So, I notice to my disappointment but lack of surprise, that the "slaying" still hasn't occurred . I suspected as much, but did hope that something intelligent would arise (for once).

The reason for my skepticism was because you invoked legal knowledge. But my post had little to do with legal issues. Items 1-4, 6 and 7 are simply current events. There are dozens of news articles, from across the political spectrum, that would verify them.

Point 5 is more legal. But also true. The case first started in DC. The grand jury indictment was there. The special counsel's office has said that they could have tried it there: "I can say that the investigation that was ongoing before the DC grand jury had – had adequate nexus to continue in Washington. I’m not prepared to comment on the date on which a decision to charge in Florida was made or what the internal deliberations were on that subject."


That leaves Point 8. Technically speaking, there are provisions where the AG could refuse to act on anything that the Special Counsel has decided, but that is under extreme circumstances. It has never ever happened. The closest we had was the Saturday Night Massacre.

In summary, I was not engaging in hyperbole when I stated there was nothing in wrong with any of the points.


- PT21

The classified document case had to be moved to Florida due to that's where the so called illegal retention of records, the obstruction (of a non -crime) and the alleged lying to investigators all took place. Trying the case in DC would've never stood.

All special counsels answer to AG. He hires them and he has the authority to fire them. All reports generated by a special counsel and legally only for the AG. He however can waive and put it out to the public.

As far as the slaying is concerned. When are you going to address the questions I asked you about the constitutional issue of unanimity and the 6th amendment violations? Not at all surprised that your answer to those questions, has not been forthcoming. What is the predicate crime that Trump committed that he supposedly covered up by entering false business records? To allow Bragg to overcome the statute of limitations and elevate to a felony? What is your opinion of the criminal count stacking in the case? After you answer those questions. Then we can get into the inadmissible evidence that the judge allowed into the case as well as the admissible evidence that he denied.

The problem with guys like you is that your world outside hockey and your immediate lives is so small that you cannot fathom that someone else may come to conclusions without the few mechanisms that you think exists.

Here is my daily reading: NYT and through it, Le Monde (France. NYT provides access to it at a very low price like it does the Athletic). Wapo. Wall Street Journal. The Times of London. The Financial Times. The Guardian. I have subscriptions to the first 6, and the Guardian is free.

I also subscribe to The Economist and Foreign Affairs in print, and a friend gifted me the New Yorker. I don't always have time to read them. I also am fortunate to work in an big university, and so a lot of seminars/discussions etc are going on all the time about such matters.

I think I last watched CNN other than emergency coverage (floods/earthquakes etc) for more than an 10-15 mins maybe in the 1990s? Certainly not in the last 25 years. I have never watched MSNBC.

Having said that, the mechanisms one uses to arrive at such conclusions are not particularly relevant. The embarassing horsehit you have spouted in the last 2 days cannot be excused by limited access. They arise because you pay little attention, and resort to correlations and cliches to come up with your pov, as evidenced by the fact that you knew almost nothing about the issues that could justify your cuckoo conspiracy theory.

EDIT: How could I forget. I also subscribe to the Globe and Mail. I think I pay $1 a month. I sometimes forget about visiting it though.
- PT21

You're still not intelligent enough to realize that nobody falls for your self-aggrandizing bull poop.

It's astounding that a self proclaimed academic and scholar would not only get the facts wrong. Be so ignorant on actual law and oblivious to the political games being played by the far left. I won't wast time here addressing each point. Due to not wanting to degrade this even further. Though I'd be glad to do so in a miscellaneous thread and continue the brow beating.
- MJL

I would really and truly welcome a debate with a rare Trumpie who is actually not an idiot. Sadly this will never happen witt you.

Part of it is structural. Consider a recent interaction: where you forgot the events of the CG trade, and then did a dervish dance of trying to use the terms 'contact', 'communication', 'speaking' to justify your flawed recollection. Ultimately, it backed you up to a position where CG's agent, with dozens of players under mgmt including of the Flyers, apparently simply did not answer phone calls/emails/ etc. and then openly and publicly lied about: an assumption so preposterously absurd that I felt pity for its advocate and stopped.

Or consider the last 24 hours. It should be simple common sense that the document case could have been tried in DC. Because the White House,which is where one of the allegations of improper removal of the documents occurred, is in DC. And indeed, the case started there. The Grand Jury was in DC. It was prosecutorial discretion that moved it. Why they did so is a topic much discussed in law schools.

I cannot endlessly engage in costant debate with a man who makes so many rudimentary errors. And then, at the end of it all, talks trash. It would be like getting into arguments with an accosting stranger on the subway platform.

Consider yourself lucky you were born in this country, in this age, where you can endlessly jaw for close two decades in a faceless forum without no consequence for your ludicrous persona except widespread mockery.

Far be it for me to take from a man who tries to make up for his evident lack of respect in real life this remedy.

The classified document case had to be moved to Florida due to that's where the so called illegal retention of records, the obstruction (of a non -crime) and the alleged lying to investigators all took place. Trying the case in DC would've never stood.

All special counsels answer to AG. He hires them and he has the authority to fire them. All reports generated by a special counsel and legally only for the AG. He however can waive and put it out to the public.

As far as the slaying is concerned. When are you going to address the questions I asked you about the constitutional issue of unanimity and the 6th amendment violations? Not at all surprised that your answer to those questions, has not been forthcoming. What is the predicate crime that Trump committed that he supposedly covered up by entering false business records? To allow Bragg to overcome the statute of limitations and elevate to a felony? What is your opinion of the criminal count stacking in the case? After you answer those questions. Then we can get into the inadmissible evidence that the judge allowed into the case as well as the admissible evidence that he denied.
- MJL

"Never stood"
Ha ha.
The case started there. It was moved.

If you have a set of charges, any one of which occurred in a region, then you can bring all the charges in the court of the region. Otherwise, prosecutors would have to hopscotch across the country trying different parts of the same case in different courts.*

As for your cockamamie theories, all lifted from right wing sources, I have but limited time to deal with lunatics. I cannot endlessly pander to their vagaries. I did however offer you a bet, which is an elegant way to resolve the matter without watsting energy, but as always, you refused. Which proves that you have little interest in the actual correctness of your predictions/takes. They are just props to endlessly argue.

In parting, I will note that your apology for not discussing politics lasted about 20 hours? Angus, please note.





EDIT: *Here is your official proof of my assertion.

"Where the offense is of a continuing nature, venue is proper in any district where the acts constituting the offense were begun, continued or completed, unless otherwise provided by statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3237. Although venue must be alleged in every Federal indictment, it is not an element of the charged offense"

That's odd. I recall a quote from you in 2015 or so. It was also about immigration and also anti. Maybe I am making a mistake.

Aren't you some kind of nurse/nursing aide?
- PT21

I’m actually very curious where this post is. It might be accurate, and disturbingly good memory you’d have.

I would really and truly welcome a debate with a rare Trumpie who is actually not an idiot. Sadly this will never happen witt you.


- PT21

This is a frequent reaction with far left liberal nut cases such as yourself. Every Trump supporter is a deplorable and the need "re-training" for society. By the way, you spelled with incorrectly.

Part of it is structural. Consider a recent interaction: where you forgot the events of the CG trade, and then did a dervish dance of trying to use the terms 'contact', 'communication', 'speaking' to justify your flawed recollection. Ultimately, it backed you up to a position where CG's agent, with dozens of players under mgmt including of the Flyers, apparently simply did not answer phone calls/emails/ etc. and then openly and publicly lied about: an assumption so preposterously absurd that I felt pity for its advocate and stopped.


- PT21

Actually no, I didn't forget any events of that situation. I just reminded you of what you got wrong. Repeatedly. That you have to attempt this strawman argument, just shows the weakness of your position and of your intellect.

Or consider the last 24 hours. It should be simple common sense that the document case could have been tried in DC. Because the White House,which is where one of the allegations of improper removal of the documents occurred, is in DC. And indeed, the case started there. The Grand Jury was in DC. It was prosecutorial discretion that moved it. Why they did so is a topic much discussed in law schools.



- PT21

You're wrong. Trump is being charged with willful RETENTION of national defense material under the espionage act. Which is laughable. Not for removal. Also for obstruction of justice, conspiracy of obstruction of justice as well as making false statements to investigators. All of which allegedly occurred in the state of Florida. Which is why they HAD to convene a grand jury in Florida.

I cannot endlessly engage in costant debate with a man who makes so many rudimentary errors. And then, at the end of it all, talks trash. It would be like getting into arguments with an accosting stranger on the subway platform.

Consider yourself lucky you were born in this country, in this age, where you can endlessly jaw for close two decades in a faceless forum without no consequence for your ludicrous persona except widespread mockery.

Far be it for me to take from a man who tries to make up for his evident lack of respect in real life this remedy.
- PT21

Just another weak attempt with insults. It's amazing that you state that you can't engage in constant debate with someone who make such rudimentary errors but you can however endlessly engage in lobbing insults. Which just makes you look like a fool. There is a recurring theme here. Anyone who has successfully challenged you and proven you to be uninformed. Has been called an idiot by you. You're the perfect specimen of a far left liberal nut job. You spelled constant incorrectly

"Never stood"
Ha ha.
The case started there. It was moved.


- PT21

That's incorrect. They convened a grand jury there. Once they realized that there was no crimes that they could invent or case made in DC that they could make up. They had to convene another grand jury in Florida and closed the DC grand jury.

As for your cockamamie theories, all lifted from right wing sources, I have but limited time to deal with lunatics. I cannot endlessly pander to their vagaries. I did however offer you a bet, which is an elegant way to resolve the matter without watsting energy, but as always, you refused. Which proves that you have little interest in the actual correctness of your predictions/takes. They are just props to endlessly argue.

In parting, I will note that your apology for not discussing politics lasted about 20 hours? Angus, please note.


- PT21

Actually no, my sources are from legitimate legal experts. Much of which was even echoed by legal analysts on left wing media such as CNN and MSNBC. You're unwilling to answer the questions I posted to you for tow reasons. You have no knowledge of the actual case, nor do you have any knowledge of the law

EDIT: *Here is your official proof of my assertion.

"Where the offense is of a continuing nature, venue is proper in any district where the acts constituting the offense were begun, continued or completed, unless otherwise provided by statute. 18 U.S.C. § 3237. Although venue must be alleged in every Federal indictment, it is not an element of the charged offense"
- PT21

Again, none of the alleged crimes occurred in DC. It all occurred in Florida. Which is why the grand jury was convened there and why the trial is happening in Florida.


https://www.yahoo.com/new...EOG_NLq_BKdgbUn1XGyXXZhBH

In closing, your responses on this entire topic have shown that you are uninformed, ignorant, not to mention un-American with your denial and your lack of willingness to recognize that the biased DOJ and the Biden administration is using lawfare to go after their political opponent like a 3rd world country. That Trump's constitutional rights have been repeatedly violated. Shame on you. Typical though of a far left liberal lunatic nut job.

The problem with guys like you is that your world outside hockey and your immediate lives is so small that you cannot fathom that someone else may come to conclusions without the few mechanisms that you think exists.

Here is my daily reading: NYT and through it, Le Monde (France. NYT provides access to it at a very low price like it does the Athletic). Wapo. Wall Street Journal. The Times of London. The Financial Times. The Guardian. I have subscriptions to the first 6, and the Guardian is free.

I also subscribe to The Economist and Foreign Affairs in print, and a friend gifted me the New Yorker. I don't always have time to read them. I also am fortunate to work in an big university, and so a lot of seminars/discussions etc are going on all the time about such matters.

I think I last watched CNN other than emergency coverage (floods/earthquakes etc) for more than an 10-15 mins maybe in the 1990s? Certainly not in the last 25 years. I have never watched MSNBC.

Having said that, the mechanisms one uses to arrive at such conclusions are not particularly relevant. The embarassing horsehit you have spouted in the last 2 days cannot be excused by limited access. They arise because you pay little attention, and resort to correlations and cliches to come up with your pov, as evidenced by the fact that you knew almost nothing about the issues that could justify your cuckoo conspiracy theory.

EDIT: How could I forget. I also subscribe to the Globe and Mail. I think I pay $1 a month. I sometimes forget about visiting it though.
- PT21

You have deranged Trump syndrome….plain and simple. I pay as much attention as yourself and read a lot of what you list. I just can’t see how someone with such an esteemed education can embarrass yourself like this.
You don’t find it odd at all about the timing?
You don’t find it odd that two of the DA’s campaigned “on get Trump agenda”.
You don’t find it odd that the DA’s were in court each day ….like they have nothing else to do…lol. DA’s mostly give out the cases and don’t feel the need to attend and cheer on their prosecution.

Just these issues alone made me take a deeper look.

I am anything but a conspiracy guy…and funny I’m sure my education is comparable to yours….I will never suggest Trump hasn’t crossed the line a few hundred times in his life but I think you should be embarrassed to suggest these trials are nothing more then politically motivated. The good thing is there appears to be a majority of Americans that are smart enough to see through it. Apparently not you.

You have deranged Trump syndrome….plain and simple. I pay as much attention as yourself and read a lot of what you list. I just can’t see how someone with such an esteemed education can embarrass yourself like this.
You don’t find it odd at all about the timing?
You don’t find it odd that two of the DA’s campaigned “on get Trump agenda”.
You don’t find it odd that the DA’s were in court each day ….like they have nothing else to do…lol. DA’s mostly give out the cases and don’t feel the need to attend and cheer on their prosecution.

Just these issues alone made me take a deeper look.

I am anything but a conspiracy guy…and funny I’m sure my education is comparable to yours….I will never suggest Trump hasn’t crossed the line a few hundred times in his life but I think you should be embarrassed to suggest these trials are nothing more then politically motivated. The good thing is there appears to be a majority of Americans that are smart enough to see through it. Apparently not you.

- landros 2

*The reason I mentioned the list of publications was to specifically counter the cliched CNN-MSNBC-TDS stuff that you keep bringing up. Otherwise, the reading list and our educations are irrelevant.

* I do not believe you have read or thought about the matter deeply. There are too many errors of knowledge, which I have already pointed out that you are guilty of: That the bundling of misdemeanors into a felony is NY law, and that it was on the books way way before Trump even declared fpr the Presidency, that the previous DA did not press charges, that the Supreme Court is almost certainly not going to step in.

*A majority of Americans believe the prosecutions were motivated in part (but not entirely) by politics. So do I. Indeed pretty much every public prosecution done by people of one party against people of another is in part politically motivated, in every country in the world. I wish that were not the case, but it is. With a guy like Trump, I assume this effect is magnified.

* That is very different however from your theory that the different prosecutions was poltiically coordinated (a conspiracy). There is no evidence of central coordination whatsoever, and no evidence anyone other than the wingnuts believe so.

* It is also very different from saying the Trump prosecution timing was politically motivated. The pace at which trials proceed is way too unpredictable. The Georgia trial is indefinitely delayed by the affair of the DA. That could not have been planned. If anything, it would have been far more damaging to have filed these charges earlier, where the verdicts would have come in earlier.

*My antipathy to Trump is not rooted in his mannerisms, personal affairs, twitter feed or temperament. They are rooted in a deep knowledge of his psycopathic tendencies, his complete and utter lack of principles throughout his life, his exceptional incompetence and what he did and didn't do while in office. He is a living, breathing betrayal of both the role of the presidency and its spirit.

*It is also rooted in what he has said he will do. The most similar example is what the Law and Justice Party did in Poland before Tusk returned to power. They filled the government and the judiciary with so many political partisans, (including the President) that today the new government is still struggling to run at all, one year later.

*In summary: Most of your language and reasoning betrays a lazy, superficial mind in this matter. You simply have not paid much attention. You have observed some rudimentary correlations, and believed that to be causality. You try to cover it up with brain dead terms like TDS et.

I’m actually very curious where this post is. It might be accurate, and disturbingly good memory you’d have.
- flyer_nutter

It is for now in my memory. I would say it was between 2014-2018. HB pages are not iusually findable by Google searches, so I cannot link to the specific post.

I could even be making a mistake and it may not have been you, though I strongly believe it was.

The poster was talking about immigration in neighborhoods somewhere close to where the poster lived or worked. At that time, the poster was in some sort of health services. I also recall that there was some law/regulation passed that affected the poster personally.

*The reason I mentioned the list of publications was to specifically counter the cliched CNN-MSNBC-TDS stuff that you keep bringing up. Otherwise, the reading list and our educations are irrelevant.


- PT21

You did not successfully achieve that. The factual information given to you is just that. Factual. You refuse to believe that due to your TDS. You brought it up due to your pathological need to try and prove that you're superior to others. You have never been successful in that endeavor and you never will. As you can see by this thread, you have long since been exposed

* I do not believe you have read or thought about the matter deeply. There are too many errors of knowledge, which I have already pointed out that you are guilty of: That the bundling of misdemeanors into a felony is NY law, and that it was on the books way way before Trump even declared fpr the Presidency, that the previous DA did not press charges, that the Supreme Court is almost certainly not going to step


- PT21

This shows your lack of knowledge of the facts of the case and of the law. It is a literal guarantee that this verdict will be reversed in the Federal or Supreme court level due to the plethora and legal reversible errors during the case as well as the numerous constitutional violations and of his due process rights. It wont in the NY appellare level because that is corrupt. It will take a few years though. Which is what the Dems are cointing on. All of that information is publicly available and from well respected sources. Such as Jonathon Turley, Alan Dershowitz, John Yoo and Andy McCarthy.

*A majority of Americans believe the prosecutions were motivated in part (but not entirely) by politics. So do I. Indeed pretty much every public prosecution done by people of one party against people of another is in part politically motivated, in every country in the world. I wish that were not the case, but it is. With a guy like Trump, I assume this effect is magnified.


- PT21

Polls clearly show, along with the fund raising boosts by the Trump campaign. Including from sources who were previously against him. Such as billionaire donors and silicon valley leaders, that the majority of Americans realize that it was politically motivated. If you do not, then you're either stupid or really have TDS bad.

* That is very different however from your theory that the different prosecutions was poltiically coordinated (a conspiracy). There is no evidence of central coordination whatsoever, and no evidence anyone other than the wingnuts believe so.


- PT21

Yes there is, including Bragg meeting and talking to White House Counsel as well as one of the prosecutors, Colangelo, stepping down from his 3rd ranked position in DOJ to prosecute a case as an assistant prosecutor in the NY DA office. Again, all of that is public knowledge

*It is also very different from saying the Trump prosecution timing was politically motivated. The pace at which trials proceed is way too unpredictable. The Georgia trial is indefinitely delayed by the affair of the DA. That could not have been planned. If anything, it would have been far more damaging to have filed these charges earlier, where the verdicts would have come in earlier.




- PT21

Many of these cases have been open for years and could've been brought much sooner. All were brought at the same general time to prevent Trump from campaigning. To attempt to bankrupt him and interfere in the election. You would have to be colossally stupid or willfully ignorant not to get that.

*My antipathy to Trump is not rooted in his mannerisms, personal affairs, twitter feed or temperament. They are rooted in a deep knowledge of his psycopathic tendencies, his complete and utter lack of principles throughout his life, his exceptional incompetence and what he did and didn't do while in office. He is a living, breathing betrayal of both the role of the presidency and its spirit.

- PT21[quo

He was one of greatest Presidents in modern history in his first term. Economy was better, only interrupted by Covid. Gas was cheaper. The country was energy independent. The Middle East was moving towards peace. Iran and S Korea were under control and the border was secured. He also supported police and law enforcement. Everything was better under Trump. Saying otherwise is to ignore reality. All of which is why he is going to be the next President.

*It is also rooted in what he has said he will do. The most similar example is what the Law and Justice Party did in Poland before Tusk returned to power. They filled the government and the judiciary with so many political partisans, (including the President) that today the new government is still struggling to run at all, one year later.

*In summary: Most of your language and reasoning betrays a lazy, superficial mind in this matter. You simply have not paid much attention. You have observed some rudimentary correlations, and believed that to be causality. You try to cover it up with brain dead terms like TDS et.
- PT21

Your entire post here was not filled with a single fact. All of it may be your opinion but it is certainly not reality. It is another exercise in putting together another long winded post with no actual content. Simply camouflage of your lack of knowledge and common sense. Brain dead is a symptom of your obvious TDS. You should seek therapy. Feel free to leave the country and not take advantage of the better situation you and your family will have when Trump is elected President.

*The reason I mentioned the list of publications was to specifically counter the cliched CNN-MSNBC-TDS stuff that you keep bringing up. Otherwise, the reading list and our educations are irrelevant.

* I do not believe you have read or thought about the matter deeply. There are too many errors of knowledge, which I have already pointed out that you are guilty of: That the bundling of misdemeanors into a felony is NY law, and that it was on the books way way before Trump even declared fpr the Presidency, that the previous DA did not press charges, that the Supreme Court is almost certainly not going to step in.

*A majority of Americans believe the prosecutions were motivated in part (but not entirely) by politics. So do I. Indeed pretty much every public prosecution done by people of one party against people of another is in part politically motivated, in every country in the world. I wish that were not the case, but it is. With a guy like Trump, I assume this effect is magnified.

* That is very different however from your theory that the different prosecutions was poltiically coordinated (a conspiracy). There is no evidence of central coordination whatsoever, and no evidence anyone other than the wingnuts believe so.

* It is also very different from saying the Trump prosecution timing was politically motivated. The pace at which trials proceed is way too unpredictable. The Georgia trial is indefinitely delayed by the affair of the DA. That could not have been planned. If anything, it would have been far more damaging to have filed these charges earlier, where the verdicts would have come in earlier.

*My antipathy to Trump is not rooted in his mannerisms, personal affairs, twitter feed or temperament. They are rooted in a deep knowledge of his psycopathic tendencies, his complete and utter lack of principles throughout his life, his exceptional incompetence and what he did and didn't do while in office. He is a living, breathing betrayal of both the role of the presidency and its spirit.

*It is also rooted in what he has said he will do. The most similar example is what the Law and Justice Party did in Poland before Tusk returned to power. They filled the government and the judiciary with so many political partisans, (including the President) that today the new government is still struggling to run at all, one year later.

*In summary: Most of your language and reasoning betrays a lazy, superficial mind in this matter. You simply have not paid much attention. You have observed some rudimentary correlations, and believed that to be causality. You try to cover it up with brain dead terms like TDS et.
- PT21

I’d answer….but MJL echoed my response. I did find it amusing in calling my interpretation “lazy” after suggesting the other day that I am wrong for suggesting we can’t have separate views on the same subject….which is it?
As far as Georgia….how can it be taken seriously when the DA is banging a lawyer whose best work came in traffic court, and appoints him (along with 750K salary) to attack Trump as the lead prosecutor 😂….maybe there was something there? But when a low class piece of work like that is leading the charge all credibility is lost…sorry.
You also freely admit there is political motivation…That to me should be a more then a red flag…that’s an indictment on the entire system if these type of trials morph from a political ideology difference. I’m not sure how any rational, educated individual can think this is both right or moral ? then attempt to take a moral high ground…

I’d answer….but MJL echoed my response. I did find it amusing in calling my interpretation “lazy” after suggesting the other day that I am wrong for suggesting we can’t have separate views on the same subject….which is it?
As far as Georgia….how can it be taken seriously when the DA is banging a lawyer whose best work came in traffic court, and appoints him (along with 750K salary) to attack Trump….maybe there was something there? But when a low class piece of work like that is leading the charge all credibility is lost…sorry.
You also freely admit there is political motivation…That to me should be a more then a red flag…that’s an indictment on the entire system if these type of trials morph from a political ideology difference.
- landros 2

1. Sorry, I don't recall this exchange. And even if that was true, what does laziness have to do with it? Wouldn't that be arrogance at worst?

2. Because who is prosecuting a case doesn't affect the nature of the charges. Let me know when basic arithmetic also needs to be explained to you.

3. What do you mean " I freely admit" there is political motivation? If I am a democrat DA and I see a murder committed by a Republican, I may prosecute the case with extra zeal. That makes part of my motivation for my efforts be partisan.

That does not however mean that it is the sole motivation or that the case shouldn't have been brought to court. As I mentioned, I wish the Manhattan DA hadn't prosecuted the case. But the Georgia case: good god. Of course that should have been prosecuted.

I’d answer….but MJL echoed my response. I did find it amusing in calling my interpretation “lazy” after suggesting the other day that I am wrong for suggesting we can’t have separate views on the same subject….which is it?
As far as Georgia….how can it be taken seriously when the DA is banging a lawyer whose best work came in traffic court, and appoints him (along with 750K salary) to attack Trump as the lead prosecutor 😂….maybe there was something there? But when a low class piece of work like that is leading the charge all credibility is lost…sorry.
You also freely admit there is political motivation…That to me should be a more then a red flag…that’s an indictment on the entire system if these type of trials morph from a political ideology difference. I’m not sure how any rational, educated individual can think this is at all right or moral….then attempt to take a moral high ground…
- landros 2

The factual reality is that in the NY trial, at worst, Trump is guilty of mislabeling a business expense as a legal expense. In which Trump didn't even physically make the entry. People who work for him did. A payment to his lawyer, Michael Cohen, was entered as a legal expense. Go figure. Apparently that is illegal. A misdemeanor in which the statute of limitations had expired. Elevated to a felony because they claim that is was done to mask another crime. What that actual crime is, nobody actually knows. The jury was given a choice between three possible crimes. None of which was actually proven. Including a potential tax crime and a campaign finance violation, which they had no jurisdiction to try. Which of course, Trump and his lawyer were never charged for in the grand jury indictment and never notified until closing arguments of the case. In NY, the prosecution gives closing arguments last, which gave Trump and his lawyers. Zero opportunity to defend themselves. A clear violation of due process and of Trump's 6th amendment rights. Then in the jury instructions, the corrupt judge Merchan, gave a jury instructions that the jury didn't have to be unanimous in choosing the predicate crime that elevated the misdemeanor into a felony. Another clear violation of Trump's due process rights. All reversible errors. That doesn't even include the inadmissible evidence the judge let in. As well as preventing the defense from introducing exculpatory evidence with the judge blocking the testimony of Bradley A. Smith, one of the leading experts on campaign finance laws, by limiting the scope in which he was allowed to testify.

Even liberal democrat experts have labeled the trial a complete mess.

Of course, PT21 is completely ignorant of these facts. No American should approve of a total bastardization of the law and constitutional and due process rights that went on in this trial. Doesn't matter who it is. It is un-American and if this is allowed to continue, we will have lost our country. As it would leave the other side not recourse but to retaliate. Elections need to be decided in the voting booth. Not in fraudulent courts.

https://www.law.cornell.e...t-6/unanimity-of-the-jury

I’d answer….but MJL echoed my response. I did find it amusing in calling my interpretation “lazy” after suggesting the other day that I am wrong for suggesting we can’t have separate views on the same subject….which is it?
As far as Georgia….how can it be taken seriously when the DA is banging a lawyer whose best work came in traffic court, and appoints him (along with 750K salary) to attack Trump as the lead prosecutor 😂….maybe there was something there? But when a low class piece of work like that is leading the charge all credibility is lost…sorry.
You also freely admit there is political motivation…That to me should be a more then a red flag…that’s an indictment on the entire system if these type of trials morph from a political ideology difference. I’m not sure how any rational, educated individual can think this is both right or moral ? then attempt to take a moral high ground…
- landros 2

Look man, this was to me the most-cringe worthy exchange I have had in my 16+ years on HB. I have a very low opinion of guys like MJL, but I have long internalized that.

I often did wonder: why a man who has retired, and doesn't have to spend hours in front of a computer (like I do), spends so much time on a site like this, where discussion of the Flyers is not that deep and where a disproportionate # of guys are yahoos.

I undersrtand now. It is because temperamentally and in calibre, you belong.

We are done here.

All the best.

2. Because who is prosecuting a case doesn't affect the nature of the charges. Let me know when basic arithmetic also needs to be explained to you.


- PT21

Showing your ignorance of the law and of the situation. Officers of the court and prosecutors take oaths to be truthful. When the DA and the person they hired to prosecute the case, lie while under oath. As well as create a situation where they both profit financially from bringing that specific case. That absolutely affects the nature of the case and the validity of the indictment. Nathan Wade has already been removed from the case and removing Willis is under appeal. If she is removed. There is no prosecutor that would touch that case with a 10 foot pole. The case is essentially over.

3. What do you mean " I freely admit" there is political motivation? If I am a democrat DA and I see a murder committed by a Republican, I may prosecute the case with extra zeal. That makes part of my motivation for my efforts be partisan.

That does not however mean that it is the sole motivation or that the case shouldn't have been brought to court. As I mentioned, I wish the Manhattan DA hadn't prosecuted the case. But the Georgia case: good god. Of course that should have been prosecuted.
- PT21

The Georgia case is an incredibly weak case. There were no laws broken. A RICO case for heavens sake


PT, you seriously need to do some research and inform yourself.

Look man, this was to me the most-cringe worthy exchange I have had in my 16+ years on HB. I have a very low opinion of guys like MJL, but I have long internalized that.


- PT21

You're completely full of poop. I'm living inside your head. You seethe and foam at the mouth every time I embarrass you. When others on the site pointed out how I embarrassed you, you had a fit. In your usual way of posting fancy worded insults. Having no recourse to actually defend yourself. Face it PT, your rep on here is in the toilet and you have little to no respect. You will never be what you want to be. That superior intellectual academic, here to educate everyone. That ship has long sailed.

1. Sorry, I don't recall this exchange. And even if that was true, what does laziness have to do with it? Wouldn't that be arrogance at worst?

2. Because who is prosecuting a case doesn't affect the nature of the charges. Let me know when basic arithmetic also needs to be explained to you.

3. What do you mean " I freely admit" there is political motivation? If I am a democrat DA and I see a murder committed by a Republican, I may prosecute the case with extra zeal. That makes part of my motivation for my efforts be partisan.

That does not however mean that it is the sole motivation or that the case shouldn't have been brought to court. As I mentioned, I wish the Manhattan DA hadn't prosecuted the case. But the Georgia case: good god. Of course that should have been prosecuted.
- PT21

I agree there may have been something in Georgia…but good god man. If corruption is evident from the DA bringing the case? …which even a blue nut liberal like you can see, then how can it be taken seriously? It can’t. It’s not the fault of Trump that the DA is corrupt Sluutt.


As far as the “murder” comparison? C’mon man …it’s not that the cases are being brought from actual laws being broken. They are politically motivated….hell it looked in Manhattan like they were trying to find the so called crime right to the closing arguments. Crazy an actual judge let that much leeway…wild to watch actually.

This is where we definitely disagree….I think if ANY political motivation is evident that any case …either way…it really loses most of its credibility. The courts aren’t there to attack your political opponents they are there to put actual criminals away.

Look man, this was to me the most-cringe worthy exchange I have had in my 16+ years on HB. I have a very low opinion of guys like MJL, but I have long internalized that.

I often did wonder: why a man who has retired, and doesn't have to spend hours in front of a computer (like I do), spends so much time on a site like this, where discussion of the Flyers is not that deep and where a disproportionate # of guys are yahoos.

I undersrtand now. It is because temperamentally and in calibre, you belong.

We are done here.

All the best.
- PT21

We just disagree. We see this different… No worries for you though…. I do not have a vote in November.

This about sums it up. PT21, this is an opportunity for you to start curing your ignorance and educate yourself.

https://www.heritage.org/...-nyc-venezuela-the-hudson

I agree there may have been something in Georgia…but good god man. If corruption is evident from the DA bringing the case? …which even a blue nut liberal like you can see, then how can it be taken seriously? It can’t. It’s not the fault of Trump that the DA is corrupt Sluutt.


As far as the “murder” comparison? C’mon man …it’s not that the cases are being brought from actual laws being broken. They are politically motivated….hell it looked in Manhattan like they were trying to find the so called crime right to the closing arguments. Crazy an actual judge let that much leeway…wild to watch actually.

This is where we definitely disagree….I think if ANY political motivation is evident that any case …either way…it really loses most of its credibility. The courts aren’t there to attack your political opponents they are there to put actual criminals away.
- landros 2

She is a slut because she had an extremely unprofessional affair?

Wow. Do your daughters know you talk like this? And display the sort of reasoming you did above?

And what in the living the (frank) am I doing here in a place like this?

She is a slut because she had an extremely unprofessional affair?

Wow. Do your daughters know you talk like this? And display the sort of reasoming you did above?

And what in the living the (frank) am I doing here in a place like this?
- PT21

Would I want one of my daughters to use a position of power to get a piece of azz and use funds to travel and sneak behind the scenes with another women’s spouse? Is that the question? Would I want one of my daughters to lie and cheat? I would think the dem’s would be more pissed, simply because if the guy was guilty you think they would want someone above reproach to handle this case? No? not this gutter rat….Is that a normal ethical course of business in your parts? And your here because you know all of the people you hang with probably agree with you….it’s probably cathartic for you to hear form others with a different thought…almost like a social experiment for ya.

She is a slut because she had an extremely unprofessional affair?

Wow. Do your daughters know you talk like this? And display the sort of reasoming you did above?

And what in the living the (frank) am I doing here in a place like this?
- PT21

Slut is an apropos word for her behavior. However, that is not the real issue. The issue is that as an officer of the court, she obviously lied under oath and is unethical. In enriching herself and benefiting personally and financially from bringing the case. She should be removed from the case. She should be fired, disbarred and referred for investigation and possibly criminal prosecution.