And any source they provide is absolutely reliable. Not biased at all.
MSNBC, NPR, CNN none of them have an agenda. Only Fox, Newsmax, etc.
I just want to appreciate the duality of this community.
- Thread starter Utley1992
- Start date
And any source they provide is absolutely reliable. Not biased at all.
MSNBC, NPR, CNN none of them have an agenda. Only Fox, Newsmax, etc.
or… Hear me out… he has no proof that they "changed the law"... so he stonewalls and say things like "you wouldn’t believe me if I showed you". it’s on brand with Trump to make accusations with no proof though... so I’m not surprised here.
happy to concede the point if you got proof....
They did change the laws. Find your own proof. It’s available, just not from your news sources.
And you’re claiming they did not change the laws. Gotta link? Where’s the proof? Source?
The best proof is the fact that the symnol
Of all things anti-trump, CNN - their own head legal analyst Has called total bullshit on the law used to bring this as a felony.
When an expert with every reason to say the opposite admits what he doesn’t want to admit, I listen.
no thanks;
I've music to dig and other things to argue,
mostly within my own head...
might do you well too...
disregard everything I post!
Last edited:
Yep, one that attacks Trump politically and one that ignores thousands of other cases that fall into this type of crime.
Strike One!
was that an accusation or an invitation?
either way, I resent the implication.
brachycephalic brethren run deep.
I'm familiar with a lot of such.
Woody was a communist.
listen to the lyrics;
...and many of his other songs.
his son didn't fall far from the tree,
but Arlo had some funny satire...?
???
elusive yet transparent.
I will not write a book detailing my debauchery.
how stupid is That?
Last edited:
Pug, this is pretty cool. If you haven’t heard Arlo in a few decades you’ll be surprised. Sort of a deep baritone, very good voice. He chimes in with the terrific Jennifer Warnes at about the 1:50 mark.
novel use of legal theory is not changing the law. Maybe it's a misunderstanding here and I will attempt to clear the airwaves for the sake of good faith discussion; I see "change the law" as literally changing the words of the statute as written in order to get trump. Under my context, that clearly didn't happen. But even using "contorting" as Elie honig put it, I still don't agree. This was a multi layered case where statutes intertwined in order to apply. Maybe he's jealous this buddy Bragg came up with it and not him? 🤷♂️
My last thoughts on the subject. This write up shares my view of the case from the beginning and I read this for the first time tonight. Author appears to be bipartisan (worked with Starr on whitewater scandal along with justice kavanaugh) and has provided commentary across the media spectrum (CNN, fox news, etc.). First time I've even seen her name and don't know much about her other than the above (she could be hard core lib or conservative...don't care). Law professor and legal analyst. Cites honig and even says he has a point, but disagrees with the overall tenor of his piece. I assume The Hill is Ok to cite as it wasnt listed on the unapproved sources above...
This might be my favorite part of the piece:
"The fact that prosecutors don’t use a statute very often is not a reason for nullifying it. Nor is the novelty of a legal theory grounds for rejecting it out-of-hand. That’s how the law evolves — lawyers bring creative thinking to new scenarios and judges decide if those theories hold water."
And...I agree with this part below most of all:
"The arguments against Bragg’s indictment may therefore be more about the letter of the law than anything else."
This right here is really what people are griping about. They don't like the law and that's fine. But...it was applied correctly and the jury agrees.
candidly,
I really like Arlo's (and his Dad's stuff)
where I'll draw the line is to take it literally!
it's all buttercups and rainbows
until it isn't...
Yeah, I like their stuff too. If you’re going to let a little communism get in the way of enjoying music and movies you’re going to get tired of Kid Rock albums and Randy Quaid moves.
I will not admit facts of my innocence
when I've already pleaded guilty!
innocence is a fantasy.
pug
Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Also Contorted the Law
The Manhattan jury was thrown into a Frankenstein’s monster of a case.
nymag.com
"Why Alvin Bragg’s Case Against Trump is Falling Apart" | GW Law | The George Washington University
Jonathan Turley wrote for the New York Post about Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s criminal case against Donald Trump for payments to Stormy Daniels.
Bragg’s prosecution of Trump violates this important legal doctrine - Washington Examiner
The Manhattan Criminal Court must stay Alvin Bragg’s criminal proceeding and refer his allegations against Donald Trump to the FEC.
www.googleadservices.com
American people can see through Manhattan political trial against Trump
The trial that began last week in a Manhattan courtroom is a travesty of justice. There’s no two ways around it. For the first time ever in American history, a politically elected prosecutor is trying to jail a former president and current declared candidate for that office.
judiciary.house.gov
DA Alvin Bragg Lets NYC Crime Run Rampant as He Pursues Empty Case against Trump
Headline-chasing Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s vanity project of a trial against former president Donald Trump comes at a high cost for New Yorkers. The time and expense Bragg has devoted to the flimsy-as-a-cobweb Trump charges are indefensible given how many dangerous crimes go...
manhattan.institute
Above is the most important result from this. I am sure you are incredibly forgiving. The people who suffered from this bullshit aren’t happy I bet. The prosecutor in Atlanta is letting murderers go free by mistake she is so distracted. Yet democrats reelected her.
I could keep looking. There is a Yale lawyer video that breaks it down really well already posted here. Was a complete mic drop. But hey, you got to circle jerk to convicting an ex president. On this. Which has never been done before, for a crime never used before. Congrats on Pandora’s box. Smmfh
Let me guess. But your sources. Blah, blah, blah. What happened here is an embarrassing moment in our country’s history.
No issue with your sources....still doesn't support the claim they "changed the law". A lot of the above have a distorted view of the case though (as most were written before the evidence was presented at trial).Prosecutors Got Trump — But They Also Contorted the Law
The Manhattan jury was thrown into a Frankenstein’s monster of a case.
"Why Alvin Bragg’s Case Against Trump is Falling Apart" | GW Law | The George Washington University
Jonathan Turley wrote for the New York Post about Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s criminal case against Donald Trump for payments to Stormy Daniels.www.law.gwu.edu
Bragg’s prosecution of Trump violates this important legal doctrine - Washington Examiner
The Manhattan Criminal Court must stay Alvin Bragg’s criminal proceeding and refer his allegations against Donald Trump to the FEC.
American people can see through Manhattan political trial against Trump
The trial that began last week in a Manhattan courtroom is a travesty of justice. There’s no two ways around it. For the first time ever in American history, a politically elected prosecutor is trying to jail a former president and current declared candidate for that office.
DA Alvin Bragg Lets NYC Crime Run Rampant as He Pursues Empty Case against Trump
Headline-chasing Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s vanity project of a trial against former president Donald Trump comes at a high cost for New Yorkers. The time and expense Bragg has devoted to the flimsy-as-a-cobweb Trump charges are indefensible given how many dangerous crimes go...
Above is the most important result from this. I am sure you are incredibly forgiving. The people who suffered from this bullshit aren’t happy I bet. The prosecutor in Atlanta is letting murderers go free by mistake she is so distracted. Yet democrats reelected her.
I could keep looking. There is a Yale lawyer video that breaks it down really well already posted here. Was a complete mic drop. But hey, you got to circle jerk to convicting an ex president. On this. Which has never been done before, for a crime never used before. Congrats on Pandora’s box. Smmfh
Let me guess. But your sources. Blah, blah, blah. What happened here is an embarrassing moment in our country’s history.
It was a records case, not an FEC violation case (they were not prosecuting trump for FEC violations). It was a records case, not a hush money case (they were not prosecuting trump for paying a porn star). The charges were consistent with NY law and supported by case law...as stated previously, most people just don't like the law. That's fine. But it's the law.
Here is what I have noticed....there are just as many opinions for and against the case and verdict. 12 people were presented evidence (with very little defense against that evidence), and they rendered a guilty verdict. Don't like it? Go appeal. He has that right.
It is polarizing for sure. Because the case was totally political in nature. The guy ran on indicting Trump. The doj sent one of their top guns to win the case. Find a way to get Trump no matter what. Stack the deck with a judge who hates Trump with a passion. A jury pool who voted 90-10 against Trump by percentage. This is the issue. It wasn’t done without question. I don’t believe this is what you break precedent for. Like turning a speeding ticket to a dui. The courts didn’t do anything wrong on the surface, but because of who it was and what it would do to the country they should be ashamed. As should you. Period.
It could be Clinton. Who probably had 500 nda’s. It could be Obama. He has fantasized about men for decades. Sure there are one of two out there keeping quiet.
The basics here. A porn star was paid to come forward before the election. Totally to effect the election. This was used to eventually get him. Only because he is running again. Something your side started to begin with. And are celebrating it. Everyone sees thru this. No matter how many mental gymnastics you use, this is the basics. He had no choice other than to pay her off. Whether he did it or not. After her fifth different story. Who knows.
The law was contorted. Most say this. If this case was to be tried, it should have been done above board completely. With no possible questions. Don’t tell me for one second there aren’t questions. It is what it is. For both sides to stoop to this Level is really ugly.
Any political prosecution is fcked up from the get-go and a stain on the rule of law that I don't think will ever rub off.
It's as simple as this....if you dont want to get convicted of a felony, don't commit a crime. That's all it boils down to. That goes for both sides. FAFO at play here (literally).
Nice. Let’s go after folks who tear the tag off the mattress. If you’ve ever been a part of litigation there is a helluva lot more nuance and discretion than anything else. And luck
Of the draw on judges. If law was as cut and dry as you seem to want, all of us would be in jail for something at some point.
I wish it was that simple. We both know it isn’t. Don’t speed if you are a pub running against a da in New York. Good luck with staying out of prison.
Last edited:
