Chomper Higgot

I’m absolutely certain you won’t accept the verdict if he is.

Feel free to point out examples of me using offensive language. I don’t need to denigrate any of the witnesses or the defendant.

That’s not entirely true. Defense lawyers exposing a Prosecution witness lying under oath is a very effective means of destroying the case against their client.

It’s a possibility. If possible I’ll watch the verdict announced on FOX. I think it’s a fair balance between the risk of disappointment and the reward of an exquisitely enjoyable FOX reaction.

I don’t mind waiting at all and feel absolutely no urge to prejudge his testimony before he’s even sworn in.

She’s awful keen for Jack Smith to file for her recusal.

Is Hilary receiving free accommodation in your head a permissible campaign contribution I wonder?

This lady’s and gentlemen is the alternate universe Trump supporters inhabit.

There are only twelve opinions that matter.

I see you’ve gone full blown whataboutary.

But of course once the witness is sworn in, on the stand and speaking any attempt to prevent her giving a ‘truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’, might wander into the realms of witness interference. Daniels is reported to have been speaking at pace, and perhaps has a different idea of what constitutes ‘too much detail’ than do others.

What was on display in court was Trump’s depravity.

For the jury to hear details of the affair and determine if that is credible motivation for the alleged crimes. It must have been stomach turning to have to hear, but hearing it and watching the witness, watching the defendant as the testimony was given. It seems very relevant to a full understanding of the case.

The real crimes are listed in the indictment. Stormy Daniels’ testimony speaks to the motivation behind those crimes. The Defence trying to shut down the trial at precisely the point Daniels gives her testimony is confirmation that the Defendant really did not want the details of their affair to become known. It’s very striking that the Defense hasn’t challenged the documentary evidence and testimony to the indicted crimes but are going on full assault to shutdown Daniels, who is not testifying on the matter of ‘crimes’.

The stuff you can’t demonstrate to be incorrect.

You’ve changed your tune on Stern. I wonder what brought that on?!

And demonstrated by their call to dismiss that Defendant Trump really did want to keep his affair with Daniels under wraps.

Well apart from the phone logs. And as you know, testimony is not always corroborated, Juries get to decide if it is credible, especially if other testimony recounts pattern behaviour. Regardless, your slurring the witness is noted.

There’s the reason for his anguish and personal attacks.

Yet more ad hominem. I look forward to you identifying what in my post you objected to is not aligned with US law or US court practice.

What we have evidence of is you attempting to slur the sworn testimony of Daniels with the ‘women can’t be trusted’ trope.

Thank you for bringing up Howard Stern, with the obvious intent that we should pay attention to what he had to say. I hope you too are listening.

So Stormy Daniels is E Jean Carrol air is it women can’t be believed?

Perhaps you should take that up with the Republicans, who scuppered the Bi-Partisan Bordet Security Bill to please Trump.

Go back to the post you are objecting to and identify anything that is outside U.S. Law or U.S. court procedure.