Today will most assuredly be DJT guilty of a felony day.....

[willdup]

You've stretched reality as far as you can, to make Trump look as bad as you can.

Stretched reality? So either you are suggesting the lies about the case I documented above weren’t told in the first place or that they weren't actually lies. Which is it?

You made a statement about objections and I fact checked you. One of us is wrong. Which is it?

Either Trump’s was prevented from testifying due to the gag order, as he said this week, or he wasn’t. Both can’t be true.

Trump either knew what the charges were, as he acknowledged to the Judge in court April 14th, or he didn’t know what the charges were until yesterday, as he and the right wing news world suggested this week. Again, both can’t be true. Which is it?

And if Trump’s case is so strong and the prosecution so unfair, why does Trump and the right wing news machine feel compelled to keep telling such obvious lies? Why did his defense completely ignore in closing the testimony of Pecker and Hicks, the two most credible and damaging witnesses in the entire trial? The facts should be speaking for themselves but the facts don’t seem to support the former POTUS.

 

[poorpreacher]

Stretched reality? So either you are suggesting the lies about the case I documented above weren’t told in the first place or that they weren't actually lies. Which is it?

You made a statement about objections and I fact checked you. One of us is wrong. Which is it?

Either Trump’s was prevented from testifying due to the gag order, as he said this week, or he wasn’t. Both can’t be true.

Trump either knew what the charges were, as he acknowledged to the Judge in court April 14th, or he didn’t know what the charges were until yesterday, as he and the right wing news world suggested this week. Again, both can’t be true. Which is it?

And if Trump’s case is so strong and the prosecution so unfair, why does Trump and the right wing news machine feel compelled to keep telling such obvious lies? Why did his defense completely ignore in closing the testimony of Pecker and Hicks, the two most credible and damaging witnesses in the entire trial? The facts should be speaking for themselves but the facts don’t seem to support the former POTUS.

It's a stretch of reality to suggest the American people are the victims of a crime.

You also made about 5 (I stopped counting) strawman arguments in your post. You are fact checking some things no-one is talking about in this thread.

Who's talking about crowd size here?
Who is talking about Trump testifying?

Who has said Cohen is the only damaging witness in this thread?

My statement about objections was pretty clear hyperbole. I thought most people would see that.

 

[willdup]

It's a stretch of reality to suggest the American people are the victims of a crime.

You also made about 5 (I stopped counting) strawman arguments in your post. You are fact checking some things no-one is talking about in this thread.

Who's talking about crowd size here?
Who is talking about Trump testifying?

Who has said Cohen is the only damaging witness in this thread?

My statement about objections was pretty clear hyperbole. I thought most people would see that.

It’s not a stretch in any way to suggest the American voter was damaged by election interference.

Was the pu##sy grab tape highly damaging and did Trump and his campaign know it? Yes.

Would the news of a pornstar BJ coming after the pu##sygrab tape further the damage regarding Trump’s character? Absolutely and Trump acknowdged it.

Was it a very close election decided by three key states all of which voted for Trump with a margin of less than 1%? Yes it was.

Would the Stormy Daniels news have turned the election? It’s impossible to say. Could the Stormy Daniels news turned the election? Absolutely. If Trump committed crimes to prevent that news from going public, that’s a crime against the electorate.

Regarding the rest of my post, I’m not the one telling lies about the trial. Trump and the right wing news machine are the ones telling lies. It’s highly relevant to the topic of whether the trial has been fair or not, which is the focus of this thread.

 

[poorpreacher]

It’s not a stretch in any way to suggest the American voter was damaged by election interference.

Was the pu##sy grab tape highly damaging and did Trump and his campaign know it? Yes.

Would the news of a pornstar BJ coming after the pu##sygrab tape further the damage regarding Trump’s character? Absolutely and Trump acknowdged it.

Was it a very close election decided by three key states all of which voted for Trump with a margin of less than 1%? Yes it was.

Would the Stormy Daniels news have turned the election? It’s impossible to say. Could the Stormy Daniels news turned the election? Absolutely. If Trump committed crimes to prevent that news from going public, that’s a crime against the electorate.

Regarding the rest of my post, I’m not the one telling lies about the trial. Trump and the right wing news machine are the ones telling lies. It’s highly relevant to the topic of whether the trial has been fair or not, which is the focus of this thread.

I would say your perspective on victimization is debatable.


I think there is a difference in debunking lies about the trial itself, and debunking lies in the thread.

You responded to me specifically about several issues I didn't raise, and no one was talking about. Within the context of the conversation, some of what you brought up didn't apply.

 

[kckd]

Biden will have his press conference, mumbling some mildly coherent jibberish about how he is more fit than DT to be president, and the media will love it.

Congrats. You got him for spending $130k on an NDA for sleeping with a porn star and listing a legal expense as a legal expense. The Country is safe and back on track now.

Do you understand statistics?

"Overall in New York City, Biden received 2,321,759 votes, 76%, to Trump’s 691,682 votes, or 23%; a margin of 1,630,077." The likelihood they didn't get one juror (like we have on here) that could watch him stand up and shoot the judge in the head and still would say he did nothing wrong is very unlikely.

 

[kckd]

You've stretched reality as far as you can, to make Trump look as bad as you can.

It doesn't take much of a stretch there, padre.

 

[poorpreacher]

It doesn't take much of a stretch there, padre.

Noted.

I should have said guilty instead of bad

 

[willdup]

I would say your perspective on victimization is debatable.


I think there is a difference in debunking lies about the trial itself, and debunking lies in the thread.

You responded to me specifically about several issues I didn't raise, and no one was talking about. Within the context of the conversation, some of what you brought up didn't apply.

Then debate me. Three states and less than 1% margin of victory turned the election. Your position is that revelations that the GOP candidate was getting a BJ from a porn star while his third wife was home caring for their newborn likely would have had no impact on the election? Or that he carried on a yearlong affair with a playboy bunny would have had zero impact?

That's a very cynical view of the GOP electorate, many of whom consider themselves to be the owners of the moral high ground in all political debates and discussions. While I think the GOP leadership is incredibly hypocritical in their efforts to impose a morality on the country that they and their chosen leader totally fail to uphold themselves, I actually believe that a meaningful number of voters still care and would have been impacted by the news that Trump is accused of illegally suppressing.

My initial post was in response to the thread as a whole and not just to your contention that the judge had been entirely one-sided in his handling of objections. I should have clarified that in my post.

 

[poorpreacher]

Then debate me. Three states and less than 1% margin of victory turned the election. Your position is that revelations that the GOP candidate was getting a BJ from a porn star while his third wife was home caring for their newborn likely would have had no impact on the election? Or that he carried on a yearlong affair with a playboy bunny would have had zero impact?

That's a very cynical view of the GOP electorate, many of whom consider themselves to be the owners of the moral high ground in all political debates and discussions. While I think the GOP leadership is incredibly hypocritical in their efforts to impose a morality on the country that they and their chosen leader totally fail to uphold themselves, I actually believe that a meaningful number of voters still care and would have been impacted by the news that Trump is accused of illegally suppressing.

My initial post was in response to the thread as a whole and not just to your contention that the judge had been entirely one-sided in his handling of objections. I should have clarified that in my post.

Victimization and voter impact are different issues.

Which one are we debating?

If you assertion is that awareness of Trump's indiscretions may have influenced voters, I dont disagree.

If you suggest that lack of knowledge, potentially swaying the election, resulted in the victimization of America, I do.

 

[zingerdawg]

It’s not a stretch in any way to suggest the American voter was damaged by election interference.

Was the pu##sy grab tape highly damaging and did Trump and his campaign know it? Yes.

Would the news of a pornstar BJ coming after the pu##sygrab tape further the damage regarding Trump’s character? Absolutely and Trump acknowdged it.

Was it a very close election decided by three key states all of which voted for Trump with a margin of less than 1%? Yes it was.

Would the Stormy Daniels news have turned the election? It’s impossible to say. Could the Stormy Daniels news turned the election? Absolutely. If Trump committed crimes to prevent that news from going public, that’s a crime against the electorate.

Regarding the rest of my post, I’m not the one telling lies about the trial. Trump and the right wing news machine are the ones telling lies. It’s highly relevant to the topic of whether the trial has been fair or not, which is the focus of this thread.

Why not be in an uproar about the laptop will? It was suppressed till after the election. All the Russian disinformation which turned out to be complete bullshit. Confirmed to be political by the cia and others to effect an election.

Why did this happen? Why did he have to pay her off? I am sure he thought I was a Democrat when this happened. I will surely never have to deal with it.

This is the crime you sit on for a former president. A cash grab from a porn star surely set in motion by one of Hillary’s campaign workers. We are going to turn this misdemeanor into a felony. This is going to be the norm going forward.

I think there will be no winner here even after Trump is convicted. It will just be another cog in a Biden ad. It is one thing if the crime was serious. Doc case serious. No matter how hard the left spins it, it remains someone they paid off to do a hit job on Trump. You want a fact check. That is your fact check.

From here on out, former presidents and politicians will be tried for any and everything.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

Then debate me. Three states and less than 1% margin of victory turned the election. Your position is that revelations that the GOP candidate was getting a BJ from a porn star while his third wife was home caring for their newborn likely would have had no impact on the election? Or that he carried on a yearlong affair with a playboy bunny would have had zero impact?

That's a very cynical view of the GOP electorate, many of whom consider themselves to be the owners of the moral high ground in all political debates and discussions. While I think the GOP leadership is incredibly hypocritical in their efforts to impose a morality on the country that they and their chosen leader totally fail to uphold themselves, I actually believe that a meaningful number of voters still care and would have been impacted by the news that Trump is accused of illegally suppressing.

My initial post was in response to the thread as a whole and not just to your contention that the judge had been entirely one-sided in his handling of objections. I should have clarified that in my post.

Your bias totally infects your intelligence. This is one where your intelligence should lead you to admit that this trial is obviously an unprecedented political hit job.

Will point again to Ty Cobb, who again this week predicted a conviction....not on the facts / law, but because the jury instructions "leave no other choice." Ty has a big issue with this case and the precedent it sets. And Ty is a vocal opponent of Trump. He is biased, but his intelligence and some semblance of what is right legally is what wins out.

 

[ToddBburn]

I would say your perspective on victimization is debatable.


I think there is a difference in debunking lies about the trial itself, and debunking lies in the thread.

You responded to me specifically about several issues I didn't raise, and no one was talking about. Within the context of the conversation, some of what you brought up didn't apply.

Why not be in an uproar about the laptop will? It was suppressed till after the election. All the Russian disinformation which turned out to be complete bullshit. Confirmed to be political by the cia and others to effect an election.

Why did this happen? Why did he have to pay her off? I am sure he thought I was a Democrat when this happened. I will surely never have to deal with it.

This is the crime you sit on for a former president. A cash grab from a porn star surely set in motion by one of Hillary’s campaign workers. We are going to turn this misdemeanor into a felony. This is going to be the norm going forward.

I think there will be no winner here even after Trump is convicted. It will just be another cog in a Biden ad. It is one thing if the crime was serious. Doc case serious. No matter how hard the left spins it, it remains someone they paid off to do a hit job on Trump. You want a fact check. That is your fact check.

From here on out, former presidents and politicians will be tried for any and everything.

Wow. This is amazing. He really picks his spots to debate. He ignores so many other factors and hones in a just a few and digs in his heels.
I do not think it would really have factored in the results of the 2016. I think the vast majority of voters who were likely undecided going into the election knew who he was and had factored all of his flaws into their decision making. I really think the Hunter Biden laptop would have been more impactful to the election. The left and the media have propped up Biden so much and glossed over and ignored his warts and flaws so much that many who do not follow the news and events might have viewed that information as more impactful.
The only ones in an uproar are Democrats acting like they did not know he was an arrogant jackass and that everyone should be outraged about all of this.
I know Trump is a jackass and I would not want him over to my house for dinner. But given the 2 options we have he will get my vote.
I work with people I don’t care for but in a tough situation I would want them at my side navigating difficult situations. It is the same with Trump. The country is a clogged toilet overflowing on our feet and Trump is the one I believe who can get the job done.
Biden would talk about how the crap is not that bad and it’s on his feet too. Lets make the best of it and buy EV’s and eat ice cream.

 

[willdup]

Your bias totally infects your intelligence. This is one where your intelligence should lead you to admit that this trial is obviously an unprecedented political hit job.

Will point again to Ty Cobb, who again this week predicted a conviction....not on the facts / law, but because the jury instructions "leave no other choice." Ty has a big issue with this case and the precedent it sets. And Ty is a vocal opponent of Trump. He is biased, but his intelligence and some semblance of what is right legally is what wins out.

As I've said, Ty is a smart guy and I'm sure he has a point about the potential for Trump under appeal. I don't question his view, which identifies issues that would have a chance to contribute to an acquittal under appeal. It would not be the first or last time a sentence was reversed on appeal.

My question remains, if the facts are so clearly in support of Trump's innocence, why are Trump and his minions completely flooding the zone with bullshit lies (documented above)?

Oh, and Cobb has stated unequivocally that "Trump is the greatest threat to democracy that we've ever seen". So, while quoting him may help support your argument regarding this specific case, Cobb does not exactly support the overall case for Trump for POTUS.

 

[doerunn]

Doesn't Stromy owe Trump over 600k? From a jury in CA. lol

 

[jlstone412]

Doesn't Stromy owe Trump over 600k? From a jury in CA. lol

irrelevant here...

 

[Don Ellis]

How gangster would it be to have a felon as President

Merchandise sales would be nuts

 

[doerunn]

irrelevant here...

whe doesnt want to pay it back, big liar. Bet it never happened pay 100k get over 600k back. lol

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

As I've said, Ty is a smart guy and I'm sure he has a point about the potential for Trump under appeal. I don't question his view, which identifies issues that would have a chance to contribute to an acquittal under appeal. It would not be the first or last time a sentence was reversed on appeal.

My question remains, if the facts are so clearly in support of Trump's innocence, why are Trump and his minions completely flooding the zone with bullshit lies (documented above)?

Oh, and Cobb has stated unequivocally that "Trump is the greatest threat to democracy that we've ever seen". So, while quoting him may help support your argument regarding this specific case, Cobb does not exactly support the overall case for Trump for POTUS.

Not trying to make the case for Trump as Prez. Simply trying to get the folks who hate Trump to at least admit that this case is totally unprecedented and obviously politically motivated. And that is a terrible precedent for our Country.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

irrelevant here...

Really? does it not point to bias? Similarly, does Cohen not have every financial incentive in the world to be the guy who "got Trump?" He immediately becomes marketable, will get book deals, be the darling of liberal media, etc, etc.???

 

[willdup]

Not trying to make the case for Trump as Prez. Simply trying to get the folks who hate Trump to at least admit that this case is totally unprecedented and obviously politically motivated. And that is a terrible precedent for our Country.

This case against Trump is not unprecedented and while there is a chance a verdict will be overturned on appeal; the prosecution made a good case that Trump broke the law to suppress unflattering news before the election.

Which of these efforts against Clinton wasn't impacted significantly by political considerations? Again, the GOP created this template, which tends to be most effective when the target has a long history of shitty moral choices and character shortcomings.

AI warning...

1. Whitewater Investigation (1992-2000)
   The Whitewater scandal involved an investigation into a failed real estate venture involving the Clintons and their associates Jim and Susan McDougal. It led to convictions for the McDougals but no charges against the Clintons.
2. Travelgate (1993)
   This involved the firing of White House travel office employees, which was investigated but resulted in no charges against the Clintons.
3. Vince Foster Death Investigation (1993)
   Multiple investigations concluded that White House lawyer Vince Foster died by suicide, despite allegations of foul play related to the Clintons.
4. Paula Jones Sexual Harassment Lawsuit (1994-1998)
   Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment over an alleged incident in 1991. The case was dismissed but led to Clinton's impeachment after he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
5. Lewinsky Scandal and Impeachment (1998-1999)
   Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice related to his affair with Monica Lewinsky and attempts to cover it up during the Jones lawsuit. He was acquitted by the Senate.
6. Juanita Broaddrick Rape Allegation (1999)
   Juanita Broaddrick publicly accused Clinton of raping her in 1978, though no legal case was pursued.
7. Other Sexual Misconduct Allegations
   Several other women, including Kathleen Willey, Leslie Millwee, and others, accused Clinton of various instances of sexual assault or misconduct, though no legal cases resulted from most of these allegations.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

This case against Trump is not unprecedented and while there is a chance a verdict will be overturned on appeal; the prosecution made a good case that Trump broke the law to suppress unflattering news before the election.

Which of these efforts against Clinton wasn't impacted significantly by political considerations? Again, the GOP created this template, which tends to be most effective when the target has a long history of shitty moral choices and character shortcomings.

AI warning...

1. Whitewater Investigation (1992-2000)
   The Whitewater scandal involved an investigation into a failed real estate venture involving the Clintons and their associates Jim and Susan McDougal. It led to convictions for the McDougals but no charges against the Clintons.
2. Travelgate (1993)
   This involved the firing of White House travel office employees, which was investigated but resulted in no charges against the Clintons.
3. Vince Foster Death Investigation (1993)
   Multiple investigations concluded that White House lawyer Vince Foster died by suicide, despite allegations of foul play related to the Clintons.
4. Paula Jones Sexual Harassment Lawsuit (1994-1998)
   Paula Jones sued Clinton for sexual harassment over an alleged incident in 1991. The case was dismissed but led to Clinton's impeachment after he lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
5. Lewinsky Scandal and Impeachment (1998-1999)
   Clinton was impeached by the House for perjury and obstruction of justice related to his affair with Monica Lewinsky and attempts to cover it up during the Jones lawsuit. He was acquitted by the Senate.
6. Juanita Broaddrick Rape Allegation (1999)
   Juanita Broaddrick publicly accused Clinton of raping her in 1978, though no legal case was pursued.
7. Other Sexual Misconduct Allegations
   Several other women, including Kathleen Willey, Leslie Millwee, and others, accused Clinton of various instances of sexual assault or misconduct, though no legal cases resulted from most of these allegations.

Were any of those issues prosecuted by a republican DA in rural Texas, who ran and won on a platform of "getting Clinton" in a criminal case against Bill or Hillary Clinton as defendant in a rural Texas court?

Also - you are making the point that doing things to influence an election is, by definition, politics. Not illegal.

 

[willdup]

Were any of those issues prosecuted by a republican DA in rural Texas, who ran and won on a platform of "getting Clinton" in a criminal case against Bill or Hillary Clinton as defendant in a rural Texas court?

Also - you are making the point that doing things to influence an election is, by definition, politics. Not illegal.

Running on pursuing well known criminals has been a part of DA campaigns for decades. Everyone in NY has known since the '80s that Trump had questionable business practices, and he made himself a bigger target when he became a national politician. That's life in the big leagues.

And do you really want to argue that illegal election interference isn't illegal? Seem a tough hill to climb.

 

[-lowcountrydawg]

Running on pursuing well known criminals has been a part of DA campaigns for decades. Everyone in NY has known since the '80s that Trump had questionable business practices, and he made himself a bigger target when he became a national politician. That's life in the big leagues.

And do you really want to argue that illegal election interference isn't illegal? Seem a tough hill to climb.

you arguing that a DA running on a platform to get a mob boss or drug dealer is the same as this? The former being a pitch to reduce crime on the streets to the benefit of the City in question? The latter being what? Eliminating the threat of coding NDA payments to pornstars as legal expenses?

If you are arguing that “getting Trump” in this case protects democracy, you are in effect doing the opposite. Using the courts to eliminate “the threat” using novel legal theory on totally minor offenses literally takes the decision away from 300M+ Americans. If Trump is so terrible let the effin people decide.

For such a staunch defender of Democracy, you seem really invested in letting the courts decide.

No. I am arguing that election politics, by definition, is seeking to influence elections. And NDA’s are totally legal.

 

[atlanta cock#]

You left out the part about this being a misdemeanor and that the statutes of libations had expired. They tied it to another undisclosed crime to make it a felony. This case has 5th amendment issues all over it.

I read that during closing argument the Prosecution repeatedly mentioned FEC violations, which Bragg is not authorized to prosecute and in fact did not charge Trump. This is second hand that came from X so don't shoot the messenger.

 

[atlanta cock#]

Running on pursuing well known criminals has been a part of DA campaigns for decades. Everyone in NY has known since the '80s that Trump had questionable business practices, and he made himself a bigger target when he became a national politician. That's life in the big leagues.

And do you really want to argue that illegal election interference isn't illegal? Seem a tough hill to climb.

Not really. They typically run on law and order, but they don't specifically promise to go after someone where no crime is known. In this instance, Bragg had no idea abt and NDA with Stormy when he was running for office. He also didn't know how the payments were recorded. Back then it was all about Russia Russia Russia and J6.

The damage your side has done to this country may be irreperable. If Trump is convicted, the political payback will wreck us. You happy? Is it worth it to create this clown show over a guy at least half the country will vote for?

 

[doerunn]

Not trying to make the case for Trump as Prez. Simply trying to get the folks who hate Trump to at least admit that this case is totally unprecedented and obviously politically motivated. And that is a terrible precedent for our Country.

Wait till all these judges, prosecutors are on trial for election interference and violations of civil rights when Trump is prez again.

 

[kckd]

Biased people like willdup will never understand. I appreciate the completely objective points so many of you are making on here. Thank you.

 

[jlstone412]

I read that during closing argument the Prosecution repeatedly mentioned FEC violations, which Bragg is not authorized to prosecute and in fact did not charge Trump. This is second hand that came from X so don't shoot the messenger.

you are correct that Bragg cannot prosecute that...and he isn't.

But...in laying out the evidence, Bragg and Co are trying to show the jury the "intent to commit" FEC violations, which can be the underlying element for the false business record in the 1st degree.

Now....will the jury find that in the case? Unlikely, but they probably see a violation of the state election law. Honestly, that would be the cleanest verdict for the prosecution as both would be NY laws and you wouldn't have to address the jurisdiction issue on appeal (even though case law supports it).

It really is like threading a needle through 1000 haystacks but the jury appears be thoroughly evaluating everything. I have no idea what they will come back with here. But I wouldn't be surprised with either result.

 

[jlstone412]

🍿 time...

 

[atlanta cock#]

🍿 time...

Not surprised at the verdict, but I think Trump just won the election.

 

[jlstone412]

Not surprised at the verdict, but I think Trump just won the election.

We shall see. But 34-0 is strong…

 

[willdup]

Not surprised at the verdict, but I think Trump just won the election.

I don’t see a 34 felony count conviction adding to Trump’s base, but we are living in strange times.

 

[ToddBburn]

Running on pursuing well known criminals has been a part of DA campaigns for decades. Everyone in NY has known since the '80s that Trump had questionable business practices, and he made himself a bigger target when he became a national politician. That's life in the big leagues.

And do you really want to argue that illegal election interference isn't illegal? Seem a tough hill to climb

We shall see. But 34-0 is strong…

It was going to be 34 or 0. Acting like 34 is more egregious than 1 is not being honest. It was obvious it would be all or nothing.
This is so stupid it is beyond belief.
I truly believe most people will see this for what it is.

 

[jlstone412]

It was going to be 34 or 0. Acting like 34 is more egregious than 1 is not being honest. It was obvious it would be all or nothing.
This is so stupid it is beyond belief.
I truly believe most people will see this for what it is.

Objectively I am surprised that it was all 34. I thought it would be 10-15 if he was found guilty. 34 is strong.

 

[rednblack4life]

It was going to be 34 or 0. Acting like 34 is more egregious than 1 is not being honest. It was obvious it would be all or nothing.
This is so stupid it is beyond belief.
I truly believe most people will see this for what it is.

Seems you have been living in an alternate reality… join us.

 

[ToddBburn]

Seems you have been living in an alternate reality… join us.

Objectively I am surprised that it was all 34. I thought it would be 10-15 if he was found guilty. 34 is strong.

Why? It will be overturned once appealed.
There is nothing that should have been prosecuted for and definitely not convicted.
I have no fondness for him as a person at all. He is an ass but he also someone who can get the job done.
Other politicians are just as bad but in different ways. Trump hides nothing and does not care what people think and that is what bothers the elite.

 

[jlstone412]

Why? It will be overturned once appealed.
There is nothing that should have been prosecuted for and definitely not convicted.
I have no fondness for him as a person at all. He is an ass but he also someone who can get the job done.
Other politicians are just as bad but in different ways. Trump hides nothing and does not care what people think and that is what bothers the elite.

This is quite telling...

 

[atlanta cock#]

I don’t see a 34 felony count conviction adding to Trump’s base, but we are living in strange times.

It's not adding to his base. That's that part your side doesn't get. GOP that doesn't particularly like Trump and Indies and even some Ds are disgusted with the system. This trial was an especially corrupt display. It's the protest voters that will join ranks with Trump voters. I've already seen Dershowitz, RFK, Jr. and Susan Collins express outrage and dismay. But there are tons that will actually vote bc it's their only voice.

Trump won the election today.

 

[willdup]

It's not adding to his base. That's that part your side doesn't get. GOP that doesn't particularly like Trump and Indies and even some Ds are disgusted with the system. This trial was an especially corrupt display. It's the protest voters that will join ranks with Trump voters. I've already seen Dershowitz, RFK, Jr. and Susan Collins express outrage and dismay. But there are tons that will actually vote bc it's their only voice.

Trump won the election today.

Dersh, Susan Collins and RFK, Jr are outraged? Oh no. That's...entirely predictable?

I understand that you and many other Trump supporters are incensed, but the low involvement, middle of the road voters who will determine the election are not going to be inspired by a unanimous 34 count felony conviction for illegally conspiring to hide hush money payments to a porn star. That's just not going to inspire anyone other than the people already voting for Trump.

 

[atlanta cock#]

Dersh, Susan Collins and RFK, Jr are outraged? Oh no. That's...entirely predictable?

I understand that you and many other Trump supporters are incensed, but the low involvement, middle of the road voters who will determine the election are not going to be inspired by a unanimous 34 count felony conviction for illegally conspiring to hide hush money payments to a porn star. That's just not going to inspire anyone other than the people already voting for Trump.

I think you'll be surprised.