jerryskids

Kim was the next player I was considering. Hopefully we're both really smartz.

3.02 Tony Finau @patweisers44

If you had taken Teegs I very well might have gone Spieth. Like you said, he has great history on this course.

2.08 ThEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEgala @dain11279por dos

I guess you missed my point.

Not sure why you mentioned the 8 years; we prosecute presidential candidates for misdemeanors from that time.

Biden's basic platform is that Trump will end democracy. It's not some fringe belief on the Left.

Interesting distinction, thanks. Like I said, we'll see if it is challenged.

Probably not. As to your original question: I don't know enough of the details to say if either should recuse himself, particularly about the case(s) themselves. I will say two things in general: 1. If a judge were to have some prejudice, it should err on the side of the defendant. 2. It is much easier to replace a trial judge than a SCOTUS justice.

I feel like I'm in an Abbott and Costello skit... I believe that if you allege that a defendant committed a crime to further a second crime, that the defendant should be charged with that second crime, and the prosecution must prove that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the defendant is denied due process. It will be interesting to see if this is argued on appeal.

You're missing the felony part. That's the sorta kinda some kinda reason part.

I asked you in your thread about Alito and Thomas if you thought Merchan should recuse himself. You never answered. Also it's polite to offer your opinion before asking it of someone else.

You first. What do you think?

They won't respond.

Why would he make a token donation? I presume it is to show his support, without donating so much as to cause a formal ethics violation.

Nice red herring.

You do love your Venn diagrams.

1.02 Xander Schuffles

I've already said my peace in the trial thread regarding the "he only sorta kinda had to do something that might have broken some unnamed law", so I won't rehash it in detail here. But I'll say it needed to be a law, not a "reason," and it should matter too much what it was.

I certainly have questions about the defense strategy. My guess is that Trump insisted they focused on his claim of innocence. That being said, I believe that the defense tried to bring in the Federal Elections Commission chair to testify that they thought it was a nothingburger, but the judge wouldn't let them. Also, the prosecution didn't even argue for election interference until their closing.

I don't completely understand this word salad, but I'll take it to mean that you are sticking with the latter of my options: it's cool to invent novel prosecutions to convict the opposition candidate for POTUS.

Hey Torrid, none of the other Lefties here will own up to this trial being a proxy to get the Orange Man Bad. Will you do so, or do you also agree that the country should invent novel prosecutions to convict opposition candidates for POTUS?

Cmon man...

I like that idea.

The beauty in white is looking down thinking, "no way I can beat fatzilla to my right." The one in blue is smiling at the fat black chick thinking, "too bad so sad, you got out fatted here." The blonde is thinking, "I think that judge I focked really, really loves me this time."