Stormy Daniels cleared Trump from crimes

[para bellum]

Donald Trumpâs Trial of the Century

Manhattan prosecutors have argued that the Stormy Daniels case—the first criminal trial of a former President in American history—is about much more than hush money. And legal experts believe that a conviction is likely.

www.newyorker.com

Lol. I finally got around to this New Yorker piece. I noticed two things.

The first is this one:

"...Daniels decided to go public: her encounter with Trump had taken place while he was already married to his third wife, Melania. Searching for an outlet that would handle the story with the delicacy it required, Daniels’s agent reached out to the National Enquirer."

The delicacy it required. LMAO, that's what the Enquirer is known for, it's delicacy. World renowned...

The other was this, buried way down in the piece:

"There are lingering questions about Bragg’s case: why did federal prosecutors not bring these charges against Trump, for instance?"

It's not the question that caught my attention- lots of people have asked that question. What caught my attention was that I had to read the entire piece just to find out they were not going to offer an answer. The entire remainder was about Trump and the various court battles, not one word about that "lingering question".

Any decent editor should have caught that sentence and just deleted it. Or moved it to the very end, as a gimmick to leave the reader in suspense.

The piece was what I expected to find, a justification of sorts for Bragg's case, but sloppy editing. I kind of expect better from the New Yorker.

Not really relevant, just a comment since the piece was linked here...

 

[Robert W]

No, I'm pointing out you're too scared to answer that question.

So your object is to scare posters.

 

[Faun]

So your object is to scare posters.

Holy fuck, what is wrong with you??

Again -- I didn't scare you, my question did.

And I didn't ask the question to scare you, I thought you would simply answer it. It was a simple yes/no type of question. When I asked, how was I to know you're too afraid to answer?

 

[AntonToo]

You can’t be serious. There are plenty of serious legal objections to this case against Trump, in fact, more than the number of serious legal agreements with the prosecution’s case.

The case is frivolous at best.

Guilty on all 34 criminal counts....or as DBA put it "frivolous at best"

 

[DBA]

Guilty on all 34 criminal counts....or as DBA put it "frivolous at best"

Led by a partisan judge who make multiple “mistakes” all in favor of the prosecution. The jury instructions alone will nullify this conviction when it reaches a non-partisan court.

 

[AntonToo]

Led by a partisan judge who make multiple “mistakes” all in favor of the prosecution. The jury instructions alone will nullify this conviction when it reaches a non-partisan court.

By "non-partisan court" you simply mean a court that will find Trump not guilty, right?

See if you can answer that question without lying to me and yourself.

 

[DBA]

By "non-partisan court" you simply mean a court that will find Trump not guilty, right?

See if you can answer that question without lying to me and yourself.

No, I mean a non-partisan court where the judge doesn’t clearly favor one side over the other.(see objection, jury instructions, his voting record, etc.) I also mean a partisan jury, where it is more likely a 50/50 mix. The trial was a sham and completely partisan. EVERYBODY, including you, know that, but you don’t care because you liked the results.

 

[AntonToo]

No, I mean a non-partisan court where the judge doesn’t clearly favor one side over the other.(see objection, jury instructions, his voting record, etc.) I also mean a partisan jury, where it is more likely a 50/50 mix. The trial was a sham and completely partisan. EVERYBODY, including you, know that, but you don’t care because you liked the results.

No, I don’t know that, and you don't either.

You just seem to have a NEED to rationalize Trump’s conviction to yourself, so you convince yourself of all kinds of baseless bullshit.

Like the silly bs that you "know" that there wasn't even ONE fair minded jurist, out of all of the jurors that Trump's own lawyers ok'ed.
NOT ONE who would see what you claim "everybody knows is a sham",
NOT ONE who would be honest and refuse to convict an xPOTUS on what you claim to be sham charges.


Anyway, I've got my answer. You obviously have no problem lying and deluding yourself, never mind everyone else. Such is nutbag life.

 

[DBA]

No, I don’t know that, and you don't either.

You just seem to have a NEED to rationalize Trump’s conviction to yourself, so you convince yourself of all kinds of baseless bullshit.

Like the silly bs that you "know" that there wasn't even ONE fair minded jurist, out of all of the jurors that Trump's own lawyers ok'ed.
NOT ONE who would see what you claim "everybody knows is a sham",
NOT ONE who would be honest and refuse to convict an xPOTUS on what you claim to be sham charges.


Anyway, I've got my answer. You obviously have no problem lying and deluding yourself, never mind everyone else. Such is nutbag life.

Cognitive dissonance at its finest on full display.

Trump’s lawyers had to pick from a very tainted pool of jurors, due to the area. I am sure he picked what he thought were the best of the worst for him, but that doesn’t make it much better.

Yes, the judge made many mistakes but they were all in favor of the prosecution, just by chance of course.

The jury instructions were laughable. Hey, here are a few felonies. You only need to agree on any one of these three for him to be found guilty. That is NOT how the system is supposed to work. Every juror is supposed to agree on every individual count to get a conviction.

Look, people like you will never see it because you don’t want to see it. This ruling will not stand up in a non-partisan court. Yes, we all know that. Democrats don’t really care because all they were looking for was election interference, which they have gotten.

We can revisit this and listen to your excuses when the ruling is overturned. It may take getting out of hyper-partisan NY, but it will be overturned regardless.

 

[AntonToo]

We can revisit this and listen to your excuses when the ruling is overturned. It may take getting out of hyper-partisan NY, but it will be overturned regardless.

Quoted to be made fun of later, when you will be on here talking about how appellate court MUST be hyper-partisan...because your fantasies again don't reconcile with reality.

 

[AntonToo]

Cognitive dissonance at its finest on full display.

Trump’s lawyers had to pick from a very tainted pool of jurors, due to the area. I am sure he picked what he thought were the best of the worst for him, but that doesn’t make it much better.

Cognitive dissonance is beliving that out of pool of 32 prospective jurors Trump's lawyers couldn't find EVEN ONE who would be willing to give honest finding on historic charges against a former President of the United States.

NOT ONE HONEST JUROR, thats what your delusion requires you to belive and then you accuse someone of having cognitive dissonance?

You are fucked in the head sir. Pardon my French.

 

[DBA]

Cognitive dissonance is beliving that out of pool of 32 prospective jurors Trump's lawyers couldn't find EVEN ONE who would be willing to give honest finding on historic charges against a former President of the United States.

NOT ONE HONEST JUROR, thats what your delusion requires you to belive and then you accuse someone of having cognitive dissonance?

You are fucked in the head sir. Pardon my French.

It is difficult to be that 1 guy that goes against the grain, particularly in a very high profile case like this. Do you really think a lone juror responsible for the hanging the jury wouldn’t have been outed and been ostracized and maybe worse in NYC? The venue and the high profile nature of the case played a huge role. And yes, in a place where 85% vote Democrat, the mind-meld is in. I would venture to guess that of the 15% that aren’t Democrats, many are left-leaning Independents. Odds are that 1 jury at most may have not been suffering from a major case of TDS. It very well could have been none.