CNN Dem Panelist Shocks Jennings with Major Admission on Lawfare Against Trump

[Always in His Presence]

CNN Dem Panelist Shocks Jennings with Major Admission on Lawfare Against Trump​

A CNN segment unexpectedly took a turn on Thursday when Democratic strategist Lis Smith appeared to confirm that the prosecution of President Donald Trump in New York was part of the broader Democratic effort to resist his presidency and influence the 2024 election.​

​

“Like we resisted so hard between 2017 and 2024. We impeached the guy. Like, we prosecuted him. Convicted him of 34 felony counts. And guess what, he still got elected. I don’t know how much harder we can resist right now.”​

 

[Yarddog]

CNN Dem Panelist Shocks Jennings with Major Admission on Lawfare Against Trump​

A CNN segment unexpectedly took a turn on Thursday when Democratic strategist Lis Smith appeared to confirm that the prosecution of President Donald Trump in New York was part of the broader Democratic effort to resist his presidency and influence the 2024 election.​

​

“Like we resisted so hard between 2017 and 2024. We impeached the guy. Like, we prosecuted him. Convicted him of 34 felony counts. And guess what, he still got elected. I don’t know how much harder we can resist right now.”​

Doesn't mean much.

 

[Fantine]

I look at it like this.

Trump is very dangerous. Trump has protected himself against prosecution by numerous means--legal, questionable, and worse.

And so people feel the danger, and when the more logical pathways are blocked, they act ethically, responsibly, and morally to take other pathways to protect themselves, their loved ones, and even the whole world against the danger.

Was Stormy Daniel an important case, or the best case? No. But its advantage was that it was run independent of the federal government--and so Trump had less ability to stop it from taking shape.

I don't see that as wrong. If someone was invading your house and your gun (if you had one) was in the lockbox, would you not grab whatever was handy to contain and restrain the intruder?

 

[Yttrium]

It's one thing to resist the guy if he's a political rival. It's another thing to resist the guy if he's a villain. I'm willing to give Smith the benefit of the doubt in this case...

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

CNN Dem Panelist Shocks Jennings with Major Admission on Lawfare Against Trump​

A CNN segment unexpectedly took a turn on Thursday when Democratic strategist Lis Smith appeared to confirm that the prosecution of President Donald Trump in New York was part of the broader Democratic effort to resist his presidency and influence the 2024 election.​

​

“Like we resisted so hard between 2017 and 2024. We impeached the guy. Like, we prosecuted him. Convicted him of 34 felony counts. And guess what, he still got elected. I don’t know how much harder we can resist right now.”​

Is this really news?

Of course, it was part of Democrat strategy to prosecute then candidate Trump.

It is a standard aspect of democratic strategy to pursue legal action against political candidates when necessary. This reflects the nature of politics in a democracy, where any citizen who enters the political arena can expect their life to be closely examined. The media will report on relevant matters, and if any laws are broken, those offenses will be prosecuted. It is also common for opposing parties to advocate for accountability in such instances.

The key takeaway is not the reasoning behind the Democratic party's strategy to prosecute former candidate Trump, but rather the importance of thoroughly assessing the qualifications and backgrounds of individuals being nominated. Nominating a candidate who faces 34 felony convictions may reflect poorly on the party's decision-making process.

President Trump was successful in his election bid. However, most likely it is possible that future candidates with such baggage may not experience the same outcome.

 

[Servus]

Schumer could come right out and say they completely framed the guy, and it still wouldn't make any difference. They've had 'Trump is pure evil' drilled into their heads too much by now.

 

[rambot]

CNN Dem Panelist Shocks Jennings with Major Admission on Lawfare Against Trump​

A CNN segment unexpectedly took a turn on Thursday when Democratic strategist Lis Smith appeared to confirm that the prosecution of President Donald Trump in New York was part of the broader Democratic effort to resist his presidency and influence the 2024 election.​

​

“Like we resisted so hard between 2017 and 2024. We impeached the guy. Like, we prosecuted him. Convicted him of 34 felony counts. And guess what, he still got elected. I don’t know how much harder we can resist right now.”​

Yet again, this quote is not saying what the article title suggest.

LifeZette – Bias and Credibility

Usually sources are at least KINDA near the middle. This one....not so much.

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE​

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

• Overall, we rate Lifezette far Right-Biased based on the promotion of right-wing propaganda, conspiracy theories, poor sources, and numerous failed fact checks.

mixed factual with extreme bias? Of COURSE you will get a headline like this.

 

[Vambram]

I look at it like this.

Trump is very dangerous. Trump has protected himself against prosecution by numerous means--legal, questionable, and worse.

And so people feel the danger, and when the more logical pathways are blocked, they act ethically, responsibly, and morally to take other pathways to protect themselves, their loved ones, and even the whole world against the danger.

Was Stormy Daniel an important case, or the best case? No. But its advantage was that it was run independent of the federal government--and so Trump had less ability to stop it from taking shape.

I don't see that as wrong. If someone was invading your house and your gun (if you had one) was in the lockbox, would you not grab whatever was handy to contain and restrain the intruder?

Trump is NOT dangerous.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Here is the video from CNN

https://twitter.com/i/status/1923131236496658588

 

[PloverWing]

Schumer could come right out and say they completely framed the guy, and it still wouldn't make any difference. They've had 'Trump is pure evil' drilled into their heads too much by now.

"Framed" makes it sound like he's innocent of the charges. Do you think he's innocent of the various charges brought against him, or do you just think the alleged crimes were minor enough that they weren't worth prosecuting?

 

[Fantine]

Trump is NOT dangerous.

The preponderance of evidence is with me.

 

[Vambram]

The preponderance of evidence is with me.

IMO, what you believe is evidence is actually stuff from a progressive liberal left wing point of view which also has extreme anti-Trump biases.

 

[Fantine]

IMO, what you believe is evidence is actually stuff from a progressive liberal left wing point of view which also has extreme anti-Trump biases.

Forgive me for believing world class historians like Heather Cox Richardson, world-class economists like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman, award-winning media which always requires one primary or two or more secondary sources.

Trump's falsehoods are easy to spot. As soon as he opens his mouth, warning lights start flashing around me. They are frequently outrageously ridiculous and absurd--the only things more ridiculous are generally the pained faces of the people behind him. Rubio usually looks like he wishes he could either sink into the floor or wear a cloak of invisibility.

The media who promote these blatantly obvious lies as truth are without conscience or integrity.

 

[Vambram]

Forgive me for believing world class historians like Heather Cox Richardson, world-class economists like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman, award-winning media which always requires one primary or two or more secondary sources.

Trump's falsehoods are easy to spot. As soon as he opens his mouth, warning lights start flashing around me. They are frequently outrageously ridiculous and absurd--the only things more ridiculous are generally the pained faces of the people behind him. Rubio usually looks like he wishes he could either sink into the floor or wear a cloak of invisibility.

The media who promote these blatantly obvious lies as truth are without conscience or integrity.

IMO, you are believing who you want to believe.

 

[A2SG]

Schumer could come right out and say they completely framed the guy, and it still wouldn't make any difference. They've had 'Trump is pure evil' drilled into their heads too much by now.

There was also all that pesky evidence against Trump that actually convinced the courts in several different trials that he was guilty. Let's not forget that.

-- A2SG, as Trump supporters so often are wont to do.....

 

[Servus]

There was also all that pesky evidence against Trump that actually convinced the courts in several different trials that he was guilty. Let's not forget that.

To "frame" someone means to maliciously and falsely make an innocent person appear guilty of a crime, often by planting misleading evidence or creating a false narrative. It is a deliberate act of setting someone up to be accused of a crime they did not commit.

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, over 3,300 individuals have been exonerated since 1989, and false or misleading evidence is among the major causes.

 

[A2SG]

To "frame" someone means to maliciously and falsely make an innocent person appear guilty of a crime, often by planting misleading evidence or creating a false narrative. It is a deliberate act of setting someone up to be accused of a crime they did not commit.

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, over 3,300 individuals have been exonerated since 1989, and false or misleading evidence is among the major causes.

What evidence do you have that the evidence presented in any of the trials were Trump was found guilty was planted, false or misleading in any way?

You must have some kind of evidence, right? You're not just making stuff up here, are you?

-- A2SG, I mean, it does sound like that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here.....

 

[Larniavc]

Trump is NOT dangerous.

He has been judged to be towards women. He even admitted sexual assault when he ‘grabbed they by their…..’.

Or is that history being re written.