Perhaps. Trump is a divisive figure. Most people either hate him or worship him. But if there's evidence of crimes then he still needs to be prosecuted. How would you go about finding an impartial jury, and what makes you think that this wasn't already done in this case?

Manhattan voted 85% for Joe Biden, and registered Democrats outnumber Republicans eight to one in New York. The Biden/Harris campaign and a whole host of anti-Trump Democrats pay the judge's daughter an obscene amount of money to work for them. A simple change of venue would have been an appropriate fix. How would you go about finding an impartial court and jury?

I don’t really know what this means. He was prosecuted under 175.10 - Falsifying Business Records In the First Degree, with the intent to violate 17-152 - Conspiracy to Promote or Prevent Election.

Have you heard the phrase “novel legal theory”? It suggests the unprecedented nature of any given legal theory. The fact that the FECA, the Justice department, Bragg's predecessor, and even Bragg himself refused to bring charges indicates how Bragg had to conjure out of legalese a ploy to prosecute a former president that he campaigned on getting.

I know you wrote it down, but do you think that Trump intended to violate 17-152, which is an obscure, rarely used New York state law? I suppose prosecutors would have had to prove that Trump first new about this law, and then intended to violate it. I don't see how one could believe that. But forgiving all that, what are the "unlawful means" through which Trump intended to violate this obscure misdemeanor which is well passed its statute of limitations?

According to the corrupt judge's jury instructions, the unlawful means were one or more of three "theories". Not even the judge knows the unlawful means through which 17-152 was violated, so he corruptly tells the jury that they don't even need to agree to the unlawful means through which Trump violated 17-152. No one seems to care that Trump has not been convicted of any of the "unlawful means" theories, and therefor there is no way to determine whether the "unlawful means" were indeed unlawful, and this in a country with the presumption of innocence. One of these "theories" is federal campaign laws. No one seems to care that Bragg and that court have no jurisdiction over federal campaign laws, nor that the FEC or DOJ found any but violation of it, and the judge doesn't mind leaving this out of his jury instructions.

So Trump has been found guilty of writing "legal expenses" in a ledger, in order to commit a crime that no one has heard of, and doing so by using "unlawful means" that have not been determined to be unlawful by any court of law.

So all of this (and much more) is why I call this a made up crime.

I don't really know what this means either. Are you suggesting that the jury were paid to find him guilty?

It's an English idiom, "like bought and paid for". It means "corrupt".

You think the jury was planted?

I think the judge and jury were partial, the crime was made up, the conviction was bought and sold, and it was all a classic show trial serving the ruling regime and their acolytes.

Perhaps you ought to tell someone who cares.

I suspect rather than respect your opinions, so any personal insults only make me feel better.

Biden’s Banana Republic prevails. Trump is now a Mandela, and they destroyed the justice system to rig another election.

Well if its the law that gets into the way of good moral conduct, then at least it prevents as its primary goal, the reduction of corruption. I think that having the law prevent dictatorships or autocracies from forming is a good thing. Take for example with what happened fairly recently in Poland with the Law and Justice party, perverting the law towards their own favor, and the Civic Coalition resuming power after a long eight years of some nepotism. I believe Viktor Orban is next, in Hungary.

During the covid fiasco I can’t think of any law that prevented tyranny and despotism. Rather, through the dictate of those who thought they knew better, it was used to prevent people from the most innocent of social activities, like going to church and visiting loved ones. Such an event proves that even in the most liberal societies the law will be turned against the people should it suit the authorities.

At any rate, good faith (and manners in general) is a kind of law in itself. But it can only be self-imposed. As such, to implement it one must be somewhat independent, self-reliant, his own authority, and this is a difficult spirit to foster in such a paternalistic system as the republican one.

It is funny to hear the self-identified champion for Trump complain about the nefarious consequences of excessive litigation.

That your good faith is so quick to disappear in a thread on good faith is disappointing, but kind of proves the point.

Always take note of wild predictions regarding the future in Trumpistan. If Trump’s last term was any indication, the froth which with these prophecies are given indicate the mix of over-confidence and abject stupidity common among these kinds of prophets.

Observe Robert DeNiro, the new poster boy for the Biden campaign:

Is he a prophet? Or is he trapped in a moral panic?

A simple test; remember his predictions:

- This kind of government will perish.
- If Trump returns to the Whitehouse, kiss your freedoms goodbye.
- no more elections.
- Trump will never leave office should he win; "You know that".

Should Trump win, compare De Niro's predictions to the results and you'll have your answer regarding the amount of delusion we're dealing with.

I think there is a fundamental law of human interaction whereby man tends to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion. Good faith, I'd say, once proved easier than knavery when it came to dealing with one another. Rather than risk life and limb, or face some course of violent retaliation, people could often rely on the good faith of their neighbors to get along.

But Good Faith nowadays proves to be more difficult than knavery. I don't have any developed theory, but I would propose that the reason for this is an increase in the domain of law, it's scope as a pseudo morality, and the thousand-and-one ways with which it allows an authority to intervene our interactions. These positive, third-party interventions into our regular dealings has fostered a reliance on their presence as the moral arbiter. Less and less do we require a conscience because our disputes can be settled for us.

In short, we aren't free enough for Good Faith.

I walk up to a junction, what is determined about my choice-making here? That if I choose left it was determined before? That if I choose right it was determined before? And the same with back and front? There's no substance to this claim, it's pure mysticism. Choice making at junctions can't be determined rationally, they are break points in determinism.

A vexing question in regards to determinism is: what else besides you determined your actions at the junction? A simple objective glance at you performing this act ought to lead one to believe it was you that determined or willed it, and for the simple reason that nothing else did.

Since you say that life is at least partially determined, I pose you the same question, what else besides you determined your actions?

The truth. Biden’s SS Stasi at work. Everything his enemies cry foul about is what they themselves are doing. You can set a clock to their corruption.

“Look what the propaganda told me! Look at it!!”

We’ve come to expect not a single original thought is possible. Listen for the propaganda, repeat it like a mantra until it’s true by sheer repetition. Rinse and repeat.

It was a bad week for the prosecution.

Here Anderson Cooper describes the collapse of their star witness Michael Cohen.



The ex-advisor to Michael Cohen, Bob Costello, describes the lies of Michael Cohen, but worse, also describes how the SDNY didn’t want any exculpatory evidence to reach the eyes of the grand jury. So much for justice.

Then you’re telling me the value is in yourself and what you do with water, or at least the some total of water you interact with. But water is a component to all life, not just yours. Without it there is no life. So the value is not in your relationship, but in the water itself, what it is, it’s compounds, it’s very being.

Potable water does not have inherent value, in your opinion?

and why should anyone accept that that was overvalued in the pre-LLM world? Are all services that cost big numbers overvalued?

The end output is a bunch of symbols, which inherently is without value. What retains the value throughout time is the medium. This is why legal tender, law books, advertisements, would serve better as fuel or birds nests if the house of cards maintaining them wasn't keeping them afloat. Then again you could say the cost of such services is without value, as well, given that it is of the same symbolic nature. Maybe it's more circular than I've assumed. I'll think about it.

I don't think it follows that if an ai can do it, it's overvalued. I mean, maybe the value of it is decreasing NOW, now that ai can do it, but you're making it sound like it means it was always over valued, and that just doesn't follow.

True, but the cost does. The hourly rate for a lawyer where I live ranges from $250 - $1000.

AI has one good effect, I think, in that it reveals how much we overvalue many services, economically speaking. There was a South Park episode about this. I can get quicker, cheaper, and better legal advice from an AI. I can get AI to design and code me an entire website. So in that sense it serves as a great reminder that many linguistic and symbolic pursuits are highly overrated, so-much-so that a piece of code could do it.

As a corollary, things that AI struggles with or cannot do, like cooking, building, or repair, ought to be valued higher in society. think AI will prove this to us and reorientate the economy around this important reality.

His principium individuationis had a profound effect upon my metaphysics, though probably not in in the direction he had hoped for. It rather led me to the more physicalist view and to oppose his brand of idealism, representationalism, whatever you want to call it. The fact of our location in time and space should be enough to unlink the holistic tendency in thinkers, the one that can only find value and beauty in the world so long as it persists as some inter-connected and spirit-imbued homogeneity, and not a realm of distinct originals. But mythology is strong.

Nice thinking.

I think you’re right about “human feeling”, much of what I believed is derived from embodied experience. It’s like we’ve started AI in the wrong direction, conceiving it first as disembodied brains and building it in that direction, rather than as embodied beings, which is probably so fundamental to experience that to forget it seems foolish.

I didn’t ask a question. I made arguments that contradict the main tenets of Bragg’s flimsy legal theory. Trump never wrote nor directed his controller to write “legal expenses”, therefor he did not falsify business records. Trump never falsified business records with the intent of committing another crime, whatever that may be.

You're as evasive as a politician. Did she lie about having the sexual encounter?

Yes. Are you thick?

I didn't address that because it was a tangent. I had specifically asked you how Stormy's testimony helped the defense. It may very well be that Stormy lied about being victimized and about how aggressively she went after a payment. That doesn't imply there was no sexual encounter. For that matter even if she lied about the sexual encounter (which I don't think she did lie about the encounter; she's been talking about it at least since 2011 -see this article
and there's another interviewer who has said she told him about it in 2007) , the only thing that matters in the trial is whether or not she was paid to keep silent, and that this was to prevent damage to his election.

You didn’t ask me a damn thing.

And for the reasons I stated, which you refuse to address, the idea that this was to prevent damage to his election is blown out of the water, no matter what the porn star says.

She did indeed lie.

The reasons I already stated, which you have not addressed, has all the bearing needed to contradict the allegations.

She comes off as a money-grubbing, lying, and crazy extortionist to the jury. By the way, you never asked a question.

Name-calling is entirely appropriate. But anti-Trumpists uncritically reserve themselves the right to call people names while at the same time critically chastising Trump for doing so. It’s as if what they hate in Trump is what they hate in themselves.

What does undermine the theory regarding Trump’s motivation before the election is the testimony of the witnesses. Pecker noted that he killed stories for Trump and other celebrities numerous times, even when they weren’t running for election. Hope Hicks testified she believed Trump wanted to kill the story to protect his wife and family. Stormy's lawyer Keith Davidson testified it wasn't a payoff or hush money. Jeffry McConney, the former Trump Organization controller, testified that it was him who recorded the expenses as "legal expenses", and Trump never directed him to do so. The Stormy Daniels testimony was just the icing on the proverbial shit-cake that is this trial.

The cope is real. Frothing over a brilliant tweet from a couple years ago (which also shows Daniel’s admitting to violating a court order), the anti-Trump press has settled on a trite piece of social media as the only propaganda to be gleaned from this trial, apparently.

However, the more serious press noted the disaster of Horse Face’s testimony yesterday. The defense played a recording of her lawyer trying to shake down Cohen, letting him know how much Stormy wanted the money before the election. Plus we learn of the schizophrenic differences between her story today and her story yesterday. And to top it all off, we also learn that she is a medium who speaks to dead people. This is Lawrence Odonnel’s saint!

Can’t wait to hear more.

An accusation by Jim Jordan does not constitute congressional testimony.

No, but Tony Bobulinski testifying in front of congress does.

OK, there is no direct evidence of Biden's involvement. Broadly speaking, all related facts constitute evidence. Circumstantial evidence can justify a judgement if the totality of evidence shows it to be more likely than not (at minimum). That is not the case here. All you have is a set of facts that are consistent with your theory. You've ignored other relevant facts, and haven't entertained alternative theories that also explain these (and other) facts. Rather, you are applying bias against Biden and jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

A set of facts consistent to the theory. That’s right. And you have a set of statements and denials consistent with your theory. I have entertained that theory and find it completely lacking in all respects.

They were told not to investigate Dolan because it wasn't deemed pertinent. The speculation that it may have been politically motivated is just that- speculation by one analyst, with no "definitive evidence to support her belief". Dolan is believed to have invented the "golden showers" story, but none of this has bearing on the findings of the Mueller report that I cited, nor does it imply there was a broad "hoax". Dolan lied, and this made into the Steele memos, the FBI dropped the ball in that respect - but it remains the case that Russia hacked DNC servers, gave the emails to Wikileaks, and there's testimony that Stone worked with Assange on strategically releasing them. Further, it's established that Manafort shared polling data with Russia, Russia asked Manafort to get Trump to support their "annexation" of Crimea. Manafort denied discussing this with Trump, but we know Trump actually did support the annexation. This is clearly circumstantial evidence of an illegal conspiracy, although clearly not sufficient evidence to indict. (But clearly a stronger circumstantal case than your Biden allegation. The difference: your bias).

It has plenty of bearing on the Mueller report because the report is missing facts regarding Russian interference, which they were tasked with investigating. Thus, these facts do not show up in your loose conspiracy theory. Nowhere does it mention FusionGPS, for instance, which we now know was looking for dirt on Clinton's political opponents. Much of this dirt contained Russian misinformation, possibly sourced from Charles Dolan, a Russia-connected Dem operative. It seems you do not care that this misinformation made it into the highest echelons of the intelligence community, leading the crooked or incompetent stooges in those agencies to spy on Americans, unmask them, entrap them in process crimes, and embroiling the whole country in turmoil with frivolous and expensive investigations, leaking classified information the whole time.

But I'm supposed to care about Hillary or Podesta's emails? Or some facebook ads put out by some obscure Russian internet agency? Manafort's Polling data? This is the extent of your illegal conspiracy? I think your priorities are backwards, friend.

Durham does not express "surprise", he just indicates that he sees no "objectively sound reason for the decision that was made not to interview him." So this sounds more like criticizing their judgement, and it's a legitimate criticism.

As you would say, "that's inaccurate".

"This directive given by the Mueller investigation leadership is somewhat surprising given that Director Mueller's broad mandate was to investigate, among other things, Russian election interference in the 2016 presidential election - parameters that clearly would seem to include the Steele Reports."

"Some" agents? I believe it was exactly ONE agent, and she also indicated she saw no indications of political bias by the team.

That's inaccurate. Read the sub-section "Mueller Supervisory Special Agent-I and Mueller Analyst-I push to open a case on Charles Dolan".

It's not surprising that the Mueller team would deem it irrelevant, since Dolan's lies only pertained to some allegations in the Steele memos, which Mueller's investigation was not relying on. It's another matter during Crossfire Hurricane and relevant to their inappropriate reliance on Steele's memos to support the Carter Page FISA warrants. The FBIs failure to interview Dolan was definitely poor judgement. But again, such errors have no bearing on the activities exposed by Mueller. Errors by the FBI do not negate the fact that a Russia Investigation was warranted - and that Trump and members of his campaign behaved inappropriately and possibly illegally: there was insufficient evidence to indict, but there was some evidence of crimes - not to mention Trump's obstruction of justice that actually could have led to indictment had Barr not stopped it.

The Mueller team had to fire a couple of its members. That's how incompetent they were.

I absolutely give a single straw about what he allegedly exposed. It was a garbage investigation from the very beginning and will go down in history as such.

I’d be weary of such claims because any appeal to the “greater good” implies knowledge that isn’t immediately accessible. It implies knowledge that such-and-such an action will result in the greater good, and that one will know when the appropriate amount of good is reached. Both are articles of faith.

Better to be just in one’s actions instead of faithful that one’s actions will return a greater outcome.

It’s either that or they’re completely incompetent, neither of which is good for your truckling.

What other conspiracy theories do you embrace?

My claim was based on congressional testimony.

You are. I cited established facts that you would be aware of if you ventured outside your Trumpist bubble- which is apparent from your referring to the Russia investigation as a "hoax". If you'd like to challenge anything I said, feel free.

More conspiracy theory reasoning. There's no evidence for your claim, but you point to an absence of evidence for it being false as somehow relevant.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence, as far as I'm concerned. It's not my fault you are unable to infer beyond the facts, and when you do, it's invariably in defence against anything that might dispute your narrative.

I've given you my theory regarding Bragg: there were personal political motivations. And I expect he hired Colangelo for the express purpose of prosecuting Trump. (Don't forget that I have never been a fan of pursuing this).

Then why are you defending it?

You are. I cited established facts that you would be aware of if you ventured outside your Trumpist bubble- which is apparent from your referring to the Russia investigation as a "hoax". If you'd like to challenge anything I said, feel free.

You simply regurgitated some of the findings of the Mueller report. But I can go to the Mueller report and find not a single mention of FusionGPS or the Clinton campaign's effort to interfere in the election, or them disguising that fact by falsifying their records, which is a felony according to you and Bragg. That you accept this and other records as "established facts" proves only your appeal to authority.

My post history in this thread will confirm that I share mostly mainstream sources, and from all over the spectrum. I do this because I read all news. By dismissing this evidence, your accusations amount to projection only, as your own bubble shrinks around you.

Distortion. I've explained this to you before.

I don't recall. So it isn't a felony to to falsify business records in order to interfere in an election?

Indeed, exactly 2 FISA warrants were granted that shouldn't have been. These errors do not imply the Russia investigation was unwarranted- even Durham acknowledged an investigation was warranted. Mueller discovered most of the facts I cited, and no one has refuted them. Trumpists like yourself hide behind the FISA errors to avoid facing the facts that were uncovered.

That's inaccurate. Durham said a preliminary investigation was warranted. There was no preliminary investigation. It immediately kicked into a full-on probe, which was not warranted.

The Mueller probe also discarded much of the facts, essentially hiding them from you, in what I would call a cover-up. As Durham points out, agents on the Mueller team were told to stop investigating Democrat operative Charles Dolan, a source for one of the allegations, even though he was one of the few Americans tied to Russian government. One agent speculated whether it was politically motivated, because it "ran counter to the narrative that the Mueller Special Counsel investigators were cultivating given that Dolan was a former Democratic political operative".

Does it surprise you, as it did Durham, that an investigation tasked with investigating Russian influence in the 2016 election refused to interview or investigate one of the three Americans named by Steele to have Russian ties, despite the instinct of some agents to do so?

So as I said, there's no evidence Biden was involved with Colangelo's taking the position to prosecute Trump. Biased speculation is not evidence.

Plausible deniability. Works every time, according to the Biden’s.

Taking everything at face value is not evidence either. But the question as to why Bragg pivoted from not prosecuting the zombie case to prosecuting the case remains, and to me it’s no strange wonder that Bragg announced indictments a few months after Colangelo joined his team.

It's established that Russia engaged in election interference by illegally accessing DNC emails. Wikileaks also engaged in election interference by leaking those emails at strategic times during the campaign. There's also strong evidence Roger Stone was coordinating that activity with Julian Assange.

The Russia Investigation (which was in no way, a hoax) became public AFTER the election, so it can't be considered election interference.

But yes, I can think of others- and I listed some. E.g. Trump's attempt to get Zelensky to say he was investigating Biden. The "catch and kill" conspiracy was election interference (even though aspects of it were legal, it's still interference).

Now who is the conspiracy theorist?

Note how you never mentioned the Clinton campaign's solicitation of dirt from Christopher Steele, which was then used in FISA courts to open up surveillance on Trump's campaign, during the campaign. Obama's DOJ began investigations on his political opponent during the campaign, with Steele himself leaking much of it to the press. Is that election interference?

By the way, the Clinton campaign was fined by the FEC for writing in "legal expenses" where it was in fact for campaign spending. This, according to you and Bragg, is a felony. But of course no one has been indicted for it.

Wrong. The appellate court didn't rule that the jury got it wrong. It ruled that their verdict may have been influenced by the inadmissible evidence. This is not a revised finding of "not guilty", it's simply negating the trial. Weinstein can be retried, and it's reported that there will indeed be a new trial.

I think you're quibbling at this point. I never said that the court ruled the jury got it wrong.

The welfare state, too, largely began as a conservative project. These and other examples lead me to believe conservatism is often the hand-maiden of socialism. Conservatives oppose radical change, sure, but they can never offer a direction different than the socialist one, so they must be content being dragged in the socialist direction. In my opinion this is because both are founded on similar attitudes.

Two attitudes immediately come to mind. First, rather than concerning themselves with limiting government power and scope, the socialist and conservative are mostly concerned with who holds that power. Both desire the presence of these institutions of power and wish the anointed to wield them in order to support and enforce a theoretical order of their choosing. Second, both believe themselves to be entitled to force others how to live.

So I do not think policies such as UBI makes socialism moot; it makes socialism a reality.

That's inaccurate. I will grant that when any conviction is overturned on appeal, it implies "unfairness", but this is based on there having been an error made. In Weinstein's case, testimony was admitted for prior, uncharged sexual asaults. The trial judge had ruled it admissible, deeming it relevant to establish Weinstein's motive (which is a valid basis, in general). It's not admissible if the purpose is to establish the defendant's character - that is prejudicial, and the appeals cout ruled it that way. IOW, the judge made an error. That certainly doesn't imply "the judge could not be just".

That’s inaccurate. It was multiple errors. The appeals court described as an “abuse of judicial discretion”, essentially denying him the right to a fair trial. And despite your claim that they rarely overrule the verdicts of juries, I was just giving you an example off the top of my head of them doing so.

So you're going with a special pleading - keeping Trump off from campaigning is the only thing that constitutes election interference. So none of the items I listed count.

No, I was just describing how they were engaging in election interference. Another example would be the Russia hoax. I’m sure you could think of others on your own.

You're uncritically accepting Trump's allegation that Biden is behind it. There's zero evidence to support that claim. To the contrary, we know Biden's DOJ actually chose NOT to prosecute Trump. You know this, and used this fact to blast Bragg's decision to prosecute- so you're trying to have it both ways. If Biden wanted to behave like Trump promises, and prosecute his political opponents, he would have jumped at the opportunity.

You’ve evaded my evidence and tried to pretend I was just accepting claims. The lead prosecutor, Michael Colangelo, was the Acting Associate Attorney General of Biden’s DOJ for two years, working directly under Garland. He’s the same guy that investigated Trump foundation for the New York attorney general, Letitia James. His leaving the DOJ to kick-start Bragg’s “zombie case” gives Biden plausible deniability, which is how he gets out of everything. If Biden’s DOJ chose not to prosecute Trump, why is Biden’s DOJ prosecuting Trump?

Judge Cannon torpedoed the illegitimately appointed Jack Smith’s case indefinitely. After Smith’s team was busted tampering with the evidence, this becomes another blow to the Biden plot to hear the case before the election.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/07/trump-classified-docs-trial-delay-florida-00156680

They are now litigating Trump's alleged affair with Stormy Daniels in this show-trial.

This guy is in the courtroom live-tweeting the testimony:

Appellate courts overturn convictions for technical reasons, like interpretations of the law, errors by a judge, inadmissability of evidence. They rarely overrule the verdicts of juries.

Harvey Weinstein’s case was just overturned because the judge could not be just.

I asked you to define "election interference", because I suspect you apply a double standard. Were the House investigations of Joe and Hunter also election interference? What about Comey's public discussion of Hillary's email practices? Russia's assistance in 2016? Was Pecker engaging in election interference with his "catch and kill" tactics? How about Trump's numerous frivolous lawsuits about the 2020 election? How about his lies that it was stolen, and attempts to get senior DOJ staff to lie about election fraud?

Do you think this trial cost him votes? If so, won't it be because of the facts that are presented?

It simply means they’re interfering with Trump’s campaign, and thus the election. To use your terms, Biden’s campaign is hoping to win the election with the corrupt Justice system’s assistance, which is not in their mandate.

If it does get overturned it will be because it’s an unjust and stupid case that will discredit the American justice system for years to come.

The lead prosecutor, Michael Colangelo, was the Acting Associate Attorney General of Biden’s DOJ for two years, working directly under Garland. He’s the same guy that investigated Trump foundation for the New York attorney general, Letitia James. Pure coincidence? I guess they couldn’t find anyone who wasn’t a part of Biden’s DOJ?

Yes, it’s election interference, meaning they are doing it to stifle Trump’s chances in the election. They couldn’t find any crimes so they practically invented them.

I am aware humans grow and age, and that I am not identical to myself as I was three years ago. The physical facts and properties change but I do not require any further metaphysical facts beyond them. For the sake of an enduring identity and a further fact for your concept a proper name suffices enough for me.

However you want to identify yourself, there are an infinite amount of other things one cannot identify as. Which one of them would you say determines your actions?

I’m talking about human beings, which are not vague, blurry sets of whatever. I happen to identify as one. What further facts do you require?

I thought it should be easy to name one thing in the universe besides yourself that determines your choices or actions.

Nope. It’s a novel legal theory with no precedent and full of holes. This is election interference, political persecution, a Biden campaign strategy, pure and simple.