As you may know, there is an ongoing New York State criminal trial against ex-President Trump that very salaciously involves an ex porn star named Stormy Daniels. Many people seem to be confused about this case, as was I, so I took a deeper dive and read the court transcript to-date and will here present what I found.
First of all, let's meet Stormy!
Here she is having her brains fucked out by a co-star in one of her many porn movies
And here she is giving a tits out, legs spread blowjob to another 'fella.
And here she is taking it up the ass from yet another 'fella!
Needless to say, I could go on. Now you don't get that kind of coverage from the mainstream media, do you?
Her birth name was Stephanie A. Gregory, born in 1979 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She started exotic dancing while still in high school at age 17, running away from home, and then started appearing in adult films at age 23. She eventually moved on to direct more than 150 films and win many porn industry awards.
Here is Trump and Stormy around the time the alleged affair took place.
They met at a 2006 Lake Tahoe celebrity golf outing where her studio was a sponsor. She was 27 years old at the time. Trump had just turned 60 and enjoyed huge celebrity status as he had a mega-hit on his hands with The Apprentice.
Trump had recently married Melania 2005) and had just had his child Barron (2006). Apparently that golf tournament was flooded with high profile celebrities and porn stars.
According to Stormy's recent court testimony, they first met at the golf hole Wicked Pictures were sponsoring. The owner introduced another girl and Stormy to Trump (as they did with everybody that came through). He introduced Stormy as both actor and director. Trump commented "oh, you actually direct too? You must be the smart one."
Trump finished his practice round and then made his way back to the gift room where Stormy was. He talked to all the girls and had his photo taken with Stormy (the photo two above). He specifically remembered her from the course as "the smart one". He asked for a DVD that she had directed and she handed him "The Three Wishes".
Then she saw him talking to somebody she later learned was Trump's security guy, Keith, who later came up to her and asked "Mr. Trump would like to know if you would like to have dinner with him?" Initially she said "Fuck, no!". But she exchanged cell numbers with Keith regardless.
She later talked to her publicist who said she had another dinner she did not want to go to, and he said it would be amazing to go have dinner with Donald Trump and as a bonus she could use that as an excuse to ditch her other dinner.
Then she messaged with Keith and they set it up to meet at Trump's penthouse suite.
When she got there she was invited in by Keith. Trump is inside wearing silk or satin two-piece pajamas that she immediately made fun of him for, saying, "Does Mr. Hefner know you stole his pajamas?"
She told him to go change and he obliged her "very politely" rejoining her quite quickly in a dress shirt and pants. She describes the most magnificent hotel suite imaginable.
They sit together at a table and Trump says it's still a bit early for dinner and did she mind if they chatted a bit and later they could decide to go down to one of the restaurants or stay in his suite and eat in.
She describes a pleasant and amusing conversation, including Trump asking many insightful questions about her industry. This surprised her as most guys ask her about "the sexy stuff", but Trump asked these amazing questions about her industry. She was impressed by that aspect. But she also thought he was quite self-centered, a know-it-all, always wanted to impress, and kept cutting off her answers. So she was getting hungry and a bit fed up with that aspect, so when he bragged about him being on the cover of an important magazine that was about to come out for which he had an advance copy, she got fed up.
"Are you always this rude, arrogant, and pompous? You don't even know how to have a conversation!" He looked a bit taken aback (recall she was 27 at the time). She went on, "someone should spank you with that. That's the only interest I have in that magazine. Otherwise, I'm leaving."
He rolled it up and gave her the look that he dared her to do it. So, now she kind of had to, she testified. She took it from him, told him to stand up and turn around, and swatted him on the bum with it! Afterwards, they sat back down and continued the conversation with him being much more polite.
After another great conversation about all manner of things, he said he thought she'd be great for The Celebrity Apprentice. She said she doubted the network would go for having a porn star on the show. Trump said he thought he could make it happen.
He then said that she reminds him of his daughter because she is smart and blond and beautiful and people underestimate her as well. And, Stormy says,
"the way he framed it did actually make perfect sense, because he is all about like PR things, the spin. And he was like, that will really shake things up, and you can go on the show and prove that you are not just a dumb bimbo, you are more than people think and he would get a lot of attention for having this crazy idea."
They then phone a friend of hers to invite her up as well, but she declines.
Stormy has to use the bathroom at some point and uses the one off the main bedroom, which was huge and luxurious. While there she sees a leather toiletry bag of Trump's and snoops into it.
"I did look. I'm not proud of it. I wondered what is in here. And I noticed the toiletry was -- the items were Old Spice and Pert Plus. I thought that was both amusing and odd. And a manicure set, which was gold, gold tweezers and all gold things."
After that, her testimony gets EXTREMELY sketchy. When she comes out of the bathroom she's surprised to see Trump on the unmade bed in his boxers and a T-shirt. She claims she "blacked out" (but was not drunk, had not taken drugs, and testifies she was definitely not drugged, and testifies she was definitely not forced or threatened). She remembers having missionary sex without a condom. Apparently ex-President Trump was so good that he literally fucked her brains out, as she can't remember a thing other than his gold toenail clippers, if she is to be believed.
Mind you, in her later book she says she made Trump her bitch in their sexual encounter, but she now claims that even though she made him her bitch, now she is saying that the room was spinning and that she passed out on the bed after sex. Very conflicting testimony.
For the next year they speak frequently in a very friendly manner in front of multiple witnesses.Trump is trying to make The Apprentice happen and gives her updates. They met at a club in public and kissed with hundreds of witnesses present. In March of 2007 she visits him in Trump Tower. She accepts tickets from him for Miss USA Pageant and attends. She later meets him at his bungalow in LA. She claims he made advances but she claimed she was on her period.
He phones her a couple of more times, once saying he was unable to get her on the show, and then later calling her to apologize as soon as he heard a different porn actress, Jenna Jameson, was to do the show, and it was not his doing, he'd have preferred her. There was no further contact.
At no time was Trump ever embarrassed to be seen with her in public, and at no time did Trump ever ask her to keep anything they did confidential (according to her testimony).
In 2011 she's approached by a gossip magazine, In Touch, that is going to do a story about Trump at the golf tournament. She sells her story to them for $15K for a 15 minute phone interview. The article never comes out as Trump's lawyer/fixer/scumbag Michael Cohen threatens to sue them for defamation.
As a result, Stormy doesn't get paid.
Stormy then claims she was approached by a man in a parking lot she perceived as threatening telling her to stop talking about her relationship with Trump. She claims this happened in 2011, with no witnesses, and she didn't tell a soul, not police, not friends, not her husband, until an Anderson-Cooper interview in 2018 and later on The View. Cohen claims he never sent such a man and Stormy believes him, having appeared twice on his podcast and saying so. So who did? Or did it happen at all?
In 2015, with Trump now running for President, her agent convinces her to try selling her story again. She apparently has no takers until the Access Hollywood "grab 'em by the pussy" stuff comes out, and then there are takers in October 2016. She says she decided to let Cohen buy it from her for $130K as she would get the money and not have to go public and believes she would be free of any threats. Her agent and lawyers take $34K.
Stormy signs a non-disclosure agreement for the $130K. If she tells the story, she must pay them $1M each time in damages. She claims now she signed it out of fear based on the one vague threatening contact (with no proof) she claimed happened 5 years earlier.
In 2018 the Wall Street Journal is going to run a story about the $130K payment. She refuses to comment and in the fallout she issues the following note:
In court testimony she admits she signed it reluctantly but willingly, and now testifies it was a lie.
She then hires Michael Avenatti, a scummy lawyer who is currently doing time for stealing money from clients and for extortion.
He gets her freed from her NDA in a very anti-Trump California court (where else?) on ridiculous grounds and awards her $100K in court costs (that Avenatti then goes on to steal from her!). She then starts selling her story and making appearances and cashes in with a book.
In the book she makes the claim about being threatened. Trump tweets it's a con job. Stormy/Avenatti sues Trump for defamation (Stormy says she didn't want Avenatti to but he did anyways... ?). The court finds in favour of Trump and orders Stormy to pay court costs and legal fees of $660K which she has yet to pay and swears she never will because she thinks it's "not fair" (she testified to that, in court!). She does a documentary about her affair for another $100K, and keeps shopping her story around to this day.
On cross it comes out that she's now worth millions and can easily afford to pay the judgments, and that she is concealing her assets to avoid collection efforts. On cross many lies are exposed casting grave doubts about her reliability as a witness at all. And there's still at least another day of cross examination to go as I write this.
Okay, so, my take? I believe Trump and Stormy met at the golf tournament, knew each other and talked about her being on The Apprentice. I believe she went to his hotel suite and the pajamas, flirting and spanking and conversation happened.
I'm only at 50% whether or not they actually had sex. Her story of "blacking out" is ridiculous, and she signed the vehement denial.
So they either had intercourse or they didn't, either way she decides to sell the story only once he starts running for President. I believe Cohen, acting as Trump's fixer, did pay her for the NDA.
I'm only at 50% whether or not Trump directed him to do so, or whether he was just clearing away any negative publicity on his own recognizance. There has been no objective evidence presented that Trump ordered it, only Cohen's say so, a convicted felon, multiple liar and extortionist, who claims Trump told him to "just handle it" verbally with no witnesses.
I don't believe there was ever a "threatening man". She's using that as her justification for why she wrote out the statement about not having sex when later, after she was freed from the NDA, she changed her story.
Even if the sexual encounter is true, my Trump is a stud! Bagging a porn star and fucking her so hard she can't even recall it. Either way, it actually sounded like a fun little encounter, and then years later a greedy, immoral, not too bright girl, badly advised by people taking a cut, tries cashing in.
As Scott Adams puts it...
As to what it has to do with the charges against Trump? Absolutely nothing!!! This whole circus was allowed to go on in a misguided (and backfiring) attempt to turn the public against Trump.
The DA who brought the case, Alvin Bragg, campaigned on "getting Trump".
The judge in the case is a Democrat donor and his wife and child are both huge democrat supporters who suffer from strong TDS.
The jury is likely stacked against Trump.
But what are the charges? I find it so revealing that the mainstream media never covers that or how anything said in court relates to that.
The charge is that the fees paid to the LAWYER Cohen, used allegedly in part to reimburse him for the $130K Stormy NDA payment in multiple instalments, were categorized as "legal expenditures" as opposed to "Paying Stormy to shut up" expenditures. The man who actually categorized them said he did it for the obvious reason it was fees paid to a lawyer, and he did it on his own judgment. There are only so many categories you can choose on their pre-configured bookkeeping system. He testified neither his boss, CFO Weiselmann, nor Trump ever directed him to misclassify anything.
Under NY State law, a misclassification (that this very arguably is not), is a misdemeanour with a 2 year statute of limitations.
To elevate this to a larger crime requires that it be done in furtherance of a larger crime. They claim the larger crime is some sort of election crime of making hush money payments. Only, that's not a crime, it's done routinely, and the federal election authorities looked at this specific case and failed to bring charges.
In short, the whole thing is a farce designed to make Trump look bad and tie up his time and money at a key time in the election cycle. And it's using a weaponized legal system to do it.
Anybody supporting this or cheering this on are showing their true colours and should be ashamed of themselves.
I'll accept comments, but some ground rules.
- No ad-feminem personal attacks against me.
- Stick to commenting on the merits of this case and this trial alone.
- Don't mix in gratuitous unrelated ad-hominem attacks against Trump.
- Okay to discuss what Stormy's testimony says about Trump's character if you're being specific.
- Either reference stuff I say, or bring up something you think I missed.
- General support is always appreciated, especially on a topic like this.
"Apparently ex-President Trump was so good that he literally fucked her brains out, as she can't remember a thing other than his gold toenail clippers, if she is to be believed."
ReplyDeleteI think you must have missed the part in her testimony where she was asked if the sex was "brief." Her reply: "Yes."
I haven't read the whole transcript, though I've followed the proceedings closely, despite the fact that I see this case a pretty trivial in the scheme of Trump's various court cases. Based on the media accounts, Trump's counsel seems to have spent a lot of her cross on slut-shaming and casting aspersions on Daniel's money-making efforts. At one point, she asked her some pointed questions about her efforts to hawk a candle, prompting Daniels to retort about the schlock Trump is constantly selling. However you may feel about Daniel's attempts to monetize the encounter, I'm not sure that line of questioning was very smart coming from counsel for a defendant whose latest business endeavor is hawking autographed Bibles, in a case that's all about a sex scandal. And, in general, building your defense around criticizing sluttiness and money-grubbing seems pretty likely to backfire giving this particular defendant. Like most people, juries aren't big on rewarding rank hypocrisy.
I agree that defense counsel strategically erred in the slut shaming. There was enough other stuff to impeach her on. However, fair game to note that she made a lot of money with her story, hence motive for lying.
DeleteRegardless, it's all a circus and has nothing to do with the absurd charges brought. The attempt is to get us all to talk about Stormy and ignore the massive miscarriage of Justice and election interference happening under our noses.
Disappointed that you're not joining me in calling that out. It's sending the US down a tit for tat rathole where every ex-administration is going to be hounded by weaponized politicized "Justice". While any remnant of respect for the judicial system disintegrates.
However, Trump's popularity only grows from banging girls like Stormy.
Well, you can be disappointed. Life is full of occasions for it. But, you're crying about a miscarriage of justice for a guy who has filed hundreds of ludicrous civil cases over the years, most of which he dismissed before being deposed or getting his ass kicked on dispositive motions. He's used the court system like his private play toy his entire life. Or, how about his refusal to back off on his claims about the Central Park 5 long after they not only had been exonerated but the victim recanted? Sorry, but you're not going to get much sympathy from me when it comes to Trump possibly being, for once, on the receiving end of a somewhat flimsy court case after he's brought hundreds of them and actively encouraged sketchy criminal cases against others, including his political opponents. It's called "karma."
DeleteWhere I don't disagree with you is that the tit-for-tat weaponization of the justice system is a huge problem, but let's remember where that started. I doubt you were singing this same tune about the might of the justice system being used to pursue trivial, partisan cases when it was Clinton getting a consensual blowjob.
Well, I was a teenager then not paying attention, but, yeah, the Clinton impeachment was a total sham. But that was a political process, not a criminal one.
DeleteYour whataboutism of a private citizen using the legal system, entirely legally (was he ever convicted of doing anything inappropriate?) does not hold a candle to the government weaponizing the Justice system to suppress a political opponent, very transparently.
Clinton gave up his law license in exchange for not being prosecuted. So, no, it wasn't merely a political or civil process.
DeleteI didn't know that, thank you. I presume it was for lying while under oath, the famous "I did not have sexual relations with that woman!"
DeleteThat particular quote wasn't under oath (I think that one was an answer to questions from a reporter) but, yes, it was a lie on that same subject, that was under oath in a deposition, that led to an agreement in which Clinton surrendered his law license in exchange for not being prosecuted. And, of course, the whole thing started with a totally unrelated investigation regarding a land deal, which was itself a big nothing burger. So, I get how Trump supporters can look at this case and see it as a similar nothing burger. But, in terms of the tit-for-tat, you're basically insisting that the party that was originally the subject of these nothing-burger attacks, whether via criminal investigations or impeachments, should be the one to stand down first. Because, I don't think there's any valid argument that this current cycle started with New Gingrich weaponizing personal "indiscretions" against a Democratic president.
DeleteJulie and Dan
DeleteOMG
This came frighteningly close to being a thoughtful, reasonable, balanced -- and, dare I say it, cordial conversation on one of the 10 million or so polarizing political issues confronting us daily. You both really need to remember how unseemly this sort of thing is and what a dangerous example it might be for any children or impressionable who might be reading. If I see more of this online, I know who to blame
Alan
Dan - I think you can back much further in history if you want to keep doing that. Like Nixon or JFK and no doubt earlier.
DeleteWhat matters is where we are today, and this unprecedented weapons action of the judicial system goes well beyond the pale into "banana republic" territory.
Alan - I blame my rules!
DeleteAlan - haha! So true!
DeleteDaniel’s testimony has nothing to do with the case they are trying to make against Trump. Her testimony was a sideshow intended to embarrass Trump and damage his reputation with voters. But Trump voters know who he is. They aren’t looking to date him. They don’t want to elect him as pastor. They want low energy costs, a growing economy , low inflation, no wars and a closed border. All things that were in place under Trump and immediately and on purpose reversed by the current administration. Trump’s alleged crime was giving money to Daniels to help him win an election. And, as we all know, trying to win an election as a Republican is illegal in the state of New York. Election tampering is only permitted on the Left. It’s a contrived case that every serious legal professional says should never have been brought. It’s based on a legal theory that has never been tried because it’s dumb. But, now that we have a police state, anything goes. If the prosecution wins, they will be overturned on appeal. They know it. But the real point of the case is to prevent Trump from campaigning and weaken his chances to be elected. And it’s not working. In fact, it’s having the opposite effect. By they time this lawfare is decided, even New York may be in play in the election. - david
ReplyDeleteAgreed.
DeleteAnd, of course, paying for an NDA is not an election crime as the Feds have stated, so the whole premise of this case is ludicrous.
I think it's pretty obvious they had sex. No one pays someone else for not having sex with them. The money is covering the sex, that's obvious.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, maybe not. You also don't have sex for the 1,000,000th time and completely black out, so there is that.
DeleteI think the reality is if someone is going around harming your reputation, and there is plenty of evidence there was an opportunity for private sex, a fixer might well pay them off as any other course of action is costly and may make matters worth.
I don't argue that Trump did not want sex with her, just that I'm dubious it ever took place.
Ok, so your argument is that she said something that you don't believe means that it is unlikely that she had sex with Trump?
DeleteInteresting argument.
I would have thought that the fact that Trump paid her off (over $100K) means she had sex with him. I don't see why anyone would pay someone so much money unless they were trying to cover something up. If she was just talking about having sex with Trump, he would have just sued her, as he always does.
Not just "something". Her specific testimony about the entire sex part (she blacked out) lacks all credibility. FYI, I personally don't care if he did or didn't bag her.
DeleteAs to paying off, read my reply just above. Already answered.
I am not a Trump fan but I prefer to beat him at the ballot box.
ReplyDeleteIf I understand it right, paying Stormy off is supposed to be an election violation. Not a big deal to me and not a precedent we should set.
By the way, why is everyone in porn a “star”? Other moves have b actors, supporting actors and character actors.
Rosco
Only thing is, paying her off has already been ruled to NOT be an election violation, in the more general case, and specifically in this case as well. It's a transparently idiotic case. A flagrant abuse of the Justice system for the purposes of interfering in the 2024 election.
DeleteTo paraphrase classic SNL, "Julie, you ignorant slut, ..." (and I don't think ad-feminem is a word?)
ReplyDeleteI love you leading with the three pics of Stormy! Yes, this is who we are dealing with... But very naughty of you to do that.
The case is obviously a farce, as you point out, but we all love consuming the National Enquirer level trash gossip, true or not, who cares. Especially the spanking which is more spanko than I knew before reading your account.
I notice a distinct lack of comments on this blog compared to your other Trump posts, due no doubt to your very reasonable ground rules. Kind of demonstrates "they" don't have a lot to say other than baseless petty insults.
It is, as you say above, pretty disappointing that Democrats don't flock in on the comments to agree, exposing them as total hypocrites. How can they at the same time claim re-electing Trump will mean "the end of democracy" and yet not condemn this bullshit, as Rosco above did. Dan being an apologist for this crap by crying (without basis) "but Trump did it first!" - nice moral clarity there, not!
Merriam-Webster
Deletead feminam - Marked by or being an attack on a woman's character rather than an answer to the contentions made.
First used in this context in 1874.
You stand corrected, slut boy. (Although I did misspell it!).
You caught me on my cheeky use of her porn shots!
I know re the spanko part! She did it as a punishment that he obediently bent over for and then corrected his behaviour after! He's one of us!
As for Dan, hey, I'm happy he admitted "Where I don't disagree with you is that the tit-for-tat weaponization of the justice system is a huge problem". I.e., in English, he agrees. And he implicitly agrees this case has no merit. You can't expect him to actually say that, though. Too much cognitive dissonance at once, but he's on the right track!
Yes, bbob, you Trumpers are so into "moral clarity." The guy who epitomizes each of the seven deadlies selling autographed Bibles . . . give me a break. And, I didn't say anything about the morality of prosecuting Trump on these charges. I merely said I wasn't going to shed any tears for someone who has promoted flimsy prosecutions being the subject of an (allegedly) flimsy prosecution himself. And, let's face it, it's not like the alleged flimsiness in the facts of this particular case actually matter to you or Julie. You'll be making the same arguments and the same excuses in the January 6th case, and the Georgia election case, and the Florida documents case . . . .
DeleteNo, no, no, no. I did not say or imply it "has no merit." I said it was too trivial for me to work up much concern over one way or another. Michael Cohen served prison time for the same set of facts that led to the trial against Trump. And, so far the only witness who has contradicted that the payoff was campaign-related is Hope Hicks, though she didn't even really contradict it. She testified that there was a huge concern that, after the Access Hollywood leak, another sex scandal could kill the campaign. But, she said Trump also was concerned about his wife finding out. Which, you know, who wouldn't be? I think Barron was four months old when his old man (emphasis on "old", as shown so clearly in the "lecherous old fat guy hanging on the young young blonde" pic in your post) was out banging a porn star. It's the kind of thing a new mom might get a little miffed about, right? But bbob and other Trumpers, do keep prattling on about "moral clarity."
DeleteYou did refer to this as an example of "tit-for-tat weaponization", and we agree.
DeleteCohen did a plea deal so that case was never heard, and was also widely regarded as being without merit in the same way. He copped the plea to avoid worse charges and because the DA thought that could damage Trump more.
You keep going on as if Trump paying for an NDA is an election violation when it absolutely is not. If somebody else paid, then yes that might be an illegal donation above the limit, in which case, by definition, it's not Trump's issue.
You sound very sex negative Dan. I could not care less if Trump had sex outside his marriage. That's between Trump and Melania. I do care about weaponizing the Justice system for political ends. You trying to draw a false equivalence there sounds desperate.
Julie, you can be sex positive and still think that a guy fucking a porn star with a four month old kid at home is a scumbag. Being sex positive doesn't mean you accept everything someone does as moral or ethical just because it involves sex.
DeleteYour statements about Cohen demonstrate another way in which Trump is being poorly served by his lawyers. (Or, they are are arguing stupid shit because Trump often pressures otherwise competent lawyers to argue stupid shit.) There is one thing pretty much every witness so far seems to agree on -- they all disliked Michael Cohen and saw him as out for himself. Yet, part of Trump's defense so far has been that Cohen supposedly made this payment out of the "kindness of his heart." That defense simply is not compatible with who they are painting Cohen to be. A dumb jury might might miss that fundamental inconsistency, but this panel has two lawyers. I doubt they are going to miss it.
I'm not going to get into your interpretation of campaign law. You get out on a limb every time you start playing lawyer, and I don't like punching down.
Also, let's think about your "sex negative" argument and whether it's consistent with Trump's trial strategy. I'm suggesting that you can like sex and yet still find some personal behavior around sex indicative that the person engaging in it is a scumbag. Someone on Trump's trial team apparently agrees with me, since a cornerstone of their defense is that Trump paid hush money not because he was worried about the story's impact on his campaign but, rather its impact on his marriage. So, is that a "sex-positive" defense? If having sex with a pornstar shortly after your wife gives birth is just no big deal and morally neutral, why was he worried about Melania finding out? Wasn't he being sex-negative in trying to kill the story? Why not go out and loudly proclaim that cheating with a porn star four months after your wife gives birth is totally sex-positive, so fuck all you sex-negative haters? Is Melania "sex-negative"? If fucking a porn star when you have an infant at home is sex positive and no big deal, then Trump's "he was concerned for his family" defense makes no sense at all.
DeleteHa! "Punching down". Please Mr. Genius, make the case as to exactly what election law was violated...
DeleteI personally do not care whether Trump did or did not try to pay hush money to porn stars. I expect all politicians are deeply unethical and corrupt and we shouldn't be naive.
ReplyDeleteI don't like Trump, I don't like Biden, but I just don't care about this issue at all.
I don't find the payment for an NDA in any way unethical or corrupt, except possibly on Stormy's part. Am I missing something?
DeleteNo, I basically feel the same way. It seems clear that both sides will use 'lawfare' to go after each other.
DeleteWell, one has proven it, the other threatened it.
DeleteWould this have come to this if there was not merit? I keep hearing Trump is being picked on, and none of what is said about him is true. There has to be something because you cannot keep making up charges, your bound to get caught. Take this for what you want, Trump is playing a game, trouble is the game is back firing. This is my opinion, and like you, would be hard to change. I respect your view, each one of us should respect others views and not get into a pissing contest, not worth it. I'm just going to wait and see how this all works out. Jack
ReplyDeleteVery naive, jack. You can look at it and see it is without merit. The way it came to this is because of corrupt DAs and judges.
DeleteNot naive, if we have corrupt DA's and Judges, then the most violent criminals would be set free. I don't know what the court system is like in Canada, if could be the same as you said of the court system in the United States. Jack
DeleteJack, stop trying to reason with the delusional. Trump is an angel. Wait, no he’s terrible but everyone is corrupt and terrible so who cares?
DeleteNeither of you boys are cut out for debating, eh? Oh well, it's not for everyone.
DeleteJulie, you’re not looking for debate. You are looking for people to mindlessly agree with you. Any point made is dismissed by you using falsehoods and equivocations. Please read some non Trump sources if you actually want to debate.
DeleteHa ha! You're like a broken record. I always know it's you, even though you never have the courtesy of signing. My Little Troll! 🧌
DeleteI don't "dismiss" points, I counter them with reason and logic. You would know that if you ever actually raised a legitimate point instead of just trolling.
🧌 🧌 🧌
Contrary to bbob, I think "democrats" don't bother arguing with Julie anymore, because she doesn't play by her own ground rules. When she starts losing arguments (to knowledgable debaters), she insults the opponent and cancels the discussion. I, for one, don't see the point in arguing with someone whose mind can't be changed.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, you provide no examples, as usual...
Deleteit's hard to provide examples of times when your mind has been changed, when no examples exist
DeleteMy mind is not often changed because I have thought through and debated my positions long before I commit them to writing.
DeleteYou seem ignorant of the fact that the purpose of debate is not to convince one another, it's to convince the audience. You are not at all convincing because you provide no cogent argument on the topic.
I have no intention of convincing you of anything: I know your mind is always made up.
DeleteYou underestimate others. Others may find the observations that I make useful and convincing.
Still waiting for any such observation... Say something insightful about this Trump case. We await with baited breath...
DeleteGiven that you live in Canada - as do I - I'm a little disappointed you don't turn your sharp criticism towards Trudeau the Lesser and his band of incompetents. God knows he provides a target rich environment.
ReplyDeleteHe certainly does, but I have 10x more US readers and I try to keep stuff relevant to them (and also it's much more impactful, what goes on in the States, to Canada, then anything Turdeau may do).
DeleteStormy has nothing at all to do witjh this criminal trial. Trump is charged with hiding his hush money payment (not illegal in and of itself) by falsifying financial records. The issue has nothing to do with whether or not he fucked her. It has nothing to do with paying her to be silent. All that is just noise. All that counts is the way the transactions were handled. That isn't in question either. They were illegally hidden. The only issue is whether Trump knew this was happening.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that the state put Daniels on the stand. What, if anything, she did with Trump is totally beside the point as is your long discussion of her sex life.
It seems likely that Trump was involved in covering up the payoff. I wonder why he had it done through his company instead of just writing a check. That payment was perfectly legal.
I think it's very much in question if filing a payment to Cohen, a lawyer, under "legal expenses", which is one of a small few categories that may be chosen, is "illegally hiding". And if that was it, it would be a misdemeanour and off statute of limitations. Their case is it was in aid of some other, as yet unspecified, felony, for which Trump has not been charged with and does not exist.
DeleteYou're really reaching trying to defend the Dems on this one. You know darned well if it was anybody other that Trump, it would not have been charged at all. It's hypocritical to the max not to just say so. Does not mean you love Trump. It just means you hate the politicization of the judicial, regardless of the target.
And re Stormy, not only is it irrelevant, it's prejudicial in a serious way, thus also against the law.
I think that the state made a mistake calling her as a witness. It can only confuse the jury to consider what-if-any sexual activity took place. The case is about hiding payments as legal fees.
DeleteNot really. That's a misdemeanour if that.
DeleteThe case is about some alleged election felony that was not specified in the charging documents and has not yet been made clear, more than a week into the trial.
Ms Julie I’d also be interested in your take on Canada under Trudeau. In Australia we hear it’s going batshit woke crazy over there but is that just a media beat up, what’s life really like on the ground and is Poilievre the answer? As for the seppos they get more than enough coverage from you. Let’s have a nice little commonwealth chat for a change?
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's not as bad as others make out. Trudeau is now considered a marginal anomaly who will be voted out next time around. Pierre has a lot of common sense policies and we should see a nice turnaround.
DeleteJustin is an authoritarian of a level Putin and Biden could barely aspire to. Freedom of thought let alone freedom of speech are dead in Canada.
DeleteAnd yet... here I am...
DeleteAnd bless your heart. Speak loud, speak free !!! I am too venerable....really feeling like a coward. I am ashamed,...
Deletefor my wives and my wives, kids, grandkids. Opa Chris, escaped from East Germany.....nothing but a coward now.
I am scared Julie....
this isn't the country I fled to
I remain hopeful in the common sense of Canadians.
DeleteFrom Scott Adams on X:
ReplyDelete“91 indictments, and all I will remember is Trump has golden nail clippers in his toiletry bag and he once fucked a porn star so hard she blacked out.
That's who I want negotiating with Putin.“
- david
Yes, I quoted that in the blog 👆.
DeleteWere you paying attention, david?
I am reminded again that I almost never have anything meaningful to add to your political commentary. I agree with almost everything and you say it better, more precisely and more persuasively. I’ll go back to my corner now. - david
Delete😘
DeleteNot ad-hominem attacks on Trump but to give background on my perspective: I think Trump is a threat to American democracy. I think he was a horrible president with policies I do not agree with and it baffles me why evangelical Christians embrace him except for the abortion issue, which he’s recently backed away from. I think he should have been impeached both for his threatening to withhold military aid to Zelensky and for encouraging the Jan. 6th riots. I think his calls to the GA election officials are much worse than this, even though that prosecution has been bungled. I think he had sex with Stormy Daniels and her “blacking out” has more to do with being told by prosecutors not to go into salacious detail, or perhaps not wanting to go into the details for her own personal reasons.
ReplyDeleteHaving said all that… I also think that Trump is likely to be found not guilty in this trial and frankly is innocent of these charges against him. There’s a recorded call where Trump and Cohen talk about paying her off and Trump basically tells him to “handle it” but, absent additional testimony from Cohen or others involved in the business side of Trumps dealings, this does not meet the elements of the crime. (I’m a lawyer) If anything, Cohen, who organized, negotiated, and documented the payoff and how it was recorded in the financial ledger is the one guilty of the crimes Trump is charged with here.
Well choose to agree to disagree re. Trump.
DeleteMilitary aid should be withheld from the most corrupt regime in recent times (not that he ever did withhold it).
There is zero evidence he arranged any violence on Jan 6. You're speaking out of turn on that.
As a lawyer, is it not perjury to say in court you blacked out when in fact you didn't?
The Georgia call, with 20 people on it including many lawyers, was not Trump asking anybody to manufacture votes. It was 100% obvious he's telling them to do their jobs and identify the corrupt votes.
As a lawyer, perhaps you can tell us what the alleged election crime is? (Not the supposed falsification of business records, the supposed election crime that was meant to further).
But good for you for condemning this abuse.
All campaign donations need to be recorded and public. The campaign donations in the form of hush money payments to women Trump slept with were not by either Trump Org or The Enquirer. They were either not disclosed or masked as something else. That’s lying to influence an election. They were campaign costs paid by other institutions so no one would find out about the payments. A crime.
DeleteExcept according to the FEC it's not a campaign donation if such an expenditure would have been made for non-election reasons as well, which is clearly the case here. Other cases with hush money payments have established the precedent. The FEC looked at it and declined to pursue it.
DeleteThe reason for reporting election contributions is to monitor that the donors are staying within contribution limits. In this case, Trump paid, and he's allowed unlimited expenditures. You're pulling it out of your ass that "lying to influence an election" is any sort of a crime.
He purposely obscured this payment because to do so publicly would have hurt his campaign. It’s a form of fraud and he got caught. If he had paid her himself he would have been fine but he didn’t he used company funds.
DeleteThe FEC is a federal politically appointed board. It has been ineffective historically. This is a state prosecution so the FEC doesn’t apply.
DeleteSo you now say his company has committed the crime of an illegal campaign donation? I have not heard that point brought up before. So the board of the company are all facing charges?
DeleteThe FEC decides what is and is not a violation. Regardless, Trump was never accused of a campaign finance violation. They looked at it and said it was fine.
You know darned well this is a case of "get Trump selective prosecution". Shame on you for your hypocrisy.
Nope not hypocrisy. The FEC has no role in state prosecutions. You
Deletemay not be familiar with the federal system. Trump committed a crime and that’s not hypocrisy, it’s critical thinking which is something you surrendered a long time ago when it comes to Donald Trump.
Use your brain, now. Why have no federal election charges been brought against Trump?
DeleteUpdate- Cohen testified that he went over the plan with Trump in detail so my earlier comment is not correct. Will come down to jury determination of Cohen’s credibility.
DeleteCohen has zero credibility, objectively.
DeleteRegardless, I still fail to see what election crime was ostensibly committed. All you people hanging on every syllable when you don't have a clue what election crime they're trying to charge.
Hey Dan - A Disciplined Hubby, I am still waiting for your answer. What Law was broken?
ReplyDeleteNobody knows...
DeleteAs Stalin said " show me the man and I will show you the crime".
DeleteThe law that was broken was falsifying business records to make an illegal campaign contribution to influence an election. Trump’s business paid a porn star to not tell her embarrassing story and did so with company funds and lied and said it was legal fees. A crime was committed by Michael Cohen, Donald Trump and anyone at Trump Org that knew they were falsifying records. It was a crime, plain and simple. Not the worst he is accused of committing but definitely a crime.
Delete1/ It's a real stretch that a payment to Cohen, for many different things, labelled as a legal expenditure, is falsifying anything.
Delete2/ even if it is, it's a misdemeanour with a 2 year statute of limitation that has expired.
3/ it has been elevated to a felony by the claim that the alleged falsification was done in pursuance of some vague election felony, yet the FEC looked at the Stormy payments and cleared that as being any kind of violation.
Try again.
This is a simple NY financial reporting case, usually these are wrapped up by paying any alleged taxes that were not paid, any interest or penalties and movnig on. Pretty much anyone who has filed a tax return and overreported their charitable or other deductions to lower their taxes is the same kind of criminal. What a collosal waste of resources.
DeleteThe waste of time is the least of it. It's a corrupt legal system directed by Democrat leadership to attempt to embarrass the opponent, tie him up in court when he should be campaigning, and tie him up with legal expenses he should be spending on his campaign. It's the most blatant form of Democrat fascism we've yet seen.
DeleteNo need to try again. It’s a crime. Cohen was convicted of campaign finance violations he committed at the request of candidate Trump and sent to prison. Put down your Kool Aid and let the Courts work. Not the crime of the century but a crime nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteCohen copped a plea deal to avoid worse charges. It was never adjudicated.
DeleteBesides, if Cohen went to jail for a campaign violation, then why is Trump being charged??? And if Trump paid Cohen to make this campaign contribution, then why did Cohen go to jail???
Um, it’s called conspiracy. When two or me people work together to commit a crime. Pretty common here in the US, not sure about Canada. Cohen went to jail because he engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud. Trump was an unnamed co-conspirator but surely you knew that.
DeleteIt's like you have no reading comprehension. Cohen copped a plea to that to avoid unrelated worse charges
DeleteHave you ever asked yourself, if Trump was guilty of conspiring like you say, why is he not charged with that?
Trump was charged with what he did. Working with Michael Cohen and others to falsify records to cover up his affairs and influence the election. You are delusional to think Cohen went to jail for some other reason. He committed fraud on his client’s behalf. Read up on the case a bit and you’ll see. Don’t just look for what already supports your side.
DeleteCohen was also charged with concealing $4M from the IRS, a much more significant charge than an over-contribution charge. The alleged campaign finance charge was never proven in court as Cohen copped a plea to the multiple charges and received a light sentence in return.
DeleteAnd Trump has not been charged with any campaign violation. He was charged with some dubious bookeeping thing.
I was never a Trump fan - thought he was a buffoon. But his first term wasn't bad, actually, though he still acted the buffoon.
ReplyDeleteWhat I genuinely don't get is by now Trump is the most vetted, most examined, most wiretapped, most subpoenaed, most investigated President we ever had, and all they came up with to prosecute him with is this shit (and the other shit) which leaves us all scratching our heads with, what now is the crime here?
It means they could find nothing worse, or they would have gone after that, right?
Which probably makes him the most provably un-criminal buffoon to ever run for President?
Yes, exactly! And I think the public is coming to this conclusion, as in "you told me he was this giant criminal, and this is all you got?"
DeleteSo I’ve known that ole Stormy was a porn star but never once have I looked her up, cause I didn’t care. Came here to see if you posted anything worth a damn and I finally see Stormy naked. I feel like my life is complete now.
ReplyDeleteFuck Trump and hopefully he gets executed for his crimes.
You're welcome for the naked Stormy pics.
DeleteRe. Trump - "executed" for what crime now? Crazy TDS man.
Oh, they’re out there. And they don’t just want Trump dead. They want people like me dead or in prison. Fortunately, there are 10s of millions of us and we’re all hard to kill. And they know it. So they scream at the sky. - david
DeleteOn Canada woke discussion Canadians can take a joke. A friend of mine got a secondment from Sydney to Canada and managed a culturally mixed workforce. Someone complained about use of the “c word” in the workplace so at the next meeting he said “Ok now which of you fucking cunts called this cunt a cunt?” Canadians pissed themselves laughing. They can’t be that woke.
ReplyDeleteThe regular folks are not at all woke, just a few "elite" assholes and some mentally ill.
DeleteAustralian women love Canadian men because they have never met a polite man before in their lives.
ReplyDeleteGood on 'ya!
DeleteYes this is your blog, Yes you have a good amount of people who follow you. But with all the stress in this world, like many of us, we look to this blog to find relief, a break from what is happening. Will be glad when you get back to why we all come, spankings. Jack
ReplyDeleteFeel free to skip the blogs that stress you out jack, and if so, better not to comment!
DeleteAgree, just will keep checking in
Delete“Stick to spanking posts!”
ReplyDeleteStormy/Trump: 94 comments.
Last 3 spanking posts combined: 94 comments.
-david
I got no problem with Ms Julie writing about whatever the hell she wants. And let’s face it - right wing women are way hotter.
ReplyDeleteA little late to the party here, but my 2c on the issue:
ReplyDelete"The indictment centers on allegations that Trump falsified internal business records at his private company while trying to cover up an effort to illegally influence the 2016 election by arranging payments that silenced claims potentially harmful to his candidacy. It includes 34 counts of fudging records related to checks Trump sent to his personal lawyer and problem-solver to reimburse him for his role in paying off a porn actor who said she had an extramarital sexual encounter with Trump years earlier."
Basically it's irrelevant whether Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels or not. The issue here revolves around a falsification of business records, and the reason for the payment to Stormy Daniels.
To my understanding, it's not particularly disputed how the payments were put into the books within the Trump organization, nor how Michael Cohen billed it. So arguably the financial side is pretty much set as charged. That leaves the serious question of WHY the payment was arranged, and why it was arranged at that point. If it was supposed to just revolve around the issue of his infidelity, with regards to his relationship with his wife, then the timing seems rather off. Paying off someone years after an affair, and having them sign an NDA agreement years after the fact does not seem to be logically consistent with it having anything to do with his marriage. It does, however, coincide nicely with the 2016 election, and it's not an unreasonable assumption that having another story showing a type of behavior that Americans historically have publicly disliked in their elected officials, could have had a negative impact on Trump's presidential campaign, following the Inside Hollywood story.
The main question I see, is whether or not the prosecution can ultimately lift the burden of proof associated with proving the claim that the payments to Stormy Daniels were made in order to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. Given that we are currently nearing the likely end of the case, I guess we'll find out soon...
The main issue is it is not illegal to "hide information" for an election, nor to pay hush money. The election people already looked at it and said it was fine. It's outrageous that this late in the trial they have still not stated what greater election law Trump supposedly violated.
DeleteThe timing is because Stormy shopped the story right after the Access Hollywood grab her by the pussy thing broke. She was trying to extort money at that time with her sleazy agent.
As to how the payments were filed in the system, it was filed under legal expenses by a clerk without direction from anybody else. That has been proven. The prosecution did not state a better way for him to have filed it.
The entire case is a total sham. Trump deranged individuals grasping at straws.
Think about it, the most investigated man in history and this is the best they got?
The best they've got? Pardon me if I have to stifle some laughter here. I seriously doubt that this is as "good" as it gets. What is it? 4 criminal cases and 91 indictments at this point? I suspect this is not the best they've got. But we'll see. If Trump wins, I strongly suspect that he'll make most of the remaining cases go away in various ways, so unless he looses, the public will likely never get to see a court ruling on most of those cases, and people can then continue discussing the issues until the end of the heat death of the universe.
DeleteAnyway. The legal professionals seem to disagree with you on the legality of exactly how the attempt to suppress Stormy's story from making it into the media was carried out. I'm no expert on this, but as I understand it, while Trump would have been allowed to pay Stormy directly, out of his own pocket, for the rights to her story, he gets in trouble with the campaign contribution laws when the money gets funneled to her through her company and Michael Choen, where it then goes from being a payment for the rights to a story, and turns into an illegal campaign contribution. But again, the nature of this case is somewhat technical, from a legal perspective.
The timing is really not all that relevant to the case, since it doesn't change the supposedly illegal action itself. And whether or not Stormy was trying to make some money on the story or not is also not really all that interesting to the case, because she's not on trial here, and selling a story isn't illegal in itself either. We can then argue about telling false stories about other people, but I believe that Trump could have disputed the validity of the story in court, and charged Stormy with "dragging his name through the mud by telling a false story" or something. I don't recall him doing that.
I agree that this is probably the most "boring" of the cases on the surface, because a central part of the charge is so technical. And arguably the entire case is bloody stupid, because it wouldn't exist if Trump had just paid Stormy directly himself.
But again. I believe that both the prosecution and the defense has concluded their cases in the trial, so I would assume that we'll have the jury decision within a week or so, and if he's declared guilty, then there's the question of sentencing. But that's a process I'm not all that clear on at the moment.
Btw, you might want to see this short comment concerning the 130k payment to Michael Choen: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qAT91EZjJag
Paying hush money was ruled to not be a campaign contribution in the general case and in this specific one - there is much precedent for this - why do you think he was not charged with that federally? The whole case is bogus and you know it, as are the others. I reiterate, if they had a real crime, one you and I could easily recognize as a crime, it would have been brought before now.
DeleteThe video speaks about matters immaterial.
Julie. You, Trump, and the other Trump fanatic supporters might not thing there is any of the cases against him, that are anything other than a bogus. But the fact of the matter is that several legal professionals have decided that there is a basis for bringing (serious) charges against Trump for multiple different acts. Four criminal indictments and 91 different charges are not all going to be bogus. Whether this case is bogus, I guess we'll see in a short while, once the jury has delivered its verdict. Though I suspect that even if he's found guilty, you will find some way to argue that it was a rigged trial, corrupt judge and jury or some other way to argue against a guilty verdict.
DeleteAs for whether I think the various charges brought against him are bogus? Let me take them in turn:
Falsification of business records:
I think Trump tried to kill the Stormy Daniels story, in order not to have it negatively impact his campaign to become President. I believe that he screwed up with regards to how the payment was handled, and I don't find it unrealistic that his attempt to make it look like something other than it was, could be in violation of some type of law. I elect to believe that the lawyers hadn't brought charges against him, if they didn't believe that there was a case to be brought.
In and off itself this might be the one I assign the least seriousness to.
The classified documents case:
I find that pretty damned serious, and I believe that Trump should be jailed for that one. One thing is forgetting to return a box or two of "work related documents" when you end a job. One thing is if those documents have no significant value. It's an entirely different thing to retain highly sensitive, classified documents, and then refuse to return them willingly, once it's been discovered that you have them, and even try to conceal that you still have them! Even when faced with a court order to return them.
No sane mind can read the Presidential Records Act, and conclude that a former President is allowed to keep copies of that classified, top secret documents. No sane person can look at nuclear missile secrets etc. and conclude that this is a type of documents that should be allowed to be kept by a civilian in a place like Mar-a-Largo. I see absolutely zero defense for Trump in this case, and I find it an absolute travesty that this case has not been started yet. IMO the American people deserved to have this case completed before the election.
To be continued...
Part 2:
DeleteWashington Election Obstruction Case:
I consider this one pretty serious too. Yes, Trump had the right to pursue all legal avenues to contest the election result. But at some point, a sane person would have conceded to the majority conclusion. Once he'd exhausted the legal avenues to contest things, and hadn't been able to prove that he won the election, and once enough other officials had told him that he lost, he should have conceded the election, and stopped his bogus narrative about a "stolen election". His narrative led to an invasion of the Capitol on Jan. 6th, and more than one dead person, as I recall. The "stolen election" narrative has been harmful to America and has further fanned the division within the society. And it has screwed up the lives of several people who find themselves in jail, because they got seduced by Trump's lie.
Georgia:
Again a serious charge IMO. I'll grant that you could possibly interpret some of the things Trump is on tape with in more than one way (if I'm being generous), but my interpretation is that he went at least right up to the line of what can possibly be excused, in his attempt to try and change the official loss to Joe Biden, into a win. I leave it to the lawyers, judge, and jury in the case to work out whether or not he crossed the line, and went into criminal territory.
All in all, I find Trump to be a dangerous individual, harmful to America, and an clear and present threat to global stability. Not because he's a Republican, not because of all of his policies, but because of his behavior and personality. He can be goaded into stupid decisions, he's a massive liar, an egocentric narcissist, and he is definitively not as smart as he believes himself to be. And I find it massively concerning that I can find videos of specialist doctors that claim that they see clear evidence in his speech that his faculties are declining, and that they believe that he's developing Alzheimer's (might be misremembering the disease name here, but I'm thinking of the condition that destroys your memory).
GODS I wish that Trump had elected to gracefully concede the loss to Joe Biden, and had retired to Mar-a-Largo after his presidency, and had elected to play golf for the rest of his days.
Anyway, good weekend Julie.
It's a stretch to say anything was "falsified", and if it was, it's already proven that Trump was not directing it. The falsifying itself is a misdemeanour for which a 2 year statute of limitations has run out., They can only elevate it if they link it to some other felony. So far the other felony has not been identified. If the jury finds him guilty it will be a travesty given the facts and the law.
DeleteClassified documents is exactly what Biden did with less justification. They are selectively prosecuting. There is evidence that they were in active negotiations when the raid occurred. All ex-presidents negotiate these things.
Election obstruction is nonsense. Trump believes the election was rigged (as do I and many others). Many decided to protest. Some protesters got violent. Zero evidence Trump encouraged anything but peaceful protest.
Georgia case, you have to be a TDS idiot to listen to the full call and think there is anything illegal. He asked them to do their job and identify only a fraction of the fraud the Trump team believed took place. Georgia refused to look. Court cases on that continue to this day.
You're hate Trump via brainwashing and as a result are grasping at the straws the media feeds you. Look at the base facts yourself and don't be so naive.
"Falsified" is the word used in the charge against him, so the legal professionals elect to call it that. But again, both prosecution and defense has rested in the case, so we should have a verdict from the jury soon. Unless it's "not guilty", I know you won't believe it, regardless of what anyone will try to tell you, but anyway.
DeleteYes, As I recall, some documents were found in a filing cabinet somewhere, related to when Biden was vice president. And he immediately returned them upon their discovery.
In Trump's case we were talking 70-some boxes that got moved around at Mar-a-Largo. Big difference. Also, Trump didn't immediately return them upon their discovery. Bigger difference. And as for negotiating which types of documents an ex-President can keep copies of, try to take a couple of steps back Julie, and ask yourself if you honestly believe that classified, top secret documents is something an ex-president is allowed to keep. Have you read the Presidential Documents Act? Have you seen the examples used pertaining to which kind of documents an ex-President is allowed to keep upon the end of his presidency? We are talking personal notes and similar. Defense secrets etc. are not in the negotiable category. And even if Trump was still trying to stall the return and was trying to "negotiate" for him to keep them, the bloody court system told him to return them. And he still didn't.
Georgia did investigate the possibility of fraud during the election process, and they found no evidence of fraud to a degree that it had any chance of affecting the outcome of the election. But we already discussed that some months ago, I believe. You don't believe they investigated the right things, and set up the investigation to avoid finding evidence of fraud. Because naturally this is a conspiracy to prevent Trump from getting a second term as President...
As for the "stolen election" issue, try asking yourself at what point enough is enough? There's nothing wrong with falsely believing something, and checking to see if your concerns are valid. But if every official investigation keeps telling you your wrong, and if qualified person after qualified person keeps telling you you are wrong. And the courts keep telling you that your lawsuits are either without merit or rule that you are wrong. At what point do you cross over from "legitimate concern and challenge" and into "pigheaded, stubborn idiocy"? Trump's MIGHT have started out with a legitimate belief, but at this point we are into "Flat Earth Society" levels of idiocy!
No. I don't "hate" Trump. That's the wrong word. His behavior repulse me, and I find that type of behavior utterly incompatible with the office of the President of the United States. I find it highly concerning, when a trained psychiatrist/psychologist states that they believe that they see evidence of Alzheimer's Disease in Trump, based on videos of his speeches from the past year or so. I find it very concerning when person after person who worked for him in the White House keeps saying that he is unfit to be President or outright dangerous. And given Trump's behavior during his first term, and given what he says he'll do in a second term, I find the prospects of him becoming President again very concerning on a number of levels. So no, I don't "hate" Trump. But I am very concerned with the potential prospect of having him become President again, and I very much hope that he doesn't get a second term.
Kyrel, your news sources are failing you badly. There were many, many boxes of classified documents found for Biden, in very insecure places all over. A special prosecutor found there was a case, but declined to prosecute as he thought they could not win in court because Biden was too confused.
DeleteYou are spewing things about the Trump case that have no basis in fact. No court ordered him to return anything.
Re the election cases, when highly suspicious things are not taken up by courts and are not further investigated, they remain highly suspicious. You'll never find something if you're not looking for it, and the powers that be had it in for Trump.
What specifically behaviour in his first term that you object to so vehemently? Be specific.
Yea, we obviously don't see or believe in the same news sources.
Deletehttps://apnews.com/article/fact-check-biden-trump-delaware-1850-boxes-446929353071
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/numbers-special-counsel-report-refute-trumps-claim-biden/story?id=108049663
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report-from-special-counsel-robert-k-hur-february-2024.pdf
What do I object to with regards to Trump's behavior? Let's take a small sample:
- His very loose relation with facts. Aka. his constant lying. You want specifics, take a look at all the times his statements have been fact checked and shown as being wrong. You'll no doubt argue that it's the fact checkers that are wrong, or have some other reason why you believe Trump has been right.
- The way he talks about and treat people. One moment people have been "fantastic, great, talented" individuals, and the moment they've disagreed with Trump's line they've suddenly become "incompetent, horrible, nasty etc." The guy is a bully. I know you asked for specifics, but honestly, I can't be bothered to spend time trying to dig out specific video clips from years back.
- His behavior with regards to political meetings in international contexts. He's been a bull in a china shop. He's cast doubt about the validity of NATO and America's continued participation in it. (I'll grant him that most of the EU countries have failed to live up to their promised defense spending, but I've been complaining about that for over a decade, and it now finally seems to be changing.)
- His behavior with regards to his international relationships, where he's managed to try and cosy up to various dictators and/or autocrats, while hurting relations with decades long allies.
- Referring to veterans and ex-POW's as "losers".
- His isolationist stance. Yes, internationalization has losers. If an industry isn't competitive, it will suffer, and people working in that industry will lose their jobs, and not all of them are guaranteed to find other employment. But the ultimate winners are the customers who end up getting cheaper or better products than they would otherwise have had. Sure, this is a complicated topic, and you can argue for exceptions, but the world will not become a better place from going back to protectionist policies and high taxation of foreign products.
I could probably find some more stuff about Trump, that rubs me the wrong way, but I don't have the time to devote to it at this point.
Fair enough, I got the "court" bit wrong about the subpoenas Trump had issued, instructing him to return various documents. According to Wikipedia it was the DOJ. "On May 11, the DOJ subpoenaed Trump for "any and all documents or writings in the custody or control of Donald J. Trump and/or the Office of Donald J. Trump bearing classification markings".[81][58]" And then you had a 2nd one in June (served on the 24th I believe) concerning video evidence from outside a relevant storage room. "On June 22, the DOJ emailed a draft of the grand jury's subpoena to one of Trump's attorneys. It asked the Trump Organization for surveillance footage of the Mar-a-Lago storage room.[93] On June 23, Trump called de Oliveira.[93] The following day, the FBI served the subpoena, asking for views from outside the storage room between January 10 and June 24.[101][61][38]"
Additionally you have this bit "Judge Beryl Howell noted, "More classified-marked documents still were uncovered in November 2022 in a leased storage unit, in December 2022 in the Office at Mar-a-Lago, and apparently sometime thereafter in the former president’s own bedroom at Mar-a-Lago". The documents were found by Trump's attorneys, who provided them to the FBI in January 2023.[152]"
And sure, I do recall that you tend to want to disregard information from Wikipedia, and granted, the articles can be wrong. But in general it gets things pretty close to reality. And in this case you can look up the links for the sources used for the Wiki article.
From your own AP link: "Indeed, the White House disclosed in January that a lawyer for Biden had located what was described as a “small number” of classified documents from his time as vice president during a search of a former office space in Washington. The documents were turned over to the Justice Department, as were an additional batch found at Biden’s house in Wilmington, Delaware. The FBI found even more during a subsequent search of the home."
DeleteHow many classified docs does Biden have to mishandle before you consider it a crime?
I notice all of your points against Trump have zero specific points attached. That is typical. You "don't have time" to recall even one specific case in point.
Does Trump exaggerate? Yes, he's famous for it. All politicians do. Are you as critical about Biden's outright lies?
Julie, it's not a question of whether I consider a given action a crime or not. It's a question whether the relevant legal institutions think a particular action is severe enough to warrant legal action. And as I've stated before, it's not the fact that some boxes with classified documents turned up in Trump's possession, after he left office. It's the subsequent actions related to them that's the problem. There is a massive difference between how Biden acted when said documents were discovered, and how Trump acted. The problem and cause for the legal action is in said actions. Not the fact that some documents accidentally didn't get handed over/back to the government as they should have been.
DeleteYou complain about me not bringing up any concrete points. A couple of links and quotes further down then. But is there anything pertaining to the following you deny concerning Trump?
- Misrepresenting facts?
- Praising people to the skies when he employs them, and then refer to them in purely negative terms when they don't agree with him or do what he wants them to do, and then fires them?
- His comments on NATO and the US either withdrawing from the agreement or not necessarily honoring it.
- His praise of various dictators and autocrats and critique of long term allies?
- His reference to soldiers/ex-POWs as "Loosers".
- His "put America first" politics that levy taxes on foreign goods, in order to protect US companies from international competition?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump
"In 2017 and in the first half of 2018, Trump repeatedly praised his personal attorney Michael Cohen as "a great lawyer," "a loyal, wonderful person," "a good man" and someone Trump "always liked" and "respected". In the second half of 2018, with Cohen testifying to federal investigations, Trump attacked Cohen as a "rat," "a weak person, and not a very smart person" and described Cohen as "a PR person who did small legal work, very small legal work ... He represented me very little".[204][207][208]"
https://apnews.com/article/94a611e48bcb373f55547d6dd14ea6d4
"When Jim Mattis announced his resignation as defense secretary, President Donald Trump thanked him for “tremendous progress” in helping to rebuild the military and for “retiring with distinction.” "
Vs.
"TRUMP: “Probably the only thing Barack Obama & I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world’s most overrated General.”"
https://freebeacon.com/politics/trump-praises-bolton-fantastic-doesnt-say-wont-fire-mueller/
"President Donald Trump praised his new National Security Adviser John Bolton during a meeting alongside senior military leadership and Vice President Mike Pence on Monday, saying that he will be a "fantastic representative" on his team. "He's highly respected by everybody in this room and John, I want to thank you very much," Trump said to Bolton, who served as United Nations ambassador during the George W. Bush administration. "This is going to be a lot of work. Interesting day. He picked today as his first day, so generals, I think he picked the right day, but certainly you're going to find it very exciting because you are going to do a fantastic job and I appreciate you joining us."
vs.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-he-used-moron-john-bolton-intimidate-foreign-leaders-1777081
"I found John Bolton to be one of the dumbest people in Government but, I am proud to say, I used him well," "Trump wrote. "A total & unhinged WARMONGER, the red faced 'boiler ready to explode' was one of those very stupid voices that got us into the Middle East quicksand, Seven Trillion Dollars, & Millions of deaths later, NOTHING!" the former president went on.""
I could undoubtedly dig up more crap Trump's said and contradicted himself on, but there's a limit to how much time I'm willing to dedicate to this. Especially as you undoubtedly already know of it, and have elected to ignore it, or class it as irrelevant to your opinion of Trump.
You just gave multiple examples of Trump being loyal to his people until they betray him, then hitting back hard after a betrayal. Admirable. He never did it unprovoked.
DeleteNo Julie. I just gave several examples of Trump talking big, and then being petty when faced with criticism from the same people he had previously pointed to as being the epitome of competence. Being loyal to people doesn't mean praising them to the sky one moment, and then dragging them into the mud the moment they disagree with you. Being loyal means sticking with them through the good and bad, even when they criticize you. Being able to have disagreements, and remain good colleagues or friends. It means protecting and helping the people you are loyal to.
DeleteAs you will likely disagree with me on the meaning of "loyalty", I'd love to hear your take on what said word means and stands for. Google suggests the following:
"a faithfulness
loyalty implies a faithfulness that is steadfast in the face of any temptation to renounce, desert, or betray. valued the loyalty of his friends. devotion stresses zeal and service amounting to self-dedication."
Also, you also skipped over answering my question as to whether or not you deny Trump having done the following?
- Misrepresenting facts?
- Praising people to the skies when he employs them, and then refer to them in purely negative terms when they don't agree with him or do what he wants them to do, and then fires them?
- His comments on NATO and the US either withdrawing from the agreement or not necessarily honoring it.
- His praise of various dictators and autocrats and critique of long term allies?
- His reference to soldiers/ex-POWs as "Loosers".
- His "put America first" politics that levy taxes on foreign goods, in order to protect US companies from international competition?
P.S.
You previously stated that the case "...is a farce designed to make Trump look bad and tie up his time and money at a key time in the election cycle."
Since the guilty verdict from the Stormy Daniels case has now been out for a few days, I assume that we can agree that a jury of 12 regular Americans, selected in accordance with US laws, and accepted by Trump's lawyers, found that, after sitting through weeks of testimony and evidence, defense, and cross-examinations, that there was sufficient evidence to support a guilty verdict in 34 of the 34 cases brought against him in this trial. So apparently the jury disagrees with you on the validity of the case.
I believe that you've previously argued about the underlying crime. This video has some commentary to that matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPEU-ze_C54
The relevant commentary in that regard from Scott Jennings starts at 4.29, and the related response to it from lawyer and former Trump supporter starts at 5.38.
There's no actual loyalty amongst these people. They're allies until they're enemies, both ways. Many of those people said EXTREMELY NASTY things about Trump before he hit them.
DeleteOf course Trump says untruths, as do virtually all (if not 100%?) of politicians. Two differences. One. The media focussed on Trump unrelentingly. Show me similar coverage of any Democrat's lies. Two, Trump's untruths are generally in the form of exagerations, salesman style. I find others' lies to be directionally 180d off. E.g., Biden saying he wishes to reduce inflation through the "Inflation Reduction Act". Or Biden saying he wants to close the border while keeping it wide open.
Re. NATO. I very much question the need for its existence after the Warsaw pact disbanded. It seems to be nothing but a force for American imperialistic evil now. But regardless, when Trump was saying those things it's straight out of "Art of the Deal". He was negotiating to get the other countries to pay more of their agreed on share and not stiff the US for their supposed protection. And it worked.
He speaks respectfully of world leaders because he knows the way to peace is through respectful negotiation, not belligerence, as he demonstrated during his tenure. You don't start a peace negotiation by insulting your counterpart, duh.
He never referred to soldiers or POW''s in general as losers. That is a hoax that you fell for. Very well debunked. He did say regarding John McCain, who was excessively nasty to him and helped push the treasonous Steele dossier, that everybody calls him a war hero for being locked up. He preferred war heros who weren't captured by the enemy right away. A bit of repartee. I was amused.
Re the tariffs, he put tariffs on countries that had blockers to American trade. That's how you start a negotiation to mutually bring down trade barriers on both sides.
The trial was a miscarriage, as it was always expected to be. The judge selected the jury. Trump's team had limited veto control that they exhausted in the face of an onslaught of Trump haters. There are dozens of very serious errors by the judge on which an appeal can be based.
Conway? Really? He's your go-to on this? I agree with the other guy. If he supposedly was covering up some other crime, why was he not charged and convicted of that other crime? Use your brain, Kyrel, don't just parrot Democrat mainstream media talking points.
Yea, all politicians distort and twist things. Trump's behavior in that regard has just been off the charts, when compared to other politicians. At least according to the people that actually dug into the question, and compared him with other politicians.
DeleteSouring a relationship is rarely a good way to start off a negotiation with anyone. And putting tariffs on a country typically just means that they put tariffs on you. Anyway, international trade deals are a complicated subject, but we really don't want to return to a state of isolationist countries trying to protect their home markets by keeping out international competition. It just leads to inferior and more expensive products for the customers.
Digging a bit in the "looser soldiers" story I will agree that there is no definitive proof. At least not any I found during my quick dig here. I did find a relatively objective story here though:
https://www.vox.com/2020/9/4/21422733/atlantic-trump-military-suckers-losers-explained
It contains the following IMO notable comment:
"As of this moment, it’s the word of a lot of trustworthy reporters relaying what unnamed people are saying against the word of untrustworthy people being openly clear about where they stand." The article is from 2020.
This article from 2023 https://www.axios.com/2023/10/02/trump-troops-fallen-soldiers-john-kelly however, cites John Kelly as effectively supporting that Trump did voice the view in question. Obviously that can be questioned as well, but John Kelly is a named source, and he worked closely with Trump for an extended period. So he's heard Trump say things off the record, and first hand. Question then is whether one believes him or not.
To be continued...
Conway happened to be the first guy I came across that directly commented on that particular issue. It was a random video I came across. Besides, the guy's a lawyer, he's a Republican, and he initially supported Trump back in '16. So if he's commenting on legal issues, I'm willing to hear his argument. And what was it really he was saying? That the jury wasn't tasked with finding evidence of an underlying crime. They were tasked with finding evidence of what Trump got indicted for. Nothing else. Given that Trump got convicted, it suggests that the legal system agrees with Conway on the matter. Had it been otherwise, I don't see how the case would have led to a conviction.
DeleteYou may find the trial unreasonable, but it was held in accordance with US law, and Trump got convicted by a jury selected in accordance with US law, who, after they sat through the trial, came to the conclusion that Trump was guilty of what he got charged with. And bear in mind that even if the DOJ chose to indict Trump on legally speaking questionable grounds, then they still needed to convince both a judge and 12 people on a jury, that the charge was solid. And the jury included two lawyers, as I understand it.
So unless you seriously believe that the US President, the DOJ, a judge, and a jury consisting of randomly called up Americans, all somehow conspired to get Trump convicted, then Trump got convicted in accordance with the law, and the charges against him held water. Regardless of what some Trump supporters think about them. Alternatively Trump's legal team fumbled the ball so badly that they effectively failed at their job. But did a billionaire really hire that incompetent a legal team?
In any case, Trump now gets his chances to try and appeal the outcome, and if there are plenty of serious errors committed by the judge during the trial, as you claim, then he should have no problem getting his appeal heard.
With regards to the veto rights, that is how the legal process works. For everyone in the US. Nobody gets an infinite number of vetos. Neither prosecution nor defense.
I'm sure that Trump would have preferred a jury consisting of only MAGA fanatics, and in the eyes of the law, such a jury would have been equally valid. It would, however, have been at least as unlikely to lead to an actually fair trial, as one with a jury consisting of hardened Democrats and anti-Trump fanatics. Fortunately neither situation was the case, to my knowledge.
As for the parroting accusation Julie, ask yourself if you can truthfully say that you don't cite sources from various media as well. We just don't pick the same sources to believe in.
The supposed "suckers and losers" quote is so stupid it's not the sort of thing you even begin to take seriously. Especially not in light of the hundreds of public statements by Trump that contradict that attitude. You should be ashamed of yourself for in any way believing it.
DeleteYou also believe the "40,000" lies hoax hook, line, and sinker. You are too easily manipulated because these talking points agree with your preconceived notions.
Conway has famously been a Trump-hater forever.
Yes, the trial was a farce because I can read and I have a brain. You sound like a naive child saying "if the legal system says it, it's gotta be true". I encourage you to find all the instances where the legal system has been abused in the past to cure you of your naïveté.
I still challenge you to state what supposed law Trump broke that elevates the records thing to a felony. And if you can identify it, then answer why it was never prosecuted. They try to get you by artificially adding complexity to confuse you. Don't let them. Get back to basics. Or at least listen to good legal scholars, even Democrat ones like Turkey or Dershowitz, not partisan MSNBC pundits.
Why are we going back to the "suckers and losers" issue now? I thought we left that topic behind further up.
DeleteEh, which "40,000" hoax? I'm failing to catch what you are referring to here. Might just be my memory here, but pls. elaborate a bit.
Not sure when Conway converted from Trump supporter to hater, I can't say that I follow the man. I did hear a video of him commenting that he supported Trump in '16, so obviously he came to dislike him after that point.
Julie, take up your disagreement with the trial with a US legal professional. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to waste my time trying to dig deep enough into US legal minutia, in order to debate this issue with you, on a level you can't brush off, because the conclusion goes against the MAGA talking points.
The objective fact is that Trump was charged with 34 counts of a felony, in accordance with US law, and subsequently got convicted for all 34 counts. That's indisputable by either of us.
You can keep arguing that the trial was a farce, and that the charges were only misdemeanors. But the US legal system agreed that the charges were felonies, and the jury convicted Trump of 34 of 34 counts, based on the evidence presented to them during the trial.
You want to argue that the trial was a scam, the burden of proof is on you.
"- Yes, the trial was a farce because I can read and I have a brain. You sound like a naive child saying "if the legal system says it, it's gotta be true". I encourage you to find all the instances where the legal system has been abused in the past to cure you of your naïveté."
And here I thought you wanted a civilized debate without personal attacks tsk tsk tsk. I could counter your attack on me with a claim that you similarly sound like a brainwashed cult member that has become unable to step back far enough to look at things objectively any longer. But how about we try to keep things civil, and just attack each other's arguments ;-)
Has there been travesties of justice over time? Sure. Once in a while you find a case where the outcome of a case becomes pretty questionable. I disagree that this is one of those cases. You undoubtedly disagree with this assessment.
But here's the thing. Unless the defense team was so incompetent that they couldn't sow doubt in the mind of a jury that this was an obviously wrongful case with no evidence to support a conviction, then one of the following two scenarios must be true:
A) Trump was correctly charged with a number of felonies, which he subsequently got convicted of.
B) the DOJ, the judge, the system calling in potential jury members, and the jury itself was corrupt and in a conspiracy to get Trump convicted.
While the legal team probably could have been better, they should have been able to poke holes in it, if it was as flawed as you argue. But between Trump being guilty as charged vs. the entire justice system is corrupt and conspired to get Trump convicted, I believe that Occam's Razor will point to Trump being guilty as most likely to be true.
You brought up the suckers and losers issue again (the last 3 paragraphs before "to be continued"). I countered it again. Don't think you're going to slide a freebie bye.
DeleteThe "40,000 lies" hoax.
Many, many, legal professionals have had scathing things to say about the trial (e.g, Dershowitz and Turley to name only the two most prominent Democrat critics). You say "the burden of proof is on me" but then when I offer the proof you claim you're not smart enough to understand it. I'll try once again.
The most basic proof is that the underlying crime has never been identified which is a 6A violation. Here is the very well respected liberal Yale constitutional law professor Jeb Rubenfeld making that point rather forcefully: https://youtu.be/u23t__ysVjU. If you don't watch that and respond seriously I'll know you're trolling.
And yes, B is accurate. The DA campaigned on getting Trump. They cherry-picked a jurisdiction where Biden got 85% of the vote. They got a judge who has made a political donation to a "Stop Trump" cause (against NY state policy) and whose daughter is a major Democrat fund raiser, literally raising funds off this case. Then the judge hamstrung the defense and let the prosecution run wild, including during jury selection. So, yes, B.
Suckers and loosers issue:
DeleteFair enough. My memory played a trick on me here. You don't believe Trump made such a statement, and you refer to his own and his staff claiming it as being untrue. However, we are ultimately left with the problem that the only people that actually "know" what Trump said in that regard, were the people that directly heard him say it. The rest of us are left having to pick who we find the more credible. A person with a clear reason to deny having said it, and the people directly working for him. Or a number of other people, some unnamed, some named and known to have worked directly with Trump, and with less personal reason to lie about it.
Jeb Rubenfeld vid.
Good link. I'll recommend reading this article as well: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/will-trump-conviction-be-overturned-appeal.html
Rubenfeld seems to argue three points primarily:
1) A felony conviction could cause “irreparable harm” to Trump and his effort to become president.
2) It could have been a case of “selective prosecution” by Bragg, who campaigned on convicting Trump.
3) The court may have violated Trump’s Sixth Amendment rights, which is that the accused must know what they are being accused of.
I agree that the case could potentially cause “irreparable harm” to Trump's election result, but similarly, not having a ruling on this and the other three cases Trump is facing at the moment, could similarly affect the outcome of the election in the reverse manner, which you could argue would be causing "irreparable harm" to Biden's campaign, and arguably the American voters, who are deprived their right of knowing whether or not they are possibly voting for a convicted criminal.
With regards to "selective prosecution", I suspect that will be a bit difficult to prove, because it's not like there's a lot of precedence for ex-presidents being charged with a felony. And again, even if Trump would not have been charged with this possible crime, if he had simply retired, I'll argue that the American voter has a right to know if Trump actually committed said crime or not.
To be continued...
As for Trump's right to know what he's being accused of, it's not like the prosecution didn't provide any indication of it.
DeleteContinuing...
They gave four different options that could form the foundation for it, and the judge agreed that they didn't have to limit it to one of them, according to NY law. He also allowed the jury to disagree on which of those possible cases might be the foundation for the actual accusation, which I personally think is fair enough, seeing as Trump wasn't charged with the underlying crime, and hence it was not what the jury should be determining.
"The DA campaigned on getting Trump":
Regardless of the DA's personal opinion on Trump, he still has to be able to build a case against him that holds water, and can be successfully prosecuted in a court of law. So that isn't overly relevant.
"They cherry-picked a jurisdiction where Biden got 85% of the vote.":
Isn't that just how the US legal system works, where the prosecution's job is to get convictions, rather than uncover the truth? Also, would you be arguing that the trial had been unfair and a scam, if the district had been 85% pro-Trump?
"They got a judge who has made a political donation to a "Stop Trump" cause (against NY state policy)":
Yea. A 35$ donation 4 years ago is obviously a problem...
From https://www.reuters.com/world/us/complaint-dismissed-against-trump-hush-money-judge-who-donated-biden-2024-05-17/: "Last year, Merchan denied Trump's first motion to get him to step aside, after a separate Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics said the modest, more than two-year-old contributions could not create an impression of bias or favoritism."
"daughter is a major Democrat fund raiser":
It's not my impression the law sees that as a particular problem in this regard. And honestly Julie, if you think it's a problem that Merchan's daughter raising money for the Democrats is a problem, then I assume you must be similarly up in arms over a Trump appointed judge presiding over the documents case Trump is facing. Especially given the favorable bias said Aileen Cannon has been showing towards Trump, so far in the process...
Rubenfeld spent most of the video on the 6A issue and was very adamant about it, as are many other constitutional law experts. What expertise do you possess, Kyrel, to argue against these experts? (do you see now how that works? If you don't like appeals to authority, stop using them).
DeleteIt's absurd that Trump is charged with falsifying records to cover up another crime, when those crimes were never adjudicated (and expert witnesses for the defense that would testify that none of the possibilities were crimes were not allowed to testify by the biased judge.)
The amount of the donation is not the issue. It's the bias in the mind of a man who feels so strongly about Trump that he will knowingly violate the rules to proactively make a contribution to a "Stop Trump" campaign. You'd be singing a different tune if a judge adjudicating a Trump case made a donation to Trump. I would not.
If you want a fair trial you hold it in a jurisdiction that is not 85% vehemently against him, and you exclude people with strong political views based on social media posts (which did not happen by the biased judge's order).
The premise of delaying the judgment is the high likelihood that it would be reversed on appeal, which creates the asymetry.
You're really swimming against the stream continuing to argue this clearly biased ruling.
Rubenfeld just put out another video on the selective prosecution where he says there is an almost exact analogue case which was not convicted: Hillary Clinton recording payments to a law firm to generate the Russiagate Steele Dossier which was adjudicated to be an illicit campaign contribution by the FEC and a penalty paid. NY DID NOT go after Hillary for that. Same records violation, better case, same year.
“What expertise do you possess, Kyrel, to argue against these experts?”
DeleteSince neither of us are experts in US Constitutional law, I’d argue that we have the same level of ability to comment on which interpretations of legal professionals we agree with, or if we believe that questions about such opinions can be raised.
“It's absurd that Trump is charged with falsifying records to cover up another crime, when those crimes were never adjudicated (and expert witnesses for the defense…were not allowed to testify...)”
Which expert witnesses were the defense prohibited from putting on the stand? So far my google-fu’s failing to find info on that.
You are free to find it absurd, but the court would seem to disagree with you on the issue at this point. We’ll see if the appeals court agrees with you or not.
“The amount of the donation is not the issue. It's the bias in the mind of a man…”
I agree with your point in principle, and I assume that you can similarly agree with me that Judge Aileen Cannon comparably shouldn’t be presiding over a case in which the man she owes her job to is on trial.
“If you want a fair trial you hold it in a jurisdiction that is not 85% vehemently against him, and you exclude people with strong political views based on social media posts”
I doubt you were in the room when the jury selection took place, so I find it unlikely that you have any actual, direct knowledge of which jury member have which views. Fact is that the jury was selected in accordance with US/NY law.
I agree it would have been better if neither judge nor jury had ever heard of Donald Trump, but that’s not how US law works, and I doubt you could realistically find such a jury in all of the US. Even if you tried.
“The premise of delaying the judgment is the high likelihood that it would be reversed on appeal, which creates the asymetry.”
You’re guessing on the probability of a reversal Julie. And that’s just how the law works in the US. Similarly there’s a real chance that it would affect the outcome of the election, if all four of Trump’s trials had been concluded before the election in November. But unfortunately the ability to draw out the trials is also how US law works.
“Rubenfeld on Clinton situation”
I agree that this sounds very similar, and maybe Hillary should have been prosecuted for that as well. The devil’s in the detail I imagine. I don’t currently recall what exactly the “Steele Dossier” was, so I don’t really have a good basis to compare the cases right now.
Exactly. No appeals to authority, including the appeal to the ridiculous standard that the Justice system always gets it right.
DeleteAs far as judge cannon goes, I don't know the details of her appointment, but note I did not use that argument for Merchant. Had judge cannon made a donation to "I hate Biden" and Biden was on trial, that would have been analogous.
The expert on federal election law was Brad Smith. Just shows you weren't following the case and therefore really ought not to have such a strong opinion.
Jury selection is done by the judge with lawyers having certain veto abilities to a point based on real grounds. Merchant disallowed their social media history (!) as grounds. The reason you don't do it in an 85% jurisdiction is the real chance of flooding the selection with trump haters. Do it in a 50-50 disctrict instead, seems simple enough.
It's not a guess, it's a calculation based on expert testimony such as Prof Rubenfeld, Prof. Dershowitz, Prof. Turley, the three foremost constitutional law experts in the country who agree with me and whom you dismiss out of hand because they disagree with your biases.
The Steele Dossier is a wholly manufactured "spy report" that claims Donald Trump is a Russian asset. The Clinton campaign paid to have it created through a law firm in 2016. The ex British spy who wrote it was named Steele, paid for by the law firm. The FBI used it as a pretext to tap the phones of the Trump campaign, and later they used it as the predicate for the Russiagate special counsel which hamstrung the president so badly for 3 years. It all proved to be 100% nonsense. These are the sort of people you support, Kyrel.
It's ridiculous that your news sources have failed you so badly that you don't know anything about the Steele dossier. It's kind of disqualifying, Kyrel. Educate yourself.
Why do you object to Merchan Julie? Because you believe that he’s shown bias against Trump. If you look at the actual rulings and their effects in the documents case, presided over by Aileen Cannon, there seems to be a rather strong suggestion of a pro-Trump bias with her. If the goal is objective and fair trials, I would expect that you can agree that she’s a potential problem, if you dig into that case. So in that respect the potential bias issue is analogous.
Delete“The expert on federal election law was Brad Smith.”
Brad Smith wasn’t bared from testifying. The defense chose not to call him, when the judge declined to broaden the scope of questioning the defense could pursue. (https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-brad-smith-testify-trump-trial-907236056289) That’s not the same thing.
“It's not a guess, it's a calculation”
Let’s call it a calculation then. Maybe your sources are right Julie. But two very experienced constitutional specialists argued that Trump probably shouldn’t even be allowed to be on the presidential ballot, based on the Constitution. And yet the Supreme Court elected to prevent the different States from removing Trump from the ballot in their State, as I recall/understood the ruling.
“Steele Dossier”
Give me a break Julie. The Steele Dossier was a matter that ultimately amounted to a big load of nothing, in a, for me, foreign country that’s virtually on the other side of the planet. And it’s 4+ years back. I recalled the name, but not the particulars, because the case doesn’t really have much, if any, direct relevance to me.
If it was a fabricated witch hunt, created in bad faith, I agree that it was a problem. But if the FBI found the initial claims credible, I don’t really think they can be faulted for investigating if the sitting President of the United States, had problematic connections to Russia. I’d have been more horrified if they didn’t check up on something like that.
“Jury selection”
I admit that I’m having a problem finding references to Merchan having disallowed social media history as grounds for dismissal, but a copy of the Juror Questionnaire can be seen here: https://www.npr.org/2024/04/09/1243711228/jury-questionnaire-trump-hush-money-trial
With a person like Trump it’s always going to be a problem to find someone that hasn’t heard of him, discussed him, or has an opinion of him. Especially since he’s been President of the US, and is a pretty divisive figure. The questionnaire at least seems to try to get rid of the most obviously biased and pro-/anti-Trump individuals. And again, Trump’s lawyers did have their say in the jury selection process, just as the prosecution had.
Give me a specific action by Cannon that you feel is legally incorrect. You failed to do that.
DeleteThe Brad Smith thing was a test for you Kyrel. I wanted to see if you would just regurgitate the MSNBC talking point without any critical thinking, and you did.
Re. The Steele dossier, the Trump thing we are arguing about happened in 2008 and then in 2016. The Steele dossier is relevant here because it's a directly comparable thing that proves selective prosecution of Trump.
The FBI did not find the claims credible. The proof is that they lied on the FISA applications about what they knew because otherwise no judge would have granted the wiretap.
Your notion of jury selection is naive, Kyrel.
Cannon: Go dig for yourself. I don't have time to dig around for good links right now. But you can start with this one: https://www.salon.com/2024/03/21/very-very-troubling-ex-worry-cannons-pro-rulings-clearly-suggest-bias/
DeleteBrad Smith: I took the first link that came up on the question on Google. In this case apnews.com. And just because it's mentioned on MSNBC or FOX News, it doesn't mean it's wrong. If you want to convince me that Brad Smith was actually prevented from being called onto the witness stand by the judge, find me an objective quote that actually supports that view. Preferably a direct quote from judge Merchan's ruling on the issue.
Steele Dossier: If it's selective prosecution, then Trump can use it to get his appeal through.
Jury Selection: Why exactly do you believe me naive here? Because I conclude that the jury was selected in accordance with US law? Or why exactly?
I think I finally managed to find a useful reference to your comment about the judge preventing social media posts from being used to disqualify potential jurors. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/18/trump-jury-hush-money-social-media/
But if this is somewhat correct, then the judge didn't issue a blanket statement about using social media posts as a reason to disqualify, but ruled on individual posts presented by the defense as possibly disqualifying. The article refers to one person getting dismissed due to a SoMe post, but otherwise only states that the judge tended more towards the prosecutions view on what constituted an expression of negative bias towards Trump. Without seeing the actual objections that were ruled on, it'll be rather difficult to discuss the issue beyond the general level.
That Salon (ahem) article throws up a bunch of things without going into any specifics. Typical hit piece. No, Kyrel, you don't get off that easy. You say she's very biased, what action of hers leads you to say that?
DeleteFrom Brad Smith himself on X:
"Judge Merchan has so restricted my testimony that defense has decided not to call me". The test I gave you, Kyrel, is that while he would have been allowed to testify, Merchant ruled he couldn't testify about his area of expertise, election law, which was his sole purpose in being there, and critically important to the case as Trump was supposedly charged with election law violations (which is bogus, as Smith would have testified).. Just wanted to see if you would parrot the narrative "but he was allowed to testify" without applying critical thinking.
He will use that for selective prosecution argument, and it's very convincing, that was my point.
You are naive because you don't separate was is lawful from what is fair.
Well, Summer happened, so I failed to come back to this exchange of views before now. As we've both probably moved on here, I'll make this comment short.
DeleteJudge Cannon:
Sorry Julie, but I don't care to waste my time digging through her various rulings. You can do that on your own, if you see fit. I've zero doubt that you'll find a way to justify every decision she's made, that favors Trump in one way or another.
Brad Smith:
Let Trump use it as an argument for selective prosecution. If the argument holds water, he'll get his appeal. If not, then the people he needs to convince disagrees with him, and the rest of us can think what we will.
Naivety:
Being naive or not has nothing to do with the question of what is objectively lawful vs. what is subjectively fair. We can objectively discuss matters of law. But we can only exchange views on what we think is fair or not.
You are free to call me naive, if you think I just believe in anything, without giving it a second thought. But you don't get to call me naive on account of me electing to disassociate the matter of whether something is "fair" or not, from the question of whether a particular judge's decision is in accordance with the law or not.
I note your continued insistence the judge is biased while providing zero evidence of it, basing your opinion only on left wing media reports. I gracefully accept your defeat on this point.
DeleteI also accept that you seem to agree that what is transpiring is "legal" but unfair.