(11-03-2023, 05:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Great.
Now that we've all properly called each other names on the school playground like proper children, here is some light reading to consider on the topic of "who might meaningfully testify against Trump."
So Far - these are the folks who made a deal - reportedly more deals are being negotiated that may require testimony as witness for the prosecution.
Quote:Sydney Powell
Sydney Powell is a lawyer who was employed by Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election. She is best known for spreading widely debunked conspiracy theories, misinformation about the results of the election, and her promise of a massive trove of evidence of fraud that she called the "Kraken." This evidence never materialized, however.
Georgia prosecutors also criminally charged her for being heavily involved in a conspiracy to breach voting machines in Coffee County, Georgia, where she illegally collected voter information to unsuccessfully prove her claims of voter fraud. She pleaded guilty ahead of her trial and agreed to work with prosecutors in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Her deal included pleading guilty to six counts of conspiracy to interfere with election duties and admitting that she conspired with local election officials to breach voting machines in Coffee County. Provided she holds up her end of the deal – which may not be a given, considering the public statements she's made contradicting her plea agreement since it was struck – she will be compelled to testify against Donald Trump and other defendants and receive to up to six years of probation, a $6,000 fine, and $2,700 in restitution to replace the broken election equipment. She will also have to write a letter to the people of Georgia admitting and apologizing for her crimes.
Kenneth Chesebro
Kenneth Chesebro was charged with helping develop and enact the Trump campaign's plot to subvert the election by selecting and putting forward slates of false electors in Georgia and six other states. Chesebro was the author of a series of memos that initially spelled out the fake elector strategy, helped coordinate Trump's efforts to enact the plot, and provided his co-conspirators with detailed instructions on how to create and distribute the false documents required to make the fake elector strategy work.
Chesebro's plea deal requires him to admit his role in concocting and implementing the plot, pleading guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit false documents, and testify against his other co-defendants.
His punishment includes five years of probation, $5,000 in restitution, and another letter apologizing to the people of Georgia for attempting to illegally overturn the election.
Jenna Ellis
Jenna Ellis is an attorney with little to no experience in constitutional law who provided Donald Trump with advice on how to press then Vice President Mike Pence to disrupt, delay, and overturn the certification of the election. Despite the illegality and constitutional impossibility of the advice that Ms. Ellis offered, Mr. Trump both listened and attempted to put her plan into action. Mr. Pence ultimately refused, and the election was certified on January 6, 2021 after a delay due to the unprecedented insurrection attempt instigated by Mr. Trump.
Ms. Ellis pleaded guilty to a felony charge of aiding and abetting false statements and writings, and has agreed to fully cooperate with prosecutors moving forward. She will be required to serve five years of probation, pay $5,000 in restitution, and perform 100 hours of community service. She has already written her letter apologizing to the people of Georgia.
She also took the interesting step of giving a statement to the court, in which she implicated Rudy Giuliani for her actions and expressed remorse for her role. Her emotional statement in court was contradicted by public statements she made almost immediately afterward.
Loyalty vs. Self-Preservation
Fani Willis' team has reportedly proposed deals to at least six other co-conspirators in Mr. Trump's Georgia election fraud case. Several more major players have sought deals with prosecutors in the other cases currently facing Mr. Trump. It remains to be seen how many co-defendants ultimately become witnesses for the prosecution.
Text borrowed from a legal blogger. I don't see any inaccuracy.
I don't see how the people responsible for providing legal advice can implicate Trump, as his defense would just be that he did what he was advised. Unless they have hard evidence, this is going to turn into he-said, she-said. Those who want to believe the shes will believe the shes and those who want to believe the hes will believe the hes. Is any Trump hater here willing to demand hard evidence, or are you just ok with finger pointing?
(11-03-2023, 07:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2023, 05:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Great.
Now that we've all properly called each other names on the school playground like proper children, here is some light reading to consider on the topic of "who might meaningfully testify against Trump."
So Far - these are the folks who made a deal - reportedly more deals are being negotiated that may require testimony as witness for the prosecution.
Text borrowed from a legal blogger. I don't see any inaccuracy.
I don't see how the people responsible for providing legal advice can implicate Trump, as his defense would just be that he did what he was advised. Unless they have hard evidence, this is going to turn into he-said, she-said. Those who want to believe the shes will believe the shes and those who want to believe the hes will believe the hes. Is any Trump hater here willing to demand hard evidence, or are you just ok with finger pointing?
The President had lawyers. Those lawyers advised him that he had no legal options to remain President. He demanded they create options anyway. They resigned. He got new lawyers. Those new lawyers are now charged with crimes, along with him, and some have plead guilty. And the ones that plead guilty can no longer practice law.
What's that got to do with who is giving him legal advice? Surely the lawyers aren't listening to the client, unless they are under duress or being bribed. How do you think that works?
(11-03-2023, 07:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2023, 05:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Great.
Now that we've all properly called each other names on the school playground like proper children, here is some light reading to consider on the topic of "who might meaningfully testify against Trump."
So Far - these are the folks who made a deal - reportedly more deals are being negotiated that may require testimony as witness for the prosecution.
Text borrowed from a legal blogger. I don't see any inaccuracy.
I don't see how the people responsible for providing legal advice can implicate Trump, as his defense would just be that he did what he was advised. Unless they have hard evidence, this is going to turn into he-said, she-said. Those who want to believe the shes will believe the shes and those who want to believe the hes will believe the hes. Is any Trump hater here willing to demand hard evidence, or are you just ok with finger pointing?
Lawyer or not. Once a witness under oath testifies for the prosecution - it is a bit more than finger pointing. Sugar coat it if you like.
The emails between Cheseboro and Guliani, combined with the internal memos admitted into evidence and now apparently Trump's twitter DMs that have been entered into evidence, are all going to lay out who directed whom in this illegal plot to alter a fair election.
I wouldn't worry too much about any burden of proof being answered on intent and direction.
From everything I've read the prosecution believes they already have that in hand and these flipped witnesses will merely corroborate it.
(11-04-2023, 10:43 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2023, 07:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see how the people responsible for providing legal advice can implicate Trump, as his defense would just be that he did what he was advised. Unless they have hard evidence, this is going to turn into he-said, she-said. Those who want to believe the shes will believe the shes and those who want to believe the hes will believe the hes. Is any Trump hater here willing to demand hard evidence, or are you just ok with finger pointing?
Lawyer or not. Once a witness under oath testifies for the prosecution - it is a bit more than finger pointing. Sugar coat it if you like.
The emails between Cheseboro and Guliani, combined with the internal memos admitted into evidence and now apparently Trump's twitter DMs that have been entered into evidence, are all going to lay out who directed whom in this illegal plot to alter a fair election.
I wouldn't worry too much about any burden of proof being answered on intent and direction.
From everything I've read the prosecution believes they already have that in hand and these flipped witnesses will merely corroborate it.
I’ve stayed out of this argument because if crimes were committed, this is all appropriate. Trump should be convicted.
With that said, from a legal and political standpoint, they better have this buttoned down. I say this as neutrally as I can: If they can’t convict Trump with these charges, [BLEEP] is going to hit the fan. Big time. It will be labeled, and rightfully so, as a political witch hunt and the blowback will come from all sides because they’re setting a precedence here that is fraught with potential danger.
(11-04-2023, 11:39 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2023, 10:43 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Lawyer or not. Once a witness under oath testifies for the prosecution - it is a bit more than finger pointing. Sugar coat it if you like.
The emails between Cheseboro and Guliani, combined with the internal memos admitted into evidence and now apparently Trump's twitter DMs that have been entered into evidence, are all going to lay out who directed whom in this illegal plot to alter a fair election.
I wouldn't worry too much about any burden of proof being answered on intent and direction.
From everything I've read the prosecution believes they already have that in hand and these flipped witnesses will merely corroborate it.
I’ve stayed out of this argument because if crimes were committed, this is all appropriate. Trump should be convicted.
With that said, from a legal and political standpoint, they better have this buttoned down. I say this as neutrally as I can: If they can’t convict Trump with these charges, [BLEEP] is going to hit the fan. Big time. It will be labeled, and rightfully so, as a political witch hunt and the blowback will come from all sides because they’re setting a precedence here that is fraught with potential danger.
It's true.
Whatever they end up doing regarding sentencing (I expect it to be light) they need to make a strong case on the way to a conviction to prevent "x" amount more blowback.
Unfortunately there is already blowback, and there will be more blowback regardless of how convincing the verdict may be.
When you are up against the cult of "alternate facts" you can prove things convincingly all day long and it still won't matter. I fully expect domestic terrorism in the wake of these verdicts when they come down. The degree will vary according to outcome, but it will happen regardless IMO.
(11-04-2023, 12:14 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2023, 11:39 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve stayed out of this argument because if crimes were committed, this is all appropriate. Trump should be convicted.
With that said, from a legal and political standpoint, they better have this buttoned down. I say this as neutrally as I can: If they can’t convict Trump with these charges, [BLEEP] is going to hit the fan. Big time. It will be labeled, and rightfully so, as a political witch hunt and the blowback will come from all sides because they’re setting a precedence here that is fraught with potential danger.
It's true.
Whatever they end up doing regarding sentencing (I expect it to be light) they need to make a strong case on the way to a conviction to prevent "x" amount more blowback.
Unfortunately there is already blowback, and there will be more blowback regardless of how convincing the verdict may be.
When you are up against the cult of "alternate facts" you can prove things convincingly all day long and it still won't matter. I fully expect domestic terrorism in the wake of these verdicts when they come down. The degree will vary according to outcome, but it will happen regardless IMO.
I hope not, but I think you’re right.
(11-04-2023, 10:43 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2023, 07:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I don't see how the people responsible for providing legal advice can implicate Trump, as his defense would just be that he did what he was advised. Unless they have hard evidence, this is going to turn into he-said, she-said. Those who want to believe the shes will believe the shes and those who want to believe the hes will believe the hes. Is any Trump hater here willing to demand hard evidence, or are you just ok with finger pointing?
Lawyer or not. Once a witness under oath testifies for the prosecution - it is a bit more than finger pointing. Sugar coat it if you like.
The emails between Cheseboro and Guliani, combined with the internal memos admitted into evidence and now apparently Trump's twitter DMs that have been entered into evidence, are all going to lay out who directed whom in this illegal plot to alter a fair election.
I wouldn't worry too much about any burden of proof being answered on intent and direction.
From everything I've read the prosecution believes they already have that in hand and these flipped witnesses will merely corroborate it.
Let me be clear, unless they have evidence that Trump did something... documented evidence, it's the lawyer's responsibility to guide the client. If a patient wants a surgery that's illegal, the doctor is not allowed to perform it, and flipping on the patient shouldn't absolve him of the crime. In this instance, the defense has to prove that Trump believed he lost and was intentionally trying to get a state representative to ILLEGALLY change the results. Based on that transcript, there is no evidence of that claim at all. Unless the lawyers say he was paying them or doing something illicit to change the results, I don't see how this is an issue. Even still, it's one person's word against another's. Thats not really how any defense should be building a case. I think, for this reason, if there is no hard evidence (other than finger pointing), it's going to be difficult to rightfully convict Trump on this charge. I think there will be some blowback, but conservatives are notorious for just talking a big game then backing down. Domestic terrorism is largely non-existent outside of creating a narrative.
(11-03-2023, 05:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Great.
Now that we've all properly called each other names on the school playground like proper children, here is some light reading to consider on the topic of "who might meaningfully testify against Trump."
So Far - these are the folks who made a deal - reportedly more deals are being negotiated that may require testimony as witness for the prosecution.
Quote:Sydney Powell
Sydney Powell is a lawyer who was employed by Donald Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election. She is best known for spreading widely debunked conspiracy theories, misinformation about the results of the election, and her promise of a massive trove of evidence of fraud that she called the "Kraken." This evidence never materialized, however.
Georgia prosecutors also criminally charged her for being heavily involved in a conspiracy to breach voting machines in Coffee County, Georgia, where she illegally collected voter information to unsuccessfully prove her claims of voter fraud. She pleaded guilty ahead of her trial and agreed to work with prosecutors in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Her deal included pleading guilty to six counts of conspiracy to interfere with election duties and admitting that she conspired with local election officials to breach voting machines in Coffee County. Provided she holds up her end of the deal – which may not be a given, considering the public statements she's made contradicting her plea agreement since it was struck – she will be compelled to testify against Donald Trump and other defendants and receive to up to six years of probation, a $6,000 fine, and $2,700 in restitution to replace the broken election equipment. She will also have to write a letter to the people of Georgia admitting and apologizing for her crimes.
Kenneth Chesebro
Kenneth Chesebro was charged with helping develop and enact the Trump campaign's plot to subvert the election by selecting and putting forward slates of false electors in Georgia and six other states. Chesebro was the author of a series of memos that initially spelled out the fake elector strategy, helped coordinate Trump's efforts to enact the plot, and provided his co-conspirators with detailed instructions on how to create and distribute the false documents required to make the fake elector strategy work.
Chesebro's plea deal requires him to admit his role in concocting and implementing the plot, pleading guilty to one felony count of conspiracy to commit false documents, and testify against his other co-defendants.
His punishment includes five years of probation, $5,000 in restitution, and another letter apologizing to the people of Georgia for attempting to illegally overturn the election.
Jenna Ellis
Jenna Ellis is an attorney with little to no experience in constitutional law who provided Donald Trump with advice on how to press then Vice President Mike Pence to disrupt, delay, and overturn the certification of the election. Despite the illegality and constitutional impossibility of the advice that Ms. Ellis offered, Mr. Trump both listened and attempted to put her plan into action. Mr. Pence ultimately refused, and the election was certified on January 6, 2021 after a delay due to the unprecedented insurrection attempt instigated by Mr. Trump.
Ms. Ellis pleaded guilty to a felony charge of aiding and abetting false statements and writings, and has agreed to fully cooperate with prosecutors moving forward. She will be required to serve five years of probation, pay $5,000 in restitution, and perform 100 hours of community service. She has already written her letter apologizing to the people of Georgia.
She also took the interesting step of giving a statement to the court, in which she implicated Rudy Giuliani for her actions and expressed remorse for her role. Her emotional statement in court was contradicted by public statements she made almost immediately afterward.
Loyalty vs. Self-Preservation
Fani Willis' team has reportedly proposed deals to at least six other co-conspirators in Mr. Trump's Georgia election fraud case. Several more major players have sought deals with prosecutors in the other cases currently facing Mr. Trump. It remains to be seen how many co-defendants ultimately become witnesses for the prosecution.
Text borrowed from a legal blogger. I don't see any inaccuracy.
You site something that says Powell was Trump's lawyer. Anything after that is considered null and void as the "lawyer" lies in their first statement.
She never represented Trump. She was fighting the election fraud on her own. She did visit the Whitehouse to discuss it but she wasn't representing Trump.
Also everything she plead to was legal and approved by the county and/or courts in the lawsuits she was bringing.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(11-04-2023, 01:28 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2023, 10:43 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Lawyer or not. Once a witness under oath testifies for the prosecution - it is a bit more than finger pointing. Sugar coat it if you like.
The emails between Cheseboro and Guliani, combined with the internal memos admitted into evidence and now apparently Trump's twitter DMs that have been entered into evidence, are all going to lay out who directed whom in this illegal plot to alter a fair election.
I wouldn't worry too much about any burden of proof being answered on intent and direction.
From everything I've read the prosecution believes they already have that in hand and these flipped witnesses will merely corroborate it.
Let me be clear, unless they have evidence that Trump did something... documented evidence, it's the lawyer's responsibility to guide the client. If a patient wants a surgery that's illegal, the doctor is not allowed to perform it, and flipping on the patient shouldn't absolve him of the crime. In this instance, the defense has to prove that Trump believed he lost and was intentionally trying to get a state representative to ILLEGALLY change the results. Based on that transcript, there is no evidence of that claim at all. Unless the lawyers say he was paying them or doing something illicit to change the results, I don't see how this is an issue. Even still, it's one person's word against another's. Thats not really how any defense should be building a case. I think, for this reason, if there is no hard evidence (other than finger pointing), it's going to be difficult to rightfully convict Trump on this charge. I think there will be some blowback, but conservatives are notorious for just talking a big game then backing down. Domestic terrorism is largely non-existent outside of creating a narrative.
Trump's lawyers aren't absolved. They are being punished. They've lost their licenses. But you are correct that there could be two people pointing at each other saying "I just followed his advice" and it doesn't mean one is guilty and the other is not. They could both be guilty. The question is, guilty of what. You have to read the law. You haven't done that.
(11-04-2023, 03:00 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (11-03-2023, 05:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Great.
Now that we've all properly called each other names on the school playground like proper children, here is some light reading to consider on the topic of "who might meaningfully testify against Trump."
So Far - these are the folks who made a deal - reportedly more deals are being negotiated that may require testimony as witness for the prosecution.
Text borrowed from a legal blogger. I don't see any inaccuracy.
You site something that says Powell was Trump's lawyer. Anything after that is considered null and void as the "lawyer" lies in their first statement.
She never represented Trump. She was fighting the election fraud on her own. She did visit the Whitehouse to discuss it but she wasn't representing Trump.
Also everything she plead to was legal and approved by the county and/or courts in the lawsuits she was bringing.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
You said none of them plead to a felony - which is false.
So everything you said after that is null and void, amirite?
Also - when you get in bed with a liar - you get caught up in their lies:
Trump announced her as part of his legal team in 2020
[/url]Quote:Donald J. Trump
[url=https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump]
@realDonaldTrump
I look forward to Mayor Giuliani spearheading the legal effort to defend OUR RIGHT to FREE and FAIR ELECTIONS! Rudy Giuliani, Joseph diGenova, Victoria Toensing, Sidney Powell, and Jenna Ellis, a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives!
Was he lying then or is he lying now?
Your choice
(11-04-2023, 01:28 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2023, 10:43 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Lawyer or not. Once a witness under oath testifies for the prosecution - it is a bit more than finger pointing. Sugar coat it if you like.
The emails between Cheseboro and Guliani, combined with the internal memos admitted into evidence and now apparently Trump's twitter DMs that have been entered into evidence, are all going to lay out who directed whom in this illegal plot to alter a fair election.
I wouldn't worry too much about any burden of proof being answered on intent and direction.
From everything I've read the prosecution believes they already have that in hand and these flipped witnesses will merely corroborate it.
Let me be clear, unless they have evidence that Trump did something... documented evidence, it's the lawyer's responsibility to guide the client. If a patient wants a surgery that's illegal, the doctor is not allowed to perform it, and flipping on the patient shouldn't absolve him of the crime. In this instance, the defense has to prove that Trump believed he lost and was intentionally trying to get a state representative to ILLEGALLY change the results. Based on that transcript, there is no evidence of that claim at all. Unless the lawyers say he was paying them or doing something illicit to change the results, I don't see how this is an issue. Even still, it's one person's word against another's. Thats not really how any defense should be building a case. I think, for this reason, if there is no hard evidence (other than finger pointing), it's going to be difficult to rightfully convict Trump on this charge. I think there will be some blowback, but conservatives are notorious for just talking a big game then backing down. Domestic terrorism is largely non-existent outside of creating a narrative.
Wait... your whole argument starts with a silly supposition that the prosecutors brought a case with no evidence??
LOL
You don't know what they've got and they aren't showing their cards yet.
Trying to get a state SoS to change an election result IS illegal. No matter if you believe some garbage fraud conspiracy or not.
Tapping into the voting machines to supposedly do their own count was merely one obvious way they they engaged in election interference that correlates and backs up the charge.
That's ridiculous. You and I are weighing in on the same "evidence." That phone call is all the public has to go on regarding Trump's election interference, and it's weak on its own. As to your belief they have more evidence than that, sure that's a possibility. It's not been true historically, but you believe that if you want. As to Trump suggesting that Raffensberger do a better job investigating the election results, I just don't believe that qualifies unless the law is written in a way that makes it so, which I have not seen and you have not provided.
(11-05-2023, 12:03 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]That's ridiculous. You and I are weighing in on the same "evidence." That phone call is all the public has to go on regarding Trump's election interference, and it's weak on its own. As to your belief they have more evidence than that, sure that's a possibility. It's not been true historically, but you believe that if you want. As to Trump suggesting that Raffensberger do a better job investigating the election results, I just don't believe that qualifies unless the law is written in a way that makes it so, which I have not seen and you have not provided.
Wait... You think you the prosecution doesn't have any evidence beyond what you and I have seen?
Seriously?
wow
In other news:
The plea deal flippers are beginning to sing their songs in proffer sessions with prosecutors.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/boss-leave-pro...=104831939
(11-13-2023, 06:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (11-05-2023, 12:03 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]That's ridiculous. You and I are weighing in on the same "evidence." That phone call is all the public has to go on regarding Trump's election interference, and it's weak on its own. As to your belief they have more evidence than that, sure that's a possibility. It's not been true historically, but you believe that if you want. As to Trump suggesting that Raffensberger do a better job investigating the election results, I just don't believe that qualifies unless the law is written in a way that makes it so, which I have not seen and you have not provided.
Wait... You think you the prosecution doesn't have any evidence beyond what you and I have seen?
Seriously?
wow
In other news:
The plea deal flippers are beginning to sing their songs in proffer sessions with prosecutors.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/boss-leave-pro...=104831939
Did you watch the videos or read the story?
So there is hearsay that Trump wasn't going to leave office. Well Trump left so it's a lie or meaningless.
Powell actually said there was fraud and she believes it. She met with Trump a few times to discuss the fraud.
These witnesses do nothing for the get Trump people.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(11-13-2023, 06:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (11-05-2023, 12:03 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]That's ridiculous. You and I are weighing in on the same "evidence." That phone call is all the public has to go on regarding Trump's election interference, and it's weak on its own. As to your belief they have more evidence than that, sure that's a possibility. It's not been true historically, but you believe that if you want. As to Trump suggesting that Raffensberger do a better job investigating the election results, I just don't believe that qualifies unless the law is written in a way that makes it so, which I have not seen and you have not provided.
Wait... You think you the prosecution doesn't have any evidence beyond what you and I have seen?
Seriously?
wow
In other news:
The plea deal flippers are beginning to sing their songs in proffer sessions with prosecutors.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/boss-leave-pro...=104831939
Yup. And this is the type of [BLEEP] I suspected they'd bring to the table. Finger pointing. If that's your "evidence," only people who already think that about Trump will believe it. He said, she said.
Is it on tape? Do they have it in writing? Is there context? I'll wait for something tangible, and I don't believe they will bring it. I'd love to see it if it's true, but it's probably more activism disguised as justice.
(11-14-2023, 01:41 AM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2023, 06:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Wait... You think you the prosecution doesn't have any evidence beyond what you and I have seen?
Seriously?
wow
In other news:
The plea deal flippers are beginning to sing their songs in proffer sessions with prosecutors.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/boss-leave-pro...=104831939
Did you watch the videos or read the story?
So there is hearsay that Trump wasn't going to leave office. Well Trump left so it's a lie or meaningless.
Powell actually said there was fraud and she believes it. She met with Trump a few times to discuss the fraud.
These witnesses do nothing for the get Trump people.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
LOL
There are 90 minutes of footage that didn't get leaked.
And these are just initial proffering sessions - not actual testimony.
Wait for it. It'll get juicier.
I'm sure it will be a Real Housewives episode.
(11-28-2023, 05:23 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Good comments here from Christie about much more than why he thinks Trump is in trouble in these suits (which is coincidentally what I was saying earlier in the thread - the flippers)
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/stat...14228?s=20
Be careful what you wish for. If Trump isn’t the nominee, Haley prolly is, and if the polls are any indication, Biden has no chance of winning. At least against Trump he has about a 25% chance.