Engorgeous George

I had no idea imitation voices could be generated so easily.

I find the judge setting the contempt hearing off into the future interesting from a philosophical point of view. If the gage order is meant to protect witnesses and court personnel why would the judge not take the matter up immediately? By setting the hearing off for a week after considering it for a week he is allowing the witnesses and court personnel to be in ongoing danger for two weeks. Either that or he is tactically acknowledging there is no danger.

Is it? It seems like the civil tort of libel, but is it a crime, and if so which one?

A nonresponsive answer. Would be an interesting question as to whether to object as the next answer might be worse, not better.

It will be interesting to see this fleshed out. Will the indictment be amended? will the unindicted become indicted? Will deals for testimony be cut? This could be an interesting story for some time.

The difference between rancid ground chuck and dry aged kobi beef tenderloin.

My mail order bride would have signed a pre-nup and would understand she is a prop. The evangelical vote has nowhere else to go, though they could stay home. Karen McDougal is so fine those folks who were not high-fiving me would at least be understanding of my human frailty.

To my memory there were this many associated with ending Apartheid and demanding university endowments divest from companies doing business with South Africa. Maybe my memory is skewed by the campuses I was associated with and those I visited.

Full agreement.

We have always recognized the potential for bias, thus challenges for cause to the potential jurors, preemptory challenges to the potential jurors, and changes of venue. We are not changing up anything now. Sorry but you are simply factually wrong.

Succinctly summarized.

Biden is an example of the Peter Principle being applied to the ultimate useful idiot, emphasis on the idiot, and now the idiot has diminished faculties.

You are entitled to your opinion. As for moving the trial to Nashville I never advocated that . They could have moved it to Westchester county. They would not have gotten jurors who have never heard of Trump, but they would have gotten a jury pool of approximately 50% democrats and 50% republicans in trial uniquely impacting politcal affiliations. Your holding on to what has never before happened in a matter involving something which has never before happened is interesting. They say you are a lawyer. Do some lawyrering. What is the reason for a change of venue? Is it to obtain as unbiased a jury as is practical in a trial where it appears likely that the jury will be skewed if the trial is not moved? if so, and we both know it is so, this trial should have been moved. Why are so many afraid of a fair trial or a trial without a skewed jury? We both know the answer I suppose, that being one partisan for Trump on the jury will in this day and age result in a hung jury. Partisans for Trump are as unlikely to be reached by evidence in this trial just as partisans for Biden do not even need the evidence to convict. How the rule of law can prevail in this charged environment I do not know but I would hope it would start with lawyers at least acknowledging the purpose of changes of venue.

Nor have I. The question is whether a person is likely to get a fair trial based on opinions being formulated and hardened due to infamy or pretrial publicity. This is a matter of first impression, or nearly so, where politics is so inextricable woven into the fabric of the case and the defendant that the politics of the jurors is essentially tantamount to having prejudged the matter. The general principle of fundamental fairness, of not having prejuded the matter before the evidence is presented is the question and on that question there should have been a change of venue.

Interesting development.

In historic cases I have real concerns over the appearance of a bias, whether there may actually be one or not.

This is an historic trial and will be a precedent setting trial. As such I would prefer it be free of extraneous issues. The judge could very easily have eliminated two extraneous matters by simply recusing himself and by granting a change of venue to a nearby county where the demographics on voter registration were more evenly distributed.

I think the Court might want to think about clarifying its order before acting upon it. I definitely do not think Trump should be held to a different standard than any other citizen. I do think sitting Presidents should have their criminal and civil matters held in abeyance until they are out of office to the maximum allowable tolerance. Obviously we could not tolerate some heinous crimes going unredressed until they are out of office, but those would be few and far betweenIi would think. As for your first point I don't think justice is served if one has to spend their fortune and their remaining days of a dwindling number allotted to them overturning wrongful or unjust convictions. In the present instance I have real doubts Trump is getting a fair trial with this jury and this judge. It would have been simple enough to move the trail to a county where the voting demographics are less skewed so the jury pool could have been more balanced and assigning it to a judge without the questions this one has. We all recognize that bias effects jusgment, but in this particualr instance you want to ignore what you know as you think the ends will justify any means. i think once the means are corrupted, they are forever corrupted and we all better watch out.

Implants for the mistresses. Antibiotics for the mistresses. NDA's, for the mistresses. Hitmen, for the mistresses.

They can make or break your career so show some respect and appreciation if you have a good one and do so daily, not just today..

Well its not a direct pecuniary interst to the judge himself, but most ethical codes include the appearance of impropriety from direct pecuniary interests to first tier family members

The judge's daughter is not simply involved in liberal causes, funding them is her business, it is her livelihood. Also the judge himself has written of his distaste for the defendant. You would not like to go to trial under those circumstances. You justify it bercasue in your mind, here, with Trump, an odious cahracter, you can, but you are abandoning fairness. You are estgablishing a precendent none of us would want to live with were it applied to us. As for moving the trial it is undoubtedly true that Trump's celebrity is broad and there is no place in the U.S. where the facts of the matter would be wholly unknown. Still, drawing from a jury pool where 9 out of 10 folks voted against him seems a skewed jury pool as an objective standard. Taking then the given that we as a country are extremely polarized and set in our opinions of candidates and politicians it it axiomatic that Trump did not have an impartial pool from which to proceed picking the jury.

So "insist" was a poor choice of words? Fair enough.

The issues were heard on an interlocutory appeal. At that stage the appeals court can and did decide there were opportunities for the trial court to ameliorate any prejudice to the defendant and so the matter could procede with the hope that would happen and the concerns would be moot. Whether the trial court properly did so and the defendant got a fair trial remains an appealable issue after the trial when the facts, the impacts, can be fully, and finally appreciated. Courts like to not take up issues before they are fully ripe in the hope that they can be avoided afterall. I have concluded the jury pool was so skewed as to unfairly prejudice the defendant, the Court of Appeals has not fully evaluated that issue, as of yet. They may well rule as you believe they will, or should, but they have not fully considered the matter yet. As for the judge the classic reason for recusal is direct pecuniary involvement in the issues before the court, that is not the case here though some case can be made for indirect involvement of family. Still, most jurisdictions do have catch all provisions for recusal and the investment by the judge and his family, his daughter, in the political issues of the day is so substantial that the verdict can be questioned which should be avoided, when possible. I would not want to be tried by a jury picked from my enemies or adversaries and neither would you. I would not want to be tried by a judge who financially supported my adversaries and was vocal about it and neither would you. Given that there were reasonable and easily achievable alternatives I have a problem with what has happened. My disgust for Trump aside I try to look at the matter objectively and as it might apply to any other person including for intance you or i. In these hyperpartisan times that is difficult, but I believe fundamental fairness, fundamental due process has taken a bit of a beating here. Others may agree or disagree. The thing is I see many not looking at the fairness, rather they look at rulings by the court likely to achieve the political outcomes they desire. If the outcome is as they desire they seem not to care about the process for arriving at that conclusion. I do care about the process as justice is all about process.

What gives you, or anyone, the right to insist how I behave?