Everyone in that range is obviously having sex without each other.
3 Likes
That’s right. We don’t have enough data to be making the factual claims a certain skier is making down those slippery slopes.
It’s evidence as to whether she had the improper motivation to make the hire for profit. The claim turns to nonsense if it is clear that she knew that Wade would have more money to spend on her if he did not take the job. The claim is that it was a conflict for her to hire him because she did so because she expected to profit. That aspect goes poof if the facts are such that she had reason to believe that he would have less to potentially spend on her if she hired him.
The whole claim seems to reflect Trump’s belief that all women are gold diggers.
2 Likes
“Improper motivation” is not the recusal standard. It’s fine that you have firm opinions on legal issues, but just be aware that you’re pulling it all out of your butt, not the law.
And everybody prefers extended phone conversations to a brief call asking if their sweetie is home and can they come over. Which is what you would expect in an established relationship.
If I recall, the fees were to his firm, not him personally. They included payments to other partners, staff, and expenses.
Especially when said skier admitted he rushed his work and used just the two towers instead of three or more.
And the recusal standard is what? That they didn’t keep detailed records to show that they split expenses evenly?
There are two aspects to this thing – the strict legal claims and Trump’s underlying political fairytale that he is being persecuted because she had improper motivations for pursuing the case.
1 Like
Conflict of interest, i.e., having a financial interest in the prosecution of the defendant. As I have mentioned many times previously.
You can always @ me if you’re gonna talk smack about me. It’s the polite thing to do.
I figured if I mentioned you explicitly, you’d start caterwauling about my stalking you again.
That would be impolite. You’re ignoring the factual deficits in your arguments is my observation.
1 Like
And you’re willfully blind to the blindingly obvious. In my estimation, of course.
No, it’s blindingly obvious to myself and others (in our opinions) that you cannot support your assertions of fact and you’re just sputtering.
2 Likes
“He said, sputtering without facts.”
Great, you’ve devolved into IKYABWAI. Your claims about the cell phone location and what you claimed they proved, was factless and feckless. Any questions?
1 Like
Bradley’s alter ego is Benita Buttrell from In Living Color: “I ain’t one to gossip, so if anyone asks, you ain’t heard it from ME.”
1 Like
Is it a.conflict of interest if the decision to.hire him costs her.money?
Dispassionate observers do post here, however unhappy it makes the True Believers who dismiss legal theories and approaches out of hand because they don’t like them.
No. Only the opposite. Points for creative use of periods.
2 Likes
The admissibility is still to be decided. They can use it as proffer only and argue about it right now in closing, but whether it actually gets admitted is still to be decided.
Anyway, it cannot prove they were in a romantic relationship. All it can possibly prove is that they had more contact near her home than what wade remembered on the stand. It does not prove anything about the nature of the relationship at that stage.
The judge could use it I suppose, if he allows it, as adverse to Wade and implicating Wade in not being totally forthcoming. But again, that is supposition that goes much farther then this judge will allow. I made my predictions above and it seems you have also said you would not DQ her based on this.
So what are your predictions @txlawyer? Do you agree with mine above? I bet we are not that far apart on our predictions. I think we both agree that Merchant and Bradley come off the worst in this whole ordeal and the DA will not be DQ’d. Do you think the defense was actually successful in biasing the jury pool against the DA? I don’t think so…
1 Like