Let's talk about the merits of the NY case against Trump

[matt1]

Nope, BUT I heard The J. Geils Band "PISS On The Wall" (from 1981 "Freeze-Frame") which was the last song on side 2. Also WWCK in Flint, MI (when it was a hard rock station) decided NOT to play that song during the new album of the week back in January 1982.

[zzand]

His attorney was asked to cite case law during the hearing and could not. He then told the judge that Trump was responding to posts made to him but could not produce those posts. Finally he argued that Trump reposting wasn't a post, which everyone in the court room rolled their eyes at. Where does he get these horrible lawyers?

[Rate This]

His attorney was asked to cite case law during the hearing and could not. He then told the judge that Trump was responding to posts made to him but could not produce those posts. Finally he argued that Trump reposting wasn't a post, which everyone in the court room rolled their eyes at. Where does he get these horrible lawyers?

The guy was a Federal Prosecutor and supposedly NOT a terrible lawyer if you can believe it… he must order them to do these things…

[TC Talks]

I don't know if catch and kill is election interference, but at best it's on the line. It looks like David Pecker really hurt Trump in testimony last night:

A longtime friend of Donald Trump’s admitted on the stand Tuesday that their relationship had devolved into an orchestrated scheme to influence the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf.

David Pecker, the former publisher of the National Enquirer and former CEO of its parent company, American Media Inc., told the court Tuesday that he and Trump had coordinated not just to publish positive coverage of his friend ahead of the 2016 election, but also to publish negative coverage of other presidential candidates. In doing so, Pecker practically admitted to the catch-and-kill media scheme that Trump has repeatedly denied.

Trump had asked “what can I do and what my magazines can do to help the campaign,” Pecker said. Pecker had responded that he could “publish positive stories about Trump” and “negative stories about his opponents.”

New Republic

[bmw]

Again, if "catch and kill" constitutes election interference, then what are your thoughts about the FBI directly contacting Facebook and warning them of "Russian disinformation," which ultimately led to the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story? Mark Zuckerberg ADMITTED to this!

Facebook suppressed The Post’s blockbuster revelation of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop in response to a vague FBI warning about possible “Russian propaganda” tied to the 2020 presidential election, according to founder Mark Zuckerberg.

The tech billionaire and Meta CEO made the stunning claim during a wide-ranging, nearly three-hour interview in which he also admitted to podcaster Joe Rogan that he regretted the move and admitted that “it sucks.”

“Basically, the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us — some folks on our team — and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know, like, you should be on high alert,'” Zuckerberg said on Thursday’s episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

Zuckerberg said the FBI added, “‘We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that, basically, there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant.'”

Zuckerberg told Rogan, “We just kind of thought: Hey, look, if the FBI, which I still view is a legitimate institution in this country, it’s a very professional law enforcement — they come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something, then I want to take that seriously.”

In response, Facebook limited sharing of The Post’s October 2020 scoop about the contents of a laptop computer that the first son allegedly left at a Delaware repair shop in April 2019 and never retrieved.

When Rogan asked Zuckerberg if the FBI “specifically” said the social media giant should “be on guard about that story,” the tech titan said he couldn’t recall.

“No, I don’t remember if it was that specifically, but it basically fit the pattern,” he said.

Shortly after The Post published its exclusive report, 51 former US intelligence officials — led by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and ex-CIA Directors Mike Hayden, Leon Panetta and John Brennan — signed an open letter that said the situation “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/zuckerber ... den-scoop/

That is orders of magnitude worse than what Trump has been accused of, IMO, and I don't see any of those people sitting in a courtroom facing felony charges. Going after Trump for "catch and kill" is so beyond hypocritical that I literally don't care. At all. Even if true.

[zzand]

Serious question BMW, if Trump is convicted and I did say if, will it change anything for you or will you call the whole trial with a jury agreed to by all sides a fraud?

[Rate This]

Again, if "catch and kill" constitutes election interference, then what are your thoughts about the FBI directly contacting Facebook and warning them of "Russian disinformation," which ultimately led to the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story? Mark Zuckerberg ADMITTED to this!

Facebook suppressed The Post’s blockbuster revelation of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop in response to a vague FBI warning about possible “Russian propaganda” tied to the 2020 presidential election, according to founder Mark Zuckerberg.

The tech billionaire and Meta CEO made the stunning claim during a wide-ranging, nearly three-hour interview in which he also admitted to podcaster Joe Rogan that he regretted the move and admitted that “it sucks.”

“Basically, the background here is the FBI, I think, basically came to us — some folks on our team — and was like, ‘Hey, just so you know, like, you should be on high alert,'” Zuckerberg said on Thursday’s episode of “The Joe Rogan Experience.”

Zuckerberg said the FBI added, “‘We thought that there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election. We have it on notice that, basically, there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that. So just be vigilant.'”

Zuckerberg told Rogan, “We just kind of thought: Hey, look, if the FBI, which I still view is a legitimate institution in this country, it’s a very professional law enforcement — they come to us and tell us that we need to be on guard about something, then I want to take that seriously.”

In response, Facebook limited sharing of The Post’s October 2020 scoop about the contents of a laptop computer that the first son allegedly left at a Delaware repair shop in April 2019 and never retrieved.

When Rogan asked Zuckerberg if the FBI “specifically” said the social media giant should “be on guard about that story,” the tech titan said he couldn’t recall.

“No, I don’t remember if it was that specifically, but it basically fit the pattern,” he said.

Shortly after The Post published its exclusive report, 51 former US intelligence officials — led by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and ex-CIA Directors Mike Hayden, Leon Panetta and John Brennan — signed an open letter that said the situation “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

https://nypost.com/2022/08/26/zuckerber ... den-scoop/

That is orders of magnitude worse than what Trump has been accused of, IMO, and I don't see any of those people sitting in a courtroom facing felony charges. Going after Trump for "catch and kill" is so beyond hypocritical that I literally don't care. At all. Even if true.

The laptop turns out to be a fake. A forgery. The FBI was right.

[bmw]

I disagree with your premise that it was a "jury agreed to by all sides." Each side had the same number of peremptory challenges (ie, dismissal for no reason given), yet the pool from which potential jurors was pulled voted something like 87% Democrat. I would suggest you're an idiot if you believe that a truly neutral jury can be pulled from that kind of pool, particularly when we're talking about one of the most politically polarizing figures on the planet.

So I would say that's an easy question for you to ask me when you know damn well that finding a neutral jury in a heavily Democrat district in a heavily politicized trial is basically impossible and that a prosecutor in New York could convict Trump of just about anything, regardless of the evidence or quality of evidence.

Best case for Trump, he's looking at an 11-1 or 10-2 hung jury in favor of conviction. And if that happens, MARK MY WORDS, all we'll hear in the media and from the burn-Trump-at-the-stakes posters in this forum is that a MAGA supporter somehow snuck onto the jury and derailed everything. For people like you, the only "fair and just" outcome will be a conviction. Anything less and let the pissing and moaning begin. So let's not pretend like your pre-conceived "guilty" notion is morally superior to my inclination to believe an acquittal is the only fair outcome.

[bmw]

The laptop turns out to be a fake. A forgery. The FBI was right.

You have a link for that claim? Because the Washington Post (hardly a Conservative outlet) admits that at least some of its contents were authentic.

The Washington Post’s forensic findings are unlikely to resolve that debate, offering instead only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic. The security experts who examined the data for The Post struggled to reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... -examined/

[zzand]

Please do not propose to tell me how I think. Once all the evidence is presented I will make up my mind as to guilt or not. Notice I said jury agreed to by all sides, never once did I mention a neutral jury. I am actually surprised they were able to seat a jury in New York. I would have been happier with a change of venue, although not sure where but out of the state. Keep in mind the Trump team used a jury consultant to help them through the process which I thought was a good idea. So I stand by agreed to by all sides since the consultant signed off in every way he or she could. Fair and impartial, nope, no way, there will be jury members on both sides who got through the process. It would be foolish to think otherwise. Thank you for answering my question fairly and honestly.

[Honeyman]

I disagree with your premise that it was a "jury agreed to by all sides." Each side had the same number of peremptory challenges (ie, dismissal for no reason given), yet the pool from which potential jurors was pulled voted something like 87% Democrat. I would suggest you're an idiot if you believe that a truly neutral jury can be pulled from that kind of pool, particularly when we're talking about one of the most politically polarizing figures on the planet.

So I would say that's an easy question for you to ask me when you know damn well that finding a neutral jury in a heavily Democrat district in a heavily politicized trial is basically impossible and that a prosecutor in New York could convict Trump of just about anything, regardless of the evidence or quality of evidence.

Best case for Trump, he's looking at an 11-1 or 10-2 hung jury in favor of conviction. And if that happens, MARK MY WORDS, all we'll hear in the media and from the burn-Trump-at-the-stakes posters in this forum is that a MAGA supporter somehow snuck onto the jury and derailed everything. For people like you, the only "fair and just" outcome will be a conviction. Anything less and let the pissing and moaning begin. So let's not pretend like your pre-conceived "guilty" notion is morally superior to my inclination to believe an acquittal is the only fair outcome.

What do you mean by that? zz is one of the most open-minded posters here. Or does ANYBODY who speaks negative things about the cult leader completely biased?

[bmw]

I don't have time this morning to dig up the specific comments made by zz (I might later), but not that long ago, I asked if the ends justifies the means when it comes to Trump and him being punished and his response was something like YES THEY DO.

[Honeyman]

I don't have time this morning to dig up the specific comments made by zz (I might later), but not that long ago, I asked if the ends justifies the means when it comes to Trump and him being punished and his response was something like YES THEY DO.

There are tens of millions of people in this country who truly believe a second Trump presidency is beyond dangerous to our society. I think zz has always showed himself to be very fair-minded. Your dismissal of his opinion is unfair.

[zzand]

More or less is close to it. I loathe the man, no question about it, but I also want true justice for him and would be as pissed as anyone if the evidence says not guilty and the jury comes back guilty. No one should be railroaded if indeed they are not guilty. I was thrilled when the Supreme Court ruled as they did on the ballot issue. He has every right to be on the ballot. Let the voters decide is how it is supposed to work. I will watch with interest the immunity arguments. I feel limited immunity should be there but not blanket immunity.

[Rate This]

The laptop turns out to be a fake. A forgery. The FBI was right.

You have a link for that claim? Because the Washington Post (hardly a Conservative outlet) admits that at least some of its contents were authentic.

The Washington Post’s forensic findings are unlikely to resolve that debate, offering instead only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic. The security experts who examined the data for The Post struggled to reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... -examined/

Lev Parnas testified under oath that he and Rudy Giuliani were shopping its contents around as early as 2020. He further said that his work with Giuliani was to spread Russian Disinformation and the allegations against the Bidens were completely made up in Russia. They were annoyed that nobody would take the story except for certain right wing outlets. This whole Biden corruption thing collapsed after that testimony and the indictment of Alexander Smirnov.