╌>

We May Finally Get to Write: "Convicted Felon Donald Trump"

  
Via:  John Russell  •  8 months ago  •  93 comments

By:   Michael Tomasky (The New Republic)

We May Finally Get to Write: "Convicted Felon Donald Trump"
this is also a media story—more precisely, it's the story of our two medias, the mainstream and the right-wing. The mainstream media have consistently held Trump to a lower standard of behavior than other politicians, and the right-wing media have held him to no standard of behavior, making excuses for everything. It's so important to understand this phenomenon. We have two medias in this country. One wakes up every morning looking for a fight, and the other, with some exceptions, wakes up...

Leave a comment to auto-join group NEWSMucks

NEWSMucks


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


We're finally here. This week, Donald Trump will sit in a courtroom and face criminal charges. The courtroom has not been kind to Trump this year: A Manhattan jury found the Trump Organization guilty on 17 counts of tax fraud last December, and E. Jean Carroll won that hefty judgment against Trump for sexual abuse, but these were civil proceedings. So mark this down as the week the criminal justice system finally managed to haul Trump before the bar of justice.

The only real question here is why this took so long. It's not as if it wasn't obvious in 2015 that Trump had total contempt for the law. That was easy for all to see. How has he gotten away with it for this long?

It's partly due to an utterly docile Republican Party, whose leaders know very well that Trump's a brigand but are afraid to say so. It's partly Trump's reliance on an old Roy Cohn legal strategy—delay, deny, accuse the other side of what you yourself have done, conjure up totally fictional defenses that should be laughed out of court but at least slow down the proceedings. And conservative judges have played their role, such as Aileen Cannon and the U.S. Supreme Court.

But crucially, this is also a media story—more precisely, it's the story of our two medias, the mainstream and the right-wing. The mainstream media have consistently held Trump to a lower standard of behavior than other politicians, and the right-wing media have held him to no standard of behavior, making excuses for everything.

It's so important to understand this phenomenon. We have two medias in this country. One wakes up every morning looking for a fight, and the other, with some exceptions, wakes up every morning looking for nuance and rationalizations. It's a huge part of the story of how we got here.

Take this now completely forgotten tale from the very early days of the Trump administration. On January 24—Trump's fourth day in office—then-national security adviser Mike Flynn was interviewed by the FBI about his Russia connections. On January 26 and 27, Sally Yates of the Justice Department told the White House about her department's suspicions about Flynn.

That same night of January 27—the first week of his presidency—Trump had dinner with then-FBI director James Comey. The FBI was investigating Flynn. It was also, we learned shortly thereafter, investigating Trump's 2016 campaign.

What was said at that dinner? We don't know everything, but that May, Trump admitted that he asked Comey if he, Trump, was under investigation. The mere asking of the question, as Lawrence Tribe said at the time, was a high crime and misdemeanor—an attempt to intimidate and to obstruct justice.

That should have launched a congressional investigation at the very least. But the Republicans controlled the House at the time, so that wasn't going to happen. In fact, then-Speaker Paul Ryan came out and called Comey compromised, backing Trump all the way.

And the media? Oh, it was a story all right, I wouldn't deny that it was. But while I haven't done a content analysis, I'd bet you that Bill Clinton's tarmac visit with Loretta Lynch inspired more outrage in both medias than this episode did. Naturally, I'm not defending what Clinton did. But he was an ex-president with no power over Lynch. Trump was the sitting president will all power over Comey—which he exercised that May by firing him.

This is one of dozens of examples in which Trump flagrantly violated norms and standards. It made a little stink for a moment or two, but it eventually faded away, quietly departing the front pages, blending into the blurry background of half-remembered Trumpian lies and outrages that have proven to be too numerous for the media watchdogs to actually keep track of, leaving one feeling overwhelmed.

That's why this week is different. This, finally, is a court of criminal law. There will be facts submitted for the record. There will be testimony, under oath. And eventually, in an estimated six weeks or so, there will be a verdict from a jury of Trump's peers.

That verdict might exonerate Trump. But most experts don't think it will. It seems pretty obvious that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to make that payment to Stormy Daniels for the reason the prosecution alleges—to keep the affair from becoming public before the election. So, with any luck, by Memorial Day or so, we'll be able to write the phrase that has been crying to be written for about 35 years: "Convicted felon Donald Trump."

How much will that change things, if it comes to pass? Maybe not much, immediately. The pro-Trump media will say he was railroaded, and the mainstream media will move on to the next story. Not many Americans have served on juries—about one in 10 in the last decade, according to this survey. But faith in the jury system is high. That may well be especially so in a case like this one, which until this week has been, to your disinterested observer, a partisan circus. But a jury's verdict has an authority and finality for these Americans that a Sean Hannity rant or a New York Times editorial lacks.

So perhaps 60 or 65 percent of America will agree, if Trump is convicted, that he paid off Daniels in order to help him win the election. It barely scratches the surface of Trump's crimes. And it's shameful that it took eight years to get here. But a jury's verdict is a lot harder for him to blame on the deep state and the fake news. In the America that Donald Trump hasn't yet corrupted, a courtroom still has that standing.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JohnRussell    8 months ago
So perhaps 60 or 65 percent of America will agree, if Trump is convicted, that he paid off Daniels in order to help him win the election. It barely scratches the surface of Trump's crimes. And it's shameful that it took eight years to get here. But a jury's verdict is a lot harder for him to blame on the deep state and the fake news. In the America that Donald Trump hasn't yet corrupted, a courtroom still has that standing.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago

That is the big hope of democrats, but the case is rotten to the core. A guilty verdict (and let us hope there is at least one honest juror) will not stand.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    8 months ago

You have not heard the evidence nor the arguments and you have concluded that Trump is not guilty as charged?

Funny how Michael Cohen was found guilty and served jail time over this matter yet you know that Trump broke no laws?

And no, Vic, I am not claiming that I know Trump is guilty.   I think the fact that Cohen was found guilty and that AMI admitted it broke campaign finance laws (and paid a hefty fine) is rather significant.   It is not likely that Trump had no hand in this, so I think the chances are pretty good that the evidence will show that he is guilty.

But, we will simply have to wait for the trial.

And, as always, I care about the Jan 6th cases since those deal with Trump as PotUS rather than private citizen Trump.   But given Trump has been successful thus far in delaying the important cases, I have no concerns about citizen Trump being found guilty of a felony (if true, of course) and labeled a felon.   

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    8 months ago

As the great Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over till it's over!". And it certainly is not over yet.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.2    8 months ago

That is for sure.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    8 months ago

Read the article!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    8 months ago

If you want to rebut what I wrote then do so.   

An out of the blue command / implied assertion is not a rebuttal.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    8 months ago

My rebuttal was posted yesterday:

A Case Without Merit - Community | The NewsTalkers


I didn't see any "critical thinkers" there.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.6    8 months ago

You post an entirely vague reply of "read the article" (this article) with no indication of what you find wrong with my comment (to which you replied).  And then when asked to be clear you deflect to another article and imply I am not a critical thinker and that by not engaging in your referenced article that somehow you have made a point I cannot refute.

If you have a problem with my comment state it here in this article with clarity instead of playing rhetorical hide and go seek.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago

It's the weakest case of all and is basically a misdemeanor. No jail or prison time, and is quickly forgotten by the voters,

Even CNN Legal Analyst Incredulously Wrecks 'Weakness' of Unprecedented Criminal Case Against Trump – RedState

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
1.2.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    8 months ago

That is NOT how i have read it. You may wish to reinvestigate from a better source.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    8 months ago
It's the weakest case of all and is basically a misdemeanor

Basically it's 34 felonies. Definite prison time. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.2    8 months ago

Fake felonies and the jury will hang!

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
1.2.4  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.3    8 months ago
jury will hang!

Do they still allow that in NY ?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.2.5  Ronin2  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.2.4    8 months ago

Only if there is one honest jury member.

I am sure the other TDS driven members will dox them; and they very well could be hung.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.3    8 months ago

Fake felonies and the jury will hang!

What makes them fake? Do tell. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.2.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @1.2.6    8 months ago

It's a feeling

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.2.7    8 months ago

It's a feeling

exactly. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1    8 months ago

A jury verdict in a Democrat Bastion of Stupidity like NY? Try again. New Yorkers have already proven their TDS with the civil suit by E Jean Carroll twice.

The only thing in question is is one New Yorker in the jury pool with any integrity left to see this case for what it is; and not allow the TDS driven mighty mental midgets that didn't recuse themselves for not being unbiased to bully them?

More than half of the potential jury members were excused after they identified that they could not be fair or impartial in deciding the case. 

Says all you need to know about the potential jurists. At least those TDS sufferers that recused themselves right away can maintain some of their integrity. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @1.3    8 months ago
TDS

Uh hu..

TDS

Ok..

TDS

Bit of a one trick pony aren't ya? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    8 months ago
wing. The mainstream media have consistently held Trump to a lower standard of behavior than other politicians,

This is orwellian. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    8 months ago

If he had not been held to a lower standard than any other politician he would have been run out of the 2016 republican primaries. The amount of ethical baggage he had at that time was staggering.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    8 months ago

If only Trump had stayed a Democrat!

Then this would all be a bad dream and the left's goal of turning the US into a woke, dysfunctional, version of China would be much closer.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.1.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.1    8 months ago

Trump was never a popular Democrat.  Only a Republican can be dumb enough to succumb to Trump level “thinking”, which is why he settled on the Republican Party.  When it comes to politics, wealthy private developers are only interested in the potential for expedience to advance their personal financial interests.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.2    8 months ago
Trump was never a popular Democrat.

He was popular with the media and celebrities in NYC.  In the 80's he was on a Tom Brokaw interview, 60 Minutes, David Letterman, Oprah Winfrey, Larry King, etc.  He palled around with celebrities there and frequently appeared on the gossip pages.  Cameos in movies and TV shows, NYC society events, hosting SNL, he was a real man about town.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    8 months ago

The source is a hyper leftist liberal publication. Nothing like credible, fair, honest, and non biased reporting. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3  MrFrost    8 months ago

Cohen already went to prison for the same thing trump is on trial for, (for the most part).... But the rightists insist trump is innocent and Cohen is guilty... 

LMAO They really think that way! 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3    8 months ago
Cohen

Another judge already called him a serial perjurer.

Cohen is Bragg's key witness.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    8 months ago

Ironically, Trump tries to discredit Cohen by calling him a convicted felon ... convicted for his actions on the events for which Trump is now on trial.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
3.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    8 months ago

Cohen is Bragg's key witness.

Trump is going to prison Vic, even trump's lawyers have told him he may want to prepare to go to prison for 1 to 4 years. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.2    8 months ago

If found guilty, my bet is that he will be fined and placed on some form of probation.   But he will, however, be a convicted felon at that point.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.2    8 months ago

Depends on whether or not he gets elected prior to getting to trial.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.3    8 months ago

I wish he would at least get house arrest...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  seeder  JohnRussell    8 months ago
“Trump appears to be sleeping. His head keeps dropping down and his mouth goes slack,”  New York Times  reporter  Maggie Haberman  reported.

The observation quickly inspired a new nickname for the 77-year-old former president: “Sleepy Don.”

Soon, the moniker spread like wildfire on social media.

“My theory: Trump’s legal team sedated him,”  Mother Jones  DC bureau chief David Corn  wrote  on X.

“Looks, he’s old. The judge is keeping Sleepy Don from his nap time,” Meidas Touch editor-in-chief Ron Filipkowski  posted .

The Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump Super PAC,  wrote  that Mr Trump had worn himself out with his post-trial Truth Social rants.

#SleepyDon  was up late  rage-posting on Truth Social,” the account posted.

Several other social media users joined in the joke.

“I prefer Presidents who don’t fall asleep before the lunch break in their hush money paid to a porn star election interference trial,” one user  mocked .

“If Sleepy Don is too low energy to stay awake during the first day of his criminal trial, does he even have the stamina to be President?” another  wrote .

“‘Sleepy Joe’ is [a] projection, like everything else,” the account Republican Voters Against Trump  posted .'

‘Sleepy Don’: Trump sparks Twitter hilarity as he appears to fall asleep at trial | The Independent
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  Vic Eldred    8 months ago

I'll leave the seeder here with one question and then I have to go.

When DNC/Hillary Clinton lied about the 2016 campaign funding of the Steele Dossier, there were no criminal charges or media calls for accountability.

What is the difference?

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    8 months ago
What is the difference?

The D

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    8 months ago

what exactly did she lie about again Vic ?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.3  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    8 months ago
Hillary Clinton lied about the 2016 campaign funding of the Steele Dossier

1) CDS much?

2) Was she under oath? No. Sorry. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @5.3    8 months ago

as she under oath? No. Sorry. 


It amazing to watch people attack trump for lying waive away any criticism of their own hero for llying. The more they claim to hate trump the more they seem to act like him.

Not that Biden supporters actually care about anything other than getting trump by any means possible, but Clinton’s campaign and the dnc were fined for illegally funding the steele dossier.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.3.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3.1    8 months ago

yes, the Clinton/Democratic party did wind up funding the Dosier, but it was Republicans that opened it up to begin with

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.3.2    8 months ago

No, they  didn’t. That’s just another fake fact the left made up and repeats endlessly,

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
5.3.4  Snuffy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.3.2    8 months ago
Mother Jones   first revealed the existence of the dossier a few days before the 2016 election, and said the memos were part of an “opposition research project” underwritten by Democrats. Nearly a year passed before the full truth came out about the financing:   The money flowed   from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign to law firm Perkins Coie, to the   research company Fusion GPS,   and then ultimately to Steele,   who got $168,000.

(Anti-Trump Republicans   initially funded   Fusion GPS’ research during the 2016 GOP primaries, but the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee picked up the tab before Steele got involved .)

The Steele dossier: A reckoning | CNN Politics

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.3.5  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @5.3.4    8 months ago

Yes, and Trump sued Steele for slander and lost. All Steele did was to curate the information MI6, Interpol, the Mossad and the GRU had about the relationship between Trump and Putin. Facts like the fact Trump was in constant negotiations with Vlad Putin to build a Trump Tower in Moscow right up to election day in and that Trump had even offered Putin a luxury penthouse as a bribe to close...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @5.3.5    8 months ago
ll Steele did was to curate the information MI6, Interpol, the Mossad and the GRU had about the relationship between Trump and Putin.

Lol.  He didn't do any of those things. A Democratic Public Relations executive fed him rumors and he embellished them. 

had even offered Putin a luxury penthouse as a bribe to close...

The comedy of errors continues. The source for that rumour was Felix Sater, not Steele.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.3.7  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Snuffy @5.3.4    8 months ago

(Anti-Trump Republicans  initially funded  Fusion GPS’ research during the 2016 GOP primaries, but the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee picked up the tab before Steele got involved.)

your link states exactly what i did

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.3.7    8 months ago

The Steele dossier had  nothing to do with the public source research project  fusion did earlier in the year for the Free Beacon.  You claimed that republicans opened up the research for the steele dossier, which is false. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.3.9  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3.8    8 months ago

So the Republican funded investigation to find dirt on Trump, eventually grew into the Clinton and Democrat funded Steel Dossier, which is by technicality slightly different, by it not being called the Steele Dossier yet. nevertheless, it began as a Republican funded inquiry to find dirt on Trump. I'd say we are both correct..

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.3.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.3.9    8 months ago

Not at all. The Free beacon  paid for a summary of publicly available information on trump.  After that was finished,  The dnc and Clinton hired Richard steele to do his own investigation using his own sources  and that’s what’s in the steele dossier. It’s Steele’s  work, and Steele’s  work alone,  in the stele dossier.   

There’s no work product from the first project, in the second. If you read the steele dossier and its referenced  sourcing,  that’s clear.  Not to mention This was all testified to during the investigation. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Sophomore Quiet
5.3.11  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3.10    8 months ago

Are you denying there was a Republican led investigation to dig around ole Donny ? Cause that's NOT what your link stated. Also, IO don't believe the Steele Dossier has been proven non factual, only lacking evidence, that I'm fairly certain, could be Putin at the end.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.3.7    8 months ago

The endless defense of the indefensible continues Iggy - all they got.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.3.13  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.3.3    8 months ago
No, they  didn’t.

Actually they did. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @5    8 months ago

Projection, deflection, denial.  Hillary Clinton Derangement syndrome.  She was correct about everything which is why the spineless scummy (the majority) republicans hate her.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.4.1  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @5.4    8 months ago

You have to admit Hillary has staying power as MAGA's number one boogie man, er, she devil. This despite the fact she has not held any elected or appointed office for well over eleven years now...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.4.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @5.4    8 months ago
While he craned his neck to listen to a panel of  Manhattan  residents who could end up delivering a verdict against him,  Donald Trump  heard from a group of New Yorkers put on the spot to voice their opinions about the former president.

Mr Trump – sitting with his defence attorneys in a Manhattan criminal courthouse for the  second day of jury selection  in his  hush money case  – heard from a first-round panel of potential jurors who could end up on the jury.

One man said he finds the former president “fascinating.”

“He walks into a room and he sets people off. I find that really interesting,” he said. “Certainly he makes things interesting.”

Mr Trump flashed a smile. An overflow courtoom full of reporters couldn’t help but laugh. His lead attorney Todd Blanche stood for a moment and said, “Um, all right. Thank you.”

Trump smiles and courtroom laughs as potential juror says he finds ex-president ‘fascinating’ | The Independent
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.4.2    8 months ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Good lord.

They were laughing at the cult of the former 'president'

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6  Sparty On    8 months ago

How anyone here can believe he will get a fair trial in this venue, is beyond me.    

I realize the triggered are literally giddy with the possibilities but sorry, that dog still don’t hunt.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1  JBB  replied to  Sparty On @6    8 months ago

original

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @6.1    8 months ago

800

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.1    8 months ago

what would the right wing do without this 8 year old photograph ? 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.3  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    8 months ago

original

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @6.1.3    8 months ago

lol …. Hilarious!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    8 months ago

Too bad ….Truth is never outdated or out of style.    Showing liberals how silly they still look is also very topical

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
6.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Sparty On @6    8 months ago

“I realize the triggered are literally giddy with the possibilities but sorry, that dog still don’t hunt.”

A trial before a jury of one’s peers when charges are brought is fundamental to our system of justice. Not sure what ‘that dog still don’t hunt’ is meant in your predictable ‘triggered’ argument.

Unless, of course, you’re just howling. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  afrayedknot @6.2    8 months ago
A trial before a jury of one’s peers when charges are brought is fundamental to our system of justice.

Yes and a key component of that fundamental is an unbiased jury.    One might say THE key component.

Not sure what ‘that dog still don’t hunt’ is meant in your predictable ‘triggered’ argument.

See above and get back to me if you still haven’t made the connection.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  afrayedknot @6.2    8 months ago

It's the usual hive minded drone nonsense.  

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sparty On @6    8 months ago

Lol - which venue do you think would be fair and impartial?  That’s nobody’s fault but the defendant.  Perhaps there’s life on a another planet that hasn’t heard him telling the universe what a worthless asshole he is.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.3.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.3    8 months ago

Over 50 or the prospective jurors said they could not be impartial............SO FAR. May have trouble getting that 12 + 6 alternates. Of course, if I were to be chosen as a prospective, I'd lie too to get out of it. Too high profile and either way the verdict may go, you're gonna get some heat. May as well throw this bogus circus trial in file 13.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.2  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.3    8 months ago
That’s nobody’s fault but the defendant.

lol …. Now there is Lady Justice talking eh?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.3.3  George  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.3.1    8 months ago
if I were to be chosen as a prospective, I'd lie too to get out of it.

There are some that will lie to just get on the jury to get Trump.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.4  Sparty On  replied to  George @6.3.3    8 months ago

[]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.3.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  George @6.3.3    8 months ago

[]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.6  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.3    8 months ago

0 for 96

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
6.3.7  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.2    8 months ago

Lady Justice has no other recourse than to inform the defendant that it was he who made his bed, now he must lie in it.  You don’t get to get out of trouble by contaminating the entire country with your nonstop disgusting, reprehensible, and infamous behavior.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.3.1    8 months ago

You wish!

Felon former 'president' shitstain.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.9  Sparty On  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.3.7    8 months ago

You clearly don’t understand the concept of Lady Justice.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.10  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.8    8 months ago
Felon former 'president' shitstain.

No …. Grandpa poopy pants is still president right now

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
6.3.11  afrayedknot  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.9    8 months ago

In the name of ‘Lady Justice’, would you have excused yourself from potentially being seated on this jury? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.12  Sparty On  replied to  afrayedknot @6.3.11    8 months ago

I’d answer that but you’d just disagree so it would be pointless really.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.3.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.10    8 months ago

256

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
6.3.14  afrayedknot  replied to  Sparty On @6.3.12    8 months ago

“I’d answer that but…”

Of course. [Deleted][]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.15  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.3.7    8 months ago

Heaven forbid the turd follows the rules and conduct of the court and not carry on his fucking freakshow

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.16  Sparty On  replied to  afrayedknot @6.3.14    8 months ago

[]

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.3.17  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.15    8 months ago

[]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
6.3.18  afrayedknot  replied to  afrayedknot @6.3.14    8 months ago

[]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.3.19  Trout Giggles  replied to  afrayedknot @6.3.11    8 months ago

well that's not very patriotic is it?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7  seeder  JohnRussell    8 months ago

835mvnvd1quc1.jpeg?ref=upstract.com

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @7    8 months ago

GLQLBDcWAAABlVr?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1.1  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1    8 months ago

Don Snoreleone...

original

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8  JBB    8 months ago

original

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @8    8 months ago

You forgot Joe’s drool bucket

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.2  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @8    8 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
8.2.1  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @8.2    8 months ago

You liked that?

original

original

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
9  Trout Giggles    8 months ago
It seems pretty obvious that Trump ordered Michael Cohen to make that payment to Stormy Daniels for the reason the prosecution alleges—to keep the affair from becoming public before the election.

I will be the first to admit I don't know the law. If he used campaign money to pay her, I can see that being illegal. So did he use campaign finances? Or was it paid out of his own pocket?

 
 

Who is online


438 visitors