Attorney on Trump jury: ".. the facts that may well not add up to a criminal violation"

[Foxfyre]

It's just a parroting of Saul Alinsky who said to always put down others who disagree w/ you or something to that effect... he was big on ridiculing your opponents.. lovely person.. probably frying in hell as we speak

I don't speculate on who is and who isn't in hell. Way above my pay grade. I hope he's in Heaven so I can ask him how he came to think as he thought. (I'm pretty sure in Heaven there is no such thinking like that.)

But yes, he didn't advocate any sort of morality, fair play, decency, common courtesy, or honesty but rather just repeat whatever can sway public opinion and diminish your opponent. God help us all if decent people have to resort to that in order to defeat the worst Marxist ambitions of the left. He was definitely a proponent of the end justifies the means.

(Alinksy rejected the idea that he was Marxist or that he embraced Marxism even as his tactics were right out of Marx and Engles' playbook.)

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Your post does not make sense

And also, people differ widely on their definition of "torture"

In times of war, certain things appear to be necessary for protecting one's country or allies

Of course it makes no sense to you, you have no morals or standards, thus is the nature of a you being nothing but a mindless partisan drone.

John Woo is a piece of human excrement. But he is telling you what you want to hear, so you do not care.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Say he isn't qualified to have an informed opinion. The man's credentials are VERY solid:

John Yoo | Research UC Berkeley

John Yoo received his B.A., summa cum laude, in History from Harvard. He received his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was an articles editor of the Yale Law Journal. He clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit and Justice...

vcresearch.berkeley.edu

Very solid. He wrote a great brief defending Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. And he helped write the defense for the torture of prisoners at Gitmo. how much better can you get that that?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nobody has found anything lacking in most if not all of his opinions. And I'm darn sure you can't show where he is wrong.

So, you fully support the Govt wiretapping US citizens without a warrant.

Good to know.

 

[DudleySmith]

(Alinsky was a devout Marxist.)

Yes, and a terrorist as well. He was a student of Antonio Gramsci. His stuff wasn't original.

 

[DudleySmith]

So, you fully support the Govt wiretapping US citizens without a warrant.

Good to know.

Like Obama did. You're fine with that, so why snivel now?

 

[forkintheroad7]

God help us all if decent people have to resort to that in order to defeat the worst Marxist ambitions of the left.

(Alinsky was a devout Marxist.)

Well, "God helps those who helps themselves" is not in the Bible, at least not explicitly

But we can't help thinking that --after all we've seen in our new banana republic.

 

[forkintheroad7]

Like Obama did. You're fine with that, so why snivel now?

exactly

It's the old "Dems can do any lawless thing they choose. But Republicans had better be perfect"

garbage.

They are cultists... No one can step outside the Narrative, no one can think for himself, no one can say anything bad about the dear leaders

 

[Doc7505]

Trump's fund raising went through the roof. thanks, deviants and left wing psychos.

~~~~~~
$200 million and mounting!

 

[OldFlame]

Neither did most of the people on this forum

or anywhere else.

If the Rs in Congress don't see leftists for the demoniacs they are after THIS

it's hopeless

They're every bit a part of it as the dims are, all of DC is a corrupt cesspool. And if you're not corrupt, they just proved how powerful they are and if you don't stay in your lane, they'll destroy you. Who is going to go up against them at this point?

 

[forkintheroad7]

Of course it makes no sense to you, you have no morals or standards,

 

[forkintheroad7]

They're every bit a part of it as the dims are, all of DC is a corrupt cesspool. And if you're not corrupt, they just proved how powerful they are and if you don't stay in your lane, they'll destroy you. Who is going to go up against them at this point?

We are all against them.

But I get what you're saying. They are thugs.

They are more thugs than the thugs they are supposed to be dealing with on the streets but aren't because Trump is the Great Threat

I don't think they counted on the $200 million in donations and other great signs of support.

Like I have said many times b4

they are short sighted

 

[WorldWatcher]

Democrats, progressives cheering Trump verdict should be mourning this loss instead

The decisions made by D.A. Bragg to prosecute Trump on flimsy charges will come at a steep price for our country. Democrats think they have scored a big win but they are mistaken.

www.foxnews.com

from site


...the jury unanimously agreed on a complicated set of facts that may well not add up to a criminal violation. It found that in 2016, Trump had paid porn star Stephanie Clifford (stage name, Stormy Daniels) $170,000 to keep silent about an alleged affair. That in itself does not violate the law.

The jury must have agreed with Michael Cohen, Trump’s lawyer at the time, that Trump improperly filed these payments as "legal expenses" rather than as a contribution to his own presidential campaign. This might be a misdemeanor, worthy of a fine, but not by itself a felony.

Appeals courts have little interest in second-guessing a trial judge on evidentiary rulings, but Judge Merchan made several serious errors of law well-poised for reversal. For example, he allowed the prosecution to withhold the second, greater crime allegedly enabled by the bookkeeping shenanigans until the very end of the trial. This violated Trump’s constitutional right of clear notice of the charges so he could put on an adequate defense.

You have confidence in an article that can't get the basic facts correct?

#1 Trump didn't pay Daniels in 2016, as a matter of fact Trump never paid Daniels. Cohen paid Daniels out of his own pocket and got the money reimbursed in 2017.

#2 Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 not $170,000.

WW

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Like Obama did. You're fine with that, so why snivel now?

Nope, not fine with that either.

one of the benefits of not being a partisan drone, I do not have to change my values based upon the resident of the white house

 

[forkintheroad7]

You have confidence in an article that can't get the basic facts correct?

#1 Trump didn't pay Daniels in 2016, as a matter of fact Trump never paid Daniels. Cohen paid Daniels out of his own pocket and got the money reimbursed in 2017.

#2 Cohen paid Daniels $130,000 not $170,000.

WW

makes no sense.. The case had little if anything to do with Daniels, this I know...

but you apparently do not

 

[forkintheroad7]

Nope, not fine with that either.

one of the benefits of not being a partisan drone, I do not have to change my values based upon the resident of the white house

That's because dims don't have values

 

[Harpy Eagle]

View attachment 956931

yes you are.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That's because dims don't have values

correct, they do not.

And neither do Repubs. one cannot be a partisan drone like you and have values.

 

[forkintheroad7]

yes you are.

 

[forkintheroad7]

correct, they do not.

And neither do Repubs. one cannot be a partisan drone like you and have values.