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
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

Posted
7 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

This trial was an awful decision. Trump’s getting more popular by the second. They’ll never learn. 

 


Doubtful. I don't think there's anybody who hasn't made his mind up re: Donald Trump.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
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
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:


Doubtful. I don't think there's anybody who hasn't made his mind up re: Donald Trump.

Yeah, more popular with the assholes that already support him don't make a shit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:


Doubtful. I don't think there's anybody who hasn't made his mind up re: Donald Trump.

Somebody hasn’t seen the new poll out. 

  • Fuck You 18
Posted

Let's say Trump loses and the judge delivers a verdict that destroys his finances, at least in the state of New York.  What are the odds of a civil trial verdict being overturned on appeal?

Posted
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
Posted
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
Posted
1 minute ago, Poe It Up said:

Are you nuts? Do you not own a television? You’re scaring me. 

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

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
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
Posted
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
Posted

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
Posted
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
Posted
1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:


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

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

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
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.

Posted
8 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


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

No doubt.  And Engoron knows it and he's handling it well, I think.  Good judge.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
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
Posted
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
Posted

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
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

Justice Engoron finally loses patience and breaks in as Trump is calling Aberdeen, Scotland, where he has a golf club, the oil capital of Europe. “Irrelevant, irrelevant. Answer the question,” the judge says.

 

 

  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
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
Posted

Wow, attempting to connect the off-shore rigs located nowhere near his golf resort in another country not currently involved in this trial, to his overvaluation of Domestic U.S. Properties that the fucking tax rolls AND INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES clearly show is off by several zeroes, that's bold even for Trump.  

Posted
6 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

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. 

IMG_1917.png.24afc901d2287f2bdccfc699e0c33c3f.png

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 8
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

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?).

"Objection.  Leading."

 

"But, your Honor, I always lead on redirect."

  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Wow, attempting to connect the off-shore rigs located nowhere near his golf resort in another country not currently involved in this trial, to his overvaluation of Domestic U.S. Properties that the fucking tax rolls AND INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES clearly show is off by several zeroes, that's bold even for Trump.  

He's playing 3-D checkers, folks.

  • Haha 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Poe It Up said:

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. 

You're right. The good guys are going to win this time. Fani, Engoron, and Biden are going to win, and cucks for a born loser like Trump are going to whine and whine and whine.

  • Hook 'Em 3


×
×
  • Create New...