Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Pardon me but give me a fucking break. You don’t know this woman. You’ve got no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt. If this was the obese, pimply assistant salon manager of a Supercuts who looked the other way when the franchiser stole stylists tips and was a party after the fact to using business funds to pay off a harassment victim I don’t see you or anybody else sighing about how young she was or her feelings towards the Trump and inner conflict about her testimony. You wouldn’t care at all.
Just because shes hot doesn’t make her a good person, trick. 
 

She must really agitate you.  I don't care about her one way or another, but from my view she doesn't fit the mold of the Star Wars bar of embarrassing characters in MAGA world. Granted I didn't know some of the unseemly details listed above, so maybe she is a cunt and I wasn't paying close enough attention.

The "hot" comment was a dumb throwaway in response to the ghoul reference.  Calm down Francis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

"Even when a mob boss is under indictment and goes to see Roy Cohn, Roy Cohn says, 'All right, shut up and listen to me now, I know what needs to happen. We're going to go there and say maybe you haven't lived an exemplary life, but this charge and that charge,' they can't do that with Trump," Litman said.

"Can everyone be lying here? Imagine the cross examination they're going to have to do on Stormy Daniels," Litman added. "They're just going to have to call her a flaming liar...It's a terrible strategy."

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-defense-hush-money-trial-litman-1895597

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

18 minutes ago, Red Five said:

That was my question from before the trial started. Are they going to call Daniels and McDougal extortionists? I mean they have to right?

I wonder if they will essentially call no defense witnesses and just try to argue at close that the State simply hasn't made it's case.  Hicks testimony completely torpedoes the notion that Trump didn't know and that Cohen was acting alone, so to me that angle is out.  

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

45 minutes ago, Red Five said:

That was my question from before the trial started. Are they going to call Daniels and McDougal extortionists? I mean they have to right?

I really hope they try that.  I would love to see Stormy call him Mushroom Man on the stand.

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

22 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I wonder if they will essentially call no defense witnesses and just try to argue at close that the State simply hasn't made it's case.  Hicks testimony completely torpedoes the notion that Trump didn't know and that Cohen was acting alone, so to me that angle is out.  

 

I'm guessing they are going to essentially concede this, appeal it and hope to get it overturned on appeal down the road, because even though it is a state case, assuming he wins this November, who will give a shit after that?  Right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Red Five said:

That was my question from before the trial started. Are they going to call Daniels and McDougal extortionists? I mean they have to right?

I don’t know how they do that without tacit admission that he did have sex with them. And if he did, then clearly the money he paid (or that was paid on his behalf and then reimbursed through his business as “legal fees”) was to keep them quiet ie campaign donation. That ties the prosecution’s argument up with a nice bow imo 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I don’t know how they do that without tacit admission that he did have sex with them. And if he did, then clearly the money he paid (or that was paid on his behalf and then reimbursed through his business as “legal fees”) was to keep them quiet ie campaign donation. That ties the prosecution’s argument up with a nice bow imo 

 

 

 

To quote Mitt Romney, "You don't pay someone $130k to not have sex with you." 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Trump claims under oath he never had sex with either woman, and one or both can prove otherwise, that puts him on the hook for perjury, doesn't it?

I'm not sure how one would "prove" it without video or maybe a 3rd party witness (a mental image so gross I'm going to go make a Bloody Mary to hopefully wash it out of my brain).

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t extortionists typically attempt to extort the entity of which they have information?  These women didn’t go to Trump and say pay me to keep quiet. They shopped their stories to tabloids and newspapers to be told- and it was the enquirer that bought them and kept them out of the public. 
 

 

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

Posted (edited)
On 5/3/2024 at 5:40 PM, Biff Tannen said:

This reinforces the fact that his followers are the dumbest people.  He commits crimes right out in the open.  He commits non-criminal, but deplorable acts right out in the open.  Yet these people are not smart enough to see it when it is in front of their face.  

I don't think its that they don't see his crimes, I think its that they see "the system" as a rigged sham.  Crimes are just violations of rules.  Rules that they feel are unjust and capricious and designed to keep them down.  In that worldview, the crime is that rules exist in the first place.

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

5 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I don't think its that they don't see his crimes, I think its that they see "the system" as a rigged sham.  Crimes are just violations of rules.  Rules that they feel are unjust and capricious and designed to keep them down.  In that worldview, the crime is that rules exist in the first place.

Agree. It’s all a conspiracy. And boo hoo for them. It’s so unfair. What’s going to be really unfair is when they get cut down by a hail of bullets when they try it again. 

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

1 hour ago, Macanudo said:

I really hope they try that.  I would love to see Stormy call him Mushroom Man on the stand.

So Ms. Daniels you're saying he's a real fungi to be intimate with?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jurors also saw an email from Hope when she learned about the access Hollywood tape. 

Prosecutors displayed evidence showing that Hicks forwarded the email (which included a transcript of the tape) from the Washington Post reporter to other Trump aides: Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon, Jason Miller and David Bossie. She wrote: "Flagging." Followed by two bullet points: "Need to hear the tape to be sure." And "Deny, deny, deny."
Honestly, that is the sort of stuff that paid political PR people do in the normal course of dealing with potential scandals.   I do not personally consider this egregiously unethical, as it is not sworn testimony or communication, and the reason you keep those people around. See James Carville and Clinton.
But it may stick in some jurors ‘ minds that the Trump coalition, as it were, will always lie to protect itself and to cover up bad acts.  IOW, this is exactly the same kind of negative, campaign-injuring news as the Stormy and McDougall situations, and so Trump and his toadies can be expected to deny, deny, deny the truth of what the prosecutors say he did here. 
There is zero chance that this exhibit will not be referred to in the prosecutors’ closing.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2024 at 10:20 AM, Brisketexan said:

The problem is worst when we the people enable and reward the bad actor. Like we’ve done with Trump. The problem is tens of millions of your fellow Americans who masturbate furiously to the idea of being ruled by a criminal dictator.

This system you speak of is supposed to be fair and impartial.  If that was the case, then it wouldn't mean fuck all how many people masturbate furiously to some wannabe dictator.

Fair.  Impartial.  That means take off the kid gloves and get after his ass like he was a brown man accused of robbing a liquor store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I'm confused.  Why would you want to see today's McDougal titties when prime McDougal titties and poonanny are readily available?

I can only speak for myself, but my only rules on titties is if I'm allowed to touch them or see them, they are real.  

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

13 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I'm confused.  Why would you want to see today's McDougal titties when prime McDougal titties and poonanny are readily available?

They’re silicone. They probably look the same today as they did when she bought them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I'm confused.  Why would you want to see today's McDougal titties when prime McDougal titties and poonanny are readily available?

It’s a fair question. Let’s submit more photos of tits as evidence and we can all decide! Doesn’t have to be McDougal tits. 

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



×
×
  • Create New...