The Walls be Closing

[Joe Ferguson forever]

https://thehill.com/homenews/4239077-trump-team-drags-out-witness-cross-exam-at-new-york-fraud-trial-live-updates/

 

The valuation of Trump’s triplex apartment — which prosecutors say he massively over valuated — is expected to arise during his appeal of Judge Arthur Engoron’s summary judgment ruling made before the trial began.

Engoron reached the same conclusion as prosecutors in his ruling, writing that New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) “unquestionably satisfied” her burden to prove Trump’s property valuation was inflated.

“Perhaps, if the area is rounded or oddly shaped, it is possible measurements of square footage could come to slightly differing results due to user error. Good-faith measurements could vary by as much as 10-20%, not 200%,” Engoron wrote in the ruling.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[Tommy Callahan]

Engoron and James are partisan hacks 

 

Justice.  Amirite 

[Kemp]

45 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

Engoron and James are partisan hacks 

 

Justice.  Amirite 

Defend this.

 

Anyone not in the cult is a partisan hack, amirite?

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

50 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Defend this.

 

Anyone not in the cult is a partisan hack, amirite?

 

I'll give it a try since they"ll ignore it:

 

"It's the MSM.  They all got together and decided this would be a good story to run to hurt our savior.  But it's not true.  It's just made up by the MIC and the elites....never really happened."

[Tommy Callahan]

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

Defend this.

 

Anyone not in the cult is a partisan hack, amirite?

 

whats the name of the source in the story?

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

2 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

whats the name of the source in the story?

 

 

Anthony Pratt via one of Jack Smith's team...

[Tommy Callahan]

4 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Anthony Pratt via one of Jack Smith's team...

according to sources familiar with the matter.

According to Pratt's account, as described by the sources, Pratt told Trump he believed Australia should start buying its submarines from the United States, to which an excited Trump -- "leaning" toward Pratt as if to be discreet -- then told Pratt two pieces of information about U.S. submarines: the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads they routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected.

it's unclear if the information was accurate, but the episode was investigated by Smith's team

 

Sources said another witness, one of Trump's former employees at Mar-a-Lago, told investigators that, within minutes of Pratt's meeting with Trump, he heard Pratt relaying to someone else some of what Trump had just said.

 

unnamed sources in a site with no journalistic integrity.

 

Been down this road before.

 

 

[Kemp]

8 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

whats the name of the source in the story?

 

 

I'm glad you asked that because you just admitted that if it turns out to be true, it's a crime.

 

In another thread at this site with over a hundred pages, it states that Joe Biden is guilty of taking millions in bribes.

 

In that case, there is no source, so may we conclude that you acknowledge that there is zero evidence of Joe Biden taking bribes?

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, Kemp said:

I'm glad you asked that because you just admitted that if it turns out to be true, it's a crime.

 

In another thread at this site with over a hundred pages, it states that Joe Biden is guilty of taking millions in bribes.

 

In that case, there is no source, so may we conclude that you acknowledge that there is zero evidence of Joe Biden taking bribes?

IT reads like the usual red mean devoid of facts or sources. but it keeps you all hangry for that pound

[Kemp]

7 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

IT reads like the usual red mean devoid of facts or sources. but it keeps you all hangry for that pound

 

You didn't even come close to answering my question.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

[Tommy Callahan]

Wait. In this case the dems support walls?

 

 

[B-Man]

 

3 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

 

2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

 

 

New Leak About Trump Spilling Submarine Secrets Has the Special Counsel's Fingerprints All Over It

 

 

 

Former president Donald Trump allegedly discussed secret details of US nuclear submarine capabilities with an Australian billionaire shortly after leaving office.

 

Sources that appear to be within special counsel Jack Smith's office claimed that the conversation started when paper packaging magnate Anthony Pratt told Trump in a Mar-a-Lago conversation that he thought Australia should buy nuclear submarines from the United States

 

There are a lot of problems with this story.

 

The information obviously came out of Jack Smith's office. Given how his investigation has been run, one must assume the leak was authorized. There is no evidence, which Pratt admits, that what Trump said was classified or even true. All the evidence indicates that Pratt didn't think so because he told a lot of people about the conversation. If he'd thought the information was classified, he probably would've kept it to himself.

 

Smith is tying this case to the prosecution of Trump for storing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Unless there is a document in that trove that holds this information, it is hard to see what it has to do with anything. Pratt, apparently, has been called as a witness, but unless the government is willing to have him relate this allegedly classified information in court and the government agrees that it is classified, it is an interesting anecdote and nothing else.

 

The anecdote blends in neatly, too neatly, with a narrative the Democrats have tried to pin on Trump since before the Russia Hoax imploded.

 

{snip}

 

This story has two purposes. It is a story that will never be told in court but which builds on the storyline Smith needs to convict Trump. He's basically talking to the jury pool to make them predisposed to believe his case. Second, he's playing to the people about to vote in the GOP primary and the general election by telling them Trump can't be trusted with classified information.

 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/10/06/new-leak-about-trump-spilling-submarine-secrets-has-the-special-counsels-fingerprints-all-over-it-n2164744

 

 

( None of the folks here will address the points in the story, but will simply attack me as a 'maga trumper'.  They have little else.)

 

 

[Kemp]

20 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

New Leak About Trump Spilling Submarine Secrets Has the Special Counsel's Fingerprints All Over It

 

 

 

Former president Donald Trump allegedly discussed secret details of US nuclear submarine capabilities with an Australian billionaire shortly after leaving office.

 

Sources that appear to be within special counsel Jack Smith's office claimed that the conversation started when paper packaging magnate Anthony Pratt told Trump in a Mar-a-Lago conversation that he thought Australia should buy nuclear submarines from the United States

 

There are a lot of problems with this story.

 

The information obviously came out of Jack Smith's office. Given how his investigation has been run, one must assume the leak was authorized. There is no evidence, which Pratt admits, that what Trump said was classified or even true. All the evidence indicates that Pratt didn't think so because he told a lot of people about the conversation. If he'd thought the information was classified, he probably would've kept it to himself.

 

Smith is tying this case to the prosecution of Trump for storing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Unless there is a document in that trove that holds this information, it is hard to see what it has to do with anything. Pratt, apparently, has been called as a witness, but unless the government is willing to have him relate this allegedly classified information in court and the government agrees that it is classified, it is an interesting anecdote and nothing else.

 

The anecdote blends in neatly, too neatly, with a narrative the Democrats have tried to pin on Trump since before the Russia Hoax imploded.

 

{snip}

 

This story has two purposes. It is a story that will never be told in court but which builds on the storyline Smith needs to convict Trump. He's basically talking to the jury pool to make them predisposed to believe his case. Second, he's playing to the people about to vote in the GOP primary and the general election by telling them Trump can't be trusted with classified information.

 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/10/06/new-leak-about-trump-spilling-submarine-secrets-has-the-special-counsels-fingerprints-all-over-it-n2164744

 

 

( None of the folks here will address the points in the story, but will simply attack me as a 'maga trumper'.  They have little else.)

 

 

 

You posted an editorial about what happened.

 

"There is no evidence, which Pratt admits, that what Trump said was classified or even true."

 

Pratt is saying he doesn't know whether it was classified or even true.

 

He's not saying it wasn't classified or that it was false.

 

It's all about how you frame words.

 

If it turns out to be true and classified, would you stop supporting Trump?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

36 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

New Leak About Trump Spilling Submarine Secrets Has the Special Counsel's Fingerprints All Over It

 

 

 

Former president Donald Trump allegedly discussed secret details of US nuclear submarine capabilities with an Australian billionaire shortly after leaving office.

 

Sources that appear to be within special counsel Jack Smith's office claimed that the conversation started when paper packaging magnate Anthony Pratt told Trump in a Mar-a-Lago conversation that he thought Australia should buy nuclear submarines from the United States

 

There are a lot of problems with this story.

 

The information obviously came out of Jack Smith's office. Given how his investigation has been run, one must assume the leak was authorized. There is no evidence, which Pratt admits, that what Trump said was classified or even true. All the evidence indicates that Pratt didn't think so because he told a lot of people about the conversation. If he'd thought the information was classified, he probably would've kept it to himself.

 

Smith is tying this case to the prosecution of Trump for storing classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Unless there is a document in that trove that holds this information, it is hard to see what it has to do with anything. Pratt, apparently, has been called as a witness, but unless the government is willing to have him relate this allegedly classified information in court and the government agrees that it is classified, it is an interesting anecdote and nothing else.

 

The anecdote blends in neatly, too neatly, with a narrative the Democrats have tried to pin on Trump since before the Russia Hoax imploded.

 

{snip}

 

This story has two purposes. It is a story that will never be told in court but which builds on the storyline Smith needs to convict Trump. He's basically talking to the jury pool to make them predisposed to believe his case. Second, he's playing to the people about to vote in the GOP primary and the general election by telling them Trump can't be trusted with classified information.

 

https://redstate.com/streiff/2023/10/06/new-leak-about-trump-spilling-submarine-secrets-has-the-special-counsels-fingerprints-all-over-it-n2164744

 

 

( None of the folks here will address the points in the story, but will simply attack me as a 'maga trumper'.  They have little else.)

 

 

Shouldn't the voting public be aware that a credible source (Pratt, Aussie Billionaire) says it's so?

[Joe Ferguson forever]

8 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Otherwise, this is irrelevant; the indictment is about classified material retention and obstruction of a grand-jury subpoena, not a lack of self-control in conversations.

BS.  This type of Cavalierness won't turn off ultra MAGA's like you and the chorus here.  It very likely will turn off moderate R's and Independents.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Joe Ferguson forever

[Kemp]

6 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Smith never charged Trump with any crimes associated with his conversations with Pratt.

 

Is that because Smith is reluctant to charge Trump with crimes? Hardly.

 

And it’s not as if the case would be difficult to make, either; a witness at Mar-a-Lago apparently heard Pratt relate the conversation to others at the club within minutes of speaking to Trump, and then the documentary evidence from Pratt’s emails would cement the charges.

 

If Smith isn’t charging Trump over the conversation with Pratt, we can assume it’s because no crime got committed. In fact, that’s what we should assume, especially with a prosecutor as aggressive as Smith.

 

The New York Times at least hints at some skepticism about the claim:

Even though Mr. Pratt has been interviewed by prosecutors, the people familiar with the matter said, it remained unclear whether Mr. Trump was merely blustering or exaggerating in his conversation with him.

Joe Hockey, a former Australian ambassador to the United States, sought to play down Mr. Trump’s disclosures to Mr. Pratt in a phone interview on Thursday.

“If that’s all that was discussed, we already know all that,” Mr. Hockey said. “We have had Australians serving with Americans on U.S. submarines for years, and we share the same technology and the same weapons as the U.S. Navy.”

 

So why is this leaking out now? Apparently, Smith’s team has Pratt on its witness list for the classified documents/obstruction trial:

 

According to another person familiar with the matter, Mr. Pratt is now among more than 80 people whom prosecutors have identified as possible witnesses who could testify against Mr. Trump at the classified documents trial, which is scheduled to start in May in Federal District Court in Fort Pierce, Fla.

 

I’d guess that Smith will have a very difficult time getting Pratt on the witness stand without an indictment over the conversation.

 

Otherwise, this is irrelevant; the indictment is about classified material retention and obstruction of a grand-jury subpoena, not a lack of self-control in conversations.

 

Both ABC and the NYT report from their sources that Pratt was never shown any classified documents. If Smith wants Pratt to testify, then he’d have to charge Trump over their conversation.

 

https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2023/10/06/abc-trump-passed-nuclear-sub-info-to-australian-member-of-mar-a-lago-n582776

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/us/politics/trump-nuclear-submarine-classified-documents.html

 

 

.

 

Yet, you don't agree that Smith's charges are legit.

 

If you believe that if this item is not charged, it's proof of no crime, then explain the logic that filed charges are not evidence of a crime.

 

You're setting parameters that you refuse to apply across the board.

 

You're being dishonest. 

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

@B-Man.  Do you think it's appropriate for ex prez to discuss nuclear submarines with a Aussie billionaire, non diplomat?  Even with a diplomat?  Regardless of whether it's classified it's unpresidential and does not benefit the country.  It's just his braggadocio....It's who he is.  And that ain't presidential.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Paging @B-Man.  Paging @B-man.  So same question:  Do you think it was appropriate for trump to discuss US nuclear subs with an Aussie Billionaire?

[Tommy Callahan]

3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

Paging @B-Man.  Paging @B-man.  So same question:  Do you think it was appropriate for trump to discuss US nuclear subs with an Aussie Billionaire?

IS there a source saying that actually happened and isn't another MSM story devoid of one?

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

14 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said:

IS there a source saying that actually happened and isn't another MSM story devoid of one?

 

 

The aussie has reportedly been interviewed by Smith's people several times.  He hasn't denied that.  Not sure if he confirmed it.  If it weren't true, I'm sure he'd deny it out of self preservation from harassment....