Hoke Hicks - Compelling words about her testimony

[dmallord]

This judge is antithetical to juris prudence. This trial is nothing more than a 3rd world character assassination attempt. This judge should be reprimanded and impeached for allowing Daniel’s to discuss her past which has no bearing on the case.

Our country hasn't gone anywhere. So you can't 'take it back.'

It stands firm and rooted in place with ideals that transcend your particular brand of patriotism.

The current situation paves the way for Trump to appeal, a move he often makes when found guilty. Consider this perspective. What Daniels said was merely PG-13 testimony, a stretch a tad beyond reason but not irrepressible in the long run. The judge has corrected this and will provide instructions to the jury accordingly.

Hang tight, don't get your bloomers in a bunch.

 

[icanhelp1]

Our country hasn't gone anywhere. So you can't 'take it back.'

It stands firm and rooted in place with ideals that transcend your particular brand of patriotism.

The current situation paves the way for Trump to appeal, a move he often makes when found guilty. Consider this perspective. What Daniels said was merely PG-13 testimony, a stretch a tad beyond reason but not irrepressible in the long run. The judge has corrected this and will provide instructions to the jury accordingly.

Hang tight, don't get your bloomers in a bunch.

Democrat activist judges don’t have to follow *rules of evidence* got it!

Rules of evidence​

---

Courtrooms rely more and more on the information inside a mobile phone as vital evidence. Prevailing evidence in court requires a good understanding of the rules of evidence. Mobile forensics is a relatively new discipline and laws dictating the validity of evidence are not widely known. However, there are five general rules of evidence that apply to digital forensics and need to be followed in order for evidence to be useful. Ignoring these rules makes evidence inadmissible, and your case could be thrown out. These five rules are—admissible, authentic, complete, reliable, and believable.

Admissible​

This is the most basic rule and a measure of evidence validity and importance. The evidence must be preserved and gathered in such a way that it can be used in court or elsewhere. Many errors can be made that could cause a judge to rule a piece of evidence as inadmissible. For example, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible.

Authentic​

The evidence must be tied to the incident in a relevant way to prove something. The forensic examiner must be accountable for the origin of the evidence.

Complete​

When evidence is presented, it must be clear and complete and should reflect the whole story. It is not enough to collect evidence that just shows one perspective of the incident. Presenting incomplete evidence is more dangerous than not providing any evidence at all as it could lead to a different judgment.

Reliable​

Evidence collected from the device must be reliable. This depends on the tools and methodology used. The techniques used and evidence collected must not cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence. If the examiner used some techniques that cannot be reproduced, the evidence is not considered unless they were directed to do so. This would include possible destructive methods such as chip-off extraction.

Believable​

A forensic examiner must be able to explain, with clarity and conciseness, what processes they used and the way the integrity of the evidence was preserved. The evidence presented by the examiner must be clear, easy to understand, and believable by jury.


RULE 403. EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON GROUNDS OF PREJUDICE, CONFUSION, OR WASTE OF TIME

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I heard what she said, adn it blew Braggs ass off

How?

Guess you are hard of hearing aren't you Fuzzy. You must have fuzzy hearing to go with your fuzzy logic

So you can't show me where Hicks "blew Braggs ass off".

And actually I am very hard of hearing, my left ear is 10% and my right is 50%. Without my hearing aids in I don't hear nothing. Very peaceful I must admit.

In rhe legal circles,,,,a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich

Are you trying to imply Trump is a "ham sandwich"?

there is that fuzzy side of your brain acting up again

So you're saying Trump isn't a ham sandwich? Make up your mind!!

Not what I said, I said your fuzzy brain is acting up again

Just to help you out a bit, since you're a tad confused as to the whole back n forth, I've post it, in it's entirety so you can refresh yourself.

First you claimed Hick's blew off Braggs ass, but can't actually show me where or how that occurred in the transcripts ( they are public and available). You then further doubled down and claimed Grand Juries can indict "ham sandwiches", which as anyone knows, sandwiches of any type can't be indicted.

That lead me to wonder if you considered Trump ( who was indicted by a couple Grand Juries) a "ham sandwich". But as usual you failed to clear up exactly what you meant by that. You then wondered off into grade school attempts at insult.

So as the only adult it seems involved in this little go round, and after my synopsis above, maybe you finally answer my two simple questions?

 

[rainsol]

It's follows the logic of what you stated, I believe it was something like:

Grand juries could indict a ham sandwich.
A grand jury indicted Trump.
Ergo, Trump is a ham sandwich.

Now if a grand jury indicted an alleged criminal.
And Trump is now on trial for alleged crimes.
Then...Trump is an alleged criminal.

When a jury finds a defendant guilty
And Trump is the defendant
Then Trump is guilty

See? That is not fuzzy logic at all.

How do you figure? Fuzzy logic too. Federal law being tried in state court, well fuck, that hasnt be done yet

 

[Fuzzy1975]

How do you figure? Fuzzy logic too. Federal law being tried in state court, well fuck, that hasnt be done yet

lol he is not being tried under a Federal statue, but a State one. New York Penal Law §175.10. to be exact. Keep trying to move the goalpost, after all that's about all your good at.

 

[Rightguide]

You MAGAts no longer have the numbers in your voting demographic.
48% max this cycle. The only way you can maintain political power in 2024 is to block the vote of non-white people.
You're a dying demographic with no one faction willing to replace you.
In twenty years, Republicans will be as relevant as Whigs.

Sounds like BS to me. If it were true Joe Biden and his kids wouldn't jumping out of their asses right now in fear of losing the election. For the first time, Trump is going to take a large portion of the black male vote away from the Democrats and many of their women will follow. He will take a large part of the Latino vote as well. Even your intellectual superiors in the Democrat Party are saying they will vote for Trump. More than half the country will vote for Trump. They aren't going anywhere.

 

[Rightguide]

Democrat activist judges don’t have to follow *rules of evidence* got it!

Rules of evidence​

---

Courtrooms rely more and more on the information inside a mobile phone as vital evidence. Prevailing evidence in court requires a good understanding of the rules of evidence. Mobile forensics is a relatively new discipline and laws dictating the validity of evidence are not widely known. However, there are five general rules of evidence that apply to digital forensics and need to be followed in order for evidence to be useful. Ignoring these rules makes evidence inadmissible, and your case could be thrown out. These five rules are—admissible, authentic, complete, reliable, and believable.

Admissible​

This is the most basic rule and a measure of evidence validity and importance. The evidence must be preserved and gathered in such a way that it can be used in court or elsewhere. Many errors can be made that could cause a judge to rule a piece of evidence as inadmissible. For example, evidence that is gathered using illegal methods is commonly ruled inadmissible.

Authentic​

The evidence must be tied to the incident in a relevant way to prove something. The forensic examiner must be accountable for the origin of the evidence.

Complete​

When evidence is presented, it must be clear and complete and should reflect the whole story. It is not enough to collect evidence that just shows one perspective of the incident. Presenting incomplete evidence is more dangerous than not providing any evidence at all as it could lead to a different judgment.

Reliable​

Evidence collected from the device must be reliable. This depends on the tools and methodology used. The techniques used and evidence collected must not cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence. If the examiner used some techniques that cannot be reproduced, the evidence is not considered unless they were directed to do so. This would include possible destructive methods such as chip-off extraction.

Believable​

A forensic examiner must be able to explain, with clarity and conciseness, what processes they used and the way the integrity of the evidence was preserved. The evidence presented by the examiner must be clear, easy to understand, and believable by jury.


RULE 403. EXCLUSION OF RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON GROUNDS OF PREJUDICE, CONFUSION, OR WASTE OF TIME

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Yep. Just made that point in a couple of posts. This trial and the judge are completely corrupt. All involved in this NY prosecution should be sanctioned.

 

[Rightguide]

Campaign expenditures are subject to federal law. You cannot deduct expenses related to your day-to-day activities as "campaign expenses" (for you, let's assume "ammunition purchases" and renewal of your subscriptions to the Grindr app and "Blueboy" magazine). Likewise Trump cannot expense payments for sexual favors.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Rightguide]

Jen Psaki had an interesting story to tell on her MSNBC show today about the first time she ever met Hope Hicks.

It was the first time Hicks had been to the White House. She met with outgoing Obama's Press Secretary for a photo op, then sat down with Psaki, who was then Director of White House Communications.

Hicks had one single question for Psaki: "How do you get your boss to say 'yes'?

Psaki said President Obama had authorized her to to speak on his behalf on issues like press releases to commemorate National Pancake Day, but would always meet with her prior to releasing any statement of substance.

Hicks said, "President Trump is clearly invested in his 'branding' and insists on personally vetting each and every press release". Such a hands-on President!

Is a recognized liar.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Yep. Just made that point in a couple of posts. This trial and the judge are completely corrupt. All involved in this NY prosecution should be sanctioned.

lol and so wrongway has decreed.....If Trump loses, he will have a multitude of avenues to appeal....in no event will the Judge or the Prosecution be sanctioned....

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Someone is Triggered.....

Sounds like BS to me. If it were true Joe Biden and his kids wouldn't jumping out of their asses right now in fear of losing the election. For the first time, Trump is going to take a large portion of the black male vote away from the Democrats and many of their women will follow. He will take a large part of the Latino vote as well. Even your intellectual superiors in the Democrat Party are saying they will vote for Trump. More than half the country will vote for Trump. They aren't going anywhere.

Yep. Just made that point in a couple of posts. This trial and the judge are completely corrupt. All involved in this NY prosecution should be sanctioned.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Is a recognized liar.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Someone is Triggered.....

Yup. He's following me everywhere like a puppy.

Where's Kristi Noem when I need her?

 

[icanhelp1]

lol and so wrongway has decreed.....If Trump loses, he will have a multitude of avenues to appeal....in no event will the Judge or the Prosecution be sanctioned....

If Trump is falsely convicted of a nothing crime that gives Biden a bumper sticker slogan that Trump is a felon well past the election cycle or the appellate decision.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Is Hope fuzzy?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

If Trump is falsely convicted of a nothing crime that gives Biden a bumper sticker slogan that Trump is a felon well past the election cycle or the appellate decision.

If Trump is convicted, it is by a jury of his peers, just like any other person who is on trial in front of a jury. You don't have to state you will vote for Trump if he is convicted, you've already shown that you're a member of his cult, and are a RINO.

 

[icanhelp1]

If Trump is convicted, it is by a jury of his peers, just like any other person who is on trial in front of a jury. You don't have to state you will vote for Trump if he is convicted, you've already shown that you're a member of his cult, and are a RINO.

When a rogue DA and a bias judge poison the jury the defense will appeal the trial. This trial is not about a permanent conviction, it's about keeping Trump tied to a trial tainted with gobs of salacious material inappropriately presented in such a manner as to confuse a jury. Daniel's testimony was inappropriate, irrelevant and unrelated to this case. This was nothing short of character assassination and election interference.

 

[Lazaran]

When a rogue DA and a bias judge poison the jury the defense will appeal the trial. This trial is not about a permanent conviction, it's about keeping Trump tied to a trial tainted with gobs of salacious material inappropriately presented in such a manner as to confuse a jury. Daniel's testimony was inappropriate, irrelevant and unrelated to this case. This was nothing short of character assassination and election interference.

^
(Quoted for posterity, stupidity, irony, and hypocrisy.)

ineedhelp1 is obviously confused:

The election interference involved the “catch and kill” conspiracy and the NDA that PREVENTED Stormy Daniels from telling her story.



Now Stormy Daniels is telling her story, and ineedhelp1 and the other orange cock slurped are bigly mad (jealous???)



ineedhelp1

 

[Fuzzy1975]

When a rogue DA and a bias judge poison the jury the defense will appeal the trial. This trial is not about a permanent conviction, it's about keeping Trump tied to a trial tainted with gobs of salacious material inappropriately presented in such a manner as to confuse a jury. Daniel's testimony was inappropriate, irrelevant and unrelated to this case. This was nothing short of character assassination and election interference.

Fuck off with your bullshit. Be honest, rogue, not rouge, you don't give a shit.

 

[icanhelp1]

^
(Quoted for posterity, stupidity, irony, and hypocrisy.)

ineedhelp1 is obviously confused:

The election interference involved the “catch and kill” conspiracy and the NDA that PREVENTED Stormy Daniels from telling her story.

NDAs are not criminal. Catch and kill are not illegal, if that were the case half of congress would be doing time.

Now Stormy Daniels is telling her story, and ineedhelp1 and the other orange cock slurped are bigly mad (jealous???)



ineedhelp1

NDAs are not criminal! Stormy Daniel's testimony is irrelevant to this trial. She can peddle her salacious story in a book, not in front of a jury. You are obviously confused.

Since you're so infatuated with the Donald's cock just maybe if you get on your knees and beg him he'll let you have your way with his cock?

 

[Lazaran]

NDAs are not criminal.

^
(Quotes for posterity and stupidity)

ineedhelp1 seems to have problems with reading and comprehension.

< checks notes >

Nope, I definitely never claimed NDAs are “criminal”.



ineedhelp1

 

[Fuzzy1975]

NDAs are not criminal. Catch and kill are not illegal, if that were the case half of congress would be doing time.

NDAs are not criminal! Stormy Daniel's testimony is irrelevant to this trial. She can peddle her salacious story in a book, not in front of a jury. You are obviously confused.

Since you're so infatuated with the Donald's cock just maybe if you get on your knees and beg him he'll let you have your way with his cock?

The trial isn't about NDA's, it's about Falsification of Business Records. How can you people be so fucking stupid all of the time????

Trump changed business records to hide the payments for the NDA's. That is why people are testifying about them. The trial will show whether Trump had a personal interest ( protecting his family from finding out) or was it to hide it from the public since he was running for office. If it was the later, that shows a conspiracy, which is criminal.

Now do you fucking get it? Or do we have to put up with your whining, moaning and complaining for the rest of the trial and possible appeals???

 

[jomar]

When a rogue DA and a bias judge poison the jury the defense will appeal the trial. This trial is not about a permanent conviction, it's about keeping Trump tied to a trial tainted with gobs of salacious material inappropriately presented in such a manner as to confuse a jury. Daniel's testimony was inappropriate, irrelevant and unrelated to this case. This was nothing short of character assassination and election interference.

Meanwhile, the Biden impeachment efforts by house repubs is righteous and godly

 

[icanhelp1]

The trial isn't about NDA's, it's about Falsification of Business Records. How can you people be so fucking stupid all of the time????

The prosecution has had 2 weeks to prove their case. The case is about falsification of business records to influence an election.

Part state statute with bootstrapping a federal charge that both the DOJ and the FEC refused to prosecute on top of a criminal misdemeanor that outran the statute of limitations all rolled up up into a conspiracy charge. Conspiracy to do what is still a mystery? The original indictment was never even mentioned in the prosecution's opening statement. Still questioning what the crime is. Stormy didn't add credibility to the case.

The prosecution is trying to criminalize posting privately owned business records in a privately owned business journal and yet again *NO VICTIM???* If you want to add tax evasion, that falls on Cohen. The charge is so flimsy even democrats are biting their nails.

In comes Stormy Daniel's testimony which has absolutely no relevancy to the case. It is a tactic by the prosecutor to muddy up Donald Trump's name in front of a jury and the world and the judge let it happened. This smells of the Kavanaugh character assassination, typical democrat MO, can't win on merit.

 

[icanhelp1]

Meanwhile, the Biden impeachment efforts by house repubs is righteous and godly

There's enough compelling evidence for an in depth investigation by the DOJ which has already been initiated by IRS whistleblowers but swept under the carpet by a corrupt DOJ running a protection racket for the Biden crime family.. But when levers of justice are controlled by a corrupt entity you get what we have here. Trump get's indicted and Biden walks.

 

[jomar]

There's enough compelling evidence for an in depth investigation by the DOJ which has already been initiated by IRS whistleblowers but swept under the carpet by a corrupt DOJ running a protection racket for the Biden crime family.. But when levers of justice are controlled but a corrupt entity you get what we have here. Trump get's indicted and Biden walks.

Whew, that’s a boatload of denial there. Unlike the N.Y. trial, they’ve had months upon months to do their own investigation and have come up with nada.