Trump Found Guilty on All 34 Counts In Hush-Money Trial

[Belk]

I never said you did.

But my point still stands, it doesn’t prove anything.

That does not strike me as a point so much as a excuse to ignore the discrepancy. Are you going to address that?

 

[The Barbarian]

That's because they're all Deep State operatives and Globalist Elites. (For those who may not know me, this is supposed to be obvious sarcasm).

"But... but... but... They are all LYING! All of them!"

 

[Reasonably Sane]

That's because they're all Deep State operatives and Globalist Elites. (For those who may not know me, this is supposed to be obvious sarcasm).

-CryptoLutheran

Is there anyone who really believes that or is that a straw man?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I have seen no outcry from court watchdog groups. Certainly nothing from the international community that I would expect if an unfair trial happened. There seems to be a discrepancy with this claim.

"Watchdog groups?!" Is that some sort of joke? And regarding the international community. well, let's check down under...

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is there anyone who really believes that or is that a straw man?

Is there anyone who believes in conspiracy theories about a Deep State and Globalist Agenda? Why yes, yes there are.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Watchdog groups?!" Is that some sort of joke? And regarding the international community. well, let's check down under...

I feel certain Belk is referring to legal experts when talking about "the international community", not Rupert Murdoch media mouthpieces.

 

[Belk]

"Watchdog groups?!" Is that some sort of joke?

No, it is not a joke. You are aware there are various watchdog groups that keep an eye on the courts behavior?

And regarding the international community. well, let's check down under...

Let's check with actual court watchers, not propaganda peddlers.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Is there anyone who believes in conspiracy theories about a Deep State and Globalist Agenda? Why yes, yes there are.

-CryptoLutheran

I like to call it the "uniparty". It's why I became an independent about halfway through dubya's second term. It's pretty clear they are just playing "good cop, bad cop" with us.

Speaking of the Globalist agenda, here's a fun video about it. It's over ten years old but pretty good, and very entertaining:

 

[ralliann]

No, it is not a joke. You are aware there are various watchdog groups that keep an eye on the courts behavior?

Let's check with actual court watchers, not propaganda peddlers.

LOL, why can't we just wait and see what comes out of this in the courts? All of them?????
Now we have fake watchdogs and real watch dogs. Same thing different venue.

 

[Belk]

LOL, why can't we just wait and see what comes out of this in the courts? All of them?????
Now we have fake watchdogs and real watch dogs. Same thing different venue.

We are waiting to see. I'm pointing out to those who claim irregularities that there is a paucity of evidence for their position.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm pointing out to those who claim irregularities that there is a paucity of evidence for their position.

They have an abundance of paucity. That must add up to something?

That accusation is faulty.
That grand jury is faulty.
That indictment is faulty.
That trial is faulty.
That verdict is faulty.

 

[ralliann]

We are waiting to see. I'm pointing out to those who claim irregularities that there is a paucity of evidence for their position.

So, now it is a back and forth over watch dog groups.......

 

[Belk]

So, now it is a back and forth over watch dog groups.......

No, it is pointing out that there are no watch dig groups claiming irregularities. Something I would expect to see if one of the most powerful people in the world experienced and unfair trial.

 

[ralliann]

No, it is pointing out that there are no watch dig groups claiming irregularities. Something I would expect to see if one of the most powerful people in the world experienced and unfair trial.

Legal scholars certainly "watching this" and commenting on it. And indeed they are seeing irregularities with the application of law. They are a group that have commented, on the irregularities in their legal terms, of reversible error.

 

[Belk]

Legal scholars certainly "watching this" and commenting on it. And indeed they are seeing irregularities with the application of law. they are a group that have commented.

I am only aware of two claiming irregularities and no professional watchdog groups. If this case was as over the top partisan as claimed I would expect much more from them. especially from international watch dog agencies.

 

[ralliann]

I am only aware of two claiming irregularities and no professional watchdog groups.

Right, but they are a group watching this, and having commented. Some, were even attendance in the court to see and hear for themselves. And legal scholars are certainly professionals...

If this case was as over the top partisan as claimed I would expect much more from them. especially from international watch dog agencies.

I am talking about some, that are ivy league law professors......
I listen to them as professionals with good credentials.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I feel certain Belk is referring to legal experts when talking about "the international community", not Rupert Murdoch media mouthpieces.

Define "expert". I consider this guy an expert:

MSN

And I include that story here because it completely misses what he was trying to say. It's fake news. In his own words, this sums it up:

MSN

 

[Reasonably Sane]

No, it is not a joke. You are aware there are various watchdog groups that keep an eye on the courts behavior?

Let's check with actual court watchers, not propaganda peddlers.

Well, there are people and organizations that do that, sure. I watched "The Five" on Fox (On Youtube) discuss this and pretty much destroy it, but I don't see them as a "watchdog group". I see them as pundits that analyze events from an informed and to some degree biased perspective. Same with CNN and MSNBC, though the latter has more in common with The Onion.

 

[Brihaha]

Right, but they are a group watching this, and having commented. Some, have were even attendance in the court to see and hear for themselves. And legal scholars are certainly professionals...

I am talking about some, that are ivy league law professors......
I listen to them as professionals with good credentials.

You should have heard some of professional Dershowitz's comments during the Clinton impeachment. My goodness his opinions changed when Mr Trump hired him during one of his impeachments lol.

It seems even legal scholars will alter their opinions depending on where their paycheck comes from. The fact these pundits graduated law school doesn't automatically verify their opinions. The fact they are paid to convince people by partisan media or politicians lessens the validity of their opinions. Leaning on these opinions to form one's perceptions is quite risky.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Define "expert". I consider this guy an expert:

He is not an independent expert. He was part of Trump's entourage at the trial.