chasfh Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 27 minutes ago, Dan Gilmore said: I still own multiple Firesign Theater albums. 🥸 "It's a beaut!" "No, it's a mount." "And right purty, too. Err, can you move it?" "But ... why?" "Railroad's coming through ... right now ..." RINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasTiger Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 1 hour ago, smr-nj said: That’s the one…. ☝️ That was Cheech and Chong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasTiger Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 "I plead insanity. I'm crazy 'bout that stuff." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 14 minutes ago, VegasTiger said: That was Cheech and Chong. Oh, damn! 😂. That’s right. smh 🤦♀️ …. but I still did love Firesign Theater routines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 10 Author Share Posted May 10 Stormy Daniels walked all over that cross examination...holy crap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 1 minute ago, romad1 said: Stormy Daniels walked all over that cross examination...holy crap. I think the line that may do more to get him convicted came later from the secretary - the reported quote from Trump that you "hire good people and then DON'T trust them." They're riveting down the case that no money got spent in the Trump org with out Trump knowing exactly who/what/why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.TaterSalad Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 So was Stormy Daniel's testimony ultimately effective and damaging to Trump in the end? Is that the general concensus from the past couple of days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 ^^ Yes that's the impression I get. I heard some commentators say the cross examination was not good for trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 My understanding is that both days the defense tried to get the judge to declare a mistrial because of the **** she was saying esp in regards to details about them having sex and subtle references to it not being wanted sex on her part (DUH)., saying it was prejudicial to defendant. The judge said no mistrial on that basis because the defense lawyers argued in their opening statement that they didn't have secks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: So was Stormy Daniel's testimony ultimately effective and damaging to Trump in the end? Is that the general concensus from the past couple of days? who really knows? If it's a 'good' jury, in the sense of understanding what is presented, then yes should be damaging because the prosecution succeeded in the only objective for calling Daniels, which was to show that Trump had adequate reason to pay her to shut up. that her story in public would reasonably be considered a threat to his election chances. I don't think any of the particulars of her testimony or even it's truth mattered much per se; as long as she presented as a person that could damage his election chances. I don't see that anything the defense did undercut building that premise. But the fact that that's how it looks on the outside is just a guess as to how it plays in the jury room. I am old enough to be a little surprised that this jury isn't being sequestered, but I suppose in the era of the smart-phone that's pretty pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 10 Author Share Posted May 10 One thing about big trials is that the "legal faces" all come out and have opinions about the tactics, techniques and procedures that make grist for television. Lost is the importance of Trump being held to account for these various crimes and not able to beat the wrap like some anti-Christ that his craven follower believe in their hearts that he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 several times Stormy didn't accept the premise of the defense attorney's argment and twisted things back on her to show that... yeah she was lying in her questions... I.E. "So you said blah blah blah....." Stormy: "I didnt say that. Show me where I said that" Attorney shows tweet where she didn't say that and they discuss the fact she didn't say that. Whether that kind of thing impacts a jury.... who knows. I havne't followed that closely but it is news to me that he is denying the sex. Of course what has he said under oath? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 This may be too far even for Trump—although I do chuckle as I write that—but can they now make the claim in court that the sex never happened, the payoff never happened, the meeting never happened, and that everything is being made up and all the documents are forgeries in the service of a leftist communist Deep State globalist conspiracy to Get Trump? Or are they already claiming all this? I know they already say the sex never happened, I just wonder about the rest of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 10 Author Share Posted May 10 Yes, good point 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports_Freak Posted May 10 Share Posted May 10 Do they need to muzzle the orange idiot for Michael Cohen's testimony? It's going to be delicious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 11 Author Share Posted May 11 No way Yes way 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 The "love child" story is starting to come out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Says the guy who has never spent any time at all as a potential jury member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 13 Author Share Posted May 13 15 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: Says the guy who has never spent any time at all as a potential jury member. Not American citizens how? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Just now, romad1 said: Not American citizens how? Only white men who speak English should vote, serve on Jurors, and hold elective office. That's the Alabama way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 40 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said: Says the guy who has never spent any time at all as a potential jury member. What?? How f’ing DARE he! This infuriates me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 (edited) 19 minutes ago, smr-nj said: What?? How f’ing DARE he! This infuriates me. remember how quaint it was when they made the effort and paid professional writers like William Safire to compose sophisticated dog whistle rhetoric? Good Times...... Edited May 13 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 13 Author Share Posted May 13 Don't worry, Katie Britt is on the job as the junior senator from Alabama in charge of rounding up all the preggers ladies in the country and weeding out all the dark ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted May 13 Author Share Posted May 13 Well now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 7 minutes ago, romad1 said: Well now well to be honest it was actually as best of a retort you can do... and he followed it up with "I've heard Bill Clinton say worse on the golf course" which is: a) totally believable b) the husband of the person you are running against c) also a former President and many dems knew he was like that and were ok enough with it It was the fourth or fifth "I can't believe it. This will definitely be the one thing that drags him down..." and you initially see the "normal" GOP say the right things then as acceptence gains they fall back in line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.