793
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2024
793 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19145 readers
2493 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And it is going to get overturned on appeal. It was an obvious political trial with a judge that donated to Biden, his daughter was bringing in millions because of the trial and the prosecutor ran for office pledging to take down Trump. That's why Trumps bringing in record donations from small donors now.
And I'm sure you're equally as concerned about the conflict of interest from a judge that Trump appointed overseeing one of his trials, right? Surely you are of the opinion that Cannon should have recused herself at the very beginning, right?
You will, of course, get NoSuchAnswer.
Nor agency. Not with Trump's hand up their arse.
No, they have no such agency to go against their god emperor.
*crickets chirping*
Absolute dumbass commentary. The jury decided the case, not the judge. Trump literally had no defense to the allegations other than bald denials. The evidence that he did the crimes was written in paper and undeniable.
You're just buying everything the MSM is selling, hook line & sinker. They wouldn't let Trump have much of a defense. They wouldn't even let an expert witness testify for the defense. And sure, the jury decides the case based on the instructions given by the judge and this is the only time a judge has ever given instructions like the ones in this case. You really don't know much about the justice system if you believe that the judge in a case doesn't play a major role in how a case is decided.
I don't watch "MSM." I read legal filings.
Maybe you should learn to read.
I am an attorney, a trial lawyer.
Yeah, but you didn’t read this particular article posted on a random website by a guy who said he totally knows, and that makes him more qualified than all of us here.
Dude, you're in a cult. And your leader is a criminal.
Where are you getting information from?
Superpatrioteagle50caljesus dot com only has the best news.
Tune in tomorrow for how we explain how NASA spies on your poop!
I read the instructions, so I guess the judge in this case
No, that's not correct. You are receiving delusional propaganda about disallowing expert witnesses from somewhere. Where is that from?
Bradley Smith was definitely allowed to testify as an expert, but the defense declined to call him. Here, since you like pretending to have read things direct from the court. He was not allowed to show up and instruct the jury, which is the same as decided in the prior cited cases in NY and OH.
Where is your delusional propaganda from? The things you are claiming are lies that Donald has been tweeting. So perhaps your delusions are coming direct from the source: a lifelong con man and fraud who committed election interference in 2016.
"I direct you back to page three of my decision," Merchan said, reiterating that Brad Smith could testify as to what the FEC is, its purpose, background, what laws if any FEC is responsible for enforcing and general definitions and terms that relate to this case, including contribution and expenditure. So he was only allowed to testify the definition, purpose, and backround of the FEC which would be pointless really.
Here, just read Brad Smiths own words and you'll see why the defense didn't call him. The judge wouldn't let him explain the law...he would only let him give a general definition.....https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/key-trump-witness-nixed-after-merchans-stringent-rulings-reveals-what-his-testimony-would-have-been/ar-BB1mNALM
No, that's an MSM. I don't want any news from a lying MSM.
Don't know what to tell you. It's his own words so if you'd rather it be someone else speaking for him then go for it
No, the article is clear he was allowed to discuss facts about the law, he was disallowed from presenting his opinions as if they were facts. So they declined to have him.
You are delusional and in a cult, which is why you won't explain where you are getting your information from. You are getting it from liars and other cult members.
Sorry, didn't realize you couldn't read
Don’t a lot of people run for office on a platform of arresting and convicting people who commit crimes, though? Or am I missing something?
Drain the spaghetti??
No, they run on stopping actual crime, not going after a particular person
You mean like the crime of selling classified documents for money?
Yeah, you mean the classified documents Biden took as a Senator and sold them to his book writer?
Uh-huh.
What a bunch of bullshit.
What's it like living in your world?
You Americans are fucking wild right now. I hope you have a civil war to sort this shit out proper, like you did with slavery.
Yeah, that won't happen, they've got such a stranglehold on surveillance in this country, it would never get off the ground and things are just going to get worse. Most younger people and some older people to either keep their face buried into their phones on Facebook or Tiktok propaganda machines or they just buy into everything the MSM tells them so until we fix that stuff there's really no hope of things getting better
You still never shared what website you get your information and news from.
A lot of places
Fake News™!!!1!!1!
Which is…?
ATFQ.
"Do your own research"