I question the wisdom of voting for a man for president who couldn't even keep his oath of office last time. He swore to protect the Constitution and then four years later loudly said it should be terminated.
Brojos are censoring Trumps Alrington national cemetery pr stunt fiasco
There is no way a guy who disrespects and fights with his country's beloved Army can be POTUS.
“This whole episode is sickening and (an) affront to all those hundreds of thousands of families who never agreed to allow their deceased loved ones to be dragged into politics,”
The US Army issued a stark rebuke of former President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign over the incident on Monday at Arlington National Cemetery, saying in a statement on Thursday that participants in the ceremony “were...
This is how you do it. Keep him in the frying pan and looking weak at all times. He so badly wants to "man up" and must be fighting with his team that absolutely knows its best for the mics to be muted. 😆
ABC News intends to mute the microphones of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris while their opponent speaks during an upcoming presidential debate, according to a copy of the formal rules obtained by CNN, but the Harris campaign i...
We have one candidate that right wingers feel giggles too much.
Another Presidential Candidate that is a:
-(the world's worst human being)
Makes you wonder what is so wrong with your lame candidate that one with all those negatives is still running neck-and-neck with your candidate who is the incumbent vice president. Why are people not supporting her? What is wrong with her? Maybe we don't want an alcoholic as president, let alone 2 alcoholics residing in the Oval Office. WHAT is wrong with Kamala Harris that no one likes her?!?
No. It makes you wonder what is so wrong with the Trumpettes that they support the world's worst human being for POTUS.
Makes you wonder what is so wrong with your lame candidate that one with all those negatives is still running neck-and-neck with your candidate who is the incumbent vice president. Why are people not supporting her? What is wrong with her? Maybe we don't want an alcoholic as president, let alone 2 alcoholics residing in the Oval Office. WHAT is wrong with Kamala Harris that no one likes her?!?
Trumpism is not an indictment on Trump. It is an indictment on the morals and character of people that support the guy.
I don't do lies, Agip. Just reporting facts. You are the one who says the border is secure when 12 million have come over. Sheesh, rookie!
you are lying
the border bill killed but KH and the actual conservatives agreed to...had 3% of the wall spending of the trump proposal.
you are implying it's the same and that means KH has flip flopped.
You are lying again.
I don't get the "again" in there.
The lying is continuous. Unbroken. A steady stream.
There is no method by which one can tell where one lie ends and another begins. An uncountable infinite of lies. A raging river with no beginning nor any end.
the border bill killed but KH and the actual conservatives agreed to...had 3% of the wall spending of the trump proposal.
you are implying it's the same and that means KH has flip flopped.
You are lying again.
I don't get the "again" in there.
The lying is continuous. Unbroken. A steady stream.
There is no method by which one can tell where one lie ends and another begins. An uncountable infinite of lies. A raging river with no beginning nor any end.
I followed the Trump hooker trial quite a bit, Impartial Observer. I followed it close enough to know that the jury was never instructed "that Cohen being guilty of a crime meant Trump was guilty of the same crime." That never happened. And, as I've said before, you don't need to have followed the trial at all to know that never happened. All you need to do is read the jury instructions to know that you friend Winston "Blame America First" Smith was lying when he said the jury was instructed that way. He's a liar.
The short article you linked doesn't contradict me at all. (It would be hard to do so, since Winston Smith was lying in the first place.) So, I really don't know how you concluded that I didn't follow the Trump hooker trial based on anything I posted in this thread. In any case, I did follow quite a bit, and I believe I can talk about the Trump hookers case in an informed way.
The article you linked briefly discusses one criticism of the jury instructions made by one of Trump's attorneys. The article never mentions "heavily biased" -- that appears to be something you inserted here. The jury instruction issue from your article has never been addressed in this thread as far as I know. If you want to provide commentary on it, I'd probably respond, either agreeing or disagreeing with you. But so far, you've added nothing except a link to an article that had nothing to do with the non-existent jury instruction that Winston Smith lied about.
There was no FEC violation and hence no crime. The judge disallowed that testimony and allowed the jury to think that the FEC violation was a "crime" they could use to elevate the bookkeeping misdemeanor to a felony.
None of that has anything to do with jury instructions. That has to do with sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of evidence, and charges. Not jury instructions. So, you jumped in here defending Winston "Blame America for WWII" Smith on his obvious lie about jury instructions by posting an article about a different jury instruction and now, within two posts, have meandered to entirely different issues. You lack focus, which is usually a sign of someone who is biased, uninformed and/or of average intelligence.
Unfocused Observer wrote:
There was no FEC violation and hence no crime.
Again, that has nothing to do with jury instructions. In any case, the prosecution put in evidence of FEC violations. Unrebutted evidence that Pecker/National Enquirer spent $150,000 to buy and bury a hooker story intending to influence the election on Trump's behalf. Pecker's unrebutted testimony was that he knew that was illegal.
Similarly, unrebutted documentary evidence and unrebutted testimony from Cohen (remember that Trump refused to testify) was that Cohen paid Daniels on behalf of the Trump campaign to keep quiet about the time that Trump romped with Daniels because she looks like Trump's daughter. Creepy and unrebutted.
There is plenty more, but since you didn't even try to support your statement that "there was no FEC violation," I don't see the point of typing more myself.
Unfocused Observer wrote:
The judge disallowed that testimony and allowed the jury to think that the FEC violation was a "crime" they could use to elevate the bookkeeping misdemeanor to a felony.
Again, that has nothing to do with jury instructions. It has to do with exclusion of evidence.
You don't provide any details at all about the testimony you say the judge disallowed. I doubt you know of any -- you are probably just repeating a trite statement you read on Twitter.
It's difficult to respond to blanket, unsupported, unidentified assertions. If you can be more specific about where this occurred in a three week trial with hundreds of evidentiary rulings, I may respond. For now, I'd point Trump out that had full opportunity to cross-examine every witness in the case about FEC violations, including Pecker, Cohen and Daniels and also had full opportunity to introduce any Trump documents related to the issue. The jury weighed all that and disagreed with you.
Unfocused Observer wrote:
Your bias is interfering with your ability to look at this objectively.
You don't appear to have looked at anything and are meandering all over the place. Indicates probable bias and a lack of impartiality and lack of observance.
Unfocused Observer wrote:
Is Randy Zelin "Trump's attorney"?
I don't know if he is or not. Tim Parlatore is. In the article you linked, those two were discussing a jury instruction. You have not discussed any jury instructions. You haven't really discussed much of anything. Just kind of sprayed a few broad and unrelated statements.
This is why Trump continually and inadvertently blurts out that he doesn’t need any more votes. This is why he is golfing 3-4 days per week. He expects the Shenanigans in Arizona, Georgia and other swing states to deliver his win. And he knows the SCOTUS is in the tank as well.
It needs to be a blowout or this is going to be a constitutional crisis.
Trump: I make a speech, I speak for two hours. Everybody loves it. I got thousands of people, by the way, outside trying to get in. I never— they never said Trump's a great speaker. I don't even want that. But I must be a great speaker, right?
Can someone please tell me how they can intellectually support Kamala when she can't even do a recorded interview on a friendly set by herself? Objectively, isn't she the most incapable major party candidate ever? Yes, some people bought Yugos.
There is no way a guy who disrespects and fights with his country's beloved Army can be POTUS.
“This whole episode is sickening and (an) affront to all those hundreds of thousands of families who never agreed to allow their deceased loved ones to be dragged into politics,”
It’s in plain sight. You can see it on google. You can see other military graves anywhere in the country. It’s not like he is the first president to have a photo op at Arlington.
President Joe Biden paid his respects to veterans and their family members buried at the Arlington National Cemetery on Wednesday. He visited Section 60, according to the cemetery to "honor our nation's service members, veter...
Can someone please tell me how they can intellectually support Kamala when she can't even do a recorded interview on a friendly set by herself? Objectively, isn't she the most incapable major party candidate ever? Yes, some people bought Yugos.
Thursday's interview with CNN's Dana Bash will give Harris a chance to quell criticism that she is unprepared for uncontrolled environments, define her campaign and test her political mettle ahead of an upcoming debate with f...
Trump: Nobody knows who Harris is. What's the VP's name? They have no idea what the name is. Now, the name Kamala is. It's a little complex because it's about 19 different ways of pronouncing it. But Kamala is, at least it's a name you sort of remember.
I followed the Trump hooker trial quite a bit, Impartial Observer. I followed it close enough to know that the jury was never instructed "that Cohen being guilty of a crime meant Trump was guilty of the same crime." That never happened. And, as I've said before, you don't need to have followed the trial at all to know that never happened. All you need to do is read the jury instructions to know that you friend Winston "Blame America First" Smith was lying when he said the jury was instructed that way. He's a liar.
The short article you linked doesn't contradict me at all. (It would be hard to do so, since Winston Smith was lying in the first place.) So, I really don't know how you concluded that I didn't follow the Trump hooker trial based on anything I posted in this thread. In any case, I did follow quite a bit, and I believe I can talk about the Trump hookers case in an informed way.
The article you linked briefly discusses one criticism of the jury instructions made by one of Trump's attorneys. The article never mentions "heavily biased" -- that appears to be something you inserted here. The jury instruction issue from your article has never been addressed in this thread as far as I know. If you want to provide commentary on it, I'd probably respond, either agreeing or disagreeing with you. But so far, you've added nothing except a link to an article that had nothing to do with the non-existent jury instruction that Winston Smith lied about.
That came out during the Trump hookers trial on cross-examination of Cohen by Todd Blanche. Todd Blanche is one of the few Trump lawyers who is any good. Most suck. Egg sucking dogs. But Blanche knows how to do law talking stuff.
Weisselberg pled guilty on all kinds of Trump sh!t and did a stint at Rikers. Do you know what a "stint" is? It's better than doing a pound at Coxsackie or a dime up in Attica. I'll tell you that much.
Can someone please tell me how they can intellectually support Kamala when she can't even do a recorded interview on a friendly set by herself? Objectively, isn't she the most incapable major party candidate ever? Yes, some people bought Yugos.
Fake news. This is an ad, not an interview. Don’t imagine for a second they are going to hit them with a bunch of hardball questions. All will be rehearsed or disclosed in advanced. Democrats spend a lot of money advertising on your beloved CNN. You can call it an interviews when she goes with someone adversarial.
I question the wisdom of voting for a man for president who couldn't even keep his oath of office last time. He swore to protect the Constitution and then four years later loudly said it should be terminated.
Brojos are censoring Trumps Alrington national cemetery pr stunt fiasco
Fake news. This is an ad, not an interview. Don’t imagine for a second they are going to hit them with a bunch of hardball questions. All will be rehearsed or disclosed in advanced. Democrats spend a lot of money advertising on your beloved CNN. You can call it an interviews when she goes with someone adversarial.
She knows the questions before they are asked will have prepared answers and the event pre-taped rather than live so they can heavily edit it to make her look as good as possible.
If the media wasn't entirely bought and paid for she would be getting raked over the coals for this.
