Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, honolulu horn said:

We were happy with the Freeballers. But damn, Bowl Movements is top-shelf an upper decker. Well done. 

FIFY

Edited by TexasEd
  • Haha 1
Posted
9 hours ago, tx ind said:

Every time there's a story of him running out of cash it's not surprising, the best part is what happens next.  You move to the anticipation of what the next grift will be, we've gotten sneakers, bibles, 5% cuts from down ballot folks, what's next?

MyTrumpPillows

Posted
7 hours ago, immamac said:

What happens if he is actually fucked here? Shit seems to be getting real real fast. 

Wondering this same thing.  Not know king Jack shit, my best case would be a plea to house arrest for 1 year that would effectively make him unable to run or serve.  That’s probably asking WAY too much.  I consider the chance of Trump going to jail somewhere between 0% and 0%.

Posted
10 minutes ago, Snake Diggity said:

Wondering this same thing.  Not know king Jack shit, my best case would be a plea to house arrest for 1 year that would effectively make him unable to run or serve.  That’s probably asking WAY too much.  I consider the chance of Trump going to jail somewhere between 0% and 0%.

And I would put the chances of Biden going to jail at 1% because fuck this simulation.

Posted

Never going to the inside of a cell, we've all known this for damn near two years now.  But a House Arrest situation does make more and more sense, I'll leave it to the criminal attorneys on here to weigh in on how that differs from just probation/parole officer visits.  He'd obviously claim that all of Mar-a-Lago is his "house", so we could still wander the grounds and play golf.  Or do you have to serve it out in the venue domicile, so one of his New York properties?  I'd prefer to let him have it served at Mar-a-Lago because while he'd walk/cart the perimeter of the vast property every day which would make it less punitive, he could receive adulation from the hundreds lined up around in adoration shifts 24/7 for a year.  And he'd go out there and golf and then talk then along each corridor from a distance.  And address camera crews and the like.  

And then you start the disinformation campaign.  "Trump's jailers are visiting Mar-a-Lago's exterior posing as MAGA nation to taunt and gloat in Trump's unlawful house arrest!  You must defend America by carrying firearms to the support rallies outside Mar-a-Lago.  It's legal in Florida to do so, as long as you don't cross the property lines and it demonstrates your support of Trump's commitment to the 2nd Amendment and our condemnation of this Kangaroo Court.  Over the course of a year, somebody makes a mistake and adjusts their weapon or takes it out to show somebody else what they're running or actually draws it on somebody they suspect of being an ANTIFA/Deep State plant.  And they do it along the property line, that scenario is not that hard to arrange.  Secret Service sees it and rushes over, a shootout ensues.  Who knows what could happen next, MAGA on MAGA violence could be fun as shit to see unfold on TV.  It's a stretch.  But if the simulation has taught us anything...

Posted
Just now, YGIFS said:

Never going to the inside of a cell, we've all known this for damn near two years now.  But a House Arrest situation does make more and more sense, I'll leave it to the criminal attorneys on here to weigh in on how that differs from just probation/parole officer visits.  He'd obviously claim that all of Mar-a-Lago is his "house", so we could still wander the grounds and play golf.  Or do you have to serve it out in the venue domicile, so one of his New York properties?  I'd prefer to let him have it served at Mar-a-Lago because while he'd walk/cart the perimeter of the vast property every day which would make it less punitive, he could receive adulation from the hundreds lined up around in adoration shifts 24/7 for a year.  And he'd go out there and golf and then talk then along each corridor from a distance.  And address camera crews and the like.  

And then you start the disinformation campaign.  "Trump's jailers are visiting Mar-a-Lago's exterior posing as MAGA nation to taunt and gloat in Trump's unlawful house arrest!  You must defend America by carrying firearms to the support rallies outside Mar-a-Lago.  It's legal in Florida to do so, as long as you don't cross the property lines and it demonstrates your support of Trump's commitment to the 2nd Amendment and our condemnation of this Kangaroo Court.  Over the course of a year, somebody makes a mistake and adjusts their weapon or takes it out to show somebody else what they're running or actually draws it on somebody they suspect of being an ANTIFA/Deep State plant.  And they do it along the property line, that scenario is not that hard to arrange.  Secret Service sees it and rushes over, a shootout ensues.  Who knows what could happen next, MAGA on MAGA violence could be fun as shit to see unfold on TV.  It's a stretch.  But if the simulation has taught us anything...

Historically speaking, fascists really do their best work while in a comfortable jail cell surrounded by their friends. Sounds like a great fucking idea. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, tbone_ said:

Jokes aside, what’s this dick going to say?

 

13 hours ago, RDCanecutter said:

He's been holding it in so long there's no telling how much will spurt out.


I agree. With The amount of holding back he’s had to endure, one touchy engage can cause him to lose control and spill his whole seedy enterprise’s catch and kill operation.

Trump would be ruined.

Edited by Dnaguy
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 minute ago, The Dog said:

 

An explanatory note.  It appears that the bond is secured by securities in a brokerage account.

In most jurisdictions, he could not pledge that account directly as a bond or undertaking.

He could, however, liquidate it and bring cash certified funds to the court for a virtually unimpeachable bond.  There is, of course, no guarantee that those securities would liquidate timely and in the amount of $175M, and that would pose some tax issues, I would imagine.

  • Haha 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Historically speaking, fascists really do their best work while in a comfortable jail cell surrounded by their friends. Sounds like a great fucking idea. 

True.  But at least we know we won't be able to hammer out a manifesto during his incarceration.  He can barely read/write.  I guess a ghost writer could do it and then have it edited by a 3rd grade Belarusian kid.  

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

An explanatory note.  It appears that the bond is secured by securities in a brokerage account.

In most jurisdictions, he could not pledge that account directly as a bond or undertaking.

He could, however, liquidate it and bring cash certified funds to the court for a virtually unimpeachable bond.  There is, of course, no guarantee that those securities would liquidate timely and in the amount of $175M, and that would pose some tax issues, I would imagine.

There's no way he has $175mm in a securities brokerage account.  They have a few private banking accounts around NY & FL.  But if he had anything north of $50-$100mm, they'd have a registered RIA/SFO on file somewhere.  And they don't, the SEC has said as much.  Maybe there's some off-shore shit, but that likely would have been discovered earlier.  What money they do make, they just keep rolling into other GP positions in CRE/hospitality deals.  There's not much liquidity overall.  They certainly have well over $175mm in real estate holdings but it would take months to get money out of them like that, it's like a 1031 would provide any solvency.  And the capital gains trigger on anything from non-qualified portfolios to CRE sales would necessitate selling at least something in the ballpark of ~$225mm in assets.  And we all know how great he is at paying taxes on time.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I wouldn't be sad if he were confined to house arrest at Mar-A-Lago, especially if a bigass hurricane wipes the place out.

 

 

Confined to a Mar a Lago all summer long. Hurricane knocks out the power. In south Florida, in the summer, no AC. Should be fun. 

 

Also, I'd love to see that fat ass play a round of golf in S. Florida in the summer. 

 

Posted
43 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Never going to the inside of a cell, we've all known this for damn near two years now.  But a House Arrest situation does make more and more sense, I'll leave it to the criminal attorneys on here to weigh in on how that differs from just probation/parole officer visits.  He'd obviously claim that all of Mar-a-Lago is his "house", so we could still wander the grounds and play golf.  Or do you have to serve it out in the venue domicile, so one of his New York properties?  I'd prefer to let him have it served at Mar-a-Lago because while he'd walk/cart the perimeter of the vast property every day which would make it less punitive, he could receive adulation from the hundreds lined up around in adoration shifts 24/7 for a year.  And he'd go out there and golf and then talk then along each corridor from a distance.  And address camera crews and the like.  

And then you start the disinformation campaign.  "Trump's jailers are visiting Mar-a-Lago's exterior posing as MAGA nation to taunt and gloat in Trump's unlawful house arrest!  You must defend America by carrying firearms to the support rallies outside Mar-a-Lago.  It's legal in Florida to do so, as long as you don't cross the property lines and it demonstrates your support of Trump's commitment to the 2nd Amendment and our condemnation of this Kangaroo Court.  Over the course of a year, somebody makes a mistake and adjusts their weapon or takes it out to show somebody else what they're running or actually draws it on somebody they suspect of being an ANTIFA/Deep State plant.  And they do it along the property line, that scenario is not that hard to arrange.  Secret Service sees it and rushes over, a shootout ensues.  Who knows what could happen next, MAGA on MAGA violence could be fun as shit to see unfold on TV.  It's a stretch.  But if the simulation has taught us anything...

There's no golf course at Mar-A-Lago.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

As Colangelo continues to discuss the repayment scheme to Cohen, he says Trump’s willingness to go to the trouble “shows just how important it was to him to hide the true nature of Cohen’s illegal payment to Ms. Daniels and the overall election conspiracy that they had launched.”


Jurors and prospective jurors had expressed a lot of nervousness about their role here, and with good reason. But Colangelo may be giving some a reason to be glad they were not excused. The politics, the payoffs, the intrigue, the importance: This case will be transfixing.

 

Having finished with the most fascinating part of the story, the series of payoffs, Colangelo is on to the less interesting part, which, by the way, is the part the criminal charges stem from. He is describing the paperwork arrangement to reimburse Michael Cohen for the hush money payment he made to Stormy Daniels, and how, Colangelo says, Trump and Allen Weisselberg, his company's C.F.O., sought to disguise the repayment.


Colangelo is offering up a dense series of details, but the jurors are still paying close attention.


Some chuckles in the courtroom as Colangelo says Trump was a “very frugal businessman” who watched all the spending at his empire.


It really is surreal hearing this story told in one long tale of the tape.


The government’s opening statement suggests we will see a lot of previously undisclosed text messages between the main players, and phone records.

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted (edited)

And now, it's time for defense.  Batting first, Todd Blanche

 

Blanche highlights that Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence, which is something that some of his more heated critics sometimes lose sight of.


Blanche explains why they all call Trump “President Trump,” saying he’s earned it and it’s the office he’s held. Then he mentions that Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee.

 

Todd Blanche is now up, with the defense's opening statement.

J
“President Trump is innocent,” are the first words of Blanche’s opening. ’President Trump did not commit any crimes.”


“He is cloaked in innocence,” Todd Blanche says of Trump

 

Blanche says that the prosecution told a “clean nice story,” but that it is not as simple as they would have the jury believe. He says that many of the documents in evidence are almost a decade old. The testimony, he suggests, is similarly old. And, he says, the story that jurors just heard “is not true.”

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

the bond hearing is also going on. Here's where they are right now - meeting to see if they can reach a "settlement of sorts" on ensuring the bond collateral is kept in cash:

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, C-Man said:

There's no golf course at Mar-A-Lago.

Well they’ve been charging me $3k a Month for golf privileges.  Wait, this all tracks.  

Posted

It seems as if Blanche will seek to convince the jury that everything that happened was appropriate and done by the book, not even worthy of notice. That Cohen was Trump’s lawyer, and he was paid for legal services. But he’ll also seek to distance his client from the matter: “President Trump had nothing to do with the invoice,” he says.


Blanche is not addressing any of the underlying claims by prosecutors so far, focusing strictly on the payment process.

 

Blanche downplays the 34 charges of falsfying records Trump faces as a “business records violation.”


He points toward the disparity between the $130,000 hush money payment and what was repaid to Cohen. He asks them, if Trump really was so frugal, would he have repaid Cohen so much? “This was not a payback,” he says, adding of Cohen: “He was President Trump’s personal attorney.”


“Ask yourself, would a frugal business man -- would a man who pinches pennies -- repay $130,000 debt to the tune of $420,000?”

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

And now, it's time for defense.  Batting first, Todd Blanche

 

Blanche highlights that Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence, which is something that some of his more heated critics sometimes lose sight of.


Blanche explains why they all call Trump “President Trump,” saying he’s earned it and it’s the office he’s held. Then he mentions that Trump is the presumptive Republican nominee.

 

Todd Blanche is now up, with the defense's opening statement.

J
“President Trump is innocent,” are the first words of Blanche’s opening. ’President Trump did not commit any crimes.”


“He is cloaked in innocence,” Todd Blanche says of Trump

 

Blanche says that the prosecution told a “clean nice story,” but that it is not as simple as they would have the jury believe. He says that many of the documents in evidence are almost a decade old. The testimony, he suggests, is similarly old. And, he says, the story that jurors just heard “is not true.”

 

 

"Nuh uh! Thank you your honor." (sits down)

  • Haha 1
Posted

Blanche makes it clear that the defense will continue to deny that Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels. I’m curious whether that will affect the plan for Daniels to testify; it had seemed to be up in the air, but the defense may have just opened the door for prosecutors to ask directly.

 

Prosecutors have objected three times during Blanche’s opening statement. Justice Merchan just called them to the bench.


The prosecution wins the objection and Blanche loses a little bit of his opening. He moves back to saying that there is “nothing illegal” about entering a nondisclosure agreement.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted

image.png.a629116401cc0cbfb7e86d5eefa772ed.png

Two things from the defense presentation jump out at this layperson.

The choice of cloaked in innocence is odd to me. It suggests that though not innocent himself, Trump has a cloak of innocence protecting him. The idea of a cloak is most often associated with secrecy and deceit. Contrast it to, "He is innocent through and through." The usage just leapt out at me as a strange word choice for a carefully conceived presentation.

Second, the idea that evidence is too old to be valid made me laugh. I imagine a criminal appeal where the lawyer's argument is, "My client should be released! His signed confession is more than ten years old. You can't seriously consider that to be evidence!"

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted

Even if they don't result in convictions, this trial and others work as wonderful suppressive fire on Trump. For the uninitiated, that'd be something like a burst of machinegun fire on the general area of the enemy, where even if its unlikely to hit anything, it makes it harder for them to do anything back to you, and leaves you able to move easier.

die mothafucka die.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 3
  • Drool 1
Posted

Blanche equates the “catch-and-kill” scheme involving The National Enquirer, alleged by prosecutors, to ordinary editorial decisions made by newspapers.


Blanche is now trying to portray The National Enquirer’s practices as similar to how other news outlets operate, in terms of deciding when and how to publish a story. That is not correct.

 

Now Blanche turns to Stormy Daniels, who he says is also “biased” against Trump. He narrates their meeting, saying at the time, Trump was working on a very popular tv show called “The Apprentice.”


“Ms. Clifford has made a life off these communications,” Blanche says, attacking Daniels by her government name, Stephanie Clifford. He says the money she made from the Cohen payoff was pure opportunism on her part, and adds that she has made a lot more money since the story came out.


It certainly sounds as if Blanche expects Daniels to testify. He says that “her testimony, while salacious, does not matter,” arguing that she knew nothing about the actual crimes charged here.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This likely means nothing from a legal perspective, but why would someone pay another $130K if they didn't have sex?

or $420k?

Posted
14 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The choice of cloaked in innocence is odd to me. It suggests that though not innocent himself, Trump has a cloak of innocence protecting him. The idea of a cloak is most often associated with secrecy and deceit. Contrast it to, "He is innocent through and through." The usage just leapt out at me as a strange word choice for a carefully conceived presentation.

Agree 100%

Might as well have just come out and said, "You can't prove that he did what he did."

Posted

Team Dotard seems pretty screwed here. Good luck with that one juror who gets his news from Truth Social, I guess.

They're seriously going to argue that Trump paid $130k in hush money to someone he didn't have sex with? 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Team Dotard seems pretty screwed here. Good luck with that one juror who gets his news from Truth Social, I guess.

They're seriously going to argue that Trump paid $130k in hush money to someone he didn't have sex with? 


theY just Need one person out of 12 to agree with them

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:


theY just Need one person out of 12 to agree with them

That just gets them a mistrial. They will re try the case and he will have to sit through all this again. At some point during one of these trials he is going to have an epic meltdown 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

if this is accurate, this is a problem for trump.   When the prosecutor objects to you telling the jury it is not wrong to try to influence an election, and the judge sustain the objection, it is perceived by the jury has nothing less than Trump’s lawyer lied to me and the judge corrected him.

I'd bet the Georgia prosecutors took note of that admission by trump's attorneys. It's not a question if trump was trying to influence the Georgia election, he thought he was just doing a democracy!

That's more of a Managed Democracy thing, and we're not quite yet to Super Earth 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Historically speaking, fascists really do their best work while in a comfortable jail cell surrounded by their friends. Sounds like a great fucking idea. 

How about we pick an American owned island in the pacific and drop him off, and have a one of those robot m donalds’ there to make his meals. 

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

if this is accurate, this is a problem for trump.   When the prosecutor objects to you telling the jury it is not wrong to try to influence an election, and the judge sustain the objection, it is perceived by the jury has nothing less than Trump’s lawyer lied to me and the judge corrected him.

I have always told every witness in every trial or deposition I’ve been in that as we start the proceedings, there is a bucket of credibility filled to the brim that goes with them.    when they are found to be lying, the bucket gets kicked over.   And usually all of the credibility spills out on the floor.   If the jury thinks you are lying, they normally do not care if you are lying 20% of the time or 60% of the time, they know you were lying.   

I’m not talking about normal memory impaired things like the exact time or day exact words, but I’m talking about lying about important things. You normally either have credibility or you don’t.  there is very likely a pattern jury instruction telling the jury that if they find a witness non-credible, they can disregard everything that person says in their testimony. Not 20%, not 40%, but all of their testimony.    

That seems like a rookie mistake, or something they had to say to please the boss   it may be the best thing we have going for us is Trump will direct parts of the trial.

I think it's probably an attempt to muddy what is meant by "influencing an election."  Like, portraying yourself in your best light is technically an attempt to influence an election (I'm a stable genius!).  Portraying your opponent in their most negative light is as well (sleepy Joe).  Attempting to influence an election also covers paying off a porn star to avoid talking about an affair, and likewise stoking an insurrection at the capitol to stop certification.

I think they are trying to equate what Trump did with regards to Stormy as nothing more than successful campaigning.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

How about we pick an American owned island in the pacific and drop him off, and have a one of those robot m donalds’ there to make his meals. 

Or save a few bucks and shoot him against a wall?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'd bet the Georgia prosecutors took note of that admission by trump's attorneys. It's not a question if trump was trying to influence the Georgia election, he thought he was just doing a democracy!

That's more of a Managed Democracy thing, and we're not quite yet to Super Earth 

Well then all of these charges, indictments, and trials against Trump are just American patriots exercising their democratic right to influence elections.  So Trump can stop saying otherwise. 

  • Like 2
Posted
16 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Trump supporters have united behind their man.

 

This drives a lot of the Hispanic vote in Texas.  The idea of Trump's machismo.

13 hours ago, tx ind said:

Every time there's a story of him running out of cash it's not surprising, the best part is what happens next.  You move to the anticipation of what the next grift will be, we've gotten sneakers, bibles, 5% cuts from down ballot folks, what's next?

Women of Trump calendar?  

30 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Team Dotard seems pretty screwed here. Good luck with that one juror who gets his news from Truth Social, I guess.

They're seriously going to argue that Trump paid $130k in hush money to someone he didn't have sex with? 

I wonder if they intend to use the "definition of sex" defense Clinton used?

Posted
3 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Or save a few bucks and shoot him against a wall?

The solitude, even in opulence, would torture him.  So while against the constitution for that reason, I’m still all for it in this singlular instance. 

Posted
46 minutes ago, Born to Run said:
18 hours ago, Sawbonz said:
I hope they didn’t try to make you roll on Shabbos

Fuck that Kraut at the league office.

He's been told A THOUSAND TIMES

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I'd bet the Georgia prosecutors took note of that admission by trump's attorneys. It's not a question if trump was trying to influence the Georgia election, he thought he was just doing a democracy!

That's more of a Managed Democracy thing, and we're not quite yet to Super Earth 

internet what GIF

Posted
1 hour ago, The Dog said:

the bond hearing is also going on. Here's where they are right now - meeting to see if they can reach a "settlement of sorts" on ensuring the bond collateral is kept in cash:

 

Could this remedy not have been submitted along with the objection, instead of waiting for another hearing?  And maybe addressed by Trump co outside of court?

Posted
4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Could this remedy not have been submitted along with the objection, instead of waiting for another hearing?  And maybe addressed by Trump co outside of court?

it was Trump's attorneys who made the suggested remedy. I think it was on them to make it work. Also I think that the original bond was designed so that Trump could find a way to get out of paying it but it didn't work.

  • Hook 'Em 6


×
×
  • Create New...