|
Lammasu posted:Trump could be living in a cardboard box and he would still defame Carroll. We may yet have an opportunity to prove this empirically. Edit: what an awful snipe. Here's two of my cats sleeping together in a too-small bed. 
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Lammasu posted:Trump could be living in a cardboard box and he would still defame Carroll. Goals are good things to have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:36
|
|
|
Trazz posted:I distinctly remember Trump asking Russia to hack his opponents on live TV and then they did. Hah okay you got me, I honestly forgot all about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:41
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Hah okay you got me, I honestly forgot all about that. Seems like most of the country did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 02:49
|
|
|
There's too much. There's always more and it's always worse and it never stops.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 03:01
|
|
|
If the trial for March is pushed back, how long would it be delayed for? Could it possibly be postponed for after the election? I just find it exhausting that Trump can continue delaying his trials and not have any fallback from it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 05:31
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:If the trial for March is pushed back, how long would it be delayed for? Could it possibly be postponed for after the election? I just find it exhausting that Trump can continue delaying his trials and not have any fallback from it. The legal system was created for the rich, by the rich. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 05:33
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:If the trial for March is pushed back, how long would it be delayed for? Could it possibly be postponed for after the election? I just find it exhausting that Trump can continue delaying his trials and not have any fallback from it. We won’t know until the DC Circuit rules at the earliest, and then it will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. There are two things of unknown length before we can begin to answer your question, so trying to make a projected timeline is ludicrous. It sucks. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 05:35
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:If the trial for March is pushed back, how long would it be delayed for? Could it possibly be postponed for after the election? I just find it exhausting that Trump can continue delaying his trials and not have any fallback from it. At least until after the election so he could wiggle out of it if he wins
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 05:38
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Read what you quoted. I'm a well experienced trial attorney used to reading this sort of motion. The motion doesn't say "They booked a cruise," the motion says "they bought a plane ticket to Miami, and also there are two lines on his credit card with a cruise company." The motion doesn't say they vacationed in Napa Valley, it says "they bought a plane ticket to San Francisco, and separately there are two hotel rooms in Napa a month later." It reminds me a bit of the old joke about the engineer, the scientist and the mathematician who are traveling on a train through Scotland. Passing by a hill they see a black sheep. The engineer cries out "wow, Scottish sheep are black", the scientist says "no you dummy, some Scottish sheep are black". The mathematician tuts for a moment and says, with audible patience "in Scotland there exists at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black".
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 05:39
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:We won’t know until the DC Circuit rules at the earliest, and then it will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court. There are two things of unknown length before we can begin to answer your question, so trying to make a projected timeline is ludicrous. I don't know if it's been answered yet, but when are they expected to make a ruling on Trump's immunity case? If it is delayed, it could be scheduled for May. Except he already has a trial set in May for the documents he stole, but Aillen Cannon will definitely find a way to delay that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 05:41
|
|
|
John Yossarian posted:I don't know if it's been answered yet, but when are they expected to make a ruling on Trump's immunity case? If it is delayed, it could be scheduled for May. Except he already has a trial set in May for the documents he stole, but Aillen Cannon will definitely find a way to delay that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ There aren’t anymore steps for them besides actually giving the ruling, they just haven’t yet. Lots of folks were thinking last Friday, but here it is Sunday night. It’s entirely possible that Cannon delays the trial, or deliberately squats on the May time window to make them delay it more, or even (theoretically) hold a trial. It’s January, and a lots gonna happen over the next several months.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 06:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1748470407672291383 No idea if the source is a chud but video seem slegit and lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 12:23
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1748470407672291383 Who gives a poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 12:28
|
|
|
Fair enough, doesn't matter if the source is a chud really
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 12:36
|
|
|
So are the federal judges required to coordinate their trial dates? If a person had the means to commit 50 different federal crimes in 50 different jurisdictions, wouldn't they at some point possibly have to stand trial at two courts at once? I could understand the coordination as a courtesy but if Cannon continually delays from May up to past the election does that mean that Chutkan cannot use June-October for a trial date?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 12:57
|
|
|
saltylopez posted:So are the federal judges required to coordinate their trial dates? If a person had the means to commit 50 different federal crimes in 50 different jurisdictions, wouldn't they at some point possibly have to stand trial at two courts at once? e: quote:Judge Cannon is also squatting on the trial date that is smack dab in the middle of summer. And let's just unpack how that's gonna play out, particularly with respect to the DC trial before Judge Tanya Chut. Right? As you know, judge Chut was required by law to put Trump's criminal obstruction trial on hold while the appellate courts could sort out his nonsense immunity claims that case was set to go first, right? To go to trial on March 4th. And obviously that's not gonna happen. But now the question of delay runs smack dab into the time that Judge Cannon has reserved for this trial. Right? So let's just imagine we get an expeditious ruling from the DC circuit and the Supreme Court and the stay is lifted. mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 13:01
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So apparently Carroll's lawyers are asking for even more money now based on what Trump said this weekend. Edit: having read the article, it'll be interesting to see if Trump testifies, thus falling into a trap that was clearly stated and advertised as being a trap beforehand, assuming he still cares about money more than revenge. Normally for any billionaire I'd say the money is more important but this guy is uniquely insane The Islamic Shock fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 13:48
|
|
|
At this point I'm not sure he's able to resist taking the stand for the press and letting everyone know it was actually the perfect defamation. Just for the chance to rant about it all being an unfair witch hunt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 14:41
|
|
|
Gyges posted:At this point I'm not sure he's able to resist taking the stand for the press and letting everyone know it was actually the perfect defamation. Just for the chance to rant about it all being an unfair witch hunt. He constantly says he'll take the stand and then chickens out at the last second, then immediately lies about how he wanted to take the stand but it was just so unfair blah blah blah... He's only taken the stand when forced to, I'd be surprised if he does follow through
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:40
|
|
|
Gyges posted:At this point I'm not sure he's able to resist taking the stand for the press and letting everyone know it was actually the perfect defamation. Just for the chance to rant about it all being an unfair witch hunt. Yes, he’s going to just try and get in every excluded piece of nonsense he has. Heck, I expect him to pull out a piece of blue cloth and start ranting about his sperm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:45
|
|
|
If he's successfully baited into taking the stand it'll be the first time. He's normally smart enough to avoid it.0
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
So has there been any new developments on the Fani Willis accusations or are we just waiting for her to try to respond?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 15:56
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:So has there been any new developments on the Fani Willis accusations or are we just waiting for her to try to respond? Believe a hearing is scheduled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:00
|
|
|
A video of Willis came out that, if the allegations are true, would make her an enormous hypocrite, but I don’t think there’s new news. https://x.com/simonateba/status/1748721272966480114?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:08
|
|
|
selec posted:A video of Willis came out that, if the allegations are true, would make her an enormous hypocrite, but I don’t think there’s new news. Honestly, some of the expenses that the accusors say show they're in a relationship just don't make sense, like booking two rooms at a hotel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:15
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Honestly, some of the expenses that the accusors say show they're in a relationship just don't make sense, like booking two rooms at a hotel. It’s also not what I’d call extremely convincing evidence that they weren’t. That’s basic “the expenses system will flag if we sent two people but only got one room” level opsec if they were carrying on. If this does end up blowing the case, though…woof!
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Honestly, some of the expenses that the accusors say show they're in a relationship just don't make sense, like booking two rooms at a hotel. That could absolutely make sense for deniability reasons, especially if one or both people are married. As in if two people were authorized for the same room, the hotel would know. If someone said they'd be staying at a hotel but had not booked a room, the hotel would know. It's harder to prove that two people with separate rooms stayed in the same room.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
selec posted:It’s also not what I’d call extremely convincing evidence that they weren’t. That’s basic “the expenses system will flag if we sent two people but only got one room” level opsec if they were carrying on. Stabbey_the_Clown posted:That could absolutely make sense for deniability reasons, especially if one or both people are married. As in if two people were authorized for the same room, the hotel would know. If someone said they'd be staying at a hotel but had not booked a room, the hotel would know. It's harder to prove that two people with separate rooms stayed in the same room. Do y'all know how the burden of proof works?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
Even if you were booking two rooms you would be charged the total amount at the same time. Hypothetically it would be one charge for the room and one charge for the "romantic" dinner at the hotel's restaurant. Which is why it was $600 and $280. So like 5 nights at the hotel and one mukbang at the Chili's price point hotel restaurant. The cruise charges similarly are weird as a 2 separate tickets thing, because once again you would buy the cabins at the same time. Unless he double clicked his booking and then had to get a cancellation later. The only way the expenses make sense is if they're using uncovered receipts instead of credit card statements. Or my credit card statements are under detailed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:40
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Do y'all know how the burden of proof works? In court, sure, but we’re just shooting the poo poo here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:46
|
|
|
selec posted:In court, sure, but we’re just shooting the poo poo here. The burden of proof is a basic part of understanding reality, otherwise you'd have to be always disproving random crazy poo poo like your keys weren't lost, they were stolen by invisible penguins. (Or whatever ; I made up a possible but absurd thing.) You don't generally have to prove that something didn't happen, because that's an incredibly silly thing to have to prove. If you want to require that random accusations have to be actually disproven before being dismissed, rather than they need to meet some burden before consideration, you're gonna have some nonsense conversations.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 16:52
|
|
|
selec posted:A video of Willis came out that, if the allegations are true, would make her an enormous hypocrite, but I don’t think there’s new news. Heh, that’s this guy: “Following Ateba's repeated interruptions of press briefings, where he shouted at press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and complained about not being called on, the press office tightened rules governing the issuance of hard passes for journalists.” Also hypocrisy is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:00
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Do y'all know how the burden of proof works? This is a really good point. There were two rooms booked at the hotel so it's on Roman and co to show evidence that one of them spent the night in the others room. The cruise is a little more circumstantially difficult but you could certainly argue that it was platonic due to two separate rooms. People do go on cruises with friends all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
I go on cruises with my employee that I'm loving all the time
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I go on cruises with my employee that I'm loving all the time And you buy them a separate cabin because you need space for all your luggage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:I go on cruises with my employee that I'm loving all the time Yeah? So, what? The point is that unless there is more substantial evidence it's nothing actionable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 17:25
|
|
|
Murgos posted:This is a really good point. There were two rooms booked at the hotel so it's on Roman and co to show evidence that one of them spent the night in the others room. The evidence of the Caribbean bang cruise is that the same day he bought tickets to Miami he also paid money to Royal Caribbean. The hotel is similarly that he bought plane tickets for them both to San Fransisco, then on a separate date he had two charges at a Napa Valley hotel. It's the most circumstantial of evidence and is clearly cherry picked in order to create a narrative. The only thing actually linking them to anything is two plane trips to locations relevant to their case. Everything else is completely separate charges that when presented properly look suspicious. Much like if you booked a plane ticket to Vegas for April and then later on today bought some condoms at the store, I would be presenting clear evidence you were going to Vegas to cheat on your wife with at least 3 different hookers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Honestly, some of the expenses that the accusors say show they're in a relationship just don't make sense, like booking two rooms at a hotel. Famously when I have an affair I make sure that we have two hotel rooms to not sleep together in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 20:39 |
|
|
Prosecutors aren't suddenly good people because they're prosecuting people you hate. They're still cops. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2024 19:39
|
|