MSDNC is a joke.....LMAOCareful, mitch, reality might seep in.
MSDNC is a joke.....LMAOCareful, mitch, reality might seep in.
No he's not.I mean....Trump is talking about unifying the Reich.....
Its what MAGA is drooling over, skoob.No he's not.
That was a video created by someone else and posted by someone on the team that did not see the reference. So saying "Trump is talking about unifying the Reich" is misleading and wrong.
"Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the video was not created by the campaign and was “reposted by a staffer who clearly did not see the word, while the President was in court.”"
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics/trump-unified-reich-video/index.html
Squeeze,WARNING: This may cause Mitchy to explode. Please be advised to quickly throw on your Terb Teflon Protective gear, then sit back and enjoy!
Mitchy, go ahead, make my day!!!
'Huge mistake': Trump defense makes brutal error as jail fears get real
It was a very bizarre ruling since the Judge let Cohen speak liberally and extensively about campaign finance violations. Of course, Cohen is anything but an expert on campaign finance law.
Legal expert Jonathan Turley calls out Judge Merchan for attempting to influence the outcome of the case by limiting the FEC commissioner's testimony "This witness was needed bc this judge has allowed the jury to hear there were campaign violations & there were NOT. I'm quite convinced this jury thinks there was a campaign violation committed and connected to Trump, and that's just not the case"
if he is convicted there 100% be an appeal. Why would he not appeal?A new day and a new bundle of bullshit right-wing posts from @mitchell76...lol...
They are so out there that i can't even contemplate how wrong they are about everything. They seem to fall into two or three categories: The case is bullshit, the judge is compromised, and Biden is somehow pulling the strings....It is both pathetic and funny at the same time...I'd love hear the explanations on why the case, if Trump is convicted, is reversed on appeal...which there will probably not be an appeal.
LOL. It's always someone else's fault, or Trump was only joking, or we're taking it out of context. But let's face facts. He praised Hitler just a few months ago, and he's basically quoted him by calling immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country..." He's also talked about being a dictator....No he's not.
That was a video created by someone else and posted by someone on the team that did not see the reference. So saying "Trump is talking about unifying the Reich" is misleading and wrong.
"Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement that the video was not created by the campaign and was “reposted by a staffer who clearly did not see the word, while the President was in court.”"
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/21/politics/trump-unified-reich-video/index.html
You can appeal. It doesn't mean a court will hear it. There needs to be grounds to file one, and they need to be significant enough for the appeals court to grant a new trial. Just saying the judge is biased but providing no proof is not enough.if he is convicted there 100% be an appeal. Why would he not appeal?
So you agree he didn't actually "talk about the unified Reich" in the example you provided?LOL. It's always someone else's fault, or Trump was only joking, or we're taking it out of context. But let's face facts. He praised Hitler just a few months ago, and he's basically quoted him by calling immigrants were "poisoning the blood of our country..." He's also talked about being a dictator....
I'm not agreeing to anything. I will say there is a possibility that someone posted that. But, it is equally as likely he posted it and then was forced to take it down. And, I think you're proving my point. His defenders are constantly saying you're taking things out of context...The man is a walking contradiction of shit. You can't believe anything he says, or what he says he doesn't mean, or if he meant it, he meant it only in a specific way....Y'all wanna go on about Biden's speaking issues. He stutters and occasionally says something incorrect. But you never hold Trump to the same scrutiny, especially when it appears he is becoming increasingly senile....So you agree he didn't actually "talk about the unified Reich" in the example you provided?
You think Trump runs his own website content? They obviously removed it.
You immediately tried to peddle a narrative that Trump was talking about the Reich, and you were wrong.
Your reference to "dictator" is also out of context...he said it with respect to fixing the horrific border issues meaning he wouldn't leave it up to the opposition to stall and distract from actually fixing it. "dictator for 1 day" if I recall.
I’m pretty sure they’d get to at least one level of court of appeal if not higher as of right. The grounds are going to be multiple alleged errors made by the trial judge in his rulings throughout the trial plus in the jury charge. And I’m not saying it is going to have any merit.You can appeal. It doesn't mean a court will hear it. There needs to be grounds to file one, and they need to be significant enough for the appeals court to grant a new trial. Just saying the judge is biased but providing no proof is not enough.
Judge Merchan is a total bias joke......LMAOSo Maga-folk?
I have followed this matter sporadically because coverage of these trials is horrendously bad on both sides. But I understand that numb-nuts has raised yet another "credibility" defence and then refused to take the stand and undergo cross-examination.
That's going to go about as well as it did in the Jean Carroll case, which the moron could well have won had he taken the stand. There are mentally defective 8 year olds who could defend litigation better than that fuckwit. One can but chuckle...
I have to disagree. In Jean Carroll case it would have been easy for him to testify and deny and/orclaim lack of memory.So Maga-folk?
I have followed this matter sporadically because coverage of these trials is horrendously bad on both sides. But I understand that numb-nuts has raised yet another "credibility" defence and then refused to take the stand and undergo cross-examination.
That's going to go about as well as it did in the Jean Carroll case, which the moron could well have won had he taken the stand. There are mentally defective 8 year olds who could defend litigation better than that fuckwit. One can but chuckle...
It would appear the Judge exercised some errors in judgement. Everyone has their own opinion about whether they were intentional or not.You can appeal. It doesn't mean a court will hear it. There needs to be grounds to file one, and they need to be significant enough for the appeals court to grant a new trial. Just saying the judge is biased but providing no proof is not enough.