Of course.
If it is appealed, the appeals court will decide.
That's a tautology.
Judges have a huge amount of power.
They also enjoy a LOT of deference.
Judge Merchan is totally bias!!
- Thread starter mitchell76
- Start date
If it is appealed, the appeals court will decide.
That's a tautology.
They also enjoy a LOT of deference.
Top Dem Hakeem Jeffries Sent Over $1.4 MILLION to Trump Trial Judge's Daughter's Home.
Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has sent over $1.4 million to Loren Merchan, according to investigative reporter Laura Loomer. Merchan is
thenationalpulse.com
LMAO
Joe Scarborough gets CALLED OUT in NYC for attacking President Trump. This is how Morning Joe
@Morning_Joe
was greeted in New York City on the day of President Trump's incredible speech in the #Bronx. Joe Scarborough
@JoeNBC
looks like such a dweeb here. Funny how he and his wife
@morningmika
(who was “bleeding badly from a face lift”, according to President Trump, at Mar a Lago a few years ago before she contracted TDS), talk so much shit about Donald Trump on MSDNC, but they run away when confronted to their faces on camera.
Joe Scarborough gets CALLED OUT in NYC for attacking President Trump. This is how Morning Joe
@Morning_Joe
was greeted in New York City on the day of President Trump's incredible speech in the #Bronx. Joe Scarborough
@JoeNBC
looks like such a dweeb here. Funny how he and his wife
@morningmika
(who was “bleeding badly from a face lift”, according to President Trump, at Mar a Lago a few years ago before she contracted TDS), talk so much shit about Donald Trump on MSDNC, but they run away when confronted to their faces on camera.
That might be one of the problems underlying the prosecutor's case. Several commentators have been perplexed by the prosecutor not making a stronger case tying the alleged misclassification to a crime.
Perhaps, you are of the belief that some type of intent creates the crime. I don't think that is settled.
Oh.
If there is "a chance" then all possibilities are equally likely?
That's a boldly silly position to take.
Besides, isn't the leading candidate supposed to be Natalie Harp?
I'm not sure it is settled, either.
I have seen a lot of commentary by people insisting that if the prosecution didn't specify and prove a particular crime, the case has to fail, but that seems to be motivated reasoning not backed by law.
But if the case is going to fall down, it is going to fall down there.
The falsification of the records seems pretty solidly proven.
It's the tie to another crime that is at issue, and I think the jury instructions will become pretty important there.
It appears that the fact that the video was created by someone not affiliated with his campaign and then posted by someone and removed shortly thereafter due to the oversight seems a difficult concept to accept if someone is hell-bent on letting their confirmation bias rule their lives.
Things are posted all the time, sometimes in error, often retracted, when issues are discovered.
Nothing to see here.
Now off you go to the next witch hunt...
Other than "due to the oversight", none of that is in dispute, is it?
It was made by someone not officially working with the campaign (I forget their name now) and posted by a staffer (probably Ms Harp).
After being noticed and causing public backlash, it was taken down.
Whether there was any oversight involved is disputed.
Absolutely.
The question is only whether the issue is "this never should have gone up in the first place, due to the Unified Reich" thing or "dammit, they noticed the dogwhistle, take it down".
Here's something to chew on.
I remembered Congress has a multimillion dollar slush fund to pay off various suits against members Democrats and Republicans. I believe many of these payments are to make sexual harassment charges go away. This is kind of a gentlemen's understanding amongst Congressional members that these payments will be made from the Congressional budget and details will be kept private.
When you realize House members are up for election every two years, it's not hard to make the connection of these "privacy" payments benefiting the campaigns of accused members. In reality, I would say even Senate members' campaigns benefit from this discreet payments. Shall I call them "hush money"?
I remembered Congress has a multimillion dollar slush fund to pay off various suits against members Democrats and Republicans. I believe many of these payments are to make sexual harassment charges go away. This is kind of a gentlemen's understanding amongst Congressional members that these payments will be made from the Congressional budget and details will be kept private.
When you realize House members are up for election every two years, it's not hard to make the connection of these "privacy" payments benefiting the campaigns of accused members. In reality, I would say even Senate members' campaigns benefit from this discreet payments. Shall I call them "hush money"?
You don't find it even slightly troubling that his campaign team would make and post that video, do you skoob?
Sorry I’m not sure how that would work. Wouldn’t it require the defence to provide the prosecution with its list of questions and vice versa? Seems terribly impractical. Do you have any link to this purported rule?
Obviously an educated, well spoken and erudite gentleman. Seems more than a bit interested in using 'blow job' a lot when speaking to that handsome man tho...
NOT that there is anything wrong with that!
I wonder who guys like this are going to rim when Diaper Don loses. Again.
They ended it. It was getting too much attention.
Loading…
www.reuters.com
But funny enough it took MeToo and the Election of Trump to make it happen.
Almost like they didn't want to give critics ammo for going after him......
Well as he would have had to vote as a Senator to continue funding it you can say he enabled it. But then almost every member of both houses either directly supported it or kept their mouths shut so he wasn't any worse.
He was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
If is was the campaign's intention to purposefully post the reference then why would they have taken it down so quickly? You seriously think no one would have anticipated backlash?
Come on. Get serious here.
Troubling to the extent that someone wasn't thoroughly vetting third-party content before posting it yes.
Reassuring that they took it down immediately because they don't believe in that narrative.
