"She’s on tape. The beautiful thing about modern technology is when you say something, you’re screwed if it’s bad.” - Trump

[bendo]

These gotcha videos only work if they either diss a candidates own voters (Harris on banning fracking in Penn) OR if they energize voters for the other candidate. IttyBitty's cat lady nonsense.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Marener]

On the federal law Trump supposedly broke that is the entire underpinning of the crimes against him?

That he's a hack is a perfect rebuttal.

Yes. Matters of law are handled by the judge and these are discussed in pre-trial motions. These are not issues to handle with the jury, who are there to determine facts.

Again, the DoJ had already prosecuted violation of the law with Michael Cohen. The claim that there was no underlying violation doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

"He's a hack" is lazy. You don't provide any rationale.

 

[WEATHER53]

I’m fine that that tall that is happy. I don’t wish for the same sentiments to be mandated to me

 

[martybegan]

Yes. Matters of law are handled by the judge and these are discussed in pre-trial motions. These are not issues to handle with the jury, who are there to determine facts.

Again, the DoJ had already prosecuted violation of the law with Michael Cohen. The claim that there was no underlying violation doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

"He's a hack" is lazy. You don't provide any rationale.

I've provided an article and several examples of the Judge's improper rulings and behavior. that you deny them is on you.

What you can't deny is that all this lawfare isn't doing shit against Trump.

 

[Marener]

I've provided an article and several examples of the Judge's improper rulings and behavior. that you deny them is on you.

What you can't deny is that all this lawfare isn't doing shit against Trump.

I've been explaining why the article is wrong. You haven't yet been able to refute my responses. Probably because you don't understand the issue well enough and aren't that well informed.

 

[martybegan]

I've been explaining why the article is wrong. You haven't yet been able to refute my responses. Probably because you don't understand the issue well enough and aren't that well informed.

No you haven't, you've been bleating other's views on why the article is supposedly wrong.

I understand it far more than you do.

 

[Marener]

No you haven't, you've been bleating other's views on why the article is supposedly wrong.

I understand it far more than you do.

Funny how you accuse me of "bleating other's views" when you cant make and argument and just point to an article. You know, an article that has other people's views that you're "bleating".

I'm giving informed opinions and facts. You've yet to respond to them.

I bet you didn't even know Merchan already had a ruling from the ethics panel. Did you? Be honest.

 

[martybegan]

Funny how you accuse me of "bleating other's views" when you cant make and argument and just point to an article. You know, an article that has other people's views that you're "bleating".

I'm giving informed opinions and facts. You've yet to respond to them.

I bet you didn't even know Merchan already had a ruling from the ethics panel. Did you? Be honest.

You haven't given me shit. and zero facts. you give opinions and pretend they are facts.

LOL the NY Ethics panel? That's funny.

 

[Marener]

LOL the NY Ethics panel? That's funny.

You avoided the question. Did you know he already had an opinion from them?

 

[martybegan]

You avoided the question. Did you know he already had an opinion from them?

The opinion is worthless, and what really matters are the appeals.

Of course it will probably take a federal court to fix this as the NY appeals courts are just as biased as the trial judge was.

 

[Marener]

The opinion is worthless, and what really matters are the appeals.

Of course it will probably take a federal court to fix this as the NY appeals courts are just as biased as the trial judge was.

You're still avoiding the question.

Did you know or not?

 

[martybegan]

You're still avoiding the question.

Did you know or not?

I am not going to play the game of having to know every minute detail of this, again, the appeals are what matters.

I would have been shocked in the Ethics panel found anything, as it's more than likely filled with nothing but Trump haters.

 

[Marener]

I am not going to play the game of having to know every minute detail of this, again, the appeals are what matters.

I would have been shocked in the Ethics panel found anything, as it's more than likely filled with nothing but Trump haters.

You claim to be better informed than me.

But here you are too scared to admit whether you knew or not. The right wing media doesn't report on this, because they don't respect you enough to tell you all the facts.

If you had known, I'm reasonably sure you would have said so already.

This is yet another instance where facts don't make any difference to you. You had already made your mind up. Nothing I can say will ever affect your opinion because your opinion isn't based on facts. It's just whatever you want to believe for the narrative.

 

[martybegan]

You claim to be better informed than me.

But here you are too scared to admit whether you knew or not.

If you had known, I'm reasonably sure you would have said so already.

This is yet another instance where facts don't make any difference to you. You had already made your mind up. Nothing I can say will ever affect your opinion because your opinion isn't based on facts. It's just whatever you want to believe for the narrative.

Again, minutiae, it's another example of your spectrum riding mind.

The Ethics panel is meaningless, it's a prog rubber stamp.

 

[Marener]

Again, minutiae, it's another example of your spectrum riding mind.

The Ethics panel is meaningless, it's a prog rubber stamp.

It's amazing how quickly you formed this opinion on the ethics panel when you didn't even know it existed a few minutes ago.

Almost as if your opinion is based on what's necessary for the narrative rather than informed by facts.

You demonstrate how useless your own opinions are.

This is neither minutia nor is it irrelevant. It will be important to any appeal based on grounds that the judge was biased. The judge made rulings for and against both sides.

 

[martybegan]

It's amazing how quickly you formed this opinion on the ethics panel when you didn't even know it existed a few minutes ago.

Almost as if your opinion is based on what's necessary for the narrative rather than informed by facts.

You demonstrate how useless your own opinions are.

This is neither minutia nor is it irrelevant. It will be important to any appeal based on grounds that the judge was biased. The judge made rulings for and against both sides.

I knew it existed, but it covering for a hack judge in this case was a foregone conclusion.

It has nothing to do with any appeal on the case, ethics violations are about a judges conduct, not on matters of law.

 

[Marener]

I knew it existed, but it covering for a hack judge in this case was a foregone conclusion.

It has nothing to do with any appeal on the case, ethics violations are about a judges conduct, not on matters of law.

Don't blame me, it was your stupid article that brought up the small donation from years ago. If you didn't think it was important, maybe you should make your own argument rather than pointing towards a very poorly written article (which was a rehash of another article, lazy bums).

The judge did not demonstrate biased conduct either (which are matters of law, FWIW). He made rulings for and against both sides. The attempt to paint him as biased for limiting the testimony on the former FEC chairman is appropriate and consistent with the trial rules. The judge determines the law, not the witnesses. These issues of law are handled BEFORE the trial, not before the jury.

This is yet another point where you can't formulate a reasonable rebuttal.

 

[martybegan]

Don't blame me, it was your stupid article that brought up the small donation from years ago. If you didn't think it was important, maybe you should make your own argument rather than pointing towards a very poorly written article (which was a rehash of another article, lazy bums).

The judge did not demonstrate biased conduct either (which are matters of law, FWIW). He made rulings for and against both sides. The attempt to paint him as biased for limiting the testimony on the former FEC chairman is appropriate and consistent with the trial rules. The judge determines the law, not the witnesses. These issues of law are handled BEFORE the trial, not before the jury.

This is yet another point where you can't formulate a reasonable rebuttal.

The one they found. And the daughter who's a rabid democrat.

The simple thing is we used to trust these type of people to be neutral, that is no longer the case.

This is bigger than your wibble bullshit rah rah explanation.

 

[Marener]

The one they found. And the daughter who's a rabid democrat.

The simple thing is we used to trust these type of people to be neutral, that is no longer the case.

This is bigger than your wibble bullshit rah rah explanation.

The daughter is totally irrelevant because, get this, she is a DIFFERENT PERSON.