So if you think your employer didn’t give you enough bonus you can rebalance steal the amount you think you deserve.
Someone tell me this fck isn’t a biased POS.
Someone tell me this fck isn’t a biased POS.
Lawrence O’Donnell
- Thread starter stollcpa
- Start date
Lawrence O'Donnell is biased? You broke the story of the century!
People believe what they want to believe. That’s why the prosecution not getting out ahead of this and feeding some bs like this to give the jury something was amateur hour
“Rebalance the bonus.”So if you think your employer didn’t give you enough bonus you can rebalance steal the amount you think you deserve.
Someone tell me this fck isn’t a biased POS.
What a great, new term.
Bank robber - “I was just rebalancing the 20s and 50s between the branch bank and me.”
Yea, Cohen’s admitted crime today is more serious than what Trump is being accused of. Bragg knew it and no prosecution of Cohen and put him on the stand to testify against Trump. 😂
100,000 super hero Splat man. I’m calling it now. NY sidewalks will be more messy than SF. It’s the new left coasts (who knew you could have two) are competing for the biggest shit hole award.
It didn’t have to be like this, isn’t it ironic.
Since we can’t watch the NY trial, do they have walk in music?
I’m thing brags team walk in to the Bennie Hill theme song. Maybe Barnum and Bailey carnival music.
I'm surprised he didn't take the 5th. In fact, can one of you lawyers tell me how that line of questioning was even allowed? How does it work for someone being put on the stand and being forced to admit to a crime (or take the 5th) that has no bearing on the case in question? Seems to my IANAL brain that wouldn't be allowed.
The star witnesses are often no better than the defendant. I think you can believe Cohen is a thief and that Trump is a campaign finance perpetrator but somehow a thief seems worse in most people’s minds but it does make you wonder why the state brought the case under the circumstances.
Cohen’s theft is beyond the statute of limitations.
A wide variety of questions are allowed in attempts to impeach a witness' credibility. Anything that could possibly speak to the man's honest or integrity is pretty much fair game.
Why did federal prosecutors deem this not a campaign finance crime?
They didn't. They just didn't think it was a winnable case.
Bragg is a biased activist prosecutor. Awful. No side should want that
Too bad he can’t be sued. There needs to be ramifications when a prosecutor does crap like this.
I guess the Dems have set whats okay. In November the other side is going to get their chance.
More incessant victimhood from you. It was a bad case, I said that at the beginning. But he didn't do anything wrong or unethical. Trump did all the acts he's accused of doing. Bragg just isn't doing a very good job proving they amount to any serious crime. He's bad at his job. Doesn't mean he needs to be strung up for it.
Your constant slurping for the Democratic Party is really quite admirable. You'd probably make a decent WH Press Secretary in the Biden Administration.
You still pickling that bologna that you bitch about? Eat it with yellow mustard still?
So not strung up, but he’s , by his own case, is committing election interference. And you admit as such here .
I’m not sure how to build this many roosts, with allllll of these chickens coming home all at once.
Heck, there’s even THREE Geese boiling in a pot on the stove.
We gonna eat good, but there’s chickens EVERYWHERE!!
Brown cute Afro, peacock eye shadow, perky chest growths….
Yea I can see it happening.
No. Please stop putting nonsense words in my mouth. Read better, write better, or shut the hell up.
I just look at it as karma for a crooked organization that has screwed a shit ton of people out of money.So if you think your employer didn’t give you enough bonus you can rebalance steal the amount you think you deserve.
Someone tell me this fck isn’t a biased POS.
Hire snakes and you get bit every once in a while
Members of the jury, it seems that my point has been made and rebuttal from the opposing council is “shut the hell up”.
My work is done here and we all understand.
Thank you for your time, I’ll see that MORE than your parking is paid for, if you vote in my favor.
He filed the case.
Nobody could have proven the case. But the Bragg/Merchan tag team make it close.
An honest judge would refer Bragg’s conduct to the NY attorney disciplinary authority.
No, he wouldn't. You would, because you're a partisan who doesn't feel the need to treat Democrats objectively. But an honest judge would not.
I like mine with mustard, habanero jack cheese and homemade ketchup.
I have no reason not to, but that's not at all what I said. Why do you guys so insist lately on strawmanning every little thing we post?
Why can’t Trump defense bring in expert on Campaign Finance Law? Might that expert show there’s no campaign finance law violation and make the judge look like a partisan hack for not dismissing the case?
Seriously black, white, brown, democrat and republican are interviewed on TV saying the trial is unfair. Call it victimhood if you must but this is our justice system being bastardized.
(a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice.
at least three of requirements of this rule should be investigated.In addition, Bragg made many comments about Trump during his campaign. All those comments ripened to a violation about public comment about a defendant the moment Bragg filed the case.
f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
I have no problem believing that Bragg really thought all those things were true. Nothing that's happened at trial suggests otherwise.
He was a candidate, not a prosecutor. And, again, none of that happened at the trial.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Southern Miss vs IU: IU ends the season by getting blasted, 15-3...
- Latest: hoosier roadtrips
