Orange Duce

[cradleandshoot]

GO BILLS....

[Farfromgeneva]

yes, the dangers of dysfunction are real.

I realize that you think that parties should fight and obstruct and prevent majority rule, but that's where the dysfunction happens. Governance happens when the parties argue but compromise where majorities can support the outcomes.

For instance, Reagan faced enormous dangers, but didn't have that dysfunction because Dems in Congress weren't obstructionists. They compromised...and on international affairs they by and large supported a strong international presence and national defense. That's where the middle of the electorate were...

And as I've pointed out numerous times, the GOP has won more Presidential elections than Dems over multiple decades by appealing to majorities in the middle, not the lowest base. That's democracy.

What MAGA assumes is that they can't win a majority because of demographics...so, they are trying to achieve power without majority support.

My "vision" isn't "near", the short term is disastrous for the GOP, unless MAGA gains control and we move to authoritarian rule. My "vision" is that defeat of that strategy will eventually result in a rational re-making of the party more in the Lincoln and TR and Reagan tradition, rejecting the most extreme elements of the now MAGA GOP. Nazis simply have no place in Lincoln's or Reagan's GOP...that this isn't obvious tells me how whacked the situation is...short term...I retain long term hope.

Your perspective of the Republican party in your rear view mirror is crystal clear. Do you see the Republican party winning the White House anytime again in your lifetime? We can leave trump out of the equation. Your party has a huge fracture in its basic foundation that desperately needs repair.

Not with Trump.
And they've lost me until there's a non-MAGA compliant candidate.
Gotta reject completely the most extreme, the white "Christian" nationalists, etc.
Get away from all the anti-woke, anti-immigrant emphasis and focus on actual governance again.

But sure, though it may take a couple of cycles, they could actually reform (enough) as early as 2028. More likely 2032, though.

They need to get on the right side of some important issues which have 55+% support...they're on the wrong side on several relative to the electorate. But the right candidate is capable of doing so. The question is whether GOP primary voters, who are typically the most ideological, recognize that to win consistently in a democracy you need to appeal to a majority. That's part of why I think losing badly may be what is required before reform actually becomes attractive to enough of the GOP to win the primaries.

For instance, the Dobbs decision and what red states are doing with the power to restrict healthcare to women is a huge albatross. That's going to be tough to shake, given the evangelical base emphasis on it, but it's possible to do. Losing again and again may wake them up.

And certainly the Dems are perfectly capable of getting too far over their own skis. Pretty much can count on it...

But right now, the MAGA dominated conclusion is that they can't win a majority, so they (those pulling the strings) believe they need to gain and retain power through anti-democracy means. They've given up on democracy. But not on power.

My metaphor went right over your head. Your analogy about more Rs than Ds elected POTUS is sadly relevant. I'm guessing your willing to exclude trump from my comment to follow. The political reality today in 2024 isn't even remotely comparable to Dubya in his 8 years. I don't know if you were on this forum back then? I don't know if you recall the plethora of insulting, disparaging and outright contempt shown by your FLP friends hurled at your boy George? I understand your ability to remember and recall has been greatly inhibited over the years. Your memory has become much more selective over time. Why I've explained to you countless times after you accusing me of being brainwashed by FOX that I don't watch FOX. The normal average person would get it the first time. Hell I've told you probably a dozen times. Sadly that undersized brain of yours that resides in your oversized head was never able to understand what I told you repeatedly. Out of curiosity MD, how many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you get it? .
This is where I get to brag, you only have to tell me something once.
Be honest...did you do drugs to in the 70s?

Is that supposed to be a response to what I actually wrote above, or just another stupid, unresponsive rant?

Excluding alcohol, No.
Nor since.

You?

Nope, I'm just reminding you your memory is defective. How many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you remember it? As for drug use, I plead the Steven Tyler defense...it was the 70s man, I don't remember much. You want a serious answer. My derelict teenage friends and I smoked weed because it was easier to get than booze. I tried cocaine once and hated it. I tried mescaline once and hated it. That is about the extent of it for drug use. My best friend in this world developed a hard core cocaine addiction. I watched him die for 10 years. That maybe why I have the intolerance I have to this day for Coke heads. There is a Neil Young song that still today brings back bad memories of my friend. The Needle and the Damage Done. The one line of every junkies like a setting sun says it all. Have you ever had a tweaked out coke addict who hasn't slept in days come pounding on your back door at 3am while your infant son was sleeping? Been there and done that and never got a tee shirt.
FTR my wife and I do occasionally smoke weed at night before Jeopardy. I have found it works better for the non stop pain in my shoulder than Oxycodone does.

I make no adverse judgments about the choices others have made about drugs. I've joked that I probably should be disqualified from the Presidency given my avoidance...too much of a goody two shoes, but the reality is that I watched a lot of addiction in my family to booze and nicotine, saw my grandparents die from cigarettes, hacking...so had a strong aversion to smoking anything, and sports were a good excuse to just avoid altogether. Again, seeing others addicted, didn't want to test that possibility.

My memory is just fine. So are my reading comprehension skills.

For instance, I didn't mention Fox a single time in my posts, yet you think I don't remember that you don't watch FOX ( though many millions of others do)? How is that even remotely relevant to the above discussion?

Setting aside the addictive considerations (addiction equals Habit plus consequence not just habit) cocaine does far less damage on the brain than “legal” alcohol. And addiction is a broader mental health issue.

You’d find this podcast enlightening I think- not a big difference between prescribed drugs and schedule 1 often.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0600572717

When psychiatrist Marco Ramos of Yale University prescribes antidepressants to patients in distress and they ask him how they work, Ramos admits: We don't really know. And too often, they don't work at all. Despite decades of brain research and billions of dollars spent, psychiatry has made little progress in understanding mental illness. Listen as Ramos explains to EconTalk's Russ Roberts how the myth of the biological basis for mental illness began, why it stubbornly persists, and why honesty about what we know and don't know is the best policy.

GO BILLS.....

Why bother other than to be an jerk?

[cradleandshoot]

yes, the dangers of dysfunction are real.

I realize that you think that parties should fight and obstruct and prevent majority rule, but that's where the dysfunction happens. Governance happens when the parties argue but compromise where majorities can support the outcomes.

For instance, Reagan faced enormous dangers, but didn't have that dysfunction because Dems in Congress weren't obstructionists. They compromised...and on international affairs they by and large supported a strong international presence and national defense. That's where the middle of the electorate were...

And as I've pointed out numerous times, the GOP has won more Presidential elections than Dems over multiple decades by appealing to majorities in the middle, not the lowest base. That's democracy.

What MAGA assumes is that they can't win a majority because of demographics...so, they are trying to achieve power without majority support.

My "vision" isn't "near", the short term is disastrous for the GOP, unless MAGA gains control and we move to authoritarian rule. My "vision" is that defeat of that strategy will eventually result in a rational re-making of the party more in the Lincoln and TR and Reagan tradition, rejecting the most extreme elements of the now MAGA GOP. Nazis simply have no place in Lincoln's or Reagan's GOP...that this isn't obvious tells me how whacked the situation is...short term...I retain long term hope.

Your perspective of the Republican party in your rear view mirror is crystal clear. Do you see the Republican party winning the White House anytime again in your lifetime? We can leave trump out of the equation. Your party has a huge fracture in its basic foundation that desperately needs repair.

Not with Trump.
And they've lost me until there's a non-MAGA compliant candidate.
Gotta reject completely the most extreme, the white "Christian" nationalists, etc.
Get away from all the anti-woke, anti-immigrant emphasis and focus on actual governance again.

But sure, though it may take a couple of cycles, they could actually reform (enough) as early as 2028. More likely 2032, though.

They need to get on the right side of some important issues which have 55+% support...they're on the wrong side on several relative to the electorate. But the right candidate is capable of doing so. The question is whether GOP primary voters, who are typically the most ideological, recognize that to win consistently in a democracy you need to appeal to a majority. That's part of why I think losing badly may be what is required before reform actually becomes attractive to enough of the GOP to win the primaries.

For instance, the Dobbs decision and what red states are doing with the power to restrict healthcare to women is a huge albatross. That's going to be tough to shake, given the evangelical base emphasis on it, but it's possible to do. Losing again and again may wake them up.

And certainly the Dems are perfectly capable of getting too far over their own skis. Pretty much can count on it...

But right now, the MAGA dominated conclusion is that they can't win a majority, so they (those pulling the strings) believe they need to gain and retain power through anti-democracy means. They've given up on democracy. But not on power.

My metaphor went right over your head. Your analogy about more Rs than Ds elected POTUS is sadly relevant. I'm guessing your willing to exclude trump from my comment to follow. The political reality today in 2024 isn't even remotely comparable to Dubya in his 8 years. I don't know if you were on this forum back then? I don't know if you recall the plethora of insulting, disparaging and outright contempt shown by your FLP friends hurled at your boy George? I understand your ability to remember and recall has been greatly inhibited over the years. Your memory has become much more selective over time. Why I've explained to you countless times after you accusing me of being brainwashed by FOX that I don't watch FOX. The normal average person would get it the first time. Hell I've told you probably a dozen times. Sadly that undersized brain of yours that resides in your oversized head was never able to understand what I told you repeatedly. Out of curiosity MD, how many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you get it? .
This is where I get to brag, you only have to tell me something once.
Be honest...did you do drugs to in the 70s?

Is that supposed to be a response to what I actually wrote above, or just another stupid, unresponsive rant?

Excluding alcohol, No.
Nor since.

You?

Nope, I'm just reminding you your memory is defective. How many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you remember it? As for drug use, I plead the Steven Tyler defense...it was the 70s man, I don't remember much. You want a serious answer. My derelict teenage friends and I smoked weed because it was easier to get than booze. I tried cocaine once and hated it. I tried mescaline once and hated it. That is about the extent of it for drug use. My best friend in this world developed a hard core cocaine addiction. I watched him die for 10 years. That maybe why I have the intolerance I have to this day for Coke heads. There is a Neil Young song that still today brings back bad memories of my friend. The Needle and the Damage Done. The one line of every junkies like a setting sun says it all. Have you ever had a tweaked out coke addict who hasn't slept in days come pounding on your back door at 3am while your infant son was sleeping? Been there and done that and never got a tee shirt.
FTR my wife and I do occasionally smoke weed at night before Jeopardy. I have found it works better for the non stop pain in my shoulder than Oxycodone does.

I make no adverse judgments about the choices others have made about drugs. I've joked that I probably should be disqualified from the Presidency given my avoidance...too much of a goody two shoes, but the reality is that I watched a lot of addiction in my family to booze and nicotine, saw my grandparents die from cigarettes, hacking...so had a strong aversion to smoking anything, and sports were a good excuse to just avoid altogether. Again, seeing others addicted, didn't want to test that possibility.

My memory is just fine. So are my reading comprehension skills.

For instance, I didn't mention Fox a single time in my posts, yet you think I don't remember that you don't watch FOX ( though many millions of others do)? How is that even remotely relevant to the above discussion?

Setting aside the addictive considerations (addiction equals Habit plus consequence not just habit) cocaine does far less damage on the brain than “legal” alcohol. And addiction is a broader mental health issue.

You’d find this podcast enlightening I think- not a big difference between prescribed drugs and schedule 1 often.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0600572717

When psychiatrist Marco Ramos of Yale University prescribes antidepressants to patients in distress and they ask him how they work, Ramos admits: We don't really know. And too often, they don't work at all. Despite decades of brain research and billions of dollars spent, psychiatry has made little progress in understanding mental illness. Listen as Ramos explains to EconTalk's Russ Roberts how the myth of the biological basis for mental illness began, why it stubbornly persists, and why honesty about what we know and don't know is the best policy.

GO BILLS.....

Why bother other than to be an jerk?

GO BILLS.......

Goeth hence from the presence of those when you perceiveth not the lips of knowledge.

[cradleandshoot]

GO BILLS....

[Farfromgeneva]

yes, the dangers of dysfunction are real.

I realize that you think that parties should fight and obstruct and prevent majority rule, but that's where the dysfunction happens. Governance happens when the parties argue but compromise where majorities can support the outcomes.

For instance, Reagan faced enormous dangers, but didn't have that dysfunction because Dems in Congress weren't obstructionists. They compromised...and on international affairs they by and large supported a strong international presence and national defense. That's where the middle of the electorate were...

And as I've pointed out numerous times, the GOP has won more Presidential elections than Dems over multiple decades by appealing to majorities in the middle, not the lowest base. That's democracy.

What MAGA assumes is that they can't win a majority because of demographics...so, they are trying to achieve power without majority support.

My "vision" isn't "near", the short term is disastrous for the GOP, unless MAGA gains control and we move to authoritarian rule. My "vision" is that defeat of that strategy will eventually result in a rational re-making of the party more in the Lincoln and TR and Reagan tradition, rejecting the most extreme elements of the now MAGA GOP. Nazis simply have no place in Lincoln's or Reagan's GOP...that this isn't obvious tells me how whacked the situation is...short term...I retain long term hope.

Your perspective of the Republican party in your rear view mirror is crystal clear. Do you see the Republican party winning the White House anytime again in your lifetime? We can leave trump out of the equation. Your party has a huge fracture in its basic foundation that desperately needs repair.

Not with Trump.
And they've lost me until there's a non-MAGA compliant candidate.
Gotta reject completely the most extreme, the white "Christian" nationalists, etc.
Get away from all the anti-woke, anti-immigrant emphasis and focus on actual governance again.

But sure, though it may take a couple of cycles, they could actually reform (enough) as early as 2028. More likely 2032, though.

They need to get on the right side of some important issues which have 55+% support...they're on the wrong side on several relative to the electorate. But the right candidate is capable of doing so. The question is whether GOP primary voters, who are typically the most ideological, recognize that to win consistently in a democracy you need to appeal to a majority. That's part of why I think losing badly may be what is required before reform actually becomes attractive to enough of the GOP to win the primaries.

For instance, the Dobbs decision and what red states are doing with the power to restrict healthcare to women is a huge albatross. That's going to be tough to shake, given the evangelical base emphasis on it, but it's possible to do. Losing again and again may wake them up.

And certainly the Dems are perfectly capable of getting too far over their own skis. Pretty much can count on it...

But right now, the MAGA dominated conclusion is that they can't win a majority, so they (those pulling the strings) believe they need to gain and retain power through anti-democracy means. They've given up on democracy. But not on power.

My metaphor went right over your head. Your analogy about more Rs than Ds elected POTUS is sadly relevant. I'm guessing your willing to exclude trump from my comment to follow. The political reality today in 2024 isn't even remotely comparable to Dubya in his 8 years. I don't know if you were on this forum back then? I don't know if you recall the plethora of insulting, disparaging and outright contempt shown by your FLP friends hurled at your boy George? I understand your ability to remember and recall has been greatly inhibited over the years. Your memory has become much more selective over time. Why I've explained to you countless times after you accusing me of being brainwashed by FOX that I don't watch FOX. The normal average person would get it the first time. Hell I've told you probably a dozen times. Sadly that undersized brain of yours that resides in your oversized head was never able to understand what I told you repeatedly. Out of curiosity MD, how many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you get it? .
This is where I get to brag, you only have to tell me something once.
Be honest...did you do drugs to in the 70s?

Is that supposed to be a response to what I actually wrote above, or just another stupid, unresponsive rant?

Excluding alcohol, No.
Nor since.

You?

Nope, I'm just reminding you your memory is defective. How many times does someone have to tell you the same thing before you remember it? As for drug use, I plead the Steven Tyler defense...it was the 70s man, I don't remember much. You want a serious answer. My derelict teenage friends and I smoked weed because it was easier to get than booze. I tried cocaine once and hated it. I tried mescaline once and hated it. That is about the extent of it for drug use. My best friend in this world developed a hard core cocaine addiction. I watched him die for 10 years. That maybe why I have the intolerance I have to this day for Coke heads. There is a Neil Young song that still today brings back bad memories of my friend. The Needle and the Damage Done. The one line of every junkies like a setting sun says it all. Have you ever had a tweaked out coke addict who hasn't slept in days come pounding on your back door at 3am while your infant son was sleeping? Been there and done that and never got a tee shirt.
FTR my wife and I do occasionally smoke weed at night before Jeopardy. I have found it works better for the non stop pain in my shoulder than Oxycodone does.

I make no adverse judgments about the choices others have made about drugs. I've joked that I probably should be disqualified from the Presidency given my avoidance...too much of a goody two shoes, but the reality is that I watched a lot of addiction in my family to booze and nicotine, saw my grandparents die from cigarettes, hacking...so had a strong aversion to smoking anything, and sports were a good excuse to just avoid altogether. Again, seeing others addicted, didn't want to test that possibility.

My memory is just fine. So are my reading comprehension skills.

For instance, I didn't mention Fox a single time in my posts, yet you think I don't remember that you don't watch FOX ( though many millions of others do)? How is that even remotely relevant to the above discussion?

Setting aside the addictive considerations (addiction equals Habit plus consequence not just habit) cocaine does far less damage on the brain than “legal” alcohol. And addiction is a broader mental health issue.

You’d find this podcast enlightening I think- not a big difference between prescribed drugs and schedule 1 often.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/e ... 0600572717

When psychiatrist Marco Ramos of Yale University prescribes antidepressants to patients in distress and they ask him how they work, Ramos admits: We don't really know. And too often, they don't work at all. Despite decades of brain research and billions of dollars spent, psychiatry has made little progress in understanding mental illness. Listen as Ramos explains to EconTalk's Russ Roberts how the myth of the biological basis for mental illness began, why it stubbornly persists, and why honesty about what we know and don't know is the best policy.

GO BILLS.....

Why bother other than to be an jerk?

GO BILLS.......

Goeth hence from the presence of those when you perceiveth not the lips of knowledge.

Whatever. Nothing worse than a moron who thinks they’re slick. They won’y let go even though they are just accelerating their demise.

[MDlaxfan76]

GO BILLS....

Good luck to the Bills. And the very cold fans!

I tend to think the Bills will beat the spread.
I'd rather the Steelers would win as I think the Ravens would make mincemeat of them in their next game, which would be against them as the lowest winning seed.

[cradleandshoot]

GO BILLS....

Good luck to the Bills. And the very cold fans!

I tend to think the Bills will beat the spread.
I'd rather the Steelers would win as I think the Ravens would make mincemeat of them in their next game, which would be against them as the lowest winning seed.

Actually right now it is very cold but bright sunshine in most of upstate. The field will be as hard as rock. It should be great playing conditions for 2 very good teams. Alot of people don't know this but Sean McDermott and Mike Tomlin are close friends and played together and were roommates at William and Mary. I expect a very exciting and competitive game.

[Kismet]

GO BILLS....

Good luck to the Bills. And the very cold fans!

I tend to think the Bills will beat the spread.
I'd rather the Steelers would win as I think the Ravens would make mincemeat of them in their next game, which would be against them as the lowest winning seed.

Actually right now it is very cold but bright sunshine in most of upstate. The field will be as hard as rock. It should be great playing conditions for 2 very good teams. Alot of people don't know this but Sean McDermott and Mike Tomlin are close friends and played together and were roommates at William and Mary. I expect a very exciting and competitive game.

They cleared the field of snow and parking lots but apparently not the stands and seats.

[cradleandshoot]

GO BILLS....

Good luck to the Bills. And the very cold fans!

I tend to think the Bills will beat the spread.
I'd rather the Steelers would win as I think the Ravens would make mincemeat of them in their next game, which would be against them as the lowest winning seed.

Actually right now it is very cold but bright sunshine in most of upstate. The field will be as hard as rock. It should be great playing conditions for 2 very good teams. Alot of people don't know this but Sean McDermott and Mike Tomlin are close friends and played together and were roommates at William and Mary. I expect a very exciting and competitive game.

They cleared the field of snow and parking lots but apparently not the stands and seats.

Enough Schnapps and you won't even realize your backside is wet.

[MDlaxfan76]

19 degrees, 14 mile hour wind. 66% chance of more snow.

Brrrr.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Taco is out:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/15/us/p ... awyer.html

"Joseph Tacopina, the trial lawyer on Donald J. Trump’s legal team with the most successes defending high-profile clients, will no longer represent the former president in his criminal trial in Manhattan, according to a notice sent to the court on Monday.

Mr. Tacopina also withdrew on Monday from another case in which he was still legally representing Mr. Trump: an appeal of the verdict in a lawsuit brought by the writer E. Jean Carroll. Mr. Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation last year and was ordered to pay Ms. Carroll $5 million.

It was not clear why Mr. Tacopina decided to withdraw, and he declined to comment.

His departure from the two cases comes as Mr. Trump enters a year of legal uncertainty. He faces four criminal indictments, and trials with dates that are up in the air. The trial in Manhattan, in which he is accused of falsifying business records to hide hush-money payments to a porn star during the 2016 election, could begin as early as March.

Its timing may depend on whether the federal trial accusing Mr. Trump of illegally trying to subvert the 2020 election is delayed. That trial is also scheduled for March.

Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.

Why was Trump indicted? The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, brought the case over Trump’s role in a hush-money payment to a porn star, Stormy Daniels, who then agreed to keep quiet about her story of an affair with him. The 34-count indictment accused him of falsifying business records related to the payoff, which came in the last days of the 2016 presidential campaign and may have functioned as an illegal donation to his candidacy.

What do we know about the investigation? The Manhattan district attorney’s office began scrutinizing Trump’s role nearly five years ago. After the start of Bragg’s tenure in 2022, the new district attorney developed concerns about the strength of the case, which was at that point primarily focused on Trump’s business practices. Last summer, Bragg’s prosecutors dug into the hush-money payment, seeking to jump-start the inquiry.

What is Michael Cohen’s role in the case? In 2016, Daniels tried to sell her story to The National Enquirer, but the tabloid turned her down and helped broker a hush-money deal between Cohen, Trump’s fixer at the time, and Daniels’s lawyer instead. Cohen paid $130,000 to Daniels; Trump reimbursed him after the election. In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to several federal crimes, including campaign finance violations, with prosecutors saying that the hush money had amounted to an improper donation to Trump’s campaign.

Who is Karen McDougal and how is she related to the case? McDougal is a former Playboy playmate who tried to sell her story of an affair with Trump during the campaign and reached a $150,000 agreement with The National Enquirer. Rather than publish her account, the tabloid suppressed it in cooperation with Trump and Cohen, an arrangement that was cited by Mr. Bragg's prosecutors in court documents.

What else did the court documents say? The court documents also invoked a payment to a former Trump Tower doorman who claimed that Trump had fathered a child out of wedlock. The National Enquirer paid $30,000 for the rights to his story, although it eventually concluded that his claim was false.

What has Trump said about the case? The former president, who pleaded not guilty, has referred to Bragg, who is Black and a Democrat, as a “racist” and to the criminal investigation as a politically motivated “witch hunt.” In the run-up to the indictment, he made threatening statements reminiscent of his posts in the days before the Jan. 6 attack. After his arraignment, he delivered a speech, during which he described the judge overseeing the case as “Trump-hating.”

What happens next? In the coming months, prosecutors and defense lawyers will exchange documents and evidence and file motions. The next hearing in the case is set for Dec. 4, when the judge, Juan Merchan, will rule on motions. The trial has been scheduled for March 25, three weeks after Super Tuesday, one of the most important days on the Republican presidential primary calendar.

Mr. Trump’s legal team has shrunk, expanded and turned over many times. But Mr. Tacopina, a pugnacious, New York-based defense lawyer, has a long history of trial court wins.

He has represented high-profile clients ranging from the Fox News host Sean Hannity, who on his show called Mr. Tacopina one of the “greatest defense attorneys of all time,” to the former Yankees star Alex Rodriguez and the rapper A$AP Rocky.

But the former president was Mr. Tacopina’s biggest client to date. When the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin L. Bragg, charged Mr. Trump last year, Mr. Tacopina accompanied Mr. Trump to his arraignment.

The lawyer Todd Blanche also represents Mr. Trump, and it is unclear who else might sign on to the case.

The withdrawals came a day before jury selection is set to begin in a second trial stemming from the allegations brought by Ms. Carroll, who accused Mr. Trump of raping her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.

Mr. Trump recently told The New York Times that he wanted to testify in the new trial, and that Mr. Tacopina had advised him against doing so in the first one — a decision the former president said he regretted.

During his closing arguments in the earlier trial, Mr. Tacopina noted that Mr. Trump did not testify and described it as the right decision. There were no questions he could have asked Mr. Trump about the events Ms. Carroll had described, he said, because she could not pinpoint the date of the attack and because Mr. Trump had already denied her claims during a deposition under oath.

Mr. Trump last week delivered part of his own closing remarks in the New York attorney general’s civil case, and was rebuked by the judge for going outside the confines of what he was allowed to talk about.

But state courts tend to be less rigid than federal courts, and it is not clear that the judge in the upcoming defamation trial will tolerate similar behavior if Mr. Trump, who has repeatedly attacked Ms. Carroll on social media, testifies.

During closing arguments in the earlier trial, Mr. Tacopina argued that jurors were entitled to their personal views of Mr. Trump, but he suggested the case was aimed at harming his client politically — a widespread view in Mr. Trump’s world.

“It’s OK however you feel about him,” Mr. Tacopina said. “I said this before. You could hate Donald Trump. It’s OK. But there is a time and a secret place to do that. It’s called a ballot box during an election. It’s not here.”

To other clients, Mr. Tacopina brings a specific level of commitment to cases.

Mr. Rodriguez, in a brief interview, said he could not speak to Mr. Tacopina’s involvement with Mr. Trump, but described his own experience being represented by him as he battled a suspension from Major League Baseball related to steroid use.

“He’s not a person that just phones it in; he lives it,” Mr. Rodriguez said. “When he defends you, he defends you like you’re family.”

[Kismet]

Federal Court this time. No nonsense. No reality TV.

Tacopina likely bolted because at some point the moron wants to testify or be the focus of everything.

He's going to LOSE again. Just like last time except more $$$$$$ to get forked over.

[njbill]

Maybe the thousandairre didn’t pay his bills. Time for more grift.

[Typical Lax Dad]

“Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.”

Hold my beer…..

O.J Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the "Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[12][13] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.

[Brooklyn]

In a brief clip of one of Trump's recent speeches, the former president said, should he be re-elected, "We're going to build an iron dome over our country because we want to protect ourselves. We give iron domes to other countries ... all of them are made in the USA."


https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+t ... e&ie=UTF-8

[Brooklyn]

tRump wins Corn Head state:





57% of the vote

[cradleandshoot]

“Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.”

Hold my beer…..

O.J Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the "Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[12][13] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.

So do you think OJ was guilty?? My opinion is 100% biased. In my world as a lifelong Bills fan OJ was sadly probably guilty. I actually very briefly met OJ once. It was 1976, my sister gave me a HS graduation present. My mom's sister lived in North Hollywood . My cousin Bruce worked at Warner Brothers studios on movies like The Gumball Rally. He was a classic car junkie. OJ was filming a movie with Elizabeth Montgomery at the time. Before my sister and I were booted out OJ walked right past me. He looked at me and smiled and nodded. Pretty heady stuff for a guy like me.

Actually the highlight of my tour directed by my cousin Bruce wound up at Waltons Mountain. I have photogrpic evidence of a very young Cradle standing on the front porch of that iconic TV series.

[Typical Lax Dad]

“Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.”

Hold my beer…..

O.J Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the "Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[12][13] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.

So do you think OJ was guilty?? My opinion is 100% biased. In my world as a lifelong Bills fan OJ was sadly probably guilty. I actually very briefly met OJ once. It was 1976, my sister gave me a HS graduation present. My mom's sister lived in North Hollywood . My cousin Bruce worked at Warner Brothers studios on movies like The Gumball Rally. He was a classic car junkie. OJ was filming a movie with Elizabeth Montgomery at the time. Before my sister and I were booted out OJ walked right past me. He looked at me and smiled and nodded. Pretty heady stuff for a guy like me.

Actually the highlight of my tour directed by my cousin Bruce wound up at Waltons Mountain. I have photogrpic evidence of a very young Cradle standing on the front porch of that iconic TV series.

What do you think I believe about OJ’s trial?

[cradleandshoot]

“Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.”

Hold my beer…..

O.J Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the "Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[12][13] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.

So do you think OJ was guilty?? My opinion is 100% biased. In my world as a lifelong Bills fan OJ was sadly probably guilty. I actually very briefly met OJ once. It was 1976, my sister gave me a HS graduation present. My mom's sister lived in North Hollywood . My cousin Bruce worked at Warner Brothers studios on movies like The Gumball Rally. He was a classic car junkie. OJ was filming a movie with Elizabeth Montgomery at the time. Before my sister and I were booted out OJ walked right past me. He looked at me and smiled and nodded. Pretty heady stuff for a guy like me.

Actually the highlight of my tour directed by my cousin Bruce wound up at Waltons Mountain. I have photogrpic evidence of a very young Cradle standing on the front porch of that iconic TV series.

What do you think I believe about OJ’s trial?

I'm guessing you and I feel the same way. OJ was found not guilty in a court of law. That is the only opinion that matters. OJs # 32 is still on the ring of honor at Highmark Stadium in Orchard Park. I hope it stays there when they move to their new stadium. I always remember OJ the very first time I saw him play running back I believe it was the Rose Bowl in 1968. His blend of speed and elusiveness has not been matched by very many running backs since. In his era Gayle Sayers before he tore up his knee and of course the legendary James Brown who also was a phenomenal lacrosse player.

[Typical Lax Dad]

“Asked for comment, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, did not directly address Mr. Tacopina’s departure, saying only that Mr. Trump “has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled” as he fights his various cases, which he has slammed as partisan efforts to prevent him from being re-elected president.”

Hold my beer…..

O.J Simpson was represented by a high-profile defense team, referred to as the "Dream Team,” which was initially led by Robert Shapiro[12][13] and subsequently directed by Johnnie Cochran. The team also included F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Robert Kardashian, Shawn Holley, Carl E. Douglas, and Gerald Uelmen. Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld were two additional attorneys who specialized in DNA evidence.

So do you think OJ was guilty?? My opinion is 100% biased. In my world as a lifelong Bills fan OJ was sadly probably guilty. I actually very briefly met OJ once. It was 1976, my sister gave me a HS graduation present. My mom's sister lived in North Hollywood . My cousin Bruce worked at Warner Brothers studios on movies like The Gumball Rally. He was a classic car junkie. OJ was filming a movie with Elizabeth Montgomery at the time. Before my sister and I were booted out OJ walked right past me. He looked at me and smiled and nodded. Pretty heady stuff for a guy like me.

Actually the highlight of my tour directed by my cousin Bruce wound up at Waltons Mountain. I have photogrpic evidence of a very young Cradle standing on the front porch of that iconic TV series.

What do you think I believe about OJ’s trial?

I'm guessing you and I feel the same way. OJ was found not guilty in a court of law. That is the only opinion that matters. OJs # 32 is still on the ring of honor at Highmark Stadium in Orchard Park. I hope it stays there when they move to their new stadium. I always remember OJ the very first time I saw him play running back I believe it was the Rose Bowl in 1968. His blend of speed and elusiveness has not been matched by very many running backs since. In his era Gayle Sayers before he tore up his knee and of course the legendary James Brown who also was a phenomenal lacrosse player.

I have no doubt about his guilt. OJ is an example I use regarding people that committed a crime yet aren’t in jail and there are plenty of people that didn’t comma crime and yet are in jail. Don’t get caught up in the legal system is my advice. OJ Simpson is the best NFL Running Back I have ever seen.