My wife and I have had separate checking accounts and credit cards since we got married. It was necessary at the time because it would take weeks for mail to catch up to the ship when out to sea. I've seen too many Sailors with joint accounts bounce checks or otherwise run into financial problems. Never happened to us. It's just natural for us this way. Her money is her money and my money is our money.
I figured it would have to be like a civil trial with each party presenting their legal authority for a proposed special instruction, objections to same and a hearing on objections
100 percent wrong. Every one of you devout deranged Trumpsters lack logic and reason.dbm you should know by now...If it's not what the tds damaged seals thinks is correct, ITS WRONG. Their opinion is the only opinion that matters. They are "right" (cough cough cough) about everything. This entire thing is already backfiring horribly. Most people with brains can see right through it and are starting to snap out off it. Look at some of the latest support coming from places you would not think. Jeezuz even some msm channels, (MSM channels) are doing a wtf is happening here. You're posting in an infestation of rampant TDS, which is hilariously drooling over all of this, and the incompetence is glaring. The worse it gets the more the light switch gets turned on. Unfortunately there are severe cases here which are terminal. LOL. Relax man.
It’s not that Hilary was better at hiding things wrt funding the Steele dossier. It’s just that she didn’t have an Alvin Bragg campaigning and being elected on the promise of taking her down looking into it. And the state of New York would have had a much better case against her. But it wasn’t pursued and we all know why.
Yeah, it is.
Trump never weaponized the justice system to the point it is now in New York.
It is a somewhat antiquated practice. I would guess that over the last 10 years, about 60% of this stiff is all digitized for the jury. And they get to keep an exhibit book.
I say it because it's true. Of course, the percentage is just a SWAG, but I'd bet it's accurate within plus or minus 5 percent. The overwhelming majority of the tweets he links are those of deranged Trumpster Twitter Twits who or either dishonest, stupid, or liars. He's destroyed his own credibility by credulously linking them.
msnbc wow.
Unless there is an actual recording, I can't give this much credibility. If there is a recording of him using the N word in that manner it won't matter one iota to any of the hard core Trumpsters here, but it might be the thing that loses Trump enough of the black vote to destroy any chance he has of winning.
But there are the other side of newscasters who have TDS so bad they can't let out a sentence without spewing the same garbage the other way, dishonest, stupid, and liars. So then nobody is credible.
According to what I've heard from the legal beagles on the radio, the transcripts haven't yet been certified as accurate. Apparently the court recorders often make mistakes and those are corrected before the transcripts are certified. The defense and prosecution review the sections of the testimony that the jury wants to hear again and once they agree those sections are accurate it is read to the jury.
It was pursued. Trump's FEC fined the DNC and HRC $113,000 for funding the Steele Dossier with campaign funding and not accurately categorizing the spending. Once the FEC acts it's over so no legal case to be had.
Don't be weak minded. Look into what these people say. It's not hard to detect the dishonest and stupid.
Understood, and it is consistent with my experience. Lawyers have asked me to review the transcripts of my own testimony for accuracy, and sometimes there are errors. It's amazing how well the court reporters usually do, though. It also odd that the press gets copies of the uncertified transcripts, usually on the same day.
Well, I don't know shhh about fudge on law so I have mostly avoided this, but the fact that people who have shown a bias in the past around this topic are saying, "That's odd", is enough for me to believe that something is fishy here (and that is just beyond the charges themselves.)
To be weak minded is to continue and discuss Trumps carnival of court cases to a 45 page thread. Meanwhile there is this which gets buried.
This is why you have zero credibility. Biden was reading a quote from the nominee he was questioning at a hearing.
apnews.com
ajc.newspapers.com
right and if there are pattern that's hard to f with but to the extent they can object in writing, object at trial, propose alternative etc. sometimes the judge doesn't see how the instruction is bad until it plays out. as you know they are pure law so really one of the few good areas for appeal
Your link has nothing to do with Trump so why "but Trump?" Who supports letting abusers abuse? Sure as hell not me.To be weak minded is to continue and discuss Trumps carnival of court cases to a 45 page thread. Meanwhile there is this which gets buried.
But Trump right? What a pitiful excuse for a country we live in. We deserve whatever fate is headed our way!
Yes, Biden was quoting the guy in the hearing. You do understand that, right?Article clipped from Chicago Tribune
Clipping found in Chicago Tribune published in Chicago, Illinois on 6/5/1985.
From the Chicago Tribune
Like that would be a bad thing. BTW, you ever watch those nature documentaries on the cable?
You and OS need to do better too. Biden did actually say that (not a dubbed video), but the video was taken out of context because he was reading a quote attributed to the nominee he was questioning in a hearing.
Fully, but who said lip synced. That wasn't lip synced. And he said it. Biden has a known racial problem with black people.
Believe it or not. That's what happened. The DNC and HRC were fined by the FEC.
If he has a racial problem, it's not because of that video clip. He was reading a quote and he explicitly disapproved of the quote. Period.
Trump stated in his debate with Hillary Clinton that he was going to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate her. That's the parallel I am pointing out. He "campaigned" on the promise of taking her down.
At the end of the day, there are either two possibilities here: A) Either Trump tried to go after Hillary and found out he couldn't (either because he did not have the authority or was told that there was insufficient evidence to do so) or B) Decided to not go after her.
Absolutely. Trump has his rallies. Biden has his Hollywood elites. The only way to get the 5% is to flood them with ads / propaganda in places that are the most likely to be seen. There's a reason that political parties spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising. Seriously, you could take half the money from political ad spending in this country and put it to food and housing programs and probably cut homelessness in this country by 80%
The sound does not appear to be in synch with the lip movements.
Yes, we’ve established that.
Why? They didn't. If you think I'm a fan of this Trump trial, I'm on record saying that it shouldn't have been brought even if he's 100 percent guilty. The document and January 6 trials are the ones that should be happening right now. The documents trial is the one I'm most interested in because I detest mishandling of highly classified information. Guilty or not in that case (and I see no way he's not guilty), I want that to go to trial.
I don't really trust anything he posts because it is mostly either complete bs or merely misleading. And since the audio didn't seem to line up with the lips moving, I assumed wrongly that it was the former.
Even after you pointed that out earlier, DDE doubled down on the lie that these were Biden's words.
You said “Once the FEC acts it’s over so no legal case to be had.”
