2
WhiteHairedJudge 2 points ago +2 / -0

There's this weird pessimism going on

People acting like Biden is going to be Adderall and Steroids and EPO and whatever Barry Bonds took.People saying the event is rigged. Someone just told me the distance between the podiums was unfair to Trump.

Acting like facing CNN moderators is going into the lion's den.

Are folks just playing an expectations game?

1
WhiteHairedJudge 1 point ago +1 / -0

Trump obviously agreed to that.

And what's significantly different from other debates?

It seems like everyone is saying Trump won't be able to think on his feet.

2
WhiteHairedJudge 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why is everyone convinced Trump is going to do poorly?

Like what exactly is going to hinder Trump?

1
WhiteHairedJudge 1 point ago +1 / -0

Et tu Brute,

Trump is a taller, stronger, more imposing, masculine figure with great mobility, while "Biden" is wee and weak, barely able to move - so podiums are placed 15 feet apart, no walking around, no seeing the two men side by side for a physical comparison

1
WhiteHairedJudge 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are they still doing the swimsuit competition?

1
WhiteHairedJudge 1 point ago +1 / -0

I just tried some of the searches they mentioned and I got the RNC and Trump's website were right up top.

1
WhiteHairedJudge 1 point ago +1 / -0

???

If you and I watch the debate, won't we know how Trump did?

-1
WhiteHairedJudge -1 points ago +1 / -2

Why is everyone talking about how Trump will lose?

The tone has been really pessimistic for a bit now.

2
WhiteHairedJudge 2 points ago +2 / -0

But if true, why isn't Coomer blinging it up and hitting the victory circuit like E. Jean?

Two possibilities pop into my head.

He doesn't want to. Either no interest in being a public figure or doesn't want to affect the ongoing cases.

He can't. Lots of settlements require silence. Basically it will be something like we will pay more $$$ only on certain conditions.

I think this is more likely.

E. Jean did not settle. She went to trial and won, so she has no restrictions about speaking out.

The rhetoric from the judges is definitely in Coomer's favor in every instance that I saw, to the point that they sound as though they're arguing on his behalf rather than judging.

Well the case has been going on for a while. A lot of sworn evidence has been submitted. This and the fact that several folks have settled leave me ro believe he has a strong case.

Coomer has declared he never participated in any such call. He supplied things like his schedule to support this.

The documents say there was a call by Denver activists in September that might be the call in question, but the timing isn't an exact match, and one participant said it was not an antifa call and Eric Coomer was not on it and he doesn't know Eric Coomer. So that's what the judges are responding to.

2
WhiteHairedJudge 2 points ago +2 / -0

In April, the appeals court let the case go forward.

https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2024/22CA0843-PD.pdf On page 81 they say

we conclude that Coomer has met his burden of establishing a reasonable likelihood that he will be able to prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.

This is why I think when someone settles after this ruling, the settlement is favorable to Coomer.

Also On page 68 they discuss "Falsity." They mention this (2) Oltmann originally said it was a phone call but later said it was a Zoom call;

2
WhiteHairedJudge 2 points ago +2 / -0

Double Indemnity is a great, great movie.

But that is not what happened in Silverstein's case.

He took his insurers to court to cover two instances of terrorism.

Each plane attack was a separate instance he argued.

He did get more money but way less than double.

2
WhiteHairedJudge 2 points ago +2 / -0

There has never been a copy of any such tape. It seems the call may have never existed.

About 6 people have settled lawsuits with Coomer.

One America News Chanel Rion Sidney Powell Newsmax

Coomer is probably doing very well for himself.

3
WhiteHairedJudge 3 points ago +3 / -0

How exactly does this work? Help me Run the numbers

He buys a lease for the WTC.

It's 95% occupied. So he has four revenue producing buildings and they are worth billions (WTC 1, 2, 4 AND 5)

Then they get destroyed.

So no he has no revenue, but still has to pay 100 million every year in lease payments.

He does get an insurance pay out but he doesn't have any buildings and no revenue. So to get back to where he was he had to spend billions to build new buildings.

1 WTC opened in 2014 and it cost billions to build.

Did he turn a profit on this?

view more: ‹ Prev