Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 631
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

not like he was banging 5 year olds !!!!

 

1 hour ago, Dutchrudder said:

The 15 vs 8 year old thing may come into play if the trial is in Florida, since they just passed a law allowing the death penalty for pdf files who abuse children under 12. How awesome would it be if he's sentenced to death under a law passed by 'Meatball Ron'?

note to self: uninstall Adobe immediately!

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 4
Posted
1 hour ago, BrickHorn said:

Megyn Kelly is profoundly dumb. Three years under the age of consent is not “legal,” not even “barely.” 

Yeah, but it’s ’different.’ Checkmate.

Posted

How fitting would it be if a bunch of emails ruin Trump after he spent his whole 2016 campaign complaining about Hillary's emails??  Every accusation is a confession really rings true...

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

Who is in charge of Epstein's estate and why did they release these documents? Wonder if they also think Dear Leader had Jeff killed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
How fitting would it be if a bunch of emails ruin Trump after he spent his whole 2016 campaign complaining about Hillary's emails??  Every accusation is a confession really rings true...

Whoever the show-runner is now will probably conclude the series that way in the big finale.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

So are we just not going to talk about Donald Trump sucking Bill's dick?

If that photo exists it would sum up American politics over the past 35 years or so.

Posted
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

image.thumb.png.9549acec8772d35499ac246c3614e9df.png
 

Shocked Nate Burleson GIF by DraftKings

Sometimes it seems like Newsome is the only major Democratic politician who has any idea at all about how to do politics. How did the rest of these clowns ever get into office? 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

The fucking timing of Prince Andrew and Trump meeting and then Epstein suiciding a few weeks later.  Purely coincidental.

  • Haha 1
Posted
50 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Who is in charge of Epstein's estate and why did they release these documents? Wonder if they also think Dear Leader had Jeff killed.

Subpoena from Congressional Committee, I believe.

Posted
If that photo exists it would sum up American politics over the past 35 years or so.

30 Rock shut it down gif.

Maybe the simulation would reset itself at that point. Like in that documentary that was one of the Matrix sequels.
Posted
22 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Every degree that the Epstein story gets ratcheted up....increases the odds of Venezuela getting fucking bombed to Bolivian significantly.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
21 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Seriously.  I've read communications between powerful people doing bad things.  They don't hide it, at all, BECAUSE they are powerful.  Which means they are above it all.  Even when reality crashes in, and imposes consequences, they remain unbelieving to the very end.  

This is correct. War story. When I was a baby lawyer, we somehow got involved in a civil Rico case against Mellon Bank in federal court. The short version is they were selling home mortgage financing with negative amortization aspects that were supposed to be approved under Fannie Mae underwriting guidelines.

They sold the loan packages, but nobody could get their clients approved because they used far stricter underwriting instead of the guidelines mandated by the contracts. Mellon kept loaning more money to builders to keep them afloat, and they got further in depth until they went bankrupt and Mellon swooped in and bought all the properties at $.10 on the dollar.

I flew to Pittsburgh to depose the vice president in charge of the program, who was thoroughly unimpressed at me and our Rico suit.   Arrogant and insulting was the tone of the day, and his superiority dripped from every word.   On a hunch, one of my final questions was, “When you learned the underwriting guidelines we’re not being followed, I guess that put Mellon in a bad place because it did not have the funds to meet the loan obligations.”

He answered by laughing, and then telling me I knew nothing about the financial world and the financial solvency of Mellon Bank.   His last line “We could’ve fully funded if we wanted to” became the reason I defeated the summery  judgment and got to trial, and the reason they gave us a seven figure settlement. 

I literally learned that there is much fruit to be picked if you went as high up the tree as they would let you.  Those captains of industry were so arrogant they could not be bothered to learn anything about the facts of the case or the legal theories involved. You just interrupt their golf games and mistress meetings.   And I would bet my house that there were no negative consequences to him for me winning my piddly lawsuit.  As brisket says, they truly have almost no consequences as a downside.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Shut it down, everyone.  Epstein wasn't into underage girls.  No, he liked "barely legal" girls.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/megyn-kelly-eviscerated-over-career-ending-epstein-defense/

 

"Career ending."  God, I find it just adorable that there are people out there who think decency and morality and standards and shit exist and apply to the right.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Also, I find it ironic that Ghizlane Maxwell's email is "GMAX" but she's in minimum security prison.  Irony is dead.

And another thing, I just saw someone on TV saying what the Justice Dept has on Trump is a million times more damning that what has been released.  I also saw Thomas Massie read off descriptions of men in the Epstein list but not name names.  Is there some reason they can't talk about this?  If someone like Trump has a problem with that then lets do a lawsuit and all that big beautiful discover.  

Posted
8 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

This is correct. War story. When I was a baby lawyer, we somehow got involved in a civil Rico case against Mellon Bank in federal court. The short version is they were selling home mortgage financing with negative amortization aspects that were supposed to be approved under Fannie Mae underwriting guidelines.

They sold the loan packages, but nobody could get their clients approved because they used far stricter underwriting instead of the guidelines mandated by the contracts. Mellon kept loaning more money to builders to keep them afloat, and they got further in depth until they went bankrupt and Mellon swooped in and bought all the properties at $.10 on the dollar.

I flew to Pittsburgh to depose the vice president in charge of the program, who was thoroughly unimpressed at me and our Rico suit.   Arrogant and insulting was the tone of the day, and his superiority dripped from every word.   On a hunch, one of my final questions was, “When you learned the underwriting guidelines we’re not being followed, I guess that put Mellon in a bad place because it did not have the funds to meet the loan obligations.”

He answered by laughing, and then telling me I knew nothing about the financial world and the financial solvency of Mellon Bank.   His last line “We could’ve fully funded if we wanted to” became the reason I defeated the summery  judgment and got to trial, and the reason they gave us a seven figure settlement. 

I literally learned that there is much fruit to be picked if you went as high up the tree as they would let you.  Those captains of industry were so arrogant they could not be bothered to learn anything about the facts of the case or the legal theories involved. You just interrupt their golf games and mistress meetings.   And I would bet my house that there were no negative consequences to him for me winning my piddly lawsuit.  As brisket says, they truly have almost no consequences as a downside.

And...yep.  The cross-examination of Colonel Jessup, and the observation that "I think he WANTS to say it" (that he ordered the code red) was not made up.  It's how people (mostly men) like him operate.

I've examined witnesses like him - and yeah, that often happens.  Get them going, and they will give you the "fuck yeah we did" answer of some sort (it's usually not as dramatic as Jessup's, but sometimes just as meaningful).  And yeah....I've also defended a couple of witnesses like that.  And there is no controlling them or "training that tendency out of them."  They are who they are, and no piss-ant lawyer's gonna tell 'em what to do.  Occasionally, the smarter ones will later sheepishly acknowledge "well, I guess I made a pretty big mess for you to clean up."  The only proper answer is "yes you did.  But that's what you're paying me for."  If you bill by the hour....those can be good clients/witnesses to have.

There are some interesting observations here that I do wish more of the general population actually knew and understood (e.g., how the rich and powerful don't conceal their shitbaggery).  There's probably a good list of "shit we have learned about people over the years" that we should compile.  Lawyers have a lot of such lessons/perspectives, but I know that engineers, managers, and the like, have their own observed truths to share too.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

here are some interesting observations here that I do wish more of the general population actually knew and understood (e.g., how the rich and powerful don't conceal their shitbaggery).  There's probably a good list of "shit we have learned about people over the years" that we should compile.  Lawyers have a lot of such lessons/perspectives, but I know that engineers, managers, and the like, have their own observed truths to share too.

The person doesn't even need to be that rich or powerful.  Back when I was in private practice, my boss got the owner of a middling, unbranded-gasoline distribution company to admit to participating in a price-fixing scheme during her deposition.  He kept dancing around asking the question because you don't want to let them answer "No" necessarily.  But he had his Gessup moment and finally flat out asked her, "Did you participate in price-fixing scheme."  She looked at him and answered, "Yes."  No.  Further. Questions.

 

He wasn't even a very good lawyer.

Edited by dcbc
Posted
1 hour ago, Valmy77 said:

If that photo exists it would sum up American politics over the past 35 years or so.

It might explain why Trump didn't get an invite to Chelsea's wedding.  



×
×
  • Create New...