New York Times admits it was lawfare

[RLLD 4,230]

End the Prosecution

In this article we observe the op ed arguing that now is the time to stop because he won the election.   They essentially admit it was all for use to influence the election, and it did not work, so its now time to stop.

WOW.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

Judge Merchan adjourns Trump sentencing in hush money case

another one coming to an end

 

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

Trump Just WON No Longer A Felon! Corrupt Judge Merchan In NYC Adjourns Sentencing! FULL BLOWN PANIC

click bait title but lots of info

 

[jerryskids 6,799]

16 minutes ago, RLLD said:

End the Prosecution

In this article we observe the op ed arguing that now is the time to stop because he won the election.   They essentially admit it was all for use to influence the election, and it did not work, so its now time to stop.

WOW.

I loved this at the end:

Quote

Democrats should imagine instead that charges were brought in Texas and Alabama against Joe Biden using novel and untested approaches challenging how he spent money while campaigning. Those cases would be brought by hard-core Republican prosecutors, before juries and judges in deeply Republican counties. The justices of the State Supreme Courts would have all been selected in partisan elections. Every single one is a Republican. That would seem outrageous.

I feel like we tried to point this out to the Lefties here, but their TDS prevented them from seeing this counterargument.   

[Mike Honcho 5,282]

19 minutes ago, RLLD said:

End the Prosecution

In this article we observe the op ed arguing that now is the time to stop because he won the election.   They essentially admit it was all for use to influence the election, and it did not work, so its now time to stop.

WOW.

A guest essay on the opinion page to you means that they "essentially admit it".  

 

[RLLD 4,230]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I loved this at the end:

I feel like we tried to point this out to the Lefties here, but their TDS prevented them from seeing this counterargument.   

Agree.  They call out the very thing we have been asserting all along.  Now. Today.  

These people man.  They are really bad people....

[Mike Honcho 5,282]

And also in case everyone missed it from the Opinion of the Guest Essay.

That doesn’t prove that they were brought for political reasons.

[RLLD 4,230]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

And also in case everyone missed it from the Opinion of the Guest Essaysist.

That doesn’t prove that they were brought for political reasons.

I concede you will never admit it.  That is fine.

I actually am glad to see some admitting it, notably the Times....its about time all of this stop.

[Reality 3,121]

Been a rough few weeks for the Stalin wing of the Democratic party.

T's & P's fellas. 

[Mike Honcho 5,282]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I concede you will never admit it.  That is fine.

I actually am glad to see some admitting it, notably the Times....its about time all of this stop.

And one more example of the self-delusional world you live.  It's why I'll point out the flaws in your fantastical statements, but I'm not willing to engage in any debate trying to pierce your armor  of fantasy and fallacious arguments. 

[thegeneral 3,214]

15 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I loved this at the end:

I feel like we tried to point this out to the Lefties here, but their TDS prevented them from seeing this counterargument.   

Is there an actual example, like we have with Trump and the donations to Stormy, or just the slippery what if slope?

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

And one more example of the self-delusional world you live.  It's why I'll point out the flaws in your fantastical statements, but I'm not willing to engage in any debate trying to pierce your armor  of fantasy and fallacious arguments. 

Delusion is how the Democrats lost the House, the Senate and the White House.   Delusion is pretending that all the legal actions were not political.  Delusion is saying there is nothing wrong with the economy.

No sir. If it is delusion you seek, look no further than the Democrats who exist entirely in a deluded state every day.

You hold tight to those failed ideas.

[squistion 2,202]

27 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

A guest essay on the opinion page to you means that they "essentially admit it".  

You can't make this stuff up. A guest essay means the NYT admits it? 

[Mike Honcho 5,282]

11 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Is there an actual example, like we have with Trump and the donations to Stormy, or just the slippery what if slope?

Also not mentioned about the untested and novel legal theories is that they were that way because nobody ever thought someone who attempt to pay hush money from campaign funds, or try to get a state official to produce votes, or just create fake slates of electors to change the certification of an election. 

But no, it actually was a coordinated work of different AG's, elected GOP officials and the DOJ to get Trump!!!

[RLLD 4,230]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

You can't make this stuff up. A guest essay means the NYT admits it? 

Have we stopped believing them today?  Do we need to wait for them to write about Trump being a dictator or something for you to see what they offer s being "valid".  Is this just another lie from them> Do tell....

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

You can't make this stuff up. A guest essay means the NYT admits it? 

Not only that, since when is the New York Times the same as the prosecutors’ office? 

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Have we stopped believing them today?  Do we need to wait for them to write about Trump being a dictator or something for you to see what they offer s being "valid".  Is this just another lie from them> Do tell....

It's not "them." It's a guest essay from a person who writes for another website. The NYT- hell every paper in America- will feature syndicated columns or independent writers on a per diem type base. 

[squistion 2,202]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Have we stopped believing them today?  Do we need to wait for them to write about Trump being a dictator or something for you to see what they offer s being "valid".  Is this just another lie from them> Do tell....

Jeebus, it is just an effin GUEST ESSAY!  This is not the NYT times admitting "it was lawfare" 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

Nytimes hasn’t allowed right wing guest essays in a decade 

they were part of the laptop coverup and that wasn’t an opinion

[nobody 2,673]

It's a guest essay they chose to publish.  Think a little bit.  That's the only way they can message that without outright admitting they were knowledgeable.

I have to give credit to the public though.  Only the most brainwashed of the brainwashed bought in to the "he's a felon!!! OMG omg" stuff.  Most normal people even left leaning were like, "yeah, even we know that was BS"

[thegeneral 3,214]

13 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Have we stopped believing them today?  Do we need to wait for them to write about Trump being a dictator or something for you to see what they offer s being "valid".  Is this just another lie from them> Do tell....

It’s an opinion piece meant to provide thought for overall discussion. It’s not news. 

I typically believe news reported in the NYT. 

[TheNewGirl 1,491]

6 minutes ago, nobody said:

It's a guest essay they chose to publish.  Think a little bit.  That's the only way they can message that without outright admitting they were knowledgeable.

I have to go e credit to the public though.  Only the most brainwashed of the brainwashed bought in to the "he's a felon!!! OMG omg" stuff.  Most normal people even left leaning were like, "yeah, even we know that was BS"

This. 

[Reality 3,121]

1 minute ago, nobody said:

It's a guest essay they chose to publish.  Think a little bit.  That's the only way they can message that without outright admitting they were knowledgeable.

I have to go e credit to the public though.  Only the most brainwashed of the brainwashed bought in to the "he's a felon!!! OMG omg" stuff.  Most normal people even left leaning were like, "yeah, even we know that was BS"

Yup, that fact that NYT allowed this story tells you all you need to know.

We've got the last few hold outs frequenting this thread. Lost causes, brainwashed describes them perfectly. Most normal folks figured this out long ago. They made that abundantly clear at the ballot box. 

[Strike 5,547]

You people pretending this is just a "guest editorial" are nuts.  They haven't allowed truly independent "guest" editorials since the furor over Tom Cotton's cost the editorial page editor his job:

https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-times-lost-its-way

[squistion 2,202]

5 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

It’s an opinion piece meant to provide thought for overall discussion. It’s not news. 

I typically believe news reported in the NYT. 

And they can't seem to get that. 

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

A paper is supposed to present things from all sides. Are we arguing now they are not?

I hope more people can come in to scold.

[Strike 5,547]

2 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

A paper is supposed to present things from all sides. Are we arguing now they are not?

I hope more people can come in to scold.

Key words - supposed to.  The NYT doesn't do that. 

[jerryskids 6,799]

46 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Is there an actual example, like we have with Trump and the donations to Stormy, or just the slippery what if slope?

I think it was meant as a thought experiment.

But if you are asking if any politician in the history of ever has paid off concubines as hush money... Ima say yes.  Bill Clinton with Paula Jones?  The best is probably John Edwards though.  Good read on it:

https://www.businessinsider.com/john-edwards-last-presidential-candidate-charged-with-campaign-finance-violations-2023-3

This quote sums it up nicely:

Quote

"It's not illegal to be a pig," Brett Kappel, a Washington campaign finance expert, told the Washington Post at the time. "Is what Edwards did slimy? Absolutely. Everyone will agree it was reprehensible. But it's not a crime."

And that wasn't the highly biased, partisan scenario laid out in the op ed, including a DA who campaigned on getting Trump.

Look, I get it, you've chugged the blue kool aid on this, and honestly think Trump should be punished for 34 felonies.  It'll be particularly hard for folks like @Death and @squistionto no longer be able to call Trump a 34-time convicted felon, once the case is dismissed.   

[thegeneral 3,214]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I think it was meant as a thought experiment.

But if you are asking if any politician in the history of ever has paid off concubines as hush money... Ima say yes.  Bill Clinton with Paula Jones?  The best is probably John Edwards though.  Good read on it:

https://www.businessinsider.com/john-edwards-last-presidential-candidate-charged-with-campaign-finance-violations-2023-3

This quote sums it up nicely:

And that wasn't the highly biased, partisan scenario laid out in the op ed, including a DA who campaigned on getting Trump.

Look, I get it, you've chugged the blue kool aid on this, and honestly think Trump should be punished for 34 felonies.  It'll be particularly hard for folks like @Death and @squistionto no longer be able to call Trump a 34-time convicted felon, once the case is dismissed.   

The comparison to Clinton isn’t in the same ballpark. This was why Trump was busted. 

“Clinton and Trump’s cases have key differences, according to legal experts. Clinton’s $850,000 payment to Paula Jones in 1998 settled a civil lawsuit. The 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.”

Link

John Edwards is more comparable. He went to trial. It ended his political career. Somehow Trump is the choice of the family values party

[jerryskids 6,799]

2 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

The comparison to Clinton isn’t in the same ballpark. This was why Trump was busted. 

“Clinton and Trump’s cases have key differences, according to legal experts. Clinton’s $850,000 payment to Paula Jones in 1998 settled a civil lawsuit. The 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.”

Link

John Edwards is more comparable. He went to trial. It ended his political career. Somehow Trump is the choice of the family values party

I was going to say in my previous post that I was confident that you will draw your Venn diagram, find the differences, and state that the differences are all that matter.  The confidential docs case was similar.  I had hoped to be wrong but, oh well.  Like I said, I get it.   

[thegeneral 3,214]

2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I was going to say in my previous post that I was confident that you will draw your Venn diagram, find the differences, and state that the differences are all that matter.  The confidential docs case was similar.  I had hoped to be wrong but, oh well.  Like I said, I get it.   

If you don’t see the differences I’d say it’s you that has the problem. If you want to argue that it shouldn’t matter that these dudes bang skanks and pay them off well that’s just fine.

Trump got caught trying to hide his before the election. He hid the payments, lied about it.

The classified docs is even more cut and dry. 

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

17 minutes ago, Strike said:

Key words - supposed to.  The NYT doesn't do that. 

But they are here now and people are still complaining.

Perhaps some people are never happy?

[jbycho 754]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

But they are here now and people are still complaining.

Perhaps some people are never happy?

I'm ecstatic. Trump 2024. Democrats got trounced. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,859]

Too late for apologies and the it’s part of the game shrug.  All involved in lawfare took their shot at destroying democracy.  They failed and now it’s time to pay the price.  

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

7 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Too late for apologies and the it’s part of the game shrug.  All involved in lawfare took their shot at destroying democracy.  They failed and now it’s time to pay the price.  

When you shoot for the King, you better not miss.  

The Democrats not only missed, they showed up where the King wasn't and fired off a few rounds into the air and then claimed "We got'eem!!!"

[jerryskids 6,799]

18 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

If you don’t see the differences I’d say it’s you that has the problem. If you want to argue that it shouldn’t matter that these dudes bang skanks and pay them off well that’s just fine.

Trump got caught trying to hide his before the election. He hid the payments, lied about it.

The classified docs is even more cut and dry. 

It's not me arguing it; I pasted the quote and everything. 

Do I wish that men in power didn't use that power to take advantage of women?  Sure.  Do I wish paying them hush money were a crime?  Maybe.  The reality is though that it hasn't been, until now, when an admitted partisan DA brought a case against the opposition party POTUS candidate, in a highly partisan district, with a unique combination of laws to create the appearance of a "felony." 

Like I said, you don't see it.  Never have.  Lots of other people did though, based on the election results.   

[Fnord 2,272]

Normally you wouldn't get a conservative to even CLICK on a NYT opinion piece. Now a single op-ed is not only a confession, but also a manifesto for the entire leftist MSM.

I would say it's unbelievable, but that, like many similar terms, are essentially lost to a reality that seems anything but.

[thegeneral 3,214]

12 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It's not me arguing it; I pasted the quote and everything. 

Do I wish that men in power didn't use that power to take advantage of women?  Sure.  Do I wish paying them hush money were a crime?  Maybe.  The reality is though that it hasn't been, until now, when an admitted partisan DA brought a case against the opposition party POTUS candidate, in a highly partisan district, with a unique combination of laws to create the appearance of a "felony." 

Like I said, you don't see it.  Never have.  Lots of other people did though, based on the election results.   

Bill Clinton reached a settlement, they released details of the settlement. He paid the money.  

Trump didn’t have a settlement, he claims it’s a lie, these payments were hidden. That this was election interference is debatable, but don’t see how one can argue he wasn’t trying to hide this for any other reason.

Those are differences. Not sure how this isn’t clear.

It being a political winning issue is a separate issue.

[nobody 2,673]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

A paper is supposed to present things from all sides. Are we arguing now they are not?

I hope more people can come in to scold.

Holy shìt.  Lol.  "Are they not?" Lol

[nobody 2,673]

38 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

It's not me arguing it; I pasted the quote and everything. 

Do I wish that men in power didn't use that power to take advantage of women?  Sure.  Do I wish paying them hush money were a crime?  Maybe.  The reality is though that it hasn't been, until now, when an admitted partisan DA brought a case against the opposition party POTUS candidate, in a highly partisan district, with a unique combination of laws to create the appearance of a "felony." 

Like I said, you don't see it.  Never have.  Lots of other people did though, based on the election results.   

They don't understand malicious prosecution at all.  That, of course, is because they see no problem with it... In Trump's case to be clear.

In other words, if they were put in the same position, they would also allow their bias to bring charges against someone because they don't like them. 

They see know issue with it.  Thank god they appear to have no power.