ADVERTISEMENT

We have a verdict -- Guilty on ALL counts

It's hilarious you are citing 14 year old bloggers now.
No idea what that means? dbm made some comment about Epstein criminals going free. I merely pointed out that on Fox and Fiends on Sun they asked Trump if he would release the names of people on the lst.

They then edited his reply to make it seem as if he had been effusive in affirming that he would. But what he actually said was a lot more wishy washy, and he expressed reluctance to out possibly "innocent" people. We know this because the actual, less heavily edited video with not as many jump cuts was shown on one of the hosts (IIRC Hegseth) own show.The fake edited version was what Fox showed to their National Sun morning audience...

I don't have any idea who the "14 yr old blogger" line is supposed to refer to? Both versions of the video are readily available on the internet. I just chose to link to the video I posted because it contained both videos. That way I don't have to post the two seperate videos to demonstrated how they censored his original remarks...

The point is that it seems dbm's hero may not be as all in on exposing this Epstein thing as dbm is...

Maybe he knows stuff like this is out there


 
and all it did was help trump raise 400 million polls have not changed at all and never were going too.
Good Lord, I've never even heard any MAGA official claim $400 Million, but here you are. The money itself doesn't matter if you haven't built the groundgame infrastructure to somehow convert RVs in polls where Trump leads to likely voters where Biden leads... Biden has over 100 campaign offices up and running and thousands of staff and volunteers in PA, WI, and MI. Trump has zero offices or folks on the ground in any of those 3 states...

So great to have you and dbm back together again slobbering all over the same juiced propaganda polls you cited leading up to the "Red Tsunami". Hell dbm thought Trump had 100,000 people at his rally in Wildwood NJ, on a beach enclosure that holds roughly 20,000 people and was half full at best...

But hey NJ is Maga country. That's why Trump's chosen candidate,the woman he strongly endorsed at his "giant" rally only lost her GOP Senate Primary on Tues by 25 points. To a gay Chistie supporter... And 15% of GOP New Mexico voters in Tuesday's primary still voted for someone other than Trump, including both Haley and Christie...
 
Well to no one's surprise you DDe and other gullible folks fell for the prank of a "shitposter" trying to stir up trouble and make stupid people look stupid...

How come me (and millions of others) were educated about this BS yesterday (Fri)? And yet here you are promoting an already debunked story on Sat, a day late? Dude you need better sources than morons like "Phil Holloway Esq"...

You’ve got it bad
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and jet812
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...
 
You’ve got it bad
I've got it bad? Care to link me to all your posts that were critical of all the folks screaming "mistrial" in this very thread? Even Bailey who posted the same conspiracy theory that had been debunked a day earlier. In this very same thread...

I'll wait for you to link those posts. But I won't hold my breath...
 
Interesting discussion here by two righties who both don't like Trump:



Interesting analysis that I had not heard:

The falsification of biz records charge was time barred. It's a misdemeanor. But it rises to a felony if you charge it as intentional to cover up another crime. That other crime is one of NY election law under the charging instructions to the jury. But that NY election law crime is also a misdemeanor, also time-barred. So Bragg convinced the judge that covering up a misdemeanor raises something to a felony, and thus gets a 5 year SOL. Had he made 34 separate charges of falsification of biz records, and a charge of NY election law crime, it would have been time barred, but by pleading them under each other, they were not.

McCarthy also brings up a constitutional challenge to the NY law re the NY constitution and its banning criminal laws that incorporate by reference. Trump's lawyers didn't argue it, though, so it'll be a battle on appeal over whether it was waived and whether it is a good argument.
 
Interesting discussion here by two righties who both don't like Trump:



Interesting analysis that I had not heard:

The falsification of biz records charge was time barred. It's a misdemeanor. But it rises to a felony if you charge it as intentional to cover up another crime. That other crime is one of NY election law under the charging instructions to the jury. But that NY election law crime is also a misdemeanor, also time-barred. So Bragg convinced the judge that covering up a misdemeanor raises something to a felony, and thus gets a 5 year SOL. Had he made 34 separate charges of falsification of biz records, and a charge of NY election law crime, it would have been time barred, but by pleading them under each other, they were not.

McCarthy also brings up a constitutional challenge to the NY law re the NY constitution and its banning criminal laws that incorporate by reference. Trump's lawyers didn't argue it, though, so it'll be a battle on appeal over whether it was waived and whether it is a good argument.
Bottom line is, there was no felony. There was no charge of NY election crime law violation. It was a smorgasbord of suggestions to the jury to 'pick one' that might apply.

If this is not overturned, our justice system might as well recruit judges from Haiti.
 
I believe so
I think he would have been allowed to testify about federal campaign laws, but not the Trump case specifically, so he wouldn't have been allowed to opine on Trump's actions in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Was this the person Trump tried to call as a witness in his defense case?
I'm not a lawyer, but I would have to think Trump's defense would have but one question:

"In your opinion, based on the facts presented in this case, is Donald Trump guilty of campaign finance laws"

To me, the answer to that question should determine the entire case.

But he wasn't allowed to testify regarding Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
You should listen to your gal and leave the cult.

Tulsi was most likely never really a Democrat and only claimed to be a Democrat to get elected. It’s almost impossible to be elected to any office in Hawaii as a Republican. Hawaii had only one Republican in any elective office when I lived there. That’s in the entire state.
 
Rikers on Election Day? What utter nonsense. Merchan isn’t going to impose a prison sentence and, even if he did, Trump would be out on bail pending appeal.
From what I can tell, in New York State court, a jail sentence begins immediately-but I don’t know that for certain. In federal court, if a defendant is out on bail at the time of sentencing, standard practice is to set a prison self-report for 6-8 weeks after sentencing.
 
Jesus when I post what she said I get labeled a conspiracy theorist. Here's someone that walked right into that door, said wtf, turned around, and got the hell out!
No, she walked in the door and hung around for years, trying to get someone's attention. When no one took her seriously she turned around and left.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
No, she walked in the door and hung around for years, trying to get someone's attention. When no one took her seriously she turned around and left.
Mark did you ever listen to her Rogan interview? It was really sad man. If someone that powerful is driving DC it needs to be stopped. I don't agree with a lot of what she stands for, but FFS why do they have to be threatened and intimidated upon arriving in office. Let em get together and do some good! Thats the way it should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Mark did you ever listen to her Rogan interview? It was really sad man. If someone that powerful is driving DC it needs to be stopped. I don't agree with a lot of what she stands for, but FFS why do they have to be threatened and intimidated upon arriving in office. Let em get together and do some good! Thats the way it should be.
You got to pay your dues if you want to sing the blues and you know it don't come easy.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT