Trump's NY Election Interference Trial (Hope Hicks Testimony Concludes)

[jonmx 1,613]

5 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

So Trump doesn't target his political opponents? 

He tells the truth about them and sometimes mocks them.  Are you a big enough lying dufuss that you don't see what Trump opponents do and say about him?  You bastards are stealing Trump's money and trying to imprison him over false pretences and abuses of the legal system.  Fuk that.  Trump has 100 percent the right to call out these authoritarian lying bastards.  

[Ron_Artest 708]

10 minutes ago, jonmx said:

He tells the truth about them and sometimes mocks them.  Are you a big enough lying dufuss that you don't see what Trump opponents do and say about him?  You bastards are stealing Trump's money and trying to imprison him over false pretences and abuses of the legal system.  Fuk that.  Trump has 100 percent the right to call out these authoritarian lying bastards.  

Tells the truth and mocks?  That's it?  Boyo we heard in court yesterday how Trump paid Pecker to create and push fake news about his political opponents.  Trump weaponized the DOJ during his first term, routinely directing the DOJ to go after his political opponents including Hillary and Comey.  Trump went to Russia asking for dirt on Biden in 2020.  Trump has a long history of targeting his political opponents.  You look really foolish railing against fascism at the same time supporting Trump.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,737]

Trump doesn’t punch down. That’s all the left does and it makes mediocrities like Ron/Gutterboy feel better about themselves. People with low self esteem are the easiest to manipulate.  

[Ron_Artest 708]

10 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Trump doesn’t punch down. 

Have you been paying attention the last 8 years?  Jeebus.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,737]

3 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Have you been paying attention the last 8 years?  Jeebus.

You don’t know what the concept of punching down is. Tiny brain.  

[jonmx 1,613]

36 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

Tells the truth and mocks?  That's it?  Boyo we heard in court yesterday how Trump paid Pecker to create and push fake news about his political opponents.  Trump weaponized the DOJ during his first term, routinely directing the DOJ to go after his political opponents including Hillary and Comey.  Trump went to Russia asking for dirt on Biden in 2020.  Trump has a long history of targeting his political opponents.  You look really foolish railing against fascism at the same time supporting Trump.

Have you watched MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC?   You worry about Trump but are blind to the abuses the mega powerful establishment has.  Trump has some lowly trash papper 

[Engorgeous George 1,215]

21 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

We're gonna see it during the trial.  I already said I think it's weak, but we'll see what they have.  Why are you so scared of letting Trump defend himself if the charges are BS?  If they are BS, he'll be acquitted.

If the charges are B.S. and Trump is acquited against charges which should never have been brought how does he get back his time, his money spent on defense, the opportunities lost while in court and for most people his good name (I say for most people as I am not sure trump can be said to have a good name).  Allowing him to defend against that which should not have been brought is not justice. (I am not concluding the charges should not have been brought as the evidence is not in.  I have concluded a change of venue should have been granted and that the judge should have recused himself. I do have concern over the novelty of the charges.)

[Hawkeye21 1,858]

Trump fanboys are delusional. Holy shite!

[Mike Honcho 4,046]

13 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

If the charges are B.S. and Trump is acquited against aahrges which should neveer have been brought how does he get back his time, his money spent on defense, the opportunities lost while in court and for most people his good name (I say for most people as I am not sure trump can be said to have a good name).  Allowing him to defend against that which should not have been brought is not justice. (I am not concluding the charges should not have been brought as the evidence is not in.  I have concluded a cahnge of venue should have been granted and that the judge should have recused himself. I do have concern over the novelty of the charges.)

The Central Park 5 agree with this.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,737]

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Trump fanboys are delusional. Holy shite!

Centrist. 

[Engorgeous George 1,215]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

The Central Park 5 agree with this.

I suspect that is true.  I have a hazy, nonspecific memory of hearing from one of them on the subject.

[Ron_Artest 708]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You don’t know what the concept of punching down is. Tiny brain.  

Here is Trump explaining to you why he punches down. 

 

[HellToupee 749]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

People with low self esteem are the easiest to manipulate

Great dating for advice as well

[Mike Honcho 4,046]

25 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

I suspect that is true.  I have a hazy, nonspecific memory of hearing from one of them on the subject.

President Trump Played a Key Role in the Central Park Five Case. Here’s the Real History Behind When They See Us

It's a quick read.

Just find it a bit funny worry about Trump's wasted time.  

[Engorgeous George 1,215]

6 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

President Trump Played a Key Role in the Central Park Five Case. Here’s the Real History Behind When They See Us

It's a quick read.

That comports more or less with my memory of the events as they transpired.  Tough to have an accurate memory of something that was episodic over a decade, but I seem to remember the main parts of the storyline.

[thegeneral 1,435]

2 hours ago, jonmx said:

He tells the truth about them and sometimes mocks them.  Are you a big enough lying dufuss that you don't see what Trump opponents do and say about him?  You bastards are stealing Trump's money and trying to imprison him over false pretences and abuses of the legal system.  Fuk that.  Trump has 100 percent the right to call out these authoritarian lying bastards.  

Wow. Yesterday in court Pecker admitted to making up stuff for Trump about his opponents which Trump would then repeat with stuff like “many people are saying”. 

Crazy.

[The Real timschochet 3,004]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

  I have concluded a change of venue should have been granted and that the judge should have recused himself. 

I haven’t heard a compelling argument for either but I am a layman, not an attorney. However the Court of Appeals heard both of these motions and quickly denied them. 

[Engorgeous George 1,215]

4 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

I haven’t heard a compelling argument for either but I am a layman, not an attorney. However the Court of Appeals heard both of these motions and quickly denied them. 

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. 

[Hawkeye21 1,858]

1 hour ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Centrist. 

You know that I don't like Biden either, right?

[BeachGuy23 530]

2 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

Here is Trump explaining to you why he punches down. 

 

Good lord @Hardcore troubadour, how many times in a row can you be proven wrong?

You're like the Cal Ripken of being proven to be a moronic, useful idiot.

Love this for you.

"Trump doesn't punch down...."

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

[Ron_Artest 708]

11 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Good lord @Hardcore troubadour, how many times in a row can you be proven wrong?

You're like the Cal Ripken of being proven to be a moronic, useful idiot.

Love this for you.

"Trump doesn't punch down...."

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

It's necessary to speak badly about others so that the people that love you don't know if they are for real. 

The maturity of a toddler.

[The Real timschochet 3,004]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

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 avided afterall. I have concluded the jury pool was so skewed as to unfairly prejudice the defendant, the Court of Appeals has not fully evaluated taht 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. 

You make general arguments for the necessity of recusal and change of venue which are difficult to argue against. But when you apply either to this case you fail, at least IMO, to be compelling. Removing a judge because he or his daughter is involved in liberal causes makes no sense to me. Thats not a conflict of interest. And changing venue when you’re dealing with a man as famous and ubiquitous as Trump is, IMO, absurd. We’d have to move the trial to Jupiter. 

You also ignore what was obviously the true motivations for all of these motions: delay. Trump doesn’t want any of these trials resolved prior to the election. Except for this one he’s been pretty successful. 

[Fnord 1,143]

4 hours ago, jonmx said:

What a pantload of crap.  The nastiest people who target their political opponents are your leftist buddies.  The are vile, in your face, and want their opposition dead.   Trump fights back against these morons.  

Your lack of awareness is striking. You continually support that which you rail against, are grossly inconsistent with the application of your ideals, and tend to exemplify the behavior that you claim to abhor.

Seriously, you need help. Go talk to a therapist. You are an angry, disillusioned person and you're going to negatively impact your own health, if you haven't already. 

[Alias Detective 1,180]

2 hours ago, thegeneral said:

Wow. Yesterday in court Pecker admitted to making up stuff for Trump about his opponents which Trump would then repeat with stuff like “many people are saying”. 

Crazy.

Is being voted best pizza in town wrong if your mom was the only person voting?  OR were you actually voted best pizza in town?

[BeachGuy23 530]

1 minute ago, Alias Detective said:

Is being voted best pizza in town wrong if your mom was the only person voting?  OR were you actually voted best pizza in town?

Directly collaborating with a media source to put forth fake stories about your opponent is something that's not typical boyo.

The public is being exposed to just how corrupt and fake Trump is. 

[Fnord 1,143]

Just now, BeachGuy23 said:

Directly collaborating with a media source to put forth fake stories about your opponent is something that's not typical boyo.

It's also not legal. The parent company of National Enquirer has been granted immunity for that because they have agreed to cooperate with the investigation and trial. Ooops!

[Pimpadeaux 2,277]

2 hours ago, thegeneral said:

Wow. Yesterday in court Pecker admitted to making up stuff for Trump about his opponents which Trump would then repeat with stuff like “many people are saying”. 

Crazy.

Yeah, like Cancun Cruz having five mistresses. 

I can't stand Cruz, but I didn't believe any of that for a second.

MAGAturds will believe anything that Clownzo and the entities that support him recklessly throw out there.

[Pimpadeaux 2,277]

8 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Your lack of awareness is striking. You continually support that which you rail against, are grossly inconsistent with the application of your ideals, and tend to exemplify the behavior that you claim to abhor.

Seriously, you need help. Go talk to a therapist. You are an angry, disillusioned person and you're going to negatively impact your own health, if you haven't already. 

Yeah, Jockitch pretty much embodies everything that's wrong with MAGAturds. 

[double tour 89]

Biden makes up enough fake stories about himself. He doesn't need any help.

[Mike Honcho 4,046]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

It's also not legal. The parent company of National Enquirer has been granted immunity for that because they have agreed to cooperate with the investigation and trial. Ooops!

Wonder if Teddy can use them for libel now, or is it too late?

[Tree of Knowledge 850]

5 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Directly collaborating with a media source to put forth fake stories about your opponent is something that's not typical boyo.

The public is being exposed to just how corrupt and fake Trump is. 

Except for that whole Trump/Russia conspiracy that was proven to be a blatant falsehood.  

[Mike Honcho 4,046]

2 minutes ago, Pimpadeaux said:

Yeah, like Cancun Cruz having five mistresses. 

I can't stand Cruz, but I didn't believe any of that for a second.

MAGAturds will believe anything that Clownzo and the entities that support him recklessly throw out there.

The Enquirer's Bat Boy stories seem more plausible. 

[BeachGuy23 530]

5 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Except for that whole Trump/Russia conspiracy that was proven to be a blatant falsehood.  

Your whataboutism ain't gonna fly boyo.  Trump was investigated by republican.

Trump's in bigly trouble boyo. 

[HellToupee 749]

4 minutes ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Your whataboutism ain't gonna fly boyo.  Trump was investigated by republican.

Trump's in bigly trouble boyo. 

Nope

[BeachGuy23 530]

7 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Nope

Colluding with a media company to run fake stories about your opponent is apparently a no no boyo. 

[thegeneral 1,435]

51 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

Is being voted best pizza in town wrong if your mom was the only person voting?  OR were you actually voted best pizza in town?

The Enquirer took down John Edwards and appears to be the paper of record for many Americans 🥲

[Engorgeous George 1,215]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

You make general arguments for the necessity of recusal and change of venue which are difficult to argue against. But when you apply either to this case you fail, at least IMO, to be compelling. Removing a judge because he or his daughter is involved in liberal causes makes no sense to me. Thats not a conflict of interest. And changing venue when you’re dealing with a man as famous and ubiquitous as Trump is, IMO, absurd. We’d have to move the trial to Jupiter. 

You also ignore what was obviously the true motivations for all of these motions: delay. Trump doesn’t want any of these trials resolved prior to the election. Except for this one he’s been pretty successful. 

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. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,737]

4 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

President Trump Played a Key Role in the Central Park Five Case. Here’s the Real History Behind When They See Us

It's a quick read.

Just find it a bit funny worry about Trump's wasted time.  

You think they didn’t have anything to do with it, even though they did it. Fockin hayseed. Lol. 

[jonmx 1,613]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

You make general arguments for the necessity of recusal and change of venue which are difficult to argue against. But when you apply either to this case you fail, at least IMO, to be compelling. Removing a judge because he or his daughter is involved in liberal causes makes no sense to me.  

It is not 'liberal causes' which is the issue.  She is running campaigns raising tens of millions specifically advocating that Trump be imprisoned.   Having a daughter who is vested in an outcome convicting or defeating Trump is as big as a conflict of interest as one could possibly have.  

[Hardcore troubadour 12,737]

On 4/23/2024 at 11:20 AM, Ron_Artest said:

I don't think so.  The payments were made before the election so I assume the cover up happened there as well but I we haven't seen any evidence.

This is the guy telling others how the courts work. Comical.