witness


                    
                    
                

                

                

            

        
    







            

            
            

                

                    
                

                

                    

                        


	

	
    

        🔥 | Latest
    

    
    

        

        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Alive, Beard, and Children: feniczoroark:

minority-cubed:

princemetalthunder:

skrill-cosby:

drucila616:

How Do Court Reporters Keep Straight Faces?These are from a book called Disorder in the Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place.ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?WITNESS: He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?’ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?WITNESS: My name is Susan!_______________________________ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?WITNESS: No, I just lie there.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?WITNESS: July 18th.ATTORNEY: What year?WITNESS: Every year._____________________________________ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?WITNESS: Forty-five years._________________________________ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?WITNESS: I forget..ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?____________________________________ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?WITNESS: He’s 20, much like your IQ.___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?WITNESS: Are you shitting me?_________________________________________ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?WITNESS: Getting laid____________________________________________ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: How many were boys?WITNESS: None.ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?____________________________________________ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?WITNESS: By death..ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?WITNESS: Take a guess.___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beardATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male._____________________________________ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.______________________________________ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight._________________________________________ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?WITNESS: Oral…_________________________________________ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PMATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?______________________________________And last:ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?WITNESS: No..ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

oh my god these are great

fuck this is like reading a jokes and not actual quotes


The last one is how I feel about all my schoolmates

I can feel the frustration 
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Alive, Beard, and Children: feniczoroark:

minority-cubed:

princemetalthunder:

skrill-cosby:

drucila616:

How Do Court Reporters Keep Straight Faces?These are from a book called Disorder in the Courts and are things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place.ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?WITNESS: He said, ‘Where am I, Cathy?’ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?WITNESS: My name is Susan!_______________________________ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?WITNESS: No, I just lie there.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?WITNESS: July 18th.ATTORNEY: What year?WITNESS: Every year._____________________________________ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can’t remember which.ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?WITNESS: Forty-five years._________________________________ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?WITNESS: I forget..ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn’t know about it until the next morning?WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?____________________________________ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?WITNESS: He’s 20, much like your IQ.___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?WITNESS: Are you shitting me?_________________________________________ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?WITNESS: Getting laid____________________________________________ATTORNEY: She had three children , right?WITNESS: Yes.ATTORNEY: How many were boys?WITNESS: None.ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?____________________________________________ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?WITNESS: By death..ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?WITNESS: Take a guess.___________________________________________ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beardATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male._____________________________________ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.______________________________________ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight._________________________________________ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?WITNESS: Oral…_________________________________________ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PMATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.____________________________________________ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?______________________________________And last:ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?WITNESS: No..ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?WITNESS: No.ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

oh my god these are great

fuck this is like reading a jokes and not actual quotes


The last one is how I feel about all my schoolmates

I can feel the frustration 
                
            

            
            
feniczoroark:

minority-cubed:

princemetalthunder:

skrill-cosby:

drucila616:

How Do Court Reporters Keep Straight Faces?These are from a...

            
            
        

    



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            



        

            
        
        

            




    Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
    

        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    

    

        

            
            

                
                Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride
                
            

            
            
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

...