KillingtonZone.com

Have a gag order preventing you from attacking jurors? Solicit the help from Republican Senators to state the jurors aren't actually American citizens.

Tuberville wrote: I am disappointed in looking at the American citizens— the supposedly American citizens in that courtroom

Skid Mark wrote: ↑May 8th, '24, 17:51 Welp, it looks like the Biden admin lawfare against Trump is a miserable fail. Fani's case won't start before the election. Same with Jack's (if at all). The current Bragg case is a complete sham and everybody knows it. He will be found innocent or will easily win in an appeal. Trump will also win his appeal on the ridiculous James ruling/fine.

In summary, the lawfare by Biden made a mockery of our judicial system and the Constitution and shows just how desperate and corrupt he is.

Cry liberals cry.

Seems a bit premature to declare victory, no? Remember, if Trump doesn't win the election, the federal cases proceed to trial. And the state cases (which I agree are less likely to succeed) proceed anyway even if he is elected (the President, whether that be Biden or Trump if he gets elected, has literally no control over those).

Also, kind of ironic that you're calling out Biden for corruption but seem to be turning a blind eye to the evidence of Trump's corruption. Not whataboutism, just an observation about your view of these things.

Romney: Biden should have pardoned trump.

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/15/mitt-r ... n-new-york

easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 16th, '24, 06:12 Romney: Biden should have pardoned trump.

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/15/mitt-r ... n-new-york

Could not disagree more. I also don't really follow Romney's logic in his decision making.

While I'm not sure I fully agree, I can appreciate the logic that Trump needs to be defeated at the ballot box, not via litigation. Prosecuting an ex-President like this, who irresponsibly calls the entire legal system into question and his followers just believe him without thinking, serves to undermine the system more than uphold it.

My personal thought is that Biden's DOJ should have pushed these prosecutions much earlier. I don't see why these indictments couldn't have been sought in late 2021 or early 2022. If they had, they'd likely have reached a conclusion by now. Instead the prosecutions waited until the eve of the election which in my opinion looks pretty bad, and allows people in the other party to cry election interference. They're not altogether wrong even if I do believe Trump committed crimes.

Yeah Cohen turned out to be a great star witness.

Just another example of Democrats being stupid and shockingly incompetent.

Epic backfire. If the jury finds Trump guilty it will make a mockery of the people of NYC.

I'm actually a little embarrassed for you all.

Skid Mark wrote: ↑May 20th, '24, 18:46 Yeah Cohen turned out to be a great star witness.

Just another example of Democrats being stupid and shockingly incompetent.

Epic backfire. If the jury finds Trump guilty it will make a mockery of the people of NYC.

I think opinions of Cohen's testimony are pretty varied depending on which pundit you read or hear. The prosecutors knew ahead of time that Cohen would have major credibility issues, and from what I've read they did their best to offer corroborating evidence so the jury wouldn't have to rely solely on Cohen's testimony. That's usually how it goes in criminal cases - most of the witnesses have major credibility issues because criminals usually deal with other criminals.

Skid Mark wrote: ↑May 20th, '24, 18:46 I'm actually a little embarrassed for you all.

Not sure why? I have no involvement in this prosecution whatsoever, and as I've said before, if it were up to me I wouldn't have brought this particular case.

Let me ask you though - does it trouble you that for more than a decade Trump retained this obviously corrupt lawyer? Does that not say something about Trump that he would keep a guy like this on retainer so long and use him so often? Does it not say something about Trump that so many of his underlings either turn on him or get convicted of criminal offenses?

easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 21st, '24, 08:03Does it not say something about Trump that so many of his underlings either turn on him or get convicted of criminal offenses?

No, no it does not. This is primarily because MAGA has established a cult of cognitive dissonance.

Had two separate conversations over the weekend with a family member and a friend about the trial. Both of which started with something like "love him or hate him - this trial is BS".

When asked for more information, one explained Stormy was just out to get more money from Trump and the other explained the case was already tried and rejected (offering this as support).

When explaining to both that this trial wasn't about awarding Stormy anything, both reverted to the common argument from incredulity ... explaining they don't need to articulate why the trial is BS because it's just common sense.

Sounds very much like Skid Mark's comments - no real substance or understanding of the proceeding, just repeating what they heard some political commentator say. There's plenty to criticize but most of these commentators really seem to miss the mark.

Saying there's no basis for a prosecution, for example, just doesn't make sense. There is a factual basis - prosecutors allege that Trump falsified business records that claim he paid Cohen for services rendered when part of that payment wasn't actually for services rendered but for hush money payments to Stormy Daniels. That's a crime in New York, albeit a pretty minor one. But it certainly isn't without precedent. From what I've read, falsifying business records charges have been prosecuted many times in the state of New York.

My critique is that this isn't a crime worth the time and expense of the prosecution. The attempt to make it into a felony is shaky and has a pretty strong chance of getting struck down on appeal. There's also the difficulty of proving Trump's state of mind - the jury has to find that he knowingly made a false entry in the records. It's a pretty high-stakes prosecution to go after a former president who is also very rich and can hire very good lawyers and this case is just not strong enough in my opinion to justify that risk.

I understand this is not a sexy take and won't make headlines, which is why you're seeing guys like Dershowitz being much more vociferous in their critique or commentators on the other side saying it's a really strong case. These folks are looking to get views and clicks so they have to say outlandish things in order to get attention.

Again: no Cliff Notes for this?

Reading is hard, I know, but if you put your mind to it you can do it. I believe in you.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 22nd, '24, 04:03 Reading is hard, I know, but if you put your mind to it you can do it. I believe in you.

See?…. You CAN do it!

Trump - Guilty - all 34 counts.

Skid Mark wrote: ↑May 8th, '24, 17:51 The current Bragg case is a complete sham and everybody knows it. He will be found innocent

Hahahahahahahahahaha

136 years should cover it. Hahahahaha