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
23 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


It’s like you never even watched the famous documentary “The Flintstones.”

He wasn’t called Bam-Bam because he was worried about consent…

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

You're supposed to plug it in, dumbass.

Not to mention it works better in a bathtub filled with several inches of water.  Better ground for the circuit, dontcha know.

Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

I dunno, an electric bathtub seems like a terrible idea.

Seems pretty efficient to me, especially if you don't own a toaster. 

Posted
17 hours ago, Red Five said:

Then I hopped into a bath and tossed a toaster in there with me because I can't take this shit anymore. 

How was the toast?

  • Haha 1
Posted
17 hours ago, Red Five said:

Heard a talking head this morning say that he now really wants to lean into his legal issues, as he sees that as a positive for his campaign.

Then I hopped into a bath and tossed a toaster in there with me because I can't take this shit anymore. 

image.gif.f49897d59349cefab37b7b1151d613c2.gif

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 2
Posted

I’m picturing a Zucker Bros. scene where a fed-up assistant tosses a hair dryer into the bath with Trump and electrocutes him and tells the secret service, “oh, he musta meant Air Fryer.”

Because he likes chicken fingers as he bathes.  
 

so what’s on this dickweed’s legal docket this week before New Hampshire?

Posted

Can you normally talk shit to the judge in the courtroom with no repercussions? His response to a warning from the judge was to insult the judge. All in front of the jury, I'm assuming.

Posted
8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Can you normally talk shit to the judge in the courtroom with no repercussions? His response to a warning from the judge was to insult the judge. All in front of the jury, I'm assuming.

The repercussion is everything you do is filtered through the lens you provide the Court.  You can choose to have the judge think "Oh, these serious thinkers have presented this concerning point" or "That jackass that lies all the time is giving me something else to consider.  Let me guess, more jackassery and lies?"

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Clearly, team trump is prepared to endure all manner of adverse consequences from Kaplan (really more importantly the jury, because the commenter above is right, the jury is not going to view that at all favorably) in order to fuel the martyrdom.

And, politics aside, it probably makes sense because he has no defense because the cases against him are true and correct.  So he's getting out of it what he can.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Acting like an imperious, entitled jackass in front of a jury that is tasked with determining how much in damages you should be assessed for your previous wrongful acts committed in the course of being an imperious, entitled jackass (I can sexually assault whoever I want, and then deny it and say she's an ugly liar) is not a strategy I'd PERSONALLY recommend....but I might enjoy watching it play out in this case.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Acting like an imperious, entitled jackass in front of a jury that is tasked with determining how much in damages you should be assessed for your previous wrongful acts committed in the course of being an imperious, entitled jackass (I can sexually assault whoever I want, and then deny it and say she's an ugly liar) is not a strategy I'd PERSONALLY recommend....but I might enjoy watching it play out in this case.

3208ccee-79ba-4032-b610-5214fe8604ce_tex

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
Acting like an imperious, entitled jackass in front of a jury that is tasked with determining how much in damages you should be assessed for your previous wrongful acts committed in the course of being an imperious, entitled jackass (I can sexually assault whoever I want, and then deny it and say she's an ugly liar) is not a strategy I'd PERSONALLY recommend....but I might enjoy watching it play out in this case.

78d88ff01a87c9389ed9f35caa28b7ff.jpg
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted

Heard that Habba made the argument that Trump repeatedly defaming the woman he raped has actually been a good thing for Carroll, because now she's like super famous. 

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Of all the frequent and abhorrent defenses by rapists over the years-look what she was wearing, she just regretted it later on, she just wants to punish men, she was begging for it moments earlier, etc.  

Give bonus points in hell to Trump for trying “I wouldn’t sexually assault someone so ugly.”  It took a disturbing amount of time for the legal system to go from “well that kinda checks out given who he’s been with” to “wait, that’s not a defense asshole.”   

Posted
4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Heard that Habba made the argument that Trump repeatedly defaming the woman he raped has actually been a good thing for Carroll, because now she's like super famous. 

Well, at least in this case, she seems to be making an argument that she may personally believe in (given her status as an attention whore of the highest order). 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Heard that Habba made the argument that Trump repeatedly defaming the woman he raped has actually been a good thing for Carroll, because now she's like super famous. 

Just BTW, this wasn't a joke. She really made that argument.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

 

I've watched lawyers try to do shit this way (introduce a document because they really want it in evidence, but they have zero idea how to prove up an exhibit, and try to just testify to a fact as they question a witness).  They are, uniformly, shitty lawyers.  There are plenty of shitty lawyers out there.  The fact that the former president of the United States employs one of them is mindblowing.  

Remember Bush v. Gore?  Say what you want about the parties, their positions, etc., but neither side was represented by an attorney who would be overwhelmed by a goddamned traffic ticket docket.  They had real lawyers, with real chops.  This....is just fucking pathetic.  Just like Trump.

Easier to discredit the courts when you make a mockery of the process.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
Posted

Counsel to Trump, “I’m sorry Mr. President, but the judge is right.  I tried.  But I can’t just willfully demand the document into being evidentiary.  It was to be accepted first by the court.  I’ll try something else.”

Trump, “you didn’t know you can just turn documents into evidence like classified to declassified documents just by using your mind?  This kinda shit is the reason I’m not going to pay you.”   

  • Haha 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The fact that the former president of the United States employs one of them is mindblowing.

Why?

Of the following:

1. Trump repeatedly fails to pay his counsel

2. Trump fires counsel who tell him what he doesn't want to hear

3. Trump is on the losing end of most of these cases

4. Trump frequently refuses to listen to the advice of his counsel

5. Trump is generally in denial of reality and expects his employees to also believe his bullshit

Which of the above makes you think he would have better attorneys? Because I don't see very many good attorneys willing to work under such conditions.

So he's a former president. Big fuckin deal. Just proves what our Founding Fathers already knew -- any dipshit can become president if you get enough dipshits to vote for him.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

I assume, then, that Kaplan permitted Mr. Bob Dobalina to withdraw from the case?   The first trial wasn't this big a shit show because he is a real lawyer.

Well, it appears Mr. Dobalina was never counsel in this, the second case, but has withdrawn from representation in the first case, more specifically the appeal before the Second Circuit.

Regardless, habba dabba do is on her own on this one.

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

The alleged wrong here is not that "evidence was deleted."  The term is spoliation.  If a party destroys/discards material that the party knows will be evidence in a particular dispute, that's called "spoliation."

And generally speaking, the remedy isn't "A MISTRIAL!"  It is an instruction to the jury that the jury is to infer that the destroyed evidence would have benefited the other party, called a "spoliation instruction."

Fucking clown show.

5 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm a bit pissed as I didn't know that I was qualified to be a lawyer all this time.

Do you look like Habba, and are you willing to gargle Trump's balls?  Those seem to be the relevant professional criteria here.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I'm a bit pissed as I didn't know that I was qualified to be a lawyer all this time.

Well to be Trump's lawyer, maybe.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Acting like an imperious, entitled jackass in front of a jury that is tasked with determining how much in damages you should be assessed for your previous wrongful acts committed in the course of being an imperious, entitled jackass (I can sexually assault whoever I want, and then deny it and say she's an ugly liar) is not a strategy I'd PERSONALLY recommend....but I might enjoy watching it play out in this case.

 

I'm aware of Larry Flynt.  One might say I'm familiar with his life's work.  This man is no Larry Flynt.

 

f1221045e8c69135c5e4acf87aa85a5a0a389487

Edited by dcbc
  • Hook 'Em 4


×
×
  • Create New...