Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Regardless of it being an open discussion board, either one is right or one is wrong, so no amount of discussion to change that can be achieved other than the usual back and forth until the insults start flying.Oh excuse me, I just saw you posting in an online message board. How dare I assume you’d be open to discussion with opposing points of view. I guess if you’re just looking for an echo chamber or place to troll that’s your prerogative… but that’s the real time waste IMO
j-mac is certainly not on my side. We were arguing in a different thread and I was pointing out cases like you where I bring up a substantive point and you just ignore it with lazy proclamations and insults. No ability or will to dig in and have a real discussion because God forbid you may be misinformed. Or maybe I’m misinformed and you can counter my points with something better. Very few even try. So what are y’all doing here? Echo Trolling?You talking to j-mac as if he's in with you ain't going to help your positions on the issue's. Losery is losery, and that's just the way that it is.
Losing their cool because they know this case is a PoS.
Just as Merchan lost his cool when a defense witness attempted to answer a question with more than a yes or a no.
Spent most of the day at Ft. Pierce federal courthouse to cover two hearings in classified docs case.Special Counsel team's frustration with Judge Aileen Cannon is really evident.And it's glorious.David Harbach, one of Smith's lead prosecutors and usually a cool customer in court, had a series of mini temper tantrums this morning. At times pounding his fist on the podium and clapping his hands in anger to emphasize a point, Harbach was totally unprofessional, demeaning, and petulant.Cannon asked Harbach to "calm down" during one diatribe about accusations DOJ threatened one of the defense attorneys to get his client to flip on Donald Trump.He kept trying to argue with her--Cannon also remains measured most of the time and is no fan of antics--and when she asked him a question about an issue, he shot back "that's not the right question."A few reporters in the media room even gasped. Harbach is flailing bc his case is imploding.DOJ never thought their dirty, sloppy, corrupt tricks would see the light of day. Biden regime never thought information such as the FBI's operations order related to MAL raid that included lethal force guidance would ever be made public.But Cannon is systematically dismantling this case by holding hearings (like today) and ordering the unsealing of key motions and evidence. She is a one-woman wrecking crew and Smith's team knows there is very little they can do about it.And she is nowhere near finished. Just this week, in addition to the unsealed motions posted yesterday that revealed details about the MAL raid, Cannon ordered the unsealing of several motions filed earlier in the case.I'm working on a Substack post for the weekend on the nature of the motions today and the proceedings--but suffice to say Jack Smith's team already appears deflated and defeated.
You started with the insults. I’m sitting here willing to discuss it. And yes sometimes there is no right and wrong, opinions are shared. But other times, like in this case right and wrong can be determined as we are talking about law.Regardless of it being an open discussion board, either one is right or one is wrong, so no amount of discussion to change that can be achieved other than the usual back and forth until the insults start flying.
What makes it relevant? Stormy had her version of events...albeit a version that's changed over time...and Trump had his version of events. Who cares? Trump isn't being charged with having an alleged affair and it's never been proven that he had one with Daniels. He did have an NDA with her. That isn't illegal however so once again...who cares? So what was the relevance of Daniel's testimony?You started with the insults. I’m sitting here willing to discuss it. And yes sometimes there is no right and wrong, opinions are shared. But other times, like in this case right and wrong can be determined as we are talking about law.
I made a point that it was relevant and legal to question stormy about the affair because Trumps team denied it. The prosecution as a right to show the credibility of their witnesses story by questioning her about it.
Do you agree or disagree?
Stormy was a witness whose credibility was challenged by trumps team in their opening statement when they claimed she lied about having an affair with Trump. Therefore, the prosecution has the right to present testimony to validate her claims of the affair so that the rest of her testimony can be credible.What makes it relevant? Stormy had her version of events...albeit a version that's changed over time...and Trump had his version of events. Who cares? Trump isn't being charged with having an alleged affair and it's never been proven that he had one with Daniels. He did have an NDA with her. That isn't illegal however so once again...who cares? So what was the relevance of Daniel's testimony?
Stormy was a witness whose credibility was challenged by the fact that her story kept changing, Slade!Stormy was a witness whose credibility was challenged by trumps team in their opening statement when they claimed she lied about having an affair with Trump. Therefore, the prosecution has the right to present testimony to validate her claims of the affair so that the rest of her testimony can be credible.
Get it?
He can't hear you, because he's got Dem talking point cotton ball's in his ears. You are wasting your time, but they love to make it look like we are the one's running away. They are false prophets is all they are.Stormy was a witness whose credibility was challenged by the fact that her story kept changing, Slade!
At this point I'm not even sure WHAT the accompanying "crime" is that Bragg was supposedly going to prove took place in order to make those expired misdemeanors into felonies!He can't hear you, because he's got Dem talking point cotton ball's in his ears. You are wasting your time, but they love to make it look like we are the one's running away. They are false prophets is all they are.
The rest of her testimony about what? An NDA that's perfectly legal? What testimony did Daniels provide that proved in any way that a crime took place? Other than what she was doing appearing to be pretty much extortion?Stormy was a witness whose credibility was challenged by trumps team in their opening statement when they claimed she lied about having an affair with Trump. Therefore, the prosecution has the right to present testimony to validate her claims of the affair so that the rest of her testimony can be credible.
Get it?
That’s great. The defense has every right to bring that up and point it out. This is whats supposed to happen at trialsStormy was a witness whose credibility was challenged by the fact that her story kept changing, Slade!
Hey, I’m the one trying to engage here. Making my points and inviting counter point's. Welcoming questions and challengers. Just because you don’t have the ability to engage doesn’t mean I’m not listening and engaging with my own thoughts and ideas. Do better be betterHe can't hear you, because he's got Dem talking point cotton ball's in his ears. You are wasting your time, but they love to make it look like we are the one's running away. They are false prophets is all they are.
I believe the were getting details about who handled the payment and how it all went down from her side of thingsThe rest of her testimony about what? An NDA that's perfectly legal? What testimony did Daniels provide that proved in any way that a crime took place? Other than what she was doing appearing to be pretty much extortion?
They did.That’s great. The defense has every right to bring that up and point it out. This is whats supposed to happen at trials
That would have been fine. What the judge allowed instead was a good hour of testimony about how the sex act went down. How is THAT relevant to what Trump was charged with?I believe the were getting details about who handled the payment and how it all went down from her side of things
Testimony to the credibility of a witness is what we are talking about and it is totally relevent. If your logic was universally applied then Trumps team wouldn’t be able to go after the credibility of Stormy or Cohen on anything that didn’t have to do with the business filings. That’s just not how it worksThey did.
That doesn't mean the judge shouldn't have ruled out most of her testimony because it wasn't relevant to the charges.
It is the act that cause the NDA and payment. Something stormy claims happened and Trump claimed didn’t happen. One of the two is lying. The prosecutors should show that their witness is the one telling the truth. That’s what they did. Relevant and properThat would have been fine. What the judge allowed instead was a good hour of testimony about how the sex act went down. How is THAT relevant to what Trump was charged with?
Maybe at Democrat run trials, but not at normal trials where a judge doesn't allow idiocy in so that it waste people's time and money for no good reason.That’s great. The defense has every right to bring that up and point it out. This is whats supposed to happen at trials
The NDA was legal.It is the act that cause the NDA and payment. Something stormy claims happened and Trump claimed didn’t happen. One of the two is lying. The prosecutors should show that their witness is the one telling the truth. That’s what they did. Relevant and proper
Again you’re saying nothing of substance. Nothing to refute anything that I’ve said,Maybe at Democrat run trials, but not at normal trials where a judge doesn't allow idiocy in so that it waste people's time and money for no good reason.
