Just one miniscule example.

[berg80]

Judge Juan Merchan “overrules every objection from the defense and sustains every objection from the prosecution” during former President Donald Trump’s New York trial.

Trump trial judge didn’t overrule all defense objections

It’s no secret that former President Donald Trump and his allies believe Juan Merchan, the Manhattan judge overseeing Tr

www.politifact.com

I know how you folks on the Right are going to react to this. I can say with a high degree of certainty the response will be to disparage Politifact as a biased outlet of information.

So I am going to request that you do something a little different. I'm going to ask that you factually dispute the information presented by Politifact in the linked article rather than attack the source. I'm also going to ask that you consider the defense counsel objections that were overruled deserved to be overruled. Just as some from the prosecution were.

To be clear, the point of the thread IS NOT to rehash the outcome of the trial.

The point of the thread is to highlight the willful misinformation being broadcast at Faux. Misinformation Faux's audience used to form an opinion, in this instance, about how fair a trial Trump received. Misinformation that is overt and easily refuted by reviewing the transcript.

In the broader scheme of things, the point of the thread is to get you guys to consider how misinformation may be shaping the opinions of right wing media's audience on a plethora of topics. And how belief in misinformation stymies civil, public discourse. How, for example, can we discuss the merits of supporting a presidential candidate who tried to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as President, and plotted to use fake electors to become the unelected president, if we can't agree on who actually won the election?

 

[Lesh]

Trumpers are being lied to by right wing media on a regular basis.

Does anyone think they realize it or CARE?

 

[kyzr]

Can't discuss how great "too Old Joe" is for the US, so whine about Trump

 

[SeaMajor7]

Stalinists gonna Stalin.

 

[Lesh]

Trumpers are being lied to by right wing media on a regular basis.

Does anyone think they realize it or CARE?

I think they sorta realize it and do NOT care

 

[berg80]

Trumpers are being lied to by right wing media on a regular basis.

Does anyone think they realize it or CARE?

So do realize it but most do not. They dutifully watch Faux, listen to conservative talk radio, log on to right wing websites, and absorb gobs of misinformation they come here to regurgitate.

 

[DGS49]

While I have a law degree, it does not take a lawyer or a legal expert to know that the trial in New York was a legal abomination. The DA is corrupt, the prosecution was overtly political, there was no "crime" committed, the judge was cherry-picked, the major rulings by the judge were preposterous, and even a few honest Leftists admit that it was bullshit.

There is nothing to be drawn from an analysis that concludes that every single ruling at the trial didn't go in the prosecution's favor. Who cares? The whole thing was bullshit and everybody knows it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Judge Juan Merchan “overrules every objection from the defense and sustains every objection from the prosecution” during former President Donald Trump’s New York trial.

View attachment 967638

Trump trial judge didn’t overrule all defense objections

It’s no secret that former President Donald Trump and his allies believe Juan Merchan, the Manhattan judge overseeing Tr

www.politifact.com

I know how you folks on the Right are going to react to this. I can say with a high degree of certainty the response will be to disparage Politifact as a biased outlet of information.

So I am going to request that you do something a little different. I'm going to ask that you factually dispute the information presented by Politifact in the linked article rather than attack the source. I'm also going to ask that you consider the defense counsel objections that were overruled deserved to be overruled. Just as some from the prosecution were.

To be clear, the point of the thread IS NOT to rehash the outcome of the trial.

The point of the thread is to highlight the willful misinformation being broadcast at Faux. Misinformation Faux's audience used to form an opinion, in this instance, about how fair a trial Trump received. Misinformation that is overt and easily refuted by reviewing the transcript.

In the broader scheme of things, the point of the thread is to get you guys to consider how misinformation may be shaping the opinions of right wing media's audience on a plethora of topics. And how belief in misinformation stymies civil, public discourse. How, for example, can we discuss the merits of supporting a presidential candidate who tried to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as President, and plotted to use fake electors to become the unelected president, if we can't agree on who actually won the election?

People can read the transcript and see it's not true. Will they? Not a chance

 

[berg80]

View attachment 967647 Can't discuss how great "too Old Joe" is for the US, so whine about Trump

Start a thread on it. I'd be glad to chime in.

 

[Lesh]

So do realize it but most do not. They dutifully watch Faux, listen to conservative talk radio, log on to right wing websites, and absorb gobs of misinformation they come here to regurgitate.

And when presented with evidence showing that right wing garbage to be false… they put their fingers in their ears and stomp their feet

 

[berg80]

People can read the transcript and see it's not true. Will they? Not a chance

Of course not. Because if they do, and see they've been lied to, it opens up a can of worms they'd rather not open. Like calling in to question other things they believe, because they heard it on Faux, that are also lies.

 

[berg80]

And when presented with evidence showing that right wing garbage to be false… they put their fingers in their ears and stomp their feet

That is an unfortunate truth and a big part of the reason the country finds itself in the predicament it's in.

 

[frigidweirdo]

While I have a law degree, it does not take a lawyer or a legal expert to know that the trial in New York was a legal abomination. The DA is corrupt, the prosecution was overtly political, there was no "crime" committed, the judge was cherry-picked, the major rulings by the judge were preposterous, and even a few honest Leftists admit that it was bullshit.

There is nothing to be drawn from an analysis that concludes that every single ruling at the trial didn't go in the prosecution's favor. Who cares? The whole thing was bullshit and everybody knows it.

Nonsense.

You tell me one thing about the trial that shows it was corrupt. Because I've asked people to do this, and every single one of them has run away without answering.

The strategy is to say things like "it's a sham trial" and then leave it at that. It's about manipulating people who know nothing and won't research for themselves.

Trump's defense was so bad, because what does he have? Nothing, he's so guilty it's ridiculous.

 

[berg80]

While I have a law degree, it does not take a lawyer or a legal expert to know that the trial in New York was a legal abomination.

What it takes is a partisan hack who has not read the trial transcript. Revealing zero evidence of your ludicrous claim.

To be clear, the point of the thread IS NOT to rehash the outcome of the trial.

 

[DGS49]

Nonsense.

You tell me one thing about the trial that shows it was corrupt. Because I've asked people to do this, and every single one of them has run away without answering.

The strategy is to say things like "it's a sham trial" and then leave it at that. It's about manipulating people who know nothing and won't research for themselves.

Trump's defense was so bad, because what does he have? Nothing, he's so guilty it's ridiculous.

Here is ONE THING: The judges for trials like this are to be chosen based on a rotation. Next judge up gets the next trial. This judge was cherry picked for his demonstrated animus to Trump.

Here is ONE THING: Every criminal defendant is entitled to know what crime he is accused of. This never happened. Trump was accused to cooking the books to further a "crime." But that crime was never stipulated. I challenge you to name it.

Here is ONE THING: The elected DA campaigned on getting Donald Trump. Period. He didn't stipulate any crime Trump had committed, and indeed never did. Name any other DA in the history of the world who promised to "get" an individual in his campaign.

Here is ONE THING: The underlying crime of undermining an election is a FEDERAL CRIME, not a State crime, and furthermore the Statute of Limitations had run on it. The Federal Department charged with enforcing that law passed on it, because it is preposterous. Every campaign expenditure by every candidate in history is intended to impact the results of an election.

I could go on, but you are obviously an idiot and I have already wasted too much time on you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here is ONE THING: The judges for trials like this are to be chosen based on a rotation. Next judge up gets the next trial. This judge was cherry picked for his demonstrated animus to Trump.

Here is ONE THING: Every criminal defendant is entitled to know what crime he is accused of. This never happened. Trump was accused to cooking the books to further a "crime." But that crime was never stipulated. I challenge you to name it.

Here is ONE THING: The elected DA campaigned on getting Donald Trump. Period. He didn't stipulate any crime Trump had committed, and indeed never did. Name any other DA in the history of the world who promised to "get" an individual in his campaign.

Here is ONE THING: The underlying crime of undermining an election is a FEDERAL CRIME, not a State crime, and furthermore the Statute of Limitations had run on it. The Federal Department charged with enforcing that law passed on it, because it is preposterous. Every campaign expenditure by every candidate in history is intended to impact the results of an election.

I could go on, but you are obviously an idiot and I have already wasted too much time on you.

But here's the thing. You can go through the whole trial, word for word, and you will not find a problem with the way he ran that trial.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

Here it is, go ahead and prove me wrong.

You're telling me Trump didn't know what crime he was up for? That's complete crap. He knew.

Cohen literally got locked up for three years for the crime.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/21/politics/michael-cohen-plea-deal-talks/

"Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former personal attorney, pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court Tuesday to eight criminal counts and implicated Trump himself in a remarkable courtroom moment."

Running for DA and saying you're going to "lock her up"... would you say that's wrong? So a DA said he'd prosecute Trump. I mean, that doesn't mean Trump didn't commit a crime. Doesn't mean that had Trump been found INNOCENT then the DA wouldn't have got what they said they'd get.

It's hypocrisy to say you shouldn't run on a platform of "lock him up".

There was a federal crime, but Trump committed a state crime, which helped others commit the federal crime. Trump might even be guilty of the federal crime, but getting Trump is harder than getting others. Trump knew how to cover himself by getting his underlings to do the dirty work. Cohen admitted to be an underling who broke a federal law. Trump gave him the money in NY because NY has a law on their books that says they can't do that.

 

[berg80]

Here is ONE THING: The judges for trials like this are to be chosen based on a rotation. Next judge up gets the next trial. This judge was cherry picked for his demonstrated animus to Trump.

Prove it. Cuz he did not display animus to Trump during the trial.

 

[Rogue AI]

Judge Juan Merchan “overrules every objection from the defense and sustains every objection from the prosecution” during former President Donald Trump’s New York trial.

View attachment 967638

Trump trial judge didn’t overrule all defense objections

It’s no secret that former President Donald Trump and his allies believe Juan Merchan, the Manhattan judge overseeing Tr

www.politifact.com

I know how you folks on the Right are going to react to this. I can say with a high degree of certainty the response will be to disparage Politifact as a biased outlet of information.

So I am going to request that you do something a little different. I'm going to ask that you factually dispute the information presented by Politifact in the linked article rather than attack the source. I'm also going to ask that you consider the defense counsel objections that were overruled deserved to be overruled. Just as some from the prosecution were.

To be clear, the point of the thread IS NOT to rehash the outcome of the trial.

The point of the thread is to highlight the willful misinformation being broadcast at Faux. Misinformation Faux's audience used to form an opinion, in this instance, about how fair a trial Trump received. Misinformation that is overt and easily refuted by reviewing the transcript.

In the broader scheme of things, the point of the thread is to get you guys to consider how misinformation may be shaping the opinions of right wing media's audience on a plethora of topics. And how belief in misinformation stymies civil, public discourse. How, for example, can we discuss the merits of supporting a presidential candidate who tried to prevent the certification of Joe Biden as President, and plotted to use fake electors to become the unelected president, if we can't agree on who actually won the election?

What do the numbers say? I'll wait, didn't see that in this mess.