Because that is the crux of why they hate him: bold, bigger than life, brash, rude (at times even crude) what Trump personifies is Americanism. That muscular aggressiveness that carved a nation out of a wilderness and turned it into the greatest power on Earth. He’s a patriot; loves this country. He’s a man; he likes people – especially his fellow Americans. He’s normal – sometimes a normal sinner, but in all things, normal.
It must be kept in mind that those on the Left who are getting all teary-eyed about “Our Democracy” despise this nation and anyone who is a patriot. Remember: they believe that America was founded so that racists could have slaves. That we maliciously committed genocide against the Natives. That we’re racist, sexist, homophobic, Nazi, fascist, greedy, stupid cretins who only have wealth and power because we stole it. They are wrapping themselves in a flag they wipe their asses with at every opportunity. What they want is for us to just sit quiet while they import a new population and plague us with crime and poverty until we agree to become serfs. Trump stands athwart that – he risks their position. He risks, worst of all, the chance that people who love America might rise to power in America.
He has to be stopped – and given that they are vile people, they didn’t let trivial things like the law get in the way. They got a fanatic Left DA to bring a case in front of a fanatic Left just who manipulated the court proceedings and jury until the only possible verdict was “guilty”. They violated a host of laws to get this – and they are high fiving themselves all over Blue America tonight. They think this does it. They believe that “convicted felon” on Trump’s name assures their power.
Hey, maybe they’re right. But I don’t think they are. Plenty of non-Trump people are expressing outrage over an obviously unjust verdict. Donations were flowing so fast to Team Trump that their server repeatedly crashed. One man I saw on X said he donated $300,000.00. But another who said he was flat broke donated $5.00…which is a heck of a lot of money when you’re broke. Perhaps “convicted felon” will save the Democrats bacon…but my bet is that they have awakened a sleeping giant.
Blogs For Victory 
The wife and I donated again to Trump last night and I will be wearing my Trump hat everyday now … I pity anyone who may want to confront me, I will not be kind. Is there anything more authentically American than being a political prisoner? This is how this country started, and this is how legends are made. Trump is the Nelson Mandela of his time, and now is the time to be bold in our support of him.
If common sense, normal Americans do not win this election, in a landslide, American will go the way of CA, NY, IL, etc … one party rule with a low quality of life. “You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy” – that’s what they have in store for us and that’s not a world I will live in, so it’s liberty or death for me … or Mexico.
Something I remembered last night and got a good laugh … remember when Ricorun and Casper said they were afraid to go to AZ because of the draconian immigration laws???? These are grown ass men who publicly stated they were afraid to travel because of legislation. America does not need “emasculated men” like that. We need more Trumps and less Caspers
When a Leftist openly declares that he feels threatened in states where the law means something, that tells you all you need to know about them.
Ron DeSantis is spot on:
“Today’s verdict represents the culmination of a legal process that has been bent to the political will of the actors involved: a leftist prosecutor, a partisan judge, and a jury reflective of one of the most liberal enclaves in America—all in an effort to “get” Donald Trump.
That this case—involving alleged misdemeanor business records violations from nearly a decade ago—was even brought is a testament to the political debasement of the justice system in places like New York City. This is especially true considering this same district attorney routinely excuses criminal conduct in a way that has endangered law-abiding citizens in his jurisdiction.
It is often said that no one is above the law, but it is also true that no one is below the law. If the defendant were not Donald Trump, this case would never have been brought, the judge would have never issued similar rulings, and the jury would have never returned a guilty verdict.
In America, the rule of law should be applied in a dispassionate, even-handed manner, not become captive to the political agenda of some kangaroo court.”
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Not often you see a court blatantly violating three of the six elements of one of the Constitutional Amendments deemed to be so important it is part of the Bill of Rights.
Not to even get to the legality of trying a federal crime in a state court.
And even with all that, the Judge still had to write out a 55 page instruction to the jury and then re-explain it to them many times until they finally got it into their heads that “guilty” was the only acceptable outcome.
This points out a another problem – “instructions to the jury”. I’d really like to dig into when this became a thing. We have trials by jury so that 12 random people can decide if a person is guilty. With “jury instructions” we get a judge – clothed in august power – telling the jury that if A, then B. It isn’t supposed to be like that. The jury is supposed to discuss it among themselves and decide if the prosecutor proved the case and if the case is sound. A jury isn’t a mechanism of the legal system, it is the last line of defense of the people…it is our means of making sure that no matter what the government does, we can let the accused go.
This is because we know that the government has unlimited time and resources to go after a person – you know, like Trump. And that they can massage the system to set someone up. What a jury – fully understanding its power – would have done in this case is toss it. It is clearly just political. And I think even a New York jury would have come back not guilty if the whole system wasn’t impounded by the judge to help the prosecutor get the desired verdict.
Yesterday, America went from a Constitutional Republic to a Banana Republic. This is now war.
Actually, I look at yesterday’s verdict as a massive in-kind campaign donation to Trump. It doesn’t get much better than having your opponent fund your campaign.
Trump’s Guilty Verdict Fires Up GOP Donors. Strong Polls Help, Too and while millions are pouring into the Trump campaign our State Department is funding Pride events (with our taxpayer dollars) in other countries. Priorities just keep getting sorted out, don’t they?
This would make a great billboard:
That is exactly what they think, and exactly how mind numbingly stupid they are. I don’t know what happened to Democrats but they are not normal people anymore. They are weaponized morons. It’s amazing what propaganda can do to people.
I figured the drooling Trump haters took the lack of posting here as a sign of defeat. I took it as a period of mourning for the death of a legal system that was once the most highly respected in the world.
I haven’t checked to see if they are still doing victory laps and high-fiving each other, but I kind of doubt it, because they are now not just the dogs that caught the car and don’t know what to do with it, the car has a bomb in it and they can’t get rid of it.
The media managed to keep information about the “trial” pretty low-key for most of their low-information crowd, but the verdict is blowing that sky-high and now we are not just seeing information about the Stalinist show trial and its many abuses of power and violations of common law and common decency and common sense they are also realizing that celebrating their success in weaponizing the law against a citizen isn’t really a good look.
It is kind of funny that the Leftists’ beloved Sotomayor is the one whose opinion in the NRA case came out right before the verdict that proved her right: What (a government official) cannot do, however, is use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.
I was reminded this morning when back in 2013 Democrats ended the judicial filibuster, which they quickly regretted because thanks to them, Trump appointed 3 great Justices. They will regret this move too, more than they know.
This judge, prosecutor, and jury better stock up on KY Jelly, because the American people are going to shove this verdict right up their ass.
LOL. I was imagining an SNL skit, if they have the courage: Polling the jury and asking each one: “Did you vote guilty because you are too stupid to realize that the charges were bogus and the trial violated the Constitution, or just because you hate Trump? Remember, the judge allowed you to vote yes on both.”
LOL
Lots of online comments this morning, mostly going one direction – TOWARD Trump.
And there is this too …
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/05/sequoia-capitol-partner-former-hillary-2016-donor-shaun/
I was putting together my post on the Shaun Maguire article when you posted this—-my longer reference is below
Saw it … and Joe Manchin just left the Democrat Party and registered as an Independent.
By the way, Cohen is on liberal media today saying that “people need to be held accountable” …. This coming from someone who admitted on the witness stand he stole $30,000 from Trump. This is who Democrats have become. Sub human scum
I still wish someone would ask these former Democrats if they still believe in government by a powerful Central Authority or if they have moved toward agreeing with the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty. It’s a simple question but would put them on the spot, and open up the observation that if they believe in the second approach to how we should govern the nation they are really Republicans.
There are a few I think should be challenged with a question like this: Manchin, Tulsi Gabbard and Kristin Sinema, to name three, and probably Fetterman as well. The first three are not brave, they are cowardly, trying to get out from under the dark cloud of the radical Leftism and Stalinism of the party without actually doing anything definitive.
The absolute last thing the American Left wants is to be held accountable.
“I’M JUST TIRED OF THE LEFT” is likely to crush “Orange Man Bad”.
Both parties denied the liason ever took place and Stormy owes Trump over $300K for defamation, but don’t let common sense facts persuade you, you have been impervious to common sense facts in the past. And here’s one undeniable fact, you support a man who took showers with his young daughter. That fact has been confirmed by his daughter. That’s who you are. A pedophile supporting scumbag.
I just read what is the first (and hopefully the first of many) articles by a Hillary supporter who now supports Trump. It is fascinating on several levels. One is the admission of believing that Russia did, in fact, swing the 2016 election toward Trump (his reasoning for this belief is, to me, shallow and sketchy, but still, he believed it) and one is his background. He is articulate and makes excellent points, which are even more impressive coming from someone who was so ardently anti-Trump.
I was also struck by how easily even a very smart, politically savvy, guy could make a huge decision about who should govern the nation based on acceptance of Leftist propaganda. Example:
His # 1 is this:
Maybe yes, maybe no. At least he admits it was a “media narrative”. I never thought the release of her emails had much impact on the election, and he ignores the Clinton/DNC involvement with a Russian agent and Christopher Steele in inventing a salacious “dossier” then shopped to federal agencies and used to support both surveillance of American citizens and the use of federal agencies to intimidate and prosecute them. But this is how he saw it at the time.
His #2 is pure invention, a distortion of what Trump really said. We’ve gone over this many times, but this allegedly smart guy never took it upon himself to even listen to the video upon which this lie is based. Trump not only never said this, what he did say was that when a woman makes herself available to men based on their fame they can be treated disrespectfully and they won’t care…”you can grab them by the p***y and they won’t care”.
But even a highly partisan Trump hater who accepted Leftist propaganda has been able to change his mind, and back up that change with a multi-million-dollar donation to Trump’s campaign, as well as lay out a lengthy and coherent statement explaining his change of heart. It’s worth a read, both for its content and reasoning and for the indication of a change in the attitude of former Trump haters.
Political prisoners become American legends. Think: Nelson Mandela. Trump is legend.
Finally read some “celebrity” comments about the Trump verdict, and they all illustrated how abysmally stupid these people are—–they gloated about how this is what you deserve when you have sex with a mattress actress.
The crotch-centric “celebrity” mentality actually thinks he was on trial for what would have been a consensual sexual encounter between two adults, if it even happened, which is hysterical coming from a demographic that thinks any form of sex is fine and is obsessed with normalizing every kind and degree of degeneracy.
Democrats have crossed the line with the people who can make a difference … FINALLY! Senator Rick Scott was on Fox last night saying that he and 8 other Senators (so far) will shut down and filibuster every single Biden request from this point forward. I heard Steven Miller say that he is coordinating with State Republican prosecutors to begin to investigate and indict Democrats for anything they can find. The gloves are off and this is war, and a war we will fight and win on our terms. I love how the State Media is trying to push the narrative that “violence might erupt in the MAGA movement”, hoping and praying that something happens. They have no clue who we are, do they?. We are not like their piece of shit voters who cloak themselves in black and burn shit down. We still have businesses to run and families to raise, but there is a resolve in the MAGA movement that was never there before. Democrats have finally revealed to normal Americans exactly who they are, and the Banana Republic they hope to turn America into, well not on our watch. There are still tens of millions of normal Americans who see this shit for exactly what it is now, and are waking up to the shit show that is the Democrat agenda, and all of it will soon collapse under it’s absurdity. DEI, Climate Change, Green Energy, Wars of choice, etc., will all implode along with the Democrats. Hallelujah
We have one major advantage that almost no one talks about; God is on our side and vice versa, if for no other reason than most on the other side don’t believe in God.
and are waking up to the shit show that is the Democrat agenda,
That’s actually a pretty good description.
I’ve said repeatedly on this blog that the last thing I want to do in this life is use violence against another human being, and I think most Christians are on the same page, but we all have that line in the sand (don’t mess with my children, don’t mess with my religion, don’t mess with my means of providing for and protecting those I love, etc.) and the Left is going after every one of those. All they have to do is stop, mind their own business, and be responsible members of society. Unfortunately, (for them) that’s just not in their DNA.
Unfortunately, (for them) that’s just not in their DNA.
And that is because they don’t believe in God. They believe in themselves as the only higher power, and when you believe that, how can you be wrong about anything? Democrats are a clear and present danger to this country and just like the summer riots of 2020, this guilty verdict is a clarion call to normal Americans that our country is in severe distress, and we will have to take out the trash. Now whether that is through the ballot box or the bullet box, makes no difference. The trash will be taken out.
The biggest difference: with the bullet box they can’t cheat.
Just remember, they are desperate to push us into Leftist-style violence. They NEED an enemy that they can point to as a bigger danger to the public than an entry in an accounting system. They thought they did this in their successful efforts to use their infiltrators to escalate January 6 into a riot, but as they keep frantically trying to keep the indignation over that event alive it’s subsiding, especially as their role keeps getting exposed.
Now they need something new, something they can use to scare their sheeple and create panic. They need optics, they need something to point at to screech “See how DANGEROUS they are!” Legislative maneuvers to block their efforts in the halls of governance provide no optics, but some on the RIght are eager to help them out with blather about “bullet boxes”.
They need optics, they need something to point at to screech “See how DANGEROUS they are!”
That’s why the Right’s response to the verdict is so important:
“Commenters retaining their sanity observed what the Verdict really punctured was not Trump’s aura of invincibility, but rather the left’s contorted claims that MAGA folks are violent extremists, since our reaction to the Verdict was not to riot but to flood Trump’s fundraising website.”
but some on the RIght are eager to help them out with blather about “bullet boxes”.
I don’t think it hurts to remind them that there will eventually be a price to pay that they won’t like.
I just know that comments like this will be used against us, to portray us as “dangerous” and “threats”. The leaders of the Left already know they can’t push confrontation to the level of shooting on a mass civil war kind of scale, but they would LOVE to have people they can identify as MAGA shooting people, or even threatening people. Look at their efforts to portray MAGA in this light. That whole Jussie Smollett thing was about creating the perception of MAGA as a dangerous movement.
Their base is so easily herded into making stupid decisions based on fragmented information that I think it is foolish to put incendiary statements out there. You can’t prove that you are the party/movement of law and order by rattling sabers and making references to bullet boxes. All that kind of rhetoric does is provide an excuse to escalate efforts to shut us down and justify using the might of the State to do so. Worse, it sets the stage for another false flag effort, such as shooting some Leftists and then citing the online comments about violence and “bullet boxes” as evidence of how dangerous MAGA supporters are, and supporting efforts to shut them down by any means possible.
Look at my quotations of what influenced Shaun Maguire, who is clearly more intelligent and politically aware than most of the Dem base—he still got herded into fearing Trump by fragmented out of context quotes or references. We need to start outsmarting them, and one of the best ways to do that is to refuse to be drawn into violent rhetoric. Every such outburst gives them ammunition to use in claims that people on the Right are crazy, dangerous, even subversives who will overturn the government by force.
I am reminded, sometimes, of an episode in my past. I was having an argument with a boyfriend and he said I was being “childish”. My response was to kick him in the shin. To my credit, I immediately realized I had made his point for him, started laughing and apologized, but I have never forgotten the lesson of “don’t make their point for them”.
Look at one of the themes the Left is trying to sell to its LIV–that MAGA is inherently violent and dangerous and a threat. So why kick them in the shin, so to speak, and make their point for them?
That whole Jussie Smollett thing was about creating the perception of MAGA as a dangerous movement.
And look how that turned out.
I think, quite frankly, that the Right has shown extraordinary restraint in the face of outright Fascism by the Left, and we all know what it eventually took to defeat Fascism in Europe in the 1940s. It’d be nice if the Left saw the light and decided to just get along, but I don’t think that’s possible at this point.
The Left is up against hard cold facts, and can only prevail if they can continue to succeed in out-narrating the Right. We need to learn how to communicate—not only have the right narrative but get it out to the people. We lack creativity in addressing this problem, just looking at the control of most of the media and shrugging our shoulders and saying, in effect, “we can’t deal with that”.
But we can, and should. We just need to stop accepting the meme that there are only the usual, traditional, ways to get our message across. I think one way we are missing the boat is our inability, or refusal, to accept that to a large segment of Democrats they are Democrats BECAUSE they are good people, or at least want to be good people. They have fallen for the Left’s promise that the Left offers a shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground and because they want to be moral, or at least seen as moral, this is important to them. We’re not going to reach these people by calling them “evil”.
All three Trumps—Eric, Don Jr and Donald himself—and all their surrogates should start a campaign based on acknowledging that so many, perhaps most, Democrats are Democrats because they believe that this is the party of virtue, and then dissecting this and pointing out the ways that the party has veered away from virtue into its opposite.
Now to be a Democrat means to be a racist, even though the language has been distorted to say the opposite. But when you define people, and base your treatment of them, on their skin color or ethnicity, you ARE a racist. No one who truly hates and rejects racism can be a Democrat.
Now to be a Democrat means adopting the exact same philosophy of the Nazis—that is, that Jews are evil and should not be allowed to exist. The Third Reich, under Hitler, was dedicated to eliminating Jews, and today to be a Democrat means to side with savages who openly brag about their goal of killing all Jews. Now the Democrat Party openly adopts anti-semitism.
Now to be a Democrat means to reject the most basic elements of the Bill of Rights, ranging from freedom of thought and speech to rejection of state sovereignty and restriction of federal power to denying due process and equal treatment under and by the law, and to adopt the political theory of a massively powerful Central Authority and to allow the president to simply issue edicts which the people MUST obey. or have the power of the State descend upon them
And so on. We need to first acknowledge that the goal of most Democrats is to do the right thing and be good and moral, and then to point out that the party has become the party of that which is not moral but is tyrannical and cruel and that to be good and moral they have to step away from the party.
This can’t be done in one step, or one single speech. But it has to be done, or we simply do what the Left has done and write off half the country as deplorable and irredeemable.
They want right-wing riots and mayhem. Oh, how desperately they want it. They NEED it.
Look how hard they tried to gin up the illusion that the Right imitated the Left on January 6—they needed a right-wing riot so badly that they made one, sending in their own subversives to start one and engage in false flag violence they could blame on the Right. That worked, kind of, to a degree, but obviously it was not enough to successfully paint the Right as being as violent as they are. They are still trying to use it, constantly referring back to it as if it was more significant than any, or even all, of the Left-wing violence that plagued the country for two years. Every now and then some little voice from the back row will squeak something about “all the police killed on January 6”.
They had to double down on this with the J6 Committee, which only served to warn us of the intent of the Left to openly use the Stalinist tactics of show trials, though it did have the effect of forcing a couple of alleged Republicans out into the open. All they got out of the J6 campaign was losing Liz Cheney and her House seniority and committee positions and replacing her with a staunch Republican whose mental firepower eclipses that of the Dems.
What this DID do, however, was illustrate to the Right that we can’t allow ourselves to be set up like this again, and you can see that resolve playing out in conservative responses. No mobs, no violence, no photo ops. Which is not to say the Right is still passive and meek. Politically, we are seeing the seismic evidence of the kind of preliminary rumblings that presage a volcanic eruption, and they poor Left can’t do a thing about it.
There are stories of farmers dealing with dogs who have killed chickens by taking a killed chicken and tying it around the dog’s neck and leaving there till the rotting corpse falls off. This is the image I have of this latest lawfare effort by the Left—–it is the chicken they have tied around their own necks, and they won’t be able to shake off its rotting corpse, which will only stink more and more as we start to turn it against them.
Talk about waking the sleeping giant.
🗞 THE C&C ARMY POST 🗞
🪖 MULTIPLIER UPDATE: As of yesterday afternoon, Trump’s campaign shattered fundraising records, raising an astonishing $53 million dollars from small donations in just 24 hours following the Manhattan Verdict. Maybe even more meaningfully, a full third of those donations were from new donors who had never previously participated.
I laughed all the way through.
https://x.com/i/status/1796608352002154859
Too funny. (hat-tip – Jeff Childers)
Yesterday evening, the Times published a grotesque parody of new in an article featuring this buffoonish headline:
The dementia-patient-in-chief is one box on the flowchart away from calling criticism of the Verdict “an attack on democracy.” It’s as predictable as Joe getting distracted by a four-year-old girl in the audience and stumbling over a sandbag trying to sniff her hair.
Commenters retaining their sanity observed what the Verdict really punctured was not Trump’s aura of invincibility, but rather the left’s contorted claims that MAGA folks are violent extremists, since our reaction to the Verdict was not to riot but to flood Trump’s fundraising website.
Scott Adams nails it (also hat-tip – Jeff Childers)
First Sotomayor admitted that it is wrong for a government official to use the might and power of the State to silence a political opponent, and now even Mittens has come around to admitting what has been obvious to all rational watchers: That this persecution/prosecution is “political malpractice” and that “Democrats think they can put out the Trump fire with oxygen”.
He stopped short of pointing out the legal and Constitutional defects of the trial but he did risk losing some of the Dem support he has been pursuing through his pandering to them.
A few comments.
“Alvin Bragg ran on putting Trump away.”
Of course he did. A prosecutor is gong to run on putting criminals in jail and a large number of Americans consider Trump a criminal. Don’t forget that one of the things Trump ran on was locking Clinton up.
“They want right-wing riots and mayhem. Oh, how desperately they want it. They NEED it.”
No we don’t. The last thing we want is for anyone to riot or create mayhem. We do take it seriously when someone is threatening violence.
BTW, a lot of progressives are also Christians. That would include myself and most of my progressive friends. God isn’t on our side or yours.
The jurors of the trail were picked by both sides. They were asked to make decisions based on the evidence. The majority of witnesses for the State were former Trump employees or Trump friends. The evidence presented was largely documents created by the Trump organization. The witnesses gave their testimony under oath. If Trump or his followers have solid evidence that any of them lied, they can push for perjury.
A lot of Trump supporters have been advocating for prosecuting Democrats. My feeling, go for it. If there is solid evidence that anyone has committed a crime they should be prosecuted regardless of party.
As usual, you focus on the people and not on the facts. There are legal defects in the prosecution, which you simply ignore in your recitation. For example, I cited part of the Bill of Rights highlighting the three elements of this amendment that were violated in this case.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
No one has ever thought of this as impartial jury. When the entire jury pool is biased, it doesn’t matter which jurors are deemed to possibly be marginally less so and so approved by the defense. Surely even you can understand that.
One point that has been made over and over again is that the alleged predicate crime upon which the entire case rested—that is, the crime alleged to be the reason the minor crime of misreporting could be elevated to a felony—was never identified. Agreed, this is a little more complicated so I can see why you might not be able to understand it. But….the crime Trump WAS accused of, filing a false report, was not only a misdemeanor but had gone well beyond the statute of limitations. It was dragged out and revived, a very unusual and questionable act, given a new lease on life, and piggybacked onto a law saying a misdemeanor can be elevated into a felony if it was committed for the purpose of committing another crime. That “other crime” is the predicate crime—the crime that depended on the misdemeanor. This alleged predicate crime was never mentioned or identified, and it was not part of the indictment. There has to be proof that the alleged predicate crime was, in fact, committed. Not until the judge issued his instructions was this alleged crime described or defined and it was certainly never adjudicated. So Trump was never informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and therefore was denied the ability to defend himself against it. It was presented to the jury as a done deal, as if it had been adjudicated and Trump found guilty, to allow the jurors to then decide that the minor crime they were asked to rule on was really committed to enable the bigger crime.
Not a single aspect of this passes the smell test. But it gets even worse. The claim that the minor misdemeanor was really a felony because it was intended to enable a different crime depends on a crystal ball reading explaining that the court just knew, somehow, what Trump was thinking when he allegedly agreed to have a false report filed. That is, they GUESSED. They SPECULATED. And that’s not how the law is supposed to work.
So, to follow their tortured thought processes, when Trump paid a bill presented to him as “legal services” their mind reading said no, he “really knew” it was for something else, which was to pay someone to refrain from talking about something. Paying someone to refrain from talking about something is not against the law, so the sole infraction here would be that the wording of the bookkeeping entry was incorrect. Here we have a possible, potential, tax crime, as legal services are tax deductible as business expenses and paying a whore to stop spreading harmful lies is not—but this possible, potential, tax issue was never brought up. And paying to hide something that was not a crime is also not a crime. So at this point, Bragg didn’t have anything to use to go after Trump unless he could find, or invent, a predicate crime that could be used as the reason the smaller crime was committed. And here we have the second mind reading, the determination of knowing what motivated Trump to pay a legal services bill when it was presented to him as a legal services bill. The crystal ball strikes again, telling us what was going through his mind when he paid a bill for legal services presented to him by his lawyer.
Why, it’s almost as if they were psychic or something! And suddenly, the alleged effort to withhold negative information about a candidate became a felony. But none of this complies with Trump’s constitutional right to be informed of an allegation and allowed to defend himself against it. There was no opportunity to defend against such an accusation. It was just plucked out of the ether and presented as a fact, that Donald Trump committed the crime of election interference, which was necessary to make the bookkeeping entry a felony. Boom. Done deal.
Don’t forget that failure to let him have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. A witness who was the former head of the FEC—that is, the FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION—-was not allowed to testify that even if Trump had been motivated by the thoughts uncovered by the crystal ball this would not have been illegal. There was concern that the former head of the commission, whose job had been to know and enforce election law, might be considered an “expert” on election law, so he was silenced.
THEN, as if all this were not enough, comes this little fact: The act of making the payment that was intended and designed to illegally influence voters in an election WAS MADE WEEKS AFTER THE ELECTION WAS OVER. And don’t forget, violation of election law is a federal offense, but Fat Albert decided to try it in a state court.
You bleat: The majority of witnesses for the State were former Trump employees or Trump friends. The evidence presented was largely documents created by the Trump organization. How many of these documents proved that Trump knew exactly what “legal services” were included in his bill? How many proved that paying “hush money” is an illegal act? More to the point, how many showed an intent to retroactively influence voters weeks after their votes were cast?
Your post is a defense of a man targeting a political opponent and running on a promise to take him out, using the might and power of the State, and of blatant abuse of and manipulation of the legal system to do it. It is also a defense of a trial alleged to be about a man trying to influence an election, as its very existence is proof or trying to influence an election. So spare us your mewling about being a Christian, blah blah blah.
Which is a more serious effort to hide negative information about a candidate?
A. Hiding a sexual encounter between two consenting adults, or
B. Hiding evidence that a candidate, while vice president of the United States, sold influence to other nations and enriched himself through the subsequent business dealings and bribes that rewarded this
Which is a more serious effort to hide negative information about a candidate?
A. Paying a single attorney to quietly and confidentially deal with a blackmail attempt
B. Using the might and power of the federal government to influence media coverage of something deemed a potential threat to election, and having 51 agency heads and other federal officials publish a letter lying about the evidence of this and other wrongdoing indicating potential dangers to national security
“As usual, you focus on the people and not on the facts.”
Actually, the facts are pretty simple. Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers and is now a felon.
“No one has ever thought of this as impartial jury. When the entire jury pool is biased, it doesn’t matter which jurors are deemed to possibly be marginally less so and so approved by the defense.”
27% of NTC residents are registered Republicans. It only takes one person to bring about a hung jury. The evidence was enough to convince all of them that Trump was guilty.
As for the rest of your points, perhaps you can pass them along to his lawyers so they can include them in his appeal.
My goodness, you have certainly become quite snippy in your advanced years! I can almost see your pursed lips and squinty eyes as you tuck your chins in and come out with your pissy snark to try to simply dismiss the legitimate points I made about the illegitimacy of the whole “trial”. Of course, his lawyers know all of this, and so do thousands of legal experts and millions of outraged citizens who happen to think the Constitution should mean something. Hundreds of thousands of words have been written describing these many violations of the law, the Constitution, common decency and the concept of equal application of the law to everyone. You just choose to ignore all of this and fall back on the simple-minded mantras of your kind: twelve people found him guilty of a minor offense and this makes him a felon because a corrupt district attorney phrased the charge in a way that linked it to a fantasized and never defined, never charged and never tried “other crime”.
You simper Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers and is now a felon. What, exactly, was Trump convicted OF?
Trump was charged with 34 counts of falsification of business records in the first degree. The only thing that made this “in the first degree” was the unfounded claim about why he did it. Falsifying business records is not a felony, and in any case this dastardly deed was done so long ago it had timed out and was beyond the statute of limitations. The entire charade of it being revived (making a sham of the whole concept of statute of limitations) to convert it into a charge of being a felony depended on linking it to a charge never made, never adjudicated, never formalized in any way and never stated or explained to the jury until the trial was over and never supported by anything other than “the voices in our heads tell us why he did it”.
But thank you for your ongoing expression of your belief that the State has the right to bring its full might and power to bear on political opponents, and that the law depends on who has the power—as long as the victim is someone you don’t like. Your responses have the ugly echo of Orwell’s Animal Farm, when the pigs repainted the sign to say “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others”.
The real reasons for objecting to this Stalinesque show trial are not based on being fans of Donald Trump. As much as you shallow thinkers fail to ever get beyond Identity Politics to the real issues at hand, millions more have more intelligence and more integrity and are able to see the many violations of civil rights and distortions of the law even though they might not like Donald Trump. They understand that if this kind of abuse of power can be applied to a man who is rich and powerful, it can be used as a weapon against any of us, for any reason the State chooses. Under the boot of the Left, everything is relative, everything is malleable, everything can be edited and spun and distorted to pursue an agenda and no citizen can now feel protected by our laws and our “legal system” now that we have seen it shredded and weaponized.
(And BTW, thanks for your nod to Identity Politics when you cite the statistic that “27% of NTC residents are registered Republicans.” and go on to state “It only takes one person to bring about a hung jury”. This is a clear statement that you fully expect jurors to decide on guilt or innocence based on political affiliation. And, naturally, it avoids the fact that none of this alleged 27% were on the jury.)
Thanks for playing “Wanna see how stupid I am?” but it wasn’t necessary, that evaluation having been made long ago.
Jurors did not need to agree on what the underlying “unlawful means” were. But they did have to unanimously conclude that Trump caused the business records to be falsified, and that he “did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime (but which was not specified or included in the indictment or tried or legally found to have occurred or resulted in a guilty verdict) or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.” In other words, an intent to commit another crime which did not, technically, even exist as it had never been charged or adjudicated but which existed only as a possible, theoretical, crime.
The only “defraud” element was that of listing a payment as a tax deduction, or simple payment for normal legal services, and not as a legal payment to someone in exchange for silence about something that was not a crime. And the indictment and subsequent “trial” never addressed tax issues so the sole element that might have been a fraud was not part of the case or ever brought up.
I have often referred to my decades of asking Leftists to define their political philosophy and their inability to do so. But casper is showing us that they can and do define their political philosophy, just by explaining to us what they find acceptable in government and what they don’t.
Casper does not need to come right out and articulate a belief that we are best governed by a massively powerful Central Authority which imposes its rule on everyone–he just needs to defend this when it happens, which he does.
Casper does not need to use Big Boy words to explain that it is OK to redefine words and restructure the law to achieve a political agenda—he just has to accept the outcomes and explain why they are justified.
Casper does not need to explain that tyranny is good when it is applied for the “right” reasons—he just has to support it when it rears its ugly head and explain that it is “for our own good”—-as he has done, in so many words, defending the State application of brute power to bring citizens to their knees, forcing them to inject experimental drugs just to preserve their rights to work and travel freely.
Casper does not have to state a belief that the purpose of the press is propaganda to support a regime—he just has to obediently parrot its narrative
Casper does not have to admit that he does not think our Constitution is the law of the land or that it is a valid form of government for our nation—-he just has to redefine it to fit into his personal political belief system and overlook or defend its violations.
We don’t need formal declarations of political philosophy—we just need to look at what people find acceptable and what they attack, and they tell us.
Relating to casper’s tacit admission that jurors would naturally vote not according to the law or the facts presented to them but based on their political affiliation:
“My goodness, you have certainly become quite snippy in your advanced years! “
You do realize you are older than me, right?
You have made some points as to Trump’s trial and I’m sure that his lawyers will bring them up during his appeal.
So what are the ramifications?
“Morning Consult poll conducted on Friday found 54 percent of registered voters approve of the jury’s verdict while 39 percent disapprove. Across party lines, 18 percent of Republicans approve of the verdict while 74 percent disapprove, 52 percent of independents approve while 33 disapprove and 88 percent of Democrats approve while 8 percent disapprove.”
According to this poll, most Americans agree with me about the verdict. if that is true and it holds, it is going to be very difficult for Trump to win this year.
The whole program the Democrats have this year is “convicted felon Trump”. That’s it; the whole ball of wax. Either this works, or nothing does. Of course they have polls to confirm their views just as they had talking points ready the moment the verdict was read (and pre-printed signs for the government employees given paid time off to stand outside the courthouse). The theory is that a conviction will turn off just enough people to allow Biden to slide into another term (and then likely die in 2025 because there’s no way the senile twit makes it another 4 years; the man is practically a walking corpse).
This program is not meritless – it may, in fact, work. Which would mean, Caspar, that your Party and your Handsome and Charismatic Leader and Teacher retain power via jailing your political opponent. Proud of yourself? Sure this issue couldn’t have been dealt with later? I mean, the statute of limitations had already expired so its not like trivial things like the law stop you guys. Nope; the Orange Man is Bad!!!! He must be stopped! He is a unique threat to Our Democracy! So, jail him. And arrest his supporters whenever possible. And work with social media to censor Wrongthink.
Go to f*cking hell.
And Trump is going to win. 55% of the vote.
You know nothing about me. Many years ago you posted a claim of knowing things about me that were completely false and unrelated to me, pure invention and lies, and you seem to still be listening to those voices in your head. I, on the other hand, know your real name, the school where you “taught”, talked to people in Casper, Wyoming about you and even saw videos of you. So STFU about your fantasies about me.
I also point out that the advancement of years affects people differently. It has evidently make you even more puerile and disconnected from reality and prone to increasingly feeble regurgitations of what your masters feed you, whereas I am still on my game. I’m still citing the law and the Constitution and laying out a coherent political philosophy and defending it, and you are still unable to do anything but fall back on Identity Politics and the nonsense of your kind. You staked out your intellectual territory years ago when you explained that anyone believing we need to follow the Constitution as it is written also thinks we should go back to slavery and not letting women vote. When you start that low, you really can’t afford to lose any ground, but it looks like you’ve been slipping into even more evidence of lack of mental acuity. At least you seem to recognize your limitations and don’t even try to address the more complex ideas posted here, just falling back on your own version of large-format cue cards with instructions on how to react.
We have five months till the election. Five months in which your side can only bleat “FELON!!” while the Right can strip away the lies inherent in the prosecution and lay out the malicious prosecution by Bragg, not to enforce the law but to smear a political opponent to try to rig the next election. Bragg is already nervous about the fallout and his potential liability, trying to back out of the whole mess by whining that he was just doing his job. Too little, too late, Fat Al.
The Complicit Agenda Media might have been successful in presenting only its preferred version of facts to the masses, but when the facts come out and it is made clear even to the sheeple who get their “news” from the propaganda machine of the Left people will start to wonder if they really want to live under the specter of a tyrannical government that can bring its bootheel down on the neck of anyone who comes onto its radar. They submitted to tyranny because they were scared and told it was “for their own good” as they risked their health and very lives by injecting an experimental (and, we have learned, dangerous) drug to be able to keep their jobs and travel freely. Well, the cat is out of the bag on that scam, as information grows about the various abuses of power, lies to the public and general corruption that define the whole Covid scandal. Then they watched the might and power of government weaponized to take down a political opponent in an effort to rig the next election.
Now rational people are going to be thinking “what will protect me if the Constitution can’t? What will protect me if the government can just redefine the law to punish me for being considered a political opponent? Will I, too, be targeted for my beliefs? How far with the Left go to hang onto power? What else will the Left do to influence the election?” Now rational people are going to see the similarities of the Biden “justice” system to that of another “Uncle Joe”—-only that one was Joseph Stalin. This show *trial is just the latest in the use of State power against a citizen and people are starting to remember another Stalin-era comment (in addition to “show me the man and I will give you a crime”) and that is that the only thing that matters in an election is who counts the votes.
And now people are remembering just what it takes to be considered an “enemy of the State”. Going to church. Caring about their children’s education. Objecting to the sexualization of young children and putting porn in school libraries. Flying the American flag. Wanting to follow election laws. Caring if elections are honest. Believing in our Constitution. Thinking we should enforce our immigration laws. Believing the law must be applied equally to all. The list of things described by the Left in the past few years as qualifying people as “enemies of the State” is quite expansive, and seems to grow all the time, and it now includes the majority of Americans in one way or another. So watching how an “enemy of the State” is treated by a system quite blatant in its disdain for the rule of law is frightening, and will be even more so as facts start to emerge from the propaganda mill.
Take your victory laps, prancing around in glee, because it is only a temporary win. I don’t know where the tipping point is, but I sense that we are getting close to it.
Morning Consult also, in its “Global Leader Approval Rating Tracker”, shows Joe Biden with a global approval rating of only 39%, with a disapproval rating of 53%. It’s easy to see why the Left is so desperate to salvage its investment in Uncle Joe. As it is increasingly clear that he cannot be improved as a president or candidate, obviously the only alternative is to drag his opponent down.
Yeah, there’s never been a case of a person being falsely convicted before – no such thing as a prosecutor rigging a trial to make sure the verdict is guilty. And in this case, the judge was part of it.
And, hey, aren’t you Lefties opposed to things like “convict”? Isn’t Trump merely a “justice-involved individual”? All crime being the result of our racist, sexist, homophobic, capitalist, settler-colonialist society, aren’t you the guilty person here?
“The whole program the Democrats have this year is “convicted felon Trump”
You caught us. it was a simple three step plan.
Step one- Get Trump to commit some crimes.
Step two- Arrest Trump for his crimes.
Step three- Try and convict Trump for his crimes.
The easiest step was step one.
“And, hey, aren’t you Lefties opposed to things like “convict”?”
Nope. Happy with criminals going to jail regardless of party affiliation.
ROFL – he didn’t commit any crimes!
FFS…did you not pay any attention to the trial?
Trump was accused of doing things in 2017 to influence the 2016 election.
Not kidding.
This is actually what happened.
It is what you would know happened if you weren’t just getting your info served up to you by MSNBC.
Additional things you might not know:
1. Trump was denied a change of venue even though Trump lost Manhattan by 74 percentage points and so it was obviously a hostile venue.
2. Trump was denied a recusal of the judge even though the judge had donated to Democrats and the judge’s daughter is a big time Democrat political operative.
3. The Daniels testimony was allowed even though it had no bearing on the case which was allegedly about whether or not Trump had maliciously misstated business expenditures. Her testimony was obviously prejudicial to the defendant. Aside: we still have no confirmation that she was ever so much as alone with Trump, let alone engaged in sexual activity with him.
4. Paying hush money to cover up a sexual affair isn’t illegal. Not in New York. Not in the United States. But “Trump’s hush money trial” sounds very bad.
5. Cohen’s testimony confirmed he is a thief as well as a liar and provided no proof that Trump had authorized the expenditure of funds.
6. The Judge prohibited the defense from offering a coherent defense; not even allowing expert testimony from a former head of the FEC who would have testified that Trump committed no campaign finance violations.
7. The Judge did not insist upon jury unanimity on whether or not there was an underlying crime Trump was trying to cover up.
8. If there was something fishy in what happened, the normal course of events is for the FEC to fine the campaign in question…you know, like they did when Team Hillary illegally entered payments for the Steele Dossier as “legal expenses”. Do keep that one in mind: the whole predicate of this is that Trump stole the 2016 election…and that is based, ultimately, on the Steele dossier. That Hillary paid for. And lied about.
9. The Feds refused to bring the underlying federal charges against Trump. Trump was convicted 34 times of State crimes on the accusation that he had committed a federal crime – which was never prosecuted because the Feds said there was nothing there…and the statute of limitations has already expired on any federal crime related to Trump’s 2016 campaign.
10. The Judge allowed the Prosecutor to assert, without allowing objection, that Trump had definitely committed federal crimes even though Trump was never so much as charged with such crimes.
11. The Judge’s jury instructions were 55 pages long and written so that the only possible verdict he allowed the jury to come to was, “guilty”.
Now, Casper, if you want to say this was a fair trial according to law, you go right ahead.
But the fact of the matter is that Trump was railroaded by a DA who ran on the promise of prosecuting Trump. Every aspect of the trial is grounds for appeal and this whole thing will eventually be tossed into the trash.
casper, we already know you are irredeemably stupid—but thanks for putting together this cheat sheet to illustrate your stupidity in so many ways. I’m sure you thought you were being quite clever when you started this little journey into self-abasement. Hint: You weren’t, and never have been
“ROFL – he didn’t commit any crimes!”
And yet he is out on bail in three jurisdictions while being convicted in a fourth.
“FFS…did you not pay any attention to the trial?”
I did. I followed it online.
“Trump was accused of doing things in 2017 to influence the 2016 election.”
He reimbursed his fixer. part of the same case.
“1. Trump was denied a change of venue even though Trump lost Manhattan by 74 percentage points and so it was obviously a hostile venue.”
Perhaps he should have committed his crimes somewhere else.
“2. Trump was denied a recusal of the judge even though the judge had donated to Democrats and the judge’s daughter is a big time Democrat political operative.”
The judge donated $35. Hardly a major donor. Doesn’t matter what his daughter does.
“3. The Daniels testimony was allowed even though it had no bearing on the case which was allegedly about whether or not Trump had maliciously misstated business expenditures. Her testimony was obviously prejudicial to the defendant. Aside: we still have no confirmation that she was ever so much as alone with Trump, let alone engaged in sexual activity with him.”
“4. Paying hush money to cover up a sexual affair isn’t illegal. Not in New York. Not in the United States. But “Trump’s hush money trial” sounds very bad.”
You are correct and that’s not what he was convicted on.
“5. Cohen’s testimony confirmed he is a thief as well as a liar and provided no proof that Trump had authorized the expenditure of funds.”
All of Cohen’s testimony was collaborated by documents and other witnesses.
“6. The Judge prohibited the defense from offering a coherent defense; not even allowing expert testimony from a former head of the FEC who would have testified that Trump committed no campaign finance violations.”
Bring it up on appeal.
“7. The Judge did not insist upon jury unanimity on whether or not there was an underlying crime Trump was trying to cover up.”
Not sure what you mean by that.
“8. If there was something fishy in what happened, the normal course of events is for the FEC to fine the campaign in question…you know, like they did when Team Hillary illegally entered payments for the Steele Dossier as “legal expenses”. Do keep that one in mind: the whole predicate of this is that Trump stole the 2016 election…and that is based, ultimately, on the Steele dossier. That Hillary paid for. And lied about.
Clinton had nothing to do with this case.
“9. The Feds refused to bring the underlying federal charges against Trump. Trump was convicted 34 times of State crimes on the accusation that he had committed a federal crime – which was never prosecuted because the Feds said there was nothing there…and the statute of limitations has already expired on any federal crime related to Trump’s 2016 campaign.
The feds screwed up by not prosecuting the case.
“10. The Judge allowed the Prosecutor to assert, without allowing objection, that Trump had definitely committed federal crimes even though Trump was never so much as charged with such crimes.”
So bring it up on the appeal.
“11. The Judge’s jury instructions were 55 pages long and written so that the only possible verdict he allowed the jury to come to was, “guilty”.
Once the jury gets the case they decide on guilty or not. They don’t have to follow the judges directions.
“Now, Casper, if you want to say this was a fair trial according to law, you go right ahead.”
Trump could have testified or his lawyers could have called other witnesses. That said, I consider it was a far trial.
“But the fact of the matter is that Trump was railroaded by a DA who ran on the promise of prosecuting Trump. Every aspect of the trial is grounds for appeal and this whole thing will eventually be tossed into the trash.”
Go for it. In the mean time Trump is a convicted felon.
And yet he is out on bail in three jurisdictions while being convicted in a fourth. because if you acknowledge that the power of the ruling elites overrides the rule of law then all you care about is the outcome they give you, irrespective of the laws they broke or ignored or distorted to produce those outcomes. (This is the same mentality that says “If he says he is a woman he is a woman, irrespective of biology.) And “out on bail” means–do try to keep up here, casper—that he has not yet been tried on these counts and is, therefore, constitutionally and legally innocent of the alleged crimes.
He reimbursed his fixer. part of the same case yet the “crime” lay not in the payment to the extortionist, or in the reimbursement to Cohen (neither of which is illegal) but in its subsequent entering into the books. The “crime” was falsifying the books. And the entry—therefore, the “falsification”, therefore the “crime”—- happened after the election.
The judge donated $35. Hardly a major donor. The LAW prohibits donations. Period. It does not specify any amount. Of course, to people already accepting the distortion of the law to enable the smearing/prosecution of a political opponent, this seems like a good argument.
Doesn’t matter what his daughter does except for that silly little law about conflict of interest. The judge is enabling an activity that enriches the daughter. Put another way: If the *judge were not playing his role in this charade, the daughter would not be pulling in millions.
All of Cohen’s testimony was collaborated by documents and other witnesses Cohen testified that he was the one who decided to book the payments as legal fees. The billing came out of his office. He cashed the checks made out for legal fees. AND he is a convicted felon, which we now know is, like, you know, rilly RILLY RILLY like, you know, the most important thing there IS about someone. And the crime he was convicted of was LYING UNDER OATH. This is the quality of your side’s argument.
Bring it up on appeal which is the smarmy, smirky, reply ignoring the fact that the bell can’t be unrung. As you gloated, Trump is now officially a felon, and is going into the election with that identity. And that was always the goal. Everyone, even this *judge, has known that every one of these egregious violations of legal procedure would be overturned on appeal, but that’s fine with them, because they/you got the label, and that was always what you wanted. You even admit this in your final little snot-nugget, when you gloat Go for it. In the mean time Trump is a convicted felon.
Clinton had nothing to do with this case “Precedent” is a legal concept and one routinely used in rulings.
The feds screwed up by not prosecuting the case So you now know more than the federal prosecutor at the time and his entire legal team? And think your opinion is relevant to anything? The FACT is that a federal prosecutor examined the evidence brought to him and found nothing in it worth prosecuting. It was a minor technical bookkeeping error and properly treated as such. But if they had, it would have been in federal court, not a state court. This is another of the irregularities of this sham *trial—-it depended on resurrecting an offense well out of the statute of limitations, that had already been determined to be too minor an offense to bother with, making the statute of limitations law meaningless, and then attaching it to an imaginary violation of a federal law—which, if anyone but Bragg had felt like beclowning himself by going through this bizarre distortion of the law, would have been tried in a federal court.
So bring it up on the appeal Back to that smirky gloat and its tacit admission that by then the harm will have been done and will be irreversible. Which was always the goal.
Once the jury gets the case they decide on guilty or not. They don’t have to follow the judges directions In a long history of utterly stupid comments from you, casper, this has to take the prize. The judge gives the jury the guidelines they MUST follow in their deliberations. They are forbidden from considering anything outside those guidelines. Good Lord, casper, you really should stay off these blogs if they generate such a self-destructive urge to blurt out such stupidity. (In a trial, if you were asked “Just how stupid ARE you?” the ruling would be “Asked and answered”.)
Trump could have testified or his lawyers could have called other witnesses. That said, I consider it was a far trial. Did the judge’s instructions include the admonition that the jury was absolutely forbidden from thinking that a failure to testify indicates guilt? Because this is in every LEGITIMATE judge’s instructions, because it’s the law. I know, you and your kind find the law so inconvenient at times, which is why you either ignore it or distort it, but still—-there is no requirement to testify and no LEGAL means to read anything into it. As for “other witnesses” this was essentially a Thought Crimes trial, where the government prosecuted what they claimed to be the motive, the intent, the inner workings of Trump’s mind. The only thing “other witnesses” could testify to would have been their impressions of what Trump was thinking, making this charade even more insane.
Which brings us back to your illustration of the true goal of the *trial—it lets you and your kind smirk in triumph: Go for it. In the mean time Trump is a convicted felon.
The only things that can possibly insert a modicum of fairness into this would be an election victory by Trump followed by prosecution of Bragg for his part in this travesty of justice.
I correct myself. I said The only things that can possibly insert a modicum of fairness into this would be an election victory by Trump followed by prosecution of Bragg for his part in this travesty of justice. But it will be, if not exactly fair then at least gratifying and just, if this blatant use of lawfare against a political opponent to rig an election is the impetus for the collapse of the Democrat Party, leaving it to the dregs of society like casper to huddle around its tattered remains to reminisce about the Good Old Days when they had the power and used it to stick it to Trump.
And, of course, if that unholy mix of laws in New York—the ability to escalate a minor infraction to a felony by piggybacking it onto another crime—were turned against Bragg. That is, a charge of malicious prosecution elevated to a felony by linking it to an effort to influence an election. THAT would be “fair”.
If you are finished snickering about the fast one pulled by your side in slapping that “felon” label on Trump, hoping it will affect his ability to win the election, go back to this post and see if you can address what it says without consulting your masters on the proper narrative to employ:
…………………………………………………..
Anyone who thinks that criticism of the recent *trial and verdict are thinking only of its impact on Donald Trump need to think again. Regarding the antics of the Letitia James trial, also in New York, similar concerns are being expressed.
The case promises to continue discouraging investors from doing business in the Empire State, Mr. Trzcinka and two other knowledgeable sources told The Epoch Times.
That’s not only because of the crippling dollar amounts involved, the sources said, but also because President Trump and his associates were behaving within the bounds of normal business practice and victimized no one.
“All the parties under this civil case were satisfied,” Mr. Trzcinka said. Yet Ms. James “brought a case without a victim” and secured a judgment approaching $500 million.
“I have never heard of a victimless civil case that even won $500,” he said.
…………………………………..
“This timeframe is insane,” the insider, who spoke to The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity, said. “I’ve been given more time to pay a parking ticket in New York City than Donald Trump has been given to pay a $500 million bond.”
Indeed, parking violators in the Big Apple may delay payments and late fees for “about 100 days” before facing a court judgment with interest, a city website states.
In contrast, officials granted President Trump less than one-third of that amount of time to fulfill the bond requirement of nearly $500 million.
“I don’t think a bonding company [or a bank] is willing to be associated with Donald Trump. … because the attorney general could turn around and sue them, go after them,” Mr. Trzcinka said.
………………………….
Other businesspeople are looking at this situation, Mr. Trzcinka said, and asking themselves, “If they can do this to Trump, what’s going to happen to me?”
And this is the underlying concern about all these *trials and their outcomes. It’s not just about a man. The ramifications range from concern over using the power of the State to influence the election it needs to win to stay in power to the very real concern that publicly identifying with anything the State does not like can mean persecution by the State, backed by its immense power.
The recently ended *trial was not about Donald Trump—it was about the ability of the State to simply redefine laws and apply them selectively in pursuit of political goals. It was about the ethics/legality of the party in power using that power to crush or intimidate the opposing party and therefore influence the election. And it was about the very real prospect of seeing the same kinds of treatment applied to anyone who gets crosswise with those in power.
It’s interesting and informative to see who defends these actions.
“I followed it online.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHA. Online! On MSNBC no doubt. Oh, casper, you might not ever make sense, but you are sometimes rather entertaining.
No, you don’t Casper. You do not consider it a fair trial. If this was done to someone you support – or to a family member or friend – you would be vigorously objecting because it was so grossly unfair. Do not try to deny it; you know this. I know this. Everyone knows this. You just got what you wanted out of this: Trump the Felon.
You don’t care that it was unfair.
You don’t care there were massive violations of law to get to it.
You don’t care that it sets a precedent which, if not torpedoed quickly, will lead to the end of the Republic and the rise of Caesar.
You just wanted to Get Trump.
The Bad, Orange Man.
Who denied Hillary her term of office.
But—but—but casper has assured us that he believes in the Constitution. Just not, evidently, when it comes to due process (6th Amendment, Bill of Rights) or excessive fines (8th Amendment, Bill of Rights) if the question is if Donald Trump is entitled to these civil rights.
casper doesn’t even try to hide his gloating over the ability to call Trump a felon. And as you and I and millions of others know, that was the whole goal. They might be disturbed that the verdict hasn’t moved the needle and decide they need to double down with prison time, hoping a perp walk with Trump in shackles might be a thumb on the scale but that would be beyond foolish, making only the caspers titter in glee, but they will probably drop it, or give a token sentence, feeling smug that their work has been done.
And OF COURSE he knows the *trial was rigged, just as he knows Merchan didn’t even try to run it according to legal or ethical standards. He just doesn’t care because his “ethics” are as flimsy and flexible as his dedication to our Constitutional rule of law (and probably his “Christianity”).
A friend sent me a cartoon I am not able to embed here. Panel 1 has Uncle Joe asking “What does it say about Republicans that their presidential candidate is a convicted felon?” The response is “What does it say about Democrats that their presidential candidate is trailing in the polls to a convicted felon?”
One phrase that comes to mind when I think of Biden is “unindicted co-conspirator”.
As the effort to use the word “felon” to change the outcome of the election continues to fizzle out, I see the term “felon” being sanitized as it becomes a joke and a meme. One such effort is the spin on the name of the TV Series, changing the meaning of “Orange is the New Black” as black people who have felt that bootheel of biased judiciary on their necks are finding common cause with Trump.
I want to see a billboard with a Trump photo and the caption “Felon, 2024” next to a picture of Biden with the caption “Felon, 2025”
It’s important to remember that after the Left stole the 2020 presidential election, after they closed our small businesses and forced vaccines into us, after they destroyed and burnt down many American cities, after they opened the border and allowed the trafficking of women and children, after they started a needless war and drained our treasury and oil reserves, after they censored our speech, and after they indicted, prosecuted, and convicted our Presidential candidate while protecting their candidate …. We don’t want to come off as extreme.
I will note that since 2000, “not being extreme” has been the conservative standard operating procedure, AND we have lost ground every year. When you’re in the fourth quarter and down by 10, it’s time to change the strategy.
Cluster, I think you are overlooking the fact that every single action or belief on the Right is then categorized by the Left as “extreme”.
I don’t think tepid response from the Right has been fear of being seen as “extreme”, especially as the strident howls of “extremism” now cover benign things like going to church and thinking the Constitution is a valid rule of law that should apply to all of us. I think a lot of it is the DNA of conservatives that leads us away from forming mobs and trying to impose our views on others, so unlike the DNA of the Left which is all about mob rule and forcing others to do things. It’s not some wishy-washy fear as much as it is a natural inclination toward individualism.
However, it is something we need to overcome, and I think the mindset is evolving to the understanding that this is not effective when dealing with a brutal and ruthless movement that is based on raw power exerted to crush opposition by any means.
This is a perfect example of a major difference between the Left and the Right and how we handle political differences
Dr. Malone has some great cartoons today, which in the spirit of original use of cartoons serve to make important political points.
And finally, a cartoon that calls for reflection not just on what it says but on what it means for us as a nation
Anyone who thinks that criticism of the recent *trial and verdict are thinking only of its impact on Donald Trump need to think again. Regarding the antics of the Letitia James trial, also in New York, similar concerns are being expressed.
The case promises to continue discouraging investors from doing business in the Empire State, Mr. Trzcinka and two other knowledgeable sources told The Epoch Times.
That’s not only because of the crippling dollar amounts involved, the sources said, but also because President Trump and his associates were behaving within the bounds of normal business practice and victimized no one.
“All the parties under this civil case were satisfied,” Mr. Trzcinka said. Yet Ms. James “brought a case without a victim” and secured a judgment approaching $500 million.
“I have never heard of a victimless civil case that even won $500,” he said.
…………………………………..
“This timeframe is insane,” the insider, who spoke to The Epoch Times on condition of anonymity, said. “I’ve been given more time to pay a parking ticket in New York City than Donald Trump has been given to pay a $500 million bond.”
Indeed, parking violators in the Big Apple may delay payments and late fees for “about 100 days” before facing a court judgment with interest, a city website states.
In contrast, officials granted President Trump less than one-third of that amount of time to fulfill the bond requirement of nearly $500 million.
And this is the underlying concern about all these *trials and their outcomes. It’s not just about a man. The ramifications range from concern over using the power of the State to influence the election it needs to win to stay in power to the very real concern that publicly identifying with anything the State does not like can mean persecution by the State, backed by its immense power.
The recently ended *trial was not about Donald Trump—it was about the ability of the State to simply redefine laws and apply them selectively in pursuit of political goals. It was about the ethics/legality of the party in power using that power to crush or intimidate the opposing party and therefore influence the election. And it was about the very real prospect of seeing the same kinds of treatment applied to anyone who gets crosswise with those in power.
It’s interesting and informative to see who defends these actions.