The end of the rainbow
The trial for a crime that the democrats can't name is now in front of an ultra-liberal Manhattan jury. How rotten was this whole scam trial? The judge is highly conflicted via donations to Biden and "stop Trump" organizations. He is in violation of state law for not recusing himself, which means the entire New York judicial system is corrupt. The judge's daughter is a major fundraiser for democrat campaigns, and she is likely to raise plenty of money from the trial. Thus far the judge has been on autopilot as far as sustaining prosecution objections and overruling defense objections. After reading jury instructions for an hour and a half the confused jury asked the judge to read it again. The most outrageous part of the case is that during those very same jury instructions the judge finally told us, for the first time, what the mystery crime might be. It was finally the end of the rainbow for the issue of the unmentioned crime:
Any one of three says the great Marchan:
1) A violation of federal campaign finance law
2) Falsifying business records
3) Violation of city, state and federal tax laws.
The judge says the jury can pick any one of the three and they don't need to be in agreement on which one. Surprised? Legal experts who thought they were shocked beyond belief a few days ago are even more shocked now. What on earth happened to the constitutional right to know what the crime was for the defense?
What do Trump & Biden think?
Trump said the judge is so conflicted he can't breathe. Obviously, he expects a guilty verdict.
Biden wants to make a statement right after the verdict is rendered. Obviously, he expects a guilty verdict.
The jurors deliberated for 4 and a half hours yesterday without coming to the desired verdict.
Jury deliberation begins again today at 9:30 AM EST.
In other news:
Joe Biden gave a very divisive speech in Philadelphia, full of black grievance, race baiting and gaffs.
Israel said it had taken control of a slice of Gaza along the border with Egypt. An Israeli spokesman said Hamas used the zone to smuggle weapons.
Hamas has physically abused hostages, prevented them from speaking and denied them food and water, according to a former captive, whose husband is still being held.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken suggested that the U.S. might let Ukraine strike inside Russia using American made weapons. It shows how differently the Biden administration is handling two different allies. It also may mean that Ukraine is now losing.
Hong Kong convicted 14 democracy activists in a sham trial without judge Merchan presiding over the trial.
Tags
Who is online
424 visitors
Good morning.
Welcome to Fleet Week:
Fleet Week brings a bit of history to the shores of New York City, with at least 20 tall ships from around the world sporting traditional sails and making their way through the waterways around the city for civilian spectators to observe.
This year's Fleet Week events mark the bicentennial of the War of 1812, according to the Associated Press , but the origins of Fleet Week itself lie in the year 1935.
The first Fleet Week was held in San Diego, as part of the California Pacific International Exposition in 1935, according to The Travel Channel . It was a time between wars when President Franklin D. Roosevelt expanded the US Navy in response to the geopolitical situation, with both Japan and Germany building up their militaries.
Fleet Week: A history - The World from PRX
This was the first lie. It gets worse as one goes. It lacks logic and thought.
I kind of thought you'd say something like that.
Then perhaps you should do better.
All I can do is tell the truth.
Other than Trump is on trial there is little truth to be found here.
Other than nobody else ever being so charged with this mischief, there is no way for you to defend it.
Nowhere can a case like this be found in the history of the US legal system.
any idea when that will start here?
a trial for a crimes trumpsters can't admit...
Irrelevant if/when the crime has been committed. You're just pissed they caught up to Trump.
I'm not in the courtroom, but based on my limited knowledge filtered through various media sites I'm not convinced the prosecution proved it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. Will you print a retraction and apology if the jury does find Trump not guilty or will you just go on to the next populist outrage?
... another first for the GOP.
No.
I kind of thought you'd say something like that.
hillary Clinton paid a foreign spy to create a false story about her rival in 2016 and illegally recorded and reported the expense as legal expenses. Unlike Trump, her conduct was so egregious she was cited by the FEC.
Amazingly, she wasn't indicted.
apparently public accountability and personal responsibility are signs of weakness on the right.
Deflection.
Your lack of a defense for the double standard is evident.
Deflection.
deflection do to lack of defense.
Yes, your lack of defense for Trump's actions and false claims of judge & jury bias.
Deflection, if you can't defend or justify the double standard just say so. no need to deflect to trump.
Why would a jury finally coming to terms with a sham case make the case any less of a sham?
The jury rendering a not guilty verdict would put a lie to your claims of jury bias and the legal corruption of the whole state of NY. It would even lower your claims of bias in the judge. You are so far into the weeds politically you can't see the quicksand.
One can have bias and can still render a fair verdict. I very much doubt it will happen, but even a Trump hater can find their way to the truth. As a matter of fact, because of this very trial, I think many Trump haters will inevitably find themselves voting for him as an act of protest.
You've been telling us for weeks the fix is in already. Now you are hedging?
You wish!
I was right up front...I like Biden & Trump am expecting a guilty verdict. If you can't see that, there is no need to be reading the AP.
Your comments suggest that you believe that if Trump is found guilty that the trial was rigged.
If not, then be clear and state that, in this Trump trial, it is possible that a proper trial given the evidence and arguments could produce a fair guilty verdict.
This is the way this works to the MAGA brain - if Trump is judged not guilty it will be because he was entirely innocent and did nothing wrong. . If he is convicted it will only be because the process was not fair to him and the deck was stacked.
Both alternatives position him to claim "victory" before the electorate.
Trump and MAGA's philosophy of life is heads we win tails you lose.
You got it.
Whether he is found guilty, not guilty or it ends in a hung jury, IT WAS A SHAM TRIAL.
it is possible that a proper trial given the evidence and arguments could produce a fair guilty verdict.
It is even possible that a sham trial could end up with a hung jury. It doesn't change anything.
Believe it or not this case gives Trump exactly that. I heard an MSNBC commentator say that he is glad it is over. Sooner or later, you too will see what a mistake this was.
As I figured. Similarly, if any other trial of Trump ensues it will be, in your mind, a SHAM trial.
To people like you, everything that happens in this country gives him exactly that.
[deleted][✘]
This one has tainted all of those. The dems should have thought of that when they ran with this one.
Didn't any of you realize how risky this would be?
Everything done in the past 3 and a half years, for sure.
thanks for verifying my point
My pleasure.
So ANYBODY calling out the corruption at play here is a "defense of Trump"? Pretty narrowminded train of thought.
Seems to me that you do not care about the details, you just draw conclusions based on partisan inference. This trial has nothing to do with the other trials in a legal sense. The other trials, assuming we ever see them, will be based (as are most trials) on the evidence, the law, and the proper practice of jurisprudence.
They could go awry, but typically they do not. Especially when the stakes are extremely high with an extremely visible defendant who will appeal any guilty verdict.
But, of course, you do not care about any of that. Any trial against Trump is, by your definition, a SHAM — even before it starts ... even before evidence is presented and arguments are made.
Any of who? Nobody in this forum has anything whatsoever to do with bringing charges against Trump.
And anyone pointing out the bias in that has to be a commie marxist socialist uber-liberal.
People need to stop connecting dots that are miles apart based on bias and stereotypes.
Yes. Opinions are not facts... Opinions are not news...
Yes, but if you watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN and some others you have opinions presented as facts and millions of people seem to fall for it.
Yes, confirmation bias makes money. I'm already aware of this. I'm not responsible for what millions of other people watch. I can only point out the logical fallibilities in the posts I run across here and hope to persuade them from continuing to do the same.
Can you give me an example of ANY "commie marxist socialist" who even THINKS the trial against Trump was a sham? Although I'm not a "commie marxist socialist" I think there are quite a few who are not far from me here, and I'm not aware of anyone here at all who thinks the trial against Trump was biased or a sham. I don't think it's fair to insult any good "commie marxist socialist" with such an accusation.
He was being sarcastic of course. But there are some on this site who would write something like that and be serious.
True enough. So many seem to think that they're Joe McCarthy or Roy Cohn. Problem is there are no Ed Murrows left in America, no Walter Cronkites, no Paul Harveys.
Roy Cohn, Joe McCarthy's #1 Henchman and The Worst Person in the World, had four special buttboy proteges whom he personally trained to be assholes and political dirty tricksters. They were Lee Atwater, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort and Donald J. Trump...
Not possible
How has the former 'president' being a convicted felon, guilty of all 34 counts, tainting anything?
How do you know that?
Have you actually looked through all the records of the entire legal system?
(Going back to the days of George Washington?)
OR
Is that merely an assumption on your part?
So what was the crime again? Name the exact law that was violated. The statute of limitations ran out on the misdemeanor counts long ago. Also show standing where the state of New York has the right to prosecute federal law?
No linking Braggs BS charges either.
By the way the judge completely violated a Supreme Court ruling with his instruction to the jury.
.
Sorry Merchan the jury must unanimously agree on each charge, and that includes the means. If any one jurist descents then the charge does not apply. The jury doesn't get to split votes among the charges- and then all still apply.
But hey, leftists have a great shot at their predetermined verdict with those instructions.
Business fraud. Something he's been convicted of before.
The charges are online any you can read them for yourself as well as anyone.
If you know that then you know the law already and can link & quote it. Not some irrelevant link to findlaw.
He's on the hook for using his NY business accounting trying to cover up Cohen's and Pecker's crimes - which are not being disputed by the defense.
Does anyone want to see how different two worlds can be?
Just compare the trial coverage on Fox News and MSNBC. It is truly stunning.
Btw I heard a commentator on MSNBC questioning if the jury not coming to a verdict yesterday means a holdout. She said if it is one person, then we know that person wasn't honest. Does anyone recall the classic movie that liberals made & loved called "Twelve Angry Men?" (The story of one juror focuses on facts convincing the other 11 who were judging with emotion.) This is where they are now.
I don't advocate anyone watch either one of those propaganda channels. They are infotainment and confirmation bias bubbles for those too lazy to think for themselves.
Where do you get your news?
Across several news organizations. On political matters I'll read articles from multiple sources. I tend to avoid articles with "Could" or "Might" and anything tagged as opinion.
Can't you give us one?
AP, Reuters, BBC...
Interesting.
FOX - $787.5 million settlement paid for broadcasting lies from the last election.
MSNBC - $0
Irrelevant
That's because they are classifying a misdemeanor as a felony. They say that out loud it negates the whole thing. It would ruin the idiots playing the "Get Trump at all costs" game.
We all know that the constitution gets thrown out the window when the Democrats are trying to get their way.
The NY business fraud law is clear and has been on the books for years.
We all know that populists like to make up conspiracy theories when the world doesn't conform to their thinking.
The one that the statute of limitations ran out on?
Go ahead and provide a link and quote to the actual law.
You brought the law up, you have the duty to post it.
And one that the Traitor Joe DOJ ran away from.
That's supposed to prove me wrong or something?
WFT? Your post -
Which law is that? You posted it you defend it.
Proving you wrong is low hanging fruit.
Apparently even that is too high for you to do.
The judge is highly conflicted via donations to Biden and "stop Trump" organizations.
The people saying this is no big deal are the same ones insisting Alito recuse himself from all things Trump (or step down) because of a flag his wife flew.
The very same people who thought the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation.
Is instead of was. The still do promote that lie
I know. They won't accept facts.
Biden's schedule for tomorrow:
Democrat MSNBC contributor Andrew Weissmann: "I have like a man crush" on Judge Juan Merchan.
That's the same Weissmann who ran the Russia-Collusion hoax.
Jurors have asked to hear David Pecker's testimony again.
It is being read back to them.
It's hard to believe that every single one of the jurors is a brain-dead hard core anti-Trumper. There is even a couple of lawyers in the mix. There are no facts that support the accusations of the prosecution. This trial is simply political persecution and election interference and was rigged from the get-go. If these bad actors somehow manage to get a conviction, it will have very little impact on Trump's reelection.
If Marchan would be so foolish as trying to put Trump in jail pending appeals, it would cause a national uproar and irreparable damage to the progressive leftists. Nothing the Dems have done has stopped Trump, only slowing him a tiny bit temporarily. They never seem to learn from their repeated failures.
This will be an epic lesson for them.
It is more likely that these individuals are normal, thoughtful individuals who are taking their roles seriously.
It is very likely based on your comments that if they render a guilty verdict that you will cry foul.
We cried foul in the Emmett Till case as well.
Are you saying you believe that some alleged misdemeanors far beyond the statute of limitations and ignored by other agencies somehow magically transformed into 34 felonies? Your comments appear to show you think that way. Do you seriously believe this trial is NOT political gaming and election interference? Do you seriously believe that Merchan is not biased against Trump?
If you read that sentence closely it clearly indicates that I think that 12 assorted normal and thoughtful people who make up this jury would never vote to convict based on the unprovable allegations and lack of evidence.
No. Not even close. No magic is involved.
This trial was likely brought because of political animosity against Trump. But the trial itself is based on the law and actions of Trump. A trial can be brought for improper reasons and still be a proper trial.
Apparently you cannot conceive of a judge operating objectively. When a judge oversees a trial of an alleged serial murderer, do you believe he or she cannot possibly be professional and follow the proper practices of jurisprudence? People can indeed operate professionally in spite of personal views; it is done routinely in life.
And if the verdict is guilty, will you declare them as NOT normal and thoughtful? (rhetorical)
What on Earth does that have to do with anything?? You seem to be noting that not every trial finds the truth.
Granted, Vic, our system of justice is imperfect. But that is not an argument for deeming any trial whose outcome does not meet your desires to be a SHAM.
It was the same thing.
You have been given the facts. You have ignored them. The jury is about to come in with a guilty verdict. It will be appealed and eventually overturned.
I assume you will be here when this case is overturned sometime next year.
Your cliche FALSE 'claim' that I ignored facts is both dishonest and ineffective.
And yes, I expected the jury to either deliver guilty or no decision. The fact that they have reached a decision suggests strongly that Trump will be a convicted felon soon.
We shall see. One never knows ...
I knew as did every rational person.
Trump was found guilty on all counts.
lock him up!
he can phone in his nomination acceptance speech to the republican convention, or zoom, in his XXL orange jumpsuit...
Wow a slimy sideways insult.
Anyone who thinks they know with certainty what a jury will decide is being foolish (or suffering from an inflated ego).
This jury needed only one member to hang it.
But once the jury came to a verdict I was confident it was guilty.
What a horrendous lie. Read the time stamp on post 2.1.22. It is there for all to see. The jury was still hours away from a verdict.
There we stand.
What, exactly, is the lie you have imagined? I followed your link and see only a comment from you.
If you are going to accuse me of lying then deliver the claimed lie.
I repeatedly stated my belief that a jury decision would almost certainly NOT be acquittal. I made it clear that I believed the outcome would be guilty or a hung jury.
You made it sound like you were talking about me. I of course said there would absolutely be a guilty verdict.
Show me the lie you claimed. I have no patience anymore for the endless dishonesty and bullshit claims.
You'll have to do a little soul searching.
Once the Trump verdict is overturned it will be history that will have little patience for those who convicted someone because they didn't like him.
I am being kind to many of you on that score.
Trumpsters are a PROFOUND embarrassment to this country.
Not much of a comeback, but I'll try to answer it anyway by offering the view of a thinking liberal on Trump supporters:
“Here’s what happened. Here’s what people saw in America: They saw Trump killing it, killing it with the crowd,” Maher, a stand-up comedian, said. “Then you come to a panel of six people who all just do nothing but dump on him and call him a liar. And America goes, ‘Oh, didn’t you just see that we like him?’”
“The people loved him and what he was saying,” Maher continued. “And then you cut to a panel of six know-it-alls in Washington who just do nothing but talk about the name. And like, I’m all in on the negative. No one’s been harder on Trump than me. But I get it and I’m bored with it. And there’s a different way to do this, I think, which is not to defend Trump, but to defend the people who still vote for him, because what they see on the other side to them is even more dangerous, because it’s very closer to home.”
Bill Maher Slams Media’s Coverage Of Trump Supporters To Katie Couric: ‘The People Loved Him’ (msn.com)
The likelihood of this being overturned is slim. On what grounds do you think this could be overturned? Be specific. Make an actual argument.
You seem to think you present hard challenges. Not from what I have seen.
So go ahead Vic, give it your best shot.
I'll stake my life on it. It won't be until after the election.
You say chances are slim.
I'm saving this thread for then.
Then you must have an excellent argument for why this will be the case.
Let's hear it.
Do you really think that matters to me? If this goes against my estimation of the odds, do you actually think that is going to bother me in the slightest? Lighten up a hair.
Focus on what is important: like NOT electing a convicted felon, scoundrel, traitor, loose-cannon, irresponsible con-man to the presidency.
I can't improve on the multitude of legal opinions on it. Even liberal legal experts agree. Yesterday on ABC's This Week, you had the ABC legal expert saying there was plenty of obvious grounds for appeal. In that same show an angry George Stephanopoulos tried to debate the Trump defense team lawyer, who listed just a few and of course you have Jonathan Turley calling the cause for appeal "a target rich environment."
Let's hear it.
It's only about the 5th time I've done it, and it will be the last time for you.
Here are the most obvious:
1) The judge was conflicted as not only a Biden donor, but as a "stop Trump" donor. His daughter is a major fundraiser for democrats. He should have recused himself as the defense asked. There is also the question of why this judge kept getting "randomly selected" in 3 trial involving Trump (The tax trial, this trial and the Steve Bannon trial), Supposedly there is a pool of 24 judges that get rotated in New York.
2) The defense requested a change of venue and was denied.
3) The unheard-of gag order being placed on a defendant and in this case a Presidential candidate is arguably unconstitutional.
4) The allowing of extraneous, irrelevant, salacious testimony in the case and then the Judge later admitting that he shouldn't have allowed it.
5) Not allowing the defense or the jury to ever hear what the hidden crime was throughout the trial. A clear constitutional violation of due process.
6) Allowing the prosecution to allege certain things had been proven which were not.
7) Not permitting the defense to call an expert witness on campaign finance law.
8) Allowing the jury to choose between three crimes as the hidden crime and not demanding a unanimous verdict on a single crime during jury instructions. To date we don't know the breakup of the jury on the three options.
Those are the 8 major complaints. There are many other sordid details on how the judge conducted the trial.
Do you really think that matters to me?
Nope.
Focus on what is important
I am. I want the border closed, safe streets, a dependable dollar, dependable transportation, and accountability for all those who have weaponized the law.
What actions did the judge take that were inappropriate? It does not matter how biased a judge is (or how biased you think he is); what matters is how he or she operates on the bench.
The defense does not get to dictate the venue.
Nonsense. Gag orders are well known tools for dealing with individuals who are compromising the integrity of the trial or the safety of the participants. You give Trump a pass at every turn. Trump was entirely out of control and totally in the wrong. The judge could have thrown him in jail.
Big deal. Once Stormy uttered the words they cannot be unheard. And I doubt anyone on the jury was stupid enough to ever believe Trump's lie that he did not have sex with Daniels. He shot himself in the foot right off the bat by lying about the encounter.
Are you aware the Cohen was found guilty and served time? Trump falsified records, fraudulently, to cover up reimbursing Cohen for his payoff to Daniels. The underlying crime was the payoff which violated New York election laws and campaign finance laws.
This is entirely vague. Did the defense object on these certain things?
False! Witness was allowed but the defense did not like the restrictions imposed by the judge.
The felony was intentionally covering up a crime with fraudulent records (hiding reimbursement to Cohen as legal expenses). It does not matter what the crime is or who committed it.
Your argument is weak.
Yeah, character, responsibility, intent, etc. does not matter. You are fine with giving a traitorous scoundrel like Trump the power of the presidency.
Actually, it is strong. Some experts believe the judge was so flagrant that he obviously doesn't care if the verdict is overturned after the election.
The fact that you are ok with all of it speaks volumes.
Hyperbolic nonsense. There was nothing wrong with Merchan's performance as judge.
Yeah, it shows that one of us is not engaging in absurd exaggeration and is going by what actually happened during the trial.
One of us doesn't accept facts.
When the conviction is overturned, I will confront you with it.
Your 'threats' are ridiculous, Vic.
If the conviction is overturned I will evaluate the reasons and draw my conclusions accordingly. You are not a factor.
And if the conviction is withheld, I predict that you, et. al. will continue with the cries of foul play.
You are still evaluating the origins of covid.
Let us know.
Cohen pleaded guilty to campaign crimes and Pecker admitted it on the stand during the trial. 90% of the trial was explaining the business fraud was to cover up for the stooges. Claiming the jury never heard the crimes is just plain asinine.
Oh, so you know the origins of COVID-19? Great, tell the rest of the planet (with evidence and logic) since all we have still are hypotheses.
If you think you know something yet general knowledge holds it undecided, chances are good that you really do not know what you think you know.
The 'arguments' in defense of Trump are growing more shrill and more ridiculous.
Maher makes no sense. He's gone to the dark side,
The arguments are non-existent
The origins of the 'Spanish Flu' are still being evaluated.
Have they completed the evaluation of the origins of the ‘Spanish Fly’?
Ask George Chapman, it might be a post-Armada slur. The Brits, masters of propaganda, followed that one up with the Spanish Inquisition.
Dead men tell no tales.
According to a pathologist I know, the dead never shut up.
At long last, National Institutes of Health (NIH) principal deputy director Lawrence Tabak admitted to Congress Thursday that US taxpayers funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China in the months and years before the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Dr. Tabak,” asked Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, “did NIH fund gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through [Manhattan-based nonprofit] EcoHealth [Alliance]?”
“It depends on your definition of gain-of-function research,” Tabak answered. “If you’re speaking about the generic term, yes, we did.”
The response comes after more than four years of evasions from federal public health officials — including Tabak himself and former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) director Dr. Anthony Fauci — about the controversial research practice that modifies viruses to make them more infectious.
NIH official finally admits taxpayers funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan — after years of denials (msn.com)
We have known for years that EcoHealth redirected NIH funds to Wuhan for its generic GoF research and failed to disclose its findings in violation of the terms of its grant.
What we still do not know is if this had anything to do with COVID-19. As I stated years ago, it is logical that COVID-19 originated in the lab. It is a plausible hypothesis. And it is also plausible that it originated naturally.
Your link does not answer that question. It simply rehashes what we have known for years now.
In plain English, there is no evidence that the NIH directly and knowingly funded GoF research that could have led to the development of COVID-19. And given the time and lack of progress, I do not expect we will ever determine the answer with certainty.
What do you mean "we?"
You told me that you were waiting for the facts to come in.
What I noted has been public domain knowledge for years. What we do not yet know is the origin of COVID-19.
Joe Biden: "My Administration is releasing 1 million barrels of gasoline from the Northeast Gasoline Supply Reserve ahead of July 4th, which will lower prices at the pump when folks need it the most."
Ah, it is 6 months to the election. How stupid are the American people?
The Panderer-in-Chief keeps at it.
Money for the kids, the strategic reserve emptied to bring gas prices down, calling Trump a racist in Philadelphia and yesterday asking a reporter if he injured his head; it has truly been a whirlwind campaign for the man who spent 2020 hiding in the cellar. Tomorrow, he goes back to the beach as he prepares for a victory dance when the New York verdict comes in.
Jury is now resuming deliberation.
Guilty on all 34 counts.
Hard to imagine logically how he could be found guilty of one and not the rest. Seemed like an all or nothing assessment.
Oh well, now the appeal goes before the Manhattan Court of Appeals:
Busy ladies, they host over 3,000 appeals and 7,000 motions a year. Your peeve with them is they actually work?
I want to alleviate some of that workload with an emergency appeal to the SCOTUS.
As Jack Smith says time is vicious when you waste it.
The judge all but identified himself as "We the prosecution."