Stormy Daniels Sues the President

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
Nope, Seth Abramson is a vainglorious self promoter who dissembles like a rug.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh and yet, even if I award you a "gotcha" point for Abramson quoting "extremely frustrated" if the reporter only said "frustrated," that doesn't justify your slanderous rant.

The Big Dog said:
I read the judge’s order and it does not reflect frustration, it looks like she is doing her job and taking the motion seriously.

I trust that Kimba wood would be pissed off that someone, particularly a self promoting poet, described her as extremely frustrated.
Click to expand...

The report was from the courtroom; your opinion of the judge's order and suppositions about her opinions don't justify your slanderous rant.
 
Last edited:
WilliamSeger said:
Uh-huh and yet, even if I award you a "gotcha" point for Abraham quoting "extremely frustrated" if the reporter only said "frustrated," that doesn't justify your slanderous rant.

The report was from the courtroom; your opinion of the judge's order and suppositions about her opinions don't justify your slanderous rant.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
WilliamSeger said:
Uh-huh and yet, even if I award you a "gotcha" point for Abraham quoting "extremely frustrated" if the reporter only said "frustrated," that doesn't justify your slanderous rant.



The report was from the courtroom; your opinion of the judge's order and suppositions about her opinions don't justify your slanderous rant.
Click to expand...

Does slander have a different meaning in the US from the UK?
 
jimbob said:
Does slander have a different meaning in the US from the UK?
Click to expand...

Well, legally, it means a spoken defamation with malicious intent, so I should have said "libelous rant." Also, legally, the defamation must cause some damage to a reputation to justify a tort, so TBD is safe. But otherwise, it would include stuff like this:

The Big Dog said:
Did you find it amusing because it is obviously bull **** from the idiot Seth Abramson?
Click to expand...

The Big Dog said:
Make with some support about what Seth claimed because it is apparent Seth is full of ****.
Click to expand...

The Big Dog said:
Seth was lying
Click to expand...
 
WilliamSeger said:
Well, legally, it means a spoken defamation with malicious intent, so I should have said "libelous rant." Also, legally, the defamation must cause some damage to a reputation to justify a tort, so TBD is safe. But otherwise, it would include stuff like this:
Click to expand...

Statement of facts, libel proof plaintiff.

Swing and a miss, although I am sure the poet appreciates y’all going to bat for his awful false tweets.

:thumbsup:
 
WilliamSeger said:
Uh-huh and yet, even if I award you a "gotcha" point for Abramson quoting "extremely frustrated" if the reporter only said "frustrated," that doesn't justify your slanderous rant.



The report was from the courtroom; your opinion of the judge's order and suppositions about her opinions don't justify your slanderous rant.
Click to expand...
Made even more ironic since it's coming from the guy that said the judge in the Stormy Daniels case gave Aveneti a "smack down" when he told him to correct his filing. It's amazing how someone can turn their complete ******** on and off like that. A day of chastising means nothing to him, it's just the judge doing their job. A statement from a judge to correct something is a smack down. For *********** stupid.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Made even more ironic since it's coming from the guy that said the judge in the Stormy Daniels case gave Aveneti a "smack down" when he told him to correct his filing. It's amazing how someone can turn their complete ******** on and off like that. A day of chastising means nothing to him, it's just the judge doing their job. A statement from a judge to correct something is a smack down. For *********** stupid.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So much so wrong...

First of all the Judge in the Stormy case actually did give him a smackdown, four times in two separate orders. In comparison, here we have a talking head speculating that the Judge was frustrated based on nothing. Second of all, the Judge in Stormy actually told Thirsty to read the rules not "correct" something (whatever you think that means). Third, "a day of chastising"? What in the heck are you even talking about?

Finally, protip, appeals to hypocrisy are terrible arguments. Let me show you how.

It's amazing how someone can turn their complete ******** on and off like that. Four comments from the Judge in two orders telling Avenatti to read and comply with the rules means nothing to him. A statement from a reporter speculating about the Judge's mood is a smack down.

See? Good
 
The Big Dog said:
So much so wrong...

First of all the Judge in the Stormy case actually did give him a smackdown, four times in two separate orders. In comparison, here we have a talking head speculating that the Judge was frustrated based on nothing. Second of all, the Judge in Stormy actually told Thirsty to read the rules not "correct" something (whatever you think that means). Third, "a day of chastising"? What in the heck are you even talking about?

Finally, protip, appeals to hypocrisy are terrible arguments. Let me show you how.

It's amazing how someone can turn their complete ******** on and off like that. Four comments from the Judge in two orders telling Avenatti to read and comply with the rules means nothing to him. A statement from a reporter speculating about the Judge's mood is a smack down.

See? Good
Click to expand...
Whatever you say TBD. That's just more of the same ******** rationalization you've used when called out every other time. Par for the course.

You couldn't even find the *********** original statement of what the judge said to Cohen's lawyers. I highly doubt you know anything about what actually took place in the courtroom.

Oh, I forgot...LoOks liKe wE lEArnEd oUr LeSsON hErE foLKs
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
Whatever you say TBD. That's just more of the same ******** rationalization you've used when called out every other time. Par for the course.

You couldn't even find the *********** original statement of what the judge said to Cohen's lawyers. I highly doubt you know anything about what actually took place in the courtroom.

Oh, I forgot...LoOks liKe wE lEArnEd oUr LeSsON hErE foLKs
Click to expand...

Wait, a few questions. You think that the transcript was from the courtroom? Second, you think that the judge actually said she was frustrated?

Don’t worry about the false claim about what the judge told Avenatti. It is cool.
 
The Big Dog said:
Wait, a few questions. You think that the transcript was from the courtroom? Second, you think that the judge actually said she was frustrated?

Don’t worry about the false claim about what the judge told Avenatti. It is cool.
Click to expand...
Uh, no. I know it's not the transcript. I also know that people with a brain can tell when other people are frustrated. It's called being observant.

For the record, do you know for a fact if the judge did or didn't say she was frustrated? I have read the transcript so I don't know, so I'll actually asking.

I don't know what nonsense you're going on about with regards to Aveneti. I'm assuming it's more if you're strawmen.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
 
Crossbow said:
Thanks much. This is about what I was thinking as well.

While in many ways, this story about Story Daniels is quite boring, in some very important ways it could result in the first real dent that the Trump lovers may sustain.

After all, if it turns out that Trump actually did pay a porn star to keep quite about the affair that he had with her after his third wife just give birth to his son, then does sure does not reflect well on Trump. Also, there may well be several rather lurid messages between Daniels and Trump that will soon wind up on as cover stories for just about every news organization in the country.

Similarly, if it turns out that Cohen actually did pay off Stormy Daniels, then one has to wonder what other Trump dirt that Cohen may know about. Furthermore, Cohen may well have to disbarment proceedings for doing something so unethical and/or embarrassing to the rest of the legal profession.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope any lawyers/related helping trumpf with anything get disbarred and hopefully jailed just because they helped that piece of slime ridden putrified filth.
 
The Big Dog said:
Wait, a few questions. You think that the transcript was from the courtroom? Second, you think that the judge actually said she was frustrated?

Don’t worry about the false claim about what the judge told Avenatti. It is cool.
Click to expand...

I doubt that Judge Wood said ANYTHING to Michael Avenatti. He was in the gallery watching the proceedings. Avenatti characterized Judge Wood at being frustrated with Cohen's attorneys inability to answer questions.
 
acbytesla said:
I doubt that Judge Wood said ANYTHING to Michael Avenatti. He was in the gallery watching the proceedings. Avenatti characterized Judge Wood at being frustrated with Cohen's attorneys inability to answer questions.
Click to expand...

We were talking about Judge Otero’s orders in the Stormy action.
 
acbytesla said:
I doubt that Judge Wood said ANYTHING to Michael Avenatti. He was in the gallery watching the proceedings. Avenatti characterized Judge Wood at being frustrated with Cohen's attorneys inability to answer questions.
Click to expand...
Avenatti is floating the notion that Stormy Daniels will be watching from the gallery on Monday.
 
The Big Dog said:
So much so wrong...

First of all the Judge in the Stormy case actually did give him a smackdown, four times in two separate orders. In comparison, here we have a talking head speculating that the Judge was frustrated based on nothing. Second of all, the Judge in Stormy actually told Thirsty to read the rules not "correct" something (whatever you think that means). Third, "a day of chastising"? What in the heck are you even talking about?

Finally, protip, appeals to hypocrisy are terrible arguments. Let me show you how.

It's amazing how someone can turn their complete ******** on and off like that. Four comments from the Judge in two orders telling Avenatti to read and comply with the rules means nothing to him. A statement from a reporter speculating about the Judge's mood is a smack down.

See? Good
Click to expand...

I absolutely love how you characterize Otero's denial of Avenatti's requests as a 'smackdown' and are freaking out because it has been suggested by talking heads and Avenatti that Judge Wood was frustrated. Me, I don't read too much in to either.

I've been in court where a judge might berate council over something and a moment later grant him everything he requested.

Take a chill pill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom