Trump's NY Election Interference Trial (Trial Adjourned Until Tuesday)

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

You could have stopped at DJT winning as a Dem over Hillary. He would have been impeached and removed before midterms for violating the emoluments clause of the constitution. No way in hell the Republicans would have EVER let a Dem POTUS do half the shite they let Don get away with.

Look, just because the DNC screwed over Bernie, it doesn't mean they'd have done the same with Trump.  If he had been in lock step with the party like he was during the Bill Clinton years, Hillary may never have even been on the radar.  That being said, I said he was the President in 2016... didn't say who he beat in the primary, I'm just saying he won in November 2016.  You and I both know that if he was, there never would have been a Russia Collusion investigation, right?  We BOTH know that?  We also both know that the media wouldn't have called him a racist or xenophobic, or anything of the kind... even if he ran the exact same Presidency.  We BOTH know that, right?

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

2 hours ago, MDC said:

What kind of country do we live in where a billionaire politician can’t stick his bare diik in a hooker and get a tax write off on the hush money?

Banana republic!  

I know... Bill Clinton did it, why can't Trump?

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

37 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said:

 

He’s an old man.  

Listen, not everyone has the has the energy and stamina of Joe Biden. He’s pretty extraordinary. Trump can’t measure up, but there’s no shame in that. 

 

[The Real timschochet 2,955]

14 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Look, just because the DNC screwed over Bernie, it doesn't mean they'd have done the same with Trump.  If he had been in lock step with the party like he was during the Bill Clinton years, Hillary may never have even been on the radar.  That being said, I said he was the President in 2016... didn't say who he beat in the primary, I'm just saying he won in November 2016.  You and I both know that if he was, there never would have been a Russia Collusion investigation, right?  We BOTH know that?  We also both know that the media wouldn't have called him a racist or xenophobic, or anything of the kind... even if he ran the exact same Presidency.  We BOTH know that, right?

None of this is true. 

[Mike Honcho 4,039]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

He’s an old man.  

Listen, not everyone has the has the energy and stamina of Joe Biden. He’s pretty extraordinary. Trump can’t measure up, but there’s no shame in that. 

 

Especially since we found out he only has 'Little nubbin' energy'    

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

None of this is true. 

Ok, so you're going with denial.  That's fine.

[IGotWorms 3,317]

1 hour ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

You have weird fantasies about other men.  

Do I, Father?  

[Maximum Overkill 652]

 

[Tree of Knowledge 837]

Just now, IGotWorms said:

Do I, Father?  

Yeah.  Don’t go there.  Not many people get to disappoint 2 fathers in their lifetimes 

[squistion 898]

 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

7 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

None of this is true. 

The DNC didn’t screw over Bernie? 

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

 

That's pretty communistic.  Not surprised really.

[squistion 898]

https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1779954563920912711

Judge Merchan asks the pool of 96 prospective jurors if they self-identify to be excused b/c they cannot be fair and impartial.

Per the pool: Of those 96, about 50 raised their hands and then were excused.

The judge then instructed 18 of the remaining jurors to be seated inside the jury box.

The third juror questioned said "Yes" to Question 34: “Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former president Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?”

Merchan sought to excuse her on that basis, to which the prosecution office agreed, but then Trump’s defense team objected.

After a brief sidebar, she was excused.

[Fnord 1,141]

35 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Look, just because the DNC screwed over Bernie, it doesn't mean they'd have done the same with Trump.  If he had been in lock step with the party like he was during the Bill Clinton years, Hillary may never have even been on the radar.  That being said, I said he was the President in 2016... didn't say who he beat in the primary, I'm just saying he won in November 2016.  You and I both know that if he was, there never would have been a Russia Collusion investigation, right?  We BOTH know that?  We also both know that the media wouldn't have called him a racist or xenophobic, or anything of the kind... even if he ran the exact same Presidency.  We BOTH know that, right?

No, we don't. What I'm saying is IF everything went down EXACTLY the same way it actually played out with the only difference being a big D after Trumps name instead of an R, the Republicans would have impeached and removed him. This is an opinion, as is your assertion. I suspect neither of us will be swayed regardless of theoretical evidence the other presents. Sound about right? Agree to disagree?

[squistion 898]

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1779956633688306058

Judge Merchan read a list of names to potential jurors that could figure into the case.

The names included:

Rudy Giuliani

Sharon Churcher

Dan Scavino

Keith Schiller

Donald Trump, Jr.

Ivanka Trump

Melania Trump

John McEntee

Kellyanne Conway

Jared Kushner

[squistion 898]

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

No, we don't. What I'm saying is IF everything went down EXACTLY the same way it actually played out with the only difference being a big D after Trumps name instead of an R, the Republicans would have impeached and removed him. This is an opinion, as is your assertion. I suspect neither of us will be swayed regardless of theoretical evidence the other presents. Sound about right? Agree to disagree?

LOL, nice dodge.  Everything that happened to Trump, that's in the media and in court, was/is Democrat driven.  There never would've been accusations of him being racist, misogynistic, or anything else splattered all over the MSM for months on end.  There never would've been a Steele Dossier and there never would've have a Russia Collusion diatribe.  You know this and you're trying to pretend it would've happened anyway.  Just stop.

[thegeneral 1,417]

32 minutes ago, squistion said:

 

Was he asleep during this part?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,664]

The judge has t answered President Trumps request to attend his youngest child’s HS graduation.  What a Fockin scumbag. 

[squistion 898]

Just now, thegeneral said:

Was he asleep during this part?

I sure he wasn't as the judge would have asked him if he understood what he had just been told. 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

40 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Yeah.  Don’t go there.  Not many people get to disappoint 2 fathers in their lifetimes 

Spank me daddy!

[squistion 898]

 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

2 hours ago, Alias Detective said:

That I may agree with.  Tell your boy General that.  He is on the affair kick. 

lol, it’s come down to this semantics bullsh1t for you  

 

 

 

[IGotWorms 3,317]

11 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The judge has t answered President Trumps request to attend his youngest child’s HS graduation.  What a Fockin scumbag. 

I don’t know, since he was balls deep in a wh0re when his son was born, seems a little sketch that now he’s absolutely gotta make his grade school graduation

[MDC 5,895]

MAGAs tell me Trump will be more relatable to the blacks now that he’s had a criminal trial.  

[Ron_Artest 682]

15 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The judge has t answered President Trumps request to attend his youngest child’s HS graduation.  What a Fockin scumbag. 

You mean that fetus that was in his wife's belly while he was balls deep in Stormy?

missed by 1 min.  damnit.

[Fnord 1,141]

12 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's pretty communistic.  Not surprised really.

Keeping a disorderly defendant from criticizing, insulting, or issuing veiled threats to officers of the court is the rule of law, not an example of communism.

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

39 minutes ago, squistion said:

https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1779954563920912711

Judge Merchan asks the pool of 96 prospective jurors if they self-identify to be excused b/c they cannot be fair and impartial.

Per the pool: Of those 96, about 50 raised their hands and then were excused.

The judge then instructed 18 of the remaining jurors to be seated inside the jury box.

The third juror questioned said "Yes" to Question 34: “Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former president Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?”

Merchan sought to excuse her on that basis, to which the prosecution office agreed, but then Trump’s defense team objected.

After a brief sidebar, she was excused.

Willing to bet that the Prosecutor and the Judge would've raised their hand to the first one and "Yes" to Question 34 too.  I think they should be excused as well.

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Keeping a disorderly defendant from criticizing, insulting, or issuing veiled threats to officers of the court is the rule of law, not an example of communism.

No, telling him that they won't let him be there, then arrest him if he doesn't show up.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[thegeneral 1,417]

I’m glad to see NYC getting down to prosecuting criminals. Good for you!

[Fnord 1,141]

22 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

LOL, nice dodge.  Everything that happened to Trump, that's in the media and in court, was/is Democrat driven.  There never would've been accusations of him being racist, misogynistic, or anything else splattered all over the MSM for months on end.  There never would've been a Steele Dossier and there never would've have a Russia Collusion diatribe.  You know this and you're trying to pretend it would've happened anyway.  Just stop.

I'm not dodging shite, just clarifying my statement. Like I said, agree to disagree. We're not going to find common ground here. I'm sure you disagree with my assertions as well.

[Fnord 1,141]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

No, telling him that they won't let him be there, then arrest him if he doesn't show up.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Huh?

They're telling him he has to be there AND he needs to STFU. What's the issue?

[Engorgeous George 1,185]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

Keeping a disorderly defendant from criticizing, insulting, or issuing veiled threats to officers of the court is the rule of law, not an example of communism.

No, criticizing Officers of the Court is free speech.

Insulting Officers of the Court is free speech if it occurs outside the courtroom.  Inside the courtroom it is disruptive of proceedings and is subject to the control of the Court.

Threats, legal threats, threats that are clear and present are actionable.  Veiled threats where one has to surmise the threat, those are not actionable.

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I'm not dodging shite, just clarifying my statement. Like I said, agree to disagree. We're not going to find common ground here. I'm sure you disagree with my assertions as well.

You know darn well what my point was.  That being, had he won the election as a Democrat instead of a Republican, NOTHING that has transpired in the media and the courtrooms since 2015 would NEVER have happened.  You know that's true, I know that's true, everyone knows that's true.

[Engorgeous George 1,185]

Non-actionable threats- Nonspecific, Conditional, remote in time and place, nonsensical

Nobody better lay a finger on my Buttterfinger!

I will nuke the lot of them!

Someday they will pay, oh yes, someday!

 

[Fnord 1,141]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

You know darn well what my point was.  That being, had he won the election as a Democrat instead of a Republican, NOTHING that has transpired in the media and the courtrooms since 2015 would NEVER have happened.  You know that's true, I know that's true, everyone knows that's true.

I do not know that's true. That is your opinion. I do NOT think it's true, at least not to the level you do.

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

3 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

No, criticizing Officers of the Court is free speech.

Insulting Officers of the Court is free speech if it occurs outside the courtroom.  Inside the courtroom it is disruptive of proceedings and is subject to the control of the Court.

Threats, legal threats, threats that are clear and present are actionable.  Veiled threats where one has to surmise the threat, those are not actionable.

Exactly

4 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Huh?

They're telling him he has to be there AND he needs to STFU. What's the issue?

...and on top of that, the tweet claimed that the Judge said "if he disrupts the trial they will proceed without him & if he doesn't show up "there will be an arrest."  If they'll proceed without him, that means he can't show up.  To wit, "if he doesn't show up 'there will be an arrest'", which means, if he doesn't show up (which we've already established that he can't), then he gets arrested.  Hence, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.  That's communism bud.

[Fnord 1,141]

5 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

No, criticizing Officers of the Court is free speech.

Insulting Officers of the Court is free speech if it occurs outside the courtroom.  Inside the courtroom it is disruptive of proceedings and is subject to the control of the Court.

Threats, legal threats, threats that are clear and present are actionable.  Veiled threats where one has to surmise the threat, those are not actionable.

Understood. But what if the person making veiled threats never needs to carry out the action because he's really just laying out a names for one of his deranged followers to take action?

Just another of a thousand examples of how Trump and his administration have demolished norms that never had to be codified before his arrival on the scene.

[TBayXXXVII 2,121]

1 minute ago, Fnord said:

I do not know that's true. That is your opinion. I do NOT think it's true, at least not to the level you do.

G.t.f.o.h. 

The Democrats would've been calling him a racist and misogynist?  They'd have created the Steele Dossier?  They'd have had a lawyer falsify a document to get a FISA warrant, all in hopes he'd what... win the election anyway?  Just stop while you're behind.

[Fnord 1,141]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Exactly

...and on top of that, the tweet claimed that the Judge said "if he disrupts the trial they will proceed without him & if he doesn't show up "there will be an arrest."  If they'll proceed without him, that means he can't show up.  To wit, "if he doesn't show up 'there will be an arrest'", which means, if he doesn't show up (which we've already established that he can't), then he gets arrested.  Hence, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.  That's communism bud.

He has to show up.

He has to not be disruptive.

Violation of either stipulation results in jail.

This does not seem to be complicated.