(03-22-2023 05:09 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 04:55 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Tanq reminds me of Romney and McCain. Throw in with the liberal garbage and come out looking like the smartest fool in the room.
Smart stupid people are a danger to us all.

Stupid stupid people are the worst of all.

Except for ignorant stupid people.

Funny that.

Getting a rise out of you is the impressively easy.

Where is the rise in my statement? Just a direct observation of good things to know and recognize.

Im enamored of the people that simply come by to insult. I havent spoken to you in awhile, and I guess that lil ol immature part of you think its a good time to stop in with a good insult. Fun, fun, fun.

Did it help with your anxiety crisis to do that drive by ad hom? I know it helps with the people that have the biggest chip on their shoulder to vent like that. Best to you, My Friend.

(03-22-2023 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:09 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 04:55 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Tanq reminds me of Romney and McCain. Throw in with the liberal garbage and come out looking like the smartest fool in the room.
Smart stupid people are a danger to us all.

Stupid stupid people are the worst of all.

Except for ignorant stupid people.

Funny that.

Getting a rise out of you is the impressively easy.

Where is the rise in my statement? Just a direct observation of good things to know and recognize.

Im enamored of the people that simply come by to insult. I havent spoken to you in awhile, and I guess that lil ol immature part of you think its a good time to stop in with a good insult. Fun, fun, fun.

Did it help with your anxiety crisis to do that drive by ad hom? I know it helps with the people that have the biggest chip on their shoulder to vent like that. Best to you, My Friend.

I’m truly sorry you took that as an insult. It was actually a very on point observation.

(03-22-2023 05:23 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:09 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 04:55 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Tanq reminds me of Romney and McCain. Throw in with the liberal garbage and come out looking like the smartest fool in the room.
Smart stupid people are a danger to us all.

Stupid stupid people are the worst of all.

Except for ignorant stupid people.

Funny that.

Getting a rise out of you is the impressively easy.

Where is the rise in my statement? Just a direct observation of good things to know and recognize.

Im enamored of the people that simply come by to insult. I havent spoken to you in awhile, and I guess that lil ol immature part of you think its a good time to stop in with a good insult. Fun, fun, fun.

Did it help with your anxiety crisis to do that drive by ad hom? I know it helps with the people that have the biggest chip on their shoulder to vent like that. Best to you, My Friend.

I’m truly sorry you took that as an insult. It was actually a very on point observation.

Got it keemo sabbe. Fun fun fun. Hopefully your tricycle level drive by was worth it to help you feel like a real man. Lolz.

(03-22-2023 05:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:23 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:09 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Stupid stupid people are the worst of all.

Except for ignorant stupid people.

Funny that.

Getting a rise out of you is the impressively easy.

Where is the rise in my statement? Just a direct observation of good things to know and recognize.

Im enamored of the people that simply come by to insult. I havent spoken to you in awhile, and I guess that lil ol immature part of you think its a good time to stop in with a good insult. Fun, fun, fun.

Did it help with your anxiety crisis to do that drive by ad hom? I know it helps with the people that have the biggest chip on their shoulder to vent like that. Best to you, My Friend.

I’m truly sorry you took that as an insult. It was actually a very on point observation.

Got it keemo sabbe. Fun fun fun. Hopefully your tricycle level drive by was worth it to help you feel like a real man. Lolz.

Real men don’t drink gin
Have a nice day

(03-22-2023 05:54 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:23 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:09 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Getting a rise out of you is the impressively easy.

Where is the rise in my statement? Just a direct observation of good things to know and recognize.

Im enamored of the people that simply come by to insult. I havent spoken to you in awhile, and I guess that lil ol immature part of you think its a good time to stop in with a good insult. Fun, fun, fun.

Did it help with your anxiety crisis to do that drive by ad hom? I know it helps with the people that have the biggest chip on their shoulder to vent like that. Best to you, My Friend.

I’m truly sorry you took that as an insult. It was actually a very on point observation.

Got it keemo sabbe. Fun fun fun. Hopefully your tricycle level drive by was worth it to help you feel like a real man. Lolz.

Real men don’t drink gin
Have a nice day

Last gin I had was about 12 years ago. Nickname stuck. Funny that, isnt it trike guy.

Another way to look at it, from my point of view.

Suppose I were a member of a jury, and during the trial it became evident that the prosecution and law enforcement had engaged in the kinds of dishonest, show-me-the-man-and-I'll-find-you-a-crime, Gestapo/KGB-like (and yes, I use that term intentionally) tactics that have been employed against DJT in the last five years. How likely would I be to vote guilty, regardless of the "evidence" produced? Not very.

(03-22-2023 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Another way to look at it, from my point of view.

Suppose I were a member of a jury, and during the trial it became evident that the prosecution and law enforcement had engaged in the kinds of dishonest, show-me-the-man-and-I'll-find-you-a-crime, Gestapo/KGB-like (and yes, I use that term intentionally) tactics that have been employed against DJT in the last five years. How likely would I be to vote guilty, regardless of the "evidence" produced? Not very.

You’re not a liberal.

(03-22-2023 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Another way to look at it, from my point of view.

Suppose I were a member of a jury, and during the trial it became evident that the prosecution and law enforcement had engaged in the kinds of dishonest, show-me-the-man-and-I'll-find-you-a-crime, Gestapo/KGB-like (and yes, I use that term intentionally) tactics that have been employed against DJT in the last five years. How likely would I be to vote guilty, regardless of the "evidence" produced? Not very.

What would you think about being able to see the entirety of a defendant's attorney / client legal history knowing that they were the result of the 'crime fraud' exception to attorney/ client confidentiality?

That is they had engaged in the kinds of dishonest tactics using the attorney / client shield?

As non impartial as you put yourself above?

This NYC DA was bragging that as a member of the state AGs office they had sued Trump more than 100 times. Seems excessive and just a little to political to normal people.
His lawyers may not be the brightest but they are very experienced.

(03-22-2023 06:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Another way to look at it, from my point of view.
Suppose I were a member of a jury, and during the trial it became evident that the prosecution and law enforcement had engaged in the kinds of dishonest, show-me-the-man-and-I'll-find-you-a-crime, Gestapo/KGB-like (and yes, I use that term intentionally) tactics that have been employed against DJT in the last five years. How likely would I be to vote guilty, regardless of the "evidence" produced? Not very.

What would you think about being able to see the entirety of a defendant's attorney / client legal history knowing that they were the result of the 'crime fraud' exception to attorney/ client confidentiality?
That is they had engaged in the kinds of dishonest tactics using the attorney / client shield?
As non impartial as you put yourself above?

I see where you are trying to go.

I look at it this way. The burden is on the prosecution. Until they meet that burden, the defense wins without having to do anything. A prosecution that had abused due process and other constitutional rights the way that DOJ and FBBI, et al, have done with respect to DJT over the past 5 years, is probably not going to be able to overcome that with me sufficiently to get me to believe their prima facie case. So as long as they have the burden and don't meet it, I'm not really concerned with what the defense did or does,

Strzok's communications (was it a text? don't remember) with his squeeze about whatever they had discussed in "Andy's" office shows sufficient bias that I would almost disregard anything coming from FBI with respect to DJT.

Which do I feel more threatened by--
1) DJT paying hush money to Stormy or taking classified material to Mar-a-Lago and storing it securely or even January 6th, or
2) having law enforcement and national security bureaucrats who engage in the kinds of bias and violations of basic rights shown by the likes of Strzok et al?

In my case, clearly 2). If you find 1) more troubling then that is your right. But I have a hard time squaring that with a libertarian distrust of big government perspective.

Until the government shows me that they are playing honestly and fairly and objectively, I'm not buying what they're selling.

(03-22-2023 07:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 06:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 06:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Another way to look at it, from my point of view.
Suppose I were a member of a jury, and during the trial it became evident that the prosecution and law enforcement had engaged in the kinds of dishonest, show-me-the-man-and-I'll-find-you-a-crime, Gestapo/KGB-like (and yes, I use that term intentionally) tactics that have been employed against DJT in the last five years. How likely would I be to vote guilty, regardless of the "evidence" produced? Not very.

What would you think about being able to see the entirety of a defendant's attorney / client legal history knowing that they were the result of the 'crime fraud' exception to attorney/ client confidentiality?
That is they had engaged in the kinds of dishonest tactics using the attorney / client shield?
As non impartial as you put yourself above?

I see where you are trying to go.

I look at it this way. The burden is on the prosecution. Until they meet that burden, the defense wins without having to do anything. A prosecution that had abused due process and other constitutional rights the way that DOJ and FBBI, et al, have done with respect to DJT over the past 5 years, is probably not going to be able to overcome that with me sufficiently to get me to believe their prima facie case. So as long as they have the burden and don't meet it, I'm not really concerned with what the defense did or does,

Strzok's communications (was it a text? don't remember) with his squeeze about whatever they had discussed in "Andy's" office shows sufficient bias that I would almost disregard anything coming from FBI with respect to DJT.

Which do I feel more threatened by--
1) DJT paying hush money to Stormy or taking classified material to Mar-a-Lago and storing it securely or even January 6th, or
2) having law enforcement and national security bureaucrats who engage in the kinds of bias and violations of basic rights shown by the likes of Strzok et al?

In my case, clearly 2). If you find 1) more troubling then that is your right. But I have a hard time squaring that with a libertarian distrust of big government perspective.

Until the government shows me that they are playing honestly and fairly and objectively, I'm not buying what they're selling.

So the answer is NO you wont exhibit the same partiality. Got it.

(03-22-2023 07:09 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So the answer is NO you wont exhibit the same partiality. Got it.

I don't see it as a question of partiality. Our whole legal system is based on the concept that we would rather see a guilty man go free than to allow the prosecution to proceed in a witch hunt manner that avoids proper process and procedures.

On that basis, I find the abuses by DOJ and FBI to be so egregious that I would not be willing to accept their evidence. To me it's like a defendant confesses to murder but the confession was improperly obtained, so if there is not enough other evidence to convict then he/she walks.

Remember, I am the person who went round and round with fellow conservatives over my opposition to the patRIOT act. This is just an example of why.

My partiality is very strongly against overbearing government.

(03-22-2023 05:16 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Now wait a damn minute, Tanq said Cohen was Trump's bag man and Trump through Cohen under the bus.

The alleged attorney’s argument to view the totality of the situation with Trump is so one sided even a jury full of leftists would be able to see through it.
You apply the same logic as Owl did, all things being equal, the state has no case whatsoever. And therein lies the problem for the libs.
They just have no case. It’s a complete witch hunt. As usual.

(03-22-2023 07:18 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(03-22-2023 05:16 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Now wait a damn minute, Tanq said Cohen was Trump's bag man and Trump through Cohen under the bus.

Did you actually read-read the letter ---

In order ---

Cohen used his own funds to pay Stormy -- correct. He doesnt mention Trump Org reimbursed him for the funds.

Trump Org nor Trump Campaign was a party to the Stormy agreement -- also correct. Trump was. Personally.

Neither reimbursed him -- a lie from Cohen to the government. And one that he got popped for perjury.

Cohen didnt make an in-kind contribution -- well, Cohen retracted that at his guilty plea allocution.

Cohen not a govt employee -- correct, and not germane.

The other items are him restating the contribution angle.

It is crystal clear that Cohen actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 through a shell company Cohen set up. He records also indicate he was then reimbursed by Trump for the exact amount, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses, and another amount to bump it up to reflect Cohen's taxes on the transaction.

Earlier in 2016 he did a similar 'quash the story' with regard to Karen McDougal.

Cohen also made recordings of a conversation in which he and Trump spoke about the arrangement to pay McDougal through the National Enquirer.

At one point in the recording, Cohen told Trump, “I need to open up a company for the transfer of all of that info regarding our friend, David,” a reference to David Pecker, who ran the Enquirer’s parent company at the time.

Cohen said he had already spoken with the Trump Organization’s longtime finance chief, Allen Weisselberg, on “how to set the whole thing up.”

When you actually read Cohen's allocution and bother with the actual chain of events, it really doesnt make an issue with the letter.

(03-22-2023 07:27 PM)450bench Wrote:  The alleged attorney’s argument to view the totality of the situation with Trump is so one sided even a jury full of leftists would be able to see through it.
You apply the same logic as Owl did, all things being equal, the state has no case whatsoever. And therein lies the problem for the libs.
They just have no case. It’s a complete witch hunt. As usual.

Yeah, just scream 'witch hunt' over and over and over again. About par for the course. I mean, who the **** cares about the actual facts. Sounds fun.

The boosting it to a felony is fairly problematic. But Ive said that before. As though it really matters to the 'trump is a total victim of everything' crowd.

Go back to your Trump man superhero comic books, alleged weight man.

(03-22-2023 05:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Got it keemo sabbe. Fun fun fun. Hopefully your tricycle level drive by was worth it to help you feel like a real man. Lolz.

Just to point it out, no triggering intended. It's "kemo sabe." Funny that, but you do you.

(03-22-2023 12:36 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Guess Trump was wrong again.

Or...Maybe he just trolled an entire nation and showed AGAIN how easy it is for him to do it?

LOL...This thread and forum is so much fun now that it has a prog lawyer posting.