ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
Then it's a very good thing that the judge in New York state instructed the jury according to the actual law. The claims posted here, though, are that the judge was wrong, so those claims do appear erroneous.
yes and? it's also appropriate for the commentary to be puzzled about these things, same as when a state allows 14y old to marry , or one has no seatbelt rules.
The claims appear erronous to me as well but one is a claim about a scotus decision purportedly overruling that NYS law provision
Great. That doesn't make it any less bizarre.
LOL.
Is there a conspiracy theory that backs your point of view that you *won't* believe?
Spoiler
Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question, I know the answer already. 😀
Its not a whatabout if Trump didn't do it and I point out in fact it was Biden that did it
yes and? it's also appropriate for the commentary to be puzzled about these things, same as when a state allows 14y old to marry , or one has no seatbelt rules.
The post that you quoted was responding to a post which wasn't just puzzled, but which claimed that the judge instructed the jury incorrectly. That original post was wrong. It's important for people not to lie to make it seem that the judge is acting biased against Trump.
Edit: It is also important not to just blow past these lies and make it seem like there's something reasonable in there. We should call people out for being wrong, period.
The post that you quoted was responding to a post which wasn't just puzzled, but which claimed that the judge instructed the jury incorrectly. That original post was wrong. It's important for people not to lie to make it seem that the judge is acting biased against Trump.
Edit: It is also important not to just blow past these lies and make it seem like there's something reasonable in there. We should call people out for being wrong, period.
in the "judge was incorrect" post there was garbage, and there was a take on scotus (the greta van susteren tweet).
The claim re scotus is that (according to this person who claims to be a lawyer) Richardson v US (1999) overrules NYS rules on predicate crimes not requiring unanimity.
The counter to van susteren claim is in the answers to her tweet, 1) that Richardson wouldn't apply to state law and 2) that the nature of predicate crimes isn't the same as the "continuous series of violations" , ie richardson wouldn't apply even if this was federal law.
The counter looks reasonable to me but it's a lot different than thinking that claim (by van susteren) is a blatant "lie" re Merchan actions.
It's about a probably weak legal reasoning which would make it appear as if Merchan erred. It's not random objectively false bullshit
We have a verdict.
That was much faster than expected... 
guilty
34 for 34
1000%
Appeal
34/34 - at least he's perfect at something!
****ing hilarious trump can’t even vote for himself
Wow!
I think they should do these like gender reveal parties. Pop a balloon or something like that. Would be more fun.
If convicted, Trump could probably still vote in Florida
Even if Florida were to disenfranchise Trump, he’d still have an ace in the hole.
Under Florida law, Trump could ask for clemency through a process overseen by the governor.
And the odds are pretty good that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis would approve that.
Convicted Felon.
Biden should absolutely pardon trump for the docs tomorrow. Or the day of the RNC
Is it confirmed that he was awake when the verdicts were read?
Well rats
confirmed CRIMINAL
At least one trial finished before election.
They just made the most popular politician in history even MORE popular. His black and hispanic support, already at record levels for a Republican, is going to go through the roof.
No wonder. He wasn't even wearing his lucky red tie.
