Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, ewsieg said:

Very tough to prove as even if the client told them they were lying, they are not required to inform the court.  I think we all know what's going on behind closed doors, but likely won't be able to prove it.

What's going on behind closed doors?

[ewsieg]

41 minutes ago, chasfh said:

What's going on behind closed doors?

As Pfife says... The obvious

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, ewsieg said:

As Pfife says... The obvious

If by that you mean prosecutors made it clear that perjury could lead to long prison time, and that made #4 change his lawyer and stat telling the truth, then I see what you mean. If that’s not what you mean, then I don’t know what you mean.

[ewsieg]

23 minutes ago, chasfh said:

If by that you mean prosecutors made it clear that perjury could lead to long prison time, and that made #4 change his lawyer and stat telling the truth, then I see what you mean. If that’s not what you mean, then I don’t know what you mean.

I tend to prefer the "fictional" Ratko version of what happened and think that's the most obvious, but i'm sure the prosecutors did what you said as well.  Personally I believe both happened, but again, the Ratko version will be tough to prove.

Edited August 23, 2023 by ewsieg

[ewsieg]

I'm not looking to start a fight here and maybe I just notice it more because I don't post as often anymore, but do you question everything I say on this board?  This isn't the first time where I actually felt like I was adding a few thoughts that didn't argue against what i'd term as 'widely held beliefs' on this forum and yet you questioned them.  In rereading my response to Pfife I still don't see how anyone might consider that as some type of pro-trump response (when it's actually the opposite).

Edited August 23, 2023 by ewsieg

[pfife]

I definitely think Dumps lawyers are coaching witnesses in the art of being less than fully truthy.   Cassidy Hutchinson also made this claim under oath

Edited August 23, 2023 by pfife

[Motor City Sonics]

8 minutes ago, pfife said:

I definitely think Dumps lawyers are coaching witnesses in the art of being less than fully truthy.   Cassidy Hutchinson also made this claim under oath

The Trump campaign slogan will be "I don't recall"

[CMRivdogs]

The Trumpy Bunch....The Trumpy Bunch...Insurrections Are Us
 

Edited August 23, 2023 by CMRivdogs

[chasfh]

3 hours ago, ewsieg said:

I'm not looking to start a fight here and maybe I just notice it more because I don't post as often anymore, but do you question everything I say on this board?  This isn't the first time where I actually felt like I was adding a few thoughts that didn't argue against what i'd term as 'widely held beliefs' on this forum and yet you questioned them.  In rereading my response to Pfife I still don't see how anyone might consider that as some type of pro-trump response (when it's actually the opposite).

I honestly did not know what you were talking about. I still don’t. What were you referring to? We have #4 flipping, what else is there?

Edited August 24, 2023 by chasfh

[ewsieg]

15 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I honestly did not know what you were talking about. I still don’t. What weee you referring to?

I feel like this gets back to my follow up question.   To explain, I'll rehash what I read and detail my response:

A tweet is embedded which indicates a witness changed lawyers and changed his story.  Follow up tweet states "Really raises the obvious question: did the Trump PAC paid lawyer advise him to lie to protect Trump?"

I read this as did the lawyers that are being paid for by a Trump PAC advise this witness to lie.  

I feel like if you would have seen this reply there wouldn't have been any issue:

      gehringer_2 said: Very tough to prove as even if the client told them they were lying, they are not required to inform the court.  I think we all know what's going on behind closed doors, but likely won't be able to prove it.

But you saw "ewsieg said".  To detail my response, I believe it would be tough to prove if the lawyer advised the witness to lie.  With that said, I personally would not be surprised if during lawyer/client conversations, Trump paid lawyers were telling the clients to lie, or as Ratko's story played out, indicate why it might be in their best interest to say certain things.   

 

[chasfh]

51 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I feel like this gets back to my follow up question.   To explain, I'll rehash what I read and detail my response:

A tweet is embedded which indicates a witness changed lawyers and changed his story.  Follow up tweet states "Really raises the obvious question: did the Trump PAC paid lawyer advise him to lie to protect Trump?"

I read this as did the lawyers that are being paid for by a Trump PAC advise this witness to lie.  

I feel like if you would have seen this reply there wouldn't have been any issue:

      gehringer_2 said: Very tough to prove as even if the client told them they were lying, they are not required to inform the court.  I think we all know what's going on behind closed doors, but likely won't be able to prove it.

But you saw "ewsieg said".  To detail my response, I believe it would be tough to prove if the lawyer advised the witness to lie.  With that said, I personally would not be surprised if during lawyer/client conversations, Trump paid lawyers were telling the clients to lie, or as Ratko's story played out, indicate why it might be in their best interest to say certain things.   

 

OK, I see, thanks for rehashing.

I wondered whether you were referring to something that had got by me. I had read the post speculating Trump lawyers inducing witnesses to lie, e.g., perhaps paying them. (I kind of think there were threats and/or maybe blackmail, too.) But I had already attached that thought to the idea of #4 flipping, so I regarded that as a single one-and-the-same package, not separating the two. When you mentioned the “obvious”, I thought maybe you were referring to something additional I’d missed. That’s why I asked.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

5 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

The Trumpy Bunch....The Trumpy Bunch...Insurrections Are Us
 

You ****ing love to see it. Trying to cosplay fascism is a bitch when all that law and order, tough on crime bull**** you've been preaching finally catches up with you. To think this guy was "America's Mayor".

[romad1]

Donald Trump to surrender in Georgia election fraud case; judge OKs court cameras (nypost.com)

This is a big deal.  

[chasfh]

Just saw one analysis that the trial could take more than a year to unspool. It would be interesting in a Chinese curse sense to see him continued to be tried as a sitting president. 

[CMRivdogs]

Quote

 

Quote

It's aggravating to see certain musicians and politicians act like we’re buddies, like we're fighting the same struggle here."

Quote

Speaking specifically about the song's use at the Republican debate, he said, with a laugh, "For them to sit there and have to listen to that, that cracks me up."

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by CMRivdogs

[Mr.TaterSalad]

17 hours ago, chasfh said:

Just saw one analysis that the trial could take more than a year to unspool. It would be interesting in a Chinese curse sense to see him continued to be tried as a sitting president. 

He very much has a good chance at winning in 2024 given how deeply unpopular Joe Biden is and how poor people rate his handling of the economy. I have no idea what would happen if he were to be convicted while President on the Georgia charges. Would he be above the law and just face no criminal penalty. Would the conviction of a state felony under the RICO statute mean he'd have to resign? Would he be able to preform the duties of the Presidency from behind bard with special accommodations?

Edited August 25, 2023 by Mr.TaterSalad

[chasfh]

6 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

He very much has a good chance at winning in 2024 given how deeply unpopular Joe Biden is and how poor people rate his handling of the economy. I have no idea what would happen if he were to be convicted while President on the Georgia charges. Would he be above the law and just face no criminal penalty. Would the conviction of a state felony under the RICO statute mean he'd have to resign? Would he be able to preform the duties of the Presidency from behind bard with special accommodations?

As things stand now, I don’t think he has such a good chance to win. He would have to motivate the many people who left him in disgust to come back to him. Plus, Trump is motivating many millions more people to come out just to vote against him. I don’t think Biden has quite either of those.

[Netnerd]

33 minutes ago, chasfh said:

As things stand now, I don’t think he has such a good chance to win. He would have to motivate the many people who left him in disgust to come back to him. Plus, Trump is motivating many millions more people to come out just to vote against him. I don’t think Biden has quite either of those.

Sounds like 2020.

[ewsieg]

7 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

Crazy watching twitter try and deal with this guy.  Hero to the right for a week, then the left mocked him, now the left is embracing him, any day now for the right to start mocking him.

[MIguy]

According to Fox, they had his permission to use the video so what the hell did he think they were going to do, play it for the halftime entertainment?  

[gehringer_2]

5 hours ago, Netnerd said:

Sounds like 2020.

There are a lot of perfectly reasonable arguments that '24 should be less close than '20, but the country is such a cultural wreck, polling's efficacy as a predictive tool has largely collapsed, so one is left to assume it will indeed look a lot like '20 again - which is to say much closer than a sane person in any normal country could understand it could be, and no doubt another ambiguous Congress to go with it.

[romad1]

Can I just say coming to this page today that this weird thread title is amusing to me.  I know I came up with it under the duress of the Jan6 coup.  I think I might want to get a t-shirt with this on it.   (w/o the hat tip part.)

 

[chasfh]

I don’t know, I just don’t see people flocking back to Trump after having left him disgusted. He might get some people back who left him because they like his ideas but his style rubbed them wrong—I could see where time might heal that wound. I don’t think in enough numbers to swing the election, though, not with so many more people now energized by the abortion issue as well as his can’t-ignore-how-obvious-it-is-anymore criminality. I also don’t think there are so many undecideds on the sidelines anymore. I think he got most of those off their butts in 2020, also at a time there were so many more who came off the sidelines against him.

I was wrong in 2016 about him, mainly because I mistakenly assumed that everyone knew all about him the way we know about him now.

[1984Echoes]

Trump has zero chance in 2024.

Unless he gets his followers to use violence.

Again.

We should be prepared for that. For violence.

I guess what that means is... Biden will need to deploy the National Guard across the nation, perhaps? Or at least in DC?

What a ****ing fascist embarrassment Trump and his white trash MAGA have become to this nation (if not already so...)

[romad1]

35 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

Trump has zero chance in 2024.

Unless he gets his followers to use violence.

Again.

We should be prepared for that. For violence.

I guess what that means is... Biden will need to deploy the National Guard across the nation, perhaps? Or at least in DC?

What a ****ing fascist embarrassment Trump and his white trash MAGA have become to this nation (if not already so...)

The potential that local election boards put forward fraudulent vote totals say in a county with a MAGA sherrif so that he gets enough to overcome Suburban districts scares me.  I think we have people watching but...they aren't above trying that.