Hey, dumbass, I never posted about the 'shitposter' or his claim that he knew the verdict beforehand.
But, by all means, avoid the points in my post.
I replied to your post, which responded to DDe's twitter link. The entire saga was debunked by Mark Milton (and others) on this very page. Yet bailey (ever cognizant) made his own post about the same debunked conspiracy theory, and there was so much lunacy that I got confused. Bailey's post and your response showed up on my screen while I was composing a different post, so I just hit "reply". I knew the story had been rejected, but I didn't realize that bailey was responding to posts from yesterday that had already been debunked...
So apologies for mischaracterizing you as the poster.It's hard to keep all of you guys' posts apart, when you get on a roll...
As to the points in your post. Apparently claiming that a SCOTUS ruling which directly affects millions of people for generations to come is somehow less important than a trial judge in a Jury trial strikes me as ludicrous. Thomas got millions from the very same people who were protagonists in the very set of cases that he helped to decide with his direct vote. Alito has flown 2 seperate flags identified with Jan 6 insurrectionists, and somehow doesn't see the need to recuse himself from cases directly involving Jan 6 insurrectionists.
I still don't get the point about Merchan's daughter? Whatever amount you want to claim she raised, she did not personally contribute $1000s of dollars. She works for a company who has clients they raise money for,and I guess all of them are Dems. Though I don't know if their clientle is exclusively politiciams or if they fund raise for other organizations as well. I mean I guess if we are talking a bench trial, where the Judge is the decision maker your point would make some sense. But Merchan doesn't get a vote, he didn't have a vote on the Grand Jury that voted to indict, so I just don't get what his daughter has to do with anything?
Regardless, both sides have staked out their respective positions and nothing in your post struck me as new. So why would I respond to an argument that I find spurious, esp when we're just rehashing the same points that have been made ad nauseum? No one is going to change anyone else's mind. We have a fundamental disagreement over the subject of recusal. Merchan asked the NY trial ethics board if he needed to recuse, and they told him that it wasn't necessary. That was a year ago.From June 2023...
"The impartiality of acting Supreme Court Justice
Juan Merchan cannot “reasonably be questioned” as the judge in the Manhattan criminal case against Donald Trump because of the judge’s modest campaign contributions or his daughter’s employment, a judicial ethics committee said in an advisory opinion".
It's not like those of us hoping Trump would be held accountable were hoping he'd get Judge Merchan or Chutkin, for that matter. No one even knew who Merchan was till he was appointed for this case and Trump world went in to hyperdrive to try and discredit him. Does any one think Trump wouldn't have attacked any other Judge, except for one he appointed and approved of?
Trump was going to find a way to attack any Judge who was ultimately chosen to conduct the trial. It's what he does...
