mspart

I gave the eggregious issues that should have not let the judge on the case and not allowed to case to move forward. Since the NY Bar says no judge can give political contributions, Merchan was in flagrant violation. Since the NY Bar states that a judge with real or construed conflicts of interest are barred from the case. Merchan by his D donations and daughter with D fundraising job is the definition of a conflict of interest. The indictment was not specific as to the crime, the means of the crime, nor the documents that prove the crime. It was an empty dissertation of why Trump should be convicted but not the specific allegations of why. You can't just prosecute someone because you don't like him and he probably did something bad. You have to allege exactly what he/she did and then prove it. There was no such allegation so therefore no case. It should not have been tried. mspart

That would be good but does not really resolve the issue. There are plenty of candidates that win with less money. Money is an advantage and it should be taken away from Incumbents. But they have name recognition and can raise more money just from that. The answer is term limits but Congress will never go for that and neither will State legislatures. Hence we are where we are. Surprise! It was Congress that initiated term limits for the Pres, but they didn't do that for themselves at that same time. mspart

I can't answer that, they would have to. But I think any honest lawyer would look at the indictment and say this isn't a case. Any outside honest observer would have to say Merchan should not have been the judge. He presided over 3 other Trump affiliated type cases. No way was he randomly picked a 4th time. Any outside honest observer would say Merchan had too many conflict of interests (donations and daughter) to move forward with this trial. All of these show the trial should never have happened (the indictment shows this) the rest shows the judge should not have been there trying to run the farce. mspart

Yes, WA is all vote by mail now. Pros and cons to that. mspart

Well, the incumbent will get his party's vote mostly. And the challenger will get his. And usually the incumbent wins. We need stronger challengers in the primaries that can oust those incumbents. We have Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray. Both should be out by now. But we just voted back in Murray for her 5th or 6th term. She is no good. But no one will challenge her in the D party. And being that WA is mostly D, she gets elected. mspart

The trial should never have happened. I wrote a long dissertation on this and my browser crashed. I will not re type it up. Suffice to say the indictment was not specific as to what Trump did. The DOJ and FEC did not prosecute after investigating. The state charged Trump with federal election law violation. Judge was not randomly picked, nor was he eligible to preside as he contributed to Biden and Democratic causes. Judge was also eligible because of conflict of interest with his daughter who works for the Ds as a fundraiser. The trial, as performed, was a joke. Judge was obviously against the defense and for the prosecution. The prosecution in the closing statement disregarded rules the judge had laid down but the judge did not stop them. The judges instructions to the jury essentially said they did not have all agree on what Trump did, they could find different things Trump did and as long as all of them thought he did something, that was a unanimous decision. Since when is there such glaring vagueness in the indictment, charges, or jury instructions. The case should never have been brought. The case should not have had the judge it did. There should have been no trial held nor verdict read out. This was a sham and a joke of a trial. This did not do NY legal system any favors. Elie Honig and Jonathon Turley are agreed on the above as well as others. mspart

Hochul didn't get the memo apparently. mspart

No, I actually want an answer to my question . Not a no and yes. That is not an answer. All I actually want is for you to answer the question. Is that too difficult? mspart

When ME countries and Israel agreed to the Abraham Accords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords#:~:text=Israel's initial agreement with the,Islam in the prophet Abraham. That's when. mspart

Give it up UB. You have gotten answers and you just keep on saying I actually want you to answer the question. Here's a question for you. And I actually want you to answer the question. Did Israel deserve to be attacked by Hamas on Oct 7? I'll give you a hint of how to answer. If you answer NO, then Hamas is getting what they deserve and their use of civilians as human shields is their responsibility. It is not Israel's responsibility to save the civilians. Even though they make Herculean efforts to do so. If you answer YES, then you are the Israel hating Hamas supporting scumbag we have been saying you are for quite some time. Remember, I just actually want you to answer the question. mspart

Rasta is right that we the people can change our Congress people anytime we want. But we don't. Hence all the incumbency. The parties don't really give us that choice. It will take independent folks to primary challenge the incumbents or party favorite. But what sane person wants to do that. Too much intrusion in to personal lives makes it not worth the effort. Fundraising also makes it not worth the effort. mspart

Term limits for Congress would be good but it takes an Constitutional Amendment to do that, and guess who is not going to do that? Congress of course. From the Constitution: Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Congress ain't supporting any of this. And the states already tried to limit congressional terms and were turned away by SCOTUS. So 2/3 of the states have to get a convention going and 3/4 of them have to agree on the amendment. Tall order. mspart

This. mspart

It would be nice if that were possible. Maybe in 2028. Doesn't look possible for 2024. mspart

Ha ha. I loved reading Hagar the Horrible. I think I'll keep my avatar, as it was given to me by the rulers of another chat board. I was never that "bad" but I like to think I was. Plus in that pic, he looks like me a bit. Sort of. Faint resemblance maybe. More so than Hagar in any event!! This was a good one ionel!! mspart

Trump has lied plenty of times. It's what politicians do. But to so blatantly lie when there is ample evidence of the lie is stupid beyond belief. mspart

https://factcheck.afp.com/trumps-insulin-order-frozen-not-scrapped-biden https://www.policymed.com/2021/10/biden-administration-rescinds-trump-administration-insulin-pricing-rule.html https://www.npr.org/2020/05/26/862736719/trump-unveils-plan-to-cap-insulin-costs-for-seniors-takes-jabs-at-biden https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/biden-trump-drug-prices/index.html mspart

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/04/a-blatant-lie-the-biden-campaign-falsely-accuses-foxs-john-roberts-of-lying-about-the-insulin-caps/#more-219675 Yesterday, the Biden campaign launched the attack on Roberts for his questioning of the claim of President Joe Biden that he solely secured the insulin cap. Roberts remarked that he had a recollection that it was former President Donald Trump who pushed the cap. “I seem to remember that back in May of 2020, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid said that President Trump had signed an executive order to cap the price of insulin for Medicare recipients at 35 bucks. Now, maybe I’m misremembering that, but I think it kind of already happened.” The Biden campaign then called it “a blatant lie” in a posting on X that has reached over a million people. Contrary to the Biden campaign’s claims, Roberts’s recollection was entirely correct. Under the Trump Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced in May 2020 that the Part D Senior Savings Model participating plans would cap insulin copays to $35 per month’s supply, and over 1,750 Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D plans applied to offer lower insulin costs. Trump praised the new policy, which was widely covered by the press. There was a Rose Garden event where Trump was praised for his actions: Trump later, in July 2020, signed four executive orders aimed at lowering the cost of insulin. That included Executive Order 13937, which required Federally Qualified Health Centers to pass 340B discounts on to patients. Notably, Biden later reversed Executive Order 13937 before those cost-saving measures could take effect. This is obviously not the first false statement from the President. However, it is notable that his campaign spread obvious disinformation that was picked up by over a million people but then declined to take down the false claim. The campaign is now in a worse position. To take down the posting is to acknowledge not just that it has lied about Roberts, but that the President lied in taking sole credit for this cap. This is the same administration supporting the banning, blacklisting, and throttling of those responsible for disinformation. I would not support such censorship of the campaign. This and other columns refuting the false account is sufficient to combat a “blatant lie” by the Biden campaign. Whether it is his uncle being eaten by cannibals or insulin caps, free speech can correct false claims without government regulation. However, President Biden and his administration continue to push for censorship of others accused for false or misleading statements. The fact that John Roberts was right is hardly surprising. However, there remains a “blatant lie” on the Biden campaign’s social media that must still be corrected. Even Snopes says this is true. Biden stopped Trump's EO lowering insulin and epipen costs. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-insulin-epipen/ Search on "trump the first to cap insulin costs" and a range of articles come up that show this is true. Blatant lies from Biden and/or his team. mspart

You can't read can you. I gave you an answer and that's not good enough for you or you just can't read past the first few words. mspart

I'm not saying Trump did or didn't do something here. I'm saying the trial was a farce and with those charges never should have been accepted into trial except they shopped for the right judge that would do the DA's bidding. And he did. You can't even answer the specifics here. You only state generalities which is all this trial was about. I have never heard of an indictment or charges that were not specific. But that was the case here. Here's another specific for you. Why did the DOJ and FEC not prosecute if Trump did something wrong? They didn't. Why didn't the judge allow the ex head of FEC to be a witness. Because he would have said Trump did nothing financially wrong. Judge couldn't allow such testimony. https://jonathanturley.org/2024/06/03/buzz-kill-the-trump-conviction-presents-a-target-rich-environment-for-appeal/ Merchan also barred the use of a legal expert, former FEC Chair Brad Smith, who was prepared to testify that such payments cannot be viewed as federal election violations and would not affect the election even if they were considered contributions, since they would not even have had to be reported until after the election. These things and others make this case rife with irregularities that the result will be overturned on appeal. But the DA and judge have won the battle but I think in due time, will lose the war. And if all is done properly, judge Merchan will be roasted for the incompetently run pre-trial and trial. mspart

Willfully ignorant. Civilians are killed in every war and UB. Quit pretending they are not. You make it sound like the IDF is targeting civilians. They are not. That is verified. I gave you a list of numbers of civilians killed in war and you disregarded it. That's on you. It happens, it is war. Lots of people die both soldier and civilian. Its what happens. They shouldn't be targeted but to win a war, people have to die. That is the definition of war. It ain't pretty. mspart

Viking. With a bit of Scottish, British, Irish, and German thrown in there to boot. A mutt in other words. mspart

Braves, they didn't need to. By signing they signed their own death warrant. In a time of war, there weren't jury trials. If you are that guy, and you signed that paper, you are a traitor. Death is the end of your story if we catch you. There was no trial needed in wartime. If you want to call what happened to Trump a trial, then you are welcome to it. It was a farce pure and simple. mspart

Also, I think those calling Trump a convicted felon are premature. There are ample law experts that think the whole thing was illegitimate from the indictment, to the witnesses that were allowed, to the amount of objections from defense overruled and amount of prosecution not overruled, to the judge saying what could be said during closing arguments and the prosecution disregarding and the judge allowing it, to the final jury instructions. If his conviction is overturned by appeal, he was not properly convicted. What will those calling him a convicted felon then say? mspart

You might do a little light reading. https://michaelwsmith.com/the-sacrifices-made-by-the-declaration-signers/ Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. I'd say the British thought of them all as felons. mspart