Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Paying off porn stars in the Oval Office. This makes me so mad, because it just reminds me how unpresidential Obama was that time he rolled up his sleeves there. 

I mean, he wore a TAN SUIT! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HillCountryBevo said:

You stupid fuck. I’m from a small town and enjoy the down to earth, logical conservatives who live there. Praying dumb liberals from Austin and Cali do not move here and ruin it

I think we found where RFKjrs brain worm ended up.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't remember this about Westerhout: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/30/trumps-personal-assistant-fired-ivanka-tiffany-1479226

And, would.

Quote

Madeleine Westerhout, who left her White House job suddenly on Thursday as President Trump’s personal assistant, was fired after bragging to reporters that she had a better relationship with Trump than his own daughters, Ivanka and Tiffany Trump, and that the president did not like being in pictures with Tiffany because he perceived her as overweight.

Given Westerhout’s sensitive role as a confidante to the president, the few details the White House shared about her abrupt firing had Washington’s political-media class in a quiet frenzy on Thursday night and Friday.

The critical comments happened at an off-the-record dinner, according to two people familiar with the matter, that Westerhout and deputy White House press secretary Hogan Gidley held earlier this month with reporters who were covering Trump’s vacation at his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey.

Westerhout also jokingly told the journalists that Trump couldn’t pick Tiffany out of a crowd, said one of the people. “She had a couple drinks and in an uncharacteristically unguarded moment, she opened up to the reporters,” the person said.

At some point, Gidley left the restaurant for a television interview on Fox News. During that time — around 45 minutes to an hour — Westerhout made the comments to the reporters.

After the Aug. 17 dinner, which took place at the restaurant inside the nearby Embassy Suites hotel and included the Washington Post’s Phil Rucker, Bloomberg’s Jennifer Jacobs, Reuters’ Steve Holland and the Wall Street Journal’s Andrew Restuccia, Westerhout rode back to a different hotel, the Marriott, with Rucker and Holland.

White House staffers having off-the-record dinners or drinks with reporters has long been a commonplace practice when a president is traveling.

“This was an off-the-record dinner and the media blatantly violated that agreement,” an administration official said.

Arthur Schwartz, a confidant of Donald Trump Jr. who spars frequently with the media, accused Rucker on Friday in a series of tweets of having “burned” Westerhout and of violating the Washington Post’s policies on sourcing.

Rucker referred a request for comment to the Washington Post, while the other reporters present either declined to comment or referred requests to spokespeople for their news organizations.

“Philip Rucker is one of the best and most scrupulous reporters in the news business,” said Steven Ginsberg, national editor at the Washington Post, in an emailed statement. “He has always acted with the utmost honor and integrity and has never violated Washington Post standards or policies.”

Trump on Friday confirmed that Westerhout had been dismissed for talking to reporters about his children, calling the comments “a little bit hurtful.”

“It was too bad,” Trump told reporters before leaving the White House for Camp David, adding that Westerhout was a “very good person” who performed her job well. “I wished her well.”

Trump said he would speak by phone with Tiffany when he reached Camp David, disputing that he had ever personally disparaged his daughter.

“I love Tiffany,” he said.

The White House and Westerhout declined to comment.

On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted: “While Madeleine Westerhout has a fully enforceable confidentiality agreement, she is a very good person and I don’t think there would ever be reason to use it.”

Other officials were wary of Westerhout, who did not work on the campaign and joined Trump’s team after the 2016 election. She kept largely to herself, several noted, but frequently posted pictures on Instagram of life in the White House.

POLITICO’s Tim Alberta reported in his recent book, “American Carnage,” that Westerhout was observed crying on election night because she was unhappy that Trump had won. But she found her way into a top job at the White House, having previously worked at the Republican National Committee.

During the transition period, Westerhout was known as “elevator girl” or “greeter girl” because she was often photographed escorting guests to see the then president-elect at his office at Trump Tower in Manhattan. She was previously an assistant to Katie Walsh, a top RNC official who also joined the White House, only to resign just months into her tenure as deputy chief of staff.

Westerhout, 28, was a key gatekeeper for the president, screening his official calls and controlling the access of outside advisers. In February, she blasted an unknown person who leaked three months of his calendars to the press.

“What these don’t show are the hundreds of calls and meetings @realDonaldTrump takes everyday,” Westerhout tweeted at the time. “This POTUS is working harder for the American people than anyone in recent history.”

Westerhout’s public displays of loyalty ran her afoul of the Office of Special Counsel, which reprimanded her earlier this year for violating the Hatch Act, a 1939 law that prohibits federal officials from engaging in overtly political activity in the course of their official duties.

And as one of a dwindling number of officials to have served in Trump’s White House since its earliest days, she was an important source of continuity for a tumultuous presidency.

“Madeleine is the key,” Trump told the Washington Post in a 2018 interview. “She’s the secret.”

White House officials were buzzing all day on Friday, trying to understand her sudden firing.

“It is a good reminder that we are all staff,” a White House official said. “We are all replaceable.”

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, NAVY said:

Good ‘ol fashioned fatwa up in this bitch 

Always crazy to spot one in the wild. Shows up with guns blazing, full of objectively false declarations. 

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

35 minutes ago, NAVY said:

Good ‘ol fashioned fatwa up in this bitch 

I mean dang, people haven't even gotten off with yet. Night Crew gonna head in here and wonder WTF happened

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

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's really not.

This brings up a point though.  There are elements of proof of an offense that the prosecution must meet to legally have proven their case.  If they fail on even one of the elements, a conviction cannot be sustained and should not be delivered by the jury's verdict or should be reversed on appeal.

That said, there are elements of persuasion that prosecutors feel they must meet in addition to the elements of proof in order to have a jury convict on the offense.  The classic example is "motive, opportunity, and means" to commit a murder.  You will find those elements nowhere in any statutory definition of murder or a related homicide offense.  Therefore, they are not elements of proof.  Some seem to think that they are required elements of persuasion, though.

Whether he fucked Stormy Daniels or not is utterly irrelevant to the case at bar.  Whether someone believes the jury must be persuaded of that in order to convict is a different story and likely an unknowable proposition.  They certainly will not be asked any jury questions on that issue.

Yup, but I might say it a bit differently. Murder doesn't require proof of motive, but it does require proof of intent. Evidencing motive is one way to prove intent (arguably the primary way). It is like you have a puzzle with a square piece to fill in. You may have multiple pieces that fit the square intent space (e.g., motive, confession, etc). Legally, it doesn't matter which one you put there, but you do need to choose one of them. 

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

5 hours ago, HillCountryBevo said:

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 fucking liberals. Enjoy the increased inflation and WW3 if Biden gets elected again!! 

I’m not a troll. I’m a patriot and want the best for this country. Stupid fuck. 

Traitor bitch. Bye troll. Back to traitor trump doing anti-Christian shit and hypocrites still supporting him. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you were writing a movie/tv show, and needed to create an Anti-Christ character... you wouldn't even have to change anything. He's perfect.
Seriously.

He embodies the antithesis of all of Christ's teaching. Petty, vindicative, cruel, wholly self-absorbed...
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.png.fb3ec514b2f9ec5bb7470e6bbddf0813.png

Ms. Daniels, at this so-called encounter with President Donald Trump, you've said at times it was a dinner but then said no food was consumed. We have that in print, Ms. Daniels! Vogue magazine! Aren't you lying?

No. I was invited for a dinner that was never served.

Or so you say!

Objection!

Withdrawn. In this story about your alleged encounter with President-for-Life Trump-

Objection! Sustained

Did you, Ms. Daniels have a beverage?

Yes. I had a Diet Dr. Pepper.

Aha! Diet Dr. Pepper?

Yes.

Did everyone on the jury hear that? Diet. Doctor. Pepper. You know, Ms. Daniels, that God-King Trump 

Objection! Sustained.

-President Trump only drinks Diet Coke. 

No.

I'll also remind you of the Vogue interview. Do you recall?

Yes.

There you say you had a Diet Sprite! There were no sodas in that room other than Diet Coke, so how could you have acquired another soda? You can't even keep your story straight! One day it's Diet Dr. Pepper another day it's Diet Sprite! If you're lying about this, Miss Daniels, what else are you lying about? The defense rests!

spacer.png

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Doesn't dotard put ketchup on well done steaks? When does that hearing begin? Automatic disqualification for participating in society, in my opinion.

just when I thought my opinion of him couldn't get any lower

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I mean dang, people haven't even gotten off with yet. Night Crew gonna head in here and wonder WTF happened

Aww shit. Hadn’t even though about the pipe night crew is gonna lay 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yup, but I might say it a bit differently. Murder doesn't require proof of motive, but it does require proof of intent. Evidencing motive is one way to prove intent (arguably the primary way). It is like you have a puzzle with a square piece to fill in. You may have multiple pieces that fit the square intent space (e.g., motive, confession, etc). Legally, it doesn't matter which one you put there, but you do need to choose one of them. 

Yeah some of those things are related to elements of proof, but strictly speaking are not elements of the crime.  Porking Stormy Daniels is not an element of the crime in this case.  It may be important for the jury to believe her on that issue if they are to secure a conviction, though.

Honestly, though, because the crime occurred almost entirely on Trump's side of things, his motive, his actions and the actions of his subordinates, and the understandings and observations of those things by guys like Pecker, Davidson,and Cohen, I think, are the important pieces of evidence for the prosecution for meeting their burden of proof of the elements of the offense.  Daniels may be there mostly to make Trump look like an asshole.

And, because her relevance is fairly slight, and the risk of her making him look like a complete asshole is great, Merchan was kind of queasy about the whole Daniels testimony.

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

6 hours ago, HillCountryBevo said:

I’m not a troll. I’m a patriot and want the best for this country. Stupid fuck. 

The only people who refer to themselves as “patriots” now are smooth brain traitors, fake Christians and those that grift the former two.  You should’ve gotten the memo.   But I complement you for hitting every stupid talking point that Fox puts in your brain.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah some of those things are related to elements of proof, but strictly speaking are not elements of the crime.  Porking Stormy Daniels is not an element of the crime in this case.  It may be important for the jury to believe her on that issue if they are to secure a conviction, though.

Honestly, though, because the crime occurred almost entirely on Trump's side of things, his motive, his actions and the actions of his subordinates, and the understandings and observations of those things by guys like Pecker, Davidson,and Cohen, I think, are the important pieces of evidence for the prosecution for meeting their burden of proof of the elements of the offense.  Daniels may be there mostly to make Trump look like an asshole.

And, because her relevance is fairly slight, and the risk of her making him look like a complete asshole is great, Merchan was kind of queasy about the whole Daniels testimony.

As I mentioned before, while it may not be relevant in a technical sense, do we really want to be talking about an NDA about nothing?  In the end, the question of its relevance has been waived by the defense and any harm on its admission is a non issue because the defense repeatedly brought up the veracity of her testimony on the question of whether they had sex. 

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

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Rimbo said:

IMG_20240509_111547_999.thumb.jpg.3552161f498fc808786fe787c786a325.jpg

 Or for nothing, this Pastor reminds me of the old Protestant Evangelical pastors, preachers who weren’t afraid to come out with the rod and staff and even break the legs of their lambs if they had to in order to protect the flock. 

 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dcbc said:

As I mentioned before, while it may not be relevant in a technical sense, do we really want to be talking about an NDA about nothing?  In the end, the question of its relevance has been waived by the defense and any harm on its admission is a non issue because the defense repeatedly brought up the veracity of her testimony on the question of whether they had sex. 

Yeah, like some of the other things, the prosecution may feel like the jury MUST hear from Stormy Daniels in this case, even though she doesn't know a whole lot germane to the actual charges.

For the peanut gallery, that's a real thing:  sometimes you put on a witness or testimony that has almost nothing to do with anything because the jury would be disappointed, severely, not to hear that testimony or from that witness.  You fear they may hold that against you in deciding the jury questions on the really relevant evidence.

Like the inventors on patents half the time have very little of substance to offer the patent infringement case.  But by God, if you can get em, you put em on the stand and try to have em tell a dazzling story about the invention.

It's window dressing.  Stormy may be window dressing, but she also has the potential ability to make Trump look like shit.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, like some of the other things, the prosecution may feel like the jury MUST hear from Stormy Daniels in this case, even though she doesn't know a whole lot germane to the actual charges.

For the peanut gallery, that's a real thing:  sometimes you put on a witness or testimony that has almost nothing to do with anything because the jury would be disappointed, severely, not to hear that testimony or from that witness.  You fear they may hold that against you in deciding the jury questions on the really relevant evidence.

Like the inventors on patents half the time have very little of substance to offer the patent infringement case.  But by God, if you can get em, you put em on the stand and try to have em tell a dazzling story about the invention.

It's window dressing.  Stormy may be window dressing, but she also has the potential ability to make Trump look like shit.

This.  There are often witnesses who you have to put on -- you don't need them to PROVE your case, but you damned well need them to WIN your case.

If they didn't put on Stormy, the jury would have wondered what they were hiding.  As an added bonus, she made Trump look like the piece of shit that he is.  Making the other side look like a piece of shit in the eyes of the jury is always a good idea, if you can pull it off.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  There are often witnesses who you have to put on -- you don't need them to PROVE your case, but you damned well need them to WIN your case.

If they didn't put on Stormy, the jury would have wondered what they were hiding.  As an added bonus, she made Trump look like the piece of shit that he is.  Making the other side look like a piece of shit in the eyes of the jury is always a good idea, if you can pull it off.

He sells merch too. She’s planted the seed that, hey, no matter what you think of me, yes I sell merchandise to make $$ the same way Trump sells merchandise to make $$. 

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

3 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Welcome to Twinkytown Dinnah Theatah, where we enjoy RDCanecutter's one-person play, Who's Afraid of Virginia Libtard:

"Ah'm a proud man from the Hill Country, and my libtard landlord is too. That's why I give him money because he's the dumbass. No wait Ah tolt it wrong.

Anyway Ah used to be Burnt Ends but I quit because Ah don't like some other libtards (not my landlord) who say random things contrary to mah beliefs on a subsection of a Texas sports board. Mmmm.

And Biden, Biden's handlers, the Uniparty, and all the tarded libtards (also not my landlord) from Austin California will dance the Dance of Doomed Souls in Hell unless a multi-bankrupt New York real estate guy gets elected. Not that he didn't already (cuz he did) but THIRD TIME IS THE CHARM."

Lights dim.

This hits a bit too close to home for me.  I have a long time tenant that is a hardcore Trumper.  At one point he wasn't paying rent and so I went an visited and he offered to give me his 96 Grand Cherokee in lieu of rent.  I asked him how he was going to get to work if he didn't have the truck, his response floored me, "well it doesn't run, which is why I haven't been going to work, and also why I can't pay the rent.  Do you think you could give me a ride for a while after I give you the truck?"  Instead I offered to look at the truck and quickly determined the starter was bad, I went to the store, got it and put it in for him.  Eventually, I got my money back.  

Absolutely baffling.  This is what we are dealing with.  Also, if you are in the landlord game, this also is the type of lunacy you can expect.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

This hits a bit too close to home for me.  I have a long time tenant that is a hardcore Trumper.  At one point he wasn't paying rent and so I went an visited and he offered to give me his 96 Grand Cherokee in lieu of rent.  I asked him how he was going to get to work if he didn't have the truck, his response floored me, "well it doesn't run, which is why I haven't been going to work, and also why I can't pay the rent.  Do you think you could give me a ride for a while after I give you the truck?"  Instead I offered to look at the truck and quickly determined the starter was bad, I went to the store, got it and put it in for him.  Eventually, I got my money back.  

Absolutely baffling.  This is what we are dealing with.  Also, if you are in the landlord game, this also is the type of lunacy you can expect.  

That’s a lot of words to say you passed up a ‘96 Grand Cherokee.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

This hits a bit too close to home for me.  I have a long time tenant that is a hardcore Trumper.  At one point he wasn't paying rent and so I went an visited and he offered to give me his 96 Grand Cherokee in lieu of rent.  I asked him how he was going to get to work if he didn't have the truck, his response floored me, "well it doesn't run, which is why I haven't been going to work, and also why I can't pay the rent.  Do you think you could give me a ride for a while after I give you the truck?"  Instead I offered to look at the truck and quickly determined the starter was bad, I went to the store, got it and put it in for him.  Eventually, I got my money back.  

Absolutely baffling.  This is what we are dealing with.  Also, if you are in the landlord game, this also is the type of lunacy you can expect.  

1. Closest I got to the landlord game was teaching College Orientation for new students (who probably have a story about where the rent money went.) My first lesson to them was "Show Up," and everything else was padding so I could draw a check.

2. I also dipped my toe into that world a while back offering to buy gold and silver. You'd be amazed at how much gold and silver there is in the world. This steel chain is silver. Those Canadian dollar coins from last year are gold. Why do you want to cheat us.

3. How much does he want for the Grand Cherokee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RDCanecutter said:

1. Closest I got to the landlord game was teaching College Orientation for new students (who probably have a story about where the rent money went.) My first lesson to them was "Show Up," and everything else was padding so I could draw a check.

2. I also dipped my toe into that world a while back offering to buy gold and silver. You'd be amazed at how much gold and silver there is in the world. This steel chain is silver. Those Canadian dollar coins from last year are gold. Why do you want to cheat us.

3. How much does he want for the Grand Cherokee?

Well, he was attempting to trade for 2 months rent in 2022 dollars, so about $3500 I guess.  I have no idea if this would have been a good deal or not.   It wasn't to me, I don't want you to pay me once, I want you to pay me in perpetuity.  

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

16 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Also, if you are in the landlord game, this also is the type of lunacy you can expect.

I am, but my tenants are college students, usually engineering/science type majors. My experience is therefore... different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Well, he was attempting to trade for 2 months rent in 2022 dollars, so about $3500 I guess.  I have no idea if this would have been a good deal or not.   It wasn't to me, I don't want you to pay me once, I want you to pay me in perpetuity.  

It sounds like y'all have a delicate ecosystem where any interference would result in collapse and extinction.

I should pass anyway. I am looking for a simple waterproof box that rolls so I can transport art. Something dripping sexxay like a Honda Element.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...