2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +3 / -1

But the military could spring him as he is the Commander and Chief.

No they can't.

I don't know how this plays out, but that is clearly, something the military can't do

3
WHOSkiddingWhO 3 points ago +3 / -0

Jury selection is moving along pretty well.

They thought it would take two weeks, but we already have 5 of the 12, then 6 more alternates

Each side has only 4 challenges left.

0
WHOSkiddingWhO 0 points ago +1 / -1

I guess you haven't heard the news. They settled when it went to discovery

This case has been going on for years.

Lots of discovery has been produced.

In February a couple of things happened.

The judge warned she might sanction the parties if discovery disputes dragged on.

The other was Smartmatic alleged in court papers that OAN

“participated in a crime by soliciting, reviewing, and disseminating information designed to assist bad actors with hacking into Smartmatic’s email communications.”

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/smartmatic-discovery-response-oan-case.pdf This was based on 2001 email that OAN turned over in discovery in 2023. Someone sent a bunchn of info to OAN including a list of passwords. OAN says this was hacked material

Starting in July 2023, OANN produced a series of emails revealing that Charles Herring received what purported to be illegally obtained passwords for the email systems of Smartmatic employes (the “Stolen Passwords”).....The actions taken by Mr. Herring and others at OANN upon receipt of the Stolen Passwords constitute potential criminal activities under state and federal law

Specifically Smartmatic accuses Robert Herring, the head of OAN of emailing the passwords to others.

Smartmatic was asking the judge for more discovery about this.

Let’s get to the merits of this case. Let’s get fact discovery restarted. Let’s get this case moving

So this is not as cut and dried as you imply.

2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +2 / -0

They are asking the judge for permission to discuss these topics if Trump testifies.

So the judge would have to approve these.

Trump said he would testify, but I don't think it's actually going to happen.

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

That silence is often a negotiated part of the settlement. As in they offer you more money to be silent. Or they won't settle if you get to disclose the terms of the settlement.

Here's an example. Virginia Giuffre settled with Epstein in 2009. But we only found out the terms in 2022 after he died

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/03/us/virginia-giuffre-jeffrey-epstein-settlement/index.html

0
WHOSkiddingWhO 0 points ago +1 / -1

There is dropping a lawsuit and settling a lawsuit. They did not drop their lawsuit. They settled their lawsuit.

Settlement usually usually involves both sides

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

The stock opened much higher and now it is at a very low point or near the low point of where DWAC was for a long time.

This gets at what I was wondering. Was the "value" just because the price was higher?

There's a psychological thing called priming. It's about how we process information.

Is this coat worth $200?

Well look it's on sale, marked down from $500!

The fact that it opened so high and then fell quickly, might just be the smart money getting in and out before suckers like me come along.

This post is going around Twitter.

It was posted when day of the stock's high

https://twitter.com/MikeCrispiNJ/status/1772764447901102411?t=PbeUtfG2RXihqQ9jVEgB4A&s=19

Did this guy lose a lot of money?

Or did he buy the stock much earlier and wait to post this tweet to pump the stock.

Did he cash out already ?

I'm a pessimist on stuff like this.

2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +2 / -0

As of writing this post, DJT stock is selling at $22.84 a share which is an absolute steal.

What's the basis for saying this?

If it dips back under $15 per share like happened with DWAC then I will load up. The value is too good to pass up

How does one value a stock like this?

I'm a total novice to this stuff. But the swings have been gigantic

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did you go and read the Newsweek article by William Arkin?

Did you read what these thousands of people actually do?

Also Arkin is not a fan of Trump

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

She was not the CEO of the shipping company involved with the bridge collapse

2
WHOSkiddingWhO 2 points ago +2 / -0

If OAN settled there will be no need for "confidentialtiy".

I think this is assumption.

In fact Smartmatic would want to capitalize on this, and make sure its broadcast on MSM constantly.

Every thing has a price

0
WHOSkiddingWhO 0 points ago +2 / -2

So you give that guy any credibility?

Because he seems like LARPer.

Like half the stuff he "learned" about Avenatti anyone who read Restaurant Business Online 5 years ago could have "learned."

https://www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/financing/charges-against-michael-avenatti-engulf-now-defunct-tullys

To answer u/patriotic_legend 's question does he seem like a credible sauce?

4
WHOSkiddingWhO 4 points ago +4 / -0

How do you infer who paid who from that?

Look at the details.

The lawsuit that was filed in late 2021 had in recent months devolved into messy discovery disputes, wherein Smartmatic and its attorney J. Erik Connolly went so far as to lob allegations that OAN execs had potentially “engaged in criminal activities” by “appear[ing] to have violated state and federal laws regarding data privacy.” The plaintiff alleged that 2021 emails between “Kraken” lawyer Sidney Powell and OAN President Charles Herring indicated that the network had access to a spreadsheet with Smartmatic employees’ passwords, CNN reported.

So Smartmatic sued OAN for defamation. That is civil. You pay money if you lose. Then Smartmatic starts alleging federal crimes.

Seems like the messiness was in one direction. If this true OAN had a motive to stop discovery.

1
WHOSkiddingWhO 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is basically a press release isn't it?

And she already said different months after this letter

5
WHOSkiddingWhO 5 points ago +5 / -0

Is this actually true or just something people on the Internet are saying.

And I don't think it matches with the facts. For example Trump today, was talking about paying Michael Cohen.

Trump said this outside the court

I was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense. Some accountant, I didn’t know, marked it down as a legal expense. That’s exactly what it was… So check it out. It’s called legal expense

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›