Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

[Brihaha]

It was past my bed time. You know how you start to lose your faculties at that time and start acting like Joe Biden.

No, I don't know. The evidence seems to suggest you have an early bedtime which is often ignored .

 

[Bradskii]

This joke of a trial will be overturned, you can bank on it.

In which case I will accept the verdict. The question is, if it's not, will you accept the verdict.

 

[ozso]

No, I don't know. The evidence seems to suggest you have an early bedtime which is often ignored .

I work the night shift. Why are you acting like a schoolyard bully?

 

[Postvieww]

In which case I will accept the verdict. The question is, if it's not, will you accept the verdict.

Not much I can do about it. I know now it was a political hit job and nothing will change that fact. I have faith that at least one court will expose this madness.

 

[ozso]

In which case I will accept the verdict. The question is, if it's not, will you accept the verdict.

What difference does it make whether or not an Australian accepts it? What matters is whether or not the majority of American voters accepts it.

 

[Bradskii]

For those that like LegalEagle:

It's a pretty tight take down.

That's the first time I've seen a complete run through of the process. Something of a slam dunk, I'd say.

 

[Bradskii]

What matters is whether or not the majority of American voters accepts it.

And a lot of them won't if his appeal is rejected (and no-one has come up with a single reason why that wouldn't be the case). As far as you are concerned...you don't want to appear to reject the justice system because, well - you might need it at some point down the line and a decision may go Trump's way, so you need to be able to say that everyone in that case must accept the verdict.

But you don't want to do that. So it'll be 'a private matter' as far as you are concerned. Yeah...right. Well it won't be in a few weeks. You'll have to let us know then.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

TO My good friends with whom I have spent many happy hours talking of many things.
I will not be on the internet for a while.
My brother died in another State and I will not be on the forum for a while.
Thank you in advance for the condolences and support.
I am always concerned when posters disappear.
This is a courtesy to anyone who may notice my absence.

I’m so sorry to hear about this. My deepest condolences to you and your family.

 

[Postvieww]

On what basis?

On the basis this was a political hit job with ties directly to the Biden administration. The judge was conflicted and obviously biased. Bragg was biased having campaigned on “getting Trump”. The non-legal theory used to get to a felony was absurd according to credible legal scholars. This whole case was a joke with only one goal, election interference. Liberals claiming this was about the rule of law are misinformed, unknowledgeable on the constitution or just plain politically biased. There was no actual crime here just blind hatred for Trump. No one else has ever been charged with this ridiculous combination of irrelevant to the actual facts law.

 

[ozso]

And a lot of them won't if his appeal is rejected (and no-one has come up with a single reason why that wouldn't be the case). As far as you are concerned...you don't want to appear to reject the justice system because, well - you might need it at some point down the line and a decision may go Trump's way, so you need to be able to say that everyone in that case must accept the verdict.

But you don't want to do that. So it'll be 'a private matter' as far as you are concerned. Yeah...right. Well it won't be in a few weeks. You'll have to let us know then.

You're always trying to get into personal spats with people in a debate. Debates aren't supposed to be like you bickering with your wife trading personal jabs back and forth. Do better.

 

[Postvieww]

For those who think this was a just case. Oh yea did I mention this was a liberal. Don’t ask me why this case was flawed, just listen to a true scholar.

 

[sjastro]

As an outsider (foreigner) looking in I thought the movie Idiocracy - Wikipedia was supposed to be a work of fiction yet Trump is turning it into a reality.

On the subject of Trump being a political victim, can anyone explain his record with the law prior to 2016 where politics would have played a minimal role?

From the 1970s until he was elected president in 2016, Donald Trump and his businesses were involved in over 4,000 legal cases in United States federal and state courts, including battles with casino patrons, million-dollar real estate lawsuits, personal defamation lawsuits, and over 100 business tax disputes.[1] He has also been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault,[2][3] with one accusation resulting in his being held civilly liable.[4]

Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If Trump was also innocent of these thousands of cases for whatever reason, I truly feel sorry for the orange haired whinger as being the greatest victim in history.
Since I am violating my prime directive on not discussing politics this is my first and only post on the subject.

 

[Arcangl86]

On the basis this was a political hit job with ties directly to the Biden administration.

Here's the thing. Legal appeals need to be based on legal arguments. Claiming that this was a conspiracy to get Trump does not count.

The judge was conflicted and obviously biased.

The judge sought official guidance about his potential conflict and was told he did not meet the mandatory recusal standards. I also fail to see how he was obviously biased.

Bragg was biased having campaigned on “getting Trump”.

I'll give you that. However, even if you assume the prosecution was politically motivated, the simple fact of the matter is that Bragg doesn't have the power to convict Trump by fiat. He had to convince a grand jury to get the indictment in the first place and then convince a separate pettite jury that the law had been violated beyond a reasonable doubt.

The non-legal theory used to get to a felony was absurd according to credible legal scholars.

Were these scholars Derzhowitcs and Turley? Neither of which has shown any special knowledge of NEw York state criminal law?

This whole case was a joke with only one goal, election interference.

Let's say that's true, which I don't believe. But let's say for argument's sake it is. The goal or origin of the prosecution doesn't matter as long as due process was followed, and it was.

Liberals claiming this was about the rule of law are misinformed, unknowledgeable on the constitution or just plain politically biased.

There was nothing unconstitutional about this case.

There was no actual crime here just blind hatred for Trump.

Falsifying business records is a crime. So is conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

No one else has ever been charged with this ridiculous combination of irrelevant to the actual facts law.

Just because a legal theory is novel doesn't mean it is automatically invalid. And I actually will agree that this is probably the most likely area for appeal. the whole nesting doll approach is suspect to me.

 

[Bradskii]

You're always trying to get into personal spats with people in a debate. Debates aren't supposed to be like you bickering with your wife trading personal jabs back and forth. Do better.

This is a forum for heaven's sake. It's where we put forward our personal opinions on matters and discuss them. This constant harping 'stop making it about me' is tiresome.

Your posts are about what you think. What you believe. They are your opinions about matters that you consider to be important. Every time I respond to one of your posts I am responding to what you think is worth posting. And I will expect you to answer honestly to reasonable questions about what your opinion will be regarding the result of an appeal.

That you refuse tells us all I need to know. You'll think it will be a justified exoneration of the justice system if it goes your way. You'll be demanding that we all accept the verdict. But you can't demand that now because it will probably go against Trump and you want to be able to say that the system is fixed.

You are admitting that you have no position on the integrity of the judicial system until you know whether it gives a verdict you like or not.

 

[ozso]

This is a forum for heaven's sake. It's where we put forward our personal opinions on matters and discuss them. This constant harping 'stop making it about me' is tiresome.

Your posts are about what you think. What you believe. They are your opinions about matters that you consider to be important. Every time I respond to one of your posts I am responding to what you think is worth posting. And I will expect you to answer honestly to reasonable questions about what your opinion will be regarding the result of an appeal.

That you refuse tells us all I need to know. You'll think it will be a justified exoneration of the justice system if it goes your way. You'll be demanding that we all accept the verdict. But you can't demand that now because it will probably go against Trump and you want to be able to say that the system is fixed.

You are admitting that you have no position on the integrity of the judicial system until you know whether it gives a verdict you like or not.

What you're doing is trying to have a 'you you you' one on one like people do in private behind closed doors. But this is a public debate, and public debates work differently than personal arguments. There are actual rules to public debating. A code of conduct. That's why I resist you trying to drag me into personal interrogations. They don't belong in public debates. Public debates are not about examining personal details and critiquing personal character traits.

Nine times out of ten threads get locked because people get into personal squabbles instead of sticking to debating the topic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For those who think this was a just case. Oh yea did I mention this was a liberal. Don’t ask me why this case was flawed, just listen to a true scholar.

Only 1 minute in and Dershowitz is already lying. He claimed the jury was hand picked by the judge and the prosecutor. Trump's lawyers had just as much power to select as the prosecutors and it was the lawyers from both sides that did all of the questioning.

 

[Bradskii]

What you're doing is trying to have a 'you you you' one on one like people do in private behind closed doors. But this is a public debate, and public debates work differently than personal arguments. There are actual rules to public debating. A code of conduct. That's why I resist you trying to drag me into personal interrogations. They don't belong in public debates. Public debates are not about examining personal details and critiquing personal character traits.

Nine times out of ten threads get locked because people get into personal squabbles instead of sticking to debating the topic.

I'm not in a 'squabble'. You are saying that the justice system is broken. So it is perfectly reasonable to ask you if that position will stand if a verdict goes the way that you want it to go. I want to know if your position is tenable. I want to know if your position is genuine, or if it changes whichever way the wind blows.

The topic is the judiciary and its decision on Trump. It's entirely reasonable, in fact necessary to know if you think it's trustworthy or not. 'It depends on the decision' is an answer that only exhibits bias. If that is the case then your opinion isn't worth the time it takes you to type it out and that will have a bearing on how the discussion moves on.

 

[MrMoe]

I'm sorry but first off, when we talk about NPD, that's not "oh, we need to change the first letter of a single word" in a SINGLE statement. Ultimately, a single phrase is pretty meaningless when trying to make a "diagnoses of NPD" which means it's just silly to call someone a narcisssist because of ONE word.

But it's not just one word. There's plenty of proof Biden is a narcissist. Here's a video by a channel that specializes in narcissism. It talks about several examples of Biden's narcissism.

You seem really focused on Biden's use of the word "would" to suggest he's a narcissist. I CANNOT imagine how much of a narcissist you must think Trump is given his delusional thoughts about his capacities.

Like I've said before, they both share similar traits. The difference is Biden supporters/Trump haters will ignore, downplay or justify it when they see it in Biden but clutch their pearls when they see it in Trump.

 

[ozso]

I'm not in a 'squabble'. You are saying that the justice system is broken. So it is perfectly reasonable to ask you if that position will stand if a verdict goes the way that you want it to go. I want to know if your position is tenable. I want to know if your position is genuine, or if it changes whichever way the wind blows.

No I'm saying public opinion in certain quarters is that the justice system is broken. I personally might think the judge is a an alien in disguise or whatever. But that doesn't reflect public opinion. My position is what one side of the public is arguing. Or at least my opinion based on that.

The topic is the judiciary and its decision on Trump. It's entirely reasonable, in fact necessary to know if you think it's trustworthy or not. 'It depends on the decision' is an answer that only exhibits bias. If that is the case then your opinion isn't worth the time it takes you to type it out and that will have a bearing on how the discussion moves on.

You're trying to boil public opinion down to one person. As if the whole topic and all the public controversy that surrounds it hinges on one person's personal viewpoint. Like I said, threads usually end up getting locked when public debates turn into personal arguments.

 

[Bradskii]

But it's not just one word. There's plenty of proof Biden is a narcissist. Here's a video by a channel that specializes in narcissism. It talks about several examples of Biden's narcissism.

He's a narcissist because he thinks he thinks he's capable of the presidency? Good grief, that should be one of the requirements. To compare Biden with Trump on this matter and to consider them equal is...bizarre. Any argument of that sort automatically loses credibility points for whoever is proposing it.

Incidentally, the video is by H G Tudor...'Mr. Tudor writes from his own perspective as a narcissist psychopath'. Ohhh Kay....