trump tries to lower expectation for the debate.

[Man With A Plan]

To defend himself in a criminal trial? Again, its usually not a great sign when the defendant won't testify. Especially when the prosecution has so many rockstar witnesses against him.

And it wasn't. Trump was convicted of every felony charge.

By a biased judge, DA and jury? Nobody REALLY thinks those convictions will stand on appeal, Skylar which is why Joe Biden's poll numbers continue to decline! They saw the trial. They saw how unfair it was. They're not viewing Trump as a felon...they're viewing Joe Biden as the President who resorted to "lawfare" because he couldn't run on his own record!

 

[Skylar]

By a biased judge, DA and jury? Nobody REALLY thinks those convictions will stand on appeal, Skylar which is why Joe Biden's poll numbers continue to decline! They saw the trial. They saw how unfair it was. They're not viewing Trump as a felon...they're viewing Joe Biden as the President who resorted to "lawfare" because he couldn't run on his own record!

A biased judge, says who? A biased jury, says who? And isn't the prosecution supposed to be biased toward those folks they charge actually being guilty of the crime?

 

[Man With A Plan]

A biased judge, says who? A biased jury, says who? And isn't the prosecution supposed to be biased toward those folks they charge actually being guilty of the crime?

He donated to the defendant's chief political opponent. Duh? A jury selected in a location where 86.4% of voters voted Democratic in the last election? A DA is supposed to be unbiased towards the rule of law. They are prohibited from being biased.

 

[Skylar]

He donated to the defendant's chief political opponent. Duh?

$35 dollars. And wanting someone else elected doesn't constitute judicial bias.

In what world does not wanting someone to be president mean you want their opponent to go to prison?

You're kinda telling on yourself a bit.

A jury selected in a location where 86.4% of voters voted Democratic in the last election?

Trump's attorneys had unlimited dismissals for jurors with bias. And 10 for any reason at all. Every single juror and alternate that sat on the jury were folks that Trump's attorney's had no cause of bias to dismiss.

A DA is supposed to be unbiased towards the rule of law. They are prohibited from being biased.

Who ways that the DA wasn't 'unbiased toward the rule of law'? They are absolutely not prohibited from being biased that the defendant is guilty. In fact, its requirement of their job.

 

[Rawley]

To defend himself in a criminal trial? Again, its usually not a great sign when the defendant won't testify.

At least in half the cases, it's an excellent sign - that the prosecution hasn't 't proven their case, like in this NYC scam trail

Especially when the prosecution has so many rockstar witnesses against him.

And it wasn't. Trump was convicted of every felony charge.

And his poll numbers when up. And the geniuses at your cult leader's campaign think it 's a smart move to spend $50,000,000 reminding voters that they prosecuted their political opposition, the former President of the United States, to put him in prison for the rest of his life for some record keeping kerfuffle. ******* brilliant.

 

[Rawley]

$35 dollars. And wanting someone else elected doesn't constitute judicial bias.

So why did the state ethics board admonish him for that?

 

[Man With A Plan]

$35 dollars. And wanting someone else elected doesn't constitute judicial bias.

In what world does not wanting someone to be president mean you want their opponent to go to prison?

You're kinda telling on yourself a bit.



Trump's attorneys had unlimited dismissals for jurors with bias. And 10 for any reason at all. Every single juror and alternate that sat on the jury were folks that Trump's attorney's had no cause of bias to dismiss.




Who ways that the DA wasn't 'unbiased toward the rule of law'? They are absolutely not prohibited from being biased that the defendant is guilty. In fact, its requirement of their job.

Do you really not grasp the concept that a judge shouldn't be sitting behind the bench on a trial where he's contributed to the defendant's chief political rival? That judge should have recused himself. The way that he conducted the trial showed quite clearly that he WAS biased against Trump!

 

[Skylar]

So why did the state ethics board admonish him for that?

The state ethics board that found no judicial bias against Trump by Merchan?

I want to make sure that we're talking about the same board.

 

[Skylar]

Do you really not grasp the concept that a judge shouldn't be sitting behind the bench on a trial where he's contributed to the defendant's chief political rival? That judge should have recused himself. The way that he conducted the trial showed quite clearly that he WAS biased against Trump!

Then why did the state ethics committee not find that evidence of judicial bias?

Why would any rational person ignore the state ethics committee on judicial bias, and instead believe some rando on the internet who insists they know better?

 

[Rawley]

The state ethics board that found no judicial bias against Trump by Merchan?

Yup. Rank, stanky hypocrisy, your cult's MO.

I want to make sure that we're talking about the same board.

 

[Skylar]

Yup. Rank, stanky hypocrisy, your cult's MO.

So you're citing and ignore the same source on the same topic.

Laughing......ah, MAGA.

 

[Rawley]

So you're citing and ignore the same source on the same topic.

Laughing......ah, MAGA.

? I'm pointing out the corrupt nature of the NY judicial system. Happens when it's populated by 85% from a single political party.

 

[Skylar]

? I'm pointing out the corrupt nature of the NY judicial system. Happens when it's populated by 85% from a single political party.

You're citing and ignoring the same source on the same topic.

While ignoring the fact that the 1) The ethics board found no bias by Judge Merchan against Trump 2) An ethics committe is WAY better source on judicial ethics than some rando on the internet who insists they know better.

And again, Trump's attorney's had UNLIMITED dismissals of juror for cause of bias. Every single juror and alternate was seated because Trump's attorneys had NO CAUSE of bias to dismiss them.

So who says that the jury was biased. Is it that same rando on the internet who insists they know better than everyone? Is that same rando, isn't it?

 

[MarathonMike]

Joe got 95% of the advantage for the debate. I would watch Jake Tapper and Dana bash sent out on a death hunt from people screwed over by their one-way politics if empowered. And they are empowered. We will watch if they screw Trump over. We are tired of it. Trump must have several ways of responses. Joe may insult him several times. Does Trump respond in kind? This may be what the Prog commies will say Joe wins on. Something natural like Joe shitting himself would be gold Trump handles it professionally. He must not act like one often debates with Joe. And I know that he tried to act above board as to go against the grain of his personality and it hurt him.

We can count on Jake and Dana to be constantly cutting Trump off, "fact checking" him, while Biden gives his canned rehearsed responses. The Democrats are planning an entire week of debate "prep" no doubt with the questions provided to them by CNN.

 

[Man With A Plan]

The state ethics board that found no judicial bias against Trump by Merchan?

I want to make sure that we're talking about the same board.

Interesting. So the ethics board chose to ignore New York State regulations? It clearly states in NY statutes that judges are prohibited from donating to political causes. Merchan donated to 3 of them...sending a clear message about where he stood in regards to Donald Trump. On what theory did that advisory board arrive at the conclusion that was not an issue?

 

[Skylar]

Interesting. So the ethics board chose to ignore New York State regulations?

The New York State regulations insist that any judge who makes a political donation has to be removed for judicial bias?

Can you show me that regulation?

And the Ethics committee found no judicial bias by Merchan against Trump. You're ignoring that, and insisting you know better.

 

[Man With A Plan]

You're citing and ignoring the same source on the same topic.

While ignoring the fact that the 1) The ethics board found no bias by Judge Merchan against Trump 2) An ethics committe is WAY better source on judicial ethics than some rando on the internet who insists they know better.

And again, Trump's attorney's had UNLIMITED dismissals of juror for cause of bias. Every single juror and alternate was seated because Trump's attorneys had NO CAUSE of bias to dismiss them.

So who says that the jury was biased. Is it that same rando on the internet who insists they know better than everyone? Is that same rando, isn't it?

Where are you getting the idea that Trump's legal team had UNLIMITED dismissals of jurors? Do you not grasp that the person who decides whether a juror is displaying bias was a judge that had already proven himself to be biased against Trump?

 

[Rawley]

You're citing and ignoring the same source on the same topic.

Third and last time, I'm citing the same source to illustrate their rank hypocrisy. Not sure why you are having such a difficult time with that

While ignoring the fact that the 1) The ethics board found no bias by Judge Merchan against Trump 2) An ethics committe is WAY better source on judicial ethics than some rando on the internet who insists they know better.

And again, Trump's attorney's had UNLIMITED dismissals of juror for cause of bias. Every single juror and alternate was seated because Trump's attorneys had NO CAUSE of bias to dismiss them.

So who says that the jury was biased. Is it that same rando on the internet who insists they know better than everyone? Is that same rando, isn't it?

Political contributions by judges are explicitly prohibited by state ethics rules for precisely, precisely this reason. For them not to find Merchan should have been recused for this, let alone the financial conflict posed by his daughter is absurd.

 

[Man With A Plan]

The New York State regulations insist that any judge who makes a political donation has to be removed for judicial bias?

Can you show me that regulation?

And the Ethics committee found no judicial bias by Merchan against Trump. You're ignoring that, and insisting you know better.

Show me where that took place, Skylar. Show me where that Ethics committee found that Merchan hadn't displayed judicial bias! I can show you where he was given a written warning for breaking the regulation against political contributions...can you show me where the committee found Merchan (by name!) did not have political bias?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

None. The only way that happens is if you have an impartial judge who recognizes that the verdict was a farce and overturns it. This judge is NOT impartial so it won't be overturned until it's out of the New York justice system! It WILL be overturned however.

None was the correct answer. Everything else is just whiny crap.