Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1451760)	4/12/2024 1:23:46 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576297

So, you can see there is one that looks messed up. That's progress. But you still find the EJC trial to be legitimate, in spite of having - a temporary reprieve targeting a single incident from the confines of any statute of limitations; - Zero evidence other than years-old hearsay (you may remember, that wasn't good enough for Juanita Broaderick, a rape victim of Bill Clinton, who has had a storied history of actual rape, none of which exists for Trump). - The fact that the plaintiff's claim was an absurdity -- that a major NYC department store had an entire floor selling lingerie yet NOT ONE PERSON besides Trump and his victim was present on that floor. You ever been in a major department store like that, Ten? - The plaintiff cannot remember when this alleged event occurred. In fact, she can't even remember WHAT YEAR it occurred. But the worst of is the fact that the ENTIRE PLOT was taken from an episode of Law & Order. There is no material probability that this tale came from anywhere other than this episode. It is just too perfect: (youtube.com) No person in his right mind would believe her story having watched this brief clip. WHICH IS WHY IT WASN'T played for the jury. I would love for you to comment on how you think this happened. Did the writers for Law & Order get the story from EJC? Or did she get it from them? Which is more likely?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1451760)	4/12/2024 5:15:01 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576297

Yes Inode, that's why I believe the Alvin Bragg case is the weakest of all the criminal cases against Trump. One of the trials, the Tish James politically motivated attack, would steal a half billion dollars from Trump with no basis whatsoever. There was zero evidence to support that outcome. There was no damage to anyone. No loss to anyone. The bankers were begging for more Trump business because they did so well. The best real estate expert/CPA in NYC testified there was NO fraud, NO loss, NO damage, NO impropriety, nothing (same expert James herself often uses because of his unchallenged expertise). The judge (not a jury) threw all evidence out without any basis, actually CITING a claim that Mar A Lago, a property everyone agreed was worth 100s of millions of dollars, but this idiot judge actually raised a property tax appraisal (not the same as a valuation appraisal, and he used it improperly), all the while ignoring the law at will? And you think THAT trial was legitimate?