djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2024 20:29:08 GMT -5
I thought a Judge's gag order in a case applies to all people involved in the case. Why can Cohen and others make podcasts and disparaging statements and get interviewed by the press and Trump has to keep quite? Just wondering
I doubt a rouge individual would threaten or harm a juror, a member of the court staff or the family of the judge over what Michael Cohen says. he's more orange than rouge.
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,356
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Apr 23, 2024 20:51:40 GMT -5
I thought a Judge's gag order in a case applies to all people involved in the case. Why can Cohen and others make podcasts and disparaging statements and get interviewed by the press and Trump has to keep quite? Just wondering
You thought and thought and thought. Why don't you investigate first before you post. Jesus Friggin' Christ. Cohen and others are not defendants. Only trump. You're wrong. A "gag order" is the term for when a judge prohibits the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking about the case to the public. So it should apply to everyone. So why only Trump? If they can say bad things why can't Trump do it to them?? Violation of his 1st amendment rights.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 23, 2024 21:18:40 GMT -5
rip- keep in mind that criminal defendants can, and often do, have their first amendment rights limited.
he does NOT have a first amendment right to intimidate the jury or witnesses. nobody does. stop parroting Trump.
did Cohen intimidate witnesses or the jury? i might have missed that, but if he did, then he should be held to the same standard as Trump.
|
|
dondubble
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 6, 2023 16:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 212
|
Post by dondubble on Apr 23, 2024 21:32:17 GMT -5
You thought and thought and thought. Why don't you investigate first before you post. Jesus Friggin' Christ. Cohen and others are not defendants. Only trump. You're wrong. A "gag order" is the term for when a judge prohibits the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking about the case to the public. So it should apply to everyone. So why only Trump? If they can say bad things why can't Trump do it to them?? Violation of his 1st amendment rights.
Get a f’in clue Rip. Geez.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 23, 2024 22:21:55 GMT -5
You thought and thought and thought. Why don't you investigate first before you post. Jesus Friggin' Christ. Cohen and others are not defendants. Only trump. You're wrong. A "gag order" is the term for when a judge prohibits the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking about the case to the public. So it should apply to everyone. So why only Trump? If they can say bad things why can't Trump do it to them?? Violation of his 1st amendment rights.
Before you sound more uninformed than you already are, research and get back to us and tell us why the judge put trump under a gag order.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 24, 2024 7:16:05 GMT -5
Poor baby donald. I'm pretty sure ripvanwinkle will find something illegal regarding protesters not allowed to protest too. We have seen what trump-directed protests can do. Example: January 6, 2021. 'SO UNFAIR!!!’: Trump complains protesters can’t demonstrate near trial—days after man self-immolated outside courthouse'America Loving Protesters should be allowed to protest at the front steps of Courthouses...' Former President Donald Trump complained on Monday that his supporters can’t demonstrate near the New York courthouse where his hush money trial is taking place, saying “America Loving Protesters should be allowed to protest at the front steps of Courthouses.” But Trump neglected to mention a man had self-immolated outside the courthouse just days prior—and that nearby protests had previously been permitted. While condemning the anti-Israel protests that have swept Columbia University, Trump argued that it is unfair that those protesters are allowed to demonstrate while his supporters face restrictions. The escalating situation at Columbia prompted the university to switch to remote classes after efforts to clear an encampment zone in the center of campus by New York Police Department officers clad in riot gear failed, despite over 100 arrests being made. “Why are Palestinian protesters, and even rioters, allowed to roam the Cities, scream, shout, sit, block traffic, enter buildings, not get permits, and basically do whatever they want including threatening Supreme Court Justices right in front of their homes, and yet people who truly LOVE our Country, and want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, are not allowed to ‘Peacefully Protest,’ and are rudely and systematically shut down and ushered off to far away ‘holding areas,’ essentially denying them their Constitutional Rights,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. In a separate post, Trump highlighted a Washington Examiner story detailing clashes between protesters at Columbia and Jewish students, saying: “Look at this story. Hamas Protests. But why aren’t Country Loving Republicans allowed to peacefully protest around the Courthouse, where I am right now. It’s like an armed camp. MAGA2024!” Rest of trump's whiney complaints here: ‘SO UNFAIR!!!’: Trump complains protesters can’t demonstrate near trial—days after man self-immolated outside courthouse
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 24, 2024 7:26:41 GMT -5
The Borowitz Report
Millions Cancel Subscriptions to National Enquirer After Learning Its Stories May Not be TrueAPR 24, 2024 NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—In a development that has rocked the news industry, The National Enquirer has lost millions of subscribers amid revelations that some of its stories might not be factual. After Donald J. Trump’s hush money trial exposed the Enquirer’s inner workings, the newspaper’s reputation for unimpeachable journalism suffered a severe blow, media insiders say. Harland Dorrinson, an Enquirer subscriber for over thirty years, said discovering that the weekly periodical was not a dependable information source was “a gut punch.” “In a complex and confusing world, I always felt that there was one news outlet that could make sense of it all,” he said. “That’s been stolen from me.” If the Enquirer distorted its coverage to support Trump’s election in 2016, Dorrinson wondered, “Does that mean Hillary Clinton wasn’t really dying? Or that she didn’t delete emails from her multiple lesbian lovers? Or that Bill Clinton didn’t have a sex romp in a pickup truck that was caught on video? Now I don’t know what to believe.” The longtime subscriber said that the Enquirer’s sudden loss of credibility would force him to seek reliable reporting elsewhere, adding, “I guess I’ll give Fox a shot.” Millions Cancel Subscriptions to National Enquirer After Learning Its Stories May Not be True
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,510
|
Post by tbop77 on Apr 24, 2024 9:41:38 GMT -5
“ Spoiler alert: There’s nothing wrong with trying to influence this election. It’s called democracy.” through fraud? um....yeah there is. edit: i have been thinking about this all afternoon. he basically threw the case away with this comment, imo. he admitted that it was election interference before they even called the first witness. what he should have said is that there is nothing illegal about trying to hide your indiscretions. but since he has not admitted to indiscretions, he could not do that, either. i think Trump has backed himself into a corner. if he did nothing wrong, then why hush it? if he did something wrong, but was NOT trying to hide it from the public, why not just admit it and get it out in the open? if he was trying to hide it from his wife, why would he care about the timing of it? i think he has given the whole game away. and i think that any reasonable jury will think so, as well. this might be over in May. I thought the same thing! Trying to influence an election is democracy. Isn't that what Trump whines about all the time, this trial is to influence the election? I was baffled when he made that in his opening statement.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
|
Post by swamp on Apr 24, 2024 9:44:44 GMT -5
I thought a Judge's gag order in a case applies to all people involved in the case. Why can Cohen and others make podcasts and disparaging statements and get interviewed by the press and Trump has to keep quite? Just wondering
Cohen is not the defendant and the court has no power over him. Do you even think these questions through?
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,327
|
Post by swamp on Apr 24, 2024 9:45:52 GMT -5
You thought and thought and thought. Why don't you investigate first before you post. Jesus Friggin' Christ. Cohen and others are not defendants. Only trump. You're wrong. A "gag order" is the term for when a judge prohibits the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking about the case to the public. So it should apply to everyone. So why only Trump? If they can say bad things why can't Trump do it to them?? Violation of his 1st amendment rights.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,270
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Apr 24, 2024 10:19:58 GMT -5
You're wrong. A "gag order" is the term for when a judge prohibits the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking about the case to the public. So it should apply to everyone. So why only Trump? If they can say bad things why can't Trump do it to them?? Violation of his 1st amendment rights.
::pats head:: Come on now Swamp you know you are just a little woman and a liberal to boot. You with your fancy high flautin' law degree just don't understand the rules like Rip does. You need to be grateful he's here to mansplain them for you.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 24, 2024 13:39:11 GMT -5
You thought and thought and thought. Why don't you investigate first before you post. Jesus Friggin' Christ. Cohen and others are not defendants. Only trump. You're wrong. A "gag order" is the term for when a judge prohibits the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking about the case to the public. So it should apply to everyone. So why only Trump? If they can say bad things why can't Trump do it to them?? Violation of his 1st amendment rights.
Are you pretending you don't know he's putting out hits on the judge, jury and prosecutors?
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Apr 24, 2024 14:28:03 GMT -5
Omg. This one really got me laughing.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 24, 2024 14:35:35 GMT -5
Omg. This one really got me laughing.
|
|
moon/Laura
Administrator
Forum Owner
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:05:36 GMT -5
Posts: 10,043
Mini-Profile Text Color: f8fb10
|
Post by moon/Laura on Apr 24, 2024 15:26:16 GMT -5
Omg. This one really got me laughing. Is farting part of praying? I heard he did that a couple of times, too. What an embarrassment.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 24, 2024 15:34:32 GMT -5
Team Trump Is Ready to Lose the Supreme Court Immunity Case. They're CelebratingDonald Trump's inner circle doesn't expect the Supreme Court to go along with his extreme arguments about executive power in the immunity case before the justices. But what the high court does now is almost beside the point: Trump already won. Three people with direct knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone that many of the former president's lawyers and political advisers have already accepted that the justices will likely rule against him, and reject his claims to expansive presidential immunity in perpetuity. Bringing the case before the court - after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., shut down their arguments on executive power - was a delaying tactic designed to push Trump's criminal election subversion trial past Election Day this fall. The strategy paid off so much more than MAGAworld anticipated. "We already pulled off the heist," says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn't matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now. Trump's lawyers and other confidants had widely expected - and had told the former president as much - that the court maneuver would delay the election subversion trial, but perhaps only to around the summer. For months, Trump attorneys were actively preparing themselves and their client to face a trial, over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the violent Jan. 6 assault at the U.S. Capitol, right around the time of the Republican Party's nominating convention, the sources add. If the federal trial were to proceed during this election year, much of Team Trump had predicted it would be significantly more damaging politically to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee than, for instance, his ongoing criminal hush-money trial in Manhattan. Rest of article here: Team Trump Is Ready to Lose the Supreme Court Immunity Case. They're Celebrating
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 24, 2024 16:31:35 GMT -5
Hopefully, ripvanwinkle reads the whole article. Especially the last paragraph which is at the bottom of the linked article. Can Trump get a fair trial?
Donald Trump says he can't get a fair trial in heavily Democratic Manhattan as his hush money case starts Former President Donald Trump's first criminal trial got underway Monday with opening arguments and the first witness testimony in a Manhattan courtroom. Prosecutors said that shortly before the 2016 election Trump ordered "hush money" payments to a porn star who claimed she had an affair with him years earlier, then tried to cover up the payments by falsifying business records. As he arrived at the trial, which Politico described as "indisputably historic," Trump said the case was "election interference" intended to derail his 2024 bid to win back the White House from President Joe Biden. Jury selection got off to a bumpy start last week, as dozens in the first batch of 96 potential jurors were weeded out after saying they couldn't be fair to the twice-impeached former president. One seated juror was replaced over old anti-Trump social media posts. Judge Juan Merchan admonished Trump for making audible comments about a prospective juror, warning that he would not have "jurors intimidated in this courtroom." By the end of the week, though, Merchan declared, "We have our jury," and swore in 12 jurors and six alternates who vowed to be "fair and impartial." Trump has pleaded not guilty in what The New York Times noted was the "first criminal trial of an American president." He has repeatedly denied having sex with the adult-film actress, Stormy Daniels. He is accused of telling his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to pay Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet so the scandal wouldn't damage his 2016 presidential campaign. Once in office, prosecutors say, Trump reimbursed Cohen in 12 installments but covered up the scheme by describing the checks to his then-lawyer as payments for ongoing legal services. Trump has repeatedly blasted District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case as a political "witch hunt." He also has accused Merchan of bias, and complained he can't get a fair trial in heavily Democratic New York City, arguing that any jury picked there would be biased against him. Will Trump's trial be fair? Rest of article (including the last paragraph of it) here : Can Trump get a fair trial?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2024 16:36:55 GMT -5
You're wrong. A "gag order" is the term for when a judge prohibits the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking about the case to the public. So it should apply to everyone. So why only Trump? If they can say bad things why can't Trump do it to them?? Violation of his 1st amendment rights.
Are you pretending you don't know he's putting out hits on the judge, jury and prosecutors? i hate to do this, because it seems like i am siding with MAGA here, but i feel compelled to respond. MAGA has been behaving in a certain way for nearly a decade now. they treat outsiders with extreme disrespect that comes off as hostile. and this has just become the NORM for them. so, when Trump does it, they (and i need to qualify "they", which i will do, below) don't see it as weird, threatening, unusual, or possibly illegal. it is as normal as breathing to them. when i say "they", however, i mean the people that are just in it for the fun, the humor, or the "fuck-you-ee-ness" of being MAGA. they would never march on the capital, or beat up a liberal, or do anything stupid to ruin their quiet little MAGA lives. unfortunately, there is a subset of MAGA which is not "they". that subset is absolutely down with all of the above behaviour. they are the folks that stormed the capital. they are the guy who bashed in Peolsi's head. they are the guys and gals planning thwarted attacks. and, unfortunately, "they" don't seem to understand that they exist, or even identify with them. "they" think that they are ANTIFA or something. so when Trump says things like he does, "they" don't understand how it is a threat, because "they" talk that way to their family, friends, coworkers, and other MAGA. it seems fine to them, even though it is not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2024 16:39:19 GMT -5
Team Trump Is Ready to Lose the Supreme Court Immunity Case. They're CelebratingDonald Trump's inner circle doesn't expect the Supreme Court to go along with his extreme arguments about executive power in the immunity case before the justices. But what the high court does now is almost beside the point: Trump already won. Three people with direct knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone that many of the former president's lawyers and political advisers have already accepted that the justices will likely rule against him, and reject his claims to expansive presidential immunity in perpetuity. Bringing the case before the court - after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., shut down their arguments on executive power - was a delaying tactic designed to push Trump's criminal election subversion trial past Election Day this fall. The strategy paid off so much more than MAGAworld anticipated. "We already pulled off the heist," says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn't matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now. Trump's lawyers and other confidants had widely expected - and had told the former president as much - that the court maneuver would delay the election subversion trial, but perhaps only to around the summer. For months, Trump attorneys were actively preparing themselves and their client to face a trial, over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the violent Jan. 6 assault at the U.S. Capitol, right around the time of the Republican Party's nominating convention, the sources add. If the federal trial were to proceed during this election year, much of Team Trump had predicted it would be significantly more damaging politically to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee than, for instance, his ongoing criminal hush-money trial in Manhattan. Rest of article here: Team Trump Is Ready to Lose the Supreme Court Immunity Case. They're Celebrating i am not sure it works that way. it doesn't need to be decided before the election. the trial needs to start before the election. that will put all of this madness on display at the most critical part of the cycle. i actually think that is LIKELY to happen.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,413
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 24, 2024 17:14:51 GMT -5
Team Trump Is Ready to Lose the Supreme Court Immunity Case. They're CelebratingDonald Trump's inner circle doesn't expect the Supreme Court to go along with his extreme arguments about executive power in the immunity case before the justices. But what the high court does now is almost beside the point: Trump already won. Three people with direct knowledge of the matter tell Rolling Stone that many of the former president's lawyers and political advisers have already accepted that the justices will likely rule against him, and reject his claims to expansive presidential immunity in perpetuity. Bringing the case before the court - after a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., shut down their arguments on executive power - was a delaying tactic designed to push Trump's criminal election subversion trial past Election Day this fall. The strategy paid off so much more than MAGAworld anticipated. "We already pulled off the heist," says a source close to Trump, noting it doesn't matter to them what the Supreme Court decides now. Trump's lawyers and other confidants had widely expected - and had told the former president as much - that the court maneuver would delay the election subversion trial, but perhaps only to around the summer. For months, Trump attorneys were actively preparing themselves and their client to face a trial, over his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and his role in the violent Jan. 6 assault at the U.S. Capitol, right around the time of the Republican Party's nominating convention, the sources add. If the federal trial were to proceed during this election year, much of Team Trump had predicted it would be significantly more damaging politically to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee than, for instance, his ongoing criminal hush-money trial in Manhattan. Rest of article here: Team Trump Is Ready to Lose the Supreme Court Immunity Case. They're Celebrating i am not sure it works that way. it doesn't need to be decided before the election. the trial needs to start before the election. that will put all of this madness on display at the most critical part of the cycle. i actually think that is LIKELY to happen. I believe the judge gave them 9 months to prepare, and the clock didn’t start until after the Supreme Court either heard or decides the case - I’m not sure which. But 9 months from now is past the election, and even past the inauguration.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2024 18:38:39 GMT -5
i am not sure it works that way. it doesn't need to be decided before the election. the trial needs to start before the election. that will put all of this madness on display at the most critical part of the cycle. i actually think that is LIKELY to happen. I believe the judge gave them 9 months to prepare, and the clock didn’t start until after the Supreme Court either heard or decides the case - I’m not sure which. But 9 months from now is past the election, and even past the inauguration. my understanding is that they had already had some time to prepare. the clock had started, then was stopped. i think it goes to trial before YE. but please, correct me if i am wrong. a link would be helpful.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 6,999
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Apr 24, 2024 19:02:31 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 24, 2024 19:27:04 GMT -5
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,382
Member is Online
|
Post by NastyWoman on Apr 24, 2024 19:41:01 GMT -5
Unfortunately, according to a Reuters report, the indictment does not include "a former US president who was a co- conspirator". But maybe because of the co-conspirator designation there still is some hope? If not, well you can't win them all
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,356
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Apr 24, 2024 20:31:32 GMT -5
You're wrong. A "gag order" is the term for when a judge prohibits the attorneys, parties, or witnesses in a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking about the case to the public. So it should apply to everyone. So why only Trump? If they can say bad things why can't Trump do it to them?? Violation of his 1st amendment rights.
Are you pretending you don't know he's putting out hits on the judge, jury and prosecutors? LOL. I want some what you've been smoking. Show me the proof he has put out death hits on the judge, jury and prosecutors. You've been watching MSDNC TV news to much.
|
|
ripvanwinkle
Well-Known Member
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke 1729 -1797
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 22:36:42 GMT -5
Posts: 1,356
|
Post by ripvanwinkle on Apr 24, 2024 20:44:50 GMT -5
Hopefully, ripvanwinkle reads the whole article. Especially the last paragraph which is at the bottom of the linked article. Can Trump get a fair trial?
Donald Trump says he can't get a fair trial in heavily Democratic Manhattan as his hush money case starts Former President Donald Trump's first criminal trial got underway Monday with opening arguments and the first witness testimony in a Manhattan courtroom. Prosecutors said that shortly before the 2016 election Trump ordered "hush money" payments to a porn star who claimed she had an affair with him years earlier, then tried to cover up the payments by falsifying business records. As he arrived at the trial, which Politico described as "indisputably historic," Trump said the case was "election interference" intended to derail his 2024 bid to win back the White House from President Joe Biden. Jury selection got off to a bumpy start last week, as dozens in the first batch of 96 potential jurors were weeded out after saying they couldn't be fair to the twice-impeached former president. One seated juror was replaced over old anti-Trump social media posts. Judge Juan Merchan admonished Trump for making audible comments about a prospective juror, warning that he would not have "jurors intimidated in this courtroom." By the end of the week, though, Merchan declared, "We have our jury," and swore in 12 jurors and six alternates who vowed to be "fair and impartial." Trump has pleaded not guilty in what The New York Times noted was the "first criminal trial of an American president." He has repeatedly denied having sex with the adult-film actress, Stormy Daniels. He is accused of telling his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to pay Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet so the scandal wouldn't damage his 2016 presidential campaign. Once in office, prosecutors say, Trump reimbursed Cohen in 12 installments but covered up the scheme by describing the checks to his then-lawyer as payments for ongoing legal services. Trump has repeatedly blasted District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case as a political "witch hunt." He also has accused Merchan of bias, and complained he can't get a fair trial in heavily Democratic New York City, arguing that any jury picked there would be biased against him. Will Trump's trial be fair? Rest of article (including the last paragraph of it) here : Can Trump get a fair trial?I read the article and the last paragraph but it didn't change my mind and I found this paragraph the most telling. "It's wishful thinking to expect Trump to "get a trial most people will accept as fair," said Henry Olsen in The Telegraph. Manhattan is "one of the most Democratic and liberal counties in the country," so the jury pool was polluted. Bragg has made "repeated statements" making it clear he was out to get Trump any way he could. And Merchan refused to recuse himself even though he "donated to Biden's 2020 campaign and his daughter is a Democratic political consultant." No wonder "Trump supporters view this prosecution as grounded in politics, not law."
This trial should have been moved to another venue. Another Judge.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2024 21:02:22 GMT -5
Are you pretending you don't know he's putting out hits on the judge, jury and prosecutors? LOL. I want some what you've been smoking. Show me the proof he has put out death hits on the judge, jury and prosecutors. You've been watching MSDNC TV news to much. i want some credit for anticipating this response. and you, rip, should read my post. it is just a little up the page.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,147
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 24, 2024 21:04:24 GMT -5
Hopefully, ripvanwinkle reads the whole article. Especially the last paragraph which is at the bottom of the linked article. Can Trump get a fair trial?
Donald Trump says he can't get a fair trial in heavily Democratic Manhattan as his hush money case starts Former President Donald Trump's first criminal trial got underway Monday with opening arguments and the first witness testimony in a Manhattan courtroom. Prosecutors said that shortly before the 2016 election Trump ordered "hush money" payments to a porn star who claimed she had an affair with him years earlier, then tried to cover up the payments by falsifying business records. As he arrived at the trial, which Politico described as "indisputably historic," Trump said the case was "election interference" intended to derail his 2024 bid to win back the White House from President Joe Biden. Jury selection got off to a bumpy start last week, as dozens in the first batch of 96 potential jurors were weeded out after saying they couldn't be fair to the twice-impeached former president. One seated juror was replaced over old anti-Trump social media posts. Judge Juan Merchan admonished Trump for making audible comments about a prospective juror, warning that he would not have "jurors intimidated in this courtroom." By the end of the week, though, Merchan declared, "We have our jury," and swore in 12 jurors and six alternates who vowed to be "fair and impartial." Trump has pleaded not guilty in what The New York Times noted was the "first criminal trial of an American president." He has repeatedly denied having sex with the adult-film actress, Stormy Daniels. He is accused of telling his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to pay Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet so the scandal wouldn't damage his 2016 presidential campaign. Once in office, prosecutors say, Trump reimbursed Cohen in 12 installments but covered up the scheme by describing the checks to his then-lawyer as payments for ongoing legal services. Trump has repeatedly blasted District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case as a political "witch hunt." He also has accused Merchan of bias, and complained he can't get a fair trial in heavily Democratic New York City, arguing that any jury picked there would be biased against him. Will Trump's trial be fair? Rest of article (including the last paragraph of it) here : Can Trump get a fair trial?I read the article and the last paragraph but it didn't change my mind and I found this paragraph the most telling. "It's wishful thinking to expect Trump to "get a trial most people will accept as fair," said Henry Olsen in The Telegraph. Manhattan is "one of the most Democratic and liberal counties in the country," so the jury pool was polluted. Bragg has made "repeated statements" making it clear he was out to get Trump any way he could. And Merchan refused to recuse himself even though he "donated to Biden's 2020 campaign and his daughter is a Democratic political consultant." No wonder "Trump supporters view this prosecution as grounded in politics, not law."
This trial should have been moved to another venue. Another Judge.
no, the defendant should be moved to a jail cell, and cut off from the internet. question for you rip- how much influence to your kid's politics have over yours? i know a lot of parents, and NONE of them tell me more than "very little". most say "none". i would also add that working for the DNC doesn't make you a Democrat, but i know that is probably tough for you to swallow.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,902
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 24, 2024 21:06:17 GMT -5
Unfortunately, according to a Reuters report, the indictment does not include "a former US president who was a co- conspirator". But maybe because of the co-conspirator designation there still is some hope? If not, well you can't win them all I wonder if they’re waiting for the SCOTUS to decide if Trump has immunity from everything he did while president before they indict him?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,515
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 24, 2024 21:17:33 GMT -5
Hopefully, ripvanwinkle reads the whole article. Especially the last paragraph which is at the bottom of the linked article. Can Trump get a fair trial?
Donald Trump says he can't get a fair trial in heavily Democratic Manhattan as his hush money case starts Former President Donald Trump's first criminal trial got underway Monday with opening arguments and the first witness testimony in a Manhattan courtroom. Prosecutors said that shortly before the 2016 election Trump ordered "hush money" payments to a porn star who claimed she had an affair with him years earlier, then tried to cover up the payments by falsifying business records. As he arrived at the trial, which Politico described as "indisputably historic," Trump said the case was "election interference" intended to derail his 2024 bid to win back the White House from President Joe Biden. Jury selection got off to a bumpy start last week, as dozens in the first batch of 96 potential jurors were weeded out after saying they couldn't be fair to the twice-impeached former president. One seated juror was replaced over old anti-Trump social media posts. Judge Juan Merchan admonished Trump for making audible comments about a prospective juror, warning that he would not have "jurors intimidated in this courtroom." By the end of the week, though, Merchan declared, "We have our jury," and swore in 12 jurors and six alternates who vowed to be "fair and impartial." Trump has pleaded not guilty in what The New York Times noted was the "first criminal trial of an American president." He has repeatedly denied having sex with the adult-film actress, Stormy Daniels. He is accused of telling his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to pay Daniels $130,000 to keep quiet so the scandal wouldn't damage his 2016 presidential campaign. Once in office, prosecutors say, Trump reimbursed Cohen in 12 installments but covered up the scheme by describing the checks to his then-lawyer as payments for ongoing legal services. Trump has repeatedly blasted District Attorney Alvin Bragg's case as a political "witch hunt." He also has accused Merchan of bias, and complained he can't get a fair trial in heavily Democratic New York City, arguing that any jury picked there would be biased against him. Will Trump's trial be fair? Rest of article (including the last paragraph of it) here : Can Trump get a fair trial?I read the article and the last paragraph but it didn't change my mind and I found this paragraph the most telling. "It's wishful thinking to expect Trump to "get a trial most people will accept as fair," said Henry Olsen in The Telegraph. Manhattan is "one of the most Democratic and liberal counties in the country," so the jury pool was polluted. Bragg has made "repeated statements" making it clear he was out to get Trump any way he could. And Merchan refused to recuse himself even though he "donated to Biden's 2020 campaign and his daughter is a Democratic political consultant." No wonder "Trump supporters view this prosecution as grounded in politics, not law."
This trial should have been moved to another venue. Another Judge.
As usual, facts go right over your head. Were you home schooled by chance?
|
|