Thanks for spending $200,000 on my college education.
You decided to go to a college that cost you at least $200k. No one here made that decision for you. … An old hegirl like you should have paid off your loans decades ago. That you were making payments for nearly 50 years and still owing $200k makes you a total moran! Why are you spending money on internet while so deeply in debt?
"Alina Habba reveals there were Biden Campaign Employees included in jury selection in the E. Jean Carroll case and Biden staffers could be included on the NY Criminal Trial jury because the judge ELIMINATED questions asking about it."
It's supposed to be a jury of your peers, not a stacked jury of your enemies.
This is a sham trial, this is corruption.
Think about the countless black men throughout the years who have faced all white juries in racist shiiithole states like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South and North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Texas. Cry me a River!!
You decided to go to a college that cost you at least $200k. No one here made that decision for you. … An old hegirl like you should have paid off your loans decades ago. That you were making payments for nearly 50 years and still owing $200k makes you a total moran! Why are you spending money on internet while so deeply in debt?
I was on scholarship - next!
Schools were begging me to come their school - both as an athlete AND as a scholar.
"Alina Habba reveals there were Biden Campaign Employees included in jury selection in the E. Jean Carroll case and Biden staffers could be included on the NY Criminal Trial jury because the judge ELIMINATED questions asking about it."
It's supposed to be a jury of your peers, not a stacked jury of your enemies.
This is a sham trial, this is corruption.
Think about the countless black men throughout the years who have faced all white juries in racist shiiithole states like Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South and North Carolina, Florida, Louisiana and Texas. Cry me a River!!
You decided to go to a college that cost you at least $200k. No one here made that decision for you. … An old hegirl like you should have paid off your loans decades ago. That you were making payments for nearly 50 years and still owing $200k makes you a total moran! Why are you spending money on internet while so deeply in debt?
I was on scholarship - next!
It’s the anonymous internet, personal claims mean exactly nothing (of course) - next !!
The judge & prosecutor are democrats. The jury will be majority democrats. This is a political witch hunt from the get-go.
Everyone who has ever turned on Trump is a Republican, you moron. You really are an idiot.
Yes, but let’s not gloss over the broader fine notion that we ought to want to live in a society where we believe and trust nothing about something if the person associated with it has the wrong political sign in their yard.
AND, because we’re absolutely determined to be as stupid (and destructive) as possible, we believe ANY massive load of sh** from anyone with the RIGHT political sign in their yard.
When will you realize that Trump is slime. Please tell me you don't still believe this repeated fornicator outside his marriage is a good Christian man.
Are you saying Democrats and Republicans can never be fair in a trial dealing with a politician.
[B["Considering we have a partisan prosecutor in a partisan jurisdiction, it's unlikely that Trump, a high-profile public figure, could possibly get a fair trial. But even CNN analyst Elie Honig admits that the case against Trump is weak."[/b]
The prosecution’s star witness is a convicted perjurer and fraudster who openly spews vitriol at the defendant, often in grotesque terms, essentially for a living. The famously aggressive feds at the Southern District of New York passed on the case years ago, and current Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor could have indicted [Trump] before he left office but did not. The charges are either misdemeanors or the lowest-level felonies (depending on how the jury decides the case), and the vast majority of defendants convicted of similar offenses are sentenced to probation and fines, not prison.
[B["Considering we have a partisan prosecutor in a partisan jurisdiction, it's unlikely that Trump, a high-profile public figure, could possibly get a fair trial. But even CNN analyst Elie Honig admits that the case against Trump is weak."[/b]
The prosecution’s star witness is a convicted perjurer and fraudster who openly spews vitriol at the defendant, often in grotesque terms, essentially for a living. The famously aggressive feds at the Southern District of New York passed on the case years ago, and current Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor could have indicted [Trump] before he left office but did not. The charges are either misdemeanors or the lowest-level felonies (depending on how the jury decides the case), and the vast majority of defendants convicted of similar offenses are sentenced to probation and fines, not prison.
Do you have examples of previous defendants who were convicted of falsifying business records in order to interfere with an election? That's a big deal. Several years in prison sounds appropriate to me.
[B["Considering we have a partisan prosecutor in a partisan jurisdiction, it's unlikely that Trump, a high-profile public figure, could possibly get a fair trial. But even CNN analyst Elie Honig admits that the case against Trump is weak."[/b]
The prosecution’s star witness is a convicted perjurer and fraudster who openly spews vitriol at the defendant, often in grotesque terms, essentially for a living. The famously aggressive feds at the Southern District of New York passed on the case years ago, and current Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor could have indicted [Trump] before he left office but did not. The charges are either misdemeanors or the lowest-level felonies (depending on how the jury decides the case), and the vast majority of defendants convicted of similar offenses are sentenced to probation and fines, not prison.
Do you have examples of previous defendants who were convicted of falsifying business records in order to interfere with an election? That's a big deal. Several years in prison sounds appropriate to me.
Gary is grasping at straws here and of course is wrong about at least one major detail (I mean, of course he is).
Cohen has already been deemed a reliable witness. The jury won't consider his previous lying as a bad thing because he lied to PROTECT Trump.
Also, Cohen spent time in prison for the thing that Trump directed him to do. If there is to be justice, Trump should have to do the same...I BELIEVE he will be found guilty of at least several of the felonies he is facing in this case and that he WILL be incarcerated, but it might not be behind bars (and likely will not be)...might be house arrest or some sort of other cushy confinement, but his freedom will be removed for a bit...at least I think so.
So, what did Gary get wrong? Bragg wasn't in office yet when Trump was still in office. Bragg assumed office January 1, 2022. These Trumpers like to believe this is all engineered to hurt Trump at the ballot box. Well, BS to that. Cases take time. Trump even said the more indictments against him, the more likely he is to win the election, so which is it Trumpers? Indictments good or bad for Trump?
Let's also be clear, this case involves 34 felonies, the most serious of which carry a potential prison sentence of 4 years. The judge CAN decide to make Trump serve them consecutively (but he won't).
Trump is in trouble. His freedom is going to be removed for a bit, and deservedly so...he engaged in illegal actions to prevent the American people from having a full understanding of who Trump was/is before the election. If you break the law, you need to be held accountable. Cohen was held accountable. Trump should be also.
Hmm...to be fair, I see that Gary actually DID say the right thing...he did say "predecessor." Oh well. I was wrong, and for that I apologize unreservedly.
Hmm...to be fair, I see that Gary actually DID say the right thing...he did say "predecessor." Oh well. I was wrong, and for that I apologize unreservedly.
The judge & prosecutor are democrats. The jury will be majority democrats. This is a political witch hunt from the get-go.
Cool.
I'm going with the assumption that it's possible for a Democrat to actually commit a crime in a jurisdiction in which the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge are Republicans. In a jury trial, it seems likely that the majority of members of the jury will be, too.
Similarly, and just going out on a limb here, it's possible for a Republican to actually commit a crime in a jurisdiction in which the arresting officer, prosecutor, and judge are Democrats. In a jury trial, it seems likely that the majority of members of the jury will be, too.
Note that I haven't claimed to prove the soundness of this case. I've just said that "hey, they're all Democrats" is, at best, just one potential red flag worthy of checking out. It's far from real evidence. Just like hearing any words from an inveterate liar: I'm generally not predisposed to believing that guy, even if the people on the other side aren't uniformly honest. Just like having Elise Stefanik try to play the "hey [garbled logic], means this is a corrupt sham trail" gives her credibility a huge hit -- if you have actual reasons for this being a sham trial, go with those reasons instead of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
And you seem to pretend like you care about the truth, the law, what's right. Nah: You're backing your horse in the race. And that's all. Consider also that someone you don't like could go a-crimin as a candidate for high office. Part of what you're doing is trying to throw a series of arguments and establish a precedent that a person being a candidate is automatically grounds for not prosecuting criminal behavior.
Oh, and if you claim you're not doing that? Then just stick to the strongest, best arguments and don't try to come up with a caricature of the other side. If you're right, a sober evaluation of the facts will suffice.
Trump, the serial lying, criminal POS adulterer who has to sit there and shut up all day for the second day in a row with many many more days to come!
Ha! Ha! Ha!
What will I do today? Anything I want to do!
And at the end of the trial he will be exonerated (Exoneration Numero 51) and will be readying himself to be on the ballot in November and commence preparing himself for his second presidential term. Life will be good again. For conservatives at least. LOL>
