I think perhaps, like Giuliani, she'd make a poor witness for the prosecution, so why offer her the chance to flip?
Rudy said, "Truth isn't truth" so swearing to tell the truth can be challenged by the defense. Sidney came across as plain bonkers and therefore could be challenged on her perceptive and reasning skills.
That would depend on what you mean by 'unedited', given any media presentation is edited to some degree by virtue of clips having a starting point and an end.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'cannot be disputed' either. Are you referring to the idea that a clip is evidence of someone saying something, or someone saying something factual, or perfectly argued?
I guess it would also depend on the context within which the clip was bracketted. I might say, "I like vanilla" and nothing more, but it would mean very different things if it was in the context of perfumes, mugs of cocoa, or sex.
Because your comment was about your perception of the US being a 'caring country', I replied in kind.
I have also heard from UK visitors to US theme parks that US visitors to, and employees of US theme parks are remarkably kind and helpful, but that's a somewhat singular demographic compared with the political policies and human rights record, or lack thereof, of the whole country.
You started this exchange by advising me to question things and that my views will be obscured by viewing the mainstream media alone. Like I never ask questions, or don't use multiple sources in a bid to answer those horribly annoying questions.
I think the Trumpian antipathy to mainstream media is egregiously insulting and disrespectful to the many journalists who strive to inform with integrity, particulary those who risk and even lose their lives in pursuit of exposing harsh, dispicable realities.
I'm glad and grateful for this conversation with you, however, because I've gained an insight into how this blanket distrust of the mainstream media: it gives citizens permission to ignore a host of issues that are incongruous with a perception that the US is a 'caring country'. If people didn't feel vulnerabe, marginalised and generally shat on, they wouldn't have been sucked into the Trump cult-a-like madness in the first place.
"That is a fantasy world, not the real world" Judge Arthur F. Engoron
I think there's a difference between thinking you have the right to discuss other people's bodies without their consent and thinking you have the right to discuss politics, or legal matters that are inherently and necessarily in the public domain.
Yes, you mentioned being shocked because you perceive the US as a caring country, but you appear to be avoiding my question about that.
From a European perspective, the US is one of the worst countries globally with respect to human rights violations. I'm not getting information from any magical sources - the death penalty, excessive incarceration particuary of people of colour, no NHS, excessive medication costs, the drone assassination programme, Guantanamo et al, police shootings particularly of people of colour, mass shootings, gerrymandering particuarly affecting people of colour, disenfranchisement of poor people particularly affecting people of colour through unreasonable government ID restrictions and felony disenfranchisement, unequal rights for the LGBTQ+ community - to name just a few 'caring country' issues that are reported in the mainstream media for all to see.
It leaves me wondering if this culture of not believing anything in the mainstream media is a greater means of hiding information in plain sight than any media faults could ever achieve. It leaves me wondering if information is being withheld, or simply ignored.
I don't think he's actually been found guilty on any criminal charges as yet, has he? I thought he has just lost every suit he's brought and been found liable in civil suits brought against him.
Except for the choice between constitutional democracy and no constitutional democracy, of course.
Assuming Trump is going to be eligible to run, or that Biden is actually immoderate rather than comparitively less extreme right wing.
No problem, you're still on topic with respect to Trump's alleged criminality and your perceptions of the culture surrounding that.
I've said this a number of times: the legal proceedings against Trump et al appear well structured and appear to have a lot of depth; the legal proceedings carried out by Trump et al appear to be chaotic, unskilled and frivolous. Unless Repubicans get their act together and stop their social manipuation circus act, there will be no viable Republican party for a while. That is as worrisome as Trump's statements of intent and actual (alleged) attempts to get rid of your constitution and democratic processes altogether.
I created this blog for the purposes of taking the piss out of Trump's recklessness and taking the piss out of myself because the first thing that popped into my head when I saw this story was my own propensity for reusing before recycling.
Not that Trump's vacuous recklessness is a that funny.
Having said that, perhaps the most salient point is Molly Michael's testimony about Trump's behaviour regarding the classified documents case. It's pretty damning.
I'm wondering, having seen this story, how much more there is to come when the case gets to trial. I suspect we may be surprised at the wealth of evidence against Trump with respect to all his criminal indictments.
I didn't create this blog so people could bicker about Biden. I wait with just as much anticipation to see what evidence turns up against him, but that's for another day and another blog.
I did not create this blog so people could demean themselves with babyish personal attacks, or showing their arse like that makes them the biggest boy in the yard. A little more dignity and respect, aye.
I think we can go a step further and add 'non-white wefare recipients' and 'aliens' in a bid to dehumanise and create 'otherness' for social status and economic gain.
That surely is the greater cheat from which so many have prospered and Donald Trump has eagerly utilised for his unique success.
It's perhaps the greatest cheat of all time, to thrive off, to arbitrarily inflate oneself at the expense of deflating, abbreviating 'others'.
It's interesting how those two acts of fraud, Trump's business fraud and social fraud, mirror each other so intimately.
It demonstrates the objectification of people, the commodity value of human life other than his own, in Donald Trump's disordered perception of society. It is the manifestation of his intent, not to serve, but to be served.
Once you accept that defrauding in one currency is unacceptable, you must surely accept the very same fraudulence in human currency is unreasonable and intolerable. Ergo, Trump supporters must support and applaud his financial theft in order to avoid seeing themselves as tender.
You're not cutting anyone any slack when you're gossiping about child abuse allegations you have no evidence for.
You're just contributing to a world where women and girls are vilified, punished and even imprisoned for trying to report genuine abuse, whilst you as a man think it's your right to piss on them by genuinely making unsubstantiated allegations.
You're not even cutting yourself any slack here, having demeaned yourself in this way.
You appear to have your legal cases a bit muddled up.
This case is a civil fraud case.
The only connection with his presidency is that he was protected from prosecution for the duration of his tenure.
Although he was cleary hiding his fraudulent business practises, it wasn't illegal for him to refuse to make his tax records public while in office. It was just poor etiquette and quite rightly suspicious as it turns out.
There are three, or four other legal cases unrelated to this one which deal with his alleged presidential misconduct. Don't panic, there's plenty more to come where you can whine in defense of his presidency.
Btw, you can't minimise this case by trying to make out it involved a few minor tricks, like he pinched a couple of pencils, or claimed business expenses for a sandwich on his day off.
The ruling was that Trump enaged in willful, intentional and persistent business fraud, inflating and deflating the value of his assets to the tune of $3.7 billion for the purposes of tax evasion, or receiving loans he wasn't entitled to.
When people like Trump tax defraud the government they are defrauding, aka thieving from, the people. Not that it's necessary to demonstrate there was a victim; business fraud is illegal in it's own right.
Which begs the question, how do Trump supporters not understand that less money in the government coffers means less expenditure on services for them, higher taxes for themselves to make up the difference, or both?
was that he was not easily outmanuvered by highly intelligent gov officals from abroad, making him able to make good deals on behalf of the american taxpayers.You appear to have your legal cases a bit muddled up.
This case is a civil fraud case.
The only connection with his presidency is that he was protected from prosecution for the duration of his tenure.
Although he was cleary hiding his fraudulent business practises, it wasn't illegal for him to refuse to make his tax records public while in office. It was just poor etiquette and quite rightly suspicious as it turns out.
There are three, or four other legal cases unrelated to this one which deal with his alleged presidential misconduct. Don't panic, there's plenty more to come where you can whine in defense of his presidency.
Btw, you can't minimise this case by trying to make out it involved a few minor tricks, like he pinched a couple of pencils, or claimed business expenses for a sandwich on his day off.
The ruling was that Trump enaged in willful, intentional and persistent business fraud, inflating and deflating the value of his assets to the tune of $3.7 billion for the purposes of tax evasion, or receiving loans he wasn't entitled to.
When people like Trump tax defraud the government they are defrauding, aka thieving from, the people. Not that it's necessary to demonstrate there was a victim; business fraud is illegal in it's own right.
In a 35 page decision, Judge Engoron found Trump has engaged in willful, intentional and persistent fraud by inflating and deflating the value of assets for gainful tax and loan purposes to the value of $3.7 billion.
Trump's accounting firm, Mazars USA, has stated that nothing they have done for Trump in the ast 11 years can be relied upon because they can no longer trust the information provided to them.
All certificates of operation have been cancelled for any entity controlled, or owned by Trump, Trump Jr, Eric, Allen Weisselberg (chief financial officer of the Trump Organization), or Jeff McConney (senior vice president and controller of the Trump Organisation) are cancelled. This means they are out of business in the state and it's of immediate effect.
Within 10 days of the date of the order, Trump must appoint no more than three independent receivers to manage the dissolution of his businesses in NY, including the Trump Organisation and the main trust he inherited from his father which he uses for all his assets.
Disgorgement (taking back profits he gained through fraud) is expected.
The decision will likely be stayed for the purposes of hearing Trump out on appeal because the decision is so devastating.
However, Judge Engoron has already issued sanctions against all of the firms involved in defending Trump to the tune of $7500 each. Sanctions of this nature are very rare, but have been applied on the grounds of his lawyers presenting frivolous motions (the same thing three times in different words) and attempting delaying tactics, as well as mirepresenting and misciting the law.
A part of the issue appears to be that Trump's lawyers from New Jersey and Florida are wholly unfamiliar with the complexities of New York legislation and precedent.
Between the overwhelming evidence of fraud that lead to this rare summary judgement and unskilled defense lawyering, hearing Trump out on appeal may be a fruitless courtesy.
online now!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,998)
I thought Twitter had been renamed X...
Well, Sellotape. You're absolutely correct.Cellotape perhaps implies it's more bidegradable and pastic free than it is.
There are plant based alternatives, however, and we stil call them Sellotape.