Warrior Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Just now, Atticus Finch said: All you have to do is *actually* criticize his comments which, so far, you have not done. You just quickly claimed, in passing, that you disagree and criticize what he said. Again, you're just a dumber version of concha (which is ironic). Again your opinion was wrong, he never denied the holocaust. Go twist and spin yourself all you like. You’ll still be an idiot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Just now, Warrior said: And yet still not denying the holocaust which was your initial claim and the point of this thread. He has been confronted with these quotes and has yet to contextualize his statements or offer any pushback or defense. Again, people with half a brain can juxtapose these to his other comments and understand that it's all in the ballpark. He also has a quote that seems to claim that 6 million Jews weren't killed by the Nazis. That's more context for what he thinks. Guess what? It's that the Holocaust didn't happen like you think! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 1 minute ago, Warrior said: Again your opinion was wrong, he never denied the holocaust. Most quotes are being discovered every day. But keep pounding the table on this narrow point that is buttressed by *other* comments he made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 1 minute ago, Atticus Finch said: Most quotes are being discovered every day. But keep pounding the table on this narrow point that is buttressed by *other* comments he made. It wasn’t a “narrow point” it was YOUR point. Idiot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Just now, Warrior said: It wasn’t a “narrow point” it was YOUR point. Idiot Again, you don't even understand what reporting is and that the Raleigh News & Observer isn't MSNBC, or me. 👇 17 hours ago, Atticus Finch said: You must be confused again about what reporting is. He said this on his Facebook page as reported by the Raleigh News & Observer. NC Lt. Gov. Robinson backs Israel, says he’s ‘never been antisemitic’ despite past comments "this foolishness about Hitler disarming MILLIONS of Jews and then marching them off to concentration camps is a bunch of hogwash" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 3 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: He has been confronted with these quotes and has yet to contextualize his statements or offer any pushback or defense. Again, people with half a brain can juxtapose these to his other comments and understand that it's all in the ballpark. He also has a quote that seems to claim that 6 million Jews weren't killed by the Nazis. That's more context for what he thinks. Guess what? It's that the Holocaust didn't happen like you think! That is some next level spin, 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Just now, Atticus Finch said: Again, you don't even understand what reporting is and that the Raleigh News & Observer isn't MSNBC, or me. 👇 I know what propaganda, you obviously don’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Just now, Warrior said: That is some next level spin, 👍 What's next level is your seeming inability to understand English or that direct quotes are not spin. Or that quotes are not opinions. They're the actual words people said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Just now, Warrior said: I know what propaganda, you obviously don’t. 😄 Irony has just been slaughtered. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warrior Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 3 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: 😄 Irony has just been slaughtered. As your reference propaganda- if that’s not irony…never mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 21 hours ago, Atticus Finch said: 210 of his supporters who were arrested say otherwise. 210 Jan. 6th criminal defendants say Trump incited them In letters to federal judges, federal court filings, and appeals to the public, these defendants and their legal representatives have made it clear that Trump’s repeated false statements and calls to action drove their actions that day. These findings bolster those of the January 6th Select Committee which found Trump was the “central cause” of the attack on the Capitol. Of course that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that any lawyer worth his salt would have told those defendants that they likely could get a lighter sentence by saying those things. Nah! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 21 hours ago, Warrior said: You’re not really this dumb? Don't underestimate Faticus Pinch. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 20 hours ago, DBP66 said: LOL...well 4 grand juries in 4 different state would say you don't know Jack Shit.....and they would be right!...😉 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBigBlack Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 38 minutes ago, Slotback Right said: Is that Weisselberg or Cohen? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBigBlack Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 1 hour ago, Slotback Right said: Of course that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that any lawyer worth his salt would have told those defendants that they likely could get a lighter sentence by saying those things. Nah! And gee fucking whiz, I wonder why. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfaddict1 Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 41 minutes ago, Slotback Right said: 0-2, see below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfaddict1 Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 13 hours ago, I AM IRONMAN said: Yeah, sure you’ll pay up. Stop embarrassing yourselves. Almost as pathetic as this WH I sure would and I question if you need AA… seriously. Seems you enjoy posting quite late and strangely on a consistent basis. Are you ok? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 1 hour ago, Slotback Right said: Of course that wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that any lawyer worth his salt would have told those defendants that they likely could get a lighter sentence by saying those things. Nah! So I say that their defense is that Trump incited them and then your supposed "refutation" is that, yeah, any good lawyer would say the same thing? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 13 minutes ago, GoBigBlack said: Is that Weisselberg or Cohen? It's telling that we can't differentiate between which convicted lawyer/advisor of Trump's it is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 11 minutes ago, golfaddict1 said: I sure would and I question if you need AA… seriously. Seems you enjoy posting quite late and strangely on a consistent basis. Are you ok? It’s all good brother 🫡 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBigBlack Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 16 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said: It’s all good brother 🫡 Posting up on your couch watching Fox News for 5+ hours straight until you pass out every night is not indicative of anything being “all good.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
15yds4gibberish Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 16 hours ago, concha said: The dissents are interesting, in that they say they think the majority overstepped the bounds of what what necessary to decide the case (the 9-0 decision). However, I'm not sure at the interpretation of a "5-4 component" is truly accurate. They appear to say they think that the majority overstepped what they needed to do to simply decide the case. Therefore the "minority" are not agreeing with the "overstepped" part of the majority decision but are not necessarily disagreeing with it either. Fair? To read this ruling you have to understand that it was too much to expect this Court, at this time, in this political context, to apply the Constitution the way the conservatives on the Court claim they should: by dispassionately looking at the constitutional text, and the historical context, and letting the chips fall where they may. This decision was driven by the Court’s perception of what the public reaction would be – Decidedly not originalist or textualist in approach. A strict originalist approach would have led to a perceived undesirable political outcome this court didn't want any part of. In a legal context to say the 5 conservative justices have ‘overstepped,’ is to say they have exceeded what they have the authority to do – usually followed by an enumeration of bad consequences. By definition, it is a disagreement with the majority. To this point, it’s hard to square passages in the dissent like the following with any sort of potential agreement with the 5 conservative majority: ... ... In other words, 5 conservative jurists essentially erased part of the constitution by judicial fiat. We are all living constitutionalists now. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted March 8 Author Report Share Posted March 8 Trump secures $91 million bond for judgment in E. Jean Carroll defamation case AARON KATERSKY and PETER CHARALAMBOUS Fri, March 8, 2024 at 1:56 PM EST·3 min read 5.6k Former President Donald Trump has secured a $91,630,000 bond for the judgment in his defamation case brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll. The former president obtained an appeals bond from the Virginia-based Federal Insurance Company totaling $91,630,000 to cover the $83 million judgment in the case plus interest, according to a court filing Friday morning. Trump on Friday also filed a notice of appeal of the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Either paying the judgment or posting a bond for the judgment's full amount was required for him to move ahead with the appeal. "President Trump respectfully requests that this Court recognize the supersedeas bond obtained by President Trump in the sum of $91,630,000.00 and approve it as adequate and sufficient to stay the enforcement of the Judgment, to the extent that the Judgment awards damages, pending the ultimate disposition of President Trump's appeal," Trump attorney Alina Habba said in Friday's filing. In a statement to ABC News, Habba said they are confident that their appeal will result in the judgment being overturned. "Due to the numerous prejudicial errors made at the lower level, we are highly confident that the Second Circuit will overturn this egregious judgment," Habba said. The conditions of the bond did not specify what assets Trump used to secure the bond. PHOTO: In this June 9, 2017, file photo, President Donald Trump is shown at the White House in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images, FILE) By posting a bond, Trump guaranteed that Carroll can collect the judgment if the former president exhausts his appeal, former federal prosecutor Josh Naftalis told ABC News. The appeal process could take more than a year, Naftalis said. Trump is still appealing the $5 million judgment a jury awarded to Carroll last May after determining the former president had sexually abused her. The former president in January was ordered to pay $83.3 million in damages to Carroll, a former Elle magazine columnist, for defaming her in 2019 when he denied her allegation that he sexually abused her in the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in the 1990s. Trump, who said Carroll was "totally lying" and that she was "not my type," has denied all wrongdoing. On Thursday, the judge overseeing the case denied Trump's request for a temporary delay of the penalties. "Mr. Trump's current situation is a result of his own dilatory actions," Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote in his order Thursday. "He has had since January 26 to organize his finances with the knowledge that he might need to bond this judgment, yet he waited until 25 days after the jury verdict ... to file his prior motion for an unsecured or partially secured stay pending resolution of post-trial motions." Kaplan said that Trump failed to show how the judgment constitutes an "irreparable injury" or demonstrate the expenses he faces by posting a bond in the case. "The expense of ongoing litigation in the absence of a stay does not constitute 'irreparable injury' in the relevant sense of that term," Kaplan wrote. The judge on Friday took note of Trump’s bond but declined to immediately stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal, until he hears from Carroll. If she opposes the arrangements, the judge said he will hear oral arguments on Monday. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 On 3/7/2024 at 12:49 PM, 15yds4gibberish said: To read this ruling you have to understand that it was too much to expect this Court, at this time, in this political context, to apply the Constitution the way the conservatives on the Court claim they should: by dispassionately looking at the constitutional text, and the historical context, and letting the chips fall where they may. This decision was driven by the Court’s perception of what the public reaction would be – Decidedly not originalist or textualist in approach. A strict originalist approach would have led to a perceived undesirable political outcome this court didn't want any part of. In a legal context to say the 5 conservative justices have ‘overstepped,’ is to say they have exceeded what they have the authority to do – usually followed by an enumeration of bad consequences. By definition, it is a disagreement with the majority. To this point, it’s hard to square passages in the dissent like the following with any sort of potential agreement with the 5 conservative majority: ... ... In other words, 5 conservative jurists essentially erased part of the constitution by judicial fiat. We are all living constitutionalists now. Appreciate the reply. I guess in the end we are left with the 9-0 and then disagreement about part of it. I imagine the "5" might disagree with minorities take? Cheers. 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.