms warfare, though its crews had been trained for such scenarios. At least five Abrams tanks have been reported lost in combat, with another three damaged. The US promised in January 2023 to deliver 31 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, which received its first batch in September that year as part of the initial rounds of aid provided by the Biden administration. A renewed tranche of supplies and weapons, which Ukraine says it desperately needed to defend its positions against Russia, was held back for months due to political infighting on Capitol Hill. Congress eventually voted through a $61 billion package to Ukraine.
  25. There's not that much difference, but we need to see the top 8 seeds first to gauge who #1 Texas would face in their side of the WCWS bracket with if we made it. They'd open with #8 and face the winner of #4/5. #4 could be OU or OKST. Will likely be whoever loses Bedlam part 4 on Friday (if they both win today). OKST has a bit of a resume problem: #8 RPI, #5 KPI, SOS #31, only 9 top 25 wins and a bad series loss to ISU (plus losses to BYU, Tulsa and Baylor), but they do have series wins over Texas and OU OU is still #2 in RPI and KPI, #22 SOS, also only 9 top 25 wins (and only 3 top 10 wins I believe) I honestly have no idea what the committee is going to do. LSU has a super high RPI, but they shouldn't be a top 8 seed with 14 losses. Duke has a super high RPI, but they have no top 10 wins. OKST has a meh SOS and the 2 best series wins in the country (Texas and OKST), but that ISU series loss is so so bad. UCLA is RPI #10 and won the Pac 12, so I can't see them being left out of the top 8. Texas at #1 and Tennessee at #2 are the only thing I'm comfortable saying will happen.
×
×
  • Create New...