I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
I don't think I'm the one who doesn't understand. The jury also seemed to understand. Michael Cohen went to prison for one of those underlying crimes that elevated the misdemeanors to felonies.
So, we're to think you understand better than the legal experts I've presented here?
Anyway, Cohen is irrelevant. Trump was never charged or indicted for those underlying crimes. Evidence of those underlying crimes wasn't even presented in his trial.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
So, we're to think you understand better than the legal experts I've presented here?
Anyway, Cohen is irrelevant. Trump was never charged or indicted for those underlying crimes. Evidence of those underlying crimes wasn't even presented in his trial.
LOL
It sounds like you want to characterize my understanding as better than those experts that you presented here.
Anyway, your dismissal of Cohen's conviction is irrelevant. The jury heard about Cohen's prison time and they heard the evidence and they decided that the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and now Trump is convicted felon. They have different thoughts about the veracity of the evidence presented to them.
It sounds like you want to characterize my understanding as better than those experts that you presented here.
Anyway, your dismissal of Cohen's conviction is irrelevant. The jury heard about Cohen's prison time and they heard the evidence and they decided that the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt and now Trump is convicted felon. They have different thoughts about the veracity of the evidence presented to them.
It's quite convenient for you that everytime I present a legal expert who explains the issues with how this prosecution unfolded, you can fall back to the jury's decision.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
It's quite convenient for you that everytime I present a legal expert who explains the issues with how this prosecution unfolded, you can fall back to the jury's decision.
What should we fall back to instead? Should we fall back to the law and order and the American legal process and jury decisions? Or should we fall back to the word and feelings of the guy who was prosecuted and convicted? The guy who is a well known and well documented serial liar tells you a story that you want to believe and he has sychophants who write opinions which feed your similar opinion.
I would counter that it's convenient for Trump supporters to just ignore the evidence and look for an opinion that makes them feel justified in questioning yet another legal decision against Trump. It's normal for Republicans to criticize any American institution which disagrees with Trump or would hold him accountable.
What should we fall back to instead? Should we fall back to the law and order and the American legal process and jury decisions? Or should we fall back to the word and feelings of the guy who was prosecuted and convicted? The guy who is a well known and well documented serial liar tells you a story that you want to believe and he has sychophants who write opinions which feed your similar opinion.
I would counter that it's convenient for Trump supporters to just ignore the evidence and look for an opinion that makes them feel justified in questioning yet another legal decision against Trump.
As I said, I've shared opinions from various legal experts who have problems with how this prosecution was conducted. You don't seem to care about sharing how you think they may be wrong. Or an opinion from legal experts who disagree. You simply go with that the jury found him guilty, which we all already know.
It's quite convenient for you that everytime I present a legal expert who explains the issues with how this prosecution unfolded, you can fall back to the jury's decision.
Let's see if he says the same about the jury that doesn't find him guilty. I'm sure he'll give all the accolades and claim it was a 100% non partisan decision...... right.......
And what he'll say about the election if Trump wins.
I'm sure he'll accept the results as nothing but fair and democratic. Probably go after the electoral college as most cult demorats do.....
It's normal for Republicans to criticize any American institution which disagrees with Trump or would hold him accountable.
LOL....elected Democrats have actually threatened SCOTUS justices when they didn't like the outcome of a decision.
Funny how some have no problem believing our Supreme Court is corrupt and makes decisions based on ideology instead of the constitution in their decisions, but to them it's beyond possibility that one judge and one prosecutor they know nothing about could be and do the same.
What should we fall back to instead? Should we fall back to the law and order and the American legal process and jury decisions? Or should we fall back to the word and feelings of the guy who was prosecuted and convicted? The guy who is a well known and well documented serial liar tells you a story that you want to believe and he has sychophants who write opinions which feed your similar opinion.
I would counter that it's convenient for Trump supporters to just ignore the evidence and look for an opinion that makes them feel justified in questioning yet another legal decision against Trump. It's normal for Republicans to criticize any American institution which disagrees with Trump or would hold him accountable.
Yes and we will see exactly your opinion of a jury that finds him not guilty. You already defamed the Florida judge as corrupt, partisan and inexperienced. Better yet, we'll see your opinion of how free and fair the election in November is if Trump wins. Looooooll.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
LOL....elected Democrats have actually threatened SCOTUS justices when they didn't like the outcome of a decision.
Funny how some have no problem believing our Supreme Court is corrupt and makes decisions based on ideology instead of the constitution in their decisions, but to them it's beyond possibility that one judge and one prosecutor they know nothing about could be and do the same.
Sure. And right now there are democrats who are looking for some ethics accountability for the SCOTUS. There's talk of diluting the corruption by adding justices. There's lots of evidence that supports the contention that the ethical guidelines are not followed by the Supremes. They should do better.
On the other hand, you have exactly no evidence that the judge presiding over Trump's NY trial is ethically challenged. None. You just question it because you don't like this jury decision. The judge didn't decide that Trump is guilty. A jury did. You have no evidence that the jury was corrupted by the judge. None. You just suggest that because you don't like the conviction.
In summary, there has been evidence presented and reported which demonstrates that the SCOTUS justices are not bound or measured by the typical ethical standards for justices, and there's no evidence reported or available which suggests or demonstrates that judge Merchan is corrupt or functioning in a biased fashion. One concern is based in evidence and the other concern is not based on evidence, it is based in emotional speculation.
I do remember when Trump supporters said things like... but he's not charged with any crime. Then it evolved into criticizing the specific crimes and noting that he wasn't convicted of anything when his losses were civil. Now Trump is convicted in one legal challenge and, just like with his electoral losses y'all jump right on the denial train... he couldn't have lost, they must be corrupt and cheating becomes the mantra again.
I'm certain that Trump's legal team will explore every conceivable avenue for appeal, no matter how flimsy. This should reassure you. Or maybe you now think that the entire american system is rigged against corruption and crime and Trump is doomed. That kind of thinking will motivate some of your fellow Trump supporters to increase the volume of their calls for violence as the only option for fixing this disagreement.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Crusades said:
Let's see if he says the same about the jury that doesn't find him guilty. I'm sure he'll give all the accolades and claim it was a 100% non partisan decision...... right.......
And what he'll say about the election if Trump wins.
I'm sure he'll accept the results as nothing but fair and democratic. Probably go after the electoral college as most cult demorats do.....
Oh boy! More speculation about me rather than the topic at hand! How clever.
Trump's convictions really triggers some Trump supporters.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
As I said, I've shared opinions from various legal experts who have problems with how this prosecution was conducted. You don't seem to care about sharing how you think they may be wrong. Or an opinion from legal experts who disagree. You simply go with that the jury found him guilty, which we all already know.
You are complaining that I'm discussing the conviction by relying on the evidence and the jury decision rather than opinions from outside that process.
No one is telling you that you can't discuss those opinions. Would you like to talk about some specific opinion or aspect of an opinion? If so you should quote and discuss what you find compelling about an argument. Maybe you can share your takeaway with us in a way that makes us also believe that this trial was unfair.
Yes, everyone knows that Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies. Besides paying off adult film actresses and other women to keep his deep immorality and marital infidelity out of the news before the 2016 election, Trump's team was also meeting with Russian operatives and sharing internal polling data with them. Trump was using lots of nontraditional means to acquire political power in 2016. It's a pattern of corrupt behavior.
Beerman, BSN
4,429 Posts
So, we're to think you understand better than the legal experts I've presented here?
Anyway, Cohen is irrelevant. Trump was never charged or indicted for those underlying crimes. Evidence of those underlying crimes wasn't even presented in his trial.