Below is a slightly expanded version of my column in the New York Post on the verdict in the Trump trial. The Manhattan case, in my view, was a raw political use of the criminal justice system. It is only the latest example of the use of the justice system for political purposes and harkens back to the Adams Administration at the start of our Republic. I discuss that period in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (which is available this month).
Here is the column:
After years of trying — in the words of the judge — “to get the damned rascal in this court,” it was a conviction that many welcomed.
But those words were not from Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, and the conviction was not that of former President Donald Trump.
Rather they were from US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, at the end of the 18th century, when America embraced political prosecutions to target critics and opponents.
The man on trial then was James T. Callender, a muckraking writer critical of President John Adams.
For accusing politicians of corruption, Callender was charged with sedition, fined $200 and put in prison.
It was one of the many political prosecutions carried out by the Adams administration.
Undeniable reality
Political prosecutions are something most citizens associate with dictatorships.
But the Trump prosecution has forced many to confront the undeniable reality of the politicization of our legal system.
In many respects, President Biden and Democrats have re-created the Adams era.
Biden has led calls for censorship of political critics and his administration has coordinated the silencing and the blacklisting of those with opposing views.
Democratic politicians have pressured social-media companies to serve as surrogates for the government in banning, throttling and defunding individuals and groups.
Indeed, I have previously written that Biden is now the most anti-free-speech president since Adams.
The Adams era also reflected the same blind loyalty of many media outlets.
Federalist publications supported the crackdowns while echoing charges against political opponents as seditionists and insurrectionists.
Jeffersonian publications, like Callender’s, attacked Adams for his “unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice.”
The nation was divided down the middle as both sides accused each other of being traitors and insurrectionists. Sound familiar?
A chilling return
Yet, it is the politicization of the legal system that is the most chilling return to the Adams era.
Even liberal legal analysts and figures have admitted that the case against Trump was unprecedented and would not have been brought against anyone other than Trump.
CNN legal analyst Elie Honig recently wrote that there should be concern over a judge being appointed (not randomly selected) who is not just a Biden donor but someone who “has earmarked donations for ‘resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.’”
Adding to these concerns is the movement of the third-highest official in the Biden Justice Department to the staff of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg to build the case against Trump.
Before joining the case, Matthew Colangelo was also paid by the Democratic National Committee for “political consulting.”
So Trump was convicted in a trial with a Biden donor judge, who has a daughter who is a major Democratic operative, a lead prosecutor previously paid as a DNC political consultant and a jury selected in a district that voted roughly 90% against Trump.
The trial itself was a travesty.
Even after sitting in the courtroom watching the trial and the verdict, I still have no idea what Trump was convicted of in the case.
The charges were built on a dead misdemeanor barred with the passage of the statute of limitations.
It was zapped back into life by alleging that the falsification of business records occurred to unlawfully influence the 2016 presidential election.
Merchan told the jury members that they did not have to agree on what those unlawful means may have been.
Specifically, he allowed them to base their verdict on any one of three vaguely defined crimes of a federal election violation, falsification of business records or taxation violations.
Thus, the jury could have divided 4-4-4 on what actually occurred but the verdict was still treated as unanimous by Merchan to convict Trump.
Like much else in the case, that didn’t matter in deep-blue Manhattan.
Legal analysts and commentators openly celebrated on MSNBC and CNN — joining many in the streets.
This was a thrill-kill conviction, and the response of many in the media bordered on the indecent.
For many outside of Manhattan, the scene was repulsive and chilling.
You can hate Donald Trump but still be repelled by the use of the criminal justice system for political purposes.
There is, however, one silver lining. We went through political prosecutions under Adams and, to a lesser extent, Thomas Jefferson.
Yet, we survived. Our system corrected such abuses over time.
The Alien and Sedition Acts used to prosecute Callender expired.
Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for his partisanship (though not convicted).
With this case, you feel the weight of history in the conviction of a former president, but also a historical awakening.
Sometimes it takes a great abuse to shock the public into recognizing the need to act.
That was the case when the public finally saw Sen. Joe McCarthy in the first televised hearing of an Un-American Activities hearing. It was enough to stop the Red Scare and the abuses of political dissidents. Back then, the left was the target of such weaponization of the legal process. Today, it is the left pushing such abuses.
In the faces of ecstasy of demonstrators and commentators alike this week, we see the same joyful release from the bounds of legal process. The addictive quality of rage.
For them, it was a cathartic moment that was described by one commentator as a reason to celebrate and a “majestic” moment.
For the rest of us, it was more menacing than majestic.
It could prove to be the moment that galvanized many outside of Manhattan; the moment when citizens saw where our rage has taken us.
Sometimes we have to be forced to see what we have become to better understand who we are.
We are better than this.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School.
I am fascinated by all the MAGA morons howling into the wind that this conviction is certain to be overturned.
I don’t think you understand what happens if it is overturned.
You seem to think that if the Appeals Court vacates the conviction then that is the end of the matter.
You seem to think that Trump would be exonerated, walking away as a free man.
If an appeal is successful, and the conviction is vacated, that simply means that the trial is voided, nullified as if it never took place. The Appeals court would have to find errors in the way the trial was conducted. It cannot rule on the evidence. Everything is reset back to square one. Bragg is perfectly free to bring the charges again. There is no double jeopardy.
I, for one, kind of hope that an appeal is successful.
That means we get to do this all over again.
Oh, happy days !!!
I am con-Vinced you are a FOOL , Have hopes and dreams of
Anarchy, live in a world of pain an suffering
Where might makes it wrong, and Left is right
Uhhhhh wrong, the appellate and supreme courts can overturn it with prejudice, the court can also refer the prosecution to the state for malicious prosecution, the court can remove the entire prosecution from the case and the court can end the legal careers of every person involved in the case if they so choose.
Do you mean to say that Matthew Colangelo, Manhattan District Attorney, New York County, New York, may repeat his historic and egregious act of abject corruption and that furtherance of national degradation and destruction will be allowed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America a second time?
Interesting take, although being sent back will also include admonishment and corrective review to occur, and if indeed Judicial tempermance and indication of a conflict that as far as to permit his daughter’s clients access to the courtroom as a benefit of their business with her, it would require another judge to hear the case. One perhaps that would include questions of prior support of Trump and of his opponent Biden in the questionaire? One that would agree that a jury having unanimity in the predicate crime is required to accept the Felonious charge rather than the statute of limitation expired misdemeanor… Each error to be addressed an indictment on the corrupt intent of the Judge, those that selected him, and the jurors that went along to avoid social notoriety, EVEN the 2 Attorneys that are officers of the same court system.
Happy days indeed, douche bag.
When the conviction is slapped down on three different constitutional rights violations, bragg won’t have much left to work with.
The only way these charges see the inside of a courtroom again, it’s in your fever dreams God
I worry about the scenario of Trump losing a close election, followed shortly thereafter by a reversal of this conviction. That scenario could be incredibly destabilizing.
Anonymous – This same comment was posted by you yesterday. In my opinion, it is wrong.
If the appellate court decides that the “second crime” could not be charged to Trump under federal election laws, or that the tax law violation theory is speculative, or that the state-law election interference theory has no application to a federal campaign – all of which is possible if not probable – then a second trial could not be held. No basis for the resurrection of the Statute of Limintations on the misdemeanor charge would exist. The whole case falls apart.
The Appeals court would have to find errors in the way the trial was conducted.
It cannot rule on the evidence.
The appeals court overturned the Wienstein rape conviction . . . because of the evidence.
This is why he posts as anonymous. So he can run away and hide when his stupid comment gets rejected.
The rules of evidence are complicated and can be subtle. When I said the court cannot rule on evidence that was a simplification.
The Appeals Court can rule that evidence was improperly admitted by the trial judge, but that does not mean the defendant is exonerated.
In Weinstein’s case the Appeals Court ruled that the trial judge improperly allowed evidence related to his past behavior unrelated to the charges. The remedy was to order a new trial, not an exoneration. That may happen with Trump, but I doubt that any of the evidence was improperly allowed. In addition, the rules require that the defense objects to the improper evidence when presented. If there is no objection at trial, then the Appeals Court cannot consider the evidence in question. I seem to remember that there was considerable surprise that Trump’s lawyers failed to object to a lot of evidence, and at one point Merchan had to step in and object sua sponte to obviously inadmissible evidence.
That would be because the judge earlier that day admonished the trump team for objecting too much.
You should have stopped when you were behind. Your bull shit wasnt a simplification, it was typical hyperbole to try to make a point that you could not otherwise make.
, but that does not mean the defendant is exonerated.
Pedantic, crap. The verdict is voided. The defendant is innocent.
@Anon
Oh, but we are decidedly NOT MAGA morons, and that should terrify you.
Matthew Colangelo
Manhattan District Attorney
New York County, New York
Criminal
Now this is a powerful message.
https://ak2.rmbl.ws/s8/2/i/7/O/Z/i7OZq.caa.mp4?b=1&u=ummtf
Thank you for sharing.
Thank you. That was posted by me.
Thanks for posting, Olly. That guy looks like a real b hole. With all the footage of spanky with his family in this propaganda piece, I wonder what he’s telling himself after his family avoided his trial? Not that facts would matter to him.
This was quite entertaining though. Straight out of a modern day equivalent to nazi visual propaganda from before WW II.
Turley is hypocritical in the extreme with his criticism of Judge Merchan because he donated to Democrats.
Turley is simply a paid shill of the Rupert Murdoch propaganda empire. He collects handsome fees for his appearances on Fox, for his articles in the NY Post, and for running this website. This website is not monetized, no subscription fees and no ads. How can he afford to run it? Murdoch picks up the tab.
Turley’s “VIEWS” are bought and paid for by the Rupert Murdoch empire. Murdoch is nothing less than a foreign agent using his “free speech rights” to interfere in the internal politics of this country. He tried this in Australia, New Zealand and the UK. These countries soon put a stop to his political interference, so he moved his operation here.
Merchan may have donated money to Democrats, but Turley is much worse. He is bought and paid for by the extreme right wing elements of the Republican party.
How could the Republican candidate be judged by a jury of his peers in a District that produced a make up of 90% Democrats. How could Trump get a fair trial by a judge whose daughter is an activist consultant for the DNC? How could Trump get a fair trial from a DA Conangelo that was also a paid consultant of the DNC? Same crap with the J6 Patriots, a rigged court system that is rotten to its very core.
This is projection. You accuse Murdoch of paying Turley to operate this website. You provide no evidence. But is very likely, after viewing the numerous comments made by you and other left-wing trolls infesting this site like an alien virus, that you are all paid by the DNC or Media Matters or some other Democrat-aligned group.
Jonathan: I don’t know about you but I am looking forward to the GOP nominating convention in Milwaukee in July. I had a dream last night about how it might play out. In my dream, before DJT goes out on the stage to accept the nomination. There will be the obligatory prayer by a member of the clergy who will intone: “Let us bow our heads and pray that God will help our leader caste out the evil doers, the Communists and the Marxists, who have taken over our wonderful God-fearing nation”. That will be followed by a drum roll or DJT’s new national anthem.
Before DJT accepts the nomination, someone in the party leadership will introduce him. In my dream he says: “Ladies and gentlemen, I want to present the twice impeached, four times criminally indicted, found liable for sexual abuse twice and now a convicted felon in a NY trial–Donald J. Trump!”. That is followed by thunderous applause by the faithful. Will Melania show up for her husband’s coronation. Don’t bet on that happening.
Of course, this was only a dream from which I woke up in a cold sweat. Can God help DJT win back the presidency? My brother-in-law sent this comment to me this morning: “Republicans are comparing Trump to Jesus Christ. Fair enough. Nail him up. If he comes back in three days, I’ll admit I was wrong”.
Our wonderful “God fearing Nation”. What nation are you referring to because that is certainly not the USA. We are essentially the biggest purveyors of iniquity, sexual immorality, infanticide and have led the charge across the planet of worshipping the creation and not the creator. Aside from that your ugliness shines right throught. Impeached? You mean on the repeatedly discredited Russia collusion? Or were you referring to the Money laundering scheme the Bidens were engaging in.
You are essentially an ignorant prop for the left. You repeat the far left talking points and their repeated attempts and taking down Trump with no regard for the law or the Truth. In pushing their propaganda you have shown yourself to be just as ugly on the inside as those harpies with empty lives that surround themselves with ignorance and stupidity.
That would be essentially because you are clearly just as ignorant and stupid. Why dont you shut up and do the world a favor and don’t reproduce. We have enough morons in the world. If you did already I pity your children who will walk through life with a handicap by being raised by such an ugly petty ignorant person.
Were you naked in this dream?
D M – On June 12, 1964, Nelson Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment for sabotage. In 1993, he was awarded the Nobel Prize. According to you, the Nobel Committee shold have accepted the 1964 conviction and shunned Mandela. Or, there is Alfred Dreyfus who was framed by the French Army for espionage during the Franco-Prussian War. Should the verdict against him been accepted by the public? Those who refused to accept the verdict succeeded in setting it aside. According to you, they should not have tried. Trump is as much a political criminal as Dreyfus or Mandela. At the convention, he will be cheered.
Edwardmahl: Sorry but DJT is NOT “as much a political criminal as Dreyfus and Mandela”. Mandela was tried by a judge in Pretoria. He was not afforded a jury trial. But you are in good company. Sen. Marco Rubio says DJT’s trial reminds him of the “show trials” in Cuba after Castro took power. Rubio falsely claims the conviction of his leader was a “quintessential show trial”. His views were echoed by Ted Cruz, also a Cuban-American, who says the verdict is “the kind of thing you see in a Banana republic”.
Your claims and those of Rubio and Cruz are absurd on their face. DJT was tried by a jury of ordinary citizens. It was NOT a “show trial”. DJT even got to participate (when he was not sleeping) in the selection of the jury. DJT got all the due process rights available to every other criminal defendant–now even the right to appeal. You wouldn’t see that in any Banana republic!
Regarding all the Horse Puckey and Cow Pies polluting the Political Landscape, the stink has turned rancid. The political left has laid waste to any sense of decorum in their haste to soil the standard bearer of the political right. We’re to believe the outcome of the most recent Judicial proceeding against the political rights presidential candidate was without bias in a bastion of likeminded leftists. The left in their haste is wreaking havoc on trust in the institutions of governances, if an individual cannot expect a fair and impartial hearing then accepted laws become meaningless.
These despots must be shown the door and removed from any leadership or employment in government.
“The Political Left”
That is distinctly not the “political left.”
That is the enemy—that is the direct and mortal enemy of the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
That is pure communism being imposed by its “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
First post-verdict poll confirms independents are now distancing themselves from Trump.
Polling outlet Morning Consult didn’t waste any time surveying voters after former President Donald Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts in his Manhattan criminal trial. And their results spell bad news for Trump’s attempts to appeal to voters outside of his base.
According to the poll, 54% of respondents supported the 12-person jury’s unanimous verdict finding Trump guilty of covering up violations of election law by paying hush money to various women in advance of the 2016 presidential election. 34% of voters registered disapproval with the convictions, with the remainder undecided.
In addition to the approval of the verdict, a significant portion (49%) of independents polled think Trump should drop out of the 2024 race given his guilty verdict. Roughly 15% of Republican voters polled said the same, and even 8% of respondents who identified as Trump supporters thought he should suspend his campaign.
Independents losing confidence in Trump won’t help him in hard-fought swing states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where Biden narrowly defeated him in 2020. In Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin in particular, Biden bested Trump by roughly 40,000 combined votes across all three states. If Trump hopes to secure 270 Electoral College votes, he’ll need independent voters to get him across the finish line in especially close contests.
Where is this BS poll??
Morning Consult did the poll.
That is in the post above
Idiot
Democrats are well known for claiming to be independents in polls.
Sid they check their VR cards?
Trump picked up 4% of independents with guilty verdict.
“Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”
“. . . a significant portion (49%) of independents polled think Trump should drop out of the 2024 race . . .”
*Before* the (bogus) conviction, some 70% of those independents wanted Trump to drop out of the race.
Turley. stop your ridiculous faith in our “systems.” You were there in the court watching our system be destroyed in front of your face. There is no coming back. There is no safe guards. In fact, Democrats know that which is why they are now the party of all their own ends justify whatever means they wish. Half of them now support the actions of a jihadi terror group in Gaza and want Ukraine’s borders defended but not our own. What remedy exists? Joe Biden won’t end up in jail. My guess is even Hunter Biden will escape his charges somehow, he probably won’t even need a pardon. No appeal in New York’s state courts is going to work, and no appeal will be heard before the election anyway which was the whole point. Your precious legal profession has turned into a cess pool of progressive lawfare warriors that march to the beat of a “cultural revolution” and spit on our constitution everyday. They even now have an emerging mascot in a former SCOTUS Justice (Breyer) who advocates a judicial philosophy that allows for the “system” to completely ignore the constitution if opinion polls make ignoring it popular… (He specifically states that if you follow the constitution we might end up with a constitution we don’t like…)
As someone with almost fifty years experience in the justice system, including almost ten years as a prosecutor and thirty of those years as a trial and appellate judge, I think that many of these comments overlook the distinction between result and process. Whether or not you like the result, it is the process that gives the result legitimacy and credibility. Therein is the concern being expressed by Professor Turley, and it is absolutely accurate. When people believe the process is unfair they will reject the credibility of the result. The thing that separates our justice system from a banana republic or a soviet style justice system is that we do not initiate prosecutions or conduct trials in order to assure that a particular result will occur or that a particular individual will be targeted. We initiate prosecutions because there is a clearly defined crime that has been committed. The individual is not the reason for prosecution, the crime is the reason for the prosecution. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that an accused has an absolute constitutional right to know what the crime is they are charged with and an opportunity to defend against it. A criminal charge is not an ambiguous allegation. It is also a fundamental principle of the judicial role that a judge may not become embroiled in the litigation, allowing his/her personal views or preferences to in any way be implied or shift the litigation. The issue here is the process. Acceptance of the credibility and fairness of the process dictates whether the result, no matter how much some people may not like it, will be accepted.
Thank you for that very interesting and thought provoking comment.
Well said.
“When people believe the process is unfair they will reject the credibility of the result.”
When people too ignorant to understand the process are told it is unfair because and “expert” told them to and gullibly accept if then they reject the credibility of the result.
Weak minds and the truly gullible and ignorant are the easiest to rile up and convince of anything. Trump loves these kinds of people and it’s evident by the reactions and ignorant comments pervading the social media world.
George is a moron. Riled up is evident by his non stop posting.
Anon, I join with Upstate in thanking you for your comment. It describes what I always believed a legitimate criminal process to be. Too bad you are retired.
New York has degraded itself by resorting to the law of Beria, Minister of Internal Affairs, Soviet Union: , “Show me the man and I will show you the crime.” I was disgusted to see NY politicians running on a plank that they would get Trump…pure Beria. Equally shocking was the failure of “liberals” to call them out for it.
“The individual is not the reason for prosecution, the crime is the reason for the prosecution.”
Very well said.
And that is the essence of Lady Justice.
This would have been a good article if Prof. Turley had left out the reference to Joe McCarthy, who actually lost power because the Democrats regained control of the Senate. In fact, the lawfare today is a direct result of that period, which forced Communists to leave the party and become Democrats and to gain positions in academia, particularly in law schools. What we have now is Stalinism. There was no “Red Scare”, there was Communist infiltration of government. By the way, the hearing that was televised was an investigation of McCarthy, not one he conducted – and he was found not to have attempted to influence the Army to make things easier for David Schine. By way, Welch was an actor playing a role.
Semcgownjir, Good catch! McCarthy was not the McCarthy of accepted public narrative. For one thing, he was right as the Verona papers have shown. Blacklisted by History is a good account of the McCarthy era.
I think Professor Turley is right in saying that America can bounce back from this and I believe that this kangaroo ruling is going to be part of that process since nobody in their right mind can still claim that the judicial system is not deeply flawed.
The question is not just that if this can happen to Trump it can happen to anybody. The question is how many others whose name wasn’t Trump have been railroaded into jail with a whimper rather than a bang? My guess is, a lot.
So what do we do about it? The first thing we do about it is vote for Trump and yes, that includes fence sitters like Turley. You don’t get to sit there like Mikey in the Life cereal commercial who hates everything and just sits on the sidelines hoping everything will magically improve on its little lonesome.
The second thing is to reform the justice system. The Trump situation in New York has exposed some flaws in the system. If you feel your judge is compromised, your only recourse is to ask that same judge for a change of venue. Like that’s really going to work. There should be an independent judicial review body that handles this kind of thing. Political contributions such as those made by Merchan should automatically disqualify a judge. And although I’m not the world’s biggest fan of AI, I think it could possibly be used to help make the all-too- human and therefore, fallible, judicial process more fair. Is there a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s guilt? What is the crime? I think these questions can and should be fed into AI.
As I have stated many times and will continue to do so, we must remember that our system is based upon the presumption of innocence. A jury should approach a verdict with a strong prejudice in favor of the defendant, whoever it is, and demand to be convinced by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Our system is not predicated on “Let no guilty man escape.” I feel that far too many people either don’t know that, have forgotten it, or don’t care.
The New York Times today has a lead article about Trump’s prospects for a potential appeal under New York law. In summary, a snowball’s chance in Hell of having this conviction overturned.
And if you believe anything the NYT writes, I got a bridge in NYC to sell you.
Farmer Upthere —- The New York Times only publishes articles and opinion prices. It doesn’t write those.
David, you are now placing the blame on the one’s writing the articles and stating the NYT is a publisher. The NYT chooses what to publish.
I will reask the question. Why, knowing this, would anyone believe the Times when politics is involved?
It doesn’t write what? You’re comment makes no sense.
What is an opinion price?
David, during the Trump administration, the NYTimes took many positions on the most important political issues of the day, such as the Mueller Report, Impeachment one and impeachment two. They were found wrong in almost every instance. Why, knowing this, would anyone believe the Times when politics is involved?
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
S. Meyer, I suppose the The York Times Editorial Board might be mistaken for The New York Times, but The New York Times only publishes articles and also a wide variety of opinion.
In more detail, an article about appeals in the State of New York by an expert is not a about politics.
Do try to be more coherent.
See Nixon sachs Cox and Pecker vs Wood!
Ray Bradbury might as well be writing for the NYTs, fiction!
David, the NYT was wrong in its first-page news section and editorials. I don’t care about their editorials, but I do care about them editorializing on front-page news articles.
“Do try to be more coherent.”
I talked about things during the Trump administration, where time has proved the NYT lied. Try to keep your mind on track
I will reask the question. Why, knowing this, would anyone believe the Times when politics is involved?
s. Meyer, the United States used to have 2 newspapers of record. The New York Times still is a newspaper of record. The factual articles are carefully checked and rechecked for accuracy. Some articles are interviews with experts. The opinion pieces are carefully so labeled. A variety of opinion is offered.
That might have been true fourty years ago but no longer. Ever heard on Bari Weiss or Nellie Bowles?
I think it’s time for your oatmeal, grandpa.
of
Or Alex Berenson
“The factual articles are carefully checked and rechecked “
David, if that were true, why were the major news stories wrong? Examples: the Russia story, the Ukraine story, the two impeachments, etc.
I will reask the question. Why, knowing this, would anyone believe the Times when politics is involved?
Was the Times correct on the above examples?
S. Meyer, I doubt the major news stories are wrong in The New York Times.
Your repeated question makes no sense. What are you babbling on about?
OK, David, you don’t recognize the errors made by the NYT even though the mistakes were proven later and then recognized by the NYTimes.
That alone doesn’t mean you are devoid of intellect. It means you are terminally stubborn.
“The opinion pieces are carefully so labeled.”
BS.
It long ago destroyed its journalistic integrity by euphemistically calling its reporting “news analysis.”
“In more detail, an article about appeals in the State of New York by an expert is not a about politics.”
LMAO
do try to be less naïve.
Never mind, you’re just an idiot.
George, you fail to name the author, and few pay for the propaganda of the NYT
The DNC machine has judges in there pocket, Merchan proves that. the NYT probably had a dozen different Lawyers auditioning to be the next NYT “legal expert”. All submitting the political slant the NYT required.
Remember the 100’s of legal experts that told us the 14th amendment could be implemented by unelected state functionaries? All the Experts that claimed a State court could adjudicate Federal law, when “convicting” DJT of insurrection? You trying to piggy back on some unnamed expert is laughable.
iowan2 — The New York Times has more than 10.5 million subscribers.
Please do not spout off about what you know not.
This is known as the “fifty-thousand Frenchmen can’t be wrong” logical fallacy.
@S. Meyer,
So why do you keep doing the same things over and over? Are you getting different results?
This Hass to be the most ironic post ever on this site.
What a totally un self-aware douche bag
@ New George: I love the stupid things you write. Some things I do over and over because they work, and some are profitable. Why should I stop doing them?
Why don’t you stop being stupid? Most readers of the blog would like to hear the answer to that question.
The NYT can’t cut bait or fish.
Turley says there are “multiple layers of reversible error.” I believe his analysis.
We are not only talking about the NY appellate systerm. I can see the Trump team filing an application for cert to the US S. Ct. Lawfare, as practiced against Trump, must be stopped now, and only the U S S Ct. can stop it.
Jonathan: The criminal conviction of DJT in NY is not about re-creating the “Adams era” of prosecuting critics under the Alien and Sedition Act. It’s ludicrous to make that comparison. This conviction was a prosecution under NY’s falsification of business records state law. DA Bragg’s office brings those type of cases all the time. DJT was not singled out because he is running for the GOP nomination this year. The NY grand jury began its investigation in early 2023 and the indictment was not brought until April—long before DJT announced his candidacy.
But echoing DJT’s false claim yesterday that the case was orchestrated by Joe Biden, you falsely claim “Trump was convicted in a trial with a Biden donor judge, who has a daughter who is a major Democratic operative, a lead prosecutor previously paid as a DNC political consultant and a jury selected in a district that voted roughly 90% against Trump”. Did any of those factors play any part in the jury deliberations? No they did not!
It’s all sour grapes. Had there been a hung jury, as you hoped, you would be celebrating that verdict as a “victory” for DJT and the criminal justice system in “blue” Manhattan. But DJT lost and now you call the verdict a “thrill-kill conviction”.
In the end this case was not about the political affiliations of the judge, his daughter or the prosecutors. Biden had nothing to do with the case. He didn’t select the jury. The jury was chosen by both the prosecution, DJT and his legal team. They all agreed the jury could be fair and impartial. The jury decided based on the facts and the evidence not how they personally felt about the criminal defendant. You can hardly complain now about the unanimous verdict. You win some and you lose some. Take your lumps and move on!
When the appeal overturns everything and those that initiated this fiasco are censored or impeached, will you have stopped gulping the Kool Aid??? Just saying… Reasonable thought process appears to be something missing in those with TDS…
Please wake up.
I should make it clear that I am asking Dennis McIntyre to wake up.
I just want to give Sammy and David my heartfelt thanks. Trump needs enemies just like them.
Now that Troll America has gotten Trump reelected, the GOP needs to win at least one house of Congress or it will be just more impeachments and show trials. Democrat obstructionism will prevent Trump from solving anything, and they’ll blame all the problems on him—Governor Schwarzenegger all over again.
Trump needs Congress, too. Time to secure the next big hill.
Oh, a shout out to you,too, Dennis! You’re the poster child for the loony Left.
Diogenes,
Well said!
People like this is what is alienating long time, traditional Democrats.
please explain how following the advice of his attorney (Cohen) on how to pay legal expenses where the payments were made AFTER the election was already won by Trump was an illegal attempt to influency the election. So if Trump had listed it as a campaign contribution to himself there would have been no crime at all?. To take that bookkeeping error and turn it into 34 felonies is ridiculous and beyond comprehen of anyone who believes in Justice.
DM You write “Bragg’s office brings those type of cases all the time.” Cite three.
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” Josef Stalin
And yes, it’s every bit as bad as that.
Trump got the same due process protections as anyone else. If as Turley says, the law does not support the charges, then the appeals court will toss the conviction. Also, it is common for people get charged with novel interpretations of criminal law. Someone has to go first.
Lets also remember that Trump did exactly what he was accused of. The facts of the case were not really in dispute.
Horse manure
In layman’s terms can you explain what exactly these 34 felony crimes are?
See previous comment and the TDS may be a bit less here, who knows???
And yet even today we deniers saying this is all just the legal system working normally and the White House is not involved in persecuting its main political opponent in the upcoming election.
Since the left is always making up new terms and changing the meaning of words to fit the narrative, here’s a new term for this: “Judicial Terrorism”
What this proves, is you will not get due process from our justice system, so, my feeling is the time to comply, is over. Fight back, do NOT allow yourself to be taken to jail/ court.
Our nation, and laws are gone.
The “system “ will now see just what men will do, when pushed against the wall, and without an escape.
Professor Turley has always sympathized with a Republican president who was found liable for sexual abuse & ordered to pay his victim millions of dollars for emotional distress after repeatedly defaming her. Turley presumably isn’t bothered that Trump was ordered to shut down his Trump Foundation charity after stealing tens of thousands of dollars donations for veteran’s groups, children’s groups & other charities & using the charity donations to fund his politcal campaign and for his own personal use.
Turley apparently isn’t bothered that the first thing Trump did after getting elected was agreeing to pay $25 million to hundreds of Americans who launched class action lawsuits against Trump University after being conned and in some cases bankrupted by his Trump U. business scam, which he mercifully shut down.
The 2016 RNC was the first major party national convention in US history where 2,472 Republican delegates repeatedly demanded that Trump’s political opponent be locked up. A few weeks before the 2020 election, Trump demanded that Bill Barr arrest Obama, Biden, & Hillary.
Definitely adds some important context to Professor Turley’s argument that the Trump prosecution has forced many to confront the undeniable reality of the politicization of our legal system.
Your whining has nothing to do with the trial. If you want to go down this path, how do you feel about the corrupt Clinton Foundation, Hillary “bleaching” her emails, and the Clinton campaign’s Russian Collusion Hoax. Also, as you indicated, Trump reimbursed the students associated with Trump University, so what was the crime? He called for locking up Hillary, but he didn’t have Bill Barr file charges against her.
RanboSouth, no whining. If Turley wants to go down the path of the politization of our legal system, then it’s entirely fair to mention Trump’s previous trials & the rulings against him. You apparently believe that when Trump paid $25 million to settle the class action lawsuits filed against him, it proves there wasn’t any crime. So when Fox News paid $787 million to Dominion to settle their defamation lawsuit, do you also think that proves there wasn’t any crime?
The Trump DOJ never indicted Hillary for having classified documents on her personal server. On the other hand, Trump’s campaign advisor, Roger Stone, was convicted of repeatedly lying to Congress, witness tampering & obstruction of a Congressional hearing on Russian inteference in the 2016 election. Trump pardoned him, which clearly shows how Trump & his supporters truly feel about convicted serial perjurers.
Bill Barr refused to comply with Trump’s demands to arrest Obama, Biden, & Hillary before the 2020 election.
“Trump University after being conned and in some cases bankrupted by his Trump U. business scam, which he mercifully shut down.”
Ask yourself if you recognize the difference between ambulance chasing and the law. Don’t bother. That is too difficult for you to answer. Ambulance chasing involves settlements because the suits have no merit, but it is easier for big-pocket institutions to pay out than go to court.
Once one understands ambulance chasing and how that tactic was used in the Presidential election and this suit, one can look at how that suit progressed over the years. All the lawyers dropped the case because it had no merit. The case became a no-merit case, where it was less expensive to pay the ambulance chasers than to go to court and win.
S Meyer, nice spin. Ask yourself this: If Trump University was a genuine success, why would Trump shut it down? Why wouldn’t he give it to Don Jr. & Eric to run? During the 2016 campaign, Trump attacked the judge & boasted “Trump University has a 98% approval rating. I could have settled but won’t out of principle!”
If you think Trump could have gone to court & won, then why did he pull the plug on Trump University? What kind of business man would shut down a successful business venture with a 98% approval rating?
“Ask yourself this: If Trump University was a genuine success, why would Trump shut it down?”
You may not understand the discussion or the difference between ambulance chasing and acceptable suits. The Trump University suit was an example of ambulance chasing. Better lawyers dropped the case because it didn’t have merit. When Trump ran for President, the ambulance chasers came out of the woods and sued. There was no quality measure for the University or the students. Your rhetoric is juvenile.
It’s important to note that not all businesses are profitable enough to warrant the time or attention, and many accusations against Trump were directed at the wrong person because he was not the owner. Your business skills need to improve.
It’s crucial to approach news with a balanced perspective, considering all sides of the story before forming conclusions.
To help in your education, here is your quote. “Trump University has a 98% approval rating. I could have settled but won’t out of principle!”
This is Trump’s explanation.
“I settled the Trump University lawsuit for a small fraction of the potential award because as President I have to focus on our country.”
Trump had a good point. I am waiting to find a point of merit in your response.
S Meyer, you’re hilarious. The first Trump University lawsuit was filed in August, 2013 before Trump ran for president. The lawsuit was filed by 5,000 victims. Trump filed a $100 million counterclaim against the NY Attorney General. When it first opened, Trump University was ruled to be in violation of state law for operating without a NY State Education Dept. license. Trump ignored the ruling. The National Review labelled Trump University a scam.
It’s hardly suprising you believe everything Trump says. Yep, Trump dropped his $100 million counterclaim because he had to focus on the country, right? Two years after he took office & started focusing on the country, Trump was ordered to shut down his Trump Foundation & was fined $2 million for using charity donations for his politcal campaign & personal use. Trump admitted to using charitable donations to pay $10,000 for a 6-foot portrait of him. He also agreed to pay back $11,525 in foundation funds that he spent on sports memorabilia and champagne at a charity gala.
S Meyer, you & I are in complete agreement that it’s crucial to approach news with a balanced perspective, considering all sides of the story before forming conclusions.
“S Meyer, you’re hilarious. The first Trump University lawsuit was filed in August, 2013 before Trump ran for president.”
It would help if you looked in a mirror. The original case was dropped because it wasn’t going anywhere, and the attorneys could lose significant money. The last claim represented ambulance chasing because of the timing and had less to do with the case.
I refrain from passing judgment on Trump University, just as I would on the Maverick high schools endorsed by the Bidens in Florida. I am not personally satisfied with either, but that doesn’t imply a valid case for such litigation or the hyperbole you presented.
The crux lies in the concept of a ‘willing buyer and willing seller ‘. Any individual has the right to sue if they believe they have been wronged; I have no qualms about that.
“It’s hardly suprising you believe everything Trump says. ”
I don’t believe anything anyone says without providing reasonable facts. I especially don’t trust hyperbolic people who make decisions based on others’ biases. Additionally, an anonymous poster like yourself is not credible because you have no track record. One can assume you are anonymous because you know you are hyperbolic, lack facts and have limited critical thinking skills.
“Yep, Trump dropped his $100 million counterclaim…” followed by more hyperbole and dumping new items into the discussion, recognizing you lack the information to argue one thing at a time adequately. The $100 million claim by Trump was part of legal tactics.
S Meyer, you don’t believe anything anyone says without providing reasonable facts which presumably means you don’t believe the thousands of Trump U students who submitted claims ever provided reasonable facts. You say you have no qualms about anyone suing if they feel they’ve been wronged, yet that’s exactly why the thousands of former Trump U. students submitted claims about being pressured by aggressive sales tactics to max out their credit cards to attend real-estate seminars which ultimately proved worthless. You basically depict these thousands of Trump U students as ambulance chasers.
I laughed when you talk about lacking critical thinking skills & “followed by more hyperbole and dumping new items into the discussion, recognizing you lack the information to argue one thing at a time adequately.” So tell me, my fine friend, what’s your supporting evidence for your claim that all of the lawyers dropped this case because it had no merit? Feel free to post your link to prove you have the critical thinking skills & command of the information to provide carefully reseached, substantiated comments.
“you don’t believe the thousands of Trump U students who submitted claims ever provided reasonable facts. ”
Maybe yes, maybe no. Numbers do not count. Do you have a reading problem? My complaint was against your ignorant hyperbole, which you continue to use, and the timing of the settlement, which occurred after other attorneys dropped the suit.
” being pressured by aggressive sales tactics to max out their credit cards ”
Are they adults? If so, they shouldn’t be looking for the gooses’ golden eggs. They learned one of the most important lessons in business. It’s crucial for us all to take responsibility for our actions and decisions. “Us all” includes you!
You do not have the acumen to protect yourself now that you have left Mommie’s home, so you want the government to protect you and guarantee your purchases.
Have you ever bought a used car? Have you noticed how aggressive they are? Should we close new car dealerships because you can’t control yourself? It’s empowering to make informed choices and not rely solely on external factors.
If an advertisement guarantees something one didn’t get, the individual can sue, but that doesn’t mean all individuals have a right to climb onto the bandwagon. I am all for litigation when one is harmed, but I am not in favor of litigation to protect you from your stupidity.
“You basically depict these thousands of Trump U students as ambulance chasers.”
Again, you are faced with reading comprehension problems. Lawyers are commonly thought of as ambulance chasers.
“I laughed when you talk about lacking critical thinking skills & “followed by more hyperbole and dumping new items into the discussion.”
Good, laughing at your mistakes is better than ganging your head against a wall.
” what’s your supporting evidence ”
You can check the newspapers to see when cases started and ended. Besides requiring someone to protect you from your mistakes, do you also need someone to do superficial research for you?
*****Keep hiding under anonymous so your mistakes can diffuse through all the anonymous posters. That is what you want from government as it’s part of your personality not to take responsibility for what you do or say.
As I fully expected, S. Meyer, you can’t provide any actual evidence to support your big bold claim that all the lawyers dropped the case because it had no merit. That’s a total fabrication, my friend. The original cases weren’t dropped.
Completely agree that Trump U. Students were absolutely foolish to believe a single word of the aggressive sales pitches from anyone associated with a man whose companies have filed for bankruptcy 6 times.
I see how fond you are of making juvenile insults. The limited time I spend checking out Turley’s website shows me responding with juvenile insults is a common trait among his supporters.
Our conversation has gone on far too long, my friend. Save your juvenile insults for someone else.
“The original cases weren’t dropped.”
Anonymous, you’ve been vocal about needing evidence, and it’s crucial in any discussion. So, where’s yours? Why didn’t the original law firm settle? Show us, Anonymous. You can’t even verify your own pseudonym! How can anything you say be taken seriously?
“Completely agree that Trump U. Students were absolutely foolish to believe a single word of the aggressive sales pitches from anyone associated with a man whose companies have filed for bankruptcy 6 times.”
This comment is more hyperbole from one filled with envy because he can’t make it. How many companies has Trump been involved with? What percent of new companies fail? Trump beat the averages, yet you are unaware.
“responding with juvenile insults is a common trait among his supporters.”
Again, you have nothing to say. Trump’s supporters provide facts. You provide hyperbole and a wandering mind that can’t stay on a single subject and strays from the truth.
” juvenile insults”
If it stings, it is likely true.
*****Keep hiding under anonymous so your mistakes can diffuse through all the anonymous posters. That is what you want from the government, as it’s part of your personality not to take responsibility for what you do or say.
What percentage of new companies fail? Lots. How many companies have a long-time CFO who is sent to prison after pleading guilty to 15 counts of criminal tax fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records & also pleads guilty to 2 counts of lying under oath in a civil fraud lawsuit? Only one. The Trump Organization.
S. Meyer, you may well be envious of a man who uses small dollar donors to help pay his legal bills, but I’m not. Trump’s Save America PAC spent $47 million on legal fees last year alone.
If you genuinely want facts & no hyperbole, here’s the reaction of 2 of Trump’s long serving executives when the jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts:
“I wasn’t sitting in the courtroom, but I always thought he was guilty…I think it’s a very good result for the country & none of it surprised me based on knowing him.”
-Barbara Res, Executive VP of the Trump Organization for 18 years
“I was shocked because, having watched decades of an organization that was run corruptly & never being held accountable, it finally happened. So it was shocking to see this man was not above the law for the first time in his life & he’s going to be held accountable.”
Jack O’Donnell, President & Chief Operating Officerof Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino
I applaud you for identifying yourself as a poster who strongly supports a man whose CFO pleads guilty to 15 counts of criminal tax fraud & 2 counts of perjury. Make sure you keep making small dollar donations to help Trump pay his legal fees, S. Meyer.
“What percentage of new companies fail? Lots. ”
Based on this response, you should understand why I asked the question, but the logic is beyond you.
“How many companies have a long-time CFO who is sent to prison ”
It’s crucial for us to stay on topic, yet anonymous posters, along with the Gigi’s and Dennis’, often let their minds wander, leading to off-topic discussions and a lack of understanding.
When a higher court decides the trial violated Trump’s rights, suddenly you will hide, saying, “I wasn’t the anonymous saying that. It was the other one.”
“Make sure you keep making small dollar donations to help Trump pay his legal fees, S. Meyer.”
My position differs from yours, so I have already made substantial donations to his campaign, with more to come. My concerns at this point are for peace and the well-being of families that the Biden administration is bankrupting. You wouldn’t know that reading ” Leftist Talking Points for Dummies.”
I have no idea who Dennis & Gigi are, but your comment “When a higher court decides the trial violated Trump’s rights” has absolutely nothing to do with Trump’s CFO, Andrew Weisselberg, being jailed after pleading guilty to 15 counts of criminal tax fraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records & pleading guilty to 2 counts of lying under oath in a civil fraud lawsuit. Seems the logic is beyond you as to why Trump’s CFO is in prison, my friend.
Agree our positions differ. It’s unprecedented in US history when 6 of a former president’s White House advisors call him unfit for office. Trump’s own VP refuses to endorse him. Pence: “Donald Trump is pursuing and articulating an agenda that is at odds with the conservative agenda that we governed on during our four years.”
They’re all just citing Leftist Talking Points for Dummies, right S. Meyer?
“It is easier for big-pocket institutions to pay out than go to court.” You are a prime example of how ridiculously easy it is for a big-pocket billionaire presidential candidate to entice people like you into making substantial donations to help cover his tens of millions of dollars in legal fees & court expenses.
Peace, love & understanding, S. Meyer. Good night, buddy.
“Trump’s CFO, Andrew Weisselberg, being jailed after pleading guilty to 15 counts”
Weisselberg’s decision to plead guilty was likely influenced by the fear of facing a fate similar to Trump’s. He chose a short-term solution to escape the ongoing abuse, potentially leading to long-term consequences due to a prosecution that seemed willing to disregard his rights. This is the connection between Weisselberg, Trump, and the Trump Corporation.
You are a very shallow individual. You hopped from a specific place to many different subjects. That is how a shallow person has to act because his thinking lacks depth to respond to the topic.
It’s OK to be shallow and poorly educated. A lot of people are. I am sure you had a job that wasn’t mentally taxing while supporting your family and attending an occasional ball game.
“They’re all just citing Leftist Talking Points for Dummies, right S. Meyer?”
Not all. Some are advocates who make arguments to promote their agenda. Are you too simple to recognize that? What argument are you trying to promote? We know you don’t like Trump, and that is fine, but why don’t you delve into the policies you don’t like in Trump and do like in Biden? You can’t because your knowledge is skin deep.
“You are a prime example of how ridiculously easy it is for a big-pocket billionaire presidential candidate to entice people like you into making substantial donations to help cover his tens of millions of dollars in legal fees & court expenses.”
I put my money where my mouth is. Do you? Money means little to me if the country goes downhill. You can’t think that far ahead.
Good night. Take a bath and go to sleep– a shallow one.
“You are a very shallow individual.,,Okay to be shallow & poorly educated” My, my, I see I’ve struck a nerve for you to reflexively respond with a laughable grade 9 comeback.
Your presumption that Weisselberg pleaded guilty to criminal tax fraud, conspiracy, falsifying business records & perjury as “a short term solution to escape ongoing abuse” is nonsensical to anyone who doesn’t reside firmly in the Trump World Bubble. Extensive documentation proved Weisselberg operated a 13 year scheme to defraud federal & state tax authorities & showed he accumulated $1.76 million in undeclared income. When Weisselberg pleaded guilty, he agreed to pay $2 million in back taxes & penalties.
Only a die-hard Trump supporter would call a 13 year scheme to defraud federal & state tax authorities “a prosecution that seemed willing to disregard his rights.” Money may mean little to you, but Weisselberg’s conspiracy to hide $1.76 million to avoid paying taxes shows money clearly means a lot to Weisselberg.
What arguments am I trying to promote? For starters, that serial tax cheaters shouldn’t be able to get away with hiding $1.76 million in undeclared income. You presumably disagree with that.
I also believe Trump White House advisors, General John Kelly, General Milley, Mark Esper, James Mattis, John Bolton, Tom Bossert & other Trump White House insiders who call Trump unfit for office provide the American public with much needed insights into the Trump White House.
It’s unprecedented in US history for a former president to have so many of his White House staff call him unfit for office. And your predictable Grade 9 insults to anyone who agrees with all of those Trump White House advisors is quite boring & meaningless, my fine bubble world friend.
” I’ve struck a nerve…”
Struck a nerve; is that because you couldn’t stay on topic? Yes, you are shallow and can’t remain within a topic.
“Your presumption that Weisselberg”
Do you want to discuss Weisselberg or Trump University? Though you do not realize it, Weisselberger’s problem is different from Trump’s, so it has little to do with the discussion of Trump University. What links the two is that Weisselberg was a way to get at Trump, but he refused to testify in the desired manner. The prosecution would have done little, if anything, had Weisselberg not been a way of gaining untrue testimony against Trump.
The incident concerned Weisselberg’s internal family matters rather than Trump’s wrongdoing. In war, we call Weisselberg’s misfortune collateral damage.
I wonder if the case is as clear-cut as you suggest because tax laws provide similar types of deductions and, at least in the past, have had programs that did similar things. This problem would typically have been fought in tax court, settled and resulted in a fine without a jail term.
“What arguments am I trying to promote? For starters, that serial tax cheaters shouldn’t be able to get away with hiding $1.76 million in undeclared income. You presumably disagree with that.”
This argument is stupid because it is a Weisselberg problem, not a Trump one. Further, I am a law-and-order type who recognizes the law’s inconsistencies. You lack an understanding of the rule of law. You do not mind being stupid because, as an anonymous blogger, you spread your ignorance among the rest.
“And your predictable Grade 9 insults”
Wrong again. I accept intelligent discussion, but you cannot provide it. Because you have no history, there is nothing to look back upon to see if there might be some agreement. You need to get your facts together and learn to stay on topic.
*****Keep hiding under anonymous so your mistakes can diffuse through all the anonymous posters. That is what you want from the government, as it’s part of your personality not to take responsibility for what you do or say.
Obama, Soros, the Clintons, Fauci, Bill Gates, Joe, Jim and Hunter Biden. They should be in Gitmo until they’re hanging.
Obama had another boyfriend die…..this time it was his personal chef that he brought from the White House (and yes, chef was young, married, with children). Although chef could not swim, he went paddle boarding last August (at night!) with someone there on the shores of “Gay Gardens”, the Obama’s 14 bedroom mansion home on Martha’s Vineyard. First reports were that Obama was not home at the time of the “accident”……That info was revised later during a Hunter Biden news blitz, so that it would go unnoticed.
P.S. Chef drowned.
Cindy
The chef was an accomplished swimmer. He drowned anyway!
TDS, ditto, ditto, ditto… You have all collectively become boorish to the tune of irrelevance… except to increase DJT’s poll numbers with each successive travesty of justice and law and made it absolutely palpable that he will be the next POTUS….BEWARE!!!
What political prosecutions did Trump conduct?
Hapless Joe Biden has said the Trump verdict is a “victory for the rule of law.” His equally hapless followers are eager to agree, but cannot comprehend that it is Joe’s law he is referencing.
In order to prove that “no one is above the law”, Joe Biden should insist that he be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents. He should insist also that his son be held accountable for cocaine use, tax evasion, failure to register as a foreign agent, lying on a gun application, and extortion.
I’m going to make my first “crude” public comment…ever, with appurtenant apology to everyone in advance.
Because it represents my true disdain for what happened in that courtroom.
The good professor states, “In the faces of ecstasy of demonstrators and commentators alike this week, we see the same joyful release…The addictive quality of rage. For them, it was a cathartic moment…”
….Ah, but for the substitution of just one single vowel, from “faces” to “feces” in the above quote…we can so easily catharise and purge “what ails us” from our nation’s medical composition/”constitution” with a corrective and prognostic November vote….
Lin,
Well said!
Spot on… the feces impacted pipes of the present corrupt administration will be power washed in November. Those responsible for the impaction, rounded up, and convicted of impacting the system with their fecal material. What happens then? I suggest a large septic system created where they can be rounded up and placed and stew in their own excrement for many years to come… Our country will function lawfully once again and smell much better !!!
Lin,
You would be doing the same thing if Trump was acquitted by unanimous decision. Every Trump supporter would be gloating and cheering it.
Trump lost his case. Be it because of his incompetent lawyers or his inability to control his mouth. Trump brought himself into this. He has a long clear history of scamming, lying, misogyny and strings of failed business ventures.
Trump is that bad. He was held accountable according to NY law. The majority of Trump supporters are clueless about how the law works in NY. IGNORANCE is so pervasive within trumps fans and supporters that they’ve lost the ability to recognize that they don’t know squat about the law or how it works and it shows as clear as crystal on this blog.
I I have shown that you have zero knowledge of New York law at least half a dozen times on this blog.
Here was my favorite
“The records were falsified to conceal falsifying the records”
Who is your audience douche bag? Virtually everyone here agrees that you are a moron.
But naaaaah, it’s everyone else lmao
George I cheer when the verdict matches the facts.
YOU are the one that only cheers the results you like.
Remember there was NO election crime after the DoJ investigated FEC violations.
There was NO CIVIL crime when the FEC investigated
There was no crime when Cyrus Vance investigated
There was no crime when Alvin Bragg investigated
The “crime” materialized when the #3 person at the DoJ, took huge demotion and went back and started doing grunt work for local DA’s
I’m glad to see so many more people who accept the criminality and factually, the evil pervasive in the left’s modus operandi.