Trump's NY Election Interference Trial - Trump is found guilty on all 34 counts

[torridjoe 48]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

I gave your mom an orgasm. More than your dad ever did. I think you owe me. 

That doesn’t even make sense, dumbass. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

30 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The problem with this is that when it comes to Donald Trump there’s always going to be “collateral issues”. No matter what he’s attacking the judge, the jury, the system. If there is no fault he will create one. There is no judge that would be perfect enough to satisfy him. 

This is something that a gossipy woman would say about one of her girlfriends.  

[torridjoe 48]

1 hour ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

The guy posting furiously in this forum is accusing others of being triggered? 

You playing obtuse isn't working for you.  All you need to do is peruse this forum to find examples of how crazy the left is, but then I could just point to the "Gays for Palestine", the sudden amnesia on what a woman is and the men and women aren't different nonsense coming from your side of the aisle, but would you even believe it?  You, yourself, have proven my point EXACTLY by even asking for an example because you seriously have to be ALL in on the cult of the left or you're being intentionally obtuse.

The only one triggered is you.  You even declared it as such when you showed up after a 12 year Safe Space stay.

 

I was right! You’re freaked out by health care. Where are your medical and legal degrees from? You sure seem well educated. 

[thegeneral 2,910]

16 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

BUT ITS (D)IFFERENT!!! 

- thegenerallydumb

Right. It’s different.

“Paula Jones in 1998 settled a civil lawsuit. Clinton’s payment was public and legal, and the funds did not come from the government, nor did they amount to a campaign contribution.

By comparison, the payment in Trump’s case was through a shell company and reimbursed by Trump, whose company logged the reimbursements as legal expenses in the final weeks of his 2016 presidential campaign.”

 

[torridjoe 48]

57 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Sorry, anyone in his official capacity to protect the public from criminals, especially depraved, disgusting pedophiles that rape their own two year old, and let’s that kind of monster escape justice because his family was your fathers and yours benefactor, that completely overrides anything that came before. You may choose to consider it, but I don’t. It’s a bit more severe than what happened at the Capitol, and I have stated numerous times that my friend deserved his conviction, and I never used his service as a defense of him.  You lose. Again. Liar. 

A violent coup attempt is less severe than someone’s personal character? OK then. 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

1 minute ago, torridjoe said:

A violent coup attempt is less severe than someone’s personal character? OK then. 

Letting someone off that raped a two year old is, yes.  You have your standards, I have mine. 

[Strike 5,186]

46 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

The problem with this is that when it comes to Donald Trump there’s always going to be “collateral issues”. No matter what he’s attacking the judge, the jury, the system. If there is no fault he will create one. There is no judge that would be perfect enough to satisfy him. 

The goal of the justice system isn't to satisfy the accused.  It is for the proceedings to appear fair.  The issues EG brought up have nothing to do with satisfying Trump.  They have to do with reasonable third parties, such as EG since you won't believe I am one of those people, not having reason to question the proceedings. 

[Maximum Overkill 1,740]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Yes I’m sure you would be acting the same if this were Pedo Joe! 

I take Pedophilia way more serious than someone paying off a whooore and lying about it. 

You??? 

[Strike 5,186]

16 minutes ago, torridjoe said:

That doesn’t even make sense, dumbass. 

The guy who thinks doing illegal things isn't a crime shouldn't be telling others about things "not making sense."

[GutterBoy 2,898]

2 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Envy is one of the seven deadly sins. 

Amen.

Thanks

You think I'm jealous of Trump?

[Maximum Overkill 1,740]

2 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

You think I'm jealous of Trump

Definitely not. 

But you're definitely jealous of Biden who gets to sniff kids without consequence. 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,838]

30 minutes ago, torridjoe said:

I was right! You’re freaked out by health care. Where are your medical and legal degrees from? You sure seem well educated. 

Ahhh..deflection, gaslighting, strawmen and complete incompetence all in one post!  Congrats!  Your reputation is intact! 

Your shtick isn't new here.  It's unoriginal, typical and tired.  We have 30 other leftist clones just like you here that are just as retarded as you are. 

Better run and hide for another 12 years like you ran and hid for the last 12.  No safe spaces here.  Your never gonna last.  Lightweights like you get eaten alive in here as you've already found out. 

 

[Maximum Overkill 1,740]

21 minutes ago, torridjoe said:

A violent coup attempt is less severe than someone’s personal character? OK then. 

You sound like every other Cultist Pedocrat.  

Pathetic 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

24 minutes ago, Strike said:

The goal of the justice system isn't to satisfy the accused.  It is for the proceedings to appear fair.  The issues EG brought up have nothing to do with satisfying Trump.  They have to do with reasonable third parties, such as EG since you won't believe I am one of those people, not having reason to question the proceedings. 

It’s unreasonable to demand that a judge recuse himself over a $15 donation. 

[squistion 1,952]

30 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s unreasonable to demand that a judge recuse himself over a $15 donation. 

I think it is more like $40, but why should any token amount like that matter to anyone?

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

I think it is more like $40, but why should any token amount like that matter to anyone?

So he doesn’t agree with the organizations he put his name to with his donation? 

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

12 hours ago, squistion said:

I think it is more like $40, but why should any token amount like that matter to anyone?

It matters as it runs contrary to the Code of Judicial Ethics. It matters in that the Judge created an issue where there need not have been an issue.  The Judge allowed questioning of his bias and thus of the fairness of the proceeding where there need not have been any.  The Judge created a distraction calling the proceeding into question for many.  Now I grant that the many would have looked for other matters to hang their hats on, but a good Judge would not have supplied ammo to shoot holes in his proceeding.  Some day I expect the Judge to admit as much.  Some day I expect those arguing otherwise here to admit as much.  Not today though.  Today passions still run deep.

 

When the inevitable appeal happens I don't necessarily believe any one error will prove fatal to the verdict, though one may.  I believe the ruling, if it overturns the trial will be based upon an accumulation of errors.  Right now, from the limited amount I know about this matter, and it is limited, I place the odds of the verdict being overturned at around 75%.  I know right wing pundants have the odds at nearly 100% but I know that great deference is given the trial Judge and jury verdicts.

[jerryskids 6,567]

56 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It’s unreasonable to demand that a judge recuse himself over a $15 donation. 

 

23 minutes ago, squistion said:

I think it is more like $40, but why should any token amount like that matter to anyone?

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.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

Ted Cruz knew the deal 8 years ago, but now he slurps trump d.

[squistion 1,952]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

It matters as it runs contrary to the Code of Judicial Ethics. It matters in that the Judge created an issue where there need not have been an issue.  The Judge allowed questioning of his bias and thus of the fairness of the proceeding where there need not have been any.  The Judge created a distraction calling the proceeding into question for many.  Now I grant that the many would have looked for other matters to hang their hats on, but a good Judge would not have supplied ammo to shoot holes in his proceeding.  Some day I expect the Judge to admit as much.  Some day I expect those arguing otherwise here to admiut as much.  Not today though.  today passions still run deep.

 

When the inevitable appeal happens I don't necessarily believe any one error will prove fatal to the verdict, though one may.  I believe the ruling, if it overturns the trial will be based upon an accumulation of errors.  Right now, from the limited amount I know about this matter, and it is limited, I place the odds of the verdict being overturned at around 75%.  I know right wing pundants have the odds at nearly 100% but I know that great deference is given the trial Judge and jury verdicts.

He asked for an advisory opinion from the ethics board and they had no problem with it. 

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

He asked for an advisory opinion from the ethics board and they had no problem with it. 

They did not have no problem with it, they cautioned him not to repeat the behavior.  He also did not, to my understanding, ask for permission before doing so, he asked for forgiveness and understanding after doing so.  He asked whether that trespass against the clear spirit of the Code was sufficient to warrant recusal.  The Ethics Board did not think so, but they certainly did not endorse the behavior.  

[squistion 1,952]

Just now, Engorgeous George said:

They did not have no problem with it, they cautioned him not to repeat the behavior.  He also did not, to my understanding, ask for permission before doing so, he asked for forgiveness and understanding after doing so.  He asked whether that trespass against the clear spirit of the Code was sufficient to warrant recusal.  The Ethics Board did not think so, but they certainly did not endorse the behavior.  

He was supposed to ask for an advisory opinion before a state ethics board before he donated $40 to a political campaign. Seriously? 

[IGotWorms 4,057]

2 hours ago, The Real timschochet said:

The problem with this is that when it comes to Donald Trump there’s always going to be “collateral issues”. No matter what he’s attacking the judge, the jury, the system. If there is no fault he will create one. There is no judge that would be perfect enough to satisfy him. 

Aileen Cannon probably comes close. Basically will not let the case against him ever come to trial 

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

He was supposed to ask for an advisory opinion before a state ethics board before he donated $40 to a political campaign. Seriously? 

If he was going to make the donation, yes.  He could have simply not made the donation.  I get the doubt as the amount is next to meaningless in the scheme of things but he did, affirmatively, allow the question of his bias to rise by his donation.  Most Judges I know are fanatical about not doing so, and for the reasons we have seen here.  

 

I am comfortable believing that Judges with far stronger biases conceal them by not documenting their positions.  Judge Merchan is undoubtably not the most biased Judge sitting in Amderica's courtrooms.  I simply take the position that in this matter he was wrong.

 

I am going to leave this discussion for now as it is clear to me that I am not changing any minds.  This is certainly not the first time for that nor will it be the last.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,934]

19 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Ted Cruz knew the deal 8 years ago, but now he slurps trump d.

You voted for Trump eight years ago. Now you have raging TDS. Shhhhhh

[Engorgeous George 2,131]

Take It Where You Find It (Remastered) 

[Dizkneelande 1,085]

59 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

 

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.

Correct assumption 

[jerryskids 6,567]

1 minute ago, Dizkneelande said:

Correct assumption 

They won't respond.

[GutterBoy 2,898]

26 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

They won't respond.

Do you think Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves?

[jerryskids 6,567]

5 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Do you think Scalia and Thomas should recuse themselves?

You first. What do you think?

[GutterBoy 2,898]

17 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You first. What do you think?

I asked you.  You won't answer unless I answer first?  That's weird.

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

51 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You first. What do you think?

I will offer my input: 

1. I don’t think Merchan needed to recuse himself. The donation he offered was minor but even if it’s larger I’m not sure that’s a big deal. Donating to Biden, being a liberal Democrat, is meaningless. Maybe if he worked for the Biden campaign. But all he did was donate. What his daughter did is irrelevant. 

2. I don’t think that Alito needs to recuse himself from anything. I found his explanation of the flags reasonable. For now. If something new comes up I could change my mind but I don’t agree with those who think he should recuse. 

3. Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from anything having to do with January 6 because his wife was, apparently, directly involved. This is not like the other two examples above, if your wife is involved in a case you shouldn’t be making decisions about it, IMO. 
 

Fair enough? 

[thegeneral 2,910]

52 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I will offer my input: 

1. I don’t think Merchan needed to recuse himself. The donation he offered was minor but even if it’s larger I’m not sure that’s a big deal. Donating to Biden, being a liberal Democrat, is meaningless. Maybe if he worked for the Biden campaign. But all he did was donate. What his daughter did is irrelevant. 

2. I don’t think that Alito needs to recuse himself from anything. I found his explanation of the flags reasonable. For now. If something new comes up I could change my mind but I don’t agree with those who think he should recuse. 

3. Clarence Thomas should recuse himself from anything having to do with January 6 because his wife was, apparently, directly involved. This is not like the other two examples above, if your wife is involved in a case you shouldn’t be making decisions about it, IMO. 
 

Fair enough? 

What reason did Alito offer for flying the flag at his vacation home? I missed an explanation of this.

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

Now Trump is claiming he never said “lock her up” about Hillary. 
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/06/02/politics/fact-check-trump-false-claim-lock-up-hillary-clinton

“It was the crowds, not me!” Throwing his fans under the bus. 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

What reason did Alito offer for flying the flag at his vacation home? I missed an explanation of this.

He wrote a letter: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05/29/samuel-alito-letter-recusal-rejection/

A lot of folks didn’t like it but I think it was OK. 

[thegeneral 2,910]

12 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

He wrote a letter: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05/29/samuel-alito-letter-recusal-rejection/

A lot of folks didn’t like it but I think it was OK. 

Thanks. I had missed this. I didn’t realize he tossed the wife under the bus for both.

Seems pretty fishy but if he says so.

His wife sounds very devoted to flag flying

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

Just now, thegeneral said:

Thanks. I had missed this. I didn’t realize he tossed the wife under the bus for both.

Seems pretty fishy but if he says so.

His wife sounds very devoted to flag flying

Yeah that makes him an a-hole for sure. But the more important part is that he wasn’t flying the flag in connection with Jan 6, so far as we know. So he’s a right winger and wants Trump to win? We already knew that. It doesn’t mean that he can’t judge fairly anymore than Merchan contributing to Biden’s campaign doesn’t mean he can’t judge fairly. Personal convictions shouldn’t come into it. If there is an actual connection to the case in question (as there apparently is with Thomas) that’s differentx 

[The Real timschochet 6,421]

  Here’s the analogy I would use: suppose you learned that one of the referees for the NBA finals is a lifelong Dallas fan. That wouldn’t make him ineligible, unable to do his job. He’s a professional. Now, if he places a bet down on Dallas before the game then we have a big problem. 

[torridjoe 48]

5 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Letting someone off that raped a two year old is, yes.  You have your standards, I have mine. 

And yours are clearly moronic. 

[thegeneral 2,910]

6 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Yeah that makes him an a-hole for sure. But the more important part is that he wasn’t flying the flag in connection with Jan 6, so far as we know. So he’s a right winger and wants Trump to win? We already knew that. It doesn’t mean that he can’t judge fairly anymore than Merchan contributing to Biden’s campaign doesn’t mean he can’t judge fairly. Personal convictions shouldn’t come into it. If there is an actual connection to the case in question (as there apparently is with Thomas) that’s differentx 

In this case I think he’s a liar. But yeah I don’t think he needs to recuse himself either for this. 

I think it’s absurd people are making this argument about Merchan (perhaps people think he’s a liar as well). It doesn’t really matter unless straight up errors can be found in how they did the job. Judges are understandably offered a lot of latitude. I’m not a lawyer though so who knows. 

Clarence Thomas’ actions are a bigger problem for me. His batshit wife and more important his “gifts” he has received. Not really sure how to deal with that.