Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Oh, I see.

Your point is that Habba is out of her element as an attorney. Ok, fair enough.


I'll look forward to seeing you defend Trump in GA then, I mean if being consistent is important to you.

originally posted by: JinMI
"Trying to submit evidence.."

It's her job, quite literally.

Allow me to rephrase, counselor, trying to PROPERLY submit evidence which she screwed the proverbial pooch at doing. When the judge has to manpslain to you how to PROPERLY submit evidence you know you have a dog**** attorney on your hands.

I'll do you one better, she even tried to get to the character of the testimony...

Since we're now playing the pedantry game, testimony doesn't have character.

originally posted by: JinMI
Your point is that Habba is out of her element as an attorney. Ok, fair enough.

'Out of her element' is an understatement.

I'll look forward to seeing you defend Trump in GA then, I mean if being consistent is important to you.

Why would I defend him? He's not my client. He hires the very best people to defend him....like Alina Habba. She should have given her closing remarks dressed as Ronald McDonald.

a reply to: JinMI

Consistently snarky, I see.

Carry on.

What's next? "Reading comprehension skills"?

Remind me, rather than trawling thru 10 pages of this, what valid legal reasons?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Allow me to rephrase, counselor, trying to PROPERLY submit evidence which she screwed the proverbial pooch at doing. When the judge has to manpslain to you how to PROPERLY submit evidence you know you have a dog**** attorney on your hands.

You said it right the first time. The entire argument and purpose of the OP is that "properly" isn't the bar that was met. Rather that only by a series of improper behavior and prejudice was the monetary determination able to be at the level and proportionality that it is.

ince we're now playing the pedantry game, testimony doesn't have character.

This is all a pedantry game.....that's the point.

'Out of her element' is an understatement.

Perhaps. Couldn't really tell as much as she was stifled. Would have been nice to see a proper display...

Why would I defend him? He's not my client. He hires the very best people to defend him....like Alina Habba. She should have given her closing remarks dressed as Ronald McDonald.

Oh, IDK, because perhaps you value Constitutional rights, due process and maybe even law and justice. So we can't be expecting consistency then.

Fair enough.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Consistently snarky, I see.

Carry on.

What's next? "Reading comprehension skills"?

Remind me, rather than trawling thru 10 pages of this, what valid legal reasons?

Likely because you're digging in the wrong thread.

Lets again just cut to the chase. We already had this argument yesterday. Same question, asked and answered.

You didn't have a reply then either.....

originally posted by: JinMI
The entire argument and purpose of the OP is that "properly" isn't the bar that was met.

No? Then I guess when the best attorney money can buy, after hundreds of others turn it down first, files her appeal, she should win based on her objections, correct?

Oh, IDK, because perhaps you value Constitutional rights, due process and maybe even law and justice.

He got all of those. The reality is Trump's fanbois aren't happy with the results....as usual.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No? Then I guess when the best attorney money can buy, after hundreds of others turn it down first, files her appeal, she should win based on her objections, correct?

IMO, sure. I mean you want the big orange man to actually go down right, not on some nebulous gov't f*ckery right?

He got all of those. The reality is Trump's fanbois aren't happy with the results....as usual.

I'm much more concerned with the blatant corruption on display. It's shame you don't (you can still hate Trump btw and still see it)

Maybe it's time you hand over your -ertarian card........

a reply to: JinMI

So, humour me, I haven't seen any valid legal reason.

Can you remind me what I am missing?

Would be kind of you.

Wrong thread? How?

originally posted by: JinMI
IMO, sure. I mean you want the big orange man to actually go down right, not on some nebulous gov't f*ckery right?

His own mouth is the cause of his misery in this case. Well, that and Habba's horrible job in court. It's a bit of a twofer.

I'm much more concerned with the blatant corruption on display.

Corruption implies someone was bribed. Who was bribed? And please provide the evidence. Just an FYI, Trump supporters being sad pandas about the results is not evidence, that's schadenfreude.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Your point is that Habba is out of her element as an attorney. Ok, fair enough.

'Out of her element' is an understatement.

I'll look forward to seeing you defend Trump in GA then, I mean if being consistent is important to you.

Why would I defend him? He's not my client. He hires the very best people to defend him....like Alina Habba. She should have given her closing remarks dressed as Ronald McDonald.

McDonalds would have sued her.

One of the Muppets, perhaps?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

It is kind of funny watching everyone scream how he got railroaded and then when you ask whether his legal team did a good job they're all like, "IT DOESN'T MATTER! THE JUDGE IS CORRUPT OR SOMETHING!".

Pssst.....let Habba know what evidence you have of the corruption and everything else, she can file an appeal. Oh, wait, she can't because she didn't object to 'corruption' during the trial.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

More baseless allegations because they don't like or won't accept reality. It was ever so and will be, forever.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

It is kind of funny watching everyone scream how he got railroaded and then when you ask whether his legal team did a good job they're all like, "IT DOESN'T MATTER! THE JUDGE IS CORRUPT OR SOMETHING!".

Pssst.....let Habba know what evidence you have of the corruption and everything else, she can file an appeal. Oh, wait, she can't because she didn't object to 'corruption' during the trial.

Yeah mate This DOJ is on the up and up very honest , These Judges are also very honest and in know way biased or paid off. These New York Juries are just doing the good lords work getting rid of Orange man

Nothing to see , Nothing to worry about including the 2020 election it was the most secure and fair election of all time .

He raped that woman , His properties are worthless , His classified Documents are what matters not Ol Joey Boys . He shouldn't have been snooping around Ukraine asking questions and he wouldn't have gotten Impeached .

Trump is a racist lying Piece of # and everyone knows it because the Media says so .

Long live the Democratic Party

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

His own mouth is the cause of his misery in this case. Well, that and Habba's horrible job in court. It's a bit of a twofer.

Disagree.

Corruption implies someone was bribed. Who was bribed? And please provide the evidence. Just an FYI, Trump supporters being sad pandas about the results is not evidence, that's schadenfreude.

Do you know how the case was brought? Who funded it? Who represented Carroll? How they are all tied together? Guessing not or you would have avoided this question.

Also, Carroll is on record that she wouldn't sue Trump. Then did....what changed? Perhaps the monetary aspect? Or perhaps she was "convinced" by the same people financing and helping bring the law into existence?

a reply to: JinMI

I was a juror on a civil case a little more than a year ago where a man was suing his former employer for racial harassment. The plaintiff's side only presented one witness, the plaintiff himself. And he was not a very good witness. The defendant's side presented multiple witnesses. And there was little physical evidence presented.

It was explained to us that in a civil trial, you had to decide which side you believed more(51% to %49 is all you needed), and then decide if damages should be awarded. There were 8 of us on the jury and in the end we sided with the plaintiff on all but one count. And even though the plaintiff wasn't a good witness, we just believed him more than the witnesses the defense provided. I can't remember the exact number, but we ended up awarding him 20k+ in damages.

You're asking for some sort of testimony that we've seen that would justify the award that E. Carrol received. That would be impossible to do without being on the jury and in the courtroom. Because it wouldn't be just one thing. It would be based on the multiple witnesses testifying and the evidence, however little of it that there was, that was presented.

The problem with DJT is that he doesn't listen to his attorneys. He was stuck with a bottom of the barrel lawyer who was out of her depth. He couldn't get a good attorney because he's alienated most of the good ones. Not sure if the previous attorneys were paid or not.

But he was the same way while in office. If someone in his cabinet disagreed with him, they were gone. I don't think he will ever learn that he isn't right about everything. This is why I believe he'll either be found guilty or liable in the rest of his pending trials. Not because of a corrupt judicial system, but because he won't listen to anyone.

a reply to: Veester1

You're asking for some sort of testimony that we've seen that would justify the award that E. Carrol received. That would be impossible to do without being on the jury and in the courtroom.

This is incorrect. The entire thing is transcribed.

But don't let that stop you from believing a thing sans evidence, like you did in another trial.

You are part of the problem by your testimony here.....

a reply to: JinMI

This is incorrect. The entire thing is transcribed.

Reading a transcript is not the same as listening to a witness testifying live.

originally posted by: Veester1
a reply to: JinMI

This is incorrect. The entire thing is transcribed.

Reading a transcript is not the same as listening to a witness testifying live.

Biden isn't a part of this thread......

originally posted by: Veester1
a reply to: JinMI

This is incorrect. The entire thing is transcribed.

Reading a transcript is not the same as listening to a witness testifying live.

A coached witness is not a Testimony , it's acting .