• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Georgia Hearing

Slartibartfast said:
I have stated repeatedly that I think this is a matter for the bar.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was until yesterday.

Her time on the stand yesterday ended her career and will probably lead to her being a convicted felon.
 
samiam5211 said:
Maybe it was until yesterday.

Her time on the stand yesterday ended her career and will probably lead to her being a convicted felon.
Click to expand...
based on this phantom evidence that you are sure exists?
 
samiam5211 said:
Oh I'm sure that evidence exists.
Click to expand...
samiam5211 said:
This wasn't a criminal trial of Willis, so there isn't any evidence in the record of the proceeding we saw yesterday.

That doesn't mean that there isn't evidence out there. The press or some other Georgia prosecutor will find it.

I guarantee you that within 12 months Willis will be on trail, and her testimony yesterday will be one of the reasons for it.

None of this has anything to do with whether or not Trump is guilty, and I hope Trump dies in prison.
Click to expand...

Where is it?

Otherwise, all you have is unsupported assertion.
 
Chomsky said:
Where is it?

Otherwise, all you have is unsupported assertion.
Click to expand...


I have never claimed that my assertion is supported.

I promise you that we will get evidence. Willis will be criminally prosecuted for her testimony yesterday.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Image
Click to expand...

Dinesh has no evidence or law on his side, so he's left to attacking "grammar"!
 
Slartibartfast said:
I think once the trial is over, the judge should refer the conduct to the bar, but I am not seeing where it is an issue for the trial itself at this point.
Click to expand...
I agree that it's not an issue for the trial. My point was that the maga cult will try to make it an issue. Fanni should have hired someone else.
 
samiam5211 said:
I have never claimed that my assertion is supported.

I promise you that we will get evidence. Willis will be criminally prosecuted for her testimony yesterday.
Click to expand...

??

Then, it's an unsupported assertion?
 
It seems the prosecution side is bringing a prosecuting attorney to the stand to testify they were first offered Wade's position - which they turned down - before Fani finally Wade to take the job.

If the witnesses hold-up, they would be another nail in the coffin of Trump's case.

BTW - I find this folksy Southern Drawl conversant demeanor & speech-type to be irritating & patronizing.
 
samiam5211 said:
Please point out where I have claimed it is anything other than an unsupported assertion.
Click to expand...

Just making sure I understand the nature of your assertion.

"Duly noted"

In terms of the thread-topic vernacular,

"I rest me case"
 
I don't like this guy's folksy,

"Oh I can't remember my cases, I took the client's word"

*laughter*

That would seem to impeach his other testimony, no?
 
Interesting, Fani's pop is on the stand, and he appears to be a seasoned trial attorney. Apparently, he (and originally) Fani, were from South-Central L.A.!

This last, might explain Fani's tough demeanor & slang.
 
Plaintiff’s lawyer can’t keep Willis’ dad on track.
 
samiam5211 said:
She will be prosecuted.

The told many lies today. Even if nothing she had done before yesterday was against the law, she broke the law yesterday on the witness stand.
Click to expand...
In order to prosecute for lies, you need to be able to prove they are lies. I saw zero evidence to support your assertion that there were lies.
 
Airyaman said:
In order to prosecute for lies, you need to be able to prove they are lies. I saw zero evidence to support your assertion that there were lies.
Click to expand...

Yea, people usually don't get prosecuted on the same day that the commit the crime.

The evidence undoubtedly exists, and there are people who have an axe to grind against her than will go find that evidence.
 
samiam5211 said:
She will be prosecuted.

The told many lies today. Even if nothing she had done before yesterday was against the law, she broke the law yesterday on the witness stand.
Click to expand...
What lies though?
 
butterfly said:
What lies though?
Click to expand...

She didn’t pay him back for those trips, and they were having sex before she hired him.

She told dozens of lies trying to cover those two things up.

I’m not going to argue about it. Check back in 12 months.
 
samiam5211 said:
She didn’t pay him back for those trips, and they were having sex before she hired him.

She told dozens of lies trying to cover those two things up.

I’m not going to argue about it. Check back in 12 months.
Click to expand...
Check back in three months should do it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom