I hope, somewhere along the line (and yes, we’ve all be saying that for a while) that the rest of the people in Trump Org who are being ever so clearly thrown under the bus by this sort of testimony decide they’ve had enough going to jail for the Trumps and produce notes, emails, or other documentation showing that Jr damn well knew what was going on. At least in general, but yeah, he probably isn’t trusted or bright enough to go with specifics.
So, the only person he exonerated in his testimony was Eric.
Right, then.
I know Eric is always proclaimed to be the idiot of the group, but I just heard someone on MSNBC talking about the Trump clan. He sounded like someone familiar with the family and it sounds like Junior is the stupid one and Eric is the one who was really running things when Donald was the President.
I don’t recall the name of the person making the claim or if he really knows what he’s talking about though.
You know how they call Mick and Keith “The Glimmer Twins”?
I think I’m going to start referring to Eric and Junior as “The Dimmer Twins”.
From @Euphonious_Polemic 's post, a few posts up:
Note that those are not Euphonious Polemic’s words; they are from his summation of Don Jr.'s testimony.
I’m pretty sure that Don Jr. didn’t say the quoted. But I like what they bring to the paraphrased testimony. Well done, Euphonious Polemic!
To which the skeptical onlooker replies, “Hey, if you didn’t want your kids involved in your legal hassles, maybe you shouldn’t have built your entire business and Administration organizations around them like a fucking Mafia family?”
Leave your own kids alone, you petulant rutabaga, and they’ll all be better off.
He sited a Howard stern show where they were asked what is 16x7 or something along those lines and they were not able to come up with an answer. I’m not sure which trumps were at the show, it was during the apprentice days.
And as Upton Sinclair did say, " It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
It’s 112, innit? (107 + 67. At least, that’s how I did it.)
I believe so. I did 6x7=2, carry the 4, 7x1= 7, plus 4, equals 11, sooooo, 112.
Junior is using the Shultz defence, fitting.
Discourse didn’t like the asterisks. Should’ve proofread. ‘10 x 7 + 6 x 7’.
Oh thank god for the clarification @Johnny_L.A - I was feeling insanely stupid.
I did it as 8*7 =56, and then doubled. But yeah, lots of ways to do it.
16*8 - 16 would also have worked.
If you’re extra clever, the answer is “eleventy-two”.
Was it, by any chance, “Eric?”
With a name like that, you know it’s good.
That’s who I meant to cite / riff off of; thank you. I should have recognized the original language is from a later brand of English than Twain lived through.
But that’s because Stern didn’t specify whether the answer was for tax purposes or loan collateral purposes.
It’s the Heisen-crook uncertainty principal. Do you want it embiggened or ensmallified?
I took the long way around:
16 x 10 = 160
[remove 3 16s]
160-32=128-20=108+4=112
I pulled up the calculator on my laptop.