trump tries to lower expectation for the debate.

[Rawley]

Skylar By the way, you might want to ask how in God's name did Merchan get assigned to this case. Odds were like 1 in 10,000,000

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Appeals always come before sentencing.

Nope. Not ever been true. Most appeals happen while the sentence is being served.

 

[Skylar]

Where are you getting the idea that Trump's legal team had UNLIMITED dismissals of jurors?

"Challenges for cause are made when voir dire reveals that a juror is not qualified, able, or fit to serve in a particular case. Lawyers generally have an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges available."

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases

Lawyers and judges select juries by a process known as “voir dire,” in which the judge and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine i

www.nolo.com

Do you not grasp that the person who decides whether a juror is displaying bias was a judge that had already proven himself to be biased against Trump?

Displays bias.....according to who? You keep citing your feelings as facts. And as the ethics committee demonstrated elegantly, your feelings aren't a legal standard.

 

[Man With A Plan]

"Challenges for cause are made when voir dire reveals that a juror is not qualified, able, or fit to serve in a particular case. Lawyers generally have an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges available."

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases

Lawyers and judges select juries by a process known as “voir dire,” in which the judge and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine i

www.nolo.com

Displays bias.....according to who? You keep citing your feelings as facts. And as the ethics committee demonstrated elegantly, your feelings aren't a legal standard.

"Challenges for cause are made when voir dire reveals that a juror is not qualified, able, or fit to serve in a particular case. Lawyers generally have an unlimited number of "for cause" challenges available."

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases

Lawyers and judges select juries by a process known as “voir dire,” in which the judge and attorneys for both sides ask potential jurors questions to determine i

www.nolo.com

Displays bias.....according to who? You keep citing your feelings as facts. And as the ethics committee demonstrated elegantly, your feelings aren't a legal standard.

Once again...who decides "for cause" challenges?

 

[Skylar]

Third and last time, I'm citing the same source to illustrate their rank hypocrisy. Not sure why you are having such a difficult time with that

Disagreeing with you isn't a sign of hypocrisy. Its a sign that you don't know what you're talking about.

Why would I ignore an ethics committee on judicial bias.......and instead believe you? Your feelings aren't a legal standard.

Political contributions by judges are explicitly prohibited by state ethics rules for precisely, precisely this reason. For them not to find Merchan should have been recused for this, let alone the financial conflict posed by his daughter is absurd.

Says who? Again, you keep citing your feeling and your opinions as a legal standard that judges are held to.

They're not.

What you're demonstrating is your bias. As you in Merchan's place couldn't be impartial. So you insist that he must be just like you. Um, no.

 

[Man With A Plan]

It seems I have to answer my own question, Skylar! That would be the JUDGE who decides for cause challenges! So you've got a biased judge deciding which jurors can be excluded on "for cause" challenges? The same biased judge that decided Stormy could go on for hours about salacious things having nothing to do with the charges but that one of the defense's witnesses can't speak at all.

 

[Rawley]

Disagreeing with you isn't a sign of hypocrisy. Its a sign that you don't know what you're talking about.

Why would I ignore an ethics committee on judicial bias.......and instead believe you? Your feelings aren't a legal standard.

WTF are you yammering about me for? If you can't see the hypocrisy, I really can't help you

Says who? Again, you keep citing your feeling and your opinions as a legal standard that judges are held to.

They're not.

What you're demonstrating is your bias. As you in Merchan's place couldn't be impartial. So you insist that he must be just like you. Um, no.

Yup it's all about me. WTF is it with your cult that you can't rationally discuss a subject without resorting to the personal attacks when you are clearly holding the short stick?

This asshole Merchan was helplessly biased and his absurd rulings throughout the trial clearly displayed it. He's going to get slammed on appeal. But your cult doesn't give a fuck, becasue it will be after the election.

 

[JLW]

Why would Trump lower expectations? Trump has a big brain. The biggest. He is a master debater and and no one can hold a candle to his mastery of the English language. He will wipe out Joe Biden and walk away with a stunning victory. Joe can't even walk to the podium. If Trump can't trounce Joe Biden then Trump is just big old loser.

 

[Skylar]

WTF are you yammering about me for? If you can't see the hypocrisy, I really can't help you

Disagreeing with you isn't hypocrisy. The ethics committee rightly determined that a 35 donation (a grand total of $15 went to Biden) didn't demonstrate or establish judicial bias against Trump.

You disagree. That doesn't establish 'hypocrisy'. That means you think you know better, citing yourself. And your source is insufficient to carry your argument.

Yup it's all about me. WTF is it with your cult that you can't rationally discuss a subject without resorting to the personal attacks when you are clearly holding the short stick?

Your argument is prefaced on the idea that if someone makes a $15 dollar donation to a candidate, that they must be biased against that candidate's opponent.

There's not a rationally based conclusion. There's nothing about $15 that mandates a judicial bias or mandates being recused.

But it feels true to you. You're telling on yourself.

This asshole Merchan was helplessly biased and his absurd rulings throughout the trial clearly displayed it. He's going to get slammed on appeal. But your cult doesn't give a fuck, becasue it will be after the election.

Says you, citing yourself. Your feelings aren't a legal standard.

 

[Skylar]

It seems I have to answer my own question, Skylar! That would be the JUDGE who decides for cause challenges! So you've got a biased judge deciding which jurors can be excluded on "for cause" challenges? The same biased judge that decided Stormy could go on for hours about salacious things having nothing to do with the charges but that one of the defense's witnesses can't speak at all.

A biased judge, says you. Every pretrial court hearing, every appeal, state or federal, found that the basis of the trial was legally valid.

And which defense witness couldn't 'speak at all'?

 

[Rawley]

Disagreeing with you isn't hypocrisy. The ethics committee rightly determined that a 35 donation (a grand total of $15 went to Biden) didn't demonstrate or establish judicial bias against Trump.

You disagree. That doesn't establish 'hypocrisy'. That means you think you know better, citing yourself. And your source is insufficient to carry your argument.




Your argument is prefaced on the idea that if someone makes a $15 dollar donation to a candidate, that they must be biased against that candidate's opponent.

There's not a rationally based conclusion. There's nothing about $15 that mandates a judicial bias or mandates being recused.

But it feels true to you. You're telling on yourself.


Says you, citing yourself. Your feelings aren't a legal standard.

I've explained the hypocrisy three times but either you won't, or can't (more likely) understand it.

But you continue to post about me and my feelings. You seem quite obsessed with me. It's a bit scary

Don't be offended as I slowly back out of the door.

 

[Skylar]

I've explained the hypocrisy three times but either you won't, or can't (more likely) understand it.

You've explained your feelings 3 times. Which aren't legal standards. There's no rational argument to be made that a $15 donation to a candidate means you have judicial bias against his opponent and can't do you job to administer the law.

That's silly. And was rightfully rejected by the ethics committee. And the appeals court, which tossed out Trump's attempt to have the judge removed.

New York appeals court rejects Donald Trump’s third request to delay Monday's hush money trial

For the third straight day, a New York appeals court has rejected an attempt by Donald Trump’s lawyers to delay the former president’s hush money criminal trial.

apnews.com

You're offering an emotional argument. Where your feelings are presented as your evidence of everything form hypocrisy to judicial bias.

Disagreeing with you isn't hypocrisy. Especially when your arguments have no rational basis.

 

[Rawley]

You've explained your feelings 3 times. Which aren't legal standards. There's no rational argument to be made that a $15 donation to a candidate means you have judicial bias against his opponent and can't do you job to administer the law.

OK I'll try one more time. Why do you think it was a violation of the state's ethical rules when Merchan donated to the Biden campaign? To make me FEEL good?

 

[Skylar]

OK I'll try one more time. Why do you think it was a violation of the state's ethical rules when Merchan donated to the Biden campaign? To make me FEEL good?

One more time....the state's ethics board that found that there was NO JUDICIAL BIAS against Trump by Merchan? And that a donation of $35 (15 of which went to Biden) does not establish any such bias?

I want to be clear that you're ignoring the very board you're citing.

But tell us again how your feelings override the ethics board, the appeals court, and judge Merchan himself. So we can all giggle.

 

[Rawley]

One more time....the state's ethics board that found that there was NO JUDICIAL BIAS against Trump by Merchan? And that a donation of $35 (15 of which went to Biden) does not establish any such bias?

I want to be clear that you're ignoring the very board you're citing.

But tell us again how your feelings override the ethics board, the appeals court, and judge Merchan himself. So we can all giggle.

Got it. You've made it clear you're intellectually incapable of discussing this subject. Sad. Oh well. Carry on.

 

[Skylar]

Got it. You've made it clear you're intellectually incapable of discussing this subject. Sad. Oh well. Carry on.

Says the soul that is citing and ignoring the same source on the same topic.

The standard for recusal is that a judge's impartiality might be reasonably questioned. This is where your absurd argument fails. There's no rational conclusion that a $15 donation 2 year prior to the trial could reasonably question the impartiality of a judge. The man is a professional at administering the law. He's been doing this for 17 years.

The ethics committee rightly found exactly that. The appeals court rightly rejected Trump's attempt to have Merchan removed.

You disagree. Who gives a shit? Why would any rational person ignore Judge Merchan -a 17 year veteran of the bench - on his own impartiality AND the ethics board AND the appeals court, and instead abide the feelings of some rando on the internet who insists he knows better?

Run along. I'll be here if you ever want to try your argument from emotion again.

 

[Rawley]

Says the soul that is citing and ignoring the same source on the same topic.

The standard for recusal is that a judge's impartiality might be reasonably questioned. This is where your absurd argument fails. There's no rational conclusion that a $15 donation 2 year prior to the trial could reasonably question the impartiality of a judge. The man is a professional at administering the law. He's been doing this for 17 years.

The ethics committee rightly found exactly that. The appeals court rightly rejected Trump's attempt to have Merchan removed.

You disagree. Who gives a shit? Why would any rational person ignore Judge Merchan -a 17 year veteran of the bench - on his own impartiality AND the ethics board AND the appeals court, and instead abide the feelings of some rando on the internet who insists he knows better?

Run along. I'll be here if you ever want to try your argument from emotion again.

Nah we're done. Your combination of ignorance, arrogance and condescension (which is far from unique in your cult) makes me and others forego even attempting a second discussion with you. It's pointless.

Have a blessed life.

 

[Skylar]

Nah we're done. Your combination of ignorance, arrogance and condescension (which is far from unique in your cult) makes me and others forego even attempting a second discussion with you. It's pointless.

Have a blessed life.

More accurate, you're done. You have no rational basis for recusal of Merchan.

The standard of recusal is that impartiality might be reasonably questioned. And there's no rational reason why a $15 donation 3 years before the trial would reasonably call into question the judge's impartiality.

Which is exactly what the state ethics panel found. With the State appeals court tossing Trump's attempt to get Merchan tossed from the case.

All of you have are your feelings about the case. And those aren't legal standards. There will be no successful appeal on Merchan being biased against Trump because of a $15 dollar donation.

 

[bripat9643]

Dude, you knew Trump was never going to testify. I knew Trump was never going to testify. Despite Trump spewing dipshit nonsense that he would.

Trump says he will testify at New York hush money trial

Former president Trump said he will testify at the New York hush money trial and called the trial that begins on Monday "a scam." He is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. Mr. Trump also met at Mar-a-Lago with embattled House Speaker Mike Johnson. NBC News' Gabe Gutierrez reports.

www.nbcnews.com

Just like we both knew Trump was NEVER going to release his tax returns. Just like we both knew that Trump was NEVER going to show us what his imaginary 'investigators in Hawaii' found out about Obama's birth certificates. Just as we both knew Trump's 'replacement for Obamacare' what jackshit.

And now, once again, Trump is giving us nonsense excuses why his performance is going to be terrible. Excuses preceding failure is one of Trump's most consistent traits.

So what? Who was harmed?

 

[bripat9643]

You babbled about Biden. Which has jackshit to do with Trump's lowered expectations for the debate.

No one gives a shit. As usual, your babbling about minutia that doesn't matter to anyone.