Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

Just now, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

That isn't how valuation works.  

No one knows more about real estate than him. 

Hey, someone could fall in love with my house and offer me a million dollars for it. That does not mean that it is impossible to place a value on it. 

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

I'm waiting for Trump to announce that if he gets reelected, he'll head Social Security and make sure Americans finally get what they have coming to them.  It'll be a landslide, a banner year for the Republicans, as they empty SS overnight.  Trump will then tweet about how Biden and the blek guy took all the money, and flags will wave and effigies of Democratic leaders will burn.  And as bizarre as this scenario seems, it's totally plausible. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

“Mr. Kise, can you control your client?” he says, right on time. “This is not a political rally.” He asks Kise to have a talk with Trump right now.

So, I thought they were called by the plaintiff?  Is the state questioning?

ETA:  Yes the state is questioning.  I was just distracted by the involvement of Kise.  I assume that he is a "hostile witness," which means the state gets to ask "leading" or yes or no-type questions as if on cross-examination.  Those type of questions do not invite a narrative answer, which is what Trump is doing and is impermissible under the rules, assuming the judge and questioning lawyer object.

 

The State is letting him talk a bit as it is just helping them (and puts things on the record that might sink him in other areas).

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

 

56 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Not much.  Fines and penalties and forceable dissolution of some Trump Org. assets.  It'll prove what we all know, he's not that wealthy, he's a rather shoddy businessman with the negotiating prowess of one of my children trying to get a different Happy Meal toy at McDonald's.  

For us, as people who still give fuck one about the country we call home...we get to watch him visibly/audibly squirm as he has to admit he's full of shit and doesn't actually know what the fuck he's doing after 55 years in commercial real estate.  

But this is a clever tactic.  The thing he's most proud of is his business acumen.  That's what he ran on in 2015/early 2016.  HE has other fallback positions now-rescuing America from Biden to resume his great 8-year plan, draining the swamp, etc.  But remember, originally it was all about his personal success and leading the effort to supplant Obama/Pelosi/Hillary's America with his own personal successes using his patented and proven 10-point plan.  Once that layer is peeled back and exposed, his confidence and support will wane but he'll overcompensate for that by becoming even more adversarial and unpredictable and spout off more lies under oath in the other 3 upcoming trials.  First you break his wealth mystique and his lack of confidence will be a self-fulfilling domino effect.

Remember, he is never, ever, ever going to jail.  Come to terms with that now.  The idea is to either run him ragged so he dies or is defeated.  The first one is up to Mother Nature.  The second one is up to keeping enough of his kinda middle to moderate to supporters home on Election Day thinking, "I hate Biden, but I just fucking can't with this guy anymore."  You're not gonna turn anybody on to Biden that was for Trump.  Maybe you pick up some rare/independent voters, but best case is to keep ~10mm former Trump voters home because of the shit he's about to pull in the next few months.  That is something which we can assist.  The rest is up to the simulation.  

He may not go to jail, but he can be gutted like a pig by lawyers, as will his lawyers by their lawyers.  I'll also support death by a thousand cuts.   

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

Just now, Mdhorn said:

 

He may not go to jail, but he can be gutted like a pig by lawyers, as will his lawyers by their lawyers.  I'll also support death by a thousand cuts.   

And I am perfectly at peace with that.  We're just running out time is all.  My annoying, but accurate, mantra still stands.  This is not about laws, politics, trials, or polls.  This is a matter of days on the calendar.  That's how you get Capone /connery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The point here is not Trump's popularity.  It is that he is finally being called to account for a long history of lawlessness.  Politics aside, that has it's own merit.

Yes, I’m sure the timing of these trials has nothing to do with the upcoming election. It’s self ownage at its finest to keep putting a TV guy on TV. 

  • Fuck You 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Yes, I’m sure the timing of these trials has nothing to do with the upcoming election. It’s self ownage at its finest to keep putting a TV guy on TV. 

Sometimes people who commit crimes, get put on trial for those crimes after they've committed them.  This isn't "Minority Report" with some psychic kids in a hot tub.  The gears of justice grind slowly for a reason.  

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

1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Yes, I’m sure the timing of these trials has nothing to do with the upcoming election. It’s self ownage at its finest to keep putting a TV guy on TV. 

As has been explained multiple times on this thread, a sitting President is immune from criminal and most civil investigation and liability.

He couldn't have been indicted or sued until some point after January 20, 2021.  Investigating and preparing civil suits and indictments takes some time, so, give or take a year or so, at the outside, the timing of the suits and indictments was inevitable.

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

Just now, Francisco 2.0 said:

Trump was just asked his involvement in the 2021 financial statement. He tried to answer saying that he was busy with the presidency, focused on “China, Russia and keeping our country safe.” 

Wallace, the state lawyer, reminded him that he was not president in 2021.

Well in fairness, at the beginning of 2021 he was busy orchestrating an attempted coup. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

The stupid is strong with this one.  

Well you’re a terrible person to be so mean to a special needs individual.

 

1 minute ago, dcbc said:

What part of this trial is not being televised is confusing?

I didn’t say the trial was televised. Turn on the news and watch it for a 5 minutes. It’s all trump, all the time. I know Biden sleeps most of the time and is boring, but I still find it incredible. 

  • Fuck You 25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, he was President for a few weeks in 2021.  Much of that time spent rigging election results, inciting riots, and under impeachment trials.  

And POE IT UP...seriously dude.  They couldn't indict him until he was outta office.  And you can't have a trial before indictments.  So unless you have some special TV station where you're watching this trial that nobody else on earth gets on their cable service, and unless you know something about how to try someone before indictment in some kinda goofy ass justice time travel device, whilst citing polls conducted last week that you think today's testimony somehow retroactively altered...maybe sit the next couple of plays out.  I'm not saying he's gonna be found guilty or liable, but you're out of your element here.  There are serious people who know this shit inside and out.  You're not one of them.

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

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

"The judge, Arthur F. Engoron, turned to Trump after he gave a lengthy answer and said he’d like to move things along, telling Trump, “Please, just answer the question. No speeches.” Trump smirked."


I think the strategy is to keep pushing Engoron in hopes he ‘explodes’. In an attempt to boost their appeal 

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

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Like a Colonel Jessup, but for the judge. Interesting. 

It might be an interesting strategy in a jury trial, but in a bench trial, turning it into an issue with teeth for appeal is a real long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Remember how you were feeling in October 2022? Remember how sure you were that a red wave was coming?

Oh god, yes that was horrible. How embarrassing. But this has a different feel to it for me. I just know the good guys are going to win this time. 

  • Fuck You 22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Somebody got an ass chewing:

(and was probably told he is facing a real possibility of jail time since their little plan isn't working.)

Yeah, it could still work.  But the plan seems like it was based on what they should have done in the first place.  Request a jury trial in a timely fashion, and then try to goat the Judge into looking like an asshole in front of the jury who would be woo'd by Trump's charm and victimhood rants.  It's just Engoron waiting out their bullshit like, "there's no jury, no rally participants in red hats, no TV, no social media outlets.  Just me and decades of judicial expertise.  We can grind this stump down any way you want, Commander Dipshit."  

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

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

NY Times is following live.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/11/06/nyregion/trump-fraud-trial

Why not?

This.  Though right before he went in, he was blustering for the reporters and cameras.  Hearing what he is doing on the stand, like night and day.  It is too bad it isn't televised.

Screenshot_20231106_084638_NYTimes.thumb.jpg.c38604944a32ad965166fb61dcc197d4.jpg

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

Wapo:

Quote

Before a break in the proceedings, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron suggested he might remove former president Donald Trump from the witness stand if Trump could not adhere to court rules by answering questions directly.

Shortly after that warning, Engoron raised his voice to a pair of Trump lawyers, Christopher Kise and Alina Habba, when they stood up to argue that the former president should be able to make his case without restriction. Kise said the civil business fraud trial was a “unique situation” that called for Trump to have leeway to elaborate.

“Mr. Kise, Ms. Habba, sit down!” Engoron said, his voice booming through the gallery.

Trump appeared exasperated as he waited for the legal bickering to end. Then, unprompted, Trump used the witness stand as a platform to gripe.

“This is a very unfair trial. Very, very. And I hope the public is watching,” he said.

Engoron said that if he removed Trump from the stand, he might find “negative inferences” against Trump on the subjects of the examination by Kevin Wallace, an attorney with the New York attorney general’s office.

A negative inference can be made when a person on the witness stand fails to provide their expected evidence or testimony. It allows the court to presume that the individual avoided providing evidence or testimony because it was unfavorable to one of the parties.

“I beseech you to control him if I can’t,” Engoron said to Kise. “If you can’t, I will excuse him and draw any negative inference that I can.”

After the break, Trump returned to the courtroom and, at least initially, gave more direct answers to the questions he was asked.

 

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

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Christopher Kise and Alina Habba, when they stood up to argue that the former president should be able to make his case without restriction. Kise said the civil business fraud trial was a “unique situation” that called for Trump to have leeway to elaborate.

Absolutely preposterous argument.  Trump gets to offer whatever explanation or bloviation during "cross-examination" by his attorneys.  That's the way this has always worked unless the cross-examining attorney asks an incredibly unfair question (when did you stop beating your wife?).

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



×
×
  • Create New...