Couple Ls for the fat man
-
As a tactic, this is the kind of stuff that elected Trump.
Now, this is going to be overturned. When it is, does a really nice case for violating Trump's civil rights exist? I've read some think it does...
-
Secondly, is there a civil case in here, somewhere?
-
@jon-nyc said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
The one the said over and over there was insufficient evidence to pursue him
That’s the rub. Trump’s won’t show there was insufficient evidence to pursue him. Just not enough time, especially after scotus hit the ‘start over’ button in July.
-
@jon-nyc said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
The one the said over and over there was insufficient evidence to pursue him and then he threw in that comment so he’d be a magat hero instead of a magat goat.
But the point is the Biden DoJ released it.
IOW, you're willing to accept Hur's comment that there's insufficent evidence, but you won't accept the Hur's comment that, at the time the geezer was not quite as brain-addled as he is now.
-
@jon-nyc said in Couple Ls for the fat man:
I mentioned the Hur report. Despite knowing exactly what I was referring to you pretended to ask a clarifying question while your real intention was to frame it differently with some commentary. I did the same.
No, you used the Hur report's conclusions selectively.
"Not enough evidence to prosecute with reasonable chance of conviction"
Good Robert
"Senile old man."
MAGAT fodder.
-
Heard some lawyers discussing todays "sentencing."
One comment was that it was "OK. You're done. Go live your life."
A more interesting one was a comment on the behavior of Merchan. In New York, court proceedings are not generally (if at all) televised. Merchan was explicit about not permitting any recording, audio or video, during this trial.
Yet, this morning, he wanted to have his comments aired.
Why?
Why did he break NY court tradition for this one event? Was it to demonize Trump? Was it for some self-aggranidizing motive? Regardless, it was highly unusual.