Stormy Daniels in court.

[HemiHauler]

Sorry, no. I don't seem to even have the time to do or read the stuff I need to do.



Well - there's the TIMING of it all - in a campaign season - when the 'crime' occurred nearly a decade ago. To 'cover' an event two decades ago.
And there's the fact that the DA declared he'd get him - via a contortion of the law that to my knowledge has never been used on anyone.

That a judge who should have recused himself has insisted on gagging no one EXCEPT Trump - while everyone else is allowed to go on talk shows and talk all about it, for months - hence poisoning the jury pool. And it did - a huge portion of the potential jurors admitted they could not render a fair verdict. The same judge who should have simply STOPPED Stormy's testimony - but allowed it and only afterward admitted that it shouldn't have been done.

Far too many directly connected to the White House have their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak - who can argue that a senile, compus non mentis President would be re-elected easily - unless you can incarcerate his opponent? At its simplest - it's the kind of thing you'd expect to see in Russia or China.

And were it someone NOT political or at least, IMPORTANT - no one would bother. So there can be zero question, yes, it's for poltical reasons.

We absolutely, literally have murderers, thieves and rapists - crimes no one would disagree are REAL crimes - in the same jurisdiction - getting back out into the streets, and they want to lock up a President for a crime that your average person could not explain, nor point to a victim.

OK, but those are your feelings, not exactly based in reality. Loads of campaign finance violations are prosecuted annually — including in New York State and including people from “both sides of the aisle” as is the popular turn of phrase. Many by Alvin Bragg since he ascended to DA. Many such cases include charges of falsifying business records, as is the case here as well, a matter which the state of New York seems to take particularly seriously.

As has been pointed out, the Statute of Limitations doesn’t apply here due to the way that law is structured in New York State. So time just isn’t a factor.

I agree about the murderers, rapists, etc. There’s no reason they too can’t and shouldn’t be prosecuted. I have no explanation for the breakdown.

As far as not having the time to read various things, I get it. Time is our most precious commodity and we have to choose wisely. Frankly, I’d rather catch up on the stack of science fiction books I have stacked in my office - though I’m slowly making it through Alastair Reynolds’ Revelation Space series — good stuff if you read sci-fi. But in a time of mass confusion and chaos, I often find the time to read things to understand the world around me. But the point is many of your misunderstandings can be cleared up.

 

[Ken King]

As has been pointed out, the Statute of Limitations doesn’t apply here due to the way that law is structured in New York State. So time just isn’t a factor.

I would disagree with this contention. Due to the "tolling" extension for a felony it seems like this might be so, but in actuality it is somewhat more nuanced.

For NYPL §175.10 (felony) to apply the DA must prove that the defendant committed a misdemeanor under NYPL §175.05. NYPL §175.05 requires hat the defendant is guilty of a misdemeanor “if, with the intent to defraud, you make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise’s business records.” As of yet DA Bragg has not indicated who Trump intended to defraud, and that is a predicate to advance the charge to §175.10. One might note that Bragg did not charge Trump with any misdemeanors.

Now a question, I am sure will come up, is that if the timeliness for the misdemeanor (a two year limitation to bring action) has expired prior to the tolling extension established by Governor Cuomo's executive order, can that act (or acts) stand for the advancement to a charge/s under §175.10?

 

[SamSpade]

OK, but those are your feelings, not exactly based in reality.

Not "feelings" - I'd call them judgments made on observations - something all of us do and rely on, daily. When someone declares their bias, and their subsequent actions demonstrate it - it's totally fair to conclude they acted on their biases.

The left does this CONSTANTLY. The Supreme Court as of late has ruled in several ways that has led the left to think "they're deciding based on their conservative bias" and at times - depending on who's speaking - assailed their credability to make a ruling.

If they can do that - why can't I say Merchan is biased, and not applying the law fairly? If someone CAMPAIGNS on the premise they're going to put Trump in jail - and then goes on a fishing expedition to craft a crime - I think it's a reasonable conclusion that they're not totally unbiased and being political.

And you can imagine the ten kinds of hell that would arise, should Trump win and put Joe on trial.

 

[HemiHauler]

I would disagree with this contention. Due to the "tolling" extension for a felony it seems like this might be so, but in actuality it is somewhat more nuanced.

For NYPL §175.10 (felony) to apply the DA must prove that the defendant committed a misdemeanor under NYPL §175.05. NYPL §175.05 requires hat the defendant is guilty of a misdemeanor “if, with the intent to defraud, you make, or even cause through other means, a false entry in an enterprise’s business records.” As of yet DA Bragg has not indicated who Trump intended to defraud, and that is a predicate to advance the charge to §175.10. One might note that Bragg did not charge Trump with any misdemeanors.

Now a question, I am sure will come up, is that if the timeliness for the misdemeanor (a two year limitation to bring action) has expired prior to the tolling extension established by Governor Cuomo's executive order, can that act (or acts) stand for the advancement to a charge/s under §175.10?

Fair counterpoint. Thank you. I’ll dig into it more thoroughly.

 

[BOP]

Sorry, no. I don't seem to even have the time to do or read the stuff I need to do.



Well - there's the TIMING of it all - in a campaign season - when the 'crime' occurred nearly a decade ago. To 'cover' an event two decades ago.
And there's the fact that the DA declared he'd get him - via a contortion of the law that to my knowledge has never been used on anyone.

That a judge who should have recused himself has insisted on gagging no one EXCEPT Trump - while everyone else is allowed to go on talk shows and talk all about it, for months - hence poisoning the jury pool. And it did - a huge portion of the potential jurors admitted they could not render a fair verdict. The same judge who should have simply STOPPED Stormy's testimony - but allowed it and only afterward admitted that it shouldn't have been done.

Far too many directly connected to the White House have their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak - who can argue that a senile, compus non mentis President would be re-elected easily - unless you can incarcerate his opponent? At its simplest - it's the kind of thing you'd expect to see in Russia or China.

And were it someone NOT political or at least, IMPORTANT - no one would bother. So there can be zero question, yes, it's for poltical reasons.

We absolutely, literally have murderers, thieves and rapists - crimes no one would disagree are REAL crimes - in the same jurisdiction - getting back out into the streets, and they want to lock up a President for a crime that your average person could not explain, nor point to a victim.

And, on top of all that, Stormy Daniels herself owes Trump more than a half million dollars, and she said she is out to get him; she has said that she's not going to give him any money. Even though in 2018, she said in writing, that she never had sex with him.

15.16 EDT

'I want him to be held accountable': Daniels says she 'hates' Trump​

Then came Trump attorney Susan Necheles’ questions on Stormy Daniels’ view on Trump.

“Am I correct in that you hate President Trump?”

"Yes."

“And you want him to go to jail?”

"I want him to be held accountable."

“Part of the reason you hate him is because he won a legal case against you, and you owe him today, over half a million dollars, right?” Necheles said.

"He didn’t win the case – he won attorneys fees."

“So you agree with me, he won the case and he was awarded over half a million dollars in legal fees?”

"Correct."

Stormy Daniels tells court she ‘hates’ Trump and wants him ‘held accountable’ – as it happened

Adult film star cross-examined by defense; judge denies Trump attorney’s motion for mistrial

www.theguardian.com

 

[vraiblonde]

Sorry, no. I don't seem to even have the time to do or read the stuff I need to do.



Well - there's the TIMING of it all - in a campaign season - when the 'crime' occurred nearly a decade ago. To 'cover' an event two decades ago.
And there's the fact that the DA declared he'd get him - via a contortion of the law that to my knowledge has never been used on anyone.

That a judge who should have recused himself has insisted on gagging no one EXCEPT Trump - while everyone else is allowed to go on talk shows and talk all about it, for months - hence poisoning the jury pool. And it did - a huge portion of the potential jurors admitted they could not render a fair verdict. The same judge who should have simply STOPPED Stormy's testimony - but allowed it and only afterward admitted that it shouldn't have been done.

Far too many directly connected to the White House have their hand in the cookie jar, so to speak - who can argue that a senile, compus non mentis President would be re-elected easily - unless you can incarcerate his opponent? At its simplest - it's the kind of thing you'd expect to see in Russia or China.

And were it someone NOT political or at least, IMPORTANT - no one would bother. So there can be zero question, yes, it's for poltical reasons.

We absolutely, literally have murderers, thieves and rapists - crimes no one would disagree are REAL crimes - in the same jurisdiction - getting back out into the streets, and they want to lock up a President for a crime that your average person could not explain, nor point to a victim.

You are trying to reason with a mindless zombie.

 

[SamSpade]

And, on top of all that, Stormy Daniels herself owes Trump more than a half million dollars, and she said she is out to get him; she has said that she's not going to give him any money. Even though in 2018, she said in writing, that she never had sex with him.

I suppose this makes her testimony the other day in court highly suspect. It's a crime to lie in court, but it's not a crime to lie on TV or in a book.

Stormy Daniels tells court she ‘hates’ Trump and wants him ‘held accountable’ – as it happened

Adult film star cross-examined by defense; judge denies Trump attorney’s motion for mistrial

www.theguardian.com

I get that you can have a witness that hates the defendant. That is never surprising. I'm a little concerned that in her own words, she has stated that she more or less extorted him for money. That ought to make her testimony much less than credible.

I suppose I'm wondering WHAT she thinks he needs to be "accountable" for - it's a kind of loaded phrase which implies that justice has not been served - but I can't think of what he's done that he is "accountable" to her, for.

 

[BOP]

The only legal requirement is to furnish the witness list. There is zero legal requirent to establish a schedule of witness appearances.

Is it standard? Perhaps not. But I’m only concerned with legalities.

Like the vast majority of leftists, only when it serves your purpose.

However, what little I've read suggests you are correct, except in capital cases. The way the left is acting, they would make this a capital case if they could. But again, you are correct, and it's not a capital case.

 

[HemiHauler]

You are trying to reason with a mindless zombie.

FOAD you kooky numskull.

 

[SamSpade]

You are trying to reason with a mindless zombie.

No but a biased one.

In an article I read this morning -----

Benjamin Franklin was perhaps the pinnacle of this mindset. At the Constitutional Convention, Franklin said, “I have experienced many instances of being obliged, by better information or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects … It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment.” In his autobiography, Franklin advised readers never to use the words “certainly” or “undoubtedly” when stating our beliefs. Instead say “I imagine it to be so; or it is so, if I am not mistaken.”

Franklin liked to tell a short parable. He said there was a “French lady, who, in a little dispute with her sister said: ‘I don’t know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.’”

Franklin’s point was that we are all that French lady. We all believe we have a monopoly on the truth. I know I feel that way most of the time. But I fight that inclination. I try to remind myself: What are the odds that I, one of 8 billion humans on earth, happen to be that singular person who has discovered the correct take on politics, literature, the environment, religion and all other topics? Probably two to one. Maybe even three to one.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/08/opinions/america-founding-fathers-patriotism-changing-your-mind-jacobs/index.html

It's tough to change your mind about things - but to be fair about an issue, you have to take a page from our Founders, who did it often. Because like scientists, the answer is fluid and science is not dogma.

Hemi is not totally unreasonable as he is able to discuss reasonably on subjects not as charged as politics - unlike others, who can somehow bring TRUMP into a discussion on food, gardening or home improvement.

 

[BOP]

You are trying to reason with a mindless zombie.

I'm beginning to see a more thoughtful, and dare I say, nuanced discussion from HH of late. I also realize that could revert to the mindless leftist zombie at any time, but for me, I'll take what I can get.

 

[OccamsRazor]

...unlike others, who can somehow bring TRUMP into a discussion on food, gardening or home improvement.

You win the internetz today!!

 

[Kyle]

I'm beginning to see a more thoughtful, and dare I say, nuanced discussion from HH of late. I also realize that could revert to the mindless leftist zombie at any time, but for me, I'll take what I can get.

They got his meds right.

 

[BOP]

FOAD you kooky numskull.

Wishing people to die, HH?

Most of the time, you sound like an advertisement for leftist talking points. In other words, wrong about almost everything.

This current reasonableness with which you are arguing is giving many of us whiplash.

 

[HemiHauler]

I'm beginning to see a more thoughtful, and dare I say, nuanced discussion from HH of late. I also realize that could revert to the mindless leftist zombie at any time, but for me, I'll take what I can get.

Hey, I appreciate the love! But as I say, I give what I get. There are but a few reasonable people here with functional minds. Board Mommy ain’t one of them.

 

[HemiHauler]

Wishing people to die, HH?

Most of the time, you sound like an advertisement for leftist talking points. In other words, wrong about almost everything.

This current reasonableness with which you are arguing is giving many of us whiplash.

Wishing death on people is permitted and in fact applauded here.

 

[Kyle]

Hey, I appreciate the love! But as I say, I give what I get. There are but a few reasonable people here with functional minds. Board Mommy ain’t one of them.

You asked her out and got rejected, din'cha?

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm beginning to see a more thoughtful, and dare I say, nuanced discussion from HH of late.

FOAD you kooky numskull.

Riiiiight......

 

[BOP]

Wishing death on people is permitted and in fact applauded here.

In the earliest days of the internet, after AOL and Prodigy chat rooms were pretty well established and, well, overrun by a lot of what we see in forums across the internet today, a lot of us moved to IRC's (Internet Relay Chat) such as DALNET and UNDERNET. That was about a year before the flame wars started, and it finally got so bad that a lot of people, myself included gave it up entirely. People just can't help themselves.

But anyway, imagine the worst of the wild, wild west combined with a sh*thole 3rd world country combined with a post-apocalyptic dystopian future, and you'll get an idea of how bad it was. A day didn't go by where somebody wasn't wishing or threatening death on somebody else.

There are still places on IRC that I'm scared to even visit.

Now, the list of words one cannot say on social media, especially as a content creator on YT, is vast. Dare I say, encyclopedic.

Even memes will get you bounced, let alone wishing people death and or dismemberment. And gods help you if you say anything contrary to the Narrative(tm).

 

[Kyle]