G_Money Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 21 hours ago, LosLobo said: A new Quinnipac Poll was released today, possibly this trial may have broken the past trend. Trump is now trailing both Biden and Haley. 'The gender demographic tells a story to keep an eye on. Propelled by female voters in just the past few weeks, the head-to-head tie with Trump morphs into a modest lead for Biden'. said Quinnipiac University Polling Analyst Tim Malloy. 2024 Matchups: Biden Opens Up Lead Over Trump In Head-To-Head, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Haley Leads Biden 1 On 1, But Trails When Third Party Candidates Are Added | Quinnipiac University Poll Hate to burst your bubble. November is still light years away in this political arena. As I recall in 2016 Hillary was leading in the polls and the rest is history. No doubt those same women, being women will change their minds several more times leading up November. Bottom line, it ain’t over until it’s over. November 7th will determine bragging rights for either side. By all means keep the dream alive! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post LosLobo Posted February 2 Popular Post Share Posted February 2 5 hours ago, G_Money said: Hate to burst your bubble. November is still light years away in this political arena. As I recall in 2016 Hillary was leading in the polls and the rest is history. No doubt those same women, being women will change their minds several more times leading up November. Bottom line, it ain’t over until it’s over. November 7th will determine bragging rights for either side. By all means keep the dream alive! Yet, there was no bubble to burst, just posting the facts. You are preaching to the choir about the uncertainty of polls. You seem to have a poor opinion of women, there is not a stereotype as there is not one for men. Bottom line, nothing is ever over with Trump. If Trump is still on the ticket, as you suggest November is 'still light years away', he will brag about his victory irrespective if he wins or not. I believe in facts, not dreams, propaganda, misinformation or conspiracy theories. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 3 hours ago, G_Money said: Hate to burst your bubble. November is still light years away in this political arena. As I recall in 2016 Hillary was leading in the polls and the rest is history. No doubt those same women, being women will change their minds several more times leading up November. Bottom line, it ain’t over until it’s over. November 7th will determine bragging rights for either side. By all means keep the dream alive! Are you saying that early polls are fairly worthless in predicting the results of the November election? Or are you saying that all polls are worthless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Lacessit Posted February 2 Popular Post Share Posted February 2 (edited) On 2/1/2024 at 1:40 PM, Hanaguma said: Some women do, especially the ones that are attracted to rich and powerful men. They feed off each other. It would appear there are 19 women, apart from E.Jean Carroll, who have come forward to say Trump sexually assaulted them. Victims of a sex predator can feed off each other too. Carroll has set the precedent. It's hard to say which is smaller, Trump's d!ck or his brain. The same probably goes for his supporters, although they are clear winners in the knuckle-dragging area. Edited February 2 by Lacessit 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Danderman123 Posted February 2 Popular Post Share Posted February 2 Roberta Kaplan says Trump threw papers across table at Mar-a-Lago deposition because his legal team agreed to feed her lunch Joe Biden is right about Trump. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 A post with a video from an unapproved social media source contravening our Community Standards has been removed. Please remember social media (YouTube) cannot be used unless it is from a credible news media source or a government agency. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post candide Posted February 2 Popular Post Share Posted February 2 As usual.... Trump lawyer backs off idea that E. Jean Carroll judge had conflict https://news.yahoo.com/trump-attorney-claim-judges-conflict-171719285.html 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted February 2 Share Posted February 2 Yahoo article Updated Tue, January 30, 2024 but thanks for the over-sized headline in case I missed it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_Money Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 12 hours ago, Danderman123 said: Are you saying that early polls are fairly worthless in predicting the results of the November election? Or are you saying that all polls are worthless? Early 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Lacessit Posted February 3 Popular Post Share Posted February 3 2 hours ago, candide said: As usual.... Trump lawyer backs off idea that E. Jean Carroll judge had conflict https://news.yahoo.com/trump-attorney-claim-judges-conflict-171719285.html Alina Habba has backed off because she was facing sanctions if she continued on that path, including disbarment. She failed to check a dubious report to determine there was a credible witness to what she alleged in her letter. She was repeatedly admonished by the judge during the trial for her combative attitude, and lack of knowledge of court procedures. She said in an interview she would rather be pretty than smart, she could fake smart. Not true, and she's about to become more Trump roadkill. 2 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 19 minutes ago, Lacessit said: She failed to check a dubious report to determine there was a credible witness to what she alleged in her letter. I also overshot a bit on this saying --- if there is a former Partner of Paul Weiss, one of the largest law firms in the world who would certainly know the ins-and-outs of judicial conduct and would come out in public that the relationship may be questionable -- then there would maybe be a problem of disclosure. But nothing since the article. mea culpa for me. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post LosLobo Posted February 3 Popular Post Share Posted February 3 24 minutes ago, Lacessit said: Alina Habba has backed off because she was facing sanctions if she continued on that path, including disbarment. She failed to check a dubious report to determine there was a credible witness to what she alleged in her letter. She was repeatedly admonished by the judge during the trial for her combative attitude, and lack of knowledge of court procedures. She said in an interview she would rather be pretty than smart, she could fake smart. Not true, and she's about to become more Trump roadkill. I would agree Donald is about to throw her under the bus. 'Donald Trump’s fans paid for his revenge lawsuits, a private defamation case, his bail, and many more legal headaches. But they also paid to investigate his lawyers. He was looking into the actions of his own lawyers'. 'According to a source familiar with the situation, the private investigators were commissioned to look into missteps by Trump’s legal team in the early stages of his rape defamation case against E. Jean Carroll'. Trump PAC Paid to Investigate Stupidity of Trump’s Own Lawyers 2 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 From the above DailyBeast link: > According to a source familiar with the situation, the private investigators were commissioned to look into missteps by Trump’s legal team in the early stages of his rape defamation case against E. Jean Carroll. < Specifically, this source said, the private eye looked into who Trump’s lawyers had interviewed—and who they hadn’t. While that doesn't mention Joe Tacopina by name, about Trump's not appearing at the NY State victims trial, Tacopina said roughly: What was I supposed to do -- ask him "Where were you in late 1995 or early 1996? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 4 hours ago, jerrymahoney said: From the above DailyBeast link: > According to a source familiar with the situation, the private investigators were commissioned to look into missteps by Trump’s legal team in the early stages of his rape defamation case against E. Jean Carroll. < Specifically, this source said, the private eye looked into who Trump’s lawyers had interviewed—and who they hadn’t. While that doesn't mention Joe Tacopina by name, about Trump's not appearing at the NY State victims trial, Tacopina said roughly: What was I supposed to do -- ask him "Where were you in late 1995 or early 1996? Have I got this right? A Trump PAC is paying PI's to investigate lawyers who Trump hired, and praised to the skies. They were then hampered by the fact he would not listen to them, and had to stand by while he tried to turn courtrooms into political speeches. I understand irony, but this is ridiculous. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, Lacessit said: Have I got this right? A Trump PAC is paying PI's to investigate lawyers who Trump hired, and praised to the skies. They were then hampered by the fact he would not listen to them, and had to stand by while he tried to turn courtrooms into political speeches. I understand irony, but this is ridiculous Some left; some are still on. I see the big-time lawyers who are paid upfront in a no-lose proposition. If they lose it's like well what-a-ya expect? And if they get him off he/she is then always the one that got Trump off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said: Some left; some are still on. I see the big-time lawyers who are paid upfront in a no-lose proposition. If they lose it's like well what-a-ya expect? And if they get him off he/she is then always the one that got Trump off. Alternatively, big-time lawyers could also shy away from having their reputation tarnished by a big loss, or having Trump throw them under the bus for failing. IMO sensible lawyers would not touch a Trump case with a barge pole. Who are Trump's big-time lawyers, who are not indicted as co-conspirators? IIRC he has a motley bar of lawyers defending him in fields where they have no court experience. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 8 minutes ago, Lacessit said: Alternatively, big-time lawyers could also shy away from having their reputation tarnished by a big loss, That is your opinion. The law community is very collegial -- big time trial adversaries during the week can play golf together on the weekends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 Just now, jerrymahoney said: That is your opinion. The law community is very collegial -- big time trial adversaries during the week can play golf together on the weekends. I am aware of that. I am also aware it is clients who determine how well lawyers live, not the colleagues they play golf with. You are not posting a response to my question - who are Trump's big-time lawyers? I forget the circumstances, but one of his lawyers is defending a case where his expertise clearly does not match the trial material. Something like a criminal law expert defending a divorce case, or whatever. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 6 minutes ago, Lacessit said: You are not posting a response to my question - who are Trump's big-time lawyers? You mean you are writing all this stuff and you don't know? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said: You mean you are writing all this stuff and you don't know? The purpose of a question is to learn, do you have a problem with that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Lacessit said: The purpose of a question is to learn, do you have a problem with that? That info could be obtained from a just reasonable Google search., Or even a photo (hint: one of the lawyers sitting next to Trump has won 4 cases at the US Supreme Court as a state solicitor.) Edited February 3 by jerrymahoney 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgealbert Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 The 4 cases won by Christopher Kise. https://www.oyez.org/advocates/christopher_m_kise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 59 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: Or even a photo (hint: one of the lawyers sitting next to Trump has won 4 cases at the US Supreme Court as a state solicitor. And the other? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 49 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: That info could be obtained from a just reasonable Google search., Or even a photo (hint: one of the lawyers sitting next to Trump has won 4 cases at the US Supreme Court as a state solicitor.) It certainly is not the female sitting to the right of Trump, and he doesn't look like he is happy with how things are progressing. Apparently Steven Sadow is a criminal defence lawyer heavyweight, the rest I don't know. On a purely probabilistic basis, what are the odds of a defendant with 91 indictments being acquitted on all of them? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post ozimoron Posted February 3 Popular Post Share Posted February 3 10 hours ago, candide said: As usual.... Trump lawyer backs off idea that E. Jean Carroll judge had conflict https://news.yahoo.com/trump-attorney-claim-judges-conflict-171719285.html On second thoughts it looked expensive. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) 1 minute ago, Lacessit said: On a purely probabilistic basis, what are the odds of a defendant with 91 indictments being acquitted on all of them? Beats me. Edited February 3 by jerrymahoney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, Lacessit said: It certainly is not the female sitting to the right of Trump, and he doesn't look like he is happy with how things are progressing. Apparently Steven Sadow is a criminal defence lawyer heavyweight, the rest I don't know. On a purely probabilistic basis, what are the odds of a defendant with 91 indictments being acquitted on all of them? Fairly high because it looks like none of the important cases will he heard before the election. It appears that there is a holdout judge in the 14th amendment case who has decided to take months to write his dissent, forcing the court to wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lacessit Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, ozimoron said: Fairly high because it looks like none of the important cases will he heard before the election. It appears that there is a holdout judge in the 14th amendment case who has decided to take months to write his dissent, forcing the court to wait. The 14th amendment case is not the most important. Either the RICO case or the DC case would IMO sink Trump. The RICO case has a judge who wants to move quickly, the DC judge, a Trump appointee, is trying to slow things down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozimoron Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 1 minute ago, Lacessit said: The 14th amendment case is not the most important. Either the RICO case or the DC case would IMO sink Trump. The RICO case has a judge who wants to move quickly, the DC judge, a Trump appointee, is trying to slow things down. I think the insurrection case is the most important. The 14th amendment case is just another Trump delaying tactic and prevents progress on the insurrection case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted February 3 Share Posted February 3 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Lacessit said: . The RICO case has a judge who wants to move quickly, the DC judge, a Trump appointee, is trying to slow things down. The Florida Judge is a Trump appointment; the DC Judge is an Obama appointment. I have said many times: I don't care about the outcome of any of the Trump criminal cases as long as he is not again President Edited February 3 by jerrymahoney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now