Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 3
a substantive interview tonight. Here is a three minute snippet until the entire interview is posted. common , do you ever admit you were wrong, and live to play another day with some credibility? Good luck bud.
https://rumble.com/v4vtsio-stormy-daniels-nda-was-...
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 10
hclasvegas: Here is a three minute snippet until the entire interview is posted. common , do you ever admit you were wrong, and live to play another day with some credibility? Good luck bud.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Wrong about what, exactly?
I mean, Cohen has testified that he lied to Congress at Trump's behest when he said candidate Trump was not pursuing a Moscow Trump Tower in 2016 in order to conceal Trump's own lie to American voters when he actually was pursuing a Moscow Trump Tower during the campaign despite his promises that he had no ties to Russia while, simultaneously, his campaign chairman Paul Manafort gave Trump campaign polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence asset, in the middle of a campaign where his ties to Russia were at issue but that somehow the whole Russia thing was a hoax.
Trump himself inadvertently admitted that he had an NDA with Stormy Daniels -- “I have the only illegal NDA” -- and there's a paper trail.
Anyway, let's see what Costello has to say under oath.
And I look forward to Dementia Don taking the stand.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Well, he said he would testify and he never lies.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I have no idea what you're talking about. Wrong about what, exactly?"
good morning common, wrong about promoting filing frivolous lawsuits in search of a crime , when your key witness is, factually challenged. Listen to Carville, bud, it isn't working. Lets see how the verdict goes?
No. of Recommendations: 3
"I have no idea what you're talking about. Wrong about what, exactly?"
good morning common, wrong about promoting filing frivolous lawsuits in search of a crime , when your key witness is, factually challenged. Listen to Carville, bud, it isn't working. Lets see how the verdict goes?
If you would take the time to assess what you write to make sure it is clear, you would have a better reception on this board.
No. of Recommendations: 2
And now Cohen admits to stealing money from the Trump Organization.
This guy has as much credibility as the 'bots here do.
No. of Recommendations: 7
And now Cohen admits to stealing money from the Trump Organization.
Do you believe him?
No. of Recommendations: 1
Do you believe him?
I wouldn't believe anything this guy says.
No. of Recommendations: 2
BTW, when you've lost cnn...
https://x.com/_johnnymaga/status/17925724295475487...CNN reacts to Michael Cohen embezzling money from the Trump Organization
"This is significant... they appear to have caught Cohen in another lie"
"It was Michael Cohen who arranged this scheme"
"So far there is no direct link... to [Trump] in this alleged conspiracy"
No. of Recommendations: 6
I wouldn't believe anything this guy says.
Do you think it's possible that he didn't steal any money from the Trump Organization?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Do you think it's possible that he didn't steal any money from the Trump Organization?
So he's admitting to a crime - under oath - to deliberately tank the case? You're going with that?
No. of Recommendations: 14
So he's admitting to a crime - under oath - to deliberately tank the case? You're going with that?
Nope. Simply pointing out that even though someone has lied before - even though that person has lied often enough that people regard them as inherently untrustworthy - there will still be circumstances when what they say is believable.
You believe him when he admitted to a crime. Because that's what they call in the legal biz a "statement against interest." You can't think of a plausible reason why he would lie....so the default is to assume he's telling the truth.
That's how flawed, even dishonest witnesses often end up putting away the criminal defendants they testify against...as in mob informants underpinning the convictions of mob bosses. Because juries like to assess the credibility of witnesses in context, rather than simply deciding that once a person has been shown to lie, that everything that comes out of their mouth is to be disbelieved.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Because juries like to assess the credibility of witnesses in context, rather than simply deciding that once a person has been shown to lie, that everything that comes out of their mouth is to be disbelieved.
Don't worry. You're going to get a conviction this time around as this judge and jury were hand-picked for this purpose.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Don't worry. You're going to get a conviction this time around as this judge and jury were hand-picked for this purpose.
The judge was chosen at random, as are all judges in criminal proceedings. Sometimes you get a Merchan, sometimes you get a Cannon.
Similarly, the jury was selected by using the same voir dire processes that attend all criminal trials. Both the prosecution and defense get a role in shaping the jury.
None of this is specific to Trump. He's being treated like any other criminal defendant in the conduct of the trial.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The judge was chosen at random, as are all judges in criminal proceedings. Sometimes you get a Merchan, sometimes you get a Cannon.
Merchan donated to Biden and democrat causes; haven't seen anything like that leveled at Cannon (who is rightly asking about proper handling of evidence).
Similarly, the jury was selected by using the same voir dire processes that attend all criminal trials. Both the prosecution and defense get a role in shaping the jury.
Sure, when you hold a trial in a district that hates a guy, you're guaranteed to get a jury pool that knows what to do.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Merchan donated to Biden and democrat causes....
As is allowed, consistent with judicial ethics. Judges are people. They have political beliefs. Almost every one of them probably voted in the last Presidential election. They sometimes contribute to political campaigns. Some will have voted for Biden, some for Trump. All of that is normal and permissible in the legal system. It's not unfair that your judge will have a predilection for one of the two major political parties in the U.S. It is not unfair to the prosecution to have pulled Cannon (also at random), and it is not unfair for the defense to have pulled Merchan.
Sure, when you hold a trial in a district that hates a guy, you're guaranteed to get a jury pool that knows what to do.
No, you're not. Unless you're willing to give up on the idea that the criminal justice as a whole could ever be administered fairly, you have to postulate that a random selection of people processed through the mutual jury selection powers that both the prosecution and defense have is capable of returning a fair verdict.
Are you willing to open up all the jails and prisons because no one got a fair trial?
No. of Recommendations: 2
Here's what Turley says about it:
“It is very clear, they say you can’t make political contributions and he did,” Turley said on “Fox and Friends” after co-host Ainsley Earhardt mentioned the donations. “And the fact it is ‘de minimus’ or small, really, I think, misses the point. You make donations to show your support, that is what that $15 did.”
“What’s also concerning for many is that Merchan was not randomly selected, he was hand-picked as the judge for this case, and many of us don’t understand it,” Turley continued. “You have a judge who is donor to the president, whose daughter is a major Democratic operative, you would think this would be an easy call, there are plenty of other judges.”
And this
Unless you're willing to give up on the idea that the criminal justice as a whole could ever be administered fairly, you have to postulate that a random selection of people processed through the mutual jury selection powers that both the prosecution and defense have is capable of returning a fair verdict.
...is the way it's supposed to be, but as we've seen, things aren't functioning as they should be.
Are you willing to open up all the jails and prisons because no one got a fair trial?
I live on the West Coast. The new norm thanks to the left is to not put anyone in jail in the first place.
No. of Recommendations: 19
“What’s also concerning for many is that Merchan was not randomly selected, he was hand-picked as the judge for this case, and many of us don’t understand it,” Turley continued. “You have a judge who is donor to the president, whose daughter is a major Democratic operative, you would think this would be an easy call, there are plenty of other judges.”Turley's wrong. He was chosen at random:
Lucian Chalfen, a spokesman for the state court system, said Merchan had been randomly assigned to supervise the investigative grand jury, and that judges who supervise such probes are then assigned to try any cases that come out of the grand jury.https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/know......is the way it's supposed to be, but as we've seen, things aren't functioning as they should be.They're functioning exactly as they should be. You don't get a recusal from a judge because they have an
adult relative who works at a firm that supports a political party (or cause or whatever). You don't get to throw out a judge because they're a Democrat or a Republican - nearly all of the country has political viewpoints, even strong ones, and fairness does not require that judges be limited to the tiny segment of the population that holds no views on anything. Sometimes a judge is a progressive Democrat; sometimes you get a "hangin' judge"; sometimes you get a judge that's made no secret of their philosophy on various and sundry issues. That's what happens - you get a random draw, you have the right to request a recusal for
actual bias, and complaining about the fact that a Republican might go on trial before a Democrat (or vice versa) reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system is supposed to function.
No. of Recommendations: 2
They're functioning exactly as they should be.
LOL, we agree on something at last!
Yes, things are functioning...exactly...as they should be. If you're a partisan democrat.
No. of Recommendations: 14
LOL, we agree on something at last!
Yes, things are functioning...exactly...as they should be. If you're a partisan democrat.
No, they're functioning as they should be regardless.
Trump is no more entitled to a different judge than Jack Smith is entitled to replace Cannon. Sometimes you draw a judge that you'd rather not have. Doesn't mean the system isn't fair - or not functioning properly. Absent an actual conflict, you get the judge assigned at random....
No. of Recommendations: 16
"LOL, we agree on something at last!
Yes, things are functioning...exactly...as they should be. If you're a partisan democrat."
Does it bother you that Jonathan Turley is taking advantage of your ignorance of the legal system and how it works? Does it bother you in even the slightest?
Or is it ok because he tells you things tht you want to hear even if they are untrue?
No. of Recommendations: 14
"Merchan donated to Biden and democrat causes; haven't seen anything like that leveled at Cannon (who is rightly asking about proper handling of evidence).
You really are ignorant of the U.S. justice system. I mean a little bit of education never hurt anyone. Try it.
Do you think all of the Justices on the Supreme Court that were nominated by Trump should have to recuse themselves from any case concerning his guilt/innocence? Or is that somehow ok because they will support your Dear Leader?
"Sure, when you hold a trial in a district that hates a guy, you're guaranteed to get a jury pool that knows what to do."
Why do you think that is the district the trial is held in? Why do you think Jack Smith filed in the district that Elieen Cannon is in?
As for the point of your comment, it is clear you do not believe in law and order or justice. You are in a cult.
