I'd just like to remind the Court that apparently Crowder owns the rights to the term "Not Gay Jared." Please refrain from using it here without his express written permission.
As for that lawyer? He didn't in the past doctor evidence that I know of. He was the lawyer for Trevor Bauer's accuser, and the accuser lied. Eventually, the truth came out. I've seen no evidence of doctored evidence on the part of the lawyer there. Guess what? Lawyers have dirtbag clients. Even good lawyers do. Any lawyer will tell you about cases where their client didn't deserve to win. But lawyers aren't supposed to pursue justice, that's literally not their job (unless they are a District Attorney, but that doesn't apply here). They are supposed to get their client to win while staying within legal ethic rules (which aren't normal ethics rules).
Daily Mail said:The courtroom got louder with Crowder as the conservative commentator's four attorneys and the single lawyer representing Korzon spoke over each other throughout the two-and-a-half hour hearing on Thursday.
'There was so much interrupting from both parties that the court reporter scolded the parties multiple times saying he was struggling capturing the testimony,' a local journalist from Current Revolt who was in the courtroom said.
That part is where she disagreed with what she was getting, and its a custody battle.What was the custody status of the kids in that offering?
He only talked about it because Owens brought it up....So he very much did. Any talk of it on his show is him doing PR. Not having a PR strategy when the other person does national news is stupid.
He only started this all because of what she started.No, that is normal. Welcome to an unhappy end to a relationship. It's ugly, but it isn't bad behavior. Crowder is simply portraying it as bad behavior as his PR strategy.
He pays her currently 25k a month. Is paying for her entire legal team due to Texas law. 5 mil is what she and her lawyers (in the messages showed, she says this) agree is a good deal and potentially better then court.... Obviously she's trying to get money in a divorce? Duh? If you are in a bad relationship (which they were, it ended in a divorce), you want as much money from the other person as possible. And we don't know that $5M is more than the court would have offered her. It's probably less than, given that Crowder had a $50M/year contract offer at one point. Sure, he'd have to pay some of that, but still. Half of whatever's left is going to be much more than $5M.
That makes sense.See, I'm open to Crowder not being a scumbag here. But he has a history, so I'm going to need actual evidence. Not "Wah, they are behaving smart in a divorce."
In the stuff provided by Crowders team, it showed that the laywer she hired (will state here, dont know if willing or unwillingly) entered doctored eevidence into courtAs for that lawyer? He didn't in the past doctor evidence that I know of. He was the lawyer for Trevor Bauer's accuser, and the accuser lied. Eventually, the truth came out. I've seen no evidence of doctored evidence on the part of the lawyer there. Guess what? Lawyers have dirtbag clients. Even good lawyers do. Any lawyer will tell you about cases where their client didn't deserve to win. But lawyers aren't supposed to pursue justice, that's literally not their job (unless they are a District Attorney, but that doesn't apply here). They are supposed to get their client to win while staying within legal ethic rules (which aren't normal ethics rules).
While true, this is still leagues more then most get outside of the very wealthy.Also, that $25k/month? To someone as wealthy as Crowder? That's $300k/year. A lot of money, but also when Crowder earns millions a year, likely not actually a huge percentage of what Crowder likely makes.
I can agree that we dont know everything and will have to wait. We just know what phoje records and court documents LwC have presented from thier filing of a lawsuite against NGJ.Look, quite bluntly, you don't seem to know what bad behavior is in a divorce. Bad behavior from her would be stopping the dad from seeing the kids because of a fake reason or alienation (or the alleged deleting evidence). We won't know about this until the end of the proceedings. Most of the bad behavior though already happened. Either Crowder being a dick or worse, or her doing alienation or worse. We don't know which happened. But we can take guesses based on everyone else's interactions with Crowder: Sven Computer and Not Gay Jared. There's a ton of smoke there, so likely a fire.
Huh...
Wonder if that's one of the four lawyers that showed up in the trial segment last summer?
This all happend.hehe... 'louder with Crowder' I see what they did there...
Steven Crowder divorce turns bitter - he demands full custody of twins
The couple's divorce took a bitter turn on Thursday as the commentator demanded full custody of their children in a fiery courtroom face-off.www.dailymail.co.uk
This is again, normal behavior in a big divorce with public figures.He only talked about it because Owens brought it up....
He only started this all because of what she started.
Had she not wanted to destroy his PR, it would never have made the public till after the divorce.
So? Why does it matter if it's potentially better? She disagrees. I don't think you understand what a divorce is, or what's normal behavior for a divorce.He pays her currently 25k a month. Is paying for her entire legal team due to Texas law. 5 mil is what she and her lawyers (in the messages showed, she says this) agree is a good deal and potentially better then court.
Again, irrelevant. Also, not what's being offered, instead a lump sum of $5M is being offered, which is a fair bit less than $300k/year.While true, this is still leagues more then most get outside of the very wealthy.
She can easily live off 300k a year.
what a surprise. it turns out the Divorce turns super ugly and everyone with an axe to grind is aiming to get their piece of Crowder. it is pretty fucking shit that he has to pay for the legal team suing him though. he offered more money than the court normally would give. offered a less even split of the kids time than the court normally would mandate. and the woman still is dragging in all this fucking bullshit? and jesus fuck going after the dog too? fucking put a bullet in him it would be kinder.
Public figure. Single.This is again, normal behavior in a big divorce with public figures.
Because he is giving her boat loads and she still wants more...So? Why does it matter if it's potentially better? She disagrees. I don't think you understand what a divorce is, or what's normal behavior for a divorce.
No. It is 25k for the remainder of the trial, with at the end being 5mil her entire legal is paid for. By himAgain, irrelevant. Also, not what's being offered, instead a lump sum of $5M is being offered, which is a fair bit less than $300k/year.
She tried to force him to get rid of his dog/make it so he shouldn't have custody. And deleted video evidenceThe point of a divorce is to get as much custody, money, and stuff as possible. You are only scummy in the divorce if you screw with the kids heads or hide/waste/destroy stuff/money/evidence. These are not friends anymore. They owe each other literally nothing else at this point, they already view themselves as not married. Being nice in a divorce only works when you like each other, and if you like each other, you probably shouldn't be divorcing.
But one shouldn't lie to win....You are judging two enemies meeting in the field and complaining that one of them is trying to win. No duh, they should both try to win. Almost all of the scumminess already happened. There's relatively little bad behavior that goes on during a divorce because the standard has changed: there's no longer an expectation of support.
Trying to figure out who is technically in the wrong?Are any of us accomplishing anything constructive by acting as a peanut gallery on this?
If it hadn't been for his showdown with the Daily Wire, I'd extend him benefit of the doubt. Now, in light of that info, I'm not going to assume it's BS. But I'm also not assuming it's true. When you add other people alleging stuff, I'm leaning towards the woman here, but I'm by no means certain.I don't give a fuck how rich he is. he even is probably an asshole, a diva, a narcissist, and a number of other uncomplimentary things. that doesn't make these tactics being used against him good. Divorce is always fucking ugly. The courts and lawyers seem to go out of their way to make it as painful as possible. but sure fuck it. woman is right. woman is always right. no reason that all that other footage got deleted.
Not planning is planning to lose.Public figure. Single.
No one knew his wife and she didn't have social media till the divorce was made public, with her help.
Yes, again, so what? You don't understand what a divorce is.Because he is giving her boat loads and she still wants more...
No. It is 25k for the remainder of the trial, with at the end being 5mil her entire legal is paid for. By him
This is scummy if true. Right now, it's just an allegation from one side. This is the only scummy thing you've alleged, if true.She tried to force him to get rid of his dog/make it so he shouldn't have custody. And deleted video evidence
I didn't say lie. But 90% of what you are complaining about isn't about lying.But one shouldn't lie to win....
I don't give a fuck how rich he is. he even is probably an asshole, a diva, a narcissist, and a number of other uncomplimentary things. that doesn't make these tactics being used against him good. Divorce is always fucking ugly. The courts and lawyers seem to go out of their way to make it as painful as possible. but sure fuck it. woman is right. woman is always right. no reason that all that other footage got deleted.
I mean, he routinely has the Hodge Twins, Brian Callen, Alex Jones is apart of his team. Nick Di Paulo is on his team. My Guns and Gear last I checked is as well.
He has Josh Firestone I think that's how you say it?
He has a good bit of decently known people appearing and working with him.
There are ones I have forgotten.
Are any of us accomplishing anything constructive by acting as a peanut gallery on this?
While true, it still shouldn't have come to lightIf it hadn't been for his showdown with the Daily Wire, I'd extend him benefit of the doubt. Now, in light of that info, I'm not going to assume it's BS. But I'm also not assuming it's true. When you add other people alleging stuff, I'm leaning towards the woman here, but I'm by no means certain.
So far, only one side has actually SHOWN what is going on.This is just another test of "how much truth can you parse from iffy sources". If you answer is certain either way, you fail. But if you miss that one side has a lot of smoke from many sources, and the other side has a little, you don't do well.
Make senseNot planning is planning to lose.
Yes, again, so what? You don't understand what a divorce is
They got an affidavit from the former owner to prove her wrong.This is scummy if true. Right now, it's just an allegation from one side. This is the only scummy thing you've alleged, if true.
I am focusing on the fact that we have text and the like showing how bad she is.The issue you have is you don't understand what is and isn't scummy, so you are eating up Crowder's PR which focuses on portraying normal behavior as bad.
Oh?I didn't say lie. But 90% of what you are complaining about isn't about lying.
military is because I'm in it and see it.Again, my issue here isn't whether or not Crowder did this. My issue is that you seem to constantly buy PR wholesale, without asking yourself "Is what they tell me actually bad". Here and with the military. Please learn how to point skepticism at people you agree with also. I like you, I think you are a good person. I also think you are too trusting, and need to have a more skeptical and non-accepting policy when it comes to statements from those you side with.
Didn't know Steven showed footage of it.I think it's absolutely fascinating how much Lawfare costs and the advantages rich people have over poor people. Steven Crowder said his show is worth $30 million a year back during his Daily Wire kerfuffle. Hilary before being married to Steven had her own job as a Sales Manager for major company and before that worked for Laura Ingraham. She has a college degree, seems well educated and from her rare appearances seemed pretty normal and daresay likable. But she moved in with Steven Crowder, left her job and became the "traditional" stay at home Mother and Wife since 2017 while working as an unpaid worker for Louder with Crowder.
Now that there is a divorce, she is apparently being given a favor of having an allowance of $25,000 a month while Crowder also gets an allowance of $25,000 from LWC (thank you court system) but also because he runs the business and his best friend/sidekick is CEO of the show with Crowder's name on it, access to all of the other financial accounts as well that the family had.
This is apparently morally wrong to many people.
Who cares if you are a millionaire? If you marry a supposedly traditional woman and they become a Stay At Home Mother and then there is a divorce, it's financial extortion. Take your five million, lose custody of the kids you shat out (you'll get them on school vacation days Woman, calm down) and shut the fuck up with this NDA.
I think there's a lesson there (at least with rich public figures involved). The lesson depends on your POV of course.
Didn't know Steven showed footage of it.
We will see how this plays out
See, this is the problem. Neither side has actually shown stuff that matters. All Crowder's stuff is extracts from legal documents from his team. That's some of the easiest stuff to lie with. More, much of what Crowder has shown is irrelevant (money stuff). The texts aren't about her admitting to deleting the video. Basically, his evidence doesn't line up with what would be wrong behavior.While true, it still shouldn't have come to light
So far, only one side has actually SHOWN what is going on.
I am focusing on the fact that we have text and the like showing how bad she is.
Her side hasn't presented anything but the two videos.
The money stuff, for example. Or hiring PR. The stuff you are saying is wrong is the deletion of videos, which while it technically isn't a lie, is still wrong, and I'd lump that in with lying.
What you're inside is the most important thing to be critical of. A criticism of the military isn't a criticism of you. And criticizing the military isn't even saying the military is bad, it's saying that it's not doing what it needs to do. I was inside the MIC, and that's why I grew to hate it so much. It helped me a lot.military is because I'm in it and see it.
This though, you do have a point.
I remember hearing her say that when she interviewed Gerald.Not shown footage publicly. Stevens lawyers had access to at least some of the Ring Video Surveillance as it was used to discredit the testimony of the families Nanny.
The only reason the public knows about it is because somehow that alt right lass Pearl Davis of all people somehow played the leaked video of their lawyers questioning the Nanny with that footage revealing it. Of course Crowder denies leaking the footage of their lawyers questioning a witness in a manner that's favorable to their case and Pearl neglected to scrub the personal information of said Nanny including her address IIRC allowing her to be opened up to harassment. Pearl to her credit also says Crowder didn't didn't her access to the leaked video.
So it must've just come from the ether...
But let's listen to what Crowders PR says and take it all at face value. Otherwise it's clearly "The Woman is always right."
At this rate, all we can do is wait and see, and more papers and evidence will appear by SOMEONE.See, this is the problem. Neither side has actually shown stuff that matters. All Crowder's stuff is extracts from legal documents from his team. That's some of the easiest stuff to lie with. More, much of what Crowder has shown is irrelevant (money stuff). The texts aren't about her admitting to deleting the video. Basically, his evidence doesn't line up with what would be wrong behavior.
Him having evidence of her wanting money (normal behavior in a divorce) is not the same as him having evidence of her wanting to lie.
The money stuff, for example. Or hiring PR. The stuff you are saying is wrong is the deletion of videos, which while it technically isn't a lie, is still wrong, and I'd lump that in with lying.
The entire people inside the military criticize it routinely. I am honestly attempting to fix more doctrinal stuff because thay is what we should focus on.What you're inside is the most important thing to be critical of. A criticism of the military isn't a criticism of you. And criticizing the military isn't even saying the military is bad, it's saying that it's not doing what it needs to do. I was inside the MIC, and that's why I grew to hate it so much. It helped me a lot.
nope. some people get to vent about Crowder being a bad person over it though. so there is that I guess.Are any of us accomplishing anything constructive by acting as a peanut gallery on this?
Which is why he does everything himselfThe thing is with Crowder is that I think its a mistake for him to work with any large group.
The guy is just very independent by nature and does his best stuff when he's on his own. Any attempt to force him to work in a large group is just going to backfire.