╌>

Trump vows to file challenge against ‘unconstitutional’ gag order

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  131 comments

By:   Story by Kaelan Deese, Washington Examiner

Trump vows to file challenge against ‘unconstitutional’ gag order
It's also not clear whether Trump intends to sue Merchan over the gag order or whether he plans to file a motion within the criminal case as a means to challenge the gag order, though the nature of the challenge may become more evident as the day progresses.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


F ormer President  Donald Trump  vowed Friday that he would file a challenge against the "unconstitutional" gag order against him in his  New York  criminal hush money trial.

Standing outside the courtroom before Day 11 of the trial brought by Manhattan District Attorney  Alvin Bragg , Trump said he plans to file a "constitutional motion" or lawsuit against the gag order later on Friday.

Speaking to reporters, Trump clarified comments he made the day before about the gag order, saying it does not prevent him from testifying in the case but the order stops him from "talking about people and responding when they say things about me."

After court on Thursday, Trump responded to a question about his thoughts on the day's testimony, saying, "I’m not allowed to testify. I’m under a gag order,” a comment that raised some confusion.

The gag order prevents Trump from making public statements about witnesses, jurors, and some family members of prosecutors and court staff members.

Judge Juan Merchan walked into the courtroom at 9:30 a.m. and began addressing the defense by clarifying that the gag order does not block Trump from testifying on his own behalf, a remark that appeared to address Trump's comments to the press on Thursday.

"The order restricting extrajudicial statements does not prevent you from testifying in any way," Merchan said, adding that the order does not in any way limit what Trump says on the witness stand.

It's also not clear whether Trump intends to sue Merchan over the gag order or whether he plans to file a motion within the criminal case as a means to challenge the gag order, though the nature of the challenge may become more evident as the day progresses.

Meanwhile, Merchan has yet to rule on the latest gag order violations that prosecutors brought against Trump. The former president has already been fined $1,000 for nine separate gag order violations from a previous order this week, and a hearing was held on Thursday, during which the judge appeared poised to fine him for up to three separate violations raised by prosecutors.

Trump lawyer Emil Bove resumed cross-examination Friday morning of Douglas Daus, a forensic analyst for Bragg's office who extracted recording and text messages from two devices of Trump's former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen.

The second week of testimony in the hush money case will conclude Friday. The prosecution is still setting the stage for testimony from Cohen, who paid porn star  Stormy Daniels  $130,000 for her silence about an alleged affair with Trump, an act which is at the heart of the 34-count indictment.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all counts and denies the affair ever occurred.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

No matter which way Trump challenges the gag order he has a 100% chance of winning.

You heard it here first.

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.1  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago
You heard it here first.

Actually I heard it from your hero first. To wit: "I’m not allowed to testify. I’m under a gag order ... ”. The man is a judicial idiot.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @1.1    3 weeks ago

correction - complete and total fucking idiot

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1    3 weeks ago

You are very fussy about what you hear.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @1.1    3 weeks ago

his moronic supporters believe the words he utters...

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
1.1.4  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    3 weeks ago
You are very fussy about what you hear.

That comes from being fussy about who I listen to.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @1.1.4    3 weeks ago

They have a very small audience and lied about something called "the Russia hoax."

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

No no no. A thousand times, no. You don’t “testify” on Twitter or X or Facebook, or whatever his social media platform is - Horseshit.com, I’m assuming.

Gag orders have been tested in the courts and are totally legal. The factors considered in a gag order review are as follows:

(a) the nature and extent of pretrial news coverage;

Which, in this case, is massive.

(b) whether other measures would be likely to mitigate the effects of unrestrained pretrial publicity; and

Trump has proven he will not shut the fuck up, and only punishment from the court will restrain him.

(c) how effectively a restraining order would operate to prevent the threatened danger [of an unfair trial for defendant].

Here, the gag order is aimed at ensuring a fair trial because Trump’s posts are actually threatening jurors, counsel, and court staff.

He has no case.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    3 weeks ago

Of the constitutional question of what this judge did, are you going to frame it around a silly statement that Trump made?

Why would a gag order be imposed on a defendant?

Especially when the key witness is on TikTok denouncing and smearing that same defendant just about every day and getting money for it.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    3 weeks ago

Lots of good reasons but in this case the defendant is a former and possibly future President of the United States who is intimidating jurors and witnesses...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @1.2.2    3 weeks ago
He has no case against the judge.

He is not intimidating anybody. It is a bullshit charge, a get-Trump judge, a get-Trump prosecutor right from Biden's DOJ, a get-Trump jury and corrupt use of the law to defeat a political candidate.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
He is not intimidating anybody.

According to who? You?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    3 weeks ago

With his never ending verbal diarrhea he has tainted the world, much less Manhattan's, jury pool. . .

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    3 weeks ago

Like I've said before, I'll take your knowledge and G-square's over those who have graduated from trumpU

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    3 weeks ago
Why would a gag order be imposed on a defendant?

There’s no need to ask me, you could look it up. The reasons were clearly stated when the prosecution asked for the order. It’s a factual matter of record.

But this is the problem. People get their “facts” from Trump himself.

The actual facts - and the reasons for the gag order - are that Trump, who has been involved in many court cases, has a history of publicly verbally assaulted the judges, witnesses, and opposing counsel in those cases. True to form, he is doing it again in this case.

We have also seen that Trump’s words can prompt his followers to violent action. And so multiple jurors have complained or even quit the case. Trump is online and on television spreading conspiracy theories about how liberal activists are lying to get themselves on the jury so they can get at Trump. These people and their families are being harassed and threatened. The judge’s daughter has been harassed. 

All of this threatens the process. The defendant has a right to a fair trial, but so does the state. Trump seeks to win his case in the court of public opinion, but doing so threatens the trial in the court of law.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.7    3 weeks ago

Awesome sauce!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
a get-Trump judge, a get-Trump prosecutor right from Biden's DOJ, a get-Trump jury and corrupt use of the law to defeat a political candidate

This is a perfect example of why the gag order exists. You didn’t come up with this on your own. Trump says this shit. He says it all the time. He has been saying it for years. He says it and people like you believe it. Even worse, some people hear it, believe it, and then harass or threaten those prosecutors, judges, juries, or their families. 

At minimum, Trump’s words undermine the public’s legitimate interest in fair justice established in a court of law. At worst, it impacts the lives of real people.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.3    3 weeks ago
He is not intimidating anybody. It is a bullshit charge, a get-Trump judge, a get-Trump prosecutor right from Biden's DOJ, a get-Trump jury and corrupt use of the law to defeat a political candidate.

This does not square with reality.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.7    3 weeks ago
The actual facts - and the reasons for the gag order - are that Trump, who has been involved in many court cases, has a history of publicly verbally assaulted the judges, witnesses, and opposing counsel in those cases.

I didn't read that as being a reason for the gag order. What are these other cases where he did that?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.9    3 weeks ago
Trump says this shit

No legal experts are saying it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.10    3 weeks ago

The open defiance by the judge of a New York statue + 4 cases during an election indicates that it is reality.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.13    3 weeks ago
The open defiance by the judge of a New York statue [sic] ...

Which statute do you claim judge Merchant openly defied?

... + 4 cases during an election indicates that it is reality.

The most plausible reason Trump is running is so that people will make that very claim.   But to make such a claim you would need to show that the cases are without merit.    If a case has merit, it will likely result in a finding against the defendant.   If it has insufficient merit, it will find for the defendant.

I personally care about the behavior of Trump while PotUS and care little about private citizen Trump, the unfortunate reality is that the lesser cases are being tried while the important ones have been successfully delayed by legal tactics.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.10    3 weeks ago

The maga king and his magats do not reside in reality

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.12    3 weeks ago

that is correct 

no legal experts ARE saying THAT

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.17  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.11    3 weeks ago

Trump has said SCOTUS justices Sotomayor and Ginsberg should recuse themselves from any cases he is involved in.

He attacked both the judge and the jury forewoman in the Roger Stone case.

He attacked the judge in the Paul Manafort case.

He attacked Judge Tigar of the 9th Circuit, which Chief Justice Roberts found so repugnant, he felt compelled to respond publicly. Trump then suggested the 9th Circuit be broken up.

He attacked the FISA court judges.

In the Trump University trial, he insisted Judge Curiel couldn’t be fair and impartial because of his Mexican heritage.

Hell, he even criticized the judge in the Oscar Pistorius case. I could go and on. He has been accusing judges and the judicial system generally of corruption and bias for many years.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.18  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.12    3 weeks ago

They get it from Trump, too. Also, you forgot to put quotes and a sarc tag for “legal experts.”

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.18    3 weeks ago
you forgot to put quotes and a sarc tag for “legal experts.”

And you forgot why they are in a rush to convict Trump:

However, this can change if Trump is convicted. According to an  ABC  News/Ipsos poll produced by Langer Research Associates and conducted between April 25 to 30 that was published on Sunday, 80 percent of Trump's supporters said they will continue to stand by him if he was convicted of a felony in the hush money case. Meanwhile, 20 percent of his base would either reconsider their support (16 percent) or withdraw their support of Trump (4 percent).

Donald Trump Gets Worrying Sign From New Poll Amid Manhattan Trial (msn.com)

That is all this is about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.20  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.19    3 weeks ago

It is quite likely that the only reason Trump is running for PotUS is so that he could gain this bullshit excuse and have supporters propagate same.

Besides that, do you not think that the American people should know if Trump is a felon (in particular, the Jan 6 trial) before voting him in as PotUS?    

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.19    3 weeks ago

Rush? It took years to get to this point.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.22  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.21    2 weeks ago

What were they doing all those years?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.20    2 weeks ago
Besides that, do you not think that the American people should know if Trump is a felon (in particular, the Jan 6 trial) before voting him in as PotUS?

That is a strange question. It is stranger that the NY indictment which fails to define the crime.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.24  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.23    2 weeks ago
That is a strange question.

Trump engaged in historically bad behavior as PotUS when he attempted for the first time in our history to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.   He has been indicted for his behavior which, per the cited law, are felonies.

Since the standard excuse for Trump's behavior is that he has not been tried and convicted, that implicitly means that the individual needs a legal ruling to know if Trump really did engage in felonious wrongdoing.

The question should not be seen as strange.

Try it this way.   Hypothetically, let's say that Trump was a Democrat.   Exact same situation but he was a D rather than an R.

Would you want the Jan 6th question on former D PotUS Trump decided before the election?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.24    2 weeks ago
rump engaged in historically bad behavior as PotUS when he attempted for the first time in our history to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement. 

Hey remember this:

"Many on the left were indignant when the Trump campaign legal team tried to convince legislatures in several battleground states to appoint a new slate of electors after asserting election irregularities. 

However, four years ago, many Democrats, liberal activists, and Hollywood stars tried to pressure electors to reverse the results of the November election. 

Here’s an excerpt from my book “ Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump ,” explaining Democrats’ effort to thwart President Donald Trump’s election.

Strangely enough, many of the same people who complained Trump would be president despite losing the national popular vote were suddenly willing to give the presidency to someone who wasn’t on the ballot and had zero votes for president.

Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., framed altering the Electoral College vote as a way to prevent a soft Russian takeover of the United States. 

“This man is not only unqualified to be president, he’s a danger to the republic,” Himes said. “I do think the Electoral College should choose someone other than Donald Trump to be president. That will lead to a fascinating legal issue, but I would rather have a legal issue, a complicated legal problem, than to find out the White House was now the Kremlin’s chief ally.”

Christine Pelosi, a California elector and daughter of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, took up the mantle for a potential Electoral College coup.

The younger Pelosi led a letter signed by 53 other electors—including one rogue Republican from Texas—addressed to the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, requesting the intelligence community provide a briefing on Russian interference for the full Electoral College before it convened in 50 state capitols.

“We do not understand our sole function [to be] to convene in mid-December, several weeks after Election Day, and summarily cast our votes,” said the letter. “To the contrary, the Constitution envisions the Electoral College as a deliberative body that plays a critical role in our system of government—ensuring that the American people elect a president who is constitutionally qualified and fit to serve.”

As the chairwoman of the California Democratic Party Women’s Caucus, Christine Pelosi had been “thoroughly convinced that this would be my opportunity to cast a vote for the first woman president of the United States.”

To that end, she petitioned to be an elector. Despite the letter extolling the deliberative role of the   Electoral College , she said in an interview with the left-wing Democracy Now! broadcast that she would prefer to scrap it.

“I’m a member of the Electoral College who would like to see the end of the Electoral College,” she said. She added, “But as long as you charge me to do a job as an elector, I’m going to do it with agency and with attention. And right now, I’d like to pay attention to the evidence.”

Then, there was a group calling themselves the Hamilton Electors, named for Alexander Hamilton, who said that the Electoral College existed to ensure “the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Bret Chiafalo, an elector from Washington state, and Michael Baca, an elector from Colorado, started the effort. “We’re trying to be that ‘break in case of emergency’ fire hose that’s gotten dusty over the last 200 years,” Chiafalo told The Atlantic. 

They first sought the near-unattainable goal of uniting 135 Republicans and 135 Democrats behind a compromise Republican: John Kasich or maybe Mitt Romney. A slightly more realistic alternative was to convince 37 Republican electors to stray from Trump, bringing his total below the needed 270 electoral votes. That would send the election to the House of Representatives.

In addition, Clinton electors in California, Colorado, and Washington   filed lawsuits   to overturn state restrictions on electors from voting however they wish. This was supposed to set a legal precedent to allow Trump electors to break. 

Hollywood even got in on the act. In an ad sponsored by United For America, Martin Sheen, star of NBC’s “West Wing,” was joined by other Hollywood stars, including Debra Messing, Richard Schiff, and Bob Odenkirk, for a political ad. 

The audience was the Republican electors. Each actor stated, “I’m not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.” They then requested that Republicans in the Electoral College be an “American hero” by keeping Trump out of the White House through their “service and patriotism to the American people.

On Dec. 19, a total of seven electors bolted from the candidate who had won their state. But despite the left’s efforts, the closest thing we saw to a revolt came from Clinton electors. 

Four from Washington state abandoned Clinton, with three voting for Colin Powell and another voting for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American activist from South Dakota. A Hawaii Democratic elector voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

On the Republican side, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Texas U.S. Rep. Ron Paul each got one vote from rebel Texas Republican electors. The final tally was Trump 304, Clinton 227."

How Democrats Attempted a 2016 Electoral College Coup (dailysignal.com)

NOW IT'S ILLEGAL?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.26  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.25    2 weeks ago

You deflected from my question.

Hypothetically, let's say that Trump was a Democrat.   Exact same situation but he was a D rather than an R.

Would you want the Jan 6th question on former D PotUS Trump decided before the election?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.26    2 weeks ago

That is a huge hypothetical.

Then we would have to ask ourselves if the events of Jan 6th would have been called an "insurrection" in the first place. And of course, if Trump were a democrat there wouldn't be all the chaos surrounding his every word. I have to think back to how things involving President Clinton and Hillary Clinton were handled.

Food for thought.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.28  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.27    2 weeks ago
That is a huge hypothetical.

It is a very easy concept to comment on.

You of course refused to answer the question.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.29  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.22    2 weeks ago
What were they doing all those years?

“All those years.” So are you now conceding that they didn’t rush this?

Ok, so first all, he was president. Remember that? He was President of the United States until January 20, 2021. They couldn’t have pursued a case before that. Then they built a case and presented it to a grand jury. That takes time. 

He was indicted in this case in March, 2023. That was over a year ago. In the meantime, Trump has done everything he could to delay the trial. If he wanted a speedier trial, he certainly could have had one. It’s his right.

There’s really nothing bizarre about the timeline of events here. Prosecutors acted when they legally could. They were deliberate and methodical. No rush. Alternatively, if you’re mad that it didn’t happen sooner, blame Trump. We could have been done with this already, if not for his shenanigans.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.29    2 weeks ago
here’s really nothing bizarre about the timeline of events here.

The supposed  illegal action took place in 2017.  How does it take 6 years to build a case based on a misdemeanor bookkeeping entry?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.29    2 weeks ago

was there or is there anything in NY law preventing them from pursuing it earlier?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.32  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.30    2 weeks ago

The timing is suspect, to say the least.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.33  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.29    2 weeks ago
So are you now conceding that they didn’t rush this?

Are you conceding that they waited for the election?


Ok, so first all, he was president. Remember that? He was President of the United States until January 20, 2021. They couldn’t have pursued a case before that. Then they built a case and presented it to a grand jury. That takes time. 

That does not take 3 years, four trials and redundant charges. It is unheard of Tacos.


He was indicted in this case in March, 2023. That was over a year ago. In the meantime, Trump has done everything he could to delay the trial. If he wanted a speedier trial, he certainly could have had one. It’s his right.

That is correct IT IS THE DEFENDENT'S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, NOT THE PROSECUTIONS.  Speaking of speedy trials, why didn't the Jan 6th defendants get one. They let them rot in jail. The same people doing the prosecuting. Are ok with this Tacos?


There’s really nothing bizarre about the timeline of events here. Prosecutors acted when they legally could. They were deliberate and methodical. No rush. Alternatively, if you’re mad that it didn’t happen sooner, blame Trump. We could have been done with this already, if not for his shenanigans.

No rational person believes any of that.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.34  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.32    2 weeks ago
he timing is suspect, to say the least.

Politics have dictated every step of this case, including timing the indictment to get a trial during an election year. 

They easily could  have indicted him the day he left office in 2021.  They'd already had four years to prepare  at that point. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.35  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.34    2 weeks ago
Politics have dictated every step of this case, including timing the indictment to get a trial during an election year.

The time to file this case would have been LONG ago if there really is anything to it, and not just a political hit job to aid failing Joe Biden.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.36  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.34    2 weeks ago
They easily could  have indicted him the day he left office in 2021.  They'd already had four years to prepare  at that point. 

yeah, but did NY law prevent the case being filed years ago?

In any case, you are right, it shouldn't take 7 years to build a case.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.37  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.29    2 weeks ago
They couldn’t have pursued a case before that.

And what exactly prevented it from going forward? Any law against bringing charges against a sitting President for breaking a New York state law?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.38  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.37    2 weeks ago
And what exactly prevented it from going forward?

Precedent.   It has long been the considered opinion that no legal cases will be brought against a sitting PotUS.   They legally could, but doing so is fraught with problems.   In addition, there is a constitutional question ... it is not clear that this is consistent with the CotUS.   So that is a problem too.

Ironically, Trump's attorneys have made many of these arguments in the Immunity case.  You should learn more about it.   They bring up the supremacy clause (which would argue against a state being able to bring up charges) and the legal theory of immunity.   But mostly, this is untested water.  Never in our history has anything like this ever happened.   So a state would be dealing with a boatload of unknowns and barriers to indict a sitting PotUS.

I can easily see the state of New York choosing to NOT indict a sitting PotUS.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.39  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.38    2 weeks ago
Precedent.

What an incredibly weak argument/excuse.

Absolutely no one has been able to cite any law which prevented NY from pursuing the case years earlier.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.40  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.39    2 weeks ago

The demonstrated fact that you do not understand how precedent is a key factor here does not make my argument weak, it just shows that you should not be trying to comment on this topic.

Absolutely no one has been able to cite any law which prevented NY from pursuing the case years earlier.

There is no law preventing NY from indicting Trump at any point in time.   You need someone to acknowledge this before you make your grand point?   

And your grand point is ....

....

....

... it is all political.

You have nothing, Texan.   Deeming these cases merely political is the epitome of a weak argument / excuse.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.41  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.40    2 weeks ago
The demonstrated fact that you do not understand how precedent is a key factor here does not make my argument weak, it just shows that you should not be trying to comment on this topic.

Nonsense. I know what precedent is. And I know what a legitimate argument would have been.

That, too, is an incredibly weak argument.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.42  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.30    2 weeks ago

I mean if you aren’t going to read the comments you reply to, I don’t know what you expect of me. You’re just going to keep repeating the very lie I just debunked? Whatever.

I guess on the bright side, at least you and I agree that Vic was wrong when he said this was being rushed.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.43  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.33    2 weeks ago
Are you conceding that they waited for the election?

Again, he was indicted over a year ago - following all the time it took to conduct an investigation and convene a grand jury. The election is still 6 months from now. If you want to call that “waiting for the election,” I guess that’s up to you. I would not.

That is correct IT IS THE DEFENDENT'S RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, NOT THE PROSECUTIONS.

Meaning, what?

Speaking of speedy trials, why didn't the Jan 6th defendants get one.

There have been many trials. Well over 100. Hundreds more have been adjudicated without trial. I.e., they plead guilty. As I understand it, there are still a few hundred more cases pending. So, when you say they didn’t get a trial, I don’t know what you’re talking about.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.44  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.37    2 weeks ago
And what exactly prevented it from going forward? Any law against bringing charges against a sitting President for breaking a New York state law?

Sort of. It’s pretty much settled law that a sitting president is immune from most civil suits. It’s still an open question whether he is immune from criminal prosecution. I would guess that for most states, it’s probably not worth the trouble to fight it out in court, when they could just wait for him to leave office.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.45  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.44    2 weeks ago

So, again, absolutely nothing prevented NY from bringing the case YEARS ago but conveniently waited until now.

That has been what I have been saying all along.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.2.46  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.42    2 weeks ago

Right.  Your "debunking" consists of the absurd idea that New York couldn't do any legal work or preparation before Trump was out of office and then hand waving past  why it took another two years after he was out of office  to indict him for a bookkeeping entry.  Good Job!

Trump could (and should) have been indicted the day he left office if this were a legitimate prosecution.  The idea that it took years and years of work to investigate a simple misdemeanor case where the  facts aren't really even in dispute is laughable. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.47  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.45    2 weeks ago

Hopefully everyone sees that even though plausible reasons have been provided for why the NY case was not brought years ago you ignore them and just keep repeating that this is merely political.   

Bringing a case against a former PotUS is a big deal.   Even though we are talking about the law, there are some serious extralegal factors that would give people pause.   First of all, it is breaking new historic ground.   Never in US history has a former PotUS been indicted for a crime (much less a felony).   So there are all sorts of unknowns with no guide rails, no precedence, no established protocol.   That alone would cause people to be hesitant to do this.   And it would thus take time to gather support for such an undertaking.

On top of that, bringing such a high profile case against such a high profile character is a big risk so the prosecution will want to ensure they have a case they believe they will clearly win.   Preparing such a case takes time.   And if you wonder why they did not start preparing while Trump was PotUS, I think it is plausible that they chose to not put forth resources on a case that might never be brought ... since Trump could have won the 2020 election.   So it seems reasonable to me that they started seriously considering this case only after Trump lost.

Bottom line, it takes time to prepare cases, especially if one must ensure it is rock solid given the defendant.   And there will be many hurdles to get people on board to allow such a case to be raised given this is historically new territory and breaking new ground in many dimensions.   Big risk.   Lots of unforeseeable consequences.   And it makes no sense to devote resources to a case while Trump was in office given Trump could have been reelected in 2020.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.48  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.47    2 weeks ago
Hopefully everyone sees that even though plausible reasons have been provided for why the NY case was not brought years ago you ignore them and just keep repeating that this is merely political.   

I read every single one of the excuses offered up. I can clearly see that the timing is strictly political even when others are blind to it. That isn't ignoring what was offered despite your claim, it is dismissing it as not true---nothing prevented NY from bringing the case 7 years ago, and whether people can see that or not isn't my problem.

Bringing a case against a former PotUS is a big deal.   Even though we are talking about the law, there are some serious extralegal factors that would give people pause.   First of all, it is breaking new historic ground.   Never in US history has a former PotUS been indicted for a crime (much less a felony).   So there are all sorts of unknowns with no guide rails, no precedence, no established protocol.   That alone would cause people to be hesitant to do this.   And it would thus take time to gather support for such an undertaking.

More useless excuses.

On top of that, bringing such a high profile case against such a high profile character is a big risk so the prosecution will want to ensure they have a case they believe they will clearly win.   Preparing such a case takes time.   

Sycophants will think that 7 years isn't enough time to prosecute a misdemeanor, while others recognize the truth. 7 years is a hell of a long time for such a simple case.

And if you wonder why they did not start preparing while Trump was PotUS, I think it is plausible that they chose to not put forth resources on a case that might never be brought ... since Trump could have won the 2020 election.   So it seems reasonable to me that they started seriously considering this case only after Trump lost.

That is a nice way to almost admit that it is a political case, that if Trump hadn't beat the Queen, this wouldn't have been brought at all.

I am surprised at the admission, frankly.

Bottom line, it takes time to prepare cases, especially if one must ensure it is rock solid given the defendant.

yeah, I ain't freaking stupid enough to believe now or ever that 7 freaking YEARS isn't "enough time". the defendant shouldn't matter, the facts of the case is what matters. That is how law works, right--the prosecution proves its case no matter the defendant's name.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.49  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.48    2 weeks ago

As usual, you ignore what people write and deem everything an excuse.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.50  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.49    2 weeks ago

As usual, I addressed most of your points and now you claim (again, sigh) that you were ignored.

Pitiful.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.51  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.50    2 weeks ago

You responded to my comments with nothing other than labeling them excuses and continuing to not understand why the case was not brought forward sooner even though I gave you very plausible reasons.

One of which, by the way, is that it makes no sense to bring forth a case while Trump was PotUS since he could have been reelected.

Replying to a post does not necessarily mean that you offered thoughtful commentary.   

Your last post had no value.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.52  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.51    2 weeks ago

I'll tell you this:

Stop making excuses and I'll stop calling you out on it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.53  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.52    2 weeks ago

Such bullshit.

Q:   Why did the state of New York not start preparing a case while Trump was PotUS so that they could indict him as soon as he left office?

A:   Possibly because Trump could have been reelected in 2020.   Rather than waste resources, they likely waited until he was clearly out of office.

You label all my answers excuses.   This is one example now of several clear answers that you simply label excuses since you cannot come up with an actual rebuttal.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.54  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.53    2 weeks ago

I didn't ask for conjecture and guesses. Anyone can supply that crap.

And why are you quoting a question someone else asked and pretending it was mine?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.55  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.54    2 weeks ago
I didn't ask for conjecture and guesses. Anyone can supply that crap.

You have received plausible reasons from both Tacos! and myself.   

They illustrate why the timing of the NY case is not extraordinary and why the only reason you can conceive of is not nearly as strong as you wish it to be.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
1.2.56  George  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.53    2 weeks ago
A:   Possibly because Trump could have been reelected in 2020.   Rather than waste resources, they likely waited until he was clearly out of office.

Yes, because every good prosecutor knows it is easier to find evidence as more time passes. I hope that doesn't require a sarcasm label.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.57  Texan1211  replied to  George @1.2.56    2 weeks ago

I surmise it took seven years to turn a misdemeanor into a felony.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.58  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.55    2 weeks ago

Name one misdemeanor case which took so long to file.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.59  TᵢG  replied to  George @1.2.56    2 weeks ago

If you had been in charge, would you have put full resources on this case while Trump was PotUS given he could have been in office through 2024?   

Would you have used your resources on a case that had a questionable likelihood of even being raised given it would be the first criminal case of a former PotUS in our history and thus had myriad hurdles to convince people to support it and is fraught with the uncertainty of new territory sans guidelines, precedent and procedures?

A more sensible approach would be to gather and organize all materials so that if the circumstances allow, the case can be initiated once Trump was officially out of office.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.60  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.59    2 weeks ago
If you had been in charge, would you have put full resources on this case while Trump was PotUS given he could have been in office through 2024

Hell, no, especially after the FEC didn't do anything after investigating.

Of course, as a prosecutor, I would not be expected to try lame political cases to help my guy win. 

A sensible approach would have been to move on after the previous prosecutor declined the case and the FEC said nothing was there. But the prosecution now has big political ambitions, and just think of the payoff!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.61  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.45    2 weeks ago
conveniently waited until now.

Again, he was indicted over a year ago. Grand jury was convened before that. Investigation was started before that. The trial has been delayed until now because Trump has been delaying it. He could have had a trial last summer, if he wanted it. Hell, he probably could have negotiated a plea deal.

I can’t help but notice that your big objection is the timing of the trial - not that it’s happening, and not that this allegedly conservative, God-fearing man who wants to be president cheated on his wife with a porn star and then falsified business records to cover up his hush money payments to her. Great priorities there.

When would you have liked the trial to be held and what difference would that make?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.62  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.45    2 weeks ago
So, again, absolutely nothing prevented NY from bringing the case

I didn’t say that. Can’t help you if you won’t read.

YEARS ago

Do you believe the prosecutors have violated the Statute of Limitations? If not, why do you object to them operating within its constraints?

How many “years ago” would you have liked? What would that have changed?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.63  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.60    2 weeks ago
I would not be expected to try lame political cases to help my guy win. 

I figured that would be the deflection response.   Dodge the actual question and claim you would not bring the case in the first place regardless of the issues raised.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.64  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.63    2 weeks ago

Your deflection claim is merely farcical.

Did you not recognize the point about the FEC and a previous prosecutor declining to bring charges?!?!??

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.65  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.62    2 weeks ago

How many misdemeanor cases wait 7 years??

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.66  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.64    2 weeks ago

The idea that people will be reluctant to indict a former PotUS is one of the reasons I enumerated.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.67  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.66    2 weeks ago
The idea that people will be reluctant to indict a former PotUS is one of the reasons I enumerated.

the fact Trump is under multiple indictments sure shoots a hole--a GIANT one--in that excuse.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.68  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.65    2 weeks ago
How many misdemeanor cases wait 7 years??

Trump is charged in this case with 34 felonies. The clock on Statutes of Limitation typically begin when the offense is discovered, not when it happened. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.69  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.68    2 weeks ago

So now the claim is that the previous prosecutor missed something, as did the FEC.

Interesting theory.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.70  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.33    2 weeks ago

No rational person believes any of that

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.71  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.69    2 weeks ago
So now the claim is that the previous prosecutor missed something

I didn’t claim anything of the sort.

Are you ever going to tell us when the case should have been brought? Or do you plan to invent a complaint about everything in the legal process? Do you care about the truth of the alleged crimes?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.72  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.71    2 weeks ago
Are you ever going to tell us when the case should have been brought?

it shouldn't have been brought at all.

The FEC and a prosecutor looked into it and decided not to pursue charges of any kind--not even a campaign money violation.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.73  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.72    2 weeks ago

FEC is a federal agency. He is on trial in a New York State court. That investigation began in 2021.

not even a campaign money violation.

He is charged with falsifying business records, not violating campaign finance law.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.74  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.73    2 weeks ago
FEC is a federal agency. He is on trial in a New York State court.

Nothing I disputed at all.

I know what he is "charged" with.

Thanks.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.75  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.74    2 weeks ago
I know what he is "charged" with.

You do now.

Previously, you have talked about federal authority, campaign finance law, and misdemeanors - none of which are relevant to this case. Now, you no longer have to form theories or outrages about stuff that isn’t even happening.

You’re welcome.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
1.2.76  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.40    2 weeks ago
... it is all political.

Yes, it is, the statute of limitations runs out on a misdemeanor so you add another misdemeanor to try and make it a felony.  Please....even you know that is total bullshit.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.77  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.75    2 weeks ago

I did before, please don't ever think you know what it is I know.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.78  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.77    2 weeks ago

Yeah, whatever. Don't post nonsense, and you won't be held accountable for it. That's 100% your responsibility, not mine.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.79  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.67    2 weeks ago

First it is obnoxious (no doubt by intent) to keep labeling plausible reasons as excuses.    Especially since we are trying to thoughtfully respond to the question you raised. 

Second, your logic is flawed.   It took years for these cases to come to fruition.   It would not surprise me if in each case there was concern among those in charge about bringing such a case.    My point is that concerns would naturally cause a delay because those concerns are hurdles that need to be dealt with.

Of course, I already explained this multiple times.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.80  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @1.2.76    2 weeks ago
Please....even you know that is total bullshit.   

Even me?   You are suggesting I am stupid?

And do not cherry-pick part of my sentence, included it in a quote, and dishonestly misrepresent what I wrote.  

Yes, it is, the statute of limitations runs out on a misdemeanor so you add another misdemeanor to try and make it a felony.

You are replying to a comment dealing with the question about why it took so long to bring the case.   But you are bringing forth a different argument.   I have not been arguing that this is a strong case but rather why it might have taken so long. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.81  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.79    2 weeks ago
First it is obnoxious (no doubt by intent) to keep labeling plausible reasons as excuses.    

I see no need to stop calling things what they are because someone finds it "offensive" to them.

My logic is every bit as good as yours.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.82  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.78    2 weeks ago
whatever

Exactly!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

That is what you said about John Durham too!

[deleted]

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
1.4  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 weeks ago
No matter which way Trump challenges the gag order he has a 100% chance of winning.You heard it here first.

Good point!

The first thing you hear is always true. (In fact, if you hear something and you're not sure if its true-- that's a fool proof test!!!

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
"I’m not allowed to testify. I’m under a gag order,”

I have encountered a number of people who predicted he would say this bullshit. The gag order doesn’t have any impact on whether or not he would testify, which of course he won’t. 

As for gag orders, they are super common and the SCOTUS has already laid out rules for when they are allowed. Trump’s case is a classic scenario for gag orders, and his right to a fair trial has not been jeopardized in the least as a result. He has no case against the judge.

He is a moron, but so are many of his supporters, so they will swallow this nonsense.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @2    3 weeks ago
I have encountered a number of people who predicted he would say this bullshit.

I couldn't imagine him saying it, but then again he will say something silly every once in a while. The question of the constitutionality of the gag order remains and no worthwhile defense attorney is going to appeal the gag order using that comment. Only a leftist like judge Merchan would jump on the comment. The same judge who was silent when reasonable questions were raised about the gag order.


As for gag orders, they are super common and the SCOTUS has already laid out rules for when they are allowed. 

AND ALMOST NEVER APPLIED TO A DEFENDANT.


 He has no case against the judge.

As long as that appeal is not based on his silly idea about testimony, he wins!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago
AND ALMOST NEVER APPLIED TO A DEFENDANT.

Most GAG order are applied to defendants. There is nothing unconstitutional about them as they been used for a very long time. Donny is lying, as usual and once again, you're trying to spin his lies into some semblance of truth. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago
AND ALMOST NEVER APPLIED TO A DEFENDANT.

This is funny.   Yes, Vic, one would expect a defendant to be fearful that the judge and jury might look at them poorly.   They are typically on their best behavior.   Of course they would not be gagged, most people have the commonsense to keep their mouths shut when they are criminal defendants.

Trump, of course, is too arrogant and stupid to operate this way.   He apparently thinks he is above the law.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
most people have the commonsense to keep their mouths shut when they are criminal defendants

people that are innocent...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

and decorum and decency, none of which the former 'president' possesses and you expect him to follow basic courtroom rules and decorum like you and I and what everyone else is expected to do??????

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago
AND ALMOST NEVER APPLIED TO A DEFENDANT.

So you have to really be a lying, inciting, piece of shit to have one applied to you.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

So you have to really be a lying, inciting, piece of shit to have one applied to you.

Well, I wasn't going to go that far, but yes. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

Or you have to draw a radical democrat Judge who has defied a state statute about recusing himself.

That is a fact Tacos.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

YES, what tacos said at comment 2.1.5 is a fact!

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.7    3 weeks ago
democrat Judge

Tell me, how do you feel about Judge Cannon?

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

That’s delusional.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

Unlike clarence thomas?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.11    2 weeks ago

and not a fact. It's based on feelings

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.1.14  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 weeks ago
I couldn't imagine him saying it, but then again he will say something silly every once in a while.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Humor is best when totally unintentional

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @2.1.14    2 weeks ago

As we are reminded every day:

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
2.1.16  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.15    2 weeks ago

Is that all you have in your tank? Biden misspeaking? It doesn't even sound like he said "I". It sounds like a mashup of "he/we". Biden just barely misspoke. 

You meant to say what you said. That is what makes it so funny. MAGA ties itself into knots to defend the lying, cheating, whoremonger who Trump is. They don't care if he is a criminal, a person who sexually abuses women and girls. They have to put blinders on and stare at a space a million miles away to deaden the psychic tumbling and keep the crazy from their souls while speaking the lies that they were taught by their Lord and Master Trump. 

Good. Very Good. You are all doing very well.....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @2.1.16    2 weeks ago
You are all doing very well

A lot better than Biden.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
2.2  bugsy  replied to  Tacos! @2    3 weeks ago
The gag order doesn’t have any impact on whether or not he would testify, which of course he won’t. 

Why should he? Every prosecution witness, especially Hope Hicks,  have flushed this case down the shitter, proving this is nothing but a political get Trump shit show. Nothing more.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @2.2    3 weeks ago
Why should he?

He should not testify.   But Trump has claimed that he wants to testify.   That is the point.   And Trump's claim to testify is bullshit.   He does this all the time and never winds up testifying (for good reason).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @2.2    3 weeks ago
Why should he?

He shouldn't.

Let the prosecution prove their weak-ass case to the jury.

Maybe all 12 jurors are not morons.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  bugsy @2.2    3 weeks ago

I’m not suggesting he testify. 99.999999% of the time, I would never suggest a criminal defendant testify. They can only make things worse. The point of this seed is that Trump is complaining that he isn’t being allowed to testify - as if he had plans to, which I am certain he does not.

I don’t judge him for not testifying. I judge him for being full of shit and pretending he wants to.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3  Thrawn 31    3 weeks ago

Gonna lose, primarily because he is a fucking idiot. Another delay tactic, like all of his “defense”.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3    3 weeks ago
Gonna lose

Do you know what's funny: Right after the election Trump will be winning a long string of appeals whether he wins or loses the election.

Just like when those federal Obama judges put holds on his Travel Ban. It took a long time for that to get to the Supreme Court and the Court ruled exactly as many legal experts expected: A President had every right to issue a travel ban. The left knew they were wrong, but they succeeded in preventing the ban from going into effect when it should have.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago
Right after the election Trump will be winning a long string of appeals whether he wins or loses the election.

his chances of seeing that happen while he's still able to comprehend it are rapidly diminishing...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

he can't say words more than three syllables - did you hear the fucking moron butchering 'infrastructure' recently?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

that's why the sleepy joe projections have been ramped up again...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

"but then again he will say something silly every once in a while"

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
3.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago
Right after the election Trump will be winning a long string of appeals whether he wins or loses the election.

Clio loves to mock predictions and those who have the hubris to make them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hallux @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

Clio may recall the last trial I made predictions about was the shit show over Freddie Gray. Many recall the radical Baltimore State's attorney in that case who overcharged the cops.

The 44-year-old was convicted on  one count of mortgage fraud  in February, after she testified that she unintentionally made false statements on loan applications to buy two Florida vacation homes, and she will be sentenced on May 23. An asset forfeiture hearing has also been scheduled for that day, according to CBS News Baltimore. 

In November, Mosby was convicted of  two counts of perjury  by a federal jury after she falsely claimed financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to withdraw money from the city’s retirement fund. She has not been sentenced in either case.

Federal prosecutors want to seize ex-Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s Florida condo: reports (msn.com)

In the end she was page 10 news.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

Gee, what the fuck does Baltimore and Marilyn Mosby have to do with anything???????????????????????????

Those cops were not overcharged.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.7    2 weeks ago
Gee, what the fuck does Baltimore and Marilyn Mosby have to do with anything??

If you read the post he was responding TO, perhaps you would know and not ask.

Context actually matters.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.7    2 weeks ago

As far as I'm concerned, this was a witch hunt against Ms. Mosby because republicans were looking for anything to try to use against her because of those racist cops who killed Freddy Gray, their hatred of her for seeking justice for him.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.9    2 weeks ago

Right, it is someone else's fault Mosby lied.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.9    2 weeks ago

It's funny to hear anyone on the left trying to claim one of their own is just a poor little misunderstood victim of a witch hunt!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2  TᵢG  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3    3 weeks ago

That should be true, but this scoundrel is the presumptive nominee.    As difficult as that is to justify, that is reality.   Thus he could win the presidency.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4  JBB    3 weeks ago

original

 
 

Who is online